Hansard — Friday, October 5, 1973 — Morning Sitting

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Act. (Bill 11). Second reading.

Mr. Schroeder — 463

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 464

Mr. Gardom — 465

Hon. Mr. Radford — 469

Mr. Williams — 471

Hon. Mr. Lea — 474

Mr. Phillips — 476

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 479

Mr. Barnes — 483

Livestock Production Act (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 485

Domestic Animal Protection Act (Bill 48). Hon. Ms. Young.

Introduction and first reading — 485

Department of Housing Act (Bill 49). Hon. Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction and first reading — 485

Government Computer Privacy Act (Bill 60). Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 485

An Act to Amend the B.C. Railway Act (Bill 6 1). Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading — 485

An Act Respecting the Fluoridation of Water Supply (Bill 62). Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading — 485

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1973

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I'd like the House to welcome Mr. John Temple, MP, JP, from Westminster, Mother of Parliaments, who is a guest in the Members' gallery. Many of us met with him yesterday and spent a very pleasant evening with him.

We also have in the gallery Dr. Richard Beek, professor of Nordic languages who is now a resident of British Columbia, and who for many years has been noted in that field.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

LABOUR CODE OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

M R. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last evening we were reiterating our concerns that we find in a detailed study of the bill. I'm aware, Mr. Speaker, that we can't get involved in a section-by-section study of the bill and I commit myself to doing that in committee stage.

However, there are some concerns that we did not get to in last evening's consideration. We talked about those things that have concerned all of us, and every speaker who has been to his feet has expressed his concern about the lack of appeal — I talked about that last evening. We talked about the inordinate powers that are given to as few as one man, a man who has powers to appoint himself to panels — to be the only member of a panel to make decisions binding upon the panel and upon the board. We talked about that last evening.

We talked about the conscience clause which has been a matter of some concern to many who have stood. Some have even dared suggest that the conscience clause is a phony clause or it represents a phony excuse. I take severe exception to that. But at least the conscience clause, in part, is included in the bill. I think it only goes half far enough. It only excuses membership — or it allows an exclusion of membership. It still demands that the union dues, or the fee for membership, be paid to the union involved. This does as much injury to the conscience of the one who is the conscientious objector as the membership itself. It's not a matter of the dollars that he takes home….

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Render unto Caesar….

MR. SCHROEDER: I'm amazed to hear a man of the cloth….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Calvinists and the Wesleyans are going at it again. (Laughter.)

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to sit down with the Premier one evening and perhaps clarify the position there. I think this is the second time he's referred to me as a Calvinist and I'm afraid he's as unaware of my position in that regard as he is unaware of many other things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd give him an Old Testament….

MR. SPEAKER: We're not supposed to be proselytizing here. Would the Hon. Member press onward?

MR. SCHROEDER: There are two other areas of concern. One has not yet been mentioned in the House and I'd like to draw it to the House's attention and hope that we can be given some assurance that what we suspect is not true. And that is that there is an absence in this bill of that section which formerly precluded the donation of funds, normally belonging to a union, to a political party. Did I communicate?

The Act, as it stood prior to today, did not allow for funds to be converted from union funds to become political funds. This, I have to report, happened in the last election. And I'm wondering if it is for the reason that the teamsters union has already been levied an additional $27,000 to be transferred from union funds into the political coffers of the NDP. I'm wondering if it is for that reason we don't see that restriction in this particular bill. I wonder. I'm just asking the question. I would like the Minister in his closing remarks to allay our fears in this regard, and if not in the closing remarks, at least satisfy the Members opposite, these Members opposite….

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Impossible.

MR. SCHROEDER: Oh, you think that's impossible, do you?

The second area that's of concern to us is a little phrase in one of the sections. I know it's been there before, but nonetheless it still causes a concern today, and that is the "condition of employment." Membership in a specific trade union is a condition of employment.

I see in one section where the bill will allow the employment of one, who for conscience sake, cannot belong to a union. But I see that the Act does injury to the individual who does not wish to belong to a union, but who does not have a conscience, per se, regarding belonging to a union; he just does not wish to belong to a union. Now, if we allow membership in a specified trade union to become a condition, or to be a condition of employment, we are discriminating against, perhaps, as much as 49 per cent of the employable public. I see where this is an injury and I wouldn't like to see it supported or at least sustained by an Act that we call the Labour Code of British Columbia Act.

In committee I will have more questions. Some of them are not as embarrassing, some of them are more embarrassing. But I hope that when committee stage comes we will not be so much in a hurry to get through this bill that the Members on this side of the House will not be given ample opportunity to ask the questions that are upon our minds. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I don't think I could let this bill go through without having something to say on it. I think the reception of the bill is indicated by the amount of words that the opposition is trying to inject into the bill. I think if you went over the history of the labour legislation of this province, this is the dullest bill that has ever gone through the legislature as far as opposition goes. I remember….

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I know. This is a reflection of what the opposition is criticizing.

Other labour bills that I've watched go through this House over the years have created a great concern on the opposition side. But this bill is being accepted as a real honest attempt to solve the problems.

I remember, when the Social Credit brought in their legislation, that we did a real job on those bills because they were retrograde legislation, and that gave us plenty of ammunition to fight those bills. But this time the opposition seems to be scrambling for anything at all to say about the bill. I don't know. I'm sure I could do a better job than they are doing right now if I was over there. (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You're out, you're out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now you are out. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Maybe you haven't had the experience that some of us have had in opposition. I'm very disappointed in the opposition, to tell you the truth, because they haven't said enough really to make it interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll get some more today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, I think there was a reason. But you haven't got a reason and that is why you have nothing to say.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): We're better suited to be government. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: You've just proven you're consistent failures.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Labour has had a long road over the years; they have had many ups and downs. They made advances in legislation over the years and they were gaining ground, but in the last 20 years we saw a continual chipping away of the privileges that labour had fought for over the years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Continual erosion of rights.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They eroded those rights. They built up a wall of suspicion between the employer and the employee to such an extent that it is difficult to break that down. And you are not going to break it down very easily.

I have had a number of cases where I have discussed problems with management and I always tell them: try to involve the men, the employees, in your operation; involve them in the management of your operation; try to have communications between them so that when problems come up, either for management or for the union, they know what each other is doing. I am sure that if this were done we would break down a lot of the suspicions that exist between management and labour today.

This bill, I feet, is an honest effort to try to bring

the two groups together and integrate them to some extent. And to me that is the only way we will be able to have real peace between labour and management in this province.

In the outlying areas there is a place where something might be done, too. It is difficult to have men stay in these isolated places. You have big turnovers in employment in isolated areas.

Maybe the negotiating between the two parties has got to give greater consideration to more time off because I notice, according to the pattern of some wildcat strikes, they usually happen on Friday rather than the middle of the week, which gives the employee a long weekend. Maybe once a month they should arrange for a Friday off so that they would have a long weekend and be able to get out to the cities and enjoy themselves a little bit.

MR. CHABOT: You live too close to Alberta.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And maybe we should consider some sort of bonus for people who will go out to these isolated places to work.

But this bill we are discussing today will give the labour relations commission a chance to investigate in all these areas so that maybe they can bring out and solve problems before they happen. I believe that is one of the main objectives.

As to the conscience clause in the bill that you are all talking about, I think a lot of people, as somebody said yesterday, don't want to vote even, but they have got to pay their income tax. So I say in this case that people, whether they want to belong to a union or not, should pay their way for the results that they get.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are too intelligent a man to use that comparison.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Now, I am sure that this bill is going to go through…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …because I am sure that you are all going to vote for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got that notion, have you? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've got a notion that it is going to go through because I think you are all willing to give it a chance to work.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Just a hunch, Leo. Just a hunch. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Its a good hunch, too, that you will give it a chance to work and we will hopefully have a better climate for management and labour in the Province of British Columbia for a long time ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: You made better speeches over here.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear so many government Members espousing and attempting to justify various positions and factions of the labour movement which they represent — and it is difficult for them; we appreciate that fact. And I think you've got to say that it is a difficult bill, too.

The last speaker talked about involvement, and other speakers today have talked about participatory democracy, Mr. Speaker. It's very peculiar to me, in the case of this legislation which is so important and so new for the Province of British Columbia, that the government has not seen fit to permit labour, to permit management and, more particularly, to permit the third partner, the general public, to have their day in court before this bill gets through second reading.

It has been ramrod legislation. I must confess to the government it is the only bit of legislation they have attempted to ramrod, or even really had ready, I suppose, to get along with. Maybe that's the reason for the urgency because the rest of their legislation is still in the "waxworks" across the street.

During the many statements that have been given so far concerning this bill, everyone has advocated that we should be moving into the consultative area and out o f the confrontative area in the field of labour-management relations. It is clear that this bill is a step towards that and, to that extent, I certainly commend the government for bringing it in.

There are very, very obvious aspects of accord, and I'm not going to deal at length with those today; but I do wish to emphasize certain areas wherein I find extreme difficulty of acceptance. And the comments that I'm going to be making this morning are the same as everyone else is making in this House and will continue to make, I am sure; they are going to be advanced in calm. It is most necessary, for the economic health and stability of the province, that that particular approach be taken.

I don't want to hearken too much into the past, because I don't believe in looking back; but the very calm that the NDP are espousing with this bill, it would perhaps have been a very good thing if they had exercised some of that calm themselves when we had other labour-management bills before this House in the past. Because if a party ever tried to incite the attitudes and postures of one section of society in a labour-management field, I can certainly accuse the socialists of doing that, without any question of a doubt. And that is not just my accusation; that is the accusation of the general public. This isn't a political

statement; that's the accusation of the general public. But the Minister, in his lexicon of assessment concerning the legislation and within its own terminology, we find something that has been almost startling in its absence and that is comment or statement about the interests of the public, the third partner. True, this is a labour-management bill. But for the third partner, Mr. Speaker, the silence has been deafening.

It is the fervent hope of every one of us and of the third partner, the general public, that management and labour will get along, and if they will, true, so will the third partner, that is, the party of the third part, the general public.

But if management and labour refuse to get along and if we run into confrontation instead of consultation, then the public will suffer. And what of it? We don't find any rights or remedies or redress with this legislation for the general public, and I say that that's not good enough. Good intentions are one thing, but bad actions can be occasioned and, if they are Joe Q. Citizen once again will suffer. He, in my view, should not be denied recompense, and that should be spelled out within the legislation.

If there are illegal work stoppages, illegal strikes, illegal lockouts, and damages result from them to the innocent third party from those kinds of breaches, then that third party should be entitled to redress, and that redress should be spelled out in this legislation instead of being left out. It's absolutely deleted at the present time.

It's all very fine for the Hon. Minister to talk about cures over penalties and to say that it's curative legislation and a curative approach over a punitive approach, but you cannot cure a dead patient. Maybe the patient should have the right to go to Mayo or another forum. Perhaps he should have the right of appeal as was very eloquently argued by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) yesterday. Or perhaps, if the patient's illness becomes a danger and a damage to the public at large, he — the patient — should have to endure a prescribed treatment, or what have you, or certainly pay for the damages that he's caused the third party.

Now we don't find those safeguards and we don't find those protections within the legislation. Sure, it's experimental legislation; that's okay. But I say that the public are tired of taking every kick in the shins and they certainly are entitled, at least, to experimentation to have some rights themselves. I say it's an abrogation of this bill not to enshrine and provide those rights.

It's pretty obvious that we are going to have professional around-the-clock hand holding, and that's going to be expensive but, hopefully, not so in the long run; we'll see about that. But it very much remains to be seen if just the existence of this board can produce results. Sure, we all hope that it will get off the ground and that it's going to do the job it's supposed to do. But it certainly has the capacity, in my view, to be grounded, for if management or labour make concentrated efforts to see that this board will fail, fail it will; and it will be finished, de functus, and it could well end up being strangled in its crib. And we could run into the disruptions of old right back on our doorstep with, once again, the third party suffering and — once more, I repeat — without an opportunity to have redress which should be provided statutorily within this legislation.

Philosophically the government has not one bit come to grips with this public interest issue in this bill — not enough, in fact, nothing. Well, that's not fair to say nothing, because I'm sure thought has been given to it. But if the thought was given to it we do not see any results of the thought. There is no proper indication of protections for the third party. I do not feel that they should be hurt and damaged by the illegal acts of anyone. It's contrary to the basic concepts of law. That perhaps is the very greatest weakness in the legislation.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) yesterday raised a very valid point too, and it was pooh-poohed by the Premier at the time. He very validly asked: "What is bargaining in good faith?" What is bargaining in good faith? You know there may be many subjective opinions, many subjective judgments or attitudes and conscience, concerning that.

We have had a lot of talk about conscience here, and very, very divergent views as to what end a person may take according to the dictates of his own conscience, and how that may or may not conflict with society as a whole. Is it bargaining in good faith to advance one's own economic interest against the seal of society and to the economic damage of society? Is that bargaining in good faith? I would very much like to hear the Minister's comments on that question when he closes this debate.

The bill attempts to abrogate, in fact, doesn't attempt…but does abrogate very basic rights. It abrogates access to the complete independence and impartiality of the judicial system that has enjoyed some 900 years of experience through literally millions of fact situations. You know, it's an old phrase but it's illustrative: I think that by denying this right of appeal, without any question of a doubt you've "thrown the baby out with the bath water" and you've initiated vague substitutions of alleged complementary powers to a court, plus the absolutely unbridled power to make any ruling concerning any law dealing with the interpretation of the Act. You have given that power to 10 people to act individually or in concert.

Holy smoke, look at the permutations of divergence that you can have there; they're limitless.

They're autonomous unto themselves without regard to established precedent at all — that's clearly enunciated within the bill. They're autonomous unto themselves without regard to established principle. Do you know what's arrived? We've arrived into the double standard of law in British Columbia. We're going to have one law for management and labour, determined as 10 people may divergently determine it, and we're going to have one law for the rest of the people, I don't think that's right.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, it isn't right.

MR. GARDOM: That's what the bill says, my friend, though. Oh yes, it does. I've read the bill many times, and I wish that I'd had more time to read the bill.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Well, you're a lawyer….

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Well, you people can caterwaul away; it's your right to do it. How long have you people had the bill? You've had it a great deal longer than the opposition have, and I haven't heard statements advanced, except for one Member, the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), showing any type of a different posture or attitude to any of the clauses contained within it. We're certainly finding those out from the general public as every day and every hour goes by in B.C. "Solidarity forever" — sure, that doesn't go ahead and necessarily produce good legislation, my friend; make no mistake of that.

Dealing again with appeal: why don't you use your own Act as a precedent? Under the arbitration section there is the power to proceed to the supreme court on a stated case. There is the power to proceed to the court of appeal under the provision of the arbitration provisions within this very bill. Why not go ahead and extend those very same rights with the leave of the board to people who are dissatisfied with board decisions? What's wrong with that? I would like to know what's wrong with that; I can't see anything wrong with it.

There's not any definition or guidelines or parameters or perimeters — call it what you will — for this board to act within defined precedents and procedures. It has total power to create that whichever it wishes to, when it wishes to, and how it wishes to. Let's hope it won't, but it can throw all of the existing labour legislation, the existing common law of the field of the management-labour relations that have been developed over a few hundred years, into absolute confusion, and ignore all of them totally. It is certainly going to be a bonanza for the labour lawyers and specialists in the field of labour-management relations, and they're going to be chuckling all the way to the bank over this bill. That's going to be pretty darned clear.

I said earlier that there's no appeal but to themselves and, as I've mentioned, in my view, this violates one of the concepts of natural justice. You know, I remember very, very heated and very emotional and very, very valid arguments in this House — particularly by the Minister of Mines (Hon. Nimsick), who just sat down a few moments ago. When he was sitting in opposition he talked about the woes of the Workmen's Compensation Board, and how long it was that there was no appeal but unto itself. What's happened now?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: What happened to those lessons? What's happened to your posture there? Are we going to cut out appeals to Workmen's Compensation Board too?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If you come over I'll show you the file I've got from the WCB right now.

MR. GARDOM: It's pretty difficult for you people to be consistent on these very points. As I said, the board has the capacity to make law and to make it's own law, to enact law and enact its own law, as and how it wishes to. I think this is fractionizing the legal system. It may accept any form of evidence that it wishes and, what weight can be given to it — even that's not spelled out — hearsay twice or thrice removed? I am happy to see in one section that the technicalities are removed insofar as an adjudication or presentation to a board is concerned, They are taken out. That's a very good thing; getting to the straight logic of it is okay. But you've got to get to the logic again according to accepted rules of evidence.

What about the denial of natural justice? Is the route to the court totally eroded? A Member in here indicated that the bill could well be ultra vires, and it well could. I think any attempt to deny the right of the courts to issue prerogative writs — which almost started in the days of the Magna Carta in 1066, and was later developed by Henry Il — I think any attempt to deny the courts of those rights would be unconstitutional.

Those are very historic protections of individual rights. That's the concept behind these prerogative writs, protection of individual rights. This is an ignoring of individual rights rather than protection of individual rights.

It can formulate policies, but where are the teeth? My friends say that these policies will have to be followed. It can formulate policies to the left and

more policies to the left — maybe one or two to the right to balance — but where, indeed, is the power to see that these policies will have to be followed or enacted? None whatsoever. They're just going to float around in mid-air, I suppose.

The board has the right, Mr. Speaker, or it may on its application of others, to file with the court cease and desist orders and then they can become court enforced. But they also give the right, Mr. Speaker, to the court to issue injunctions if serious danger to life or health results, but even then not on an ex parte basis.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if you happen to have a person who is in a situation of experiencing danger to his life or to his health, is it reasonable to suggest that he can die in the doorstep waiting for the process server to serve the process? Surely to goodness, under those circumstances, there's absolutely nothing wrong with ex parte injunctions, absolutely nothing wrong under those circumstances.

On the essential side, the government has covered in the legislation fire, police and hospitals; these appear to be the only definitions. In those situations the employees have the right to request binding arbitration. But the right's not given to the employer. I say, why does that have to be a single-sided coin?

It's a specious argument to suggest that employers in those situations perhaps couldn't lock out so they shouldn't have the right to opt for arbitration.

Is the definition of essential services broad enough, in view of the request and the need and the demand by the public today, in view of the terrific complexity and interdependency of society? Should not these perhaps be broadened to include ferries? I think pretty well any of the general public who experienced the last ferry strike on Vancouver Island would say yes. They'd say you've not gone far enough; you haven't protected us one bit.

Should perhaps not Hydro be included? Can all the lights go off? Is it not fair to suggest that that could be defined as an essential service?

Technological change. You've mentioned that and this seems to be welcomed in all parts of the House, but it's not defined. You say, "Boy, it's pretty difficult to define that," and indeed it is difficult to define it, Mr. Speaker. Change in the size of the wheel — is that going to be a technological change? Who knows? But a law, Mr. Speaker, to be effective, has to be concise, it has to be certain, it has to be clear and it has to be capable of being enforced. This does not pass that test whatsoever.

Under the "special officer" concept, we've almost got a mini-mediation commission back in our hands, and that certainly didn't work. It's peculiar to me why these fantastic powers could only be granted to a single individual. Even the government side have all thrown up their hands and said, "Tell us, who could that person be? Where could we find a person with those qualifications?" They seem to be unable to come up with an answer for that, so perhaps maybe from their own illustrations and observations it would be an improvement if they enlarged that and perhaps had three.

I welcome the suggestion of the Industrial Inquiry Commission. This will give the public, I do hope, for the first time in British Columbia the right to independent disputes between management and labour, so we don't have these wildly-conflicting statements, these apples-and-oranges arguments, a great big advertisement on one page of a newspaper and another on the other side, and the statistics absolutely being as apart as black and white.

Within this inquiry commission, I certainly hope that it will do many, many things to develop industrial harmony and peace, conduct workshops, train arbitrators, and frame collective agreements. I hope it encourages as much as it possibly can profit-sharing arrangements.

The committee of special advisers to review legislation appears to be an interesting step. Perhaps it's somewhat of a duplication of the Industrial Inquiry Commission, I don't know.

One thing did strike me rather strangely in the bill, Mr. Speaker, as to why thought was given to the appointment of just a Construction Industry Advisory Council. This must be a very extreme indicator that there are a lot of problems existing in that particular area. This is one way, perhaps, to provide a little bit of a buffer, to perhaps have them sit tight for the time being before the government can effectively come to grips with those problems and offer advice and counsel. I don't think there's any indication of what the government proposes to do, except that they say we can establish this council dealing with one industry and one industry only. True, it has the right to establish them for other industries, so are we to expect that they will be establishing one for fisheries and for mining?

Ombudsman. Fine and dandy; good idea. But do we need just an ombudsman for labour, or as the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) suggested a few days ago, he's going to have an ombudsman in the jails? Why don't we have an ombudsman for the whole of the province, which is something that everyone in B.C. wishes? The NDP argued about it, they platformed on it, they ran on it, and still they have not established it — still without any kind of a logical reason or excuse from any government Member, backbench, frontbench or middle bench, as to why that hasn't come into being.

We should find in the bill, Mr. Speaker, greater protections for the public interest and the right to claim damages for illegal work stoppages. We should find more defined and better cooling-off periods. I

think we should find an expansion of those three essential services. The general public is fed up with one thing, Mr. Speaker: they're fed up with 25 people putting 10,000 out; they're fed up with 2,500 people putting 100,000 out. They don't think that's right.

There should be proper rights of appeal. I think it would have been a very good thing if even within this legislation there had been suggestions that there be a uniform contract date with the province.

Finally, before closing, I'd like to mention something about the modus operandi of this board. No one knows, as I said earlier in my remarks, the dimensions of its basic ballpark. This government, Mr. Speaker, is board-happy, it's commission-happy. We have the Land Commission, we've got the energy board, the marketing board, the labour board, we've got rules and regulations and red tape, and we're creating bureaucracy left, right and centre. But we don't have any established rules or established procedures.

What we need is a uniformity in this, much the same as the supreme court rules and the county court rules. We need an administrative procedure Act in the Province of British Columbia so we'll find that all of these organizations act according to certain basic and very straightforward philosophies. There are about eight in number:

There be a notice of hearing and that be given to all affected;

Particulars of allegations be furnished;

There be a proper hearing in public and the right to call and subpoena witnesses and examine and cross-examine and maintain a record — the right to counsel if desired;

Decisions that are to be rendered must be rendered by those who did the hearing. Abolish absentee decisions;

Reasons for judgment must be published. I believe that's the one item of the five that I've mentioned so far that we find within this legislation;

There be a proper right of appeal to a properly-constituted appellate body and not to the trial judge which you've got here;

There be a simple form of application to the court if an administrative tribunal refuses to exercise its statutory power. That's not within this legislation. This board is totally autonomous and can say, "No, we won't act." They can take that position, according to the legislation you've given them. You say, "Let's hope they won't." I say, "Let's hope they won't." The public says, "Let's hope they won't." But they can, and I say that protection should be built in.

And eighth, these administrative tribunals throughout the province should have the right to incorporate and spell out their own detailed rules.

Another point: we still don't have the right to sue a government in B.C. I say the concept that a government can do no wrong is a concept that should have gone out with the divine right of kings. We don't have a bill of rights; we don't have those democratic checks and balances against the fantastic power of this state.

There's no right for management or labour or the public against this board. This board is an agent of the government; if it commits any wrong for which it should be legally responsible, it should have to face its own day in court. There's no need for it to be fireproof. It's got the power of government behind it to defend any frivolous or vexatious proceedings; there's no need for it to be fireproof. But it should have to face its day in court too.

Mr. Speaker, in this bill we find that the government has delegated the power to determine the economic future, livelihood, destinies and vocational pursuits of the majority of B.C. citizens under this board, and it is an awesome responsibility. There must be very hard and determined efforts on the part of management, on the part of labour, on the part of government, on the part of all political representatives to see that it does work. And without that, in my view, it will not work.

But this government, Mr. Speaker, could be assured of its better success if better and more defined guidelines were advanced and the public interest was better protected.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I rise to speak on this bill with much feeling and emotion. Like my colleague on the left, I have been a member of the trade union movement since I was 16. In total years, I have been a member of the trade union movement for 27 years. I have been involved in nearly every position within the trade union movement right from the shop steward level to the top of the ladder of the negotiating committee. In the last four years before I became a Member of this Legislature I was a full-time paid labour official.

I suppose I am a product of my environment. My grandfather on Vancouver Island was involved in the early struggles of the miners' union and was involved in the Dunsmuir dynasty problems of that time. My father was also an early organizer in the miners' union on Vancouver Island. So were most of his family.

I can remember the time that two of his brothers were killed in the mines because of unsafe conditions. They lost their lives approximately two weeks apart from one another.

I can remember my father coming home from work with a blackened face and having to wash in the kitchen. I can remember, again, the first time that he came home with a clean face; that was the day when they felt they really had won something when they won the right to have a washhouse and have a shower before coming home from work.

Also, in the political field I suppose I am a product

of my environment. I happen to have the fortune of having been born on this Island and having lived only a mile from the Hawthornwaites, the Same Guthries, the Parker-Williams, and the late arrival, Mr. Strachan, lived a little further up the road.

MR. CHABOT: He's going down the road, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't hold your breath.

HON. MR. RADFORD: This bill, Bill 11, can bring harmony and reduce conflict in the complex labour relations field of this province.

The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) mentioned that the public is concerned in this area. We are concerned about the public's feeling and we feel that this bill will lessen that conflict which the public is concerned about.

There will always be a degree of conflict between labour and management. The problem our government has to solve is how to bring in the machinery to reduce that conflict. Perfection cannot be obtained in any labour relations bill. Labour relations will never satisfy all parties, including government. Bill 11 is not Utopian legislation. We do not liken it to a bed of roses, because there probably are a few thorns among those roses.

I believe our government has paved the way to a more harmonious industrial relations climate in Bill 11. In this bill we have attempted to bring back the balance of power between the two parties. Collective bargaining or negotiation is the process of power using power, and every effort should be made to obtain an equal balance or an equilibrium in that field. Take bargaining power away from either management or labour and you have an imbalance which can lead to overwhelming problems and sometimes chaos.

There were no shortcuts taken in the drafting or drawing up of this bill, Mr. Speaker. The labour advisory committee travelled throughout this province and heard many submissions, studied many facets of labour relations throughout other provinces and attempted to use the best of those legislations.

The labour code has many new innovations. I suppose one of the most important is that now we have a full-time Labour Relations Board. This has long been advocated by labour and by some people in management. We have a board now that can deal with the problems on a full-time basis, not on a part-time basis, as was the case in the past.

One of the most important keys to the success of this bill will be on the shoulders of this one-man board. Success can be obtained only if labour and management decide to think positively and give the board a chance with some hope and trust. The success of this bill will also depend upon the judgment and diplomacy shown by the individuals on the new board. I am confident that the people selected for this important and difficult task are capable. The board has been given the needed flexibility to solve all aspects of many problems, especially those problems before they reach a critical stage which many of them do. This is the problem. One of the most prevalent problems is that once we get into conflict between management and labour and the longer it goes on, the deeper entrenched both sides become with philosophy and problems and face-saving criteria. This is the real problem and that problem has to be solved before we reach a critical stage.

"The board shall make all its decisions in proceedings under this Act available…for publication." This is section 23. This was never done in the past.

"The board shall publish all general policies formulated…and all amendments or revisions." This was never done in the past. The board has to make policy and certain decisions as it goes along as to procedure. These decisions and revisions will be published periodically as they go along.

The bill also requires union contracts to contain a clause concerning technological changes. Some contracts already have this but many do not. Technological innovations have been one of the greatest causes for wildcat strikes. Many new technological innovations being brought in to the working area cause job change, workload increases, different wage classifications, more responsibilities and, oftentimes, boredom. It is in this area, we hope, that the technological clauses will prevent, to a large extent, future wildcat strikes.

The bill also provides for an appointment of a special officer to deal with wildcat strikes. For years labour and management to some degree have been advocating that disputes should be taken out of the courts, especially in the areas of the ex parte injunctions. We all realize that, in the past, either party — and in most cases it was management — could call upon the judge at any time asking for an injunction and the injunction would be granted by the hearing of only one side of the situation.

Certification votes will be granted by reduction to 35 per cent the number of workers a union must sign before a certification vote can be called. Our party and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) have stated many times that we would like to see a more organized work force in B.C. The recent figures of the organized in B.C. is approximately a little over 40 per cent. The approximate number of organized workers in Canada is 33 per cent. So you can see that the labour force is not the majority, it, is not the strong hand that many people criticize them as having.

I would call on the labour movement, Mr. Speaker, to take advantage of the new innovations of the certification process and go out and organize those

unorganized. An association is needed in every organization — even the full-time business agents that work for unions are organized and have a union.

Before coming into this Legislature I was the president for the CLC Representatives Union, which is a small organization spread across Canada. We had a union or an association, and we went through the same hopes as the union organizer against management. Believe me, it was no different. As a matter of fact, it was much worse dealing with the top labour union in Canada than it was dealing with many of the management people with whom I've dealt in the past. The same acts, the same charades, the same situation took place, only maybe a little worse, because we both had the experience.

Provisions are also being made where supervisory employees will have the power to designate industry-wide bargaining units and include sub-contractors within bargaining units. This isn't entirely new. Supervisors in the building trades union have most always been allowed to organize.

The certification process will be speeded up, and this is largely due to the 10-man board. In the past we had a part-time board that could not deal with and could not handle all the certifications. Consequently certification applications were months and months behind, which caused problems and conflicts on the job. It allowed management to get in — and that was their right to get in and try to disorganize the group — and in so doing caused real conflicts within the labour and management field.

Police, firefighters, hospital workers and others will have the right to strike or decide during their negotiations to accept voluntary binding arbitrations.

There has been considerable discussion about the conscience clause which allows those who object to joining a union on religious grounds to opt out, except that they must pay their union dues. I believe this is only fair, Mr. Speaker. After all, these people, as has been reiterated by the past speakers, are paying for a service. I've worked with these people with the Christian Labour Association of Canada and have been involved with them in the north, and I respect them for their courage of their convictions. I respect those people.

I believe our bill goes a little further with the Rand formula than the legislation on conscience clause in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba which says that the workers can give to an organization of their choice, can opt out. But do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in Ontario in two years only eight people opted out because of the conscience clause? In Saskatchewan the total is zero and in Manitoba the total is zero. So for those people on both sides of this question I would say that that example shows that there is really no worry.

Bill 11 will also establish a labour ombudsman to hear individual complaints and make recommendations on unfair treatment by management, unions or the board itself. This ombudsman thing isn't a new situation. Federally we have a labour ombudsman with the Canadian Labour Congress who is stationed in Toronto, and he also is allowed to hear complaints from management and labour unions. But I believe by bringing the ombudsman system into B.C. we have regionalized it and made it more accessible for the workers in B.C.

Where in the opinion also of the ombudsman satisfactory action has not been taken of his recommendations, he will send a copy of his report to the Legislative Assembly, or he will publish them in a manner that he considers advisable.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on further and discuss many more important facets of this bill. Many of them have already been discussed.

I would, however, point out that many of the criticisms that have come forward on this bill have been hypothetical arguments. Many of the arguments have been reading into the bill what might happen or could happen. I would welcome a meeting with the B.C. Federation of Labour or any organization to discuss any of these problems in the future.

It is impossible, Mr. Speaker, to write into the bill words that will deal with and handle all things. I don't think we've heard any of the speakers from the government side say this was a perfect bill. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has stated that he welcomes constructive criticism. We welcome any complaints from any organization or groups. We are not a rigid, pompous government, Mr. Speaker. We will listen and act on any constructive recommendations. The government needs and invites input into solving the very sensitive and complex problems of labour relations. We 'need the involvement of everyone.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill can bring harmony to the arena of conflict between management and labour. Unfortunately neither this bill alone nor the words within it will be the salvation to this complex area. It will be the attitude towards the legislation by management and labour that will determine its success.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I don't know, Mr. Speaker, if I'm getting farther away or if you need new glasses. (Laughter.) Or maybe it was the delightful events of a few hours ago that cause you to peer as you do. Anyway, I thank you for recognizing me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to participate in this debate. It's been the friendliest debate on a subject which has not in the past been noted for friendly discussion. I think that we can thank the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) for presenting this attitude to this House at the outset. It's a difficult situation, and I'm sure that all

Members on all sides of this House would like to see the difficulty resolved.

We have had uncertainties in the field of labour-management relations in this province and other jurisdictions ever since the trade union movement first emerged as a force in our communities. We all know, and the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation who just spoke knows better than I, better than many of us, the stormy history that the trade union movement has had. Therefore it's not surprising that even in this year, 1973, there are still difficulties that surround the operations of unions. There have been uncertainties. But Mr. Speaker, there is one certainty: that the public of this province and of this country, whether they be in or out of the trade union movement, whether they classify themselves as being in the ranks of management or not, are fed up with it. And they are looking to labour, to management and to the government for a solution. I think it was most clearly demonstrated in the recent unfortunate work stoppage with the B.C. Ferries, with the recent short stoppage of the B.C. Rail, with the recent and tragic stoppage that we have had of the national railways, that the people of British Columbia and of Canada are sick of it and want something done. And it is in this light that this government brings forward this bill. It only points out, Mr. Speaker, the enormous responsibility which the government and which the Members of this assembly take unto themselves in debating this legislation.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) said the bill wasn't perfect. Well, I certainly accept that. No bill produced by this or any other government is going to attain perfection.

Great responsibilities are being cast upon the Labour Relations Board, upon its chairman, its vice-chairman and its members. And they aren't perfect either, Mr. Speaker. They are only human, and they will err as much as anyone.

We only hope that with guidance and responsibility they will err less than others who have in the past been engaged in attempts to resolve the difficulties between labour and management.

I think there are two sections of the Act — I don't intend to deal with them specifically today — but there are two sections of the Act which I would like to recommend to the Members' attention — sections 6 and 7. They don't really say very much: section 6 deals with bargaining in good faith. You know, there can't really be any bargaining any other way than in good faith, in my view. But it would appear from the Act to suggest that there have in the past been attempts to bargain, so-called, not in good faith.

Section 7 then follows it by immediately saying that no trade union, no employers' group, or whatever the case, shall act otherwise than in good faith. Those aren't the exact words but that's the effect.

So here we have the government setting out in two successive sections the severest criticism that the government and hence this Legislature when we pass this bill the severest criticism that we could level against labour and management from the grass roots, from the membership, to the very top.

I think this is the message that should go out to the people of this province from this debate: that the activities which we have seen in the past, the conflicts between the leaders of management and the leaders of labour, are no longer acceptable. And if they don't like the kind of authority that is being vested in the Labour Relations Board, in those 10 men and women — and I hope there'll be more women soon — those 10 persons are being invested with the kind of authority which we in this House think is needed to stop the senseless and costly arguments and conflicts which have gone on between two major forces in our community.

I, for one, would like to see the powers of the Labour Relations Board diminished. I would like to see limits placed on those powers, but I think the situation is such in this province that labour and management, for their own best interests and for the interests of the public, must first of all demonstrate to us and to the government that they can be responsible and that the powers of the board are not required.

Yes, we've taken out some of the punitive provisions in the legislation which stand on our books today, and I hope that the people of the Province of British Columbia will recognize this as a sign that further changes can be made to take away anything which may appear to be punitive in nature. I trust however, they will also take this as a sign that if the parties who are causing the difficulties in this field do not take the opportunity which is presented to them that it is within the power, indeed, the responsibility and duty of the government and of this assembly to put punitive powers back into the bill. May it never happen, but we do have the power.

Those people who are today arguing about the rightness, correctness, effectiveness or otherwise of this bill should present their arguments logically to us. We will listen. But let them recognize that if decisions are made — and they must be made by us, hard or not — we expect that those individuals and groups in our community who are affected by those decisions will abide by them and responsibly seek the changes which the future may prove necessary.

The Board is, I think, well designed. I have said in other places that I think the selection of members which has been made to date is good. I'm not saying they couldn't have been improved upon, but they're good. I think these individuals are entitled to the opportunity to prove their worth. If they're not, then they'll be replaced. They too should recognize in the

performance of their responsibility that that is the fate that may befall them, and I'm sure that none would take a position on the Labour Relations Board under any other circumstances.

We have provided in the legislation that the chairman has a fixed term, but I would expect the chairman of the Labour Relations Board in the performance of his responsibility as he sees it under this legislation, if he finds he is running into disfavour with the government or with the people of the Province of British Columbia, from whatever side they may come, that he would take the honourable course and resign. As I understand the credentials of the chairman of the Labour Relations Board, duly appointed, I'm sure that this is the course he would take without hesitation.

I have other things to say about other specific sections of this bill when we come to committee. I quite frankly say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Members that I intend to propose some amendments to this bill because I think it does not go far enough in some circumstances.

But there is one omission in this legislation which I find surprising as we take this new course of action — well maybe it's not new — as we make this new attempt to bring sanity into this field of labour relations. We've tried Labour Relations Boards and mediation commissions and punitive actions and everything before, so it's not a new course, but it's a new attempt. We are really giving ourselves and labour and management another chance. It may be their last one.

But as we make this new attempt, I'm concerned that one area seems to have been forgotten. It's briefly touched upon in the bill. There's one section, Mr. Speaker, which provides an obligation on unions to deliver to their members by a certain date in each year a copy of the audited financial statement of their union. I say hooray for that, but why do we stop there? It seems to me with the large number of employees who are trade unionists in this province, and with the attempts that are ongoing today and will continue in the future to encourage others to unionize, that it would serve trade unions and their members well if at this particular stage we in the Legislature were to offer them a bill of rights — a clear definition of the rights of a member of a union and of the duties and obligations of that trade union to him.

You know, the corporate organization has been with us for many years.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): They need a bill of rights too.

MR. WILLIAMS: We have attempted, Mr. Speaker — if the Hon. Member would take the time to look at the Companies Act, which is now the law in this province, he would recognize an attempt — again perhaps an imperfect attempt — to provide specific rights for members of companies, minority or otherwise.

We've had government involving itself in this area of responsibility for years. And I wonder why government does not involve itself in a similar responsibility with respect to the growing union force in our community. And it will continue to grow; no one in this chamber would say otherwise. I think if serious consideration is given to this subject, and it could be done at this time and should have been done, that it will be a significant step forward to bringing about that situation to which I alluded earlier where labour and management, having better direction from their members, will take major steps towards healing the wounds, putting an end to the conflicts which make this kind of legislation necessary in the first place.

Now, I wish the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and the Hon. Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Ms. Young) who sits to his left, both of whom I know have a long history in the labour movement and great experience, I wish they had told us what needs to be done among the rank and file of trade union membership to improve the lot of those members. They know, I am sure. But let me offer just a few suggestions.

First of all, no worker in this province should be denied the right to join the union of his choice. That is number one. Membership should be available to every worker in this province without discrimination. Now, I am not suggesting that all unions do discriminate. Thank Heavens, that's not the case, But there are instances and it is those unique instances which we must arrest.

You know, we are debating at length this bill. You would think that every union and every employer in this province were constantly at each other's throats. We know that's not the case; yet we are considering this kind of legislation.

All I'm saying is that in the case of those unions who may, for whatever reason I don't know, discriminate in respect of membership, that should be stopped by law. And, once a member of a trade union, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that no trade union, no local branch of that trade union should refuse to any member any right to work, whether by permit or whatever the case may be. If he belongs to the unit and he wants to work, then he should be free to work.

The Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), in speaking about the ferry strike outside this House and, I believe, in as well — I'm not too sure about the latter — said: "You can't make the men work if they don't want to work." Nothing is clearer than that. But, Mr. Speaker, if you want to work, then your union

should never, in any way, stand in front of you in seeking your employment.

I would also like to suggest that no trade union should be permitted to harass or interfere with any member of a trade union who is lawfully carrying out his responsibilities as a member of that trade union; no interference so long as he is lawfully carrying out his responsibility as a member of a trade union. We have had instances of that as well.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the directors of every trade union, every local branch or unit of a trade union, should serve and hold office for one year, with the right to be elected. But let them stand for election and be accountable before their membership at each annual meeting of that union. If they have done the job, if they have served the union and the membership, then they are entitled to be re-elected. And when they are standing for re-election and therefore challengeable on the basis of the manner in which they have carried out their responsibilities, they will be obliged to account for their performance.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker — and as I said I do not suggest that these few points are in any way exhausted — but lastly I would like to see, as a matter of law, as it should be in order to protect the membership of trade unions in this province, that the funds of the trade unions contributed by the membership, or the workers of this province, whether they be in the nature of trust funds for pension purposes or otherwise, should remain in Canada, be invested in Canada…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: …and be under the investment control of an investment committee which is appointed by at least a 75 per cent vote of the membership of the union.

For too long we have heard the arguments on one side and the other about the use of union funds — how much money goes across the line to the strike funds. There should be no need for that kind of debate to go on. There should be no need for a union to defend itself against charges that their moneys go to a foreign country.

Make them keep the moneys here; make them invest them in Canada. Then the argument will end and that area of criticism, which has been leveled against trade unions, will stop.

There is increasing attention being paid to nationalism of corporate organizations and it will continue. I don't oppose it. But while we are discussing this particular legislation, let us concern ourselves with the rights and responsibilities of trade unions as part of this new attempt to bring about this new climate, which will remove the uncertainty that all the public of British Columbia feel for their future.

It's a good time to start, Mr. Speaker. I really hope that the Minister can proclaim this legislation earlier than January 1, 1974 which is, I believe, the date he set for himself. And the reason I say that is, if you avail yourself of the publications that are abroad in this province, the press, you will know that major labour confrontations will be before us in 1974. The greatest majority of our unionized workers will have their contracts up for reconsideration next year.

Therefore, the test of this legislation and of the Labour Relations Board is going to be a severe one right off the bat. I would like to feel, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman and members of this board would have as much time as is humanly possible to embark upon their task, so that they will be as ready as they can be for the challenges, the matters that will come to their attention for filling their responsibilities.

They will have difficult decisions to make about their own procedures, and that will take time. I would like just to be certain that they are as ready as is possible to face the tests which the next year will bring.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I, of course, rise to support this legislation because I feel personally that it is the kind of legislation that will be a vehicle through which we can work to bring industrial peace into this province. That's number one.

The other reason that I support it hasn't such a high moral value. I'm from a highly unionized riding and if I vote against it, I won't be returned to this seat in this House. So, I have two good reasons: I should support my riding and the people in my riding who are workers who want me to support this legislation.

Now, I don't think that I have ever heard such a sickening debate in my life as the one that is going on in this House right now. There is only one group in this House which is really speaking from where it's at and that is the New Democratic Party. We're saying what we feel. We do want an even break — not an advantage, but an even break — for all the working people in this province.

Now, I would like everyone in this House — the press, the galleries — to take a look down at our opposition Members. Do you really think that they want the workers to have a fair shake in this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LEA: Look at them. The group that brought in Bill 33, Bill 42, tried to bring in Bill 88. Do they really want a fair shake for the workers? I don't think so and I think we have to look at past history.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, now, I hit a nerve. I hit a nerve, did I? Because you are really in a dilemma, aren't you? You know that you have to get the votes of the workers in order to get elected, as distasteful as it is that you have to consort with those kinds of people. But you have to get the vote. At the same time, you are looking at the campaign funds and saying, "Where are they going to come from if we support fair legislation for workers in the province?" I wouldn't want to be in your position, especially with a convention coming up. (Laughter.) Boy, that is bad!

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right. But you are not laughing, Frank. (Laughter.) Oh, yes. What a position to be in.

Then we turn to the Liberal Party. Now they keep talking about the public — you know, as if the people who own companies and the people who belong to trade unions aren't part of that public. So we have to examine, Mr. Speaker, who they mean when they say the "public" good. I guess they mean themselves. They don't really care what happens to the workers, or even to the industrialists so much as themselves.

You hear it said, "Over on that side of the House there are card-packing NDPers and card-packing trade unionists." Boy, that's pretty strong stuff. You can almost see the letters coming from the Kremlin. Here we are — you know, those dirty, dirty left-wingers.

But then we look at the other side and we have card-packing Union Club members, we have card-packing British Columbia Medical Association members, and card-packing members of the legal bar. Boy, that's pretty sinister, too, Mr. Speaker, because I'll tell you: did you ever try and get into one of those unions? Eh?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do they have a conscience clause?

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, no conscience clause in those unions, Mr. Premier. No, sir. As a matter of fact you have a hard time finding a conscience. (Laughter.) That's how bad it is. And what about that public good that we are always talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. LEA: In other words, this is the Liberal attitude: you can go on strike, you poor little workers, as long as you don't cause any economic harm to the economy. I ask you, what's the point of going on strike if you don't do that? That's your last recourse. You go on strike to bring harm to the economy so that you can get a fair shake — not an advantage, a fair shake.

Even the federal Minister of Labour isn't trying to take away striking power. But I suspect there are people on the other side…. Get back to your seat. (Laughter.) Don't pick your teeth in somebody else's seat. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! Would you carry on, please?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Well, so where are we at in this debate? Oh, we are talking about the courts too. You know, we are asking: why can't we leave it all in the hands of the courts — you know, those unbiased judges, "big L" Liberal judges, in many cases. You know, I am not going to pussyfoot around. I've never seen labour, or really seldom seen labour, get a fair shake in the courts because there is an attitude in the courts that isn't conducive to giving working people a fair shake. That's not what it's all about. And anybody in this province who feels it is all about that, then they don't know what it's all about. I'll tell you that.

What happens in court? You know we have to look at it from every angle. I've been in court rooms where you have a social worker saying to the judge, "He comes from a good family; give him a break." What do they mean by a "good family"? Do they mean that the parents love each other; that it's a happy family; that they are doing their duty to the community?

No, they mean he's from a "good" family — in other words, they've got a little loot. You know, maybe he's a doctor's son or a lawyer's son, and he votes for the right party; then that's really a "good" family. So give a guy a little break there; he's from a good family.

So the same kind of attitude seems to happen when trade unions end up in court. They say, "Give management a break. They're from a good family."

I mean, I just get the feeling that the kind of people who are appointed judges in this system are the kind of people who are designed to go in there and maintain the status quo, and we all know what those…what they call them? Main-line parties? You know what they call the status quo? So when we are talking about this legislation, you people over there should be fighting; you should be mad. But, you see, what's going to happen, you are going to have to vote for it.

But do you know what we really have to do? Why don't you fight for what you really feel? You don't want labour to get a fair shake, the working people to get a fair shake. So get up and attack this bill, like you should be doing. But it is hard. You need the votes of the great unwashed. And so you are in a

dilemma.

Well, I say that if you are going to do conscience and if you are going to do justice to the people who voted you in, you have to attack this bill. That's what they put you here for: to attack this kind of legislation. So please, Mr. Speaker, implore the other side of the House to do their job, do their duty, attack this legislation, and not make us keep having to force you up one at a time. (Laughter.) Thank you.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I want to support the statements that have been made in this House by previous speakers that the attitude of individuals involved will either make or break this legislation. It will be the attitude of not only the labour unions, the attitude of not only those in management positions but, indeed, Mr. Speaker, mainly the attitude of the legislators of this province.

It concerns me, Mr. Speaker, that when one of the Ministers, particularly the one who just took his place, stands in this Legislature and says that he is sickened by the debate on this very, very important piece of legislation, his attitude towards making this legislation work really concerns me. Because he, Mr. Speaker, is trying to create in this Legislature the attitude of those who have the responsibility to make this legislation work. He is trying to create a negative attitude on their part.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that those of us who are here to conscientiously debate legislation are going to take a very positive attitude towards that responsibility. I would have expected a much more positive attitude, a much more sincere attitude, from the Member for Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea). However, I guess the people in this province will know and they, in the long run, will be the judges.

I was also, Mr. Speaker, very disappointed in the attitude of the First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Ms. Young), because her attitude, speaking from a labour point of view, yesterday afternoon was somewhat militant. I would hope that her militant attitude is not shared by other members of the cabinet. I know it isn't shared by the First Member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Radford), who has had a lot to do with the labour unions, as he pointed out in this House this morning.

But I think, Mr. Speaker, that we must dispense from this House, and indeed dispense from all the Province of British Columbia, that all companies and all management are bad. This attitude towards management has been built up over the past years by the past opposition. I must say and, in all sincerity, I want it on the record that I support the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. King's) attitude in introducing this bill. I think he was being very sincere and very conscientious.

On his shoulders rests the entire responsibility of creating the attitude in this province to see that this legislation works. I think we have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that I don't agree with all of the attitudes of all the management of all the companies in this province. I think those who have been involved in labour will have to agree that they have sometimes not agreed with the attitudes and the opinions of many of those in labour.

We must realize that those in management and those in labour have been promoted mainly from the ranks, in many cases with very little education in the management of individuals. In business it seems to be the habit of taking a person who happens to be the best person in a particular job and promoting him to a supervisor without taking the time to educate him in the skill of managing people. This, in some cases, is where management has fallen down. This is also, in some cases, where people who have been promoted within the labour union ranks have not had the proper orientation. So I think we have to look at the individual cases and not create a blatant, overriding attitude that all management is bad or that all labour unions are bad and not suited to their responsibilities.

There are many cases in the history book of irresponsibility by labour union leaders, and also by management, and there are some really fine, conscientious, hardworking union people. I myself have had some limited experience in chairing arbitration boards, and in those instances I have found by research, by delving into the problems that created attitudes, that people can certainly be brought together. In many cases, neither union nor management have been practical or reasonable.

When this bill becomes law, I hope that those dealing with this bill will take into consideration in some of their decisions some of the special problems that are prevalent in various parts of the province and not unduly create problems in that part of the province that are still being pioneered, because there are special circumstances.

Sometimes if you give a layman a little power — and this happens in labour unions — it goes to his head. I want to reiterate that attitudes and understandings are the two most important ingredients in making this cake digestible by both labour and management.

The government and the opposition can do a great deal to either help or hinder the success of this legislation. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it will be very difficult to override the attitude being created in Canada by the national leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis). I feel that he has used his position as leader of that party to create a mini-cold war between business and labour. He has created this friction to build himself and his party up to the detriment of good labour relations in Canada. He has, in many instances, twisted facts to suit his own style,. to create animosity. He has drawn red

herrings across the picture tube of the television to promote his own political ambitions and those of his son.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the truth hurts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you announcing you are running for federal Social Credit?

MR. PHILLIPS: I personally feel, Mr. Speaker, that…

HON. MR. BARRETT: He couldn't make it provincially so he goes federal.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have a few words to say to you in a moment, Mr. Premier.

I personally feel that to experience the same kind of labour management relations that exist in many countries in Europe today we must have unions that are controlled within the boundaries of our own country.

In those countries in Europe after the war, they had no alternative but to have labour peace. Both management and labour got together within the boundaries of their own country and they solved their problems. Everybody, but everybody, was responsible because they had a challenge to rebuild their worn, torn countries.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Which countries are you speaking about?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm speaking of Germany. The labour unions, Mr. Premier, in Germany are completely controlled within the boundaries of Germany.

HON. MR. BARRETT: France? Italy?

MR. PHILLIPS: And I'm speaking of Japan. They could not sacrifice the national well-being of their countries for the pleasure of pride. We talk in this country about multi-national corporations controlling our destiny. It is the multi-national unions who have control over our labour force in Canada, and we sit idly by. Really, our labour force is the pawn of the leaders of the labour unions in the United States.

I want to back up the suggestion made by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) when he said that the money the workers in Canada pay into these dues should remain in Canada. Maybe then we could have control in Canada over our destiny. If we control our labour force in Canada, it certainly stands to reason that we will certainly have control over the multi-national corporations. There are always going to be multi-national corporations, but there doesn't always have to be multi-national trade unions.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: If Canada and her people want to have complete control, she must first control her labour force then she can control the destiny of her industry.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): That's the attitude in South America.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I notice that it's bothering the government that the official opposition is being responsible.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, their national leader should go down in history as the most unstately politician of the century. He can take a financial statement and twist the facts to give any impression that he wants to give. He, Mr. Speaker, in opposition is the type of a politician that is dangerous to democracy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I draw the Hon. Member's attention to the rules, particularly in May, which says that we do not attack Members of another House in the intemperate fashion that you are doing. We do not attack their character or their reputation in this forum, nor do they do that to us. I would ask the Hon. Member to observe some restraint in his language.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you for drawing that to my attention, Mr. Speaker, I'll just let the…

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Surely it's permissible within the House to attack the policies of a party that are set out…

MR. SPEAKER: Absolutely, absolutely.

MR. SMITH: …as long as it's not a personal attack upon the man in power. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well, to accuse a politician, who is not here to defend himself, in another forum, whether it be the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, or leader of any group, of twisting the facts, that is unparliamentary in our House and it's been ruled out many times. To make other statements that impugn his character, I would suggest is intemperate, and I would ask the Hon. Member not to do so,

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly abide by your ruling.

The policies of the national New Democratic Party in using the willingness of people to follow through the medium of television are not creating a favourable atmosphere to make this very legislation work in this province.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, business sits back on their big lazy haunches in the corner, living with the attitude which has been created in this province that to make a profit is evil. They haven't done a good job of selling the responsibilities that they have. This attitude on the part of management, labour and business must change if this legislation is going to work. That's what I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker.

Because the policy of the national party seems to be to rip at every phase of corporate structure and to give the impression to their workmen that they are being ripped off, I think in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that our Premier should send a note to the national New Democratic Party and say: "Look, we are bringing in legislation in British Columbia that everybody in British Columbia would like to see work. You in Ottawa have a responsibility to urge the people in British Columbia to see that it does work." The Premier is always talking about cooperation with Ottawa. Let him show some statesmanship and influence the national party to try and help sell this. They are in the very fortunate position in Ottawa where they have a lot of television time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's that got to do with this bill?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier wants to know what this has to do with this bill. The whole purpose of this bill is to create labour stability in the Province of British Columbia. As I have said, and as many speakers prior to me have said, the proper attitudes are necessary. All I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is that the New Democratic Party of British Columbia urge their national party to exercise some statesmanship. They, at this particular time because of the position they hold in Ottawa as being the party that controls the destiny, are in a very opportune place to show leadership in this regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I can't quite see how that deals with the principle of the bill here or the ultimate responsibility in this House to carry on its own legislation. I wonder if the Member would try to get back to the principle of this bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the message got to those cabinet Ministers over there: They, understand how it pertains to this bill, and they also realize how the suggestion I have made would change the attitude in British Columbia by showing leadership from their national party.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, I feel, is weighted fairly heavily in favour of the unions when it comes to organizing the remaining workers in British Columbia. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that by and large the only people left to organize are those mainly in small business. I do hope that when it comes to having this bill function there will be a lot of good judgment displayed on the part of union leaders, and that they will not exercise some of the powers given to them in this bill to unduly work hardship on small businesses. There again, we always seem to come up with the attitude that everything is big business and big labour bosses. That is not the case — there are many small unions that are working very efficiently and in a good atmosphere.

By the same token, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic government's Members are heavily weighted in favour of labour unions. I don't hold that against them. But I think because of this situation they have a very sincere responsibility to management to show that they are going to be unbiased.

This party, Mr. Speaker, is using statesmanship in debating this legislation. This party in opposition is being responsible for its actions. This party, Mr. Speaker, wants British Columbians to pull together for the good of all our citizens, not just one segment.

Mr. Speaker, we could stand on the floor of this Legislature and damn and condemn the powers of this Labour Relations Board, powers that make the past mediation commission seem pale by comparison. But that, Mr. Speaker, would not be showing responsibility.

The Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) just a short time ago stood on his feet in this House and said that the opposition weren't criticizing the bill and that he could do a much better job. And I think the Member for Kootenay is very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that we are not creating in this House the same attitudes towards this legislation that they created when they were in opposition.

The Premier started to stand this morning while the Member for Kootenay was speaking and said, "We have nothing to condemn in the bill." Mr. Speaker, there are many points in this bill that are not perfect.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha!

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier of this province is very disappointed that the opposition is not bringing about this climate. We are not going to, in opposition, use our position as an opposition party to create an atmosphere of unrest over this legislation. We represent all of the people of the Province of British Columbia, not just labour, not just management.

Mr. Speaker, we want to see this legislation work, and we will not use this legislation for political gain. I want to contrast that with the past performances of

the government when they were in opposition. Every piece of legislation that was tabled in this House, in an endeavour — and I must say tabled in good faith — to try and solve the labour situation in British Columbia was used by them as a platform to create havoc in this province. Now that same government, those same representatives, are disappointed that we're not using the same tactics.

This government doesn't want a recurrence of the demonstrations of 1971. This opposition doesn't want attitudes created that would cause another incident like that in New Westminster.

There was a demonstration on the lawn of the Legislature over Bill 42. This opposition didn't go out and try and incite them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonsense! Nonsense!

MR. PHILLIPS: This opposition didn't go out and march with them and try and incite a riot, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no. Blood will run in the streets, said the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: This party will be responsible in opposition.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's a change.

MR. PHILLIPS: And there are many actions that a strident opposition could implement…

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a has-been.

MR. PHILLIPS: …if we wanted to oppose for the sake of opposing. We want to create, in this province, a positive attitude towards this legislation. We don't want to condemn it like the mediation Act was condemned before it had the opportunity to work. We don't want to condemn it like the compensation Act was condemned by the government when it was brought in — and I remember sitting in this House. That Act was brought in in good faith. The opposition of the day tried to condemn it before it had the opportunity to work.

The present Premier, when in opposition, at every turn of the wheel tried to create havoc to labour-management relations. I would hope this negative attitude has not been carried to the Premier's office. There is a new day dawning in British Columbia and there are new responsibilities on government and management and labour.

This party is going to be part of creating that new attitude. It's going to be part of that new attitude. It's going to be part of that new responsibility. We are going to do this, Mr. Speaker, whether or not it pleases the government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll be very brief, and I won't be sanctimonious like the former speaker. I want to thank the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) for his opening remarks. I thought they were sincerely given and I don't question his motivation one bit. I think that kind of attitude in the House is most positive.

I don't believe there is anybody in the House, on either side of the House, that doesn't want this legislation to work. I just don't believe that. We are politicians; we do have political differences. If situations arise, politicians do use those situations for their own political advantage. Any politician that denies that is not telling the truth.

Every situation that comes by is fraught with political overtones and each person's response is a measure of their own level of standard of behaviour that they want to create. But when the Member — who is just leaving his place — tried to leave the impression with the House that in opposition it was a constant role of either myself or the party that I led at that time to inflame labour matters, I would like to remind him that it was I who had to initiate an unprecedented legal suit against the Premier of the day for making those allegations in a most political frame of reference.

When he talks of the 1971 incident, the most political statements were made immediately after that by the former leader of that party where, in effect, he actually accused me of being responsible for those acts of violence. Now if that isn't base political behaviour, I don't know what is.

I was forced to take action by going to the courts, which I thought should have been unnecessary in a province like British Columbia. It was a measure, Mr. Speaker, of how labour-management problems had come to be used in this province.

How many times have we sat in this House and heard speeches from the former Attorney General, with his grey vest, talking about the labour bosses? Those were almost scandalous attacks on people in our community from an elected Attorney General — on the labour hacks, the labour bosses and the labour pork-choppers…and the glee, the titillation, that was expressed on the former Premier's face over the points that he thought he was scoring politically by that kind of vituperation.

It was part and parcel of the atmosphere of this House, and I want to thank all the Members for moving away, to some degree, from that scale. Not everybody has. But they have moved away to some degree.

This law is like any other man-made law. If it works, it will be the men and women involved that make it work, not the jurists. With all due respect to my friend from Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea), it'll be the men and the women involved, the human beings involved, who will make it work, not the jurists -good or bad, concerned or indifferent. The success or failure of this legislation will depend upon the people who are directly involved.

I must reply to some of the side issues that were raised. I don't know why they were raised. Perhaps they were unintentional, but I hope they don't become smoke-screens. There is a great debate within the trade union movement over nationalism. I think that it is an unfortunate mistake to oversimplify that debate by saying that Canadian dollars must remain in Canada.

Surely the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), if he were to take that same logical argument to the extreme that some of my own party members would like to take that logical argument to the extreme, it is that no insurance premiums should leave Canada — no company profits should leave Canada. He would become, I think, one of the most rabid advocates of the Waffle position if he were to…I signed it because I wanted it discussed.

That Member is now taking — he doesn't want discussion, he's taking their absolute position. Canadian dollars for Canadian workers should stay in Canada. Then okay, Canadian dollars and all insurance premiums should stay in Canada. All oil companies stay in Canada. And if he were to take that cause right to the people of this country, I think he would find that a segment of the population would agree with him.

But certainly he just can't say it for the trade union movement and absolve any kind of comment about West Vancouver dividends not going down to the United States.

I think there should be a better balance; I certainly do. That's why this government has embarked upon a direct intervention in the economy. We purchased Columbia Cellulose as a very good business deal, and we purchased Ocean Falls as an economic deal with social consequences. We're directly involved. That's why we are involved in the insurance business. And we're proving the case that there is a role for national intervention or provincial intervention in the economy as well.

Incidentally, we happen to be doing all right. We're even involved in that nasty word "profit" in terms of both operations.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's right, and the taxes are less with a Crown corporation so we can bring about the social reforms we all desire much faster.

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed with interest the response in certain segments of the community, both by labour and management, almost an automatic knee-jerk response, to the legislation. I said on a television programme weeks before the bill was introduced that I could guarantee you that as soon as the bill was introduced it would be attacked by labour and it would be attacked by management.

It's a change, and there are people out there who have been conditioned by 20 years of hostility in labour-management relations to view all change as suspect.

It's true that we have taken a position — and I believe it very, very much — that in the past labour legislation in the province was heavily weighted against trade unions. Now we are not saying as a consequence that because a party such as ours comes into power it is mandatory that in the next number of years — X number of years, whatever it may be — that we go from one end of the pendulum over to the other. That would be absurd.

We recognize some of the emotional attachments that obviously some of the cabinet Ministers and backbenchers have to specific areas of the trade union movement. We are the government and we must come down the middle in terms of trying to be just, fair and reasonable in this kind of situation.

There was some criticism that the bill was not introduced last session. Well, of course it wasn't introduced last session. We went out to the community and some of the community and some of the areas did criticize. I don't recall that as an opposition point. I don't think it was the official opposition either. But everybody had a chance during the past year to get involved, in saying what they felt about redrafting of labour legislation.

The Minister of Labour worked very, very hard — right across this province — inviting people to come and listen. They were prepared to listen to any presentation.

So when I hear people outside the Legislature saying, "It's too fast," I can't help but be amused that some of those people were saying just a few months ago, "It's too slow." And for the House Members themselves — very few, I must admit — to say that this should go to a special committee after all the work the Minister and the community has gone to, to me is just not a valid point.

The question of debate on principle: the debate on principle should have been ready for the last five years for every political party. There has been no more politically-charged issue at the provincial level than labour-management relationships. So to say that you need another few days to discuss the principle of a labour-management bill means, Mr. Speaker, that there was no position by anybody all along.

MR. SCHROEDER: That's a rationalization.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not a rationalization. You're too new. I don't like that reflection on you, Mr. Member, but the fact is that in committee stage….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the first time you came in it was the shoe banging, and we wouldn't want you to be labelled as a Khrushchev type. Since that time you haven't kept them on your feet — you don't have them on your desk any longer but you've got them in your mouth. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that there has been a great deal of discussion on this very important problem for the last five years. We have the opportunity of expressing ideas and opinions on the principle, and everybody in this House should have been ready. When we come to committee stage I welcome the first Member who said that he would be discussing amendments. And that was the same position taken by that party during the Bill 42 debate, which was excellent. But to have the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), of all people, tell us that it was his party that was not involved in the inflammatory debate around Bill 42, when if you all recall it was he who gave the most long-winded, irrational filibuster that's ever been presented in this House…. Some of the most inflammatory statements, which are now recorded in Hansard forever, including the Peace River constituency concerned, emanated from his mouth! How many hours was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-four.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thirty-four hours. The first time he put in a 34-hour week. (Laughter.) Now, Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to accept from that Member the new statesmanlike position by attacking the federal leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, what is presented to the House is an attempt to come to grips with an atmosphere — that's what it really is. We've got a super-heated atmosphere of labour-management problems in this province and we're trying to say, "Okay, we move away from the courts and move to something far more flexible." After all, Mr. Speaker, that's the whole key to success in areas of human relations — flexibility, the ability to move quickly and to be flexible to adapt each ruling to each separate situation.

Wildcat strike: there has been nothing effective in this province to deal with wildcat strikes up until this bill has appeared. National strikes that cripple industries at the provincial level: we haven't had the means of dealing with those kind of specific problems.

We also need some avenue to clear grievances that individuals or small groups feel. And the ombudsman idea presented by the Minister I think is first class.

The conscience clause: I'll confess that I had a major influence in that clause. I'm very much in favour of this. But I want to tell you that you cannot have it both ways, as good theologians will attest to. Once you move an argument from the abstract into the reality, then there are penalties. It is all very well when you discuss theory in the abstract, but once you place an act there are penalties for placing an act. If you are a conscientious objector in the United States, you must respect your conscience. But the penalties are that you go to jail or leave the country — that's your option, too, because you are part of the total society. Now, I admire people who are conscientious objectors. You have the option and you must pay the penalty when you exercise that act. You can take off out of the country or pay the price, and the price is going to jail.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The other option is to commit suicide, and that's not permitted. The other option is go in the army and serve as a…. There are people who define these things on an intense individual basis. If the world had 20 per cent of its population making decisions on conscious moral and philosophical backgrounds we wouldn't need this law; we wouldn't need 99 per cent of the laws that are in the statute books, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately the population that operates on that concept is around not even I per cent — I would guess about 0.5 per cent.

MR. SCHROEDER: Be an optimist.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like to be an optimist, but that's a separate argument.

There are many, many churches, there are many, many religions, but there are very few religious people. Now, I don't profess to make a judgment on other people's moral evaluations. I'm in politics, and to me politics is one of the most honestly ruthless businesses that's around. You don't have to piddle around with rationalizations; you're involved in making real decisions, not in the abstract where everything is beautiful.

MR. SCHROEDER: Not at the expense of the individual.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not at the expense of the individual, and that's why the conscience clause. The individual will make the decision, but he cannot have the benefits of that group or society without paying a

share or a penalty. And in this instance the share is: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. It is the union organization that organized, that got the working conditions, that has the wages on the job, and if it hadn't been for that union there wouldn't be those kinds of working conditions. So at least the obligation or the penalty is, "Pay the dues," just the same as a conscientious objector or anyone else. So I have no objection to that particular section.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In your case it's not a question of being interested in Caesar. I would think that the psychological study would be more apt at Brutus. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that with that party going through the kind of internal problems that it has right now, Caesar is gone but still very much alive. I don't see any lean and hungry Cassius around. Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to take that argument or its appropriate analogies any further, but I do think that Caesar's succession did have something to do with heredity. Or was that the scene at all? But we'll leave that very interesting area, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it's not the ides of November. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, there are these other nits that have been referred to by the Social Credit opposition — the labour leader and the labour boss, or the labour leader's control. One of the problems, in my opinion, in labour-management relationships is that there is no such thing as labour leader control. What happens is that management delegates absolute authority to a very small group of negotiators. But in the labour situation a committee is elected from the union and the committee may be dealing very, very conscientiously in terms of trying to come up with softie kind of contract and go back to its membership, and all it takes is one or two people to disrupt a whole scene. No conscientious labour leader views himself as a person who is a dictator over a group of people. He expresses the wishes of the membership, and if the membership wishes to change their opinions on occasion, then he must express that. So to attack a person as a labour boss or an absolute labour leader is nonsense.

You must find some room for these people to manoeuvre. The Japanese are far more skilled at this, Mr. Speaker, than we are. I'm beginning to learn this about them. Their device around saving face is essential, too, for us in western civilization. We must have attitudes and boundaries in this legislation to allow people to, save face, both management and labour. So there is a great deal of flexibility and that is an important ingredient in this type of legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way from the Winnipeg general strike. When that happened we in this country were at the peak, in my opinion, of absolute hysteria against the trade union movement. The closest we saw to that kind of hysteria, in my opinion, was that strike in Newfoundland some 12 years ago.

Things have changed dramatically since those days. Most people do want peace and harmony and good order in their everyday life, but all people do not have the same kind of security that those of us in this House have. There are people out there who are earning only $2.50 an hour. They don't give a fig for all the labour legislation in the world if they can't put groceries on the table. They must have an expression or vehicle to allow them to bargain for better working conditions just to meet the demands of everyday life.

On the other hand, it is the old dilemma of not sacrificing what the rest of us have got. So we must find accommodation for the legitimate expression of working people to catch up — at the same time, hopefully, not damaging the gains that everybody else has made.

But there will be strikes. There will be strikes under this legislation, and there will be strikes under any kind of legislation, because free people in a free society must have the right to withhold their labour. And they must have the freedom to make the decisions whether or not they wish to give that choice up. That's why the separate section with the firemen, and the police…

AN HON. MEMBER: Does the farmer have that right?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, the farmer has that right. They were threatening to do that last spring.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, the freedom is there. Who was it that made that famous statement about everybody being equal? You know, everybody is free to sleep under the bridges if they want to.

What we are trying to do with this Minister is create an opportunity — not new ideas as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) suggests, not new concepts — but create an opportunity to allow some rational maturing to take place in labour-management relations in the Province of British Columbia.

Nobody, as I said in the beginning, wants labour-management conflict. But when it comes, no politician will avoid exploiting it. Not overtly and screaming like we've had in the past with wild accusations; but certainly by saying it is this party's

fault or that party's fault. That's the nature of politicians. We are not going to avoid that. But we are trying to create a new opportunity.

It appears to me that almost everybody in the House will be voting for this bill in principle. Well you can't start a bill off with a better launching than that.

I hope, when we get to committee stage, that there will be amendments proposed by the Members. The Minister has said, just as we did in Bill 42, that if the amendments are beneficial and helpful then we will certainly consider them; if they are not, we will reject them. We are quite serious. We accepted some during Bill 42 as well. But if we don't agree with them we won't accept them.

But I will say this, Mr. Speaker. When this debate is all finished, when it is all history and the bill is in operation, the loneliest man in all of British Columbia will be that guy right there because, when all is said and done, it will all be on his head whether it works or not.

I am not doing that to him by saying it now. It is a fact. It is a fact. He will be looked upon as the person who is either the success or failure of this bill, and he cannot avoid it, being Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King).

His is the only job in this cabinet that has absolutely no possibility for praise, but all the potential for abuse. He can't issue press releases that he has purchased a new pulp mill. He can't issue a statement that he is going into the insurance business. He can't announce a tax concession. All he has got, Mr. Speaker, is bad news when he is spoken to. (Laughter.) That's the only time he's ever asked a question in the corridor by the press. So, Mr. Speaker, that's where it's at.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Did you tell him all that before he…

HON. MR. BARRETT: I told him all that. As a matter of fact, I spoke to him one day when we were walking along by the Big Eddy up at Revelstoke. I don't know whether the Member remembers that or not, but we were walking along the dike by the Big Eddy up at Revelstoke, two-and-a-half years before the election….

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): That's how sure you were.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no. We were. (Laughter.) No, no, that's not how sure we were. That's how sure I was. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I said, "What would you do if you were asked to be Minister of Labour?"

HON. MR. KING: Don't repeat it. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Paraphrase it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you in about five years what he said. But he's there, and he's the best man for the job. Not that former Ministers of Labour weren't great; but I think he's the best man possible at this time for this job.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that the first non-hysterical labour debate is taking place in this House and it will pass into history. I look forward to the committee debate on each section, but I hope the bill will be accepted by the total community. Despite all of our biases, I hope the bill will be accepted by the total community as a genuine attempt to deal with a very, very difficult problem.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 11, not with a list of the usual kinds of comments, because I'm one with perhaps a different background than many of the speakers who have been before me, having primarily had my experience as a social worker in the area of community welfare. So I'll address my comments briefly in that regard.

If I may have leave, there is another very important statement I'd like to make. I have in the Speaker's Gallery some relatives. As a matter of fact a couple of them I haven't seen for almost 34 years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've grown since then. (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: Yes. Well, I'd like to tell you the whole story, but perhaps some other time. I'm looking forward to having the adjournment so that I can visit with them. I was late getting into the House this morning, and I haven't had an opportunity really to talk to them yet. But my two uncles, Amos and Sam — those names are biblical terms I hope you will realize, they are not racist. (Laughter.) Their last name is Young. My mother, Anne Boullon by another marriage: my sister, Ethel Williams; my nephew, Ronnie Williams, and his friend.

I believe my uncles are presently living in California, but they originally were from Louisiana. That's where I saw them last, in Bogalusa, Louisiana, back in the late '30s. My mother is presently from New York, and my sister is from Portland, Oregon. Anyway, Hi, Mom. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I think it is permitted.

MR. BARNES: Really, that's about all I should say.

MR. GARDOM: You'll have to take them to dinner.

MR. BARNES: Our Hon. leader the Premier has really done a magnificent job of presenting the case for Bill 11, the Labour Code of British Columbia Act. I was most impressed with his approach to this matter because I think that we have got to have a more humanitarian approach to our legislation.

We certainly are here to do our jobs as politicians, but I think that the challenge should always be there to rise above political opportunity and consider an opportunity to really give something to the community. I think that we are witnessing the birth of a very important piece of legislation and that one will have to work very hard at finding something wrong with it. I realize that the opposition has a job to do, but really I think this is a humanitarian piece of legislation and it's a considerate and responsible piece of legislation.

I think that the Premier was right on when he suggested that the Minister of Labour will be on the hot seat no matter what he does. I don't think I could come up with a better set of rules to run my own family and, believe me, I love all of them. It's hard when you have to sit in the hot seat sometimes.

I think this legislation is giving all parties concerned — labour and management — an opportunity to put their best efforts forward if it's done in good faith. This is another concept that you can't always define in absolute terms, but good faith speaks again about conscience, something about the intangible aspect of human nature. Whatever that means to you, that's what the bill is relying on; it's relying on that aspect of humanity that we have somehow lost in the past years. We have put too much faith in arbitrary and absolute positions.

We've got to be prepared to sit down and listen and deal in good faith, because the people who really hang in the balance — and this often includes the parties concerned as well — are the ordinary working people, the ordinary consumer and the ordinary individual who don't have time to read legislation and study all of the finer details, trying to gain advantages here and there. These people are saying: "Why can't we get on and work in some kind of cooperative way? If we're a country living together, can't we get along together? Why is it that labour has to have the advantage or management has to have the advantage?"

Somehow we've got to sell a new image. I think that we are stuck with adverse positions, positions that require a for and against. This is too often perpetrated, carelessly and irresponsibly perhaps, by the politicians. Maybe we should now begin to have a little faith, put forward the mechanics and the opportunity through a flexible piece of legislation and allow people to come together and understand the consequences of their acts.

The Premier was pointing out the considerations regarding the conscience section of the bill. I think this is another reality, harsh though it may be for us who live in a society. We have to recognize that we're all committed to a set of rules. Everyone is committed to a set of rules, whether they are conscious of it, aware of it or care about it. Nonetheless, we are all in a society committed to a set of rules. It behooves us to learn something about these rules because they are affecting us, whether or not we utilize their effect upon us by understanding how to survive with them, or they affect us in a way that is useful to someone else. This, I think is the challenge.

We must get the education across; we must get the interpretation across to the public. I'm not too sure if we're going to be able to do it with this bill. I think it's going to require a follow-up by all of the Members who have spoken before and those who will be speaking after, because they've all indicated, in the opposition as well as the government, a sincere wish that this legislation will survive. Everyone has been fairly optimistic. But we're going to have to prove this when we leave this Legislature, when we're asked about the sections, because if we have other designs in mind then we're going to sabotage the bill and we're going to do all we can to encourage factions to stand alone and hold out. Really what we're saying is that we're all in it together.

We could even suggest that there are only about 1 or 2 per cent of the population who are really astute enough to understand the battle. Most people benefit one way or another but don't always understand the fight between management and labour which is an historical struggle. But I think as we talk about world peace and want to get on with a more interrelated experience in living, we must revise the rules of battle. We must improve upon our understanding of what the conditions were before, because times have changed.

There will always, I suppose, be a working class and a more elitist class, but at the same time these will have to be looked at relatively because we've all gone up a bit. We're all a little bit better off than we were at the turn of the century, relatively speaking. So we need to understand some new concepts and some other ways of resolving these struggles.

I think that labour-management strife has plagued our society for long enough, and really this document can contribute to a better understanding, even in a small minute way, between those forces who are often the same people wearing different hats from time to time. It's very difficult to determine what values are for one group and what values are for another, which to me indicates that we need to look a little harder and realize that we are ready for transition. We are no longer in the same struggle we were in, but it's advantageous to some people to perpetrate that belief or that myth.

I'm going to support this bill in the spirit in which

the Hon. Minister has put it forward, in good faith and I hope the other Members will do so as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Hall moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill intituled Livestock Production Act.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of Bill 46 intituled Livestock Production Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 46 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

DOMESTIC ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill. Intituled Domestic Animal Protection Act.

Bill 45 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPARTMENT OF
CONSUMER SERVICES ACT

Hon. Ms. Young presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Department of Consumer Services Act.

Bill 48 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ACT

Hon. Mr. Nicolson presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Department of Housing Act.

Bill 49 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw Bill 15 on the order paper, which was replaced by the message bill introduced moments ago.

Leave granted.

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER PRIVACY ACT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled Government Computer Privacy Act.

Leave granted.

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill 60 intituled Government Computer Privacy Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 60 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
B.C. RAILWAY ACT

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled An Act to Amend the B.C. Railway Act.

Leave granted.

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill 61 intituled An Act to Amend the B.C. Railway Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 61 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT RESPECTING THE
FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLY

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled An Act Respecting the Fluoridation of Water Supply.

Leave granted.

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill 62 intituled An Act Respecting the Fluoridation of Water Supply.

Motion approved.

Bill 62 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.