[ Page 687 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Statement Use of microphone cut-off button. Mr. Speaker — 687

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Specifications of government aircraft. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 688

BCIC capital expenditures. Mr. Gardom — 689

Safety of Hope-Princeton Highway. Mr. Wallace — 689

Bicycle trail on Vancouver Island. Mr. Curtis — 690

Cost of site for Shaughnessy Medical Centre. Mr. McGeer — 690

B.C. Rail strike. Mr. Chabot — 690

Greater Vancouver Transit Authority. Mr. McClelland — 690

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act (Bill 76). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 692

Motion

Motion to adjourn on matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Phillips — 692

Mr. McGeer — 693

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 693

Mr. Smith — 693

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 694

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 694

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 11). Committee stage.

Mr. Chabot — 694

Hon. Mr. King — 704

Hon. Mr. King — 696

Mr. Gabelmann — 705

Mr. Chabot — 696

Mr. Steves — 707

Hon. Mr. King — 697

Hon. Mr. King — 708

Mr. Chabot — 697

Mr. Williams — 708

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 698

Hon. Mr. King — 709

Hon. Mr. King — 698

Mr. Steves — 709

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 699

Mr. Phillips — 710

Mr. Wallace — 700

Mr. Chabot — 715

Hon. Mr. King — 701

Mr. Phillips — 716

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 701

Hon. Mr. King — 717

Mr. Chabot — 702

Mr. Williams — 718

Mr. Williams — 702

Hon. Mr. King — 718

Hon. Mr. King — 704

Division on section I — 718

Mr. Wallace — 704

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver — Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) asked for a special welcome for the person that had said the prayers that day: his uncle. Today I'd like to ask the House….

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Cousin.

HON. MR. LEA: Cousin? He looked younger. (Laughter.) I'd like to ask the House today to give special welcome to the Reverend James Manly who said the prayers for us today. I'd like to also mention the fact that he did run before me in 1969 for the New Democratic Party in Prince Rupert.

It was said before in this House, Mr. Speaker, that the people had a direct link with people up there, and I'm sure we've also had that on this side of the House. And we've had our prophets. I think it was the Reverend Manly that paved my way to being the Highways Minister, and I would give special welcome.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw to the attention of the House that we have with us today a former Member of the Legislature who sat in the Social Credit benches from 1952 to 1972 — over 20 years: Cyril Shelford, the former Member for Omineca.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the House on behalf of all of the Members a group of students from the Prince of Wales High School in Vancouver, their motto being: Ich Dien — I serve. And I would particularly like to bid welcome to their teachers Mr. Dean Hull and Mr. Chris Harris.

Mr. Harris bears the unique distinction of being married last Sunday. Well, that in itself is not a unique distinction. But Mr. Harris and his bride were married at the top of Mount Garibaldi, 8,700 feet high. I think we'd all like to wish them an extremely long and happy married life.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome one of the most prolific speechmakers this Legislature has ever known. His longest recorded speech was, I think, 12 minutes. He was a great favourite of all of us for the many years that he was with us in this House: Ray Eddy, the former Member for New Westminster.

Mr. Speaker, like all MLAs I have schools in my district. I'd like the House to welcome Mrs. Cristofoli with a group of students from the Mary Hill Junior Secondary School who are now in the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed with the other business: you asked me to study the question of the use of the microphones in this chamber. I'm unfortunately unable to give any definitive view of the situation at the moment until all the facts are ascertained.

I do point out that at the present time there has been and always has been while the machines were here a cut-off button for both sides of the House in the console with the operator in the chamber, who is an employee of the House. There is also a cut-off button at the Clerks' table for the Chairman of committees and one at the Speaker's desk.

I point out as a fact that these cut off every microphone of the Members all at once — simultaneously. Up until now they have been used only when a Member is on his feet when the Speaker has risen, so far as the House is concerned, and have been used twice in the term of my office. On both occasions when a Member would not sit down, when asked several times to do so and the Speaker was on his feet, I've used it with great forbearance.

The matter of permission for this to be in the House and the other houses of parliament throughout the land, I have not yet ascertained. I am trying to find that out. In the meantime, therefore, I hope that you would appreciate the fact that either the Chairman or myself will be greatly strained before we would push the button without first explaining to the House the purpose of this.

I may say that all the rules of parliament, including our own rules, make it clear that a Member must resume his seat while a point of order is being stated, whether by the Speaker or by another Member. The Speaker must always be heard in silence when he rises to intervene: the Member speaking should immediately sit down; I'm quoting from May on that point. And in the Encyclopedia of Parliament it says, "No Member may remain on his feet if the Speaker rises to intervene or give a ruling." In Ottawa and other parliaments there's been occasion for expelling a Member who stayed on his feet when the Speaker has risen and is standing at his place at the desk.

Under the circumstances, I will give all the facts I can to you about the situation, and perhaps the House may want to decide what to do about sound systems. Thank you, Hon. Members.

Oral questions.

SPECIFICATIONS OF
GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

[ Page 688 ]

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was asked a couple of questions and I informed the House I would get the replies for today. The first question had to do with the awarding of a contract for the purchase of two aircraft for delivery at sometime next year. The Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) asked the question and asked for the tabling of the specifications. He mentioned a particular aircraft. It is my understanding that that particular aircraft didn't meet the specifications and is unpressurized.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there was a public advertisement placed in the Journal of Commerce July 30, which reads:

"Notice: a survey is being conducted to ascertain availability and prices of aircraft suited to meet the following projected requirements.

"Canadian certified aircraft designed with two turbo-prop engines, pressurized cabins, fully instrumented to airline standard, full de-icing, short-field landing and takeoff performance, 8- to 10-passenger capacity plus two crew members, single-engine fully-loaded ceiling of at least 12,000 ft, two camera locations plus adaptability of the aircraft for photographic or ambulance duties.

"Further details to bona fide participants are available upon application to be submitted without delay to T.L. Vardy, Chairman, Purchasing Commission, Parliament Buildings, Victoria."

There were six submissions made as a result of this ad: one from North American Rockwell in Calgary; one from Leavens Brothers in Mississauga, Ontario; one from OMT Aircraft, Washington, D.C.; one from Air Search Aviation in Rexdale; one from Field Aviation in Vancouver; and one from Atlantic Aviation, representing an Israeli manufacturer of aircraft. But there was no submission from the Otter people. And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table these documents — the specifications that were asked for.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The next question that was raised had to do with the calling of tenders for the claims centres for the insurance corporation. As was announced in the press, tenders were called and the award was made to the Commonwealth Construction Company. The procedure followed is known as "project management method" and has become a common procedure used by private developers in Vancouver.

In addition, I understand the provincial Public Works Department is going to be using this procedure for constructing the British Columbia office building in Vancouver, scheduled to start late this fall — according to the best information we have. The procedure was recommended by Arthur Allen, ICBC architectural consultant, as the safest and best method for obtaining quick quotes.

Under the project management method the Commonwealth Construction bid of $531,453 is the total payment to be made to Commonwealth for both overhead costs and their profit margin as general contractor for the 11 claims centres involved. That is a fixed amount.

The balance of the construction costs will cover the actual cost involved in sub trades and materials. The sub trade tenders will close October 26 at 4 p.m., and they have been called by Commonwealth and ICBC jointly. The successful sub trade bidders will be picked jointly but will be paid directly by Commonwealth Construction as general contractor. Commonwealth Construction, in turn, will bill ICBC for 100 per cent of sub trade costs. Commonwealth Construction will bill ICBC for 100 per cent of the charges made by materials suppliers — and that is going to tenders, too — such as Great West Steel, which was the low bidder for the steel contract, and Conforce Gulf and Bordignon, the three main suppliers in Vancouver which were awarded the contract for supply of pre-cast concrete for the 11 buildings.

Thus it can be seen that, in essence, the project management method telescopes the time needed to get a project underway. Instead of the various bidders for the general contract calling tenders individually among the sub trades, to incorporate those figures in the general contract tenders — and remember when that's done there is always a percentage added onto that by the general contractor — this method permits the general contractor to bid for the work on the basis of their charge, plus whatever is the lowest trades' bid.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And there were 14 bids supplied; 14 people bid on it. The bids were divided into three separate groups to allow the smaller contracts to participate. Commonwealth Construction were the low bidders in every one of the three groups, and Commonwealth are doing the job of the clearing and the contract work on a straight cost basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there any supplementaries flowing from that extensive answer?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS. (South Peace River): I would like to ask the Minister of insurance (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 689 ]

Strachan) if the site preparation work that is presently going on was bid on or did the Commonwealth Construction just bring somebody in to do it? And why the urgency? You've had since the spring session to get this work underway. Now there is a great rush to get it underway, Mr. Speaker, to have. But the work presently being done on site preparation, did it go to tender, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, that was part of the….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That is part of the original bid that was put in. The firm that gets that bid gets that job at absolute cost. That went to tender. That was part of the responsibility of accepting and going to tender.

MR. PHILLIPS: Were there site preparations on all 11 sites in this tender?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The package was there. That was part of the Commonwealth acceptance in the contract, at 100 per cent of cost. Not cost-plus; 100 per cent of actual cost.

MR. PHILLIPS: In other words it didn't go to tender. You're paying them what it costs.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly. It's the same thing….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! No speeches.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A supplementary to the Minister: in view of the fact that a Canadian aircraft is available at half the price and which virtually meets all of the specifications tabled by the Minister, I would like to ask the Minister whether he or the purchasing commission made an effort to get in contact with that Canadian manufacturer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's the notice. There's the specification. You say virtually all….

MR. McGEER: Yes or no, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't want the civil servants of this province flying around this province in unpressurized aircraft when there are mountains to fly over. And there's a specification in there that calls for pressurized aircraft. And almost meeting specifications isn't good enough. Isn't good enough.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And they didn't even submit a bid.

BCIC CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

MR. GARDOM: I think we're getting a pressurized Minister this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

The Minister was talking about the B.C. Insurance Corporation and I'd ask him: what has been the capital cost expenditures to date of the B.C. Insurance Corporation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a question on the order paper.

MR. GARDOM: And it's been there since September 19.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Questions which are on the order paper cannot be asked in question time. See page 148 of Beauchesne.

SAFETY OF
HOPE-PRINCETON HIGHWAY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Highways has been back in town two or three days, I wonder if he could tell us what additional precautions will be taken on the Hope-Princeton Highway, 8.5 miles east of Hope, to try and prevent the recurring accidental deaths in that region?

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, we've been in touch with the sergeant in charge of the Hope detachment. That section of road comes under his jurisdiction, and he says that that corner, where a number of accidents have happened, doesn't pose an undue problem — other corners on that highway pose the same kind of problem. Although there have been frequent accidents they are usually from excessive speed, according to the accident reports, going down the grade too quickly. It is well-signed, although I've asked to have the department look at the signing to see whether we can't improve upon it.

The accident that happened…. I would like to deal with what we are going to do first as an interim measure: it's an 18-in. concrete guardrail that's in place, and this will be replaced with a 27-in. high concrete guardrail. Also we'll put warning signs up for people who may be walking in that vicinity, but it's rather unusual for people to walk there because it isn't a place where people would normally walk. It's out of town, 8.5 miles.

The individual accident that happened — the person who fell over had stopped, had walked off the

[ Page 690 ]

travelled portion of the road and consequently fell over. But that is not the usual type of accident that happens there. It's people in their motor vehicles having the accidents.

I haven't all the figures in of how many accidents have happened there. You mentioned 17, Mr. Member, but I can't verify that as yet. This is an interim report and we'll continue to look into it and report to the House.

BICYCLE TRAIL ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation: has any final decision been made by his department with respect to the establishment of a bicycle trail along the old CN right-of-way on southern Vancouver Island?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Member, we are in the final stages of a feasibility study on that. I expect it will be on my desk in approximately two weeks.

COST OF SITE FOR
SHAUGHNESSY MEDICAL CENTRE

MR. McGEER: To the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker: with respect to the Shaughnessy B.C. Medical Centre site announced by the Minister of Health Services (Hon. Mr. Cocke), what will be the cost of acquiring the land of that Shaughnessy site for the provincial government?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

B.C. RAIL STRIKE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I direct my question to the Minister of Labour and director of B.C. Rail. On September 17 he announced he was pleased that agreement had been reached and full resumption of B.C. Rail would take place on that date. We find the railways again strikebound and that management has laid off 450 train crew members. Is the layoff of these train crew members conducive to labour peace, and when does he expect the resumption of services of this vital and essential transportation link?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it appears the Member for Columbia River is confusing two situations. There was a settlement concluded with the United Transportation Union on the B.C. Railway some time ago. Subsequent to that, negotiations were under way with the shop craft unions and they have undertaken a strike on that property.

The tie-up that accrued from that strike by the shop-craft employees is responsible for any lay-offs that may be involved at the present time. Employees do have the right to respect picket lines.

With respect to the possibilities and the prognosis for a settlement, I can only report, Mr. Speaker, that officials of my department are in constant touch with the parties and are exploring a number of avenues in the hopes of bringing about a resolution to the dispute.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. It is my understanding that there are 10 or 12 agreements not yet ratified and I was wondering whether it was possible we would be looking to 10 or 12 separate shut-downs in the B.C. Rail over the next couple of weeks.

HON. MR. KING: Well, as usual, Mr. Speaker, the Member is consistent. His information is faulty. There are not 10 or 12 agreements yet to be ratified. There are two outstanding agreements and certainly, I hope, I wouldn't take the pessimistic view that the Member for Columbia River takes that a strike will evolve in all of those contract negotiations.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I was very disappointed in the Minister of Labour's answer because…

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: …he informed the House that basically the railway was going to be strike free….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! No speeches, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, I want to know exactly how the negotiations on the British Columbia Railway are coming along. I want to know exactly how long the Minister of Labour intends the strike to go on. I want to know today.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Labour is not on strike so I have no intention of giving an indication as far as the negotiations….

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: The negotiations are coming along very well.

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSIT AUTHORITY

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I would like

[ Page 691 ]

to address my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and since I have a number of supplementals, I will ask them all at once, if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: Kindly avoid too many, will you please?

MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to ask the Minister what the Greater Vancouver Transit Authority is? Under what authority does it operate a transit system in greater Vancouver? Who is the director? And under what Minister does that responsibility lie?

AN HON. MEMBER: Look it up in the book.

MR. SPEAKER: If this is information otherwise available it shouldn't be in the question period.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it isn't or I wouldn't ask the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we'll find that out, I presume. Are those questions available and the answers available, Mr. Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the Speaker in this House?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There is no regional district authority on transit. They don't have that function within their letters patent. They do have a committee dealing with transit problems.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, on the buses in Vancouver, it says "These buses are being operated by the Greater Vancouver Transit Authority." Who is that transit authority?

MR. SPEAKER: That can be settled somewhere else.

MR. McCLELLAND: Not in this House, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Not today. The Hon. Minister of Labour…. Yes? A point of order?

MR. WALLACE: I wonder if you could give us some guidance on some of the structure of the question period. The Hon. Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Strachan) means to give us the information that was asked, but I would have thought that that kind of answer could very readily be tabled with the House. So that we may not have five minutes out of the 20 minutes taken up in this manner in the future, could we have some guidance from the Chair?

MR. SPEAKER: I might say that only because of the nature of the answer, I didn't interrupt. I don't expect that Ministers will give speeches any more than I expect that Members will give speeches. They are entitled to make a full answer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, it is my presumption, and correct me if I am wrong, that oral questions require oral answers. It wouldn't be a very fruitful question period if we got all the questions orally but were not permitted to give answers. I am sure the opposition would be upset with that ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): There is a very sensible and straightforward mechanism for getting around this and that is to revert to statements on motions, which we often have, where a Minister can put information forward which does not abuse the rules of the House regarding question period.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take this matter up. I agree that there is a method that is used in other Houses, and the Hon. Member has just drawn attention to that, where there is a lengthy statement, a Minister may obtain the leave of the House — and usually it is given, as far as I have noticed — to make his statement, if it is a lengthy one, so it doesn't take up the time of question period. There is a rule that the Ministers don't take up the question period in lengthy answers that can be reduced to the nutshell of the answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the same point, I would refer you to yesterday's pink sheet in Hansard in which the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) in a supplementary question, made judgmental statements about a particular aircraft. The only way I could answer that particular kind of question, couched in that language, was to tell the whole story and surely a question of that kind cannot be allowed orally and in the records, unless the answer is also orally and in the records.

MR. SPEAKER: May I advise the Members that the reason I didn't stop the Minister was precisely that yesterday the Hon. Member, in asking his question, went over in detail all the things about an aircraft that made it important that the public know precisely, as soon as possible, the answer to those questions. That's why I didn't. I agree that a ministerial statement is the proper way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's perfectly adequate for us on the opposition side to receive a ministerial statement which is simply time taken out of the question period considered as something apart. Therefore the question period would be preserved

[ Page 692 ]

and we would have the opportunity of questioning the Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure all the Members will try to observe it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think, if we are going to have any rules of the House, I would ask your ruling. It is my understanding that a question period is a time for answers as well as for questions.

However, if the proposition is that the House is to entertain 15 minutes worth of questions and then the Ministers make note and ask leave of the House the following day, we would be busy answering the 15 minutes of questions and an hour of asking leave for statements and the House itself has not instructed us to go in that direction.

It is my understanding that a question period means simply that a question is asked and a question is answered and I cannot understand why the opposition, certainly not for political purposes, would ever ask for a question period in which they do not want any answers, just questions be asked.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it is clear under our present rules that the purposes of questions and answers are that you obtain an answer then if possible, and then can follow with a supplemental that bears on the thing being asked.

We have, in other Houses, a notice of questions and that allows the Minister time to get the answers that are needed without being caught by surprise on some matters. But this House has chosen, up until now, to do this without notice. It therefore takes a little more latitude on both sides of the House, to see that it works properly. I'll do what I can to assist.

Introduction of bills.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I have a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it has precedence,

DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act.

Bill 76 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.

MR. PHILLIPS: I beg leave of the House to adjourn the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member state the matter?

MR. PHILLIPS: It is now obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the stoppage of work on the British Columbia Railway system is undeniably causing extreme hardship — not only because of the damage to the general provincial economy — but of quite specific damage to the major forest operations along the railway route.

In view of the fact that the recent Statistics Canada figures show a greater increase of unemployment rate within the Province of British Columbia than any other Canadian province, it is imperative that this House discuss immediately ways and means whereby this disruption to the British Columbia Rail service can be immediately solved.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. I point out that the preliminary consideration that I have to give to the question is whether there is urgency of debate that cannot be met in some other fashion. I point to the orders of the day which deals with the Labour Code of British Columbia Act which is scheduled by the orders of the day to be debated.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The labour code Act is finished. That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your remark with regard to the labour code Act and it has been through second reading for over a week now. But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the farmers in my constituency are dumping their grain on the ground, while the dairy farmers on this island are crying for feed and within three to four days, the entire lumber industry in the Cariboo and in the Peace River area, and in the Member for Prince George's riding will be closed down throwing thousands of people out of work. This government assured us a few days ago….

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member, would you be seated for the moment, please? I had failed to recollect that the labour code Act is still up for a committee stage and therefore the whole subject of labour relations is still before the House.

It follows, since it's on the order paper at that stage, that it is available for debate on this particular subject as well as all subjects that deal with the administration of the Department of Labour, the question of lock-outs, strikes and other disruptions of

[ Page 693 ]

the work force caused by labour matters.

In the circumstances, it cannot be argued, in my submission, that the means are not available to the House to debate this urgent matter so far as the urgency of debate is concerned. It's always of great importance to the province as to whether there is a tie-up or an emergency transportation situation, but in this House, the Speaker's duty is to determine whether there's a means whereby the House can grapple with the problem in debate. It's my understanding that on the orders of the day this matter is ordained to be discussed.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that the bill you mentioned has already passed second reading; there are no individual clauses in that bill dealing with the B.C. Rail strike. Because of that, the Members are going to have great difficulty raising the subject in committee.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon we did have a considerable problem with the Chairman of the committee with regard to what he considered irrelevancy in debate. I think, quite apart from the specifics of the particular bill there is a generality being practised in debate which would severely limit the opportunities to deal with this question. Therefore, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is quite correct in suggesting that there's not only an urgency in debate but this is the only opportunity to take it up.

MR. SPEAKER: I must differ with the Hon. Member in his interpretation of the sections of the labour code, which is a complete code covering all labour in British Columbia. Particularly, it does include those who work in Crown corporations.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to not describe the motion as either frivolous or mischievous because yesterday, as you recall, during the question period not a single question was asked about the strike at that time, which had been going on for 24 hours. We are now, I think, into the third day of the strike. The Minister has indicated that he is involved in bringing together the two parties. The emergency situation as described by the Member is not that great at this time; it certainly can become an emergency. It is not an emergency at this time; it can become one.

I'd like to point out to the House that the government is very aware of the need to move and to bring this matter to a suitable conclusion, but I fail to see what possible good a debate in this House would have on negotiations that are taking place separate from this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Premier, my only consideration at this stage must be, under our rules, whether there is a means available for a debate on a matter of urgency. I submit at the present time on the orders of the day, as I've ruled before and Speakers before me have ruled, there is a means to debate under certain sections of the bill in committee.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier just wondered why there wasn't a question during the period yesterday. Previously, the Minister of Labour had advised the House that….

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, just a minute, the Premier had his say; I'm certainly entitled to mine. The Minister of Labour advised this House that he was dispatching one of his men the day before over to Vancouver to look into this and I expected results. That's why we didn't. You have the majority over there: you should have settled this strike before this.

You've bungled the operation of the ferries; you bungled the operation of the railway; you're bungling the economy of British Columbia. There's been a fantastic railway boxcar shortage since you passed your legislation passing the 5 per cent tax. It is urgent, and I certainly don't want to be condemned by the Premier for not asking the question yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: You see there an example of why you really need a cut-out button.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier can have his say, but I can't have mine.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the whole matter of whether there is an urgency in debate and whether this can be handled at some time during the present sitting of the House really lies with the Premier and the House Leader of the government. There are many pieces of legislation on the order paper in committee stage, Mr. Speaker, including Bill 11. We have no knowledge of when bills will be called in committee or when bills will be called in second reading. So I submit to you that, while the bill is on the order paper, it does not necessarily follow that the debate will take place on the labour code this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: All I can say is that the order paper says that it is proper that it be called today because it's on the order paper for today. Consequently, it's up to the House Leader to determine whether it will be the order of business today and that depends on the other business of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, further to

[ Page 694 ]

the point of order, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to the opposition if we got a commitment from the government that Bill 9 would be stood down and the labour Code would be brought forward. In addition….

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I might add, Mr. Premier, made the ruling before your previous statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I think in fairness to the House that if there are any points of order that bear on the question and assist the Speaker, I'm willing to hear them, providing they are not speeches.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right, Mr. Speaker, then there are two points I'd like to make to you at this time. I would assume, Sir, that your decision of a few moments ago, which, as I just mentioned, would be acceptable under certain circumstances, would be instructions to the committee Chairman that discussion of the strike would be permissible at the committee stage of discussion of Bill 11.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it's obvious that I cannot make statements in a vacuum or in theory. The situation has to present itself to the Chairman; he has to decide at the time on the particular section whether it's in order. I can't do that for him, nor would I attempt to do so.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you for your attempt to clarify the point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I've made my ruling on it, I've listened urgently to everyone, and I think that my ruling is still correct. I so rule.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, that would be perfectly acceptable. Could we ask, then, that the government, to deal with this problem, would bring forward Bill 11 instead of Bill 9?

MR. SPEAKER: One may only hope.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: (Mike not on.) …it's in my heart, but I'd like to challenge you.

MR. SPEAKER: Wait a minute, before we get to that, there is no appeal on standing order 35, and the decision is to that effect. You are asking for leave and the opinion of the Speaker, and the Speaker gives his opinion. In that sense, it isn't a ruling and that has been so determined.

I'd also like to say that the reason I give you so much latitude in talking to me about a point of order is in the hope that you'll come up with some authority that will assist the Speaker, because I don't like the idea of appealing from decisions of the Speaker. I think that the Speaker is there to hear every good, reasonable, sound argument. If you've got a citation to give me, please give it to me; but don't insult me by then, when not giving me one, challenging a ruling.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly had no intention of insulting you as the Speaker, I'm not like the Premier who wants to insult people in this House. If I give you that impression, I certainly want to withdraw it and I stand corrected. I'm disappointed that you don't consider this matter urgent enough to discuss it in this House.

Orders of the day.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Premier, this is Wednesday?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe it will have to be by motion. I'll have to put the motion to the House. Shall we proceed to public bills and orders?

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Section 1, Mr. Chairman, is the interpretation and is basically the guts of this bill. There are some interpretations that should be questioned. Some of the exemptions for the protections or the inclusion of this code leave me with a great deal of concern.

It has been an established socialist policy or platform that those people employed in agriculture would be included in any future labour code and would be protected, on the question of minimum wage as well as organizational purposes. Just last August 4 we found that the new labour policy, as

[ Page 695 ]

expounded by the socialist party, was to include those people who are employed in agriculture; yet we see there's a very definite exemption here. Those people have been excluded and not afforded protection, the people whom the socialist party said, if they elected, they would protect.

We also see in the interpretation some thoroughly repugnant and inflammatory descriptions, one of which is "professional strikebreaker." This is one which, as far as I am concerned, is anticipating what might come in the future. I'm sure that this kind of description, or this kind of effort on the part of people, could have been covered through language other than the definition "professional strike-breaker."

I'm wondering if the Minister would give us an interpretation of what he defines as a professional strike-breaker because, as I look at the interpretation, it appears to be fairly broad. Probably any decision brought down by the board could be interpreted to include certain supervisory personnel, or certain management personnel. I'm wondering whether there is any danger, if those people whose business it is to ensure that the good conduct in the carrying on of the business of a particular enterprise continues to function, can or might be classified as professional strike-breakers.

I think one of the most critical definitions here, and one of the ones that is of the most concern to individuals out there, is that of "dependent contractor," because there's no definition there that separates the dependent contractor from the category of employer.

Many of the associations, particularly in the lumber industry, are concerned with the ultimate results of the interpretation. This bill is all based on the interpretation and the administration by the board. It's all very flexible legislation, but there is concern that it might not be properly defined by the board.

One association had this to say about the interpretation of "dependent contractors:"

"This clause of interpretation could very well be open to much misinterpretation. We take it that this clause refers specifically to individuals who do not employ one or more employees. Any person who employs one or more employees is referred to in the Act as an employer. If the foregoing is not correct, then there would be very few contractors in B.C. who would not be referred to as dependent contractors.

"What he is confusing is a reference to the type of agreement under which the individual performs his work or services. Conceivably this could widen the spectrum of dependent contractors to include individuals who would not normally be classified as contractors. A possible inequity in this clause is pointed out in the following example:

"We have two owners of salvage logging trucks. In the first instance the truck is equipped with a Rainey loader, which allows one man to do the full operation of loading and hauling, and the second truck is equipped with cable and tongs, which requires the hiring of an employee. The two trucks are carrying out identical work and each owner has signed identical contracts. However, in instance number one the owner is a dependent contractor, and in instance number two he is an employer. We believe that this clause could be clarified as to its intent."

I think it's most important that the Minister at this time gives a clarification of what a dependent contractor is and what an employer is.

There is a situation, because we know full well that the IWA are not criticizing the Act. They in fact might have asked for the inclusion of this dependent contractor clause in the new labour code of British Columbia. Because it wasn't too long ago they had this to say, relative to independent contractors in the province, and this is from an article in the Vancouver Province, Wednesday August 22, 1973:

"Resources Minister Bob Williams was severely criticized Tuesday by IWA incoming president Jack Munro for a lack of action over controlling independent contractors in the forest industry.

"Munro told delegates to the 36th annual convention of the western region of the union they should work harder to defeat him (Williams) than they did the Socreds if he doesn't take action."

Well he hasn't taken action but it appears that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has taken action. They went on:

"(Mr. Munro) warned a major confrontation is in the offing if the situation is not resolved. The union wants independent contractors to sign a memorandum of agreement with locals where they are working. The union wants the terms of the Coast master agreement to be applied to these contractors and claims IWA workers suffer because of the operation of independence.

"The courts recently ruled against a Port Alberni local of the union in favour of contractors working without having to have such an agreement.

"Munro said: 'Bob Williams is destroying the effectiveness of the working people by promoting the small operators.' 'We have to get a hell of a lot rougher on these employers and these employees.' "

they referred to them as "employers."

"Munro also said the Union has to tell the

[ Page 696 ]

government it is not prepared to let the situation continue. 'We have to organize contractors or eliminate them.' "

That's a statement from Jack Munro, the now president of the IWA, relative to independent contractors in the forest industry of British Columbia. I think it could be defined, really, what constitutes an employer, what constitutes an independent contractor and what constitutes a dependent contractor. If you have an individual who has a substantial investment in machinery and equipment and employs people he can't, in my opinion, be classified as a dependent contractor.

For instance, let's use an example within a tree farm licence. If you have within the framework of that licence 10 independent contractors, of which six are just owner-operators of a single piece of equipment, could they conceivably further on in the Act — I believe it's section 48 — could they conceivably because of a desire to become part of a union, in turn affect the determination or the direction of the other four, the other four who might have a substantial investment and might have a substantial payroll as well? They might have anywhere from two employees to 200 employees.

I think it's very important that this be clarified, because there is concern, apprehension, and fear out there in the forest industry of B.C. today. There are literally thousands of small independent contractors who are very concerned about the lack of interpretation put upon the dependent contractors clause in this legislation. I am wondering if the Minister would be willing to say whether really the clause was put in there for the sake of assisting the IWA to organize those members who are independent contractors today.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) raised a number of points. He referred to the exclusions under the Act of agricultural workers specifically. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this classification of workers has been historically excluded from the Labour Relations Act during the tenure of the previous administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't make any promises.

HON. MR. KING: We found, upon taking office, that there was no research data available to determine a mechanism for inclusion of this particular group of workers nor any realistic method of enforcing the provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

I do expect that my department will be studying, over the coming months, not only the agricultural workers or sections of that industry but certain other groups that have been traditionally excluded also, such as the professions and domestics and so on. But at the moment, due to any lack of activity whatsoever in that direction in the past, there is absolutely no information available on the numbers of people we are looking at or anything else.

The question of the professional strike-breaker, I think is quite clear. The Member refers to that as "inflammatory." I don't think the wording or the intent is inflammatory, unless someone deliberately attempts to make it such.

The clause reads," 'professional strikebreaker' means a person who is not a party involved in a dispute whose primary object, in the opinion of the board, is to prevent, interfere with, or break up a lawful strike." We do have such organizations in this country although, thankfully, not in this province. The wording "primary object," I think, is a significant one. In other words, they have no part or no relationship in the dispute that is taking place.

So under those circumstances it's inconceivable that supervisory staff, or indeed employees of the struck plant or a branch plant, could be construed as being professional strikebreakers. That's distortion not only of the intent, but the wording of the definition of professional strikebreaker.

With respect to the dependent contractor definition, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) spent all his time worrying about the independent contractor in the forest industry. What the Act simply seeks to do is to recognize that all contractors are not, in fact, independent. There are certain contract situations wherein the contractor more closely resembles, in his relationship with a parent company, an employee.

We simply empower the board to recognize that differentiation between a validly bona fide independent contractor and one who is dependent upon another company. This is certainly recognized in other jurisdictions; it is not a response to some plot, as the Member would infer. It's consistent with legislation in other jurisdictions, and I think that it poses no great danger to the bona fide independent contractor in this province.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister, in his usual way of speaking and usual cynical attitude, went on to say that I was suggesting that there were things here that were wrong, and so forth. All I want from the Minister is a very clearcut answer — it's that simple. He said here just a few moments ago on the dependent contractors that within certain contract situations, those dependent contractors that more closely resemble the role of the employee than the role of the employer, then they shall be included.

Now I gave him a situation that could…and then he said that the board will establish just what his position is. Will the Minister tell me whether a dependent contractor or an independent contractor

[ Page 697 ]

who employs one or more employees will be classified in the role of employer? I am using the tree farm licence situation because that is where the concern really is. I'm sure you realize that that's where the concern is.

I'm sure you realize you've had representations from the IWA to include such a clause within this labour code. We want to know very clearly whether an owner-operator with one piece of machinery where there are 10 as a hypothetical figure, independent contractors within the tree farm licence, and six are owner-operators — will they in turn affect the direction and the destiny of the other four that employ probably anywhere from 2 to 200 men? Would they be classified? Would they have some bearing on the destiny of those other four that are basically employers?

I think it's a very simple question: whether the Minister's interpretation of an individual who employs one or more is that he will be classed as an employer.

HON. MR. KING: You know, he seems to enjoy posing rhetorical, rather cynical questions, and he seems very sensitive about receiving any cynicism in reply. Certainly references that he read to pressures that might have been exerted on other Ministers are not particularly appropriate on this debate of the labour bill. But, at any rate, I'll try to respond in a rational manner to questions that are posed in the same vein.

I pointed out that the board will have the power to place an interpretation upon any contract situation. If we want to extend the Member's question beyond the forest industry, one can readily appreciate that every worker with a power saw, every worker operating a particular type or piece of machinery that he happens to own, could well be included in the independent contractor classification. That's certainly not the situation.

The complexity of the forest industry and construction are such that individual situations have to be looked at, and some tribunal has to be charged with the responsibility and the jurisdiction for making a determination as to what, in fact, the precise relationship is — independent or dependent. In making those kinds of judgments, the board would certainly grant to the contractors involved a full opportunity to make any representations that they chose to make, and there would be a full hearing on a classification.

To try to rationalize all the complexities of dependent and independent contractors not only in the forest industry, but in the whole scheme of industry in this province, in legislative language is pretty unrealistic. Some agency has to be charged with the authority to make that determination. This is simply what we seek to do: give the board the power, based on the evidence before it, to make such an adjudication.

I should point out that appeals from the board's panel decisions to the full board are available also.

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister's saying that the interpretation is very vague and purposely vague so that a definition can be brought down by the board. This is a very important point. I think the Minister should be able to tell us very clearly just what is a dependent contractor and what is an employer. It's a very simple question.

I was just going to ask you whether you would interpret as an employer a man who employs one or more employees. Very simple. Would that be classified as an employer? Or could he possibly be classified as a dependent contractor? Because this dependent contractor clause would not apply necessarily only to the individual who owns a truck and a chainsaw or something of that nature. It could go on to a grocery store within a forest district and there could be room for organizational purposes there.

HON. MR. KING: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Member that that consideration would not be the sole consideration. Certainly if a company sought to escape the terms of a collective agreement with the bulk of its employees by financing and contracting out some of the work that was traditionally done by their certified bargaining unit, whereby the person who is doing the contract had no capital investment in the equipment, or very little capital investment, then there would be a question, in my view, before the board as to whether he was a bona fide independent contractor.

Due to the wide variation of circumstances in cases like I've outlined, I suggest that it's unrealistic and impossible to try and define every complex relationship that the board will encounter. With the opportunity for those people affected to take advantage of representations to the board, I see no fear of the rights and interests of small independent contractors being violated in any way.

MR. CHABOT: Later on in section 1 in the interpretation, you do define an employer. I'm wondering whether the definition of the employer under section 11 would be relevant or appropriate for usage in the definition of dependent contractor. Could you apply that definition of employer to that of dependent contractor? It's on page 2 — the middle of page 2: " 'employer' means a person who employs one, or more than one, employee, and includes an employers' organization." Could that interpretation be related to the question of dependent contractor?

HON. MR. KING: The difference is, Mr.

[ Page 698 ]

Chairman, that if the dependent contractor — or if the contractor, I should say — is found to be a dependent contractor, then he becomes an employee. As such, if he did have employees working for him, there would not be a proper employee-employer relationship. I would suggest that in those cases not only he but his workers would be employees within the meaning of the Act.

MR. CHABOT: One last question, Mr. Chairman. Could an independent contractor within the tree farm licence, who has a substantial capital investment and who employs one or more workers, be classified as a dependent contractor or an employer?

HON. MR. KING: Well, I would say that if he had a substantial capital investment and had the other trappings of independence and employed — well, no matter how many people he employed, he would be categorized as independent. That classification as to whether he is dependent or independent does not hinge on how many employees he happens to have. It's on the question of his relationship with the parent who he is contracting with.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I've listened to the Minister with some interest and some concern. It appears in this definition of that section that, while we have the definition of dependent contractor, we have nothing which indicates what might be an independent contractor. I have heard what he had said with considerable interest, but I don't really believe that he's indicated clearly enough for me, at least — and undoubtedly for the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) as well — what the distinction happens to be.

Now I appreciate that he said that it's pretty unrealistic to define these things. I wonder why he has bothered, then, to put the dependent contractor definition in the Act. Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the many representations we've had from groups within the province who are independent contractors — some of whom take contracts which theoretically would make them dependent — I wonder whether the Minister would consider deleting that clause dealing with the dependent contractor altogether from the definition selection.

It is pretty simple for us here, perhaps, to talk about the independent and the dependent and to talk about definitions, but out in the field, on the logging roads of British Columbia, it takes on a somewhat different complexion. We know full well the battle that's been waged in the Alberni area and the memorandum of agreement which owner-operators have been asked to sign by IWA, local 1-85.

The agreement, Mr. Chairman, to refresh your memory, is six-point; it is fairly simple. It goes:

"l) It is agreed that all employees of owner-operator contractors will become members of local 1-85, IWA.

"2) Owner-operator contractors who operate their own equipment will pay to the local union a monthly fee equivalent to union dues paid by local union members.

"3) As required, IWA members will work with owner-operator contractors signatory to this agreement within the jurisdiction of local 1-85, IWA.

"4) It is understood by both parties that the application of seniority shall be within the employee group of the owner-operator contractor signatory to this agreement.

"5) It is agreed that the provisions of the Coast master agreement will apply to the owner-operator signatory to this agreement and to his employees.

"6) It is agreed that the local 1-85, IWA, will provide stickers for the equipment of the owner-operator contractor signatory to this agreement."

This has been, as you know, Mr. Minister, fought, not entirely successfully, by the owner-operators. What I see coming in by reason of the definition section and, of course, the subsequent clauses dealing with the dependent contractor, is that we will simply be providing the legal vehicle for the type of IWA activity to take over the owner-operator in the first industry — which, of course, is an IWA objective.

IWA obviously have their own reasons for this. I am not questioning their motives from their point of view. But I am saying that owner-operators have a different point of view, and I think we should recognize it here in the Legislature, to be even-handed. And I think that we should, Mr. Minister, in dealing with this whole question, either define the independent or strike out the definition of dependent. This, of course, involved a certain number of consequential changes: in section 1 you would delete the definition of dependent contractor in its entirety; in section 1, line 12 you would delete all words after "employment" in that subsection.

Mr. Minister, unless we have an explanation which is more satisfactory than that given so far — and I appreciate the complexities that you talked about — I will be putting in an amendment to that effect on the floor.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the point the Member raises is essentially the same point that the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) raised. He questions the reason for including an interpretation of "dependent contractor" and not including a definition of "independent contractor." It is not the purpose of the new labour code to deal with licensing or the right of businesses to

[ Page 699 ]

operate. I think that would properly belong in some other legislation. What we are simply seeking to do is to allow the inclusion of all employees, per se, in a certified bargaining unit. The question is whether or not contractors more closely resemble an employee in their relationship with the parent.

In the Alberni situation you referred to, are all the contractors employed by MacMillan Bloedel indeed independent, or are some of them, in essence, employees of MacMillan Bloedel? If they are, and indeed are dependent upon MacMillan Bloedel for their operation, then they are escaping the certification rights of the trade union in that kind of circumstance. It is essential, in my view, that someone be empowered to make that determination.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that Ontario has a similar provision which is a little more all-inclusive, as a matter of fact, than the provision contained in this bill. I think there are, all told, four jurisdictions in Canada which have a more compelling and more all-inclusive provision with respect to contractors than is provided for in this Act. So I can't see any benefit in defining an independent contractor. Certainly if he is independent, there is nothing in this Act which would be of any relevance to him in terms of that kind of determination.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the difficulty arises, Mr. Chairman, in that most of the owner-contractors are, of course, single-unit people. They may indeed, as the Minister has mentioned, be under some sort of connection with a company. I don't know whether it might be the company having guaranteed a bank loan or something for the purchase of construction equipment or logging equipment, or something of that nature. It could, of course, be a relationship such as that, and I appreciate the Minister's words.

But it still does not get over the problem we have talked about, both myself and the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), in terms of the need to either define the independent or strike out the clause dealing with dependent contractors. The fact is that later in the Act, Mr. Minister — and, of course, we can't talk about later sections except in somewhat guarded terms — but later in the Act we find tremendous conflicts where these people are considered employers for some purposes — read the Act; they're employers — and if you read the Act a different way, they're employees — or at least they are dependent contractors.

So to try to overcome this difficulty I would suggest that what we do — in particular to take care of the specifically British Columbian view, or the British Columbia problem — is to simply do some deletions.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, just for your own private information, that this is not something that has come up from one or two individuals. It's been a consistent criticism of the bill by the independents — the Western Independent Log Haulers Association, the Central Interior Loggers Association. The various other people who have been to see me on this have all indicated the same concern on this section.

Really, I cannot see that there would be any difficulty, in view of the fact that the board can go and define "employee" itself. I don't see why we should be under any disability for lifting the whole clause "dependent contractor" and, of course, lifting in additions the lines: line 12 and subsequent to the end of that subsection dealing with "compensation to a dependent contractor for furnishing his own tools…."

Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the explanation, which I feel is not entirely satisfactory on this point, I would so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is moving amendment to section 1? I would point out to the Hon. Member that he must hand in the amendment in writing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I understood I had done so previously and that that is where this came from.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. This is only….

MR. ANDERSON: I will rewrite it out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You could use your copy of orders of the day and put your name on it if you like.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well that seems somewhat foolish. I'll have to tear the thing up. Do you not have a copy in front of you? I can sign it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we should establish right at the beginning that each committee Member has the responsibility to hand in their amendments in writing at the time that they make them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I simply ask what happens to those that we have already signed, which have been handed in and what garbage can they wind up in so I can go and retrieve…?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My counsel advises me that what you put in writing is a notice of the amendment. What we want now is the actual amendment that you are moving.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, okay. I'll defer to the Hon. Member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and bring this up at a separate time. With 10 pages on the

[ Page 700 ]

order paper dealing with amendments, I think we're going to have paper coming out of our ears, if you ask us to re-submit.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's on the order paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's on the order paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Motions are treated the same way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you wish to do it that way, I can. I think it might….

MR. CHAIRMAN: The procedure, Hon. Member, is evidently the same as it is for any motion, and that is that any motion must be handed to the Chairman or the Speaker in writing at the time that it is moved, and signed by the Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, if by unanimous consent the House can do anything it likes, perhaps it would solve everybody's difficulty and make the consideration of these amendments much more expeditious if we accept the order paper by unanimous consent for this type of….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not going to hold up the procedure. However, I would point out that in committee it is not permissible to suspend the rules; only in the House is it possible to suspend the rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we'll write out the….

HON. MR. KING: On a point of order. Am I to understand that the Member is seeking to introduce an amendment which has not been registered or filed on the order paper?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): No.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it's on it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It's on the order paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Watch out or you'll be on our side.

HON. MR. KING: I'd like to know what the Chairman's ruling is.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's on the order paper, Bill. It's on top of page 21.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's important that we establish the procedure properly now. I would refer the Hon. Members to standing order 50: "All motions, except the motion to adjourn and the previous question, shall be in writing and signed by the mover before being debated or put from the Chair." I think that's clear. It's just a matter, if every Member is prepared at the time they wish to move their amendment, it's a simple procedure to hand in the written or typewritten amendment signed by that member. Handwritten is adequate.

I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he obtain an extra copy of orders of the day, mark the section that he is going to move and sign his name to it.

MR. WALLACE: The whole of section 1, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps much more vital to the bill than I think is being emphasized. The Minister himself has stated that great responsibility falls on the board to carry out its functions under the tremendous scope of power given to it. If this is the case, and if the board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the extent of its authority, then indeed section 1 takes on very great importance inasmuch as the definitions included in section I must be unmistakably clear.

I wouldn't wish to repeat the speech of the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) or the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) on that particular definition of dependent contractors, but I do think it cannot be said too often that if this board is to have such tremendous power — and the Minister has admitted that that is the whole concept, that the courts be removed from the whole scene of labour management disputes — such a board as the one envisaged will in fact have literally unlimited powers to do its job.

Nevertheless, that job must be done within the definitions of section 1. Therefore it seems very clear that we should know exactly what the definitions of the different terms mean, whether its collective agreement, dependent contractor or what have you.

When I spoke in second reading of this bill the Minister shook his head when I referred to "professional strike-breaker" and I referred to the potential or possible interpretation of "supervisory personnel." The definition of "professional strike-breaker" means a person who is not a party involved. Now I submit that some supervisory personnel are not members of a collective agreement, but perhaps they could be interpreted as being strike-breakers.

Now I'm not saying that I'm right, and I'm not saying that the Minister is wrong. I'm simply saying that there is a lack of clarity in that particular definition, which of course will be open to the interpretation of the Labour Relations Board, from which interpretation there is no appeal.

Mr. Chairman, two or three of these terms particularly concern us greatly, because of the lack of

[ Page 701 ]

clear definition. And when you combine that lack of clarity with the tremendous scope for the board to interpret what these definitions mean, I think there is some room for extending the definitions. Or perhaps in the case of the one we are now debating, "dependent contractor," possibly we could delete it and leave the board to interpret the difference between "dependent contractor" and "independent contractor" on its own merits.

As has been pointed out earlier this afternoon, it seems only right that if we are going to attempt to define a dependent contractor and the difference between that and an employee, we should to try to define what an independent contractor is. I know this is difficult, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister. I'm not denying that. I think that he's making a serious attempt to clarify the situation but I don't think it is adequate.

Therefore, with these comments I would move the amendment standing in my name — and I have a signed copy, Mr. Chairman. I will just read it: "To amend by deleting the portion of section 1 beginning with the words dependent contractor on the 20th line and concluding with the word contractor on the 28th line." So moved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order. I do believe that the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) had already moved his amendment. It was simply a matter of providing it to me in writing.

MR. WALLACE: It's the same amendment. Surely we're not going to spend hours in this House splitting hairs, Mr. Chairman. Let's get on with the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it's agreeable with the Second Member for Victoria, we'll accept the amendment of the Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Is the amendment accepted, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.

MR. WALLACE: Speaking briefly to the amendment, I feel that the definition lacks clarity and does not make it easy for the Labour Relations Board in fact to give a sound interpretation. For that reason we feel it would help section 1 and the whole intent of this bill if we deleted that definition. That is the purpose of the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment put forward by the Member for Oak Bay.

I just want to outline to the Members of the House that obviously, if a contractor does not meet the classification of dependent contractor, then it naturally follows that he would be an independent contractor. Why in the world you would want such a definition spelled out in legislation is incomprehensible to me.

I want to explain to you what the practical application of your amendment would produce. It could produce a situation where an employer, who is seeking to escape the provisions of a collective agreement with his employees, could use a ruse to finance some of his work force or additional workers unrelated to his company, to finance the provision of tools and equipment to them, and set them up posed as independent contractors and hence cut into the work that is due to the employees of his with whom he has negotiated a collective agreement.

By so doing, he could precipitate pretty major reductions in the trade union work force that has an historic right to that work. This would be a ruse which has been used before and one which I frankly would not think that the Hon. Members of the opposition, if they understood the intent, would be prepared to lend themselves to.

Now that's the kind of situation we can get into where every individual with a power-saw, indeed, could be set up as an independent contractor. That's the kind of definition which could certainly mitigate against the legitimate interests of trade unions. I think that should be recognized.

Now obviously, as I pointed out before, all of these are types of relationships which we experience across the board in this province, not only in the forest industry, but certainly in construction.

In fishing, for instance, canneries may well finance a fisherman with a boat and tie him down with a contract which makes him rely completely upon them for his very right to exist and do business in that industry. What is independent about that? What is independent about him? And that could be a method, and has been a method indeed, of seeking to escape their obligations under a collective agreement which they have signed, presumably in good faith, to represent the workers.

The amendment that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) moves is one which would allow for the continuation of this kind of bad-faith situation. It's one that would mitigate against the best interests of the workers in this province and I reject it out of hand, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's no way we can accept that we are attempting to put forward a ruse on behalf of certain companies.

HON. MR. KING: No, I didn't say that. It's not that at all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What is happening is that we have a board set up and they have a role.

[ Page 702 ]

Now all the arguments that have been put forward by the Minister appear to me to be arguments which might well be valid were the board not in existence; but there is a role for the board to determine what are employees and what might be phony ruses to get around the Act. That is the point I want to make.

It's not a question of our putting forward a hypothetical situation based on fishing — and I am not sure of the scope that this Act has over fishermen. I am not trying to put forward this type of argument in favour of ruses. We are simply saying that there is also, on the other hand, tremendous problems that could arise — problems which have been foreseen by the independents, problems that we think could best be solved or at least be mitigated, could be reduced, by having this section struck out.

I am not saying that the board will have no function at all in determining what is an employee, what is an employer. These are defined in the Act. I am saying that they will have a role to play and they will be able to get through the ruses that may be employed. But I don't think we are starting out on the right foot by granting a definition in this Act which can only cause trouble in the future because of the conflict between these people who are on the one hand owner-operators but sometimes employers, sometimes considered employees. I think this dependent contractor clause simply adds to the confusion and potential difficulty rather than reducing it.

MR. CHABOT: Speaking to the amendment, I am sure that the Member for Oak Bay wasn't suggesting by his amendment that he would be inclined to protect the spin-off companies of companies that have collective agreements with workers. I don't think that was the intent of his amendment but the Minister attempted to say it was.

I realize there are problems in this connection where a union becomes certified to represent a particular company and there is a spin-off company established to avoid the collective agreement that exists between the workers' representative and the employer. These spin-off companies set themselves up to avoid the responsibility of a collective agreement. But that isn't the concern with the amendment that has been put forward. The real concern is the interpretation of the dependent contractor.

One can readily say that within the tree farm licence — I keep going back to the tree farm licence, because an independent contractor can be within the tree-farm licence or outside of one as well. Within the TFL, he is entitled to cut 30 to 50 per cent of the material on that limit, but then he must in turn direct the logs to the company that holds the TFL. He is, in my opinion, directly dependent upon that holder of the tree farm licence in order to get this contract. Now this is the situation.

Really, I think there should be a clear-cut explanation. If the Minister is primarily concerned about this business of companies which have collective agreements with unions and which establish spin-off companies, then he should spell it out and he should put in legislation in language that will clearly define his concern. But don't put language in the legislation that will create fear and apprehension out there in those thousands of independent contractors in the logging industry in British Columbia.

You'd better believe you haven't given a clear definition. You have failed to allay their fears. They are fearful of this legislation and they want to know, really, if you would be inclined to give these people, the owner-operators, an opportunity to join, either a union or an association. What would be your attitude in that respect? These people were just asking you to give them the opportunity to join either. It is unfortunate that the Minister is unwilling to give out the clear definition what a dependent contractor is and what his attitude and his interpretation of this part of the Act is. I wonder if the Minister has had representation, direct or indirect, by the IWA for the inclusion of this section in the Act, or something similar to this.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the Member for Columbia River need have any doubt. Of course there will have been representations from the IWA with respect to this particular clause. As a matter of fact, there were meetings with the Minister on this very problem during this past year.

However, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Minister to reconsider his rejection of this amendment — and it does not have anything to do with the IWA problem at all. You are placing in a definition, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, what can only lead to confounding the vast problems which you are already laying before the Labour Relations Board.

You mentioned the possibility of an employer using a ruse by financing certain people in his work to acquire equipment then enter into so-called contracts to make them independent but which made them really in fact more dependent upon the employer than if they had been an employee. That kind of activity, Mr. Minister, is expressly prohibited under your unfair labour practices section, which we will come to in a few moments.

But as well as that, Mr. Chairman, section 34 of this Act — and again I don't want to transgress on subsequent sections — gives the board just the very clear and simple responsibility of determining who is an employee and who is an employer. That's all you need. By adding the definition of dependent contractor, and using the words that you use, saying that "a person in a position of economic dependence upon," or "under an obligation to perform duties for

[ Page 703 ]

somebody who was in an employer relationship," that the person who more closely resembles an employee casts upon the board a very serious decision-making responsibility with regard to whether a person is in or out of this particular definition.

Also under section 34 the board has power to determine what persons are bound by a collective agreement. If we have a case, Mr. Chairman, where an employer did enter into a so-called contract with an individual who had some equipment to do some work and, as a consequence, then said that person is not an employee of his and needn't be bound by the collective agreement, the decision in that respect is the board's decision under section 34. But by putting in this definition of dependent contractor, you give them the opportunity to raise the argument and create the problem for the board simply because you spell out in various ways what really is the escape.

You can be as certain as we are standing here debating, Mr. Minister, that there are people in this community who will wish to seek the loopholes in this law. And by putting in this definition, you provide them with one, because all they do is come before the board and say "By reason of the relationship between me and the man for whom I work, I do not closely resemble an employee at all,"

You also, Mr. Chairman — and this is the point made by the Member for Columbia River, and I wish to reinforce it — can put an individual in the position where he could classify perhaps as a dependent contractor under this section but still qualify as an employer.

I appreciate examples can be abused, and I don't raise the example for that purpose, but take the position of an individual who owns three trucks and he has three truck drivers and three swampers. Maybe he drives one of the trucks himself. He may be in the position where the teamsters union might have those truck drivers or swampers as members of that union and he in a position under a multiple-employer certification to bargain collectively for that group.

Yet another union could well argue that, by reason of the relationship between the man who owns those trucks and the person who contracts with him, he's really a dependent contractor because he is totally, absolutely, economically dependent upon that relationship. Then you're going to create an argument which is only going to lead to further inter-union jurisdictional problems all because this is here.

Now, if that section comes out, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that no offence is done to the direction in which you're heading at all. You still leave it up to the board to decide whether a person in a particular position, whether he owns equipment or not, is an employee and whether, by reason of his relationship with the employer, he is bound by a collective agreement. That is a clear, simple decision — not an easy one, but clear and simple — for the board to make. By leaving this definition in, you only provide the loophole that we hoped in this House for once and for all was beginning to close.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make this observation. I appreciate the Member's good intent, but I question whether his argument would be welcomed by the very people who he's trying to serve.

It's the kind of situation where the board would make a determination as to whether an individual was an employee within the meaning of the Act. You fail to recognize the distinction between an ordinary employee who owns no equipment and that unique situation, which I think should be recognized in legislation, where the employee has some interest or some ownership in equipment that he may operate in the course of his employment.

It is a dissimilar situation, and I don't think that contractors who have any investment whatsoever would welcome the prospect of being included as an employee per se. I think they would certainly welcome the status of a dependent contractor as distinct from an employee within the meaning of the Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just a couple of more brief comments, Mr. Chairman. May I first of all say to the Minister — and I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue — that I serve no one here except this House and this committee. Any arguments that I may have occasion to put forward in this or any other legislation are put forward in discharge of that responsibility only.

If I may, however, deal with the subject that the Minister raises. The very fact that you have this category established in this Act does not preclude the Labour Relations Board from exercising any other decision-making powers it may have and still find the person to be an employee or an employer as the case may be. The thrust of my argument was simply that you are opening up the statute for abuse, and, by removing "dependent contractor" and making a minor amendment to the subsequent section which deals with dependent contractors, you accomplish the purpose without giving the opportunity for escape.

I have no question that the Labour Relations Board, when dealing with particular problems, will have no difficulty in determining who is properly an independent contractor and who is properly to come within the classification of an employee. I think that will be relatively easy, but this definition being here will make it more difficult rather than more easy.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WILLIAMS: Moving on to another matter dealing with definitions, we have for the definition of employee all the breadth that the Labour Relations

[ Page 704 ]

Board could ever require in discharging its responsibility, but we have certain exclusions to the definition of employee.

One which I find troublesome is the exclusion of a person who is employed for the primary purpose of exercising management function over other employees. Now again, I think there will be no difficulty on the part of the board in determining whether a person is or is not exercising a management function. But I quarrel seriously — and I have an amendment — with casting the responsibility on the board of determining not only what is a management function but determining whether that is the primary purpose for which the person is engaged by his employer.

This again opens up this legislation for question and argument before the board. If a person discharges a management function, then truly he should not be an employee within the scope of this legislation. That decision is a clear one. I'm not interfering with the matter of who is supervisory or non-supervisory, whatever the case may be. Management function is all that the board need determine, and there are clear ground rules in every company, there are clear and easy examinations that could be made by the board and the staff of the board to determine whether or not any particular individual does exercise the management function.

But as soon as you say "primary purpose" then you put another element into the equation, or puzzle, if you like, that the board must wrestle with. It creates, as I say, another opportunity for argument. I think that the task of the board would be made easier and those people who must deal with the Act would know better what their rights were if the words "primary purpose" were deleted.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment standing in my name to the definition of "employee" in section l(l)(i), by deleting (i) in its entirety and substituting, therefore, the words, "exercises management functions over other employees; or?" I so move. I would point out to the Hon. Clerk that there's another amendment on that same paper and I'd like to reserve my right to include that.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. The new definition of employee, I think, seeks to assist the board in making a clear definition of an employee. In the past, the criterion was as to whether or not the supervisory individual possessed the right to hire and fire, or was privy to confidential information of the labour-relations nature. But this was a practice or a precedent that was more or less established by the board without any clear definition of the terms.

I think the wording of this Act has been very carefully thought out and I think it will be of great assistance to the board in determining the main function of the supervisory individual. There's no question but that shift bosses in mines, for instance, have been found to be employees by the old board and have been included in collective-bargaining units.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that there certainly is an increasing interest by middle-management groups in obtaining the benefits of trade-union representation. I think that this House should recognize that interest where it does not unduly conflict with the interests of management in providing that recognition and that protection to management people.

The term used in the new definition, "primary purpose, " I think, achieves that very nicely. Accordingly, I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of the amendment. In my earlier comments this afternoon I talked about simplicity and clarity in definition. This is why, I guess, this section is attracting a fair amount of discussion, and rightly so.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound makes it so beautifully clear: "exercises management functions over other employees". But section l(l)(i) in the bill states: "for the primary purpose of exercising management." "Primary" is a relative word; who decides what is primary and what is secondary and what is cursory?

It seems to me, as a layman in the labour field, that "the fewer words you have the better" would seem to be a very logical approach. There are mightier and worthier people than I who have said that you should never use two words if one will do. I just think that this amendment serves that purpose very well and clearly states that you're excluding people in a management capacity. You do it in an unmistakable way in clear simple language, whereas the bill which the Minister has, in subsection 1, could introduce an element or a need for interpretation which need not exist.

God knows, this board will need to have as few…. Any way in which we can reduce the requirement that they should have to make interpretations — rather than have it clearly spelled out for them to interpret what is in the bill — I think is of the utmost importance.

Their powers are going to be stretched to the Nth degree anyway to interpret a lot of things which really are their function. But if there are certain definitions so that they don't have to struggle to interpret, then I think this House should do its utmost to make these definitions unmistakably clear. For that reason, I support the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: I don't want to get into too

[ Page 705 ]

much of a debate on this. I recognize the sincerity of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), but I would put to him the proposition that I don't know whether he's trying to attack the union I belong to or not.

I would just use as an illustration the type of role that a locomotive engineer plays. It's supervisory; he supervises the crew each and every trip, as does the conductor. If we come to that tight determination of anyone exercising a supervisory role, then certainly we'd exclude many employees from the right to union organization who have historically enjoyed that right for many, many years. I know that's not the intent of the Member for Oak Bay, but I want to illustrate to him that the simple exercise of the supervisory function is certainly, by no stretch of the imagination, an adequate yardstick for measuring this complex kind of question.

I think that with the kind of board we have, which has the wherewithal, which has the background and expertise to conduct hearings and receive evidence,  we can be assured that each complex situation can be assessed on its own particular merits in a much more effective way than the Members of the House could draft out in legislative terms.

Amendment negatived.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Chairman, on section 1, I'd just like to preface my remarks by saying that in the election campaign of last year I made a number of very specific promises to the residents of North Vancouver. I thought out very carefully what those promises were. I made sure that none of them were unrealistic, and I made sure that none of them were promises that I didn't feel we couldn't keep within a reasonable period of time.

For that reason, I'm forced to vote against section 1. I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of parts of section I that I feel could be strengthened, and I intend to discuss those parts. But those parts wouldn't, by themselves, force me to make a decision such as I have been in the process of making. It is, quite frankly, a very serious one and a very important one for me to make as a Member on the government side.

Mr. Chairman, the section that I refer to, that I campaigned very specifically and very loudly on, is the section relating to agricultural and domestic workers. Mr. Chairman, it's my view that we don't need a study to include these categories of workers in the labour-relations legislation. I think that it's been demonstrated in other jurisdictions and it's been demonstrated on the farms and in the farm industries throughout this province that, in fact, farm workers can and should be covered by labour legislation. I think the same holds true for domestic workers.

I understand that the Minister and I have a disagreement about that. I respect his view, I'm confident that the results of his study will lead to the inclusion of these groups under collective bargaining, but I cannot vote for a section at this time that excludes those people.

Mr. Chairman, I think that I have some to talk about farm workers. I grew up on a farm in the Okanagan, a farm that doesn't make much income and a farm on which my parents had to hire assistance — sometimes, on a full-time basis, for eight months of the year and, at peak-period hiring, as many as four or five additional employees.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the apples and pears and peaches that were picked by those people should be sold to the public in Vancouver or Edmonton on a cheaper basis because we were underpaying those workers. Those workers should not be put in the position of having to subsidize the consumers in the rest of the country. That principle I just cannot accept. It's my view that if an operation — whatever kind it is, industrial, farm, or whatever — cannot survive by paying adequate wages, then, Mr. Chairman, that operation doesn't deserve to survive.

There are in British Columbia a great many people who are working in farm-related industries and who are working in large groups. This does not just cover the single employee who might work for a certain length of time, for a few weeks or a few months or a few hours in each day. This legislation is excluding a great many employees who work in non-direct farm situations, in some kinds of farm-related secondary industries. I think that is unfortunate that they are not included in the legislation.

In my view, the legislation allows for the creation in the farming industry for a kind of union that would exist across a great number of farms. Because of the fact that in other sections we allow for one person to become part of a unit and allow that one person to join with one other person working for another employer, we could find ourselves with a very satisfactory union structure situation in the farming industry. Mr. Chairman, I think that if we force these kinds of issues by making sure that workers in all areas have their fair rights, then the employers in those areas will, too, as a result, have more fair rights. But at the moment the public is not aware of how unfairly those kinds of employers are dealt with.

As far as domestic service goes, Mr. Chairman, I don't have the same kind of experience with that but I have a simple philosophy about this question: a worker is a worker is a worker, for whomever he or she works. As far as I'm concerned, they should be included in the legislation. And as I said, because of that particular part of section 1, I must — I don't like to have to do it, but I must — vote against section 1.

I want to talk about a couple of other parts of the section that I think could be improved, from my point of view and from the point of view of the

[ Page 706 ]

people who elected me in North Vancouver. I've had a great many discussions with them and I haven't taken this step lightly. The section relating to picketing, Mr. Chairman, I think is needlessly stringent. It effectively eliminates the possibility of legally marching in front of Super-Valu, asking consumers not to purchase, in this instance, California grapes.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what position I will be in as a member of the public and as a Member of this Legislature when, following passage of this legislation, I participate in a Super-Valu picket line protesting the use of California grapes in that situation. I will clearly be in violation of this law, Mr. Chairman.

I intend, if that issue is still alive, to participate in those kind of picket lines. I obviously then will be in violation of this law. So will a great many other people in this society.

Mr. Chairman, a law that does not command the respect of people in our society cannot work. It is absolutely essential that groups to whom this legislation is being applied respect this legislation. Unfortunately, the section on picketing which relates to another section later in the legislation is, in my view, a section that will lead to refusal to obey the law. I find that unfortunate because if you break the law once, it's easier to do on another section, and the whole thing then grows into….

I'm not suggesting that it will grow into the kind of disrepute that the Socred legislation grew into, because there are no parallels with that iniquitous legislation. But it's a danger, Mr. Chairman, that I think we should be very, very careful about.

The other part of this section that I wanted to discuss was the definition of professional strikebreaker. Mr. Chairman, in the debate on second reading on principle I made some comments about another section relating to compulsory arbitration and the fact that that's not the way to solve the Sandringham dispute.

There were some comments made both by Members privately to me, and by reporters — particularly in the Vancouver Sun — saying, "Well, how else do you solve situations like Sandringham?" Mr. Chairman, there's a simple solution in solving problems like Sandringham and it's this: you outlaw scabbing. Mr. Chairman, I cannot use the words "professional strike breaking" because I believe that's scabbing. To strike-break is to scab and there is no better word in the English language than the word "scab".

The strike at Sandringham would have been over in weeks if that company was not allowed to hire scabs, or strike breakers as they are referred to legally.

Questions are then raised about the balance of power in our society. Effectively, the large industrial operations in this province are unable to hire strike breakers or scabs because of the nature of their operations, because of the complexities and because of the numbers involved. We have, in a non-legislative way, effectively outlawed, in an indirect sense, strike breaking in those large industries. And no one dares complain about the lack of economic balance.

Mr. Chairman, the area in our society where there is immense economic imbalance is in the service industry, in the areas that we must organize over the next few years: areas like Sandringham, areas like Shoppers Drug Mart, areas like Nu-Life Nutrition, areas like A.B. Dick, areas like Dominion Motors in Vancouver. The list of unresolved disputes goes on and on and on. Those disputes could all have been solved and settled within weeks had there been provision in legislation to outlaw strike breaking.

In my view that will begin, and only begin, to rectify the imbalance that now exists in the economic power of, on one hand, George Weston or some large insurance company that owns a private hospital, and on the other hand on the job, a group of defenceless and inexperienced workers, more often than not in those industries, Mr. Chairman, women.

It's our responsibility to make certain that they can resolve their strikes quickly and fairly, and the way for us to do that is to give them the same power that we give to the large sawmills and pulp mills and other complex industrial operations in the province. The solution is not to allow scabs.

Mr. Chairman, the definition of "professional strike breaker" does not come to grips with that problem because the definition talks about a group that is organized to do strike breaking specifically; it does not include someone who just comes in off the street asking for a job during a strike.

For those reasons — and I've tried to be brief; I've outlined them as clearly as I can — I am not particularly happy with this section. I am happy with a great deal of the section; I'm not happy with those specific parts of those specific contents.

I'm also not happy with something that is, in my view, omitted from the definitions or from the list of things covered by section 1. That's the entire question of the fishermen's right to be covered by this legislation. I appreciate the fact — and I understand it, I think, quite clearly — that there are constitutional difficulties. I appreciate the fact that the Minister (Hon. Mr. King) has suggested that if the constitutional difficulties are resolved in the province's favour, then this legislation under another section later on would allow the fishermen to be covered. I'm not absolutely persuaded that that's the case, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me simple to do what they did in Nova Scotia, and that's to include a section specifically including fishermen under the jurisdiction of this legislation. If the federal government wants to take us

[ Page 707 ]

to court on this question, let them go ahead; I don't believe they will. I think we should just put the section in, include the fishermen under our legislation, and be done with it.

As I said earlier, it has been a difficult decision, but there are some matters, as loyal as I am to my caucus, with which, unfortunately, I am not able to go along. Thank you.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Chairman, I too have to rise in opposition with this clause.

MR. PHILLIPS: The track gets wider.

MR. STEVES: I cannot support a clause, Mr. Chairman, which in my opinion encourages class discrimination and rules out teachers and professionals on one hand, and farm workers, domestic help and people like that on the other.

Further, I'm a bit concerned, as the previous speaker, that we have not specifically outlined the rights of fishermen in this Act.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please not interrupt the speaker.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Chairman, in my riding, I and our party made a lot of promises to the fishermen, and, as I mentioned earlier, the fishermen constitute a very large portion of the work force in my community.

I am concerned that, due to the dispute between federal and provincial jurisdictions being challenged by the canneries, by the companies, it could be possible that the fishermen are not included under federal law.

A tiny province like Nova Scotia and other cast-coast communities have included fishermen specifically in their labour codes, not necessarily in the manner I'd like to see them included, but at least they are included and protected in some way.

I mentioned in the earlier discussion on this that the fishermen in my riding had been organizing and carrying out collective bargaining since 1893. They've had a long tradition in that particular community of bargaining and negotiating for the price of fish. I am very much concerned that it is not spelled out that they are included under section 48 as dependent contractors, but personally I would like to see it spelled out so we know for sure that they are included and, if the federal Act is found to be not workable and the ruling comes against the fishermen, they would be included in this Act we are discussing today.

The second point I would like to make deals with domestic workers and agricultural workers. Like the previous speaker, as most of you are aware, I too have been involved in agriculture much of my life.

The neighbouring farm to ours only four years ago had Chinese help working for 65 cents an hour. These people were brought in from Vancouver by someone who had bought a truck, picked up people, brought them out to the farms to work, and took 10 cents an hour from what they earned for his wage for bringing them out there. They put in long hours a day — 12, 14 hours a day — for very low pay. My area is no longer a farming community but I doubt very much if these people even now are getting more than a dollar an hour — not much more at any rate.

But, in effect, we do have in our farming community some degree of near slave labour. I find it very sad that we should be enacting legislation that denies the right to our farm workers of something that we have championed in the past for workers in places like California. Many of us here in this House have supported Caesar Chavez and his Chicano workers in California for their just fight for decent wages in the United States. Here we are faced with not giving the same rights to our people here in British Columbia, just a right to allow them or organize. We're not saying that they're going to have things overnight; but just give them a right to organize.

Another example I'd like to give is horticultural workers. In my riding, one greenhouse operation, for example, has 12 employees. It varies from time to time, but we'll say 12 employees on the average. Up until recently they've been paid $1.50 an hour; they've just got a 10 cents an hour raise to $1.60 for some of them. Some of them are still only getting $1.50.

Most of these workers are immigrants. The long tradition in agriculture has been to attract immigrants to the province and to the country to work for low wages. We lead them on with the "land of milk and honey" idea; they come over here and find that they have to work for low wages until they find their way in the community and get a job elsewhere. And so then, more immigrants come in and work for these same low wages.

I know one person who worked for this particular company for a number of years and had been interested in trying to organize to get higher wages, but, of course, there was no legislation previously that would allow this person to do so. Now we are not giving them permissive legislation either. This person left and went to work for another employer also in the horticultural business, also having greenhouses, and got a job doing the same work for $3 an hour.

So we have a position where one operator is able to pay $3 an hour and the other is exploiting the workers and paying them only $1.50, and its major profits are coming from that exploitation. Some

[ Page 708 ]

people have suggested that it may harm the farmers; I'd suggest that maybe even a greater harm is already being done to the farmers.

In my own position, when we were farming, we refused to hire coolie workers, to use the term not as a discriminatory one but as one that basically describes a type of work situation that I think is deplorable. We refused to hire the low-paid workers. One of the reasons why we ended up going out of business was because we would not hire at that low level of pay; we would not exploit workers to that extent. I think there are probably many other farmers throughout the province who've been struggling on, trying to pay decent wages, trying to mechanize so they wouldn't have to hire people at low wages, or trying to find some way that they could decently treat their employees.

I think that in the case of the two horticulturists whom I've mentioned, if the workers in the first one were allowed to organize and had gotten higher wakes, then that particular greenhouse operator would have been faced with several decisions: first, he would have to stop undue exploitation of his employees — he would have to either accept lower profits or expand his operation to increase production to higher levels; or he has the other alternative of becoming competitive with the people who are paying higher wages. The final alternative is to go out of business. I think enough of the agricultural firms in this particular business would be able to survive. There may be a few that might have to go out but I think there would be a very few.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that it's with a lot of thought and misgivings that I've taken this stand. It's very difficult in the backbench in the government; I think it would probably be difficult for opposition Members to vote against the stand their party has taken. When you have a principle such as this, I think you have to stand up and, on a clear conscience, express your feelings even if it means voting against the government in this matter.

The principle that I see here is that we are maintaining what I would consider as class legislation brought in by the previous government and previous governments both here in British Columbia and in Ottawa. I cannot accept that we should bring in this kind of legislation in the name of the NDP.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few observations in light of the points that were made by the past couple of speakers.

I would suggest to the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) that he have another look at section 1 pertaining to the definition of employee and he will find no exclusion, either for fishermen or for people involved in horticulture. I would suggest perhaps that the Member read that section again and he could have perhaps shortened his speech considerably. There is no prohibition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Closure! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: There's no prohibition in the Act. There is nothing that would exclude fishermen or, indeed, workers involved in horticulture.

I would just make this observation: with respect to farm workers I have stated publicly, and I reiterate now, that my department, m cooperation with the Minister of Agriculture's department, is embarking on a study which will attempt to determine more information in the agricultural sector so that we might include and extend the benefits of trade-union representation to broader areas of agricultural workers.

One of the problems, though, is the fact that at this particular session of the Legislature we are not only dealing in the main with labour legislation but also pretty significant assistance to agriculture. I think it's incumbent upon this government to live up to their word, to extend a helping hand to the people involved in agriculture so that they might be better able to afford competitive prices for labour costs with the manufacturing sector. I'm sure that once the government has introduced and passed the provisions which the Minister of Agriculture has put forward, many of the obstacles to providing fair and adequate wages in the agricultural sector will have been eliminated.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would say it's perhaps somewhat ironic that Members on that side of the House are suggesting that section 1 and the interpretations are too all-encompassing and too sweeping and broad, and at the same time we're having other suggestions that those interpretations and definitions are too narrow and restrictive.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the Minister is getting the message: your section is no good. This side of the House finds cause to complain and so does the other side as well.

I would like, however, to turn to another one of the definitions. It was one which was mentioned by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) in the course of his remarks. I wish to express to him my congratulations; he's following in a tradition that has come with Members from North Vancouver-Seymour on labour matters: separating from their party on matters of principle, on which he and the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves)-have just spoken. I applaud them. That's what we're here for and I hope it will never change.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour dealt with the matter of professional strike-breakers. I agree with his

[ Page 709 ]

comments with regard to probably what the normal appellation of a strike-breaker is. I think it's very fitting. However, I am concerned again at the task the Minister is placing before the Labour Relations Board by including in the definition of strike-breaker a decision where they have to decide what the primary object of a person might be.

I think it's quite clear and simple that people who are engaged to come in and interfere with the strike or disrupt lawful activities carried on by unions and their members in accordance with the provisions of this Act is not to be accepted by any person in this province who wishes to have some sort of labour peace. But there are people who are bona fide employees of an employer who may be on strike, and who, by nature of their responsibility as such employees, might fall within some person's view of interfering with a strike.

I would think that at this particular stage we should make it absolutely clear to the Labour Relations Board, when considering matters as to whether a person is or is not a professional strike-breaker, that a person who is a bona fide employee of an employer who is on strike, that there should be no question that that person carrying out his responsibilities does not f all within the classification of strike-breaker.

The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour said that in common parlance a scab is the name that you call a person who engages in these kind of activities. It should not be applied, however, to a person who, properly employed, is carrying out his responsibilities.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, a copy of which you already have, by adding to this definition the words: "but shall not include a bona fide employee of the employer whose employees are not on strike, when engaged in the performance of his duties as such employee."

I can appreciate in the Sandringham situation that what is going on there was a strike by employees who had no contract. Therefore, it might be concluded that bona fide employees of that employer would be exempted under the amendment that I propose. I make this amendment, recognizing that in this bill which is before us now we have a clause whereby the Sandringham situation is not going to develop again because there will be a collective agreement. Then the strike that takes place will be a lawful one and the definition of whether an employee is bona fide under those circumstances will be no problem to the board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we have a copy of the amendment?

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I sent up an amendment with regard to "employee"; that's the same sheet.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams). It's really irrelevant and redundant and contributes nothing to the section which defines professional strike-breakers. Indeed, it could result in a determination on the possibility of the board allowing a struck company to hire, during the course of or after the initiation of a strike, a person who did meet the classification of a professional strike-breaker.

What is a bona fide employee? One could argue under that type of language that a bona fide employee was one who had been hired after the initiation of a strike. As such his primary purpose may indeed be that of interfering with the progress of the legally-constituted strike.

I suggest that the definition of professional strike-breaker is very clear, the intent is very clear and I oppose the amendment put forward by the Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I must extend my congratulations to the Hon. Minister. There is no question in my mind, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure there will be no question in the minds of the Labour Relations Board, that an employer who goes out once the strike is in progress and hires a new work force is not hiring bona fide employees. The Minister's mind is more devious, I suggest, than that of the very worst employer that we could ever have in the province, the employer who makes every attempt to frustrate the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't agree with the Minister and I appreciate that his refusal to accept the amendment is virtually conclusive. I was startled to hear him suggest that my amendment was redundant. If redundancy is a criticism, then when we come to some future sections of the Act, we will have a great debate, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment negatived.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I don't wish to get into an argument with the Hon. Minister, but I would like to draw one thing to his attention and that is with regard to the definition of an agricultural worker.

In my opinion, horticulture is a part of agriculture. If you have a greenhouse or are doing market gardening, that is horticulture. If it is not, I would hope that these workers — the horticultural workers and the market garden workers, would be included under the Minimum Wage Act and could expect an

[ Page 710 ]

increase in wages as well as orchard workers, dairy farm workers and other groups as well.

HON. MR. KING: Horticultural workers were defined under the previous legislation and specifically excluded from the former Labour Relations Act. I understand there is a legal determination as to the term "horticulture" vis-à-vis agriculture and it is clearly defined as a separate industry. Accordingly, that particular definition has been dropped from the exemptions under this legislation.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister of Labour define what is meant by horticultural workers? Is that strictly greenhouse workers then, or would that include market gardeners and other people in produce work?

HON. MR. KING: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this could include certain greenhouse workers, possibly people who grow trees for reforestation and that type of thing. But I haven't got a legal definition of the whole….

MR. STEVES: This would not include the market gardeners I was mentioning, then?

HON. MR. KING: The which?

MR. STEVES: The market gardeners, the Chinese labourers and so on, growing cabbages….

HON. MR. KING: I don't think so.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am certainly pleased with the Speaker's ruling that we could have the opportunity this afternoon under this legislation to debate the present strike on: the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. I am also pleased that the Premier recognized the urgency of that strike and brought forth this afternoon the Labour Code of British Columbia Act, Bill 11, so that we would have the opportunity to discuss the strike on the British Columbia Railway.

Mr. Chairman, collective bargaining should begin immediately. The Premier should move with all haste and, if necessary, bring the parties involved in this before the Legislature in order that we can have a full-fledged debate on the strike on the British Columbia Railway. If that strike is allowed to continue, Mr. Chairman, indeed the entire economy of British Columbia will be in more than jeopardy, because the entire industry of the north part of this province will grind to a complete halt.

The industry of the north, Mr. Chairman, has been plagued during the last nine months by a shortage of boxcars. The lumber industry was hit by probably the fatal blow on Monday morning when the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) arbitrarily brought in new stumpage fees. The agricultural industry, Mr. Chairman, has been suffering in this province since Bill 42 was brought into being.

Now due to the shortage of boxcars, due to the railway strike, I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that this might strike the fatal blow to the very agricultural industry that this government says they're going to help.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the government has bungled the operation of the British Columbia Railway because, for some many months now, this railway has been running without collective agreements for many of its employees.

The entire economy of British Columbia suffers. The mining industry, which has been hit by legislation in the past, has been hit by uncertainty, is now facing maybe the final blow — not being able to move the produce of the mines to market.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Chairman, in my wildest imagination, under any circumstances, I can't understand what this debate has to do with the definitions section of Bill 11. This is a mockery of this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated while I comment on the point of order. The point of order is well taken in this respect, that I would ask the Hon. Member, if he wishes to continue this subject, that he relate it to the definitions contained in this section in order to cast light on the definitions rather than the other way around.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, on page 3 of Bill 11:

" 'Strike' includes a cessation of work, or refusal to work, or refusal to continue to work, by employees in combination, or in concert, or in accordance with a coon understanding, for the purpose of compelling their employer to agree to terms or conditions of employment, or of compelling another employer to agree to terms or conditions of employment of his employees, and 'to strike' has a similar meaning."

Never in my wildest imagination could I understand the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance not understanding, and not being concerned with the gravity of the situation that British Columbia is faced with.

I have tried to point out to the Minister, Mr. Chairman….

HON. MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr.

[ Page 711 ]

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

HON. MR. COCKE: What has that to do with the definition section of Bill 11? This Member is merely mocking this House by attempting to bring up an irrelevant debate as far as this section of the bill is concerned. If he wishes to make those kinds of speeches, I think that he should at least have some sense of responsibility in this chamber.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I think the point of order is well-taken. This is a definition of a strike, we already have that, and this is what the Member is trying to introduce. I suggest that the proper place to raise the matter he's raising is under those settlements of an existing strike.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister of Health Services (Hon. Mr. Cocke) wasn't in this afternoon at the time the question of the emergency debate was raised and therefore he didn't appreciate that the Speaker, in ruling out the emergency debate, made it very clear, I think, that the subject of debate of the B.C. Rail strike should come under consideration of this bill. It was for that reason that the Premier called this bill ahead of the others. It was really, I think, so we could have a specific debate on the B.C. Rail strike.

Because of that, with deference to the Minister of Transport — and he was here; I think he should have perceived that that was the will of the Speaker and the Premier — the very first section, putting it at the very top of the priority list, is the appropriate place. Under ordinary circumstances, if one wanted to interpret the rules strictly, Mr. Chairman, of course a debate of this kind would be completely out of order. But in view of the fact that the Speaker has ruled on another debate which was in order, namely the emergency debate on the B.C. Rail strike, then we're in a sense correcting a wrong by engaging in another wrong.

But whatever the merits of the exact rule, I think the spirit of the House was made very clear by the Speaker and the Premier. Therefore I think the Member for South Peace River should be heard on this particular issue now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My ruling is that the point of order is well-taken; this is not the right section in which to debate the matter which he raises. Rather, there may be more appropriate sections as we proceed through the bill where this might be done. Therefore I would rule that the….

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I allowed the Hon. Member to finish his remarks; I would appreciate the same courtesy. So therefore I would request that the Hon. Member merely discuss the points as they are relevant to the definitions contained in this section.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Certainly this first section which involves all of the interpretation of the entire bill, I feel at this time, due to the urgency of the matter…. As I say, the Premier brought this bill in this afternoon just so…. And there are many Members on your side of the House who realize the gravity of the situation, Mr. Chairman. This is a very urgent matter and strikes at the very roots of the economy of the Province of British Columbia. It's not only the fact, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. My ruling was, Hon. Member, that the discussion of the present B.C. Rail strike is not appropriate under this section. However, in discussing any particular definition, reference may be made to this strike or any other strike if it's relevant. I rule that a general discussion of the strike itself is not relevant to this section.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, in that case then, I'd like to ask leave of the House to move to a section, which you shall designate, where this very, very serious matter can be debated, because it's certainly very urgent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The procedure would be that we should dispose of the sections seriatim.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm asking for leave of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I previously ruled….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The procedure would be, Hon. Member, that we cannot suspend the rules in committee. Therefore the motion should be that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Then in the House, the matter should be dealt with there; permission should be sought there.

MR. McGEER: Don't you know the rules yet? We did that before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore the question is: shall section 1 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, section 1 isn't going to pass

[ Page 712 ]

just for a moment. Mr. Chairman, in my wildest dreams, I can't see you ruling, particularly being from the northern part of the province — you said there were sections under which this should be debated — not allowing the House to have the opportunity to give you the authority to move to the section, which I said you shall designate, and we'll move to the section under which we can debate this very, very serious matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I am bound by the rules of this House, as everyone else is, and the rules are that we must deal with it section by section. We may not suspend rules in the committee; you may do it in the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 34

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Hon. Members that the Speaker did point out that since such divisions in committee are recorded in Hansard, it was not really necessary for them to be recorded in the Journals. However, you may ask leave of the committee.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Richter) is asking that this division be recorded in the Journals of the House?

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, we ask that, when reporting to the House, you request that the division be recorded in the Journals.

MR. PHILLIPS: In the interpretation of section 1, we have the definition of a board. I wonder if the Minister of Labour would explain to me whether this board would be able to move in such areas where the entire economy of the province is involved. How fast would they be able to move? Is this board going to have the power? He says he's going to establish this board.

There is a board now established, the board of management of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, yet for nine months now there have been no collective agreements. Now, Mr. Chairman, we're faced with a devastating strike in British Columbia on the British Columbia Railway. Not only is there a strike today, Mr. Chairman, but the fact is that leading up to this, all summer long, the industry has been plagued by the shortage of boxcars — and then, on top of that, a national railway strike.

I wonder if this board that's going to be established under this labour code of British Columbia….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There seems to be quite a lot of noise. I'd ask the Hon. Members to be a little quieter so the Member may be heard. And I would ask him to keep his remarks strictly relevant to the section under consideration.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Is this board going to have the power to go back and repeal existing legislation that has caused the boxcar shortage in British Columbia over the past several months? I'm referring to the tax on rolling stock which has aggravated this problem in the northern part of the province since last spring, Mr. Chairman. Then on top of that, is this board going to have the power to assist in settling national rail strikes which, again, have created a lot of this problem?

Mr. Chairman, we do have a strike. Under the definition of a strike we include the cessation of work, and there has been a cessation of work on the British Columbia Railway. It is a cessation of work and a strike which is intolerable to the people of British Columbia. What we need, under the terms of the definitions, is collective bargaining. What we need, Mr. Chairman, is to get collective bargaining going on the British Columbia Railway to get rid of this strike. We need action now, Mr. Chairman.

Under the definition of bargaining, is there bargaining going on in good faith with the British Columbia Railway and its employees at the present time so that this strike doesn't have to carry on and cripple the economy of British Columbia? Under the definition of collective bargaining is this what is happening today? Is there bargaining in good faith, Mr. Chairman, under the definition of bargaining under this section?

Mr. Chairman, under the terms of this section,

[ Page 713 ]

there are many definitions. But nowhere in the definition section do I hear or see anything that outlines what a taxpayer in British Columbia is. Now, Mr. Chairman, really, when we're setting up a labour code of British Columbia so that labour disputes can be settled, nowhere do we talk about the very individual person which this labour legislation should be to protect — and that is the taxpayer of British Columbia, the same taxpayer of British Columbia that is being hurt by the strike on the British Columbia Railway.

Nowhere in this whole section does it say a word about the man on the street, the man who keeps this government going, the taxpayer of British Columbia — forgotten entirely in probably what is the biggest piece of legislation brought down during this session.

Mr. Chairman, I sometimes wonder about the credibility of a government which is supposed to be for the little people of British Columbia. Nowhere in the definition in this Bill 11, the Labour Code of British Columbia Act, does it even go so far as to mention the taxpayer of British Columbia, whose rights we are here in this Legislature to protect. Not one single mention; not one single mention, Mr. Chairman.

What makes up the Province of British Columbia but people, the people who pay the taxes and without whom we wouldn't be here and the province wouldn't be here? Yet in this new labour code, the Labour Code of British Columbia Act, who has been forgotten, Mr. Chairman?

Are the forgotten people the same forgotten people that are being forgotten when the British Columbia Railway doesn't get with it and settle their strike? This great people's government, that is supposed to be the people's government, doesn't even put a definition in their labour code of who the people are.

I ask you, Mr. Chairman, has the overruling majority, the crushing power of the people's government, forgotten already in just over 12 months the people who were supposed to have elected them to office?

No definition of who the people are, Mr. Chairman. They turn a deaf ear; they turn a deaf ear. We'll put an extension of the British Columbia Railway into New Westminster, and then maybe the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) will know what the British Columbia Railway is, because he has forgotten all about what the British Columbia Railway is. He doesn't know anything about it and he doesn't care about the people of British Columbia that this railway serves.

No, I'm telling you that the employees, the very "employees" that are so well outlined in this definition, the employees of the British Columbia Railway, are being forgotten by the board of directors today, or this strike would be settled. They want to go back to work, but they don't want a collective agreement — as is very well outlined in this section — they don't want a collective agreement forced on them. What they want, as is defined in this section, is collective bargaining, collective bargaining in good faith.

Mr. Chairman, there is a dispute at the present time. A dispute means a difference or apprehended difference between an employer — in this case the British Columbia Railway — or a group of employers — in this case the British Columbia Railway and the British Columbia Government — and one or more of his or their employees or a trade union as to matters or things affecting or relating to terms of condition of employment or work done or to be done. That, Mr. Chairman, is what is happening in British Columbia today.

There is a dispute, a dispute between the employees of the government-owned British Columbia Railway and the employer, the British Columbia Railway — a dispute which will cripple the economy of the Province of British Columbia if it is not settled immediately — a dispute that, in the definition of a dependent contractor, will ruin the dependent contractor.

The dependent contractor, as outlined in the definition section of this Bill 11, the Labour Code of British Columbia Act…there will be no dependent contractors, certainly not in the lumber business, because this strike, if allowed to continue, will ruin every dependent contractor in the Province of British Columbia.

Collective bargaining. Mr. Chairman, I wish, under the definition of collective bargaining, that the board of the British Columbia Railway and the employees of the British Columbia Railway would get together and do some collective bargaining, because collective bargaining means "negotiating in good faith with a view to the conclusion of a collective agreement or the renewal or revision thereof, or to the regulation of relations between an employer and employees."

Collective bargaining in good faith would settle the strike on the British Columbia Railway before it ruins the economy of British Columbia, ruins the agricultural industry of the Peace River area, ruins the lumber industry of the central Interior, and ruins the mining industry in this great province of ours.

There are numerous units involved, Mr. Chairman. A unit means a group of employees in the expression appropriate for collective bargaining, and there are some nine units, Mr. Chairman, involved in bargaining in good faith for the British Columbia Railway. One has gone out on strike and consequently, Mr. Chairman, there is a devastating strike in the entire British Columbia Railway which, if not settled, will ruin the economy of British Columbia.

There is no lockout at the present time. The

[ Page 714 ]

employees don't want to be bitter. All they want this people's government to do is to give them a fair shake. They want the president of the British Columbia Railway (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to bargain in good faith, as outlined in the definition of the Labour Code of British Columbia Act.

Mr. Chairman, through you I would like to ask the president of the British Columbia Railway to ensure that there are no further pickets set up on the British Columbia Railway. As defined under section 1 of the Labour Code of British Columbia Act, picket or picketing means:

"watching and besetting, or attending at or near an employer's place of business" — in this case the British Columbia Railway — "operations or employment for the purpose of persuading or attempting to persuade anyone not to" — and this is where the crunch comes, Mr. Chairman — "enter that employer's place of business, operations, or employment."

That is why the employees, under the terms of this definition in the Labour Code of British Columbia Act, Bill 11, which is before us now — this is what might happen. We might have picketing, Mr. Chairman, as defined under this section — picketing on the British Columbia Railway which makes the railway operations grind to a halt so that the material cannot move over the British Columbia Railway with the detrimental effect on the economy of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

Now, the definition goes on to say "enter that employer's place of business, operations, or employment." In this instance, Mr. Chairman, the employer is the British Columbia Railway or the provincial government and his place of business is the operations of that particular railway.

Now, under subsection (ii) the definition goes on to say "deal in or handle the products of that employer," and that is the crunch, Mr. Chairman. In this case the products of that employer are not only the products of the British Columbia Railway; they are the entire productivity of two-thirds of this province, the products of the taxpayers of this province, the products of the people who have never even been mentioned in the definition of this bill, Mr. Chairman!

Mr. Chairman, I hope that when I take my place the president of the British Columbia Railway will be able to stand in this Legislature and give his definition of what is happening in British Columbia today and why it is happening, and tell those people who have been forgotten in section 1, the interpretation section — the taxpayers of this province, the people who have struggled to build up this railway…. I hope that the president of that railway will stand in his place in the Legislature and tell us that the strike is over and that the goods and services of this province will start to move tomorrow morning.

At one time the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) said, "There will be no problems in the BCR." I have been trying to find a definition under this section that would refer to the statements the Minister of Labour made. And I, for the life of me, can't find that particular section. Maybe he's a party to misleading the House on that particular deal.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Prince George (Mr. Nunweiler) is not in the House and doesn't seem to be interested in this crisis we have in British Columbia today. I'm sorry that he isn't in the House because the industries in his particular area are more than involved in the dispute, which means a difference or apprehended difference— the dispute that is taking place today between the employees and the employer, the British Columbia Railway.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will allow the president of the railway to stand up in his place in the Legislature and tell us that this crippling strike is going to come to an end, that the rights of the taxpayers of British Columbia who own this railway are going to be protected and that the wheat that is presently being dumped on the ground in the Peace River area is going to be moving tomorrow morning over the Pcific Great Easter Railway in boxcars that will be made available. If this dispute, which is so ably outlined in this interpretation of the Labour Code of British Columbia Act, continues I am afraid that the small independent sawmill operators in the central and norther part of the province will be put out of business.

It will mean a financial crisis for them because this dispute, so ably outlined in this interpretation, if allowed to continue will be the death blow to those small independent lumber operators in the northern part of this province. After being dealt a blow on Monday las by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) with new stumpage fees, after being dealt blows all summer long by shortage of boxcars, this is the final death knell, Mr. Chairman. That's why this dispute, which is defined here in section 1 of the Labour Code of British Columbia Act, must be settled immediately.

Mr. Chairman, you're from the north country; you know how much those industries have to do with the economy of that area, and how this dispute, as outlined and defined here, must be settled. You realize that. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if you weren't in the chair you would be out there on the backbench standing in your place and supporting me in my plea to have this dispute settled and to have collective bargaining in good faith take place so that this strike, as defined here— which means a cessation of work in the British columbia Railway — would stop.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour or be wordy about this section, but it is so important to the economy of British Columbia that before passing this

[ Page 715 ]

section each and every Member in this House understand thoroughly the entire definitions of everything mentioned in this section.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) well knows that if this strike cripples the lumber industry of British Columbia he will move in and take it over. He will move in and take it over. And I'm glad to see that there is no interpretation under this section for such a gobbler who wants to gobble up the industries of British Columbia. I wonder if, after he has done that, we are going to change the Act to put instead of employer "gobbler — a man who has gobbled up the entire lumber industry of British Columbia." Are we going to have to have a new definition in this interpretation? He's going to have to have employees. We're going to have to revise the Act after this railway strike kills all the lumber industries in the north and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources moves in and gobbles them up.

Then will there be collective bargaining, as defined under this section of the Act? Will the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in his newly acquired gobbled-up companies have collective bargaining in good faith? Will he be able to settle his disputes? I want to tell you that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources will then also be the employer and the employee, but who will be left out in the interpretation of this Act? The taxpayers of British Columbia will be left out because they aren't even mentioned in this Act, Mr. Chairman.

As I said before, I certainly don't want to belabour this point, which is probably the most important issue facing the people of British Columbia today. I don't want to belabour it, but it certainly is the most important issue.

I certainly appreciate the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) bringing this bill in so we would have the opportunity to discuss it under the interpretation of the Act, and I hope that the president of the railway will be able to stand up and tell us that the Province of British Columbia is going to move forward with the wheels of the PGE and the British Columbia Railway rolling once again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Minister to keep his remarks strictly relevant to the section. (Laughter.) I thought I could succeed with him.

HON. MR. KING: I just want to offer one small observation. I have listened to the Member and I am rather receptive to perhaps including another definition in the labour code. I think it might be appropriate to include a definition of "wild, raving maniac" for the purposes of the Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: A point of order.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I have no point of order. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: As I asked the Hon. Minister of Labour, I'll ask you to keep your remarks strictly relevant to this section.

MR. CHABOT: You should be fair, Mr. Chairman. Were you instructed by your government over there to allow the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to discuss the B.C. Rail issue? If you are going to be fair, Mr. Chairman, you are going to have to allow me a little bit of latitude too. Do you believe in fair play or don't you? It's that simple. Yes or no!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll be fair to everyone. Continue, Hon. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Watch your back.

MR. CHABOT: We always hear from the pip-squeak, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), always butting in with his little, snide remarks, Mr. Chairman, snide remarks from that little pip-squeak. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. CHABOT: I find the silence on the part of government appalling, relative to the serious, economic strike we have on the B.C. Rail. They sit there silently. When I am willing to discuss it, they don't care what happens to the people in the central and northeastern part of British Columbia, as well as those people in the Fort St. James area. There is no concern, there is no compassion on the part of that government when it comes to considering the plight of those people that will be unemployed because of the disruptive strike of the B.C. Rail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the section that we are considering in committee.

MR. CHABOT: I thought, Mr. Chairman, that you were going to be fair and allow me the same latitude as the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). But I am appalled at the lack of concern on the part of that government in the B.C. Rail dispute.

AN HON. MEMBER: Louder!

MR. CHABOT: They sit there silently on their $52,000-a-year salary or their $48,000-a-year salary; they don't care because their salary is adequate.

[ Page 716 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Louder!

MR. CHABOT: They don't care whether these people are unemployed, whether they are laid off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Louder!

MR. CHABOT: And the Premier had the gall to stand in this House a few days ago and say, "Jobs." Where are the jobs?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: These people are wondering where your jobs are, Mr. Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are in committee and we are considering section 1 of this bill. If you wish to debate this other matter, I would ask that you again put a motion that we rise, report progress and then ask leave of the House to debate it. Otherwise, I would ask you to confine your remarks to this section.

AN HON. MEMBER: They will be out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Otherwise there is no point in having a Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: My final remarks in this connection, Mr. Chairman, is a Telex on October 15 relative to the equipment on the B.C. Rail. It says:

SEVERITY OF RAIL EQUIPMENT SHORTAGE IN B.C. FOR FOREST PRODUCT LOADING CONTINUES TO ESCALATE. INVENTORY LEVELS ABOVE NORMAL NOW TOTAL 61 MILLION FBM ON CNR AND 312 MILLION FBM ON B.C. RAIL. INDUSTRY REQUIRES 800 CARS ON CNR AND 3,380 ON BCR IMMEDIATELY TO MOVE THIS INVENTORY. OVER 500 EMPLOYEES NOW LAID OFF. ADDITIONAL LAYOFFS INEVITABLE UNLESS MORE EQUIPMENT PLACED IN B.C.

This is a very serious thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate the Hon. Member's genuine concern that you have for this matter. However, we are in committee and we are considering section 1. If we are to have order in this House, we must confine our remarks to section 1. Otherwise, I would ask the Hon. Member to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave of the House to debate this urgent matter.

MR. CHABOT: I wish you would stop directing me all the time. Discussing the definition of strike, a strike is one which can be most disruptive to the economy. I think in this definition we should give some consideration to the effects that the strike might have on the economy.

In many instances, a strike can result in certain groups that are indirectly affected by the strike having very serious hardships. I think we should, when we are considering the question of strike and the definition of strike, take into consideration how long we can allow a strike of a railway. I think the national government discussed this matter of strike on railways and have concluded that they can't be tolerated for any length of time.

Also, when we discuss the strike, we should look at the economic repercussions of continued strike and the economic repercussions of a means of transportation that has faced disruption by other indirect strikes. I think that has to be taken into consideration.

I don't know where the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) is, but Northwood closed its operations today in the north. There are hundreds of people who are losing their jobs on a daily basis while the government refuses to discuss a critical matter. Absolutely refuses. It's despicable, shocking, downgrading and unbelievable that a government would sit idle just because they are well off with their salaries. They don't care about those people who are facing unemployment, who are facing winter because they are sitting comfortably here in Victoria with ample income on the waterfront.

No, there is no concern and it shocks me. I could go on, Mr. Chairman. I am not trying to abuse the rules by going into the whole debate of the B.C. Rail

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What a fake!

MR. CHABOT: …but I am certainly appalled. The Minister says, "What a fake!" — the Minister who became a cripple with his inability to resolve an essential-service strike. And he says "What a fake!" I'm telling you, I hope, if it is necessary in the B.C. Rail dispute to have someone to negotiate a strike settlement, don't send him. For God's sake, don't send him. He knows nothing about mediation, arbitration or collective bargaining. He's an outright failure as a Minister of the Crown as well.

No, I think that the government should stand on its feet at this time and tell us what they intend to do; show their concern for; the people along the B.C. Rail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would appeal to the Hon. Member to try to keep his remarks more relevant.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly will. I am amazed at section 1, which is the interpretation of the Labour

[ Page 717 ]

Code of British Columbia Act. As I and other Members of the opposition said in this House, we hope it will for once and for all do something to alleviate the problems of the past between management and labour.

This is an Act that is all-encompassing, and yet, as I look through the definitions and interpretations in section 1, I am appalled that I cannot find an interpretation of public interest. After all, what is this labour code all about if it is not to protect the public interest of British Columbia?

As the Labour Relations Board, as set up by the Act, becomes functional, in many cases they will be faced with settling strikes which they will have to determine whether or not are in the public interest. I would have thought that the Minister of Labour, in setting up the interpretations under this Act, would have certainly brought in a definition of the public interest because, after all, that is what this Legislature is all about.

We are here to serve the public interest and I realize that the public isn't being served with a strike on the BCR. But who is going to define when the public interest is in jeopardy? There's no definition or interpretation under this section of the Act.

Does it involve a strike in essential services? Does it have to be a strike where thousands of employees are involved? Does it have to be a strike to do with the energy resources of the province?

Is the public interest involved in a strike on the ferry system? Is the public interest involved in a strike on the airlines? Is the public interest involved in a strike in our communications, such as telephones, telegraphs?

The very heart and nuts and bolts of this labour code is to serve the public interest and the public interest is not even interpreted in the definitions under this Act.

It could be, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Labour doesn't want the public interest defined. It could be that he is going to leave his new board to define what is in the public interest, taking the interpretation of the people's business of the Legislature.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is a gross oversight in this new labour code. I have to wonder if we are really ever going to be concerned again about the public interest in the Province of British Columbia, or is the government going to be the sole employer who will determine what is in the public interest?

The public interpretation of public interest which concerns the taxpayers of this province probably will have more far-reaching effects than all the interpretations given under this labour code of British Columbia. I think that definition should be in there, because it is possible for a very, very few employees in a very, very vital service to bring about a cessation of work which would bring the Province of British Columbia to a grinding halt. Those few people on strike would be a strike against the public interest, should they be forced back to work? Who is going to interpret what is in the public interest?

AN HON. MEMBER: You.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the Minister of Labour, before we vote on this section, to describe to me when he feels a situation would arise where a cessation of work takes place that would, in his mind, involve the public interest of the citizens of British Columbia.

HON. MR. KING: I don't really know how to answer, Mr. Chairman, because I don't know what he said.

I don't really know what the Member wants. We are debating third reading of Bill 11, the new labour code for the Province of British Columbia. It's perhaps encouraging that so many Members of the official opposition see the provisions in this bill which will enable us to come to grips with some of the troublesome strikes that have occurred in the province over the past. Apparently they agree that the previous labour legislation lacked the necessary devices to come to grips with strikes and the whole industrial relations area in general. He indicated in second reading that they do in fact support in principle the legislation that we have introduced.

Now to start debating in committee stage — consideration of the sections of the bill — the applicability of this legislation to a current strike which is underway, is just simply incomprehensible in my view.

Perhaps if you were concerned with improving the current climate of industrial relations, we should be moving on quickly so that the contents of this bill, which all Members of the House supported in principle in second reading, can be passed through this House quickly and the mechanisms can be put to work so that we can in fact legally come to grips with the problems over which you express such concern.

Mr. Chairman, a little verse, and I'm not sure where 1, obtained it. I think it's something from "Dangerous Dan McGrew, " but something that came to mind during the course of the last few minutes. It was a little verse I once heard and it went:

"And his voice it grew,
             And his jaws they flew,
             But he never did score a mark.
             He was wild in style,
             Screaming all the while,
             And he hailed from the frozen north."

(Laughter.)

So I know there are those who may feel that that little verse is not too relevant to Bill 11, but I would

[ Page 718 ]

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that some of the comments in debate haven't been particularly relevant to the consideration of third reading of the bill also.

MR. WILLIAMS: I trust the Minister recognizes what he has done. He'll now be known as "Dangerous Don." (Laughter.)

I'd like to direct the attention of the committee and of the Minister to subsection (2) of section 1. We have been dealing with definitions and perhaps the Minister would be good enough to comment on what seems to me to be a strange implication from subsection (2).

It is true that, as the section reads, "No person shall cease to be an employee within the meaning of this Act by reason only of his ceasing to work as a result of a strike which is not contrary to this Act." Therefore, if an employee is engaged in a legal strike, then he does not cease to be an employee. This leads to the contrary situation whereby an employee who may be engaged in an illegal strike then does cease to be an employee.

I am concerned, when I consider other sections of the act dealing with the rights to organize and to apply for certification, the implications that there may be if an employee is disenfranchised, or ceases to be an employee, ceases to fall in that category by reason of an illegal strike. It's noteworthy also that a person does not cease to be an employee if he is locked out as a result of an employer's action which is contrary to the Act. That would seem also to lead to the contrary provision that if an employee is locked out in a way not contrary to the Act, he ceases to be an employee. Again I am concerned as to the implications that this will have when we get to the other sections on certification.

I don't see, Mr. Minister, why we have this subsection in the Act, although I know it's a carry over from the previous Act. I don't think, if a person falls within the category of an employee, that he should lose that status by reason of any act of strike or lockout, whether or not it's contrary to this Act. I think he should continue to enjoy the status of an employee because, Mr. Chairman, it affects the unit. When you look at the other sections dealing with certification, and when applications can be made for certification and this whole problem of raiding and everything else, it seems to me that to lose the status of an employee at some of those stages may create problems that we don't intend.

The meaningfulness of subsection (2) in those circumstances escapes me, and I would be pleased if the Minister would indicate why that subsection continues to be in this Act.

HON. MR. KING: It's pretty obvious that if we grant the right in law to employees to strike, then employers should not be empowered to penalize them by dismissing them, and that is the intent of this section. It simply clarifies to some extent the language that was used in the old Act and I fail to see any problems that could accrue from that. It defines a strike or lockout which is in accordance with this Act. I certainly think that distinction is necessary; we don't want to hold out protective devices to people in such a way that we would encourage action or conduct that was contrary to the provisions of this Act. I think that simply defines that and differentiates in those situations.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do I have it clearly before me, Mr. Chairman, from the Minister, that the purpose of section 1(2) is to retain the status of employee if you are on a legal strike, but, if members of the work force engage in illegal strike activity, they risk losing their status as employees?

HON. MR. KING: Well, that's correct in the purposes of an illegal strike and that's the situation as it exists now. But the certification situation is somewhat different than the illegal strike situation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, but they cease to be employees and you know what will happen.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 14

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we adjourn, I would like to inform the House that I've

[ Page 719 ]

received a letter from the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) thanking the House for the present of a bouquet on the day that she was in the hospital. She said: "I would be most grateful if you would convey my sincere appreciation to all concerned for this thoughtfulness. The flowers greatly cheered a cloudy day."

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House, Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.