[ Page 487 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order

Use of unparliamentary language.

Mr. Phillips — 487

Mr. Speaker — 487

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Fatality at Giant Mascot Mine. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 487

Phasing out cafeteria services on B.C. Ferries. Mr. McClelland — 488

BCAA insurance coverage. Mr. Williams — 488

B.C. proposal for heavy water plant. Mr. Phillips — 489

BCR boxcar shortage. Mr. Fraser — 489

An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act. (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Strachan.

Introduction and first reading — 491

Department of Northern British Columbia Act. (Bill 65). Mr. Phillips.

Introduction and first reading — 491

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

Hon. Mr. Hall — 491

Mr. Smith — 493

Mr. Steves — 495

Mr. Lockstead — 497

Mr. McClelland — 497

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 499

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 501

Mr. McGeer — 502

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 507

Mr. Cummings — 509

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 509

Mr. Skelly — 511

Hon. Mr. King — 513

Division on second reading — 518

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Pat Nowlan, MP, the son of a great Conservative finance Minister of Canada — a man who was a native British Columbian but is now a Conservative Member of Parliament for Nova Scotia and a man whom I hope to thump in squash, ere seven.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon there is a delegation of students sitting in the gallery from Comox Junior Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Ante, and Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Speaker, among the students is my niece, Marcia Petersen, and I'm hoping that the House will join me in giving them a very warm welcome this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it an announcement, Hon. Member?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): No, I have a point of order if all the announcements are finished, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there any other announcements?

On a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I was called to order for making a statement in this Legislature regarding the national leader of the New Democratic Party. Just for a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, on September 26 in this House the Hon. Premier in closing the debate on the throne speech did make what I consider inflammatory remarks against the government of Quebec, did make some what I would call inflammatory remarks against the House Leader of the Liberal Party, and from time to time has made inflammatory remarks against the Hon. Jack Davis.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member on the point of order that a point of order must be taken up immediately. To go back and dredge up your version or my version of what happened in September is a bit slow.

I do say that if there were any remarks made that offend against that rule I would hope that the Hon. Members would observe that rule in speaking of leaders of national parties or of members of other houses than this House. It's a common rule in May that we treat those who are in other houses with courtesy and respect even though we may criticize their policies.

Now, if the Hon. Premier had attacked any other Member of this House, he can defend himself. It is my duty to ask a Member to withdraw a statement that's made that does offend. But to say that you should be permitted to make a remark on Friday which is clearly against the rule on the justification that some other remark was made in September is really something I can't deal with now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just wanted a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. If you allowed the Premier to do this without bringing him to order, maybe at that time I should have called it to your attention. And when he called Mr. Dupuis, the Leader of the….

MR. SPEAKER: I think the point of order is clear — that it must be taken up at the time. I will try to catch these things as I go along and I would always appreciate your assistance in keeping the House in order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take this under advisement in the future. (Laughter.)

FATALITY AT
GIANT MASCOT MINE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, just before I ask the question I would just like to follow your ruling and be polite to a Member of another House, my former colleague Mr. Nowlan who is a Member of considerable talent in his own right. I would like to welcome him here myself.

My question is to the Minister of Mines: I wonder whether he would indicate whether he has received a report from the mines department Deputy Chief Inspector, Mr. Jack Merrett, on the death two weeks ago Friday of Harold Engles killed in the mining accident at the Giant Mascot Mine.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, the only report I have at this time is that Mr. Merrett went into the Giant Mascot and the boys went back to work. They were satisfied to go back to work and he seemed to have done a very good job of settling the strike.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Apart from the strike, Mr. Minister, I'm thinking in particular about the safety question that lead to the strike. May I ask him whether he's expecting a report on the safety aspects of the situation that led to the death of Mr. Engles? Is he expecting such a report from his inspector?

[ Page 488 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I got a partial report in regard to this question, and the conditions where the man was killed were not of the best. I will be expecting a further report from Mr. Merrett.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I ask the Minister then, Mr. Speaker: at the present time are men continuing to work under a situation which the Minister himself admits is not the best? Are they continuing to work in a dangerous situation?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They closed off that part of the mine. They aren't working there until they have rectified the situation.

PHASING OUT
CAFETERIA SERVICES
ON B.C. FERRIES

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Would the Minister advise the House if there are plans underway, or whether the government plans to phase out the cafeteria or dining room operations on the B.C. ferries?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): What is happening right now is the normal reorganization of staff that usually takes place when the ferries go on winter schedule. That's all that is taking place.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister tell us whether the government is making plans, or has active plans to do away with the cafeterias or the dining rooms on the ferries? That was the question; not what kind of rearrangement of staff is happening right now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If there is any change to be made, it will be announced in good time.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's happening now?

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister tell us, then, what's happening to some of the dining rooms on some of the ferries now? There are some changes being made — structural changes. I wonder if the Minister could explain some of those changes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what I explained when I answered you first of all. It's the normal reorganization of staff that has always taken place when the ferries move on to winter schedule. It makes a more efficient operation when you have the normal winter schedule and winter schedule crewing.

Rather than having the crews walk full length of the dining room, they now have a much shorter length to walk. Don't you believe in efficiency of operations?

BCAA INSURANCE COVERAGE

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transportation and Communication: on the eve of your departure for the east, Mr. Minister, it was announced that you had concluded an agreement with the B.C. Automobile Association to provide insurance coverage for those people who could not obtain such coverage from other existing companies. May I ask the Minister whether or not persons acquiring this coverage must be members of the BCAA and pay the fee?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, the BCAA is the vehicle under which we are moving into the exchange. There are other agents and other companies who are still working through the exchange. This became necessary because of the situation that was developing because some companies were not only refusing to renew any policies but they were refusing to write any new policies.

So we had to come to some arrangement to support the exchange, which we did, and the BCAA is the vehicle through which we are going to support the exchange. But any other agent who happens to represent a company that hasn't created any problems for that agent is still in full operation, and can refer to the exchange in the same way as they always did.

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you do not have to become a member of the BCAA to get insurance in that way.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, you don't have to be a member. To get insurance today you don't have to be a member of the BCAA. No, that was never inferred.

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Hon. Minister indicate what schedule of premiums the BCAA is being permitted to charge for this insurance coverage?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They are charging the regular insurance rate. The regular rate.

MR. WILLIAMS: A further supplemental, Mr. Speaker. If that is the case, would the Minister indicate to what extent he is prepared to guarantee the losses of other insurance companies in the same manner as he is guaranteeing the loss to BCAA?

[ Page 489 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. This was an arrangement whereby they handle it.

B.C. PROPOSAL FOR
HEAVY WATER PLANT

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk). Regarding the heavy water plant to be established in Canada: I understand the department has made a proposal to Ottawa. I'd like to know from the Minister if he's had any feedback from Ottawa as to whether British Columbia is in the running at all or not.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, this would be a question of negotiation between Ottawa and ourselves. I haven't been kept abreast of any such proposal, Mr. Member, through you Mr. Speaker, but perhaps he could ask the question tomorrow and I can find out about it. I'm not aware of the details of any such proposal at this stage. In any event, it would seem to me a question of negotiation between government officials of both capitals and not the subject of a question of this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister, that the news clipping I have says that British Columbia has submitted a proposal to Ottawa. I would suggest that the Minister find out what is going on in his own department.

If he hasn't heard anything back, is there any follow-up being done on this? The plant that is now established in Cape Breton could have been established at Taylor, British Columbia, because the water in the Peace River has the right substances in it for a heavy water plant.

Would the Minister take this under advisement and let the House know what negotiations are going on? This is very important. It would certainly be an industry for the Province of British Columbia — a very important industry. Would the Minister make an announcement to the House, then, tomorrow…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: …as to where the situation is?

Interjection.

BCR BOXCAR SHORTAGE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I would like to ask the Premier, as president of the BCR: what is the latest situation regarding the railcar-boxcar shortage on the railroad?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have just received a telegram at 1:42 this afternoon — it just came in now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Glad you asked that question. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is in response to a telephone call to the president of the CN last week. There's no point in reading the whole telegram. We did make the allegation to the CNR, with some substance, that the CNR was advising clients on the BCR line to ship their lumber down by truck to empty CN cars in Prince George — the allegation being that the CN was withholding cars off the BCR line.

Mr. Cameron advised that I raise the point with him, and I'll read directly from the telegram. The telegram is from Mr. MacMillan, the president of the CNR.

MR. CAMERON ADVISES THAT YOU RAISED THE MATTER OF SOME SHIPPERS ON BCR LINES TRUCKING TO CN POINTS FOR LOADING AND RAIL FORWARDING. THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE CARS SO USED COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE BCR FOR LOADING. MY INVESTIGATION OF THE SITUATION INDICATES NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO PLACE BCR AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE. THE CAR SITUATION IN GENERAL IS RESULTING IN AD HOC ARRANGEMENTS BY ALL PARTIES. WE ARE NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ENCOURAGING SHIPPERS TO TRUCK LUMBER FROM BCR TO CN POINTS.

But it is obvious that that option has been left open. The wording that I find not very satisfying…it is obvious from the wording that the implied, or the tacit arrangement is that the CN will service better if you get that lumber down to Prince George.

He goes on to say that he discussed the matter several times with Mr. Spicer…and so have we, "and I am certain he is doing his level best to get cars to the BCR shortage"…of ignoring shippers on CN lines.

THE CAR SITUATION IS CRITICAL AT THIS TIME WITH OVER 4,000 LOADS ON THE GROUND AWAITING CN SHIPMENT.

Well, we agree that there are 4,000 loads awaiting CN shipment, but there is no need, we feel, for the delay in getting cars to BCR. At any rate, he ends with the last statement:

I WOULD BE GLAD TO HAVE OUR PEOPLE SIT WITH THE BCR OFFICERS TO REVIEW THIS PROBLEM IMMEDIATELY.

Signed, Mr. MacMillan, President, CNR.

As I say, the telegram was received at 1:42 and just sent up. I will, at the end of the question period,

[ Page 490 ]

instruct my staff to immediately contact Mr. MacMillan for talks. But it seems that there may be some substance to the argument that cars have been deliberately held at Prince George with the tacit arrangement that if you get your lumber down to Prince George, somehow we'll load it for you.

MR. FRASER: Or Ashcroft.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Or Ashcroft. And that's the report that I have. There is not an absolute denial that this is going on, although the word "deliberate" is used.

We have some evidence given to me by the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler), who is not here today, and also some phone calls which indicated that that indeed was a practice, that customers were being advised over the phone to get their lumber down by truck.

Now perhaps Mr. MacMillan didn't know that this was going on. But obviously there is a willingness now to discuss this particular aspect, and I will instruct the rail officials to immediately meet with Mr. MacMillan.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the president of the BCR to say that we have only an ad hoc arrangement in terms of returning cars to the BCR; that there is no formal arrangement whereby these national lines will give us cars?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is an arrangement with all railways. The percentage of cars is 60-40 on a returned re-run; these are always ad hoc arrangements with all railways — CP, CN, BCR, Great Northern — which is Burlington Northern now. And they have always been honoured. There is always an arrangement between railroad people that, I understand, is a matter of people committing themselves by word to this kind of arrangement. That's what I understand exists traditionally between all railroads and between this railroad and the BCR.

Now it works both ways. If one railroad wants to go back off an ad hoc decision, it may be to an advantage of that railroad for a short period of time; but over a long haul there'll be vengeance. We don't want to go to that kind of situation. I'm pleased that Mr. MacMillan wants to talk.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In view of the fact that some of the customers of BC Rail, some of the forest companies, are having to rent cars themselves in the United States — and I believe 1,000 units have been rented so far, because BCR is not being quite as aggressive in this field as these companies would have liked — may I ask the Premier whether or not he has instructed BCR to make further leasing arrangements, other than the 500 he talked about the other day and, of course, the new orders for new cars?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, of course, the most aggressive action we have taken is the announcement last year that we will build our own rail cars.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's a two-month delay in that plan.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, there's a delay now to March — a three-month delay. Up until then we had no alternative.

Now along with that we have gone into leasing arrangements, as I've announced. Our rail people have been extremely aggressive in seeking cars, and I must say that the rail management has done an excellent job. Now there is a great demand for boxcars right across North America. It was aggravated in Canada by the BC Rail strike. But I do not see any evidence that people are more aggressive in leasing than BC Rail.

There has been some evidence that the CN, and perhaps the CP, have been deliberately or — no, I won't use the word "deliberately" — have been less than fair in honouring the arrangements they've had in the past with the BCR.

Now I will give you an example. Here is a letter from a lumber company, received in my office on October 2. He wrote to my assistant regarding a complaint. He said:

"In regard to our telephone conversation today, I would like to inform you of the results I received in trying to get BC Railway system flatcars to ship lumber by way of Vancouver waterfront terminals so they could be reloaded onto CP and CN flatcars. Mr. Dave McGowan assured me he would reload two cars a day for us.

"I phoned Gordon Gookey to inquire what the freight rates would be and, after checking, he called stating that he would have them bill the cars to final destination with reloading at Vancouver, and that the charge would be 10 cents per 100 extra. BC Rail would get their full cut of the rate. The car numbers would have to be changed when reloading."

Then he goes on to say:

"I would like to advise you that the CNR freight sales representative said that they had 216 empty box and flatcars in Prince George on September 12. We felt that we should receive some of these cars but we were told that the BC Railway was not getting any of these cars, and they didn't."

So there is evidence that the sharing of cars that has been traditional in the past is not going on, and our railway has been very aggressive in leasing cars.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, apart from making

[ Page 491 ]

charges, can I ask you what you are doing about it in terms of investigating?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT
ACT

Hon. Mr. Strachan presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act.

Bill 30 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.

Motion approved.

DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT, 1973

Mr. Phillips moves introduction and first reading of Bill 65 intituled The Department of Northern British Columbia Act, 1973.

Motion approved.

Bill 65 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.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that 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)

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Bill 11, the labour bill, is an important piece of legislation and since coming into the House about seven years ago, I entered on every occasion into every debate on labour matters, labour-management relations, pieces of legislation, Bill 33, Bill 22, the resolution that sought to end the transit disagreement, and other pieces of labour legislation. I had the privilege, for some years in the last parliament, to speak on behalf of my party on matters concerning the labour portfolio.

This debate will be no exception as I am now on my feet and I think I wanted to take the opportunity to cast my mind back to the thrust of the debates in this chamber — the kind of information we, as MLA's, received over those years and the kind of climate that we all want to see developed in the Province of British Columbia.

Throughout those years, and the years before that when I was a student of this assembly sitting in the gallery, and before that when I was in management and perhaps even before that when I was a member of a trade union, a long long time ago in another country.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): When you were in labour.

HON. MR. HALL: When I was in labour, indeed. And throughout those years a number of unmistakable criteria have become self-evident regarding legislation such as we are discussing today.

I list them in fairly simple form because I think that very often in matters of this magnitude the problems, while very complex, sometimes have fairly simple answers in the sense of drafting and meeting the problems, even though perhaps in the second stage, we get into complicated language.

The first thing that became apparent when I arrived here in 1967, having been elected in 1966, and all those labour debates that came through since that time, the one cry that came out all the time was that we have to get labour-management relations out of the courts.

That has been echoed by labour, by management, by Members of this House, by members of the department and certainly by many, many lawyers who say loud and clear that until the happy day arrives when we get disputes of this kind out of the courts we will be forever embroiled, enmeshed in the interminable wranglings that we have seen over these last few years.

The second criteria that I think becomes evident over the last years and in this bill is that the department or some structure, some organization, must be ready to move swiftly, to move decisively when a dispute occurs so that the parties may have pressure brought upon them to meet, to continue discussions, to remain in contact and to talk.

I think that was the second lesson that I learned in the years sitting on that side of the House and outside in the community and talking to many people involved in this serious constituency of labour-management relations.

The third thing that became self-evident was that somehow we have to insist, and I realize that's a hard word, insist, but we have to insist that the disputants

[ Page 492 ]

in an argument must remove from the argument all the posturing, all the false argument, all the misleading statements, the statistics, the facts — so called — the charades, so that we remove from what is probably an irrational process all the stumbling blocks that get people's backs up, that lead to the business of loss of face, and of not losing face.

To that argument I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the statements of Justice Nemetz about five years ago when he was called in as a one-man commissioner of inquiry into the IWA dispute. When he reported that he took approximately six weeks of his time to find out what the argument was about. That the absence of information from the Department of Labour, the absence of hard information, trustworthy facts on profit, productivity and so on were not available to him. Probably, and I don't want to put words into the Justice's mouth or even into his findings, but it is quite likely that he took a lot longer finding out what caused the disagreement than he did in writing the judgment in effect or the settlement.

I remember him spending some time, not only following that settlement, but also in the report that he made that was presented in this House on the labour practices in other countries.

So the third point I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is that it requires us to get down to some serious erection of facts that can be accepted by both sides in a dispute.

The fourth item that I think has become evident to me is the government must remain at a distance so that it can indeed set itself a task to erect those facts, set itself a task to erect a team of skilled personnel, so that the government can remain at a distance so that it can remain free from involvement. I think that is the other criteria that comes to mind.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when we are judging legislation of this kind, I think we use those criteria and then we look down our list as represented in Bill 11 and see how it meets. I think it is fair to say that first of all the legislation has taken, in the final analysis, the whole matter out of the courts.

Now, there will be some lawyers who disagree with me on that, I am sure, because they know, as I know, there are probably — I don't know what the collective noun for lawyers is, is it bevy of lawyers, a gaggle of lawyers, I don't know — but there will be a group of lawyers right now looking at the legislation wondering how fast they can get it in the courts. That may be and we may have to go through that process.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): They've already tried it.

HON. MR. HALL: I guess so. I guess that's going to happen. I can't stop that any more than anybody else can stop that but I am sure that that's a time-honoured practice. I think once that preliminary skirmish is over I think it is fair to say we have removed the basic day-to-day operation of the labour-management relations in this province out of the courts.

So, on that basis, one large tick to this Bill 11.

Secondly, I think it is fair to say that the legislation, because of the powers of the board, is ready to move swiftly, is ready to get itself staff and the muscle that is required to deal with disputes in an expeditious way.

Now I want to, perhaps, stray a little from one of the principles of the bill, Mr. Speaker, by saying that there is a second level that is required to this bill. That is that we can pass the finest legislation in the world, but unless we provide this Minister and this department with staff, with trained personnel, at first-class salaries, we aren't going to see some of the things that we hope to be achieved by this bill, in fact, achieved, I want to make this open and personal commitment to that Minister — that I certainly will be supporting his efforts in my capacity as Provincial Secretary and a member of the Treasury Board, to make sure the sum, as requested, is dealt with expeditiously so that we can get a first class Department of Labour behind this legislation. If we don't do that, then Bill 11 may indeed become as worthless as some of the legislation that has been passed by a previous government sitting on this side of the House, and I'm talking about young offenders, and family courts, and things like that.

We all know that any student of legislation looking at some of that first class legislation knows it's not been fulfilled because of some of the problems of staffing. That's something that we're addressing ourselves to frequently, and I think questions on the order paper would indicate at a rate that probably is going to occasion some criticism. But, nevertheless, until we do make sure that the Minister is backed by a first-class, well-paid, well-trained, understanding staff, Bill 11 isn't going to work.

MR. WILLIAMS: Bill 33 didn't….

HON. MR. HALL: Bill 33 did prove that money in the wrong place is not enough.

Mr. Speaker, the next point that occurs to me is that for any legislation as new and as innovative as this to succeed, there has to be a clear run at the problem. While we removed from the courts a great deal — if not all — of the problem, it is a fact that in order to do that correctly you have to give it to somebody else. Otherwise, that same gaggle, bevy, group, cartel of lawyers who are so anxious to get at Bill 11 will be getting at the absence, getting at the vacuum. There's no criticism of a personal nature intended. The lawyers are retained by clients and have to do that kind of a job, and very often, they do

[ Page 493 ]

it very, very well. But unless you actually make the proper transition from one to the other, then the vacuum is as dangerous as the presence of the courts in the first place, if you have my bent of mind. I agree that's a biased, opinionated view. It's one I hold sincerely and strongly.

It seems to me that the legislation and the Labour Relations Board with its awesome powers — somebody once sent me a note about the "awesome powers of the board," and he spelled board b-o-r-e-d. I think maybe there's a key in here somewhere. Unless the legislation has a clear opportunity by virtue of its decisions to prove itself, then I think we are doing the code an injustice.

I want to draw everybody's attention to what I think is one of the most significant and paramount changes in the legislation, and that is that the Labour Relations Board for all its powers, awesome or otherwise, must give its reasons in writing. If that isn't a disciplinary method of making sure that the board acts correctly — and I'm confident it will — but if that's not the most beautiful piece of built-in legislation I've ever seen, I don't know what is.

Because if you make a person stand up and say why he's doing something, you're pretty well certain that he's going to be very careful about what he's going to do. No longer will those strange and mysterious decisions of the Labour Relations Board bedevil the labour-management climate in this province.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, in terms of giving ticks to this legislation is the question of the establishment of a department, a research bureau, and all the other items that the Minister spoke about in his contributions in the throne speech debate. There again, the evidence was in before that is his intention and I've made my commitment to that end.

The final thing I wish to say in supporting this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that legislation must also be looked at as from whence it came; and that is, it comes from a government which had placed employment, which has placed apprenticeship training, retraining, the whole question of manpower, the whole question of mobility of manpower, as its goals as a New Democratic Party government elected just a year ago. I think that if the legislation is looked at from the criteria I've listed, from that which we observe in the legislation, couched as it is by a government that has already demonstrably shown that it has these concerns, then I think that this legislation is worthy of anybody's support.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that over some years it's been my pleasure to involve myself with members of the labour movement, both organized in the family of labour as represented by the Canadian Labour Congress, and others. It's my understanding that they are concerned naturally about some of the aspects of this legislation. So am I. So am I, because, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that I think this is one area that this government can get into serious trouble. Make no mistake about that. That's why I think that in this debate all the Members of the House should be addressing themselves to this legislation in the most careful way possible, because it is a fact that a new government getting into the kinds of programmes we're getting into doesn't enjoy the kind of labour harmony, the kind of management support, the kind of togetherness that this labour legislation calls for. Indeed, there are going to be stormy times for us all.

I think it's fair to say that we have, by virtue of the fact that we campaign on a programme, by virtue of the fact that we are closely affiliated with the aims and aspirations of the working people of this province, know that we will be looked upon, tested, evaluated, and we shall be asked to make an account of ourselves, as we in a left wing, grassroots party, have to do from time to time. I'm speaking of the event, not too far away, when this legislation will be examined by the people who sent us here. We make no apologies for that.

Similarly, it will be evaluated over a course of time as to whether or not the first major piece of labour legislation that this new government brought in is indeed going to do the job. It's my expectation and my confidence that it will do, but it's going to need some working at. It's going to need a lot of nights of consultation by the leaders of the labour movement and the leaders of the management group. It's going to need a good run, a good, supported, clean run at some of the problems. It's going to need a great deal of notice of the decisions.

One particular section of the bill points out that the Labour Relations Board is charged with the responsibility of announcing policy. I can well see the day when this chamber will re-echo to the debate on the policy as laid down by the Labour Relations Board. Then, with that kind of new stride, that kind of new approach, I think the legislation will succeed. Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in giving it my support on second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In rising to speak on second reading of this particular bill, I certainly don't set myself up as any expert in the field of labour relations or labour management. But I do think that I can reflect somewhat accurately some of things that people have said to me over the number of years that I have been a Member of this Legislature, both people who are involved actively in the labour field as union members, and those people who are employed but do not have a union contract to guide them.

There's a great deal of concern expressed by many people about the labour-management relations in the Province of British Columbia. It would seem to me that the present government has made a legitimate

[ Page 494 ]

attempt through the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) to enact a new piece of legislation which must be viewed with concern by both management and labour, with a certain amount of misgiving and a certain amount of hesitation, because they don't know at this point in time exactly how it will work or how it will effect them.

It would be my personal observation that when you read the bill, it is certainly an Act which will at least encourage, if not direct, a large segment of the present labour population which is not union into a union contract. I think it's fair to say that the legislation is pointed in that direction — to bring under the umbrella of some sort of a labour contract, the 60 per cent of the labour force in British Columbia which is presently non-union. These people have a right to be non-union, if they so desire, and they have a right to be apprehensive about this type of legislation, particularly if it is used as a weapon or a means to coerce them into a position of becoming members of any union regardless of what label that union may have in front of it and be named by.

I think that the bill, on close observation, is weighted in favour of labour, not management, and for that reason, management have a great deal of apprehension as to how this Act will work. But I think there is an attitude generally held by the public, and by labour and management, that they want to see an end to the acrimony and the interruptions in labour-management relations in the Province of British Columbia.

From what I have observed and in my opinion the public generally at this point in time are increasingly impatient with both labour and management. They're tired of lockouts and wildcat strikes and wobbling the job. They're tired of illegal picketing, of the work-to-rule sort of game that's sometimes played. They're tired of the political chess game that is played by both labour and management when it comes close to the time for the renegotiation or the renewal of a contract.

They're tired of strikes in the public sector, particularly in the essential services such as transportation and communication. I'm sure that if I were to say anything to the members of government today as a layman, really, speaking on this particular area, it would be that the public wants to see an end to these explosive confrontations that have been the character too often of labour and management in disputes in years past.

As I said, I believe that labour-management people really want to see this new Act work, and I'm sure that the public generally are echoing amen to that statement. But this is only a tool, Mr. Speaker. The real challenge of this Act lies directly on the doorsteps of both labour and management. It's up to them to make it work; to live with the legislation or ask for amendments, if they feel that amendments will improve what we have presently in the form of the statute that's before us.

If there was ever a time in British Columbia for less heat and more light, it's now. The public expect it. The public surmise, at least, that the attitude of labour towards an NDP government will be slightly different than it was towards the former government, strictly because of the fact that you bear an NDP label which is supposed to be pro-labour.

So the type of demonstration that we have experienced in the past, the type of lobbying against any type of labour legislation before anyone really knew what it was all about, will probably not be as prevalent as it has been in the past. To that I say amen because I think it is time we were beyond that stage in the process of effectively controlling for the best interests, not only of those people in the labour movement, but for those people who are outside it and for every citizen in the Province of British Columbia. It is time that we were more adult in our approach to these problems.

If I had one criticism of the legislation as a matter of principle — and I'm sure that we'll get into the discussion of the actual provisions of the bill, section by section, when we get to that stage of the debate — but if I have one criticism of the principle of the bill as I interpret it, it is that it reflects, in my opinion, the NDP preoccupation with legislation which bequeaths absolute control to a small select group of people.

It is the experience of those of us in the official opposition since the NDP came to power that too much of this legislation has come before the House; that in this bill we see a repetition of what we have seen in the fair employment Act and other pieces of legislation, whether intentional or not. At least this is the way it is being written.

This legislation is, in my opinion, without a proper appeal, although there is an appeal included in it. Above all, even though the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) seems to feel that a labour court, if you wish to call it that, or a labour board, is in some respects better than the judicial system, I'm not at all sure that we are making a move in the right direction when we step outside of the judicial system of the province to settle all these matters. In the final analysis there will be no appeal to the courts on matters that have been settled by the Labour Relations Board.

In my opinion the board surely is the vehicle and the tool to use at the initial, and, hopefully, the final stages of arbitrating any dispute. But there has been in the past — and there will probably be in the future — a dispute or a number of disputes which reach an impasse, at which the sole arbiter at the present time will be the board set up under this Act. It's my opinion, when we get to that type of impasse where we seem to be at a point where no reconciliation is

[ Page 495 ]

possible, that there should be, for the protection of everybody, an appeal to the judicial system of British Columbia which, after all, should be the highest court of appeal, not only in British Columbia but in Canada.

The Hon. Provincial Secretary, in referring to Bill 33, said that it "proved that money in the wrong place, is not enough." I don't think that the Provincial Secretary or anyone else in this House can guarantee that money spent by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), or allocated towards a certain direction, will produce any greater results or better benefits for everyone in the province than we had with Bill 33.

In looking the bill over, it becomes apparent that in certain circumstances a decision can be made by one man appointed by the board. It's a one-man rule at that point and it presumes, in my opinion, the wisdom of Solomon. I have to ask the government: Who is such a person? Where do you find him? Is there anyone with that type of insight available, in the Province of British Columbia or anywhere else, to fulfill that role?

The Act as it is written may well interfere with human rights to the extent that it could be judged ultra vires and beyond the legislative competence of the province. That's a comment, not a firm fact on my part, because I am no lawyer and I do not pretend to be one. But I do know, Mr. Speaker, that another Act is before the courts which, from what I have read, raises some very interesting points in law. While I don't intend to reflect on that court action, I would say that if this Act is found to offend the rights of individuals, then for the benefit of the Minister and everyone concerned in the labour-management relations field, it should be tested in court at the first opportunity. Because that is the only way we will be able to judge whether in fact we have the type of labour legislation that people can live with.

I would like to conclude my brief remarks by saying that everyone in British Columbia is looking forward to a less explosive atmosphere and a more harmonious situation in the labour-management field in the future. They have a right to expect it. For too long in British Columbia we have had a situation which seemed to prosper by promoting dissension and discord. I would hope that this Act, and the goodwill of the people in both management and labour, will bring about a better day in British Columbia.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 11 on second reading, but in doing so I would like to outline some of my feelings on the bill, some of the good points, and some of my disappointments.

In the first place, I am a bit disappointed that, under the exemptions for employees, a lot of the people in my riding will not come under the general umbrella of this bill. I am specifically referring to agricultural workers. We have a lot of berry pickers, farm workers, horticultural and greenhouse workers and so on, in my riding, and also the fishermen, who make up a very large portion of my riding.

I am concerned about the fishermen in particular, because they have a long history of trade unionism and collective bargaining going back I think about 75, 85 years. At present they are in a position where the federal government labour Act is being challenged by the companies to see whether they really come under the umbrella of the federal Act or not. If they're not included in this Act, then there could be some difficulties if the companies' legal fight against the federal Act proves that the fishermen are not covered.

It may be that the fishermen will be considered as dependent contractors under the Act. I'm hoping that the Minister, in winding up this debate, might be able to give some assurances that this would be so under section 48. But if they are not included in that section, I really would like to see them included in this Act as employees.

I'm also concerned, Mr. Speaker, that people in my own profession such as teachers and professional people, are not regarded as employees under this Act as well as government workers, farmers and so on, and of course, domestic workers. I'm concerned that, by not including professional people and teachers in particular into the Act, we are in effect setting some groups of people aside as being different from others, and that in effect, by omitting professional people and teachers, we're differentiating people by class. We're saying that one group is different from another group.

And I would like to ask if I'm any different, as a teacher or as a farmer or as a fisherman, than if I were a fireman or a worker in a hospital or a plumber? I think that people in all of these jobs are employees and they should all come under the general umbrella of a labour Act such as this.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, about the expanded sections on unfair labour practices. I think this is good stuff. I was once fired from a janitorial job for trying to organize a union where there were about six or seven employees doing similar work. I got notice that I was being fired on Christmas Day, and my job was terminated on New Year's Day. It was quite a Christmas present.

I am pleased to see that employers would have to justify such actions in the future and would have to provide the burden of proof that indeed a person was being fired other than for labour activities. Myself and one other person were fired at that time. We had got most people to agree that we would form a union. We were fired and it never came about.

I'm a bit concerned about the religious conscience clause. I think that the individual has the right to

[ Page 496 ]

determine whether he wants to be a member of a union or not, whether he wants to take part in collective bargaining procedures and so on. It is actually a basic democratic principle, in my opinion, that when a group as decided to form a union, the same as when we make other democratic decisions, people are generally and I think, democratically bound by the decisions of the majority. I do not see this clause as one which is outlining a specific civil liberty. In fact, I think it could be construed as taking away a civil liberty which is the right of the majority.

I'm not too concerned with the powers of the board. I've heard some criticism that the board is a super-board, but we should give the board a try. I think it can work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STEVES: The board does have very large powers but I think the type of board that we're envisioning is one that will bring a great deal of labour peace in this province.

I've had some misgivings about the board appointments, but again, I would like to see this board given a real chance to try to solve some of the very grave problems in labour we have in this province.

We've also been criticized on the first collective agreement section. I think it's basically a good idea but, when we come up to discuss that section, I have a suggestion or two as to how it may be amended to make it a little more palatable.

I do not like the compulsory aspect of that particular clause myself. I do not think that compulsion should be considered; it's too easily embodied elsewhere. It's contrary to my own philosophy and also to the policy of the NDP.

I am pleased to see the sections dealing with essential services — firemen, policemen, hospital unions and so on. I think that this will be very beneficial to those employees and to the public at large.

I'm somewhat concerned about the technical change aspects of the bill. Again there's some degree of compulsion and I'm concerned that, with that type of compulsion, they may not be effective.

I've been involved in past years in negotiating committees for the teachers in my riding where we've tried to negotiate technological change into our procedures — trying to create technological change, and not particularly, as this Act is talking about, trying to adapt to technological change. We have tried to negotiate teaching and learning conditions to improve the school system.

We do not use strike activities in the teaching system too much; we've had the odd one-day strike. But by not being able to wield some powers, such as the withdrawal of services, it is very difficult to make changes. I think that it will be difficult to deal with the technological change aspect if free collective bargaining is not permitted in some way.

Contrary to the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith), who is concerned that we've taken too much away from the courts, I'm a little bit concerned that we have left too much reference to the courts in the Act. So maybe I can balance out his argument a little bit.

In particular reference to the general arbitration procedure, I think that this may be a little bit cumbersome but I'm willing to give it a try. The court is still sort of the last resort in there and I'm concerned we've left a little too much emphasis on that.

I very much like the idea, Mr. Speaker, of having a special officer, a person who "walks on water," the one who "cools off wildcat strikes and leaps tall buildings at a single bound." I think that this will be beneficial to labour and management and I hope that both labour and management will keep the faith. I think it will work. If it does, it will save us a lot of grief and labour strife in this province in cooling off both the causes for wildcat strikes and the wildcat strikes themselves.

I also like the sections dealing with the labour ombudsman. We have been criticized on this particular aspect of the Act, but I think that this is the first step towards having a provincial ombudsman. We'll probably have them not just for labour but for other areas as well. I think that this will have a good effect on labour as well as everything else.

My one disappointment, however, is that the labour ombudsman does not apply to the unorganized as well as the organized. I would like to see that included in there some time in the future. Because there are a lot of people who do not have trade unions to defend them, They are left all by themselves and have nobody to stand up for their rights.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think the best part of this Act is that we get rid of 20 years of reactionary Social Credit labour legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STEVES: I think the legislation we've put up with over the years is some of the most reactionary legislation on this continent. I am really pleased to see that it is finally going down the tube.

This may not be the best labour legislation, Mr. Speaker, but I think I can justifiably admit that you can't get rid of 20 years of bad legislation overnight. We have seen a lot of misuse of the courts and the entire judicial system and I think that the labour unrest in this province has largely been caused by the previous government.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see that the previous

[ Page 497 ]

government Members who are left in this House recognize the evil of their ways and are supporting this bill, It is certainly an improvement over what we have heard from them in the past.

In conclusion, I think we should give the bill a chance. There are some things I'd like to see tidied up, perhaps in amendments, perhaps in amendments in the spring. But if, we give the bill a chance, we'll probably see the most progressive legislation on the continent evolving in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I wish to make a few very brief remarks and to make my position clear in regard to this bill which is, of course, that I support the principle of this bill.

I intended originally, Mr. Speaker, to speak on Friday, but the opportunity did not arise. Consequently, I've had three days back in my constituency to speak with members of rank and file unions in Mackenzie.

I would like to point out to the House at this time that all my activities in the labour movement have been as a member of the rank and file. I served as a president and secretary of my local, as a mediation officer; I served on bargaining and grievance committees, and as a mutually-agreed-upon mediation officer in disputes in my constituency. And as a result of these talks, these conversations I had with rank and file members of my constituency, in the main I found a great deal of support for Bill 11.

All of us who have worked in union matters, labour matters, over the years found that under the previous legislation we were restricted; the legislation was punitive. The legislation we had in the past contributed to labour-management unrest in this province. I feel that this Bill 11, Mr. Speaker, will go a long way to settling labour-management disputes in this province.

The Hon. Minister said the other day in this House when he presented the bill that if either labour or management find fault with this bill after it has been tried for a reasonable length of time, and we as a government agree with their point of view, the bill can be amended. All new and refreshing legislation is usually criticized during the initial introduction. I am not unaware of the comments that are being made by people in my constituency. I know there is a genuine concern in some quarters as to what this bill is all about.

However, I feel that the rank and file will support the government on this bill, and I believe that the thoughtful and concerned people in labour and management will support the principle of this bill as well. Thank you.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I must find myself, for the first time in my life, I think, in agreement with the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). The calibre of the opposition has certainly improved considerably since 1971; and certainly we have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of taking the kind of approach that the NDP opposition would have taken in attempting to inspire disruption among the labour force of this province because of this bill.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, everybody in British Columbia wants to see labour peace in this province. Everybody would like to see this bill work, and we hope that the bill will work.

There isn't any strike, I don't think, in British Columbia any more that doesn't affect the public interest, regardless of whether it's a so-called "essential" service that is on strike or not. Everybody is affected by strikes and labour unrest and it is usually the person with the lowest income or fixed income who gets it in the neck. The consumer is the person who pays in the end.

There are many questions raised in this bill and we hope that they will be answered by the Minister when he closes this debate. We are happy, for instance, to see the position of ombudsman in the bill, and we also hope that you will give the ombudsman something to do. There is certainly no indication in the bill that he will have any duties.

We are also happy that, to a small degree, the government has attempted to deal with the problem of wildcat strikes and, to an even smaller degree, jurisdictional disputes. We would hope that we will be able to submit some amendments that will perhaps help out in that area.

I'm a little worried about the so-called "special officer" provision in the bill. This person will have unbelievable powers. He'll be a policeman, a judge and a jury all rolled into one.

There has been some concern expressed about the conscience clause. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there should be some amendments made there as well so that at least if we can't get any changes in the actual wording of that clause, perhaps we can suggest that if you are going to leave it the way it is, at least have the unions direct those funds which are supported by the conscientious objectors directed to some sort of a welfare fund within the union — a welfare or health fund that the union can set up.

I find it curious, Mr. Speaker, that fire-fighters and policemen and hospital workers have been given the right to opt for binding arbitration under this bill. I wonder why the employer doesn't get the same opportunity to opt for binding arbitration. Why is it one-sided in the bill? The employer should have the

[ Page 498 ]

same opportunity as the employee has in this case.

There are some frightening powers being given to the proposed new board, and I think the makeup of the board will establish some principles that will make it a little difficult to maintain labour-management peace in the province.

While I don't want to deal directly with sections of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a couple of portions of the bill. First of all, the bill says that it may dispense with certification vote "if it is unlikely to disclose the true wishes of the employer." Now who decides what the true wishes of the employer or the employee are? Who makes that decision? Is it one person or two people or a one-member panel; how is that decided?

It also says "although a strike may be technically illegal, the board would not have to order the strikers back to work if it felt they were morally right in striking because of improper conduct of the employer."

Once again, somebody is being asked to make that judgment and, this time, a judgment of the morality of the employer, before ordering — what appears to be an illegal strike — before ordering those people back to work. I think of the ferry strike, which was clearly an illegal strike; whether it was morally right or not, the way we settled it it sure didn't sit very well with the people of British Columbia.

I see us getting into that kind of a situation where people are on strike clearly illegally, and this board or this special officer decides that the employer hasn't acted in good faith or in good conscience, so he allows the strikers to continue even though they are in violation of their contract.

The board, in these instances, Mr. Speaker, is almost asked to play God; so where is the right of the employer to be protected? And where are the appeals? Many of the Members have talked about appeals — and there are none — to this kind of judgment. It's an arbitrary judgment that the board will have to make, so there should be some form of appeal for the person affected.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, makes a lot about the right of the employee but it seems, in many instances, to have forgotten about the rights of the employer.

I'm disturbed, Mr. Speaker, about the principle within the bill of picketing allies — a very disturbing principle because the definition of an ally is incredibly vague in the bill and will, I think, without a doubt be open to very wide abuses. It's one of the most blatant defects, I think, in the whole bill, and it will cause many problems and should, I think, be struck right out.

The term used in the bill, Mr. Speaker, "professional strike-breaker" is deliberately inflammatory. It has no place in this legislation either. I think this, too, will be open to many abuses as time goes by in the Province of British Columbia, and particularly in the case of supervisory personnel carrying on normal business during a dispute — as we have today in the telephone company, over which this government doesn't yet have jurisdiction.

One wonders, Mr. Speaker and I notice they were all around again today about the alligator tears which are being shed by the British Columbia Federation of Labour in this matter over this bill. Because there isn't a doubt in my mind that this is a heavily pro-labour bill. It's weighted heavily towards the labour movement. If big labour, as personified by the B.C. Federation of Labour, acts as irresponsibly as it has in the past in protesting labour legislation, then the approach to labour-management problems in this province is doomed to failure.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, I'd call on the British Columbia Federation of Labour to take a leaf out of the book of some of the other responsible labour unions in this province who have said that they will sit back and look at this bill and study it and work with it, if possible. I think that the B.C. Federation of Labour should look to its motives and decide whether it is a political gambit that they're playing or whether they are really seriously concerned about labour-management peace in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, even without any other problems the bill seems to be, according to some of the recent releases that have come from some of our learned legal friends, on pretty shaky legal grounds. In fact, somebody commented the other day in the corridors here that the bill should be renamed the "Full Employment Act for Lawyers." Not only are there constitutional questions with regard to this bill — that will make lawyers happy, I'm sure — there are a lot of constitutional….

AN HON. MEMBER: It takes a lot to make a lawyer happy.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I'm sure it does. There are a lot of constitutional problems in connection with the bill, and there are other legal questions that would seem to need some answers. Hopefully, since the debate on this bill started, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has had a chance to talk some more with his legal advisers and perhaps he can clear up some of those questions.

One of Mr. — is it Wheeler or Weiler? Mr. Weiler, one of his colleagues at Osgoode Hall, in fact raised some serious doubts about the legality of some of the sections of the bill. He suggested that the Supreme Court of Canada will be asked to rule; so perhaps the Minister, Mr. Speaker, could head that off before it happens.

It seems, you know, as if every time a major piece of legislation comes before this House, it has been conceived in extreme haste for some reason or another, and this bill is no different. It was drawn up

[ Page 499 ]

hastily. It obviously had a little rough water getting through the caucus and the cabinet. Because of that I'm sure that the Labour Minister isn't quite happy with the bill. It would have been probably a better idea if he had firmed it up and evened out the edges before it came to this House.

I would have liked to have seen some of the motions calling for an adjournment, which were put forward in this House before, get some recognition, because that's really what should have happened to the bill. It should have been put aside for a while so that the Minister of Labour could have had another look at it with his legal people. We could have had it back to the House then in much better shape, and it would have been easier then to debate it.

In view of those legal questions, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask — and I certainly won't move any adjournment — but I would like to ask that the Minister of Labour do meet with his advisers again and study those constitutional questions which have been raised all over Canada, and see perhaps if he can have answers to those questions before the bill comes up for committee stage. We will have, Mr. Speaker, some amendments for third reading committee stage, and we hope that they'll be received favourably.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to rise and speak on this bill, an attempt by this government to take an entirely new direction in labour-management matters. I'm quite sure that it's going to receive a tremendous amount of support in the future when people see how it works, because it's very certain that other pieces of legislation that have come down from this House have not worked. Or if they have worked at all, they've only worked partially.

I think in a year or two's time there is going to be a lot of enthusiasm for this bill. I'd like to see the supporters of it, when they see how it works, recognizing this perhaps by coming out wearing these large buttons that people seem to wear nowadays on almost every cause. It would say something like "I like Bill's bill" or something along that line, because I think it's a good bill and I think it's badly needed.

Many governments all over Canada, provincial governments and federal government included, have grappled with this labour-management situation and all with varying degrees of success, most of it bad. It seems that there is an attempt here at pioneer legislation, at new directions in this field; and there is no field where a new effort is more needed than this one of labour-management legislation.

The previous government tried in their way to bring in legislation that would bring some kind of peace brought in under their philosophies. The failure of this legislation, of course, we have all observed over the last 15 years in this province. And I think one of the most important reasons for this is that these bills were imposed from above. There was no consultation with the people involved, with labour and management and the public, such as there has been on this bill.

I think the swiftness of the debate-in-principle on this bill would certainly point out something to the public in this province. A bill with 153 sections that enters what has been so far an extremely controversial section of our society — and the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot), the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), and the Hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) took very, very few minutes over one hour in speaking in principle on this bill. I was most impressed by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) who had so little to say on labour legislation, when he had so much to say last spring on Bill 42. The hours and hours of debate on that bill to preserve our farmland apparently was much more important than the labour-management relations in this province.

The Hon. Liberal leader spoke about the Premier's problem with the B.C. Federation of Labour — his personal problem with the B.C. Federation of Labour. This, to me, is a complete departure from what we have been hearing in the past of the Hon. Premier's relations with labour and the rest of the party's relation with labour.

Up until now we have been accused of being the mouthpiece for big labour — "big cigar-smoking labour bosses" was one of the terms used, I think. It's also been said that the New Democratic Party has the B.C. Federation of Labour in its pocket, which are two opposing views. But if we have them in Our pocket, and there are quite a few of them, we have also been accused in this House — in the spring I believe it was — of having the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province and other members of the press corps in our pockets, so they are getting to be pretty bulgy pockets if all of these statements were true.

Now apparently, we are asked to withdraw the bill. We have been asked several times in this debate to have consultation with the B.C. Federation of Labour and others before we bring it into the House again. For over a year now we have been pressed on one of our campaign promises to introduce labour legislation that would attempt to change the labour and management climate in this province. Everyone was in a hurry. Now that it's been introduced, we are asked to withdraw it and have consultations. After more than a year of consultation with labour and management and the public, from what I have found out there's been plenty of input from all segments of society. Representations were asked for and were enthusiastically responded to for the past year. And this is the first time in B.C. there has ever been consultation by a labour Minister to receive input from all segments of society.

There has been concern voiced about the farm

[ Page 500 ]

labour being left out of the Act. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say in travelling around the province with the agriculture committee this summer, that if we were to impose on the farmers of this province the Minimum Wage Act to pay their employees, half of the remaining farms we have in operation would have to go out of operation. We said when we brought in Bill 42 that this would preserve the land and the legislation introduced later would be to preserve the farmer. When this legislation, and some of it has been introduced now, has been debated and passed by this House, and the farmer is in a position to pay decent wages — and I'm sure he will — at that time perhaps the farm workers can be covered under the Act.

But we saw a very good example of labour-management cooperation in the packing house workers' union in the Okanagan. For years and years they have been going along with the growers who have practically a whole cooperative set-up from grower to market. These workers have gone along year after year with poor contracts and substandard wages to assist the farmer to survive, hoping, like the farmer, that in the future something would happen to improve their lot. And they served notice this year that they can no longer afford to subsidize the fruit growing industry and the vegetable industry in this province. I certainly agree with them, and any Member who feels that these workers are getting a good deal should just look over the packing house workers' contract with the packing houses in this province. They have reached a point where they can no longer subsidize the farmer, and the farmer has reached the point where he can no longer subsidize the public.

There has been a lot of talk about the conscience clause, and I have to relate to the House, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think it's going to be a serious problem; it hasn't been in the past in other places. But it was put to me by some representatives of labour that if there was a conscience clause in regard to the Bar Association and the [B.C.] Medical Association, then perhaps they'd be able to accept it. So I asked a lawyer friend of mine how he thought this would apply and he said, "Well first" — and these aren't my words — "you'd have to find a lawyer with a conscience."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: One of the biggest complaints we have had for years and years, untold years, is that labour matters are protracted and drawn out in the courts. It was always my feeling, as a part of the labour movement, that these were very human problems between employer and employee, and had no business in the legalistic jargon of the courts. I think the courts should be there for a final decision, a final settlement, but in over 90 per cent of the cases they can be settled by people of goodwill stepping in to intervene in a problem between the two parties.

The full-time labour board: We have certainly heard enough in the past that a part-time labour board was not enough in this province to settle the problem, so now we have a full-time board. Added to the full-time board comes the criticism — and it was to be expected — of the broad, sweeping powers of this board. Well, someone has to have the authority to settle these problems, and this is a case where we can just wait and see how well the board operates. We must be patient, and not be critical on every little thing that occurs, but wait for the general pattern to emerge.

We have heard criticism, and I have heard criticism myself from some of my friends in the labour movement, on the first contract settlement section. Speaking on the principle of this, Mr. Speaker, and not going into the details — for the board to be able to impose a first contract on the two parties who cannot come to agreement after the union has been certified, if they are unhappy with this imposition to this contract, I would say to them, "Talk to the people at Tilden, or Sandringham, or Shoppers Drug Mart and find out what they think of it." Totally unnecessary strikes. There was no need for them to occur at all, and they could have been solved in this manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: After a year of living with each other and the contract, I am quite sure the situation would have been different when the contract was up for renegotiation.

One of the things I like best is the reference to a special officer. This province has been plagued for years with the wildcat strikes, with the problems that take place during the life of an agreement, simply because, in many cases, of a different interpretation by management or labour on a section of a contract or because of an act — usually in the case of a wildcat strike — an act taken by management, real or imagined, which resulted in a walk-out of the employees of the plant.

The way I see this operating, a special officer will go in quickly; he will have the power to bring about a settlement. When the settlement is being brought about, there will not be thousands of man-hours lost; there will not be pay cheques lost; there will not be the case of getting behind in mortgage payments. The grievance can be settled in a manner that still leaves the wheels to turn and the pay cheques to be earned by the employees.

There have been many references made, of course, to the B.C. Federation of Labour. Without being critical whatsoever, I think the officers of the B.C. Federation of Labour have a special problem. I think

[ Page 501 ]

anyone who has read some of the Pavlov theories would recognize that when you subject a certain amount of people to a certain situation over a period of years, such as the federation has been subjected to, you develop reactions.

To the federation, this was a labour code that came out of Victoria and the first reaction had to be: it can't be any good. I think they forget that there has been a change in government when they took that reaction. I am looking forward to their cooperation in helping to make it work; I am looking forward to good suggestions being made from them for amendments if they think it should be amended. I don't think there should be one section taken out of this code simply because someone doesn't like it. I think the case should be well-documented, it should be proven, and an alternative has to be suggested.

I have talked to quite a few union officers about this bill. There are some sections they like; there are some sections they don't like; there are some they like a little and there are some they don't like a little and there are some they don't like a lot.

On Saturday in Kamloops, I attended a meeting of the Kamloops labour council, I wouldn't want to report to this Legislature that it was a love feast because it certainly wasn't. But we had a very good discussion for two and one-half hours — in many ways it was a political discussion and in many ways it was right down to earth. The thing that impressed me was that of approximately 38 delegates at that meeting, there were only about two who said the Act was no good. The rest of the delegates to that conference wanted to pick out a section of the Act that they either didn't understand or that they didn't agree with and say, "we don't like this because this is what is going to happen under this." In this way you could have a dialogue. But there were very few who simply talked about it and said they didn't like it.

I think labour is ready to try something new and I think management is eager to try something new. When they see legislation such as this, Mr. Speaker, to use an agricultural term, it is new ground being broken.

I wouldn't say to any of my friends in the trade-union movement — as has often been said in debate in this House by all parties of the opposition when they call across the floor — "trust us." I'm not even asking the labour movement to trust us in this legislation. All I'm saying is, read it, study it, understand it, propose amendments and, above all, use patience.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Taking place in debate on this labour bill, I recognize that I serve here in two capacities. In one, as Minister of Agriculture, my constituency could be considered to be the farmers in the province. In this session I have been particularly busy serving the needs of the farmers throughout the province, a load of legislation that has demanded almost all of my attention and has made me give very little attention to other legislation, some of it very important.

If I were to consider my other constituency, that is the one I represent as the MLA for Nanaimo, at least as far as the short-term needs of my constituents are concerned, I would have been much more attentive to the bill under discussion right now and much less attentive to the needs of farmers all over the province. Certainly in Nanaimo, essentially a labour constituency, more attention.

There are people here today from Nanaimo concerned about the wording of it, and very little representation — I think not even a letter so far — from farmers in the riding about the effects of all of the legislation that I have introduced.

So, from purely the point of view of representing the constituents of Nanaimo, I should perhaps have been paying a good deal more attention to the labour bill before us now.

I can recall in previous sessions, when I did give a lot of attention to labour matters, the historic debate, if you like, of 1968 when the infamous Bill 33 was before us. I can recall at that time being one of a group of 16 Members, all of whom took part in the bill. Every one of the 16 Members of the NDP in the House at that time took part in that discussion, an entirely different sort of debate from the debate we are having today.

I think the Premier perhaps described it best when he spoke in the House last Friday and said that this was the first non-hysterical labour debate in memory of the House. Quite a different debate, I suppose, in other ways as well.

It is the first time, I would submit, that the legislation was not prepared with the interests of the one particular group in the community in mind as opposed to the interests of the whole community. I can recall on that particular Bill 33 debate in 1968 when the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) at the time and then the Leader of the Opposition quoted from a speech delivered by a captain of industry, the chairman of MacMillan Bloedel at the time, speaking in Winnipeg some two weeks prior to the day the bill was introduced in this House. He used almost the same words, paragraph after paragraph, in that speech as the Minister of Labour used in discussing the labour bill some two weeks later in second reading. Word by word and phrase by phrase. There was certainly a suspicion in the minds of many people, certainly in the minds of people in the House, certainly in the minds of people in the community, that the bill, while it might not have been completely drafted by captains of industry, certainly was very much under the influence of those

[ Page 502 ]

people in the community.

Not only under their influence, Mr. Speaker, but when the bill was introduced and when it was being discussed thoroughly by all of the Members on the opposite side, as far as the media were concerned, as far as the reaction from the community was concerned, there was a very violent reaction from labour. But as far as management was concerned, there was a unanimous endorsation of the legislation that was before the House. It suited completely the needs and wishes of one section in the community.

If anything else would have guaranteed that the bill would not achieve peace between labour and management, the fact that it was supported by one group and one group only, and violently condemned by the other group, should have convinced everyone that it had no hope of success.

The suspicion from the beginning that it was drafted by one group would have guaranteed that it could achieve nothing short of failure. And yes, they proved that it did fail. Predictions were made by the 16 Members of the NDP in the House, giving the reasons. They didn't repeat each other; they worked very hard to give 16 different speeches, giving the reasons to show why that legislation just couldn't possibly succeed at that time.

Unfortunately, they proved to be only too prophetic because certainly peace between labour and management in the province looked far more distant in the years after 1968 since the introduction and passing of Bill 33 than it did prior to that.

The first non-hysterical debate in the House: Concern expressed not only from the opposition but from some Members on the government side; concern that maybe there should be some amendments; a willingness from the beginning on the part of the Minister of Labour to listen to the discussion, to consider whether there should be specific amendments to the legislation. I think this is not out of tune with this government's action since it has taken office.

From the beginning we have said that we are willing to listen, we are willing to discuss. We discuss legislation in second reading and, if the need is shown for amendments in committee stage, then the government is prepared to listen and to consider constructive, reasonable amendments. We have shown time after time that we will do that. There was the same willingness expressed by the Minister of Labour with respect to this legislation.

Most of the constructive suggestions, of course, so far have come from the government side of the House. This is not to be unexpected. On the other side, they are looking for some grounds to attack us, and are finding it very difficult. The basis of their attack seems to be: Why don't you wait longer? Prior to that it was: You've been in office for a year; why haven't you done something? Now that the legislation is in: Why don't you wait longer? And really, that is the basis of their attack so far, particularly the official opposition.

From the government's side of the House: suggestions as to what specific amendments and what areas require attention. Promises from the opposition side that they will bring in some amendments later on, but careful to hold those ideas close to their chest lest someone become aware of the excellent ideas they are nursing close to their breasts with a view to dumping them in a surprised Legislature sometime at a later date.

The first non-hysterical labour debate; an historic debate because it is the first non-hysterical labour debate. It is legislation that is being questioned very seriously by the labour movement, some aspects of it more than others. It is legislation that is being attacked by some employer groups. But it is legislation, I think, that everyone recognizes is extremely important at this particular point in time.

I can't do any better at this point, Mr. Speaker, other than to recall the words of the Minister of Labour when he called on labour and management to make a sincere effort to ensure success for the new legislation: "These problems are so sensitive and have been so profound over the last several years that it is incumbent on all parties to take a temperate, rational, constructive approach."

Mr. Speaker, someone has said it may not be the best legislation in the world. Only time will tell that. Only time will tell how good it is and only a government willing to consider amendments, either now or in the future, can make it the best legislation. These are the things that we have to look forward to.

It is legislation that, as I say, is much more important in my own constituency than all the legislation that I have had to introduce since I've been here, and yet legislation that I've not given any great personal attention to because I have faith that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), in bringing in this legislation, has had a lot of discussions with all of the people who have wanted to offer advice in the formative period for this legislation and that in taking that advice and in presenting the legislation before us now, he is doing the best that is humanly possible to come up with the kind of legislation that will do something to achieve labour-management peace in this province, something that we all dearly and desperately need in this province. I for one am going to support him in presenting this legislation in this House and in voting for it when the opportunity arises.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we were in danger of getting through this debate without there being hysteria, and the Minister of Agriculture got himself pretty well worked up

[ Page 503 ]

there before he sat down. Despite the speeches of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) before that, we're going to support the legislation in the Liberal Party and I suspect the other opposition parties will as well.

Mr. Speaker, we were pleasantly surprised by the legislation. We're frequently surprised by legislation in your party but seldom pleasantly. (Laughter.) On this particular occasion we thought the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) did very well. He took as the main basis of his new Act the Ontario legislation, which presumably has worked reasonably well in that province, and therefore we have hopes that things will get better here in British Columbia. Because it's an advance — almost anything would be an advance — the legislation is certainly supportable.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker….

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): "However…."

MR. McGEER: However, I want to focus in on some of the shortcomings of the legislation and say a few words about what I believe should be the future direction of our labour-management policies in the Province of British Columbia.

Just this past fall we had a strike with the ferries which was settled by the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who said a gun had been held at his head and that there was nothing he could do. The general public expressed disgust, first of all at the strike and secondly at the jellyfish attitude of the Minister. Now, it may be that he did have a gun at his head, but had the trigger been pulled the Minister would have survived. The bullet would have passed straight through, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

He'd have still got his salary and wouldn't have lost a day's pay, but other people were damaged and would have been damaged more for every day that strike continued. These were the parties that were injured — not the Minister, not the government, not any of us, certainly not the people who went on strike, because there are adequate reserves, even though the ferries are losing money, to pay the people their demands. No matter how exorbitant these demands might be, the government can stand it. I suppose the ferry workers can stand a reasonable strike; they might lose a week's, two week's or a month's pay, and if they were successful with the strike, as they were, they'd soon make that up with the additional salaries that they get.

But, Mr. Speaker, there were blameless people on Vancouver Island who lost a fair proportion of their yearly earnings as a result of that strike, who depend on the tourist trade, who depend on the goodwill that is created for visitors and tourists in British Columbia. They weren't at fault. It wasn't their job to see that the ferries were run properly, It's not their job to pass the laws. Yet these innocent people were damaged very, very severely by that strike.

It doesn't happen just here in British Columbia, because there was a comparable situation going on in the Province of Newfoundland where tourists had become stranded in the middle of their high season and where it was necessary to airlift in food supplies and other essential goods. But again, Mr. Speaker, the people who were most deeply injured were not those who had anything to do with that strike, who represented a minority who were deeply vulnerable to an action taken by a group of workers and perhaps in other circumstances by management.

We have in this particular Act a section referring to police and to hospital workers. Not too long ago there was a strike in the City of Montreal of policemen. This was followed by riots in that city where there was personal injury of a physical nature done to individuals and where property was destroyed by looters. Mr. Speaker, again perfectly innocent individuals relying on the protection of society and the effectiveness of laws were grievously injured by a process that we sanctify here in this legislature.

We've had doctor's strikes; we've had hospital strikes. Again, it doesn't hurt the general public all that much, but it may grievously damage, to the extent of life itself, people who are completely innocent and blameless for those group activities.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about the public interest and the need for the public interest to be protected, I'm not thinking of the general public who may be harmed in a minor economic way by the general loss of production, a small increase in prices or a temporary inconvenience in any of the services that they've become accustomed to expect. I'm thinking, as was the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) when he first raised this subject in debate, about those blameless individuals who may lose their lives or all their property, or a significant part of their income.

What are we doing as legislators to protect the interests of those individuals? After all, this is what governments are supposed to do. They're supposed to respect the individual and his rights — every single individual! If those acts are undertaken by which an individual who is blameless is harmed by someone else, then we move to give that man protection.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): If a big business shut down a mill, would you expect everybody in that town…

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're hurt.

MR. McGEER: …the Attorney General can

[ Page 504 ]

think of all kinds of hypothetical cases. We all can. I've mentioned a number of very serious ones. When you start talking about police opting either for binding arbitration or to go on strike, you make individuals in society vulnerable to lawlessness, as happened in Montreal. Or when you say hospital workers, or doctors for that matter, may be free to chose binding arbitration or go on strike and yet leave some poor individual who happens to be desperately ill that day unattended, perhaps to die, then you've sanctified the wrong things in law.

However we may honour this process of free collective bargaining and stand up and say, "You cannot force people to work," at the same time we have to remember the other side of our responsibilities, which is to see that every individual is protected by the laws of the land insofar as it's humanly possible to protect him. And this is the part that is totally ignored, as my hon. colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has pointed out, in this particular legislation.

I for one won't rest with the legislation regarding labour-management which we have in this province, so long as people are put in jeopardy by the group actions that may be taken by labour and management — one thinks particularly of police and fire and hospitals.

I think it very fair that a person who's been done grievous economic harm because of a strike for which he's totally blameless and in which he has no part, one way or another, should be able to receive compensation for that harm.

I'm not sure to whom he should apply. We have a case going to court here in British Columbia where people who are injured as a result of the ferry strike are taking to the courts their case against the union for financial injury. What must be settled in that lawsuit, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, I would caution the Hon. Member not to discuss the case….

MR. McGEER: I'm not talking about whether or not there are financial damages to these people. There's no question about that. What has to be decided by the courts is whether or not the strike is legal, Mr. Speaker. If the strike is an illegal one, then these people have redress. But the point is….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is that this matter is now before the courts and I would caution the Member not to comment on it.

MR. McGEER: No, no, Mr. Speaker, just a moment. Not the aspect I'm discussing which is if this strike had been a legal one for certain, there'd be no case at all by which these people who are financially injured could apply for compensation. Do you see the fault, Mr. Speaker? There is a case now. Possibly these people will achieve compensation, but only if they can prove that strike was illegal.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let the judge decide the case. He doesn't need your help.

MR. McGEER: I'm not trying to assist the judge, Mr. Speaker. I'm trying to assist this thick-headed Attorney General. And I say that with the greatest of respect. (Laughter.) I can't always think of flattering phrases in a hurry, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.) But I hope the Attorney General will take the suggestions that I'm making in the generous spirit in which I offer them.

But I think you grasp the point, that a person who is injured — his health, his financial status — if that man is innocent, he's entitled to his compensation. If we can't protect him in law, we should at least establish a fund. Maybe it should be a government fund. And perhaps individuals can apply for insurance under the Minister. But I can tell you this: if he goes about settling strikes in the future as he did in the past, those premiums are going to be high.

But still, there ought to be a mechanism. We haven't served the public interest in this legislation if we pass laws that leave any citizens in this province, innocent though they may be, in serious financial or physical jeopardy as a result of an arbitrary work stoppage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with another aspect of this legislation, which follows up on the arguments placed by my hon. colleague, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), and this is the protection that each individual union man has under this legislation.

We give union leaders tremendous power in this province. It's not a right; it's a privilege granted in law. The hiring hall, the closed shop, the union check-off are all things that give union leaders tremendous power over individual union men. So when my hon. colleague, the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound, talks about the rights of the union man, it's with the thought in mind that this individual will not suffer because of the tremendous powers that we've given his union leaders.

If there's to be a closed shop, and I don't disagree with that for one minute, Mr. Speaker, then every man who's qualified should have a right to join the union that he must join in order to work in that closed shop.

We've had cases brought before us in this House. The former Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) told about a union man who was denied the right to join a union when the union represented the shop where he was a foreman. He'd been a former member of this particular union and, because he thought it would be better to have a Canadian union

[ Page 505 ]

rather than an American-dominated union, he began to work on behalf of the Canadian union and got thrown out. He couldn't join the union that was represented by that company. That's taking away a man's right to work by denying him the right to join a union.

By a similar token, a man who is in a union and is satisfied with that union should have a right to have it protected too.

The Hon. Members will recall when I brought the Victoria Paving case before the House. This particular company was well served by a Canadian union and the Teamsters' strongmen came along. They had the sweetheart contract.

They went up to the owner of the Victoria Paving Company — we read the testimony in this Legislature — and said, "You better tell your guys to join this union, our union, or you're never going to get a job and they're never going to get a job again." It was straight strong-arm tactics.

But the point was that these people were in a properly certified union under the Labour Relations Board. That union was not protected. The union man should have the right to have the funds he contributes properly supervised and watched. We had a circumstance — and this was raised in the House as well — where the members of the barbers' union sent all their pension deductions across the line and then they found out that the American union boss had run off with the money. They lost it. Well, that's not quite true because through lengthy court action and a considerable influence brought about by the Canadian government, they finally did get their money back, but devalued and without interest.

But there are other ones that have not been adequately taken care of, such as the contributions made by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, where their pension funds were taken across the line and never a proper accounting or proper protection for those contributions afforded to the individual union man. Even though the union should be protected, still and all, if the union man decides that he could be represented better by a different union, he should be free to undertake that change without fear of harassment and reprisal.

Again, Mr. Speaker — this is the riding that you represent, Sir — two union men were taken down to Washington, D.C., and tried before the Federation of Labour in the United States. Do you know what their crime was, Mr. Speaker? It was advocating that the people in Kitimat belong to a Canadian union. They were taken down to Washington, D.C., and found guilty.

Can you imagine anything as disgraceful as that: two union men guilty of this heinous crime of advocating that their fellow workers belong to a Canadian union? They were tried and they were guilty; there was no question about it, because it said right in the constitution, filed with the Labour Relations Board and accepted by the Department of Labour in this province that that constitution was valid. They were certified. But it said that anybody who advocated changing from the union was to be dismissed. Now isn't that shocking?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Get the facts.

MR. McGEER: The Members nod — but it was their government that tolerated it, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get your facts straight.

MR. McGEER: Oh, but I have the facts straight. I have a long thick file. I've spent hours talking to the people who were tried — longer than you did, Mr. Minister, if you talked to them at all.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: But look, Mr. Speaker, there's a point and that point is that if a man or if a group of people decide that they want to change their union, they should be free to make that change. We should tolerate no union constitutions before the Labour Relations Board that make this grounds for dismissal, particularly when we permit the closed shop to exist. I'm not disagreeing with the closed shop; I'm merely disagreeing with those articles in the constitution which I feel don't afford the working man the kind of protection that he should have.

Of course, we do come to this question — and I see the representatives of the American unions over there smiling because they know that this has got to be part of my speech….

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Your orders from Munro.

MR. McGEER: It is that I see nothing wrong with Canadian workers belonging to a Canadian union, I don't think that's wrong. I think that if a Canadian worker wants to belong to a Canadian union we should not only allow him to do so, but maybe we should encourage him.

MR. SMITH: Don't you agree with that, Jack?

MR. McGEER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that when we have agreements, as we had for so many years in this province, whereby a member of a Canadian union could not work on a heavy construction site in the Province of British Columbia at a time when we were building the Peace and the Columbia River and all these great construction projects…but you couldn't get on the site if you belonged to a Canadian union.

[ Page 506 ]

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is bored with all of this. I am sure that some of the other old union people here, of classical unions in British Columbia, find this very tiresome too; but I am going to continue to stand in this House and say that I think Canadian unions are right. I think there should be Canadian representation — that is, representation by members of Canadian unions on the Labour Relations Board, and that we should have enshrined in this labour legislation the kind of sections that will make it possible for a working man in British Columbia who wants to get from under an American union to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I am not dead certain, even if we were to do those things, that it would bring lasting labour peace or perhaps even a better climate than we have today in British Columbia. Perhaps something much more forward looking should be part of our industrial pattern in the future.

I told the Members of the House that I was privileged to have a visit in Japan this past month, and one of the members of the media asked me to bring….

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, you know, Mr. Speaker, I didn't go at public expense. I'm very proud of that because I know that the public has had to pay for a lot of trips abroad this year. Mine was one they didn't have to pay for.

Mr. Speaker, one of the members of the media asked if I would bring back a report on the labour problems in Japan. I studied the newspapers over there very hard — there are some English language newspapers — so that I would be well informed of the labour problems in Japan when I came back.

There were only three reports regarding labour that appeared in these newspapers. One concerned the problems that were taking place in Chile; there were two or three stories on that. The second was a report from Kyushu where several union leaders had been dismissed and every single union member reprimanded because when they'd had a general strike — these were members of the teachers' union — the teachers had joined it for several hours one day. They thought it was so disgraceful that people would walk off and ignore the children when they should be taught on that particular day that they dismissed some union officials, and every single member of the union was reprimanded for that.

The last thing that appeared was a report from Canada — dateline New Westminster — about how the Canadian workers had defied the federal government order to go back to work. So really I was reading about the labour problems in Canada when I was in Japan.

They are a very industrious and productive people. They do have unions. They don't have the kind of labour strike that is so characteristic of North America and certain parts of Europe. But what they do do, Mr. Speaker, is to have profit sharing with the employees to a very substantial degree. They also have an attitude on the part of management, regarding protection of the workers — in terms of housing and education and welfare programmes and so on — which is almost totally unknown on this side of the world.

What it does, this mutual respect, is to build a kind of loyalty that seems to give, for those people at least, a degree of satisfaction in their work that's hard to match in this country.

I personally believe that we should try and evolve our system so that the workers can share in the profits and possibly in good years make themselves several hundreds or even thousands of dollars more than they would under different circumstances, so that we begin to get full participation of all the workers in the province, and the benefits that come not just from our natural resources but from the effort that goes into their extraction and manufacture.

I believe in profit sharing, and I believe that a far-sighted government would begin to look at the kind of legislation that would encourage this development. I don't think we'll get real industrial peace in this province until the workers, like management, have a tremendous stake in the success of the operation every single day, so that when they go on strike they don't just lose the wages but the profits as well, so that they're facing the kind of injury facing some of the people whom I talked about in the beginning of my speech who are perfectly innocent but may have half their year's wages lost as a result of a shutdown that wasn't of their making at all. I see no thrust at all in this legislation towards what I believe will be the ultimate in bringing labour peace and labour satisfaction to British Columbia.

For the moment, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the government because I think the legislation is a substantial step forward. Perhaps under the circumstances it was everything that a Minister of Labour could have achieved. He certainly got very little thanks from the B.C. Federation of Labour for his efforts. I disagree with the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), who just went out, saying that people will come forward in a year or two and say how wonderful the legislation is. But that never happens. This is one area where no news is good news and where legislation is measured not in how good it is but in how bad it is. We're going to have precious little in the way of compliments tossed towards the government, towards the legislation or towards the members of the Labour Relations Board.

From here on in, they're going to have incessant criticism and this may be our last chance to say it was

[ Page 507 ]

really a step forward. But I sincerely believe that, Mr. Speaker. I only hope that it was one step and that in the future we're going to see some of these major changes which I talked about this afternoon incorporated into legislation.

Mr. Speaker, finally, if the government is struck by a blinding flash of light, they'll have the opportunity to make some of these changes this very session because we'll be bringing amendments forward and offering these ideas in written form to the government.

But let it not be said, as the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) indicated a while ago, that we aren't prepared to put our arguments down on paper or to state what they are in the House. I've said what I believe the shortcomings are and they'll be followed up with amendments as they will come from the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) and my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I recognize the Hon. Minister of Health, I would refer to the remark made by the Hon. Member in which he referred to the Attorney General as being thick-headed. I would draw attention to standing order 42: "No Member shall use offensive words against any Member of this House."

MR. McGEER: I withdraw it. He's thin-headed, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the Hon. Member meant it in the complimentary sense as being the opposite of narrow-minded.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this legislation. This legislation, Bill 11, has one thrust and one thrust only: to help the labour-management scene in the Province of B.C.

Thank heaven, Mr. Speaker, that the previous speaker's representations don't represent to a large extent the opinion of this side of the House. The major problem we see from this side of the House is that there is a tremendous lack of understanding by labour and management of each other's problems. We feel that it's imperative, absolutely imperative, that an opportunity to communicate and deal directly on labour-management problems is put forward. We feel that Bill 11 provides that opportunity.

The Minister of Labour has been criticized for a lack of input. We've had a committee moving around the province. The Minister has been in constant touch with any number of people who have as their motivation the solution to these problems. I think one of the most important things that has been said in this House is that Bill 11 is not etched in stone, that Bill 11 is a piece of legislation, a thoughtful piece of legislation, that has been brought forward to bring about industrial and labour-management peace if at all possible. But where there are weaknesses the Minister has indicated that he's certainly prepared to mend those weaknesses if, in fact, they exist.

Unfortunately, that Member has left the floor, but I'd like to deal with one or two of the things that he discussed in the process of his speech.

He talked about forcing people to work. One of the things we've been fighting for in this House for years and years as the NDP is the fact that one of the prices we pay for a free society is freedom to choose whether or not to work. We always raise the doctor situation, we raise other very critical situations, but, Mr. Speaker, that is a smokescreen because his remarks are directed at enforcing people to work against their will.

In our opinion, public interest can best be served by labour and management resolving their differences. If the public interest is better served by cutting down the number of disputes, that's the way we should be going. But given this free society, labour and management should be going about making their own decisions in direct communication.

I know it has been discussed before in this very House when we were on the other side of the House — this tremendous power that labour leaders have. Well, facts outweigh that kind of evidence. The only evidence that we've ever seen of this great power that labour union leaders have is the evidence that is given by those Members across the floor. Some, like our previous speaker, were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and really don't know what it's all about out there, Mr. Speaker. The democratic process is more closely related, in my view, in the trade union movement than it is elsewhere in society.

They talk about the strong-arm tactics of trade unions. They never talk about the strong-arm tactics of business. Business is a lot more subtle today, Mr. Speaker. Sure, there are lots and lots of responsible business people, but the trade union movement grew in this province through strife and real strife.

We very seldom talk about the Pinkerton's any more, but there are a lot of people around who still remember them. There are a lot of people around who remember deaths on the picket lines. A lot of people remember. That's one of the reasons that they are concerned about any real enforcement that's going to drive people back into those dark ages. Bill 11 is another step forward, in our view, for the trade union movement, for the people of the Province of British Columbia, and for labour harmony in the Province of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I won't deal too much with what that speaker said. He talked about pensions. "Funds across the line, " he said. These are decisions that are made by those members, whether or not

[ Page 508 ]

their funds should be across the line. I particularly don't like funds going across the line and this government is doing things right now in the area of keeping funds within this province for the benefit of everyone. The Insurance Corporation of B.C. Is a good example of keeping funds right here for investment in our own economy. Trade unions probably will follow along with that, but it's their decision, Mr. Speaker.

Did that Member suggest for one second in this House (certainly not to my memory) that there was something wrong with industrial pensions, funded pensions, insurance pension plans and those proceeds whipping across the line for investment elsewhere? No, Mr. Speaker. No, no, no. But he gets up and builds a straw man around this issue.

I think that those kind of ideas should not be legislated. Those kind of ideas are the business of people within the movement making their own decisions Mr. Speaker, there are some very significant aspects of this bill that we're going to have to study in the committee stage — very significant aspects. This bill will be gone over with a fine-tooth comb in committee stage, and it'll be gone over with a fine-tooth comb as time evolves and as situations arise proving whether or not different aspects of this bill work.

But good will, Mr. Speaker, is the thing that's needed more now than anything else. And it was certainly no surprise to this Member…. I represent New Westminster, as you probably know, Mr. Speaker, having looked at the chart. Mr. Speaker, New Westminster has traditionally been a very strong labour riding, a riding where there's a major IWA local, a riding where there's major industry and, because there's major industry, a very strong trade union movement.

Certainly when I go home to my constituency we'll be discussing this bill and how it's working. We'll be discussing the labour legislation for some time to come. But this is something new, something that we've cried for in this province. And knowing that it's not etched in stone, we feel really good about it — because of the fact that the Premier himself, when he spoke to this bill, indicated very clearly that we will be watching it. It will be monitored at all times, and when situations reveal themselves — at least, when it is revealed that certain aspects of this bill need some amending — then both those Ministers indicated that that was quite within the realm of not only possibility or probability, but would, in fact, occur.

Mr. Speaker, there are some individual aspects of the bill that naturally…I'd like to deal with one or two for a moment. We'll deal in more specific ways when we get to those clauses.

Let's just think in terms for a moment of the conscience clause. Now there's been a great deal of criticism of this, and I can understand why and how that criticism arises. There's no question that it looks, on the face of it, as though there's a wide clause here.

What we're really talking about is the equivalent to the conscientious objector aspect of the constitution of Canada. If a person, by virtue of a very strong belief, does not believe in going to war, he isn't forced to go to war. They are in the minority, Mr. Speaker. They weren't permitted, for example, during the war, to do that lightly. There were those who objected and stayed in Canada but had to be in uniform.

The real hard-nosed conscientious objectors object by virtue of something. You know, maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong, but by virtue of a feeling that he has, a principle feeling, then we say to him in this bill, "Okay, but you pay your own freight; you pay your own freight." And it has to be, of course, looked at very carefully by the Labour Relations Board.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one other area that I think is very important. We've got to really look at the whole matter of the first contract. We have been, in my office, in receipt of phone calls daily, weekly, monthly, over the years over Sandringham. We've seen a number of other instances where a first contract is very necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there are those who say we can do it ourselves. But I suggest that when we look at those less fortunate workers in the province, there is some assistance for them necessary. I'm speaking in terms of native Indians, unskilled females, people who really, really need some help to get off the ground.

We can go along making laws where minimum wages apply and so on and so forth, but we feel that 40-odd per cent is not enough. Of the workers in this province 40-odd per cent are represented now by trade unions, and we feel that those people require — if they want it — representation.

Now the Member across the way suggested — the Member for Peace River — that people outside labour, that 60 per cent, have a right to be out of the labour union if they want. Yes, but we're saying, Mr. Speaker, that that 60 per cent also have the right to be in if they want. This is the right that is not being afforded many of those people today, So that's one of the reasons for this kind of approach. Mr. Speaker, we are looking for evidence. This is a brand new concept, a brand new way, a brand new pathway. You know, no road that's driven through the forest takes into account every problem that's going to confront those building the road. But given time and given an opportunity this government is aiming at one thing and one thing only: that is that there will be a better climate in the Province of British Columbia. It will be a climate based on

[ Page 509 ]

people's needs, a climate based on people being the important aspect in the future — not the will of the large corporations and not the will of those trying to dominate, but the will of the people and their right to share in the riches of this province. And they have that right.

Mr. Speaker, there will be lots of discussion, There will be discussion back home. We'll have those discussions, hopefully, with everyone, on all sides, in good faith. We'll have those discussions with as open a mind as is at all possible.

The one thing I think I'd like to end up, on is another area that I think one of the Members across the way missed. He talked about — this was on Friday, Mr. Speaker — he talked about not seeing this whole question of donation of funds to political parties in this bill. He's right. It doesn't belong here at all, It doesn't belong in labour legislation. This was a queer province. It was the only place, I think, that it was ever in law in the Labour Code. It belongs, if any place, in the elections Act, so why should it be in this particular piece of legislation?

The past piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, didn't work. It couldn't work because it was always the kind of compulsive, hard-nosed legislation aimed at controlling, keeping labour down as much as possible. We feel, Mr. Speaker, that it's time we took a whole new look at the labour-management scene from both sides of the coin, and those two sides are where people and future generations are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, let's hope that this province becomes a far more important economic entity because of this bill, Let's hope that we have a far better economic climate in the future because of Bill 11.

Thank you.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. I'm almost reduced to "Me, too" after…

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Be brief.

MR. CUMMINGS: …all these great big speeches. There's one point that I'll be brief on; the point is that I'm very concerned with the people that aren't covered under this Act.

For example, the professional people are exempt from this Act. I wish to point out that of doctors and dentists, there are 73 per cent in private practice, but 27 per cent of them are workers. With lawyers, 970 are self-employed, but 20 per cent of them work for firms. There are 90 per cent of engineers that are employees. The accountants: about 50 per cent of them are employees, and they are not covered by collective bargaining. That is also a right of the working man.

There are various societies who will negotiate for fees, but they will riot represent their own people. I think it is very unfair that these societies don't protect their own people.

This is really the only point I would like to make, other than that I think I share the wishes of everyone that this legislation will be a miracle, and that it will bring us labour peace.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transportation and Communications): I heard one of the previous speakers say he'd no intention of taking the same position as that taken by previous opposition groups in this House. I think that's a fair position for him to take because the kind of legislation the former opposition faced was completely different to the kind of legislation that that opposition is facing today.

MR. SMITH: Run that one back again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Run it back again? Well, one of the Members over there said that he'd no intention of taking the same position taken by previous oppositions when labour legislation was introduced. I can understand that, and there's a good reason for it.

This is a different kind of labour legislation from that introduced by the previous government, the one that we faced when we were sitting on that side of the House. I think the fact that this legislation has received general support from all sides of the House indicates that it is a different kind of labour legislation.

I think this labour legislation came about because of the situation that existed. It came out of a realization that we, first of all, needed a new climate in the province of British Columbia so far as labour-management relations were concerned. There was general agreement on that, that a new climate was required. There was general agreement that that new climate could not be created, either by maintaining the legislation we had and the attitudes that related to that legislation or by going back to the legislation that preceded the existing legislation or maintaining the attitudes that were part of that particular legislative procedure.

I have always believed that the basic requirement for any new kind of labour-management relationship had to be a new climate — and perhaps I am the individual in this House who realizes that more than anyone else, that some new climate is required in labour-management relations.

I listened to some of the comments that were made, inside and outside this House, about the settlement that was made between a part of the government service and the employees of that service. But I want to tell you that as long as there is a human relationship, we can't expect perfection.

When an employer-employee group sits down to

[ Page 510 ]

negotiate, the employer has two alternatives: he can either say yes, or he can say no. The employer decides just when he is going to start saying yes and just how long he is going to say no. It's that judgment area that determines whether or not a strike takes place.

But not in isolation, and this is an important factor that this legislation is only a part of. Because, while this is important legislation, by the same token you cannot separate this legislation from every other piece of legislation that this government brings in. You cannot create a new labour-management climate without changing the whole socio-economic climate of the Province of British Columbia.

What happens, primarily, between labour and management is the reflection of the society around them. In the past, year after year, we've seen the mounting pressures that have cut right through our whole society, where almost every group wants almost every other group regulated, held down, directed and legislated about, while they themselves are desirous of having complete and absolute freedom to do as they please.

Remember, every time the average worker picks up the newspaper he sees instances of some pretty substantial increases, being obtained by private companies without negotiation, without regulations, without discussion, simply by a procedure in the market place of determining what profits they are going to make. This, of course, reflects the cost-of-living to that average individual.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I heard what the Member said, As I said earlier, perhaps I am the last person in the world who would ever be involved in negotiations with a group of employees, because I have an understanding of some of their problems. Perhaps I was too soft with them. I don't know. But I have an understanding of some of the problems the people on the job face — economically and every other way.

They were operating in the kind of society that had been created. And that's part of what this legislation proposes to do: to move toward changing the climate. That has to be the most important factor.

This legislation is starting up some new roads. I think we can all agree that it was very necessary that we start up some new experiments and start up a completely new road with regard to labour-management legislation.

We could go over some aspects of the legislation — and here I want to say that it is important that you look at the whole bill as a concept, as a new road, and not look at individual sections out of context. You've got to relate the sections of this bill, one to the other, before you get the complete picture and realize the possibility of starting up a new road in labour-management relations in the Province of British Columbia.

The changed board will have comprehensive powers to deal with problems in industrial relations, including the law of strikes and picketing. Again, a new attitude, a now procedure was required.

It was important that the administration and the step-by-step procedures of labour legislation be taken out of the courts as much as possible, because a labour-management relationship is a human relationship, the relationship between two groups of individuals. To have a hard, fast legal court procedure, fixed at almost every step of the way, made it almost impossible to operate.

This code strikes a balance between the economic powers of labour and management. I think that was necessary. There has been a lot of talk over the years that unions have become too strong. I always ask the question: Too strong for what? I have never had a satisfactory answer to that particular question, because they were reacting to an action that was taking place in other places.

The board is able to sit in simultaneous panels to speed up the processing of certification applications. Part of the labour-management differences, in one particular area that I am familiar with in this province, were created over a long-term delay in a change of the certification of a particular group of workers. It took two or three years and that bitterness and hostility is still there because of that delay.

That was the tragedy of labour-management relations and labour legislation as it existed until now in the Province of British Columbia. It became a very structured, crystallized thing with a step-by-step up the road to strike. It seemed as if there was a funnel thing, where at the opening end it seemed pretty broad, but it kept getting narrower and narrower and narrower until the alternative and the only alternative seemed to be strike.

I think the leeway given to the new board will be of great benefit because of the flexibility that's involved therein. The minute you try to structure a human relationship, then you are asking for trouble. The inflexibility that was part of the previous labour-management situation was part, and probably the greatest part, of the problem: the arbitration procedures giving greater power to vary the discipline and by limiting court review.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The ombudsman, created to hear complaints against the Department of Labour, trade unions or employers. That, I think will go a long way to doing a number of things, one of which is to make the average trade union member realize that there is

[ Page 511 ]

someone to whom he can turn if he feels he has been wrongly treated by his trade union.

Trade unions vary in their relationship with members. Some are extremely democratic, such as the IWA; others tend to be a little structured, much as the other organizations in society. But this gives the individual a place to turn if he feels that he has been wrongly treated by his trade union. It gives the employer a place to turn to and, of course, it gives either one of them a place to turn if they feel that the Department of Labour has been unfair.

The imposition of the first agreement, of course, will allow the trade unions a better chance and a better opportunity to do the job of organizing the workers.

There has been some comment about the compulsory aspect of the legislation. None of us want compulsion, but every time you pass a law of any kind, there is compulsion in that law. Even if we took out the so-called compulsory sections of this law, it would still be a law that would compel people to do certain things at certain times.

As one who has been involved, who has participated in and been close to the labour movement of this province, a strong supporter of the labour movement — and as I say, I was probably the worst person in the world ever to negotiate with a group of workers, because I understood their problems, perhaps too well  —  nevertheless, as a person who has followed every change in the labour legislation in this House and debated it for 20 years, I think it is a happy day in this House when we can have a labour bill that's going to receive the support this bill is going to receive. I think it is a happy day for the Province of British Columbia when we have legislation like this before the House that is going to receive this kind of support.

Was it "a journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step?" This may be just the first step, but if it's the first step up a new road, then I think the Minister is to be congratulated, his help is to be congratulated and, in supporting this bill the way it's obviously going to be supported, I think the Members of this House are to be congratulated. Thank you very much.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I've listened intently to the arguments put forward in this debate over the past week and I feel compelled to enter the discussion in support of the principle of Bill 11.

Naturally, I have certain reservations about the legislation and I expect there will be certain amendments proposed when the bill does go to the Committee of the Whole in a short time.

Another reason I feel compelled to enter the debate is because there's a man in the gallery today, the former representative of Alberni (Mr. Squire), who spent 14 years in this House and during that time represented the cause of labour very ably.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKELLY: I represent a constituency with one of the most highly-organized workforces in the province. Last weekend I had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the Port Alberni and District Labour Council to discuss some of the issues in the bill about which they are concerned themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a love-in.

MR. SKELLY: It was a love-in, yes. (Laughter.) Not entirely.

Those members did have some reservations as well about specific sections of the bill, but they also felt that it was. much better than they could have expected under Social Credit. I think they're willing to give it a try.

In fact, the major concern expressed by those labour representatives was with the powers of the proposed Labour Relations Board; not that they felt the powers weren't necessary to secure labour peace, but they felt if the NDP was ever replaced by one of the right wing on the other side of the House, those powers could be abused and could be employed to oppress the labour movements in the province as they have been in the past.

I'm pleased to see that the board will have the power and will have the ability under this legislation to act on its own initiative to take firm steps to confirm labour peace in this province. It was this initiative that was sadly lacking in the previous legislation.

One of the suggestions that was brought up during the debate on this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that labour unions are growing much too powerful. It was suggested by another speaker that this bill will increase the economic clout of unions. I suggest that neither of these points represents the facts.

With the accelerated growth of multi-national corporations over the past few years and the concentration of larger and larger amounts of capital into fewer and fewer hands, it's my opinion that organized labour probably has less power in relation to capital than was ever the case in the past. Today, huge corporations can shift their financial assets in such a way as to destroy currencies. They can destroy the value of and depress the economies of whole countries leaving thousands of people without jobs and without the prospect of jobs.

In Britain just a few weeks ago, when workers at Ford and Chrysler were out on strike at some of the companies' plants, one of these corporations laid off or declared redundant almost 4,000 men and threatened to shift production to other plants in Europe. In other words, the company was saying, "If

[ Page 512 ]

you don't go back to work, if you don't accept our terms, we'll starve you into submission." And the corporate threat is not only effective against the workers themselves but against those thousands upon thousands of people who depend on the workers' salaries for their livelihood.

This legislation can reinstate workers who are fired unjustly. No doubt management will be concerned about that aspect of it because management insists on its traditional right to allocate labour.

This legislation appears to be able to force certification or collective agreements on disputants, but nowhere does it really limit a corporation's right to allocate work or to allocate capital. Therefore, there's no real change in the balance of power between capital and labour. This bill simply describes legally the parties to a dispute and formalizes the transaction between those parties.

On Friday, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) attacked this party and its federal leader for vilifying corporations, for accusing them of not being good corporate citizens and of not paying their taxes. Mr. Speaker, that Member's arguments are hogwash!

My only regret is that David Lewis didn't go far enough, for there isn't a single corporation in this country that does pay taxes. Certainly the names of some do appear on the taxrolls occasionally, but anything they do pay into the coffers of the government they exact in the form of taxation from consumers who buy their products. In effect, consumers are paying double taxation.

Where that Member should have cause for shame is in his party's vilification of labour over the years, and in his party's oppression of labour over the years as reflected in the previous legislation of this province. I challenge him, Mr. Speaker, to show me a corporation that's ever done one day's work in this province. I can show you hundreds that have exacted labour at sweatshop wages from thousands of labourers. And, when government raises the minimum wage laws, boy, you should hear the crocodile tears then!

I challenge that Member to show me a single corporation that's ever sacrificed its life for its country in time of war. I can give him a list of corporations that have gouged outrageous profits from their country at the time of its greatest need.

AN HON. MEMBER: Both sides.

MR. SKELLY: Both sides, right.

But I can show you thousands upon thousands of labourers who gave everything they had in wartime for the defence of their country, and we'll be honouring those people next month.

Mr. Speaker, I align myself with pride with the working class and with the working people of this province and their organizations. But that Member has shown more clearly than any of us on this side could just what side his sentiments are on.

Mr. Speaker, that man and his party support the corporations of this province which are nothing more than money personified; nothing more than pieces of paper.

Under that party's administration corporations had all the breaks in this province. I thought that once they had been sacked, they would have changed their ways. A few of them have had a taste of unemployment insurance, I understand — or at least of applying for unemployment insurance — but still they haven't changed their ways. And after that Member's speech of Friday, I'm convinced that they never will.

As I said in my opening comments, Mr. Speaker, I do have reservations about this bill. I cannot understand why fishermen, agricultural and domestic workers have been excluded from the right to bargain collectively for wages and conditions. I hope to see that aspect of the bill changed when we go to committee.

There are other sections that I feel should be more clearly explained as they appear to be contrary to the object of this bill, that is of creating a climate of labour harmony and industrial peace in the province. I'll be bringing up some of these concerns in Committee of the Whole as well.

I'm also opposed to the conscience clause which allows people to opt out of labour union membership for religious reasons when they're not permitted to opt out of other professional associations on the same grounds. The example has been given that government allows people to send their children to private schools even though they're forced to pay public school taxes. But the government still imposes on these people the obligation to educate their children to public school standards, so they are not totally free to opt out of the system.

During the past week, I've received several letters which state that the Rand formula system is not enough, that those workers who originally demanded the conscience clause still wish to opt out of supporting unions financially, although none of them has expressed a willingness to give up the good wages and the good working conditions that unions have won for them, often at the cost of lives, over the years. I'm prepared to support this Rand formula proposal as it is in the present bill, as I feel it won't substantially damage the labour union movement. And I would not like to see any change in the bill in committee stage that would change that to allow people to donate to a charity mutually agreed upon.

With those exceptions, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is excellent legislation and I look forward, as all of us here do, to a new era of industrial peace in this province. I think it's good legislation, and it's really worth a trial. Thank you.

[ Page 513 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've been listening intently to the debate over the past few days, and quite a number of points have come out by various speakers that I would like to comment upon for clarification.

Some of the opposition and some of the reservations that have been expressed about the legislation, as far as I could understand, were based on misunderstanding of the intent of the legislation.

I think it was the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) who, speaking on the first day of the debate on second reading, questioned whether or not the provision of a 35 per cent majority for application for certification would be applicable to just new units or, indeed, to an existing unit where a dispute was underway between two unions.

I want to make it very clear that this 35 per cent requirement applies only to a situation where a trade union is applying for a new unit. It does not apply in the case of an existing unit. Certainly it is not the intent to invite or to encourage jurisdictional disputes between trade unions.

I think the Member for Columbia River also queried the technological change provision. He wondered, if a dispute arose on the introduction of technological change and the Labour Relations Board, in their wisdom, decided to open up the contract for collective bargaining, whether the entire contract would go out the window or just that section with respect to technological change.

I want to assure him, Mr. Speaker, that only that aspect that was under dispute in terms of technological change would be opened up to negotiations and the right to strike, and so on. In other words, the bulk of the collective agreement would exist and be continued.

There was criticism expressed by a number of Members of the term "ally." Some people, I believe, referred to this as a new designation. It is certainly new in this jurisdiction, but it is not new in terms of general industrial relations on the North American continent. While we may have some differences of attitude between the government and the official opposition, at least as to the propriety of extending the right to picket to an organization that allies itself and involves itself in a labour dispute that is under way, I say vive la difference.

Certainly we take the position very strongly that if anyone wishes to intervene in a dispute, then they should pay the consequences of being picketed for their interference. That is the criterion for that specification of an ally.

I think it was the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) who suggested that the designation of "professional strike-breaker" is inflammatory. Well, Mr. Speaker, I just want to observe that there are in this country organizations of professional strike-breakers who employ police dogs — not exactly Pinkerton's but people who fulfill the role that Pinkerton's used to fulfill. They employ a variety of bugs and devices for the sole purpose of intervening in struck plants and defeating the effectiveness of the workers' picket lines and strikes, and they are identifiable as organizations that have for their sole, basic and primary purpose the objective of breaking strikes. That is, in every sense, a professional strike-breaker.

Now if it is inflammatory to designate and recognize that this problem exists and to guard against the incursion of that kind of organization into this province, then I say to you, Mr. Speaker: how much more inflammatory would it be to ever allow an organization having such intentions from actually entering into the labour-management scene in this province? Talk about inflammatory: then we'd have chaos and we'd have real problems. I think that's the kind of thing that has no place in our concept of collective bargaining of industrial relations in this province.

The whole thrust of this bill is based on trying to develop a system whereby labour and management can resolve their differences with some degree of harmony and with some degree of responsibility. Certainly we want to remove any impediment to achieving that purpose, and I suggest that professional strike-breakers would certainly be an impediment.

The religious conscience clause has been brought up constantly, and we've had comments from both sides of the House expressing the Members' feelings on this clause. Again, I think it is clearly revealed that we have a philosophical difference of opinion between Members on the government side and some Members of the opposition.

I just want to reiterate that I think it is completely unacceptable that any individual can accept the benefits, the increased wages and the security of. employment and the safety standards and so on, that go with his employment and have been gained for him by the efforts and the expenses of the trade union, and refuse to pay his fair share of the load. It is as simple as that. That's right.

We feel that there is a case to be made against saying to anyone that he is compelled to belong to an organization against his religious conscience. I think that can be construed as a valid matter of conscience. But I note that the official opposition is pretty vociferous about this particular clause that is proposed in Bill 11, yet for 20 years, while they ran and governed the affairs of this province, not one attempt was made to secure the individual rights of trade union people.

So it rings just a little bit hollow to hear all these loud protestations of concern for the minority rights

[ Page 514 ]

of workers at this late date. You know, it's a kind of death-bed repentance, as it were.

I think that we have moved in a reasonable way to ensure that no one is obliged to belong to an organization which offends his conscience, and I think there is a case to be made for that. But he still has an obligation to pay his dues. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, no one would suggest that all those citizens and taxpayers out there who happen to disagree with the New Democratic Party government in Victoria should be exempt from paying their taxes for the goods and services that they receive across the province.

The principle is much the same, I suggest.

Interjections.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): You can do better than that.

HON. MR. KING: No, I think the two situations can be equated, Mr. Speaker. You know, if you followed that to its logical conclusion, one would say that simply because we won the government in the province last August, now every single taxpayer in the province must become a Member of the party. We're not saying that. But we are saying that people are still obliged to pay their taxation; and that's the same criterion and the same rationale that we are applying to people who enjoy the benefits of trade union contracts and provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)…

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Good for you.

HON. MR. KING: …and the second or third Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)…well, third next time, I guess. (Laughter.) Perhaps I should say, before I make many comments about that little group, that by and large I want to congratulate the opposition people. In general terms I think they have been pretty reasonable. I made an appeal for the House to treat this bill in a temperate and constructive way, and I think that by and large they have responded well.

At the same time I couldn't help but notice, you know, that the Liberal Party seems to feel that they have a complete monopoly on their concern for the public interest. It's a motherhood issue; perhaps that's why they zeroed in on that issue. It's obviously pretty safe and they don't know too much about industrial relations…so let's talk about motherhood, you know.

Really, the whole thrust of this bill is to try to reduce the incidence of strikes and lockouts and labour disputes, and if that's not in the public interest, what in heaven's name is it? That's the whole crux of the bill.

I thought the hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) departed from the good spirit of the debate when he started referring to bad blood between the Premier and the Minister and the B.C. Federation of Labour. I think that is a pretty obvious attempt to try and stir up something for a little bit of sensationalism.

We've had our fights, and I make no bones about that. I expect that we'll have them again. I think one of the newspaper editorials conveyed the message: we didn't promise you a rose garden. We expect that we'll have differences of opinion with the trade-union movement and with the Council of Forests Industries and a variety of other sections of our economy that are involved in industrial relations. What's wrong with that? I think that's a pretty healthy sign.

The thrust of the Liberal's approach to this bill was that it doesn't go far enough to protect the public interest. Yet I didn't hear the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) outline any alternatives as to just exactly what he would propose. He skirted and danced around the issue a number of times as to whether or not the right to strike should be withdrawn altogether. I think the Liberal Party has an obligation either to stand up and say very clearly that they are going to advocate the complete removal of the right to strike in the public interest or to remain silent on criticisms of this bill. Not once did you offer an alternative.

At the same time, the Hon. leader of the Liberal Party said the bill should be taken back; it should be thrown to committee because, "I feel sorry for that same B.C. Federation of Labour that I accuse you of having some kind of an illicit relationship with, and I think we should have more time to consider and propose amendments to this legislation."

Well, Mr. Speaker, we started out away last spring discussing this legislation with the B.C. Federation of Labour, with the Employers' Council, and even with the public. We printed advertisements in the papers asking the public to come forward and make any recommendations or to offer any ideas that they have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they come?

HON. MR. KING: No, they didn't come. Not the public as it's represented by the Liberal Party or the Social Credit Party, not the people who are expressing a concern about the public interest today. I think it's a bit amazing that during the course of all these hearings, we never had one representation, not a letter, not a suggestion from any of those responsible groups on the other side of the House. Here they come, in second reading of the debate, and suggest that they have a monopoly on concern for the public

[ Page 515 ]

interest. It rings rather hollow, Mr. Speaker.

You have an obligation to be consistent. If you're going to criticize, then I see no reason why you shouldn't come forward with some alternatives that are workable and viable. Unfortunately, none have been forthcoming so far. I hope they do surprise me, because it would be pleasant and unexpected.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) expressed grave concern about the powers of the board. He referred to it, I believe, as a labour court. I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that the board is not a court. It is not a labour court. It is an administrative tribunal, a regulatory agency over the laws of strikes and picketing. It has no power to enforce penalties. I think I pointed out in my opening speech in this debate on second reading that any magistrate has the power to inflict and to enforce greater penalties on individuals than the Labour Relations Board.

I'm aware that we have granted broad powers to the board, but you can't have it both ways. You can't remove the responsibility for the regulation of industrial relations from the courts and leave it in limbo. Some other agency has to hold that responsibility. People who are knowledgeable and experienced in industrial relations, I think, will agree that the courts are not the most appropriate agency for governing and regulating the affairs of trade unions and corporations in terms of their industrial relations' problems.

This is not a criticism of the courts; I'm not suggesting that the judges and the judiciary are incompetent or anything of that nature. What I am suggesting is that it is hardly within their purview to delve into the root causes of the problems which brought the case before them in the first instance.

It's pretty meaningless — and I think it has been proven so over the past years — to attempt to deal with the picket line when it emerges in a punitive way and say: hammer the people who happen to be there illegally, even though there may be a strong moral cause for this reaction against the employer. We're not buying labour peace; we're inflaming it even further and we're trying to enforce something on the workers which no administration has been able to enforce upon them yet. A law has to be seen to be just and meaningful before it's going to be accepted by the people. This is really what we're striving to accomplish.

The board has safeguards in a number of ways. We're developing the position of an ombudsman who will certainly be empowered to look at the decisions and the administrative procedures of the board as he will be empowered to look at the problems that some people are apprehensive about in the powers of trade unions and management groups. While he cannot change the decisions or the procedures that are taken by these three separate areas of interest, he will have the power to publicize them; he'll have the power to make recommendations to my office for legislative change he'll have the power to make direct representation to the Legislature.

I think probably the most potent power he will have is to focus that searching light of public attention upon abuses of power either by the Labour Relations Board or, indeed, any branch of the Department of Labour, the trade-union movement and management. I think this is a healthy thing which will serve to ensure there are not excesses and there are not insensitive uses of power by the board or any other branch.

In addition to that, it's anticipated that the board, by and large, will be dealing in panels and the decision that is taken in the first instance will, in all probability, be by a panel represented by a neutral vice-chairman, a representative of labour and a representative of management. In the case, then, that an appeal is desired, that appeal will be available to the entire board so that the appeal procedure is not as it is at the present.

Under the present Labour Relations Board, it's appealable to the same people who made the decision in the first instance. Under the new structure, the appeal will be handed to the entire board so that there will be some new faces and there will be a broader area of representation to hear that appeal. So I submit that that is a meaningful administrative appeal for board decisions. This is important.

There's another provision that I think is significant, and that is that the board establish and publish its own policy with respect to the procedures they will be using. A body of administrative law, as it were, will be developed and built up so that the parties involved will become very much aware of the procedures and the policies that will be adopted.

In the final analysis, the board is a creature of the government, although we have made a deliberate attempt to make it as independent as possible. The Legislature always is the brain and has the power to curb any abuses of authority or power that the board could possibly become involved in.

These safeguards, I think, are reasonable. The fact of the matter is that if we're going to make a change, if we're going to remove the thrust from the courts as the basis for trying to resolve this sensitive issue of regulating strikes and lockouts and picketing, then certainly we have to come up with a tribunal that is empowered and structured in a way that can deal with these questions in a more effective manner.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the composition of this board is a calculated attempt to find the best people possible in terms of experience, in terms of their sensitivity to the real problems — and many of them are highly emotional — to deal with the problems with which they will be confronted, and to try to solve them on a social as well as a legal basis. I think this is our only hope of trying to really come to grips

[ Page 516 ]

with this important, very emotional and sensitive problem of industrial relations in the province.

There are a number of other points that were made here that I wanted to touch on. I think the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), I believe it was, and the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) both queried the exclusion of domestics, agricultural workers and fishermen from the new labour code. I would point out that domestic and agricultural workers were never included in the labour legislation in the past, but I am not offering that as a reason or excuse for not including them in the current Act.

I think, certainly, there is a case to be made for trying to extend the protection of this legislation to all workers in the Province of British Columbia. But there are special problems associated with workers in the agricultural sector, as there are with those workers involved in domestic help. The main problem has been just how to enforce and regulate labour standards and determinations of the employee-employer relationship when a hired man may be a relative who is working for the farmer, for a number of months or helping out an ill aunt for a number of months in her home. The relationships become very involved, very complex and most difficult to determine for the purposes of applying labour legislation.

However, I want to indicate that I am developing a research objective of taking a deeper look at these two particular categories in collaboration with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), to determine whether or not we could, in any way, extend the provisions of this Act to cover at least some of the workers involved in those two particular sections. We will have more information on this question and I expect that further policy will be announced at a later date in the House.

On the question of fishermen, I would point out that fishermen are not excluded from this new labour code. Fishermen are excluded now simply on the basis of federal jurisdiction, but there is nothing whatsoever in this statute which precludes the full provision of fishermen under the Act.

However, it is a matter of jurisdiction for the federal government. Should they ever decide to delegate the jurisdiction for certification of the fishing industry to the province, then there is no problem whatsoever in including them in the provisions of this bill. That is something, at the moment, that I simply haven't the power or the authority to do in an arbitrary way. I would just reiterate that there is no prohibition or exclusion of fishermen in the Act.

Now, the question of a council of unions was raised by some Members. They felt that this provision posed a threat to the internal decisions and freedom of trade unions. I can appreciate that this is one clause of the new bill which poses a great deal of concern to the trade union movement. However we, on this side of the House, are concerned with not only the legitimate rights of the trade unions, but we are also concerned with the total interests of the economy, of the province and the public welfare of the province, too.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that where we have a situation of fragmented units in a major industry, and one small element of that industry, comprised of perhaps 20 or 30 members, can take strike action and create a complete shut-down of an industry comprising some 4,000 to 6,000 members, then we have to get a message across to the trade union movement. We have to say to them: Either you are prepared to start pulling yourselves together and bargaining as a council of trade unions, eliminating this fragmentation and the devastating whipsaw effects that accrue to industry and the economy, or we're going to have to take appropriate action ourselves.

This clause, I submit, is a salutary one. I acknowledge that some areas of the trade union movement are doing a good job and achieving those objectives in a voluntary way. There are other areas where, perhaps, they need a push. I am hoping that they will be cognizant and aware of this new provision and that it will accelerate their voluntary activities to achieve the objective which we think is absolutely necessary to achieve, and that is some semblance of collective representation in an industry and elimination of the broad and devastating fragmentation we have seen in some industries in the past.

This clause is discretionary. It's not something that is going to be arbitrarily thrust on the trade union movement. If there's no problem, obviously there's no reason to come forward with this kind of provision. On the other hand, if one or the other of the parties wishes to come before the Board and request this type of situation, then the Board could have a strong look at it and further have the discretion to ensure that minority interests, minority units, which would be contained in the industry, would be protected in some way. In other words, in designing a council, representative of all the different unions, they would be able to ensure that the minority interests of the smaller crafts and so on were recognized and in some way represented in a ratification vote or something of that nature.

Quite frankly, I hope this section never has to be used. I think it is preferable that the trade union people find their own ways, their own methods of achieving these objectives. Conversely, I think it is indefensible for a major industry and a major economic enterprise in this province to be tied up by the actions of a very small unit contained within a major industry.

There has been a good deal of discussion on our

[ Page 517 ]

proposal for the right of the Labour Relations Board to arbitrarily award a first contract, the first collective agreement, in a newly certified unit where a strike has been underway for a period of time and there is no apparent prospect of achieving a voluntary agreement.

Now this is, in effect, compulsory arbitration. There are those who will say that this is somewhat inconsistent with the NDP's policy, but I think that the situation is clearly identified here. It's a unique, limited circumstance where we are advocating this tool and this device be used.

There is no way that I or my government would recommend compulsory arbitration as a broad device replacing free collective bargaining as a method of regulating the affairs between workers and their employers. On the other hand, we cannot be so doctrinaire, I think, in our attitude and our lip service to free collective bargaining as the appropriate and usual way of regulating these affairs and at the same time turn a blind eye to a situation where a new and usually weak unit, often composed of females, who perhaps haven't got the economic muscle that the major unions have, suffers and is denied the right to enjoy a collective agreement which is implied by the certification in the first instance.

We grant the certification and then, by a variety of devices — and I'll use the Sandringham dispute as a classic example, where, Mr. Speaker, there is not one economic factor left in dispute in that particular strike, not one economic factor in dispute, and still the employer refuses to sign a collective agreement.

Now this is a straight fight, a straight refusal to recognize the trade union, and I think it's shameful and can in no way be categorized as good faith collective bargaining. In those instances, I think that we need some tool to ensure that those poor workers have a right to enjoy the same benefits and privileges as the big strong unions who can exert the economic muscle to look after themselves.

Now there are a variety of other things mentioned. I don't think I'll comment too much further. We will be going into committee stage where, undoubtedly, Members will be questioning the specific provisions of the bill clause by clause. I again would like to say that I appreciate the moderation that has been extended by the opposition people. I am not going to question you or castigate you for whatever motives you have. I assume….

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. MR. KING: I assume they're sincere, and in good…. Order? (Laughter.) How about that? He can't stand compliments, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: I'm so unaccustomed to them.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, I've grown accustomed to your face. Well, the other provisions that have been brought up will be reintroduced, will be dealt with again, when we go through the clause-by-clause sections. In general terms, I suggest that there is some feeling of apprehension, perhaps both in the House and perhaps out there in the trade union movement and, undoubtedly, with some sections of management too.

This has been expressed, and I would certainly not wonder at it. I think it's to be expected that when any change is made there is going to be apprehension. What does it mean? How is it going to work? Well, we have developed a new board to try to interpret and develop a body of administrative law as we go along. But at the same time I think that all parties have to recognize that if it is going to be possible to move away from the outright conflict in labour relations that we have had over the past number of years, we have to be a bit daring. We have to take a chance. Somebody has to move.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, in the hearings that we held and in the briefs that were submitted, we didn't receive very many ideas from labour or management in terms of new concepts. As a matter of fact, I can't really remember any. The parties seem to be concerned with securing their own position in the balance-of-power situation, and I can understand that; I'm not condemning them for it.

At the same time, I am suggesting that someone has to come up with new ideas. I think the public is demanding new ideas, and I think it's possible to come up with some new devices that just may work better. We're going to require some time. It's going to be a matter of a year or so before we can really get a true analysis of how this bill will work. We can be hypothetical and we can be political and analyse at this point, but no one really knows until the test of specific cases comes before that board.

Once again, I think it's fair to say that we have approached this as a government in the spirit of fair play and in the spirit of trying to develop a better climate which does not upset the balance of power which exists between labour and management unduly and unfairly.

We have tried to come up with some new ideas which would offer different solutions to old problems, very old problems. Only the test of time will really determine whether our efforts will be successful. I certainly hope that the same spirit of good will and cooperation that we have had displayed in the House will be demonstrated by those forces outside who have to make it work. I'm sure that, under those circumstances, we have an excellent chance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that and looking forward to third reading, I am very pleased at this

[ Page 518 ]

time to move second reading of Bill 11.

Motion approved on a division.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare it unanimous. It will be recorded, and the clerk has the list of all those who stood.

Bill 11 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I assume that's the first time in the history of this House that a labour bill has passed unanimously.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): May I inquire from the Premier of the order of business for tomorrow?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading, Mr. Speaker, then on to committee stage of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, in view of the illness of the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), I have sent a bouquet of flowers on behalf of the House to the hospital. I hope that meets with your approval.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.