[ Page 809 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Appeal to BCR workers to return to work. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 809

Mr. Phillips — 809

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 810

Mr. Wallace — 810

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

BCR strike. Mr. Phillips — 810

Natural gas shortage. Mr. Wallace — 811

B.C. Ferries. Mr. Morrison — 812

Community boards for social services. Mrs. Jordan — 814

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act (Bill 83). Hon.

Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 814

An Act to Amend the Taxation Act (Bill 84). Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 814

Pacific North Coast cooperative Loan Act (Bill 87). HON. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 814

Geothermal Resources Act (Bill 77). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 814

Medical Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 81). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 815

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

Mr. Chabot — 815

Hon. Mr. King — 815

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 815

Hon. Mr. King — 816

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 816

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 816

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 817

Mr. Chabot — 817

Hon. Mr. King — 817

Amendment to section 3.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 818

Hon. Mr. King — 819

Mr. Wallace — 819

Mr. Morrison — 819

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 819

Mr. Morrison — 820

On section 4.

Hon. Mr. King — 820

Mr. Williams — 821

Hon. Mr. King — 821

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 822

Mr. Williams — 823

Hon. Mr. King — 823

On section 5.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 824

Hon. Mr. King — 824

Amendment to section 6.

Mr. Chabot — 825

Mr. Wallace — 825

Hon. Mr. King — 825

Amendment to section 8.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 825

Hon. Mr. King — 826

Mr. McGeer — 826

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 826

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 827

Hon. Mr. King — 827

Mr. Wallace — 828

Hon. Mr. King — 828

Amendment to section 11.

Mr. Chabot — 828

Mrs. Jordan — 829

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 830

Mr. Wallace — 831

Mr. McGeer — 832

Mr. Gabelmann — 832

Mr. Morrison — 833

Mr. Barnes — 834

Mr. Rolston — 835

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 836

Mr. Dent — 837

Mr. Williams — 839

Mr. Chabot — 839

Mr. Cummings — 840

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 840

Hon. Mr. King — 841

Mr. Chabot — 842

Mr. Phillips — 842

Hon. Mr. King — 843

Division on amendment to section 1 I — 843

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 844

Division on section 1 I — 844

Privilege Resignation of legislative seat. Mr. Brousson — 844

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 845

Mr. Speaker — 845

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 11). Hon. Mr. King.

Referral to Committee — 845

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, we've got three men in the gallery today that have come 5,000 miles to find out what British Columbia has in the way of many things. I'm sure they are very impressed with the beauty of British Columbia in the first place. They can't buy any of that and take it back with them. These men are high in the steel industry of Germany.

I would just like to mention that Dr. Walter Niedermuller, Klaus Haniel and Dr. Georg F. Lange are in the gallery here. I hope that you will give them a good introduction as to how our House operates.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join the Hon. Minister in welcoming these guests. With Georg Lange, particularly, I had a very delightful time in Dusseldorf not too long ago.

But I want to introduce to the House Mr. Rick Matson, age 23, who, at the age I think it was then of 19, clambered down the steep, dangerous, slippery slopes of Lynn Canyon because a girl's body was seen below in that stream. He's been the recipient today of the Royal Humane Society bronze medal for bravery and for selfless heroism. He's sitting with his parents, the Matsons, in the gallery here.

He exemplifies the spirit of the ordinary citizen willing to do as the Good Samaritan did and go to the help of another citizen in trouble — the kind of spirit that should be instilled among all our citizens. I ask the House to recognize this very brave young man.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House today to welcome a grade 11 law class of students from Thompson Secondary School, along with their teachers, Mr. Bob Ellis and Mrs. Badenoch.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to join me in welcoming a group of students from Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Clinton, of the South Cariboo School District, and their teacher, Mrs. Delaney.

These students tell me they've heard many rumours as to what was going on in these chambers — not just physically but spiritually. So they've come down to see for themselves, and we welcome them.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me today in welcoming Martin Robin, Mark Germane and a group of students from Simon Fraser University in Canadian studies who are visiting us here today.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave of the House to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the following telegram has been sent to Mr. Norman Farley, chairman of the negotiating committee for the shop crafts of the B.C. Railroad. Copies of the telegram are being sent to: Mr. Jamieson, the secretary of the negotiating committee; Mr. Horodyski, a negotiating member; Mr. Forzley; Mr. Lehner; Mr. Saran; Mr. Behti, and Mr. Bachuk.

These people represent on the shop crafts the plumbers, the international machinists, the carmen, the IBEW, the pressmen of local 861 , pressmen of IBEW local 2027 and the local chairman, 571, of the plumbers and pipefitters and the carmen.

AS PREMIER OF THIS PROVINCE, I URGE YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR UNION TO RETURN TO WORK IMMEDIATELY. THE ECONOMIC SITUATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA COMPELS ME TO MAKE THIS REQUEST OF YOU TODAY. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT YOUR ECONOMIC SITUATION HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR MANY YEARS PAST. HOWEVER, NO NEW GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE UP OVERNIGHT FOR MANY YEARS OF NEGLECT. TWO OF YOUR FELLOW UNIONS HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED GOOD WAGE SETTLEMENTS, AND ARE PREPARED TO CONTINUE WORKING.

YOUR WORK STOPPAGE, HOWEVER JUSTIFIED YOU FEEL IT MAY BE, IS CAUSING OTHER WORKERS AND FARMERS GREAT SUFFERING. THE MINISTER OF LABOUR IS PREPARED TO MEET WITH YOU IMMEDIATELY TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING THE MACHINERY TO BRING ABOUT A SATISFACTORY RESOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RETURN TO WORK BY 1 P.M. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23. THE MINISTER OF LABOUR WILL BE PREPARED TO MEET WITH YOU TO DEVELOP THE DETAILS.

The telegram was sent at 2:05 this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say that we welcome the fact that the president of the British Columbia Railway, eight days too late, finally decided to take some action. He stood in the House last week, when I tried to get some action going, and called me "frivolous and mischievous." But I certainly do welcome it.

[ Page 810 ]

I do resent the fact that he had to be political in it and say that the railway hasn't been looked after for the past few years. The railway workers of the British Columbia Railway were never happier until this government came to power. Now they've tried to create a political machine out of this railway. They've created their own problems. Now they're trying to make political hay out of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think I should remind the Hon. Members that it's not a time for a political debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: But it's all right for the Premier to create a political….

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That is why I permitted the Hon. Member to go on. It's not a time, either in a statement or in reply to a statement, for a political debate. It is an invitation for the leaders of respective parties to contribute, usefully, suggestions — but not to attack their opponents in the House on the question of somebody else's policy.

That has always been accepted in every parliamentary forum.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in light of your injunction, we'd like to again, as has been indicated earlier by another opposition speaker, welcome the Premier's belated interest in this subject. Questions arise which we'd like to pose in accordance with your suggestion a moment ago. Why was this action not taken earlier? Why indeed has it taken so long for the Premier to act as Premier, not as president of the B.C. Rail, and send a telegram at this stage?

We'd like to inquire as to whether telephone contact has been maintained over these past few days of strike. We'd like also to inquire….

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. I just finished suggesting this is not the purpose of a statement. You can do it very shortly in question time if you wish to pose a question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's why I read it before the question period.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, can I phrase them in terms of suggestions which I believe you did indicate we could make to the government?

May I suggest to the government, to the Premier, that in future situations such as this he maintain close telephone contact; inform us at the same times as he makes statements about telegrams. May I ask him to instruct his Minister of Labour to depart from his previous policy statement in this House that it is not his job to anticipate trouble, and have him indeed anticipate trouble and try to avert it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This party certainly welcomes the message which the Premier has made us aware of today. We will await judgment and pass comment at a later date.

Oral questions.

BCR STRIKE

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour and director of the British Columbia Railway why shippers were not informed that railway was going out on strike. Many shippers were left with perishable stock in the yards with no notification whatsoever that the railway was going out on strike and I would like to know why.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): It is impossible to predict the exact moment the unions may go out on strike. They quite frequently serve strike notice. But so long as discussions are under way, one always remains hopeful that a settlement will be reached which would obviate the need for strike notice to go out to shippers.

I am informed by the management of the railway that they did, in fact, notify their shippers as soon as humanly possible when a strike became inevitable.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. We have had an admission this afternoon that the strike is causing grave harm to the economy, something which was denied last week by the Premier. I would like to ask him what measures he contemplates in the event that the unions do not voluntarily comply with his request by tomorrow at this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Disputes on the railways have been national in context. The national railways were on strike for over three weeks before the federal government decided to take any action at all. Over three weeks.

We have waited, Mr. Speaker, in hope that collective bargaining would lead to a good solution to this problem. As announced, two of the unions have accepted good wage increases. The situation last week was one that caused the government concern. We've reached the point now, as a responsible government, where we must take the action that we're proposing. We have not waited three weeks and it's not an isolated problem. Railroads are having difficulty in negotiating right across this country.

[ Page 811 ]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The national situation was a rotating rail strike. We've had a complete set-down. The Premier hasn't really taken any action, he's merely made a request. I'm asking him the same question again: what measures does he intend to take under advisement in the event that the railroads are not operating by this time tomorrow?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I expect we'll all be here tomorrow.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A supplementary question on the same subject. To the Minister of Labour: last week the Minister said he didn't want to anticipate what might happen with the other unions who have yet to settle. But I'd like to ask the Minister if he is making any active attempt to try to head off any possible trouble. Is there work going on with those other unions, which still have to settle, to ensure that when this strike is settled we won't be faced with another one?

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sorry I missed that. It was so quick we missed it all.

HON. MR. KING: Yes. The answer is yes.

MR. McCLELLAND: Could the Minister elaborate a little more than that?

What is he doing? Is he meeting with those unions? Do you have negotiators meeting with the unions at the present time?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am not in negotiations. Officials of my department are in consultation with the parties. I don't really feel it is advisable for politicians to become involved in negotiations as a matter of course, but officials of my department are in constant touch.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it on this same subject?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, the rail strike of B.C. Rail, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder whether the Minister would inform the House what studies he has done so he can tell us exactly how many people have been put out of work by this strike and how many we can expect to be out of work at this time tomorrow if the strike continues.

HON. MR. KING: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven't got the detailed figures on just how many people are out of work. I do know that quite a number of sawmills have been forced to close and if a resolution isn't found very quickly the prospects are for a good deal more mills to close, and so on. The implications are quite profound.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, on the matter of B.C. Rail, to the Minister of Labour: the Minister of Labour informed us a few days ago that the Associate Deputy Minister would be going to get the parties together to bargain collectively. I'm wondering whether the Minister could advise us whether there has been joint bargaining by the parties in the last eight days. Has his Associate Deputy Minister been successful in getting the parties together?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the parties haven't been together per se. The Associate Deputy Minister has been holding discussions with both management and the trade unions involved for quite a number of days.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier, as President of the B.C. Railway, whether the strike is resulting in our losing boxcars that we wouldn't otherwise be able to obtain? Are there estimates on that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, there is no loss of boxcars that we'd otherwise be able to obtain. As you know, Mr. Member, there has been some pressure on the federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Marchand, to get directly involved. Talks have gone on with the CNR and are continuing to go on, but we have seen no aggressive action by the federal jurisdiction to live up to their agreements. We intend to bring more information to the House, if necessary, so that these talks can be more aggressive on the federal government's part.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When are they going to put that information forward? We've been waiting for months.

NATURAL GAS SHORTAGE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney General: in the light of a great deal of conflicting evidence over the weekend and the very serious nature of this natural gas shortage, could he please bring the House up to date as to just whether we will be buying very expensive gas from Alberta or will we be stopping exportation to the United States? Which is it to be?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right, there was quite a blizzard of telegrams over the weekend — with a little bit of help

[ Page 812 ]

from the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), which help or intermeddling, I'm afraid, was counter-productive to the interests of B.C.

I sent my wire, which has been in the papers, asking that the valves be turned down. I received, in stages, a reply from the Hon. Donald Macdonald suggesting I was inconsistent with my energy tsar — not tsar, I take that back. (Laughter.) My energy advisor.

So I then sent this: that my Telex to the Hon. Donald Macdonald was read to and approved by the Chairman of the B.C. Energy Commission prior to dispatch. And "after receipt of your (you, Donald) Telex reply, I rechecked with myself and with Mr. Rhodes and I am advised that there is no inconsistency or contradiction with respect to the position, requests and requirements of British Columbia. I confirm therefore that the position of the Government of B.C. is as stated in my previous Telex to you of October 19."

So I've asked for a reply by noon tomorrow and any statement as to what we may do will await that time, and, hopefully, a favourable reply from the federal government which will indicate the tap will be turned down as required.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question to that, Mr. Speaker. Could I just ask….

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, that was your first question was it? Or was it that of the….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated that I think counter-productively to the interests of British Columbia. I would like an explanation or a withdrawal. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: See for yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you asking a question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if the Minister wishes to make charges against a Member's acting counter-productively to the interests of this province….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's just my opinion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have a question that's supplemental to that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the point I raised was a point of personal privilege. If he wishes to make such charges let him explain. If he doesn't let him withdraw. That's a question of personal privilege, is it not?

MR. SPEAKER: Really, I think it's not unparliamentary in the sense that everyone is entitled to their editorial opinion. You can answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. That's a very interesting statement, Mr. Speaker. You can stop right there. (Laughter.)

What I'd like to ask the Attorney General, then, Mr. Speaker, is: what is wrong with making sure that a telegram, which I assume he sent in good faith at 5:30 in the afternoon Ottawa time, was at least delivered prior to the Minister in Ottawa leaving his office at 6 o'clock? Had we relied upon the Attorney General, the man would have had to wait 48 hours — until Monday morning — to receive that telegram.

I phoned — a legitimate question, the same question as the press asked — I phoned to Ottawa. The press were doing the same thing, trying to find out whether the telegram had been received and whether a reply had been sent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I just point out that I let the Hon. Member explain — it's not being counted, I hope, in question time — on a point of privilege that he has not been counterproductive. He is entitled to answer that allegation. That is what I've tried to do.

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to hear from the Attorney General, in the light of the deadline tomorrow, to what extent has the provincial government entered into preliminary negotiations or agreements with Alberta should we need to import natural gas?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, perhaps two answers at this time and a fuller explanation tomorrow.

The Hon. Premier of British Columbia has been in close touch, quite close touch, with the Hon. Peter Lougheed of the Province of Alberta, because that might be instrumental in taking advantage of what would be a very high-cost alternative if we have to go that route. Secondly, our energy people have made background feasibility studies of any possible other inferior methods by which we might deal with this crisis and they've exchanged that information with their federal counterparts. But we don't want, in saying that, in any way to diminish the position of this government which is that the valves should be turned down — it is our gas.

B.C. FERRIES

[ Page 813 ]

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Is the British Columbia government advertising now for the position of general manager of the B.C. Ferries?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yes.

MR. MORRISON: Supplemental. Has the former general manager then resigned, or has he been relieved of his duties?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Neither.

MR. MORRISON: Would the Minister then advise us what the former general manager's position will be and what his duties will be?

AN HON. MEMBER: Associate Deputy Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He has been told there will be a job for him in some other capacity and, just to beat you to the draw, that capacity has not yet been determined.

AN HON. MEMBER: A sideways shuffle.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean then that this is the first step in the complete reorganization of the ferry system? And will there be a study into the management practices, or are you just doing this on your own without any study?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is and will be a continuing study.

MR. SPEAKER: Did the Hon. Member for North Okanagan wish to ask a question?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I do, but it is not relevant to this particular question.

MR. SPEAKER: Well I was hoping we'd get on to your question next.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, there's a supplemental, would you like a supplemental?

MR. SPEAKER: Well there's a certain limit to supplementals, because it bars everyone else in the House from asking questions. The Speaker has to determine the importance of the particular topic and decide when it is pretty well covered. If you've got a great question to ask, please ask it.

MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order. We have just asked him two questions on this important subject. The Minister has admitted that he is completely reorganizing the ferry system…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't.

MR. McCLELLAND:…and you have decided arbitrarily….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Correction. Point of order.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is a point of order. When there is a point or order, please stop for the point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: I was on a point of order. How can he stand up? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. When any Member is making a statement on his feet any other Member can, on a point of order, stop that Member if he feels that he's making an incorrect statement.

MR. McCLELLAND: I was on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I point that out. That's right. Who wants the point of order next?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: My point of order was that the Member said I had admitted that we were reorganizing the whole ferry system. You asked if I was examining the organization of the ferry system and I said yes. This doesn't mean we are involved in a complete reorganization. They are two different things.

MR. SPEAKER: Now do you have an important question bearing on that that you wish to ask?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make the point that when you remove the top level management of a system as important as the ferry system in British Columbia and replace him with another person…

MR. SPEAKER: What is the question?

[ Page 814 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: …that seems like a reorganization. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now the Hon. Member knows perfectly well by now that you don't make speeches in question time. But you took advantage of a point of order to make a speech.

AN HON. MEBER: Shame!

MR. PHILLIPS: This is to the Minister of Transport with regard to the management of the ferry system. I want to ask the Minister of Transport if this is the first move to bring politics into the ferry system?

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would ask the Member to examine the wording of the ad and to determine where that ad is being placed. It's being placed in newspapers from one end of this country to the other. I'm determined to find the man most capable of doing this job. The ad is an open ad, there is no one in mind, and it is in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. They will determine who is best qualified for the job.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I resent that implication, my friend. I resent that implication. At no time have I made a single appointment that was political.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the topic has been well exhausted for today.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is there nobody in B.C. qualified to run the ferry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the ad.

COMMUNITY BOARDS FOR

SOCIAL SERVICES

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources who once again has shocked this House by making a major policy move outside the House. I would like to ask him, in relation to this news announcement, does the Minister intend to have municipal election law apply to the community boards to be elected for the handling of social services in Vancouver, or is he contemplating a form of neighbourhood town meetings to elect these people? Or are you planning to use some machinery under the Municipal Act…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You have asked two questions already and you are only supposed to have one.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): First of all it wasn't a major policy statement, it was the summation of a series of public hearings that took place in Vancouver. For the interest of the Member, I'll make available a copy of the release that we did issue on Friday so that she might more intelligently ask the question which she is trying to ask.

MRS. JORDAN: Perhaps a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If we had a more forthright Minister we might not….

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, it's too late.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No speeches.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PROVINCIAL HOME

ACQUISITION ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

Bill 83 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TAXATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Taxation Act.

Bill 84 introduced, 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.

PACIFIC NORTH COAST

NATIVE CO-OPERATIVE LOAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutentant-G overnor: a bill intituled Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative Loan Act.

Bill 87 introduced, 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.

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES ACT

[ Page 815 ]

Hon. Mr. Nimsick moves introduction and first reading of Bill 77 intituled Geothermal Resources Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 77 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

MEDICAL CENTRE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medical Centre of British Columbia Act.

Bill 81 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to committee stage on bills.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 11.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

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

On section 2.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Section 2 deals with the rights of employees and employers and unfair labour practices. It talks about the freedom of a member to belong to a trade union. There was a very interesting note sent to me from a gentleman in the gallery while the bill was being read in second reading; it's unsigned addressed to the "Rt. Hon. J. Chabot." I've been promoted, I see.

The question says, "When will an MLA talk about a non-union worker's rights on a 30-day work permit and rejection of membership? The rights of employees against employers are well established re section 2."

Certainly they're well established in this section, but the legislation makes no provisions for the protection of those workers who do want to participate in a union which in turn reflects itself in the workers being able to be gainfully employed in the province. Unions are still free to refuse admittance to workmen, journeymen in their particular trade union.

There are unions today that create artificial shortages — I should say genuine shortages — to enhance their position at the bargaining table. It's most regrettable, really, that an individual who has a particular trade, in order to practise that particular trade, must be a member of a union. When he's unable to join that union he finds his ability to be gainfully employed seriously restricted.

Also, the legislation fails to spell out sufficiently the matter of freedom of choice. It talks about freedom. Certainly there's freedom to join a union, but no freedom to join a union of the individual's choice. This creates a tremendous restriction. An individual who might be a journeyman or craftsman employed in the construction industry, if he happens to belong to a small or large Canadian union, I want to assure you he will find it difficult indeed to be able to work on construction sites. I think this particular section should be more clearly defined when one talks about the freedoms of the individual, the individual's right to work.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Well, the question the Member for Columbia River raises has received a fair deal of attention in drafting this section. The old Act said that every employee had the right to be a member; the new definition reflects the fact that legislation does not force unions to accept members. It is not a question of rights, but rather a guarantee of basic freedoms. If you look at the federal code you find that this definition is clearly made, as it is in the Ontario Act.

I might just add that a good deal has been written on this subject by some very eminent people; I could quote extensively from that. Suffice it to say that in addition to the basic concepts I have mentioned, we will have, under this code, an ombudsman who will certainly be empowered to look at the kind of situations where an individual union member feels he is receiving less than justice.

I might point out further that the Act prohibits discrimination and specifically requires that nothing in a collective agreement or a trade-union constitution be in conflict with the provisions of the provincial Human Rights Act.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I am concerned with section 2. While every employee may be free to be a member of a trade union and participate in its lawful activities, difficulties may arise if a person wishes to switch from one union to another. We've seen in the Province of British Columbia a fair amount of switching in recent months — in fact, the last few years. I speak of the specific situation at Trail, for example. Kitimat is another one.

I wonder why the Minister saw fit in this section when it was put in not to add the words "of his own

[ Page 816 ]

choice" after the word "trade-union" so that every employee is free to be a member of the trade union of his own choice. This is in the Ontario Act, I might add.

It would seem to me that this provision, which would make crystal clear the ability of an employee and union member to switch from one union to another, would be desirable. I wonder if the Minister would have comments on that?

HON. MR. KING: I think the point the Member makes is a provision that is applicable to certification moves of a trade union rather than to the authority and the powers of individuals. Certainly the individual member does not have the authority, and could not under a democratic concept, to change the union holding jurisdiction.

I think the member will find, Mr. Chairman, in a later section dealing with certification applications, the kind of language that ensures that members do have the right to indicate their choice in free democratic votes for the union they wish to have represent them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for his remarks. We are actually on the section dealing with rights of employees and employers and it deals with a very important fundamental freedom, as the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has pointed out. The fact is that certification and other matters are somewhat separate; they're not under this section because they are not referring to the rights of individual employees.

Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment to this section, the one standing in my name on the order paper: to add the words "of his own choice". If any Hon. Member would like to subamend that to "of his or her choice"….perhaps I'll do that myself; adding "his or her choice" after the word "trade-union".

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, I would submit that there's nothing wrong with the words but they're totally redundant and unnecessary. When you say somebody is free to join a trade union, you don't need to say "of their own choice". It's just poor draftsmanship, in my opinion, to add those words, and quite unnecessary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before we proceed, I would appreciate it if the Hon. Members would wait until the amendment has been delivered to our table and first declared in order before I recognize the Member. The amendment is in order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I repeat what I said. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: We just want to clear up our procedures.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney General said that such words would be redundant, and yet they do occur in other Acts and other jurisdictions. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're not redundant there too.

However, the direct reading of this section would be "every employee is free to be a member of a trade-union"… Now, it could be just a single trade union, and choice when you have no choice is no choice at all. We would like to think that there should be in there the question of more than one trade union that might become of interest to an employee of any organization; specifically to put in in the first item under the rights of employees, that he has the opportunity of changing unions. Later on, certification and other matters can be dealt with then. But if we leave it the way it is, he may only be entitled to be a member of a single trade union. That type of ambiguity is avoided by the wording of the Ontario Act.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I tried to indicate earlier to the Second Member for Victoria that such an amendment as he is proposing would infer and imply that the individual member of a trade union has the right to an option in designating the certified bargaining agent in a particular craft. That can only be determined, obviously, by a majority indication of the employees in such a unit.

To suggest that the Member have the arbitrary right to come to a firm and if the existing certified union does not meet with his choice, then to select one of his choice to represent him, is just unrealistic.

I might read to the Member what Mr. Justice Carruthers has had to say on this subject. His conclusion in considering this type of suggestion was as follows: "It is therefore concluded that the statutory right to union membership, although cast in the language of legal claim, constitutes no more than a general declaration of legislative policy. The repeal of the provisions would not seem to alter the legal position of the individual employee, the union or the employer."

So I think the Attorney General's point is very well made. The amendment put forward by the Second Member for Victoria would indeed be redundant and I oppose it, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 817 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has yet to explain to me why, under rights of employees, we get into this certification for bargaining. I can see certification for bargaining in another section of this Act. I can see it in other areas. But under "rights of employees" I think that it would be presumptuous to extend his argument as he has done to say that simply by allowing a person the opportunity, indicated here under his rights, to switch from one union to another if he so desires would be somehow or another affecting the case of certification for bargaining.

It would not be — and I think the Minister is aware of this — the situation that he envisaged, whereby an individual employee in any company or shop could come up and say, "I want such and such a union to represent me, of which I am the only Member in this area." It wouldn't be that at all. But it would make possible, or at least it would make much clearer, the right of such an employee to gather together with his fellows to change the union if they so wished, if they felt another union would suit their purposes better.

For instance, we had a long discussion the other day about the question of the dependent contractor. Say, for example, the dependent contractor or the employees of dependent contractors, because they were working for a forest company, found themselves in the IWA through the operation of this Act. Later on they might be hauling gravel for the roads department, for our hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley); and I might think the Teamsters would be a more appropriate union.

I think that by putting in under "rights of employees" these words, you would in no way affect bargaining. I am disturbed at the reference to the Hon. Justice Carruthers, that this was simply just a general declaration. I understood that this section actually granted rights to individuals. If it doesn't why is it entitled "Rights of Employees"?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the matter the Member raises is more properly dealt with in section 39, which makes a specific provision for union members, within the provisions of the Act, to make representation to the Labour Relations Board to change their bargaining unit and to designate the trade union of their choice. That is a different right altogether than we are dealing with in section 2.

This is simply the right of employees to be included in a trade union without sacrificing or jeopardizing any of their rights to employment, their right to be free to take this action, without fear of coercion or intimidation from employers and so on. What the Second Member for Victoria is advocating is something that is indeed contained in this bill in a section later on.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we're discussing section 2, which is the right of employees and employers. Looking at the right of employees, the right to belong to a union of their choice where they are recognized by the Labour Relations Board — where they become certified — I think that it should be spelled out that they should have the right to enjoy the freedom of their work and enjoy their particular trade. However, there are barricades in some instances. I'm wondering how we're going to overcome these barricades. I'm thinking particularly of the construction industry.

Are you suggesting that it would be possible for the ombudsman to ensure that a union that is certified, regardless of its particular background — be it American or be it Canadian — would be in a position to be able to get on a construction site with, say, the Building Trades Council?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Member is raising a different question altogether than the….

MR. CHABOT: I'm talking about rights.

HON. MR. KING: The Labour Relations Board, at least under this administration, pays no attention to whether a trade union happens to have international or strictly national association. The Labour Relations Board is an independent tribunal and under this legislation it will become more obviously independent than has been the case heretofore.

There are situations where rights to membership in a trade union require a certain proficiency. In other words, it would be ridiculous and disruptive to suggest that carpenters, who have a particular qualification in their trade, must open up their membership to people who are not qualified in that particular craft. This is recognized not only in terms of jurisdiction, but it's recognized in the collective agreements that exist, particularly in the construction trades. I'm sure that the Member for Columbia River would not suggest that we get into that kind of problem without some pretty well-thought-out alternative to offer.

Amendment negatived.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in section 3 we have unfair labour practices, and essentially the section talks about interfering with organization of a

[ Page 818 ]

union. But in the interests of making this a more even-handed bill, I believe we should have words in there which would permit an employer, without using undue influence or without using any threats, promise or intimidation, to be able to discuss with his employees the question of union organization or formation. He should indeed have the right, we feel, to express his own views.

Restriction on a person's right to express his own views is a pretty serious one. In our view, section 3(l) goes too far. We should add after the word "it" in line 3 the words, "but nothing in this section shall be deemed to deprive an employer of his freedom to express his views so long as he does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence." Then you would make consequential changes in the remaining half of that section 3(l), Mr. Speaker.

The purpose is simply to make this a more even-handed Act and, in addition, as I said, to preserve the very, very important principle of a man's right to express his opinion, whether or not he happens to be an employer, employee or member of the general public. I have the amendment here.

HON. MR. KING: I would suggest to the Hon. Second Member for Victoria that an employer's interest in determining the wishes of his employees to determine their own preferences is very, very slim indeed. It is the group of employees who are seeking to be represented by a trade union. They have that right; this right is implicit in the legislation.

To suggest that an employer should have an equal right to voice his opinion and to advocate perhaps to his employees is a bit unrealistic, in my view. Any public utterance by an employer would certainly be suspect by his employees and could easily be construed as opposing the will of the employees and, perhaps, surreptitiously jeopardizing their relationship with that employer if they went against the will of the boss.

I would reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that the employer interest is a very slim one here. I think that the Labour Relations Board, in entertaining applications for certification, has historically weighed and would continue to weigh any legitimate employer interests associated with an application for certification. But to suggest that an employer's absolute rights should become implicit in the legislation would, in my view, be a very dangerous principle, foreign to most certification procedures and I would oppose the amendment on that basis.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has completely misunderstood the purpose of my amendment and I apologize for having gone rather quickly over it. We are not, as I mentioned in discussion of section 2, dealing with certification and dealing with the board. We are not doing that. The question of what the board's views are on the question of certification are not relevant at this point of the bill; we're talking about rights. The heading is: "Part 1 Rights of Employees and Employers and Unfair Labour Practices."

The Minister, in his argument, on the one hand said that he thought the right was there implicitly. In the other half of his argument he said it shouldn't be there at all even if it were. The fact is we want it explicitly spelled out here so that an employer can legitimately express his views without finding himself somehow in contravention of this section 3(l). The fact is that he may be asked his views by employees and, without wishing to do anything more than give his personal view, he might be found breaking the law unless we put such an amendment in.

Let's face it, we tend to look upon labour negotiations when we're discussing a bill such as this in terms of warfare and opposed sides, but there's a tremendous amount of goodwill in British Columbia between most of the employers and the bulk of the employees. They do discuss many questions.

I think that giving an employer the right such as this would not in any way damage or destroy the protection of the employee. It would, on the other hand, make it clear that it is possible for a person to express his views openly, as we believe citizens of this province and this country should be able to do on every subject with a maximum amount of freedom under all circumstances. We find it questionable to abridge in any way the right of free speech. It has to be properly explained, which has not been done by the Minister to date.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Second Member for Victoria misquoted me. I did not suggest that it was implicit in this Act that the employer's views be considered. What I did say was that it is historic that…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He used the word "implicit".

HON. MR. KING: …the Labour Relations Board would weigh any employer interest in a particular case.

The wording of this section is designed to prevent management exercising a role in the administration of a trade union. I'm sure the Second Member for Victoria would not advocate the support of

[ Page 819 ]

company-dominated unions. That is something that we do encounter occasionally and it's something that is recognized as being alien to the best interest of workers.

I have indicated that in certification proceedings, where many, many unfair labour-practice charges arise, the board has the authority and the expertise to weigh any management interest.

In terms of developing the kind of liaison and discussion that the Hon. Liberal leader suggests, that is something that must come with the goodwill of the parties involved. Certainly there is nothing contained in the language of this section to forbid or impede the development of such a relationship.

The Member raises essentially the same argument and, Mr. Chairman, I do not expect to continue to respond to the same argument.

Amendment negatived.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, a very small point perhaps, but it's our interpretation in section 3(2)(f) that this is not a clear expression of intent and that actually this could prevent an employer stating his opposition to an application for certification. It states: "interfere with lawful concerted action by employees for the purpose of obtaining collective representation, ". We feel that intent is well covered in section 5 but, as written here in subsection (2)(f), it could well be interpreted as interfering with the employer's ability and freedom to contest an application for certification to the Labour Relations Board.

I would like to amend subsection (2) of section 3 by deleting clause (f). Speaking to the amendment, it seems to us that the intent of clause (f) is well covered in section 5, whereas subsection (2)(f) could be interpreted in the light I've suggested and could interfere with an employer's rightful opportunity to contest an application for certification before the board. On that basis, we suggest that the bill would be clarified and enhanced by deleting (f).

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this is essentially the same type of legislation requirement that has been in existence for some time in terms of the Labour Relations Board dealing with certification applications.

Again, as we go further on, I think the Member for Oak Bay will see that the employer interest is protected in terms of making any representation to the board on applications for certification. While restraints are placed on the employer, similar restraints are placed on the trade union and the individuals involved which prohibits the exercise of coercion or intimidation for them to attain their ends in the matter of representation. This simply sets out the ground rules for the protection of the valid interests of both the employer and the employee.

The board is authorized and has the legislative authority to conduct investigations and to hold a hearing on any given situation where either party feels their interests are being violated or that undue coercion is being exercised on employees by either party. I think the board has the necessary latitude and authority to consider those questions, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would do nothing to strengthen that provision.

Amendment negatived.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, before we leave section 3, I'd like to ask the Minister for a little clarification. I find subsection (1) a little vague where it says that an employer shall "permit an employee or representative…." I'd like to know if he also has the right to refuse to permit an employee to do it on working hours. Line 4, in subsection (1).

HON. MR. KING: Yes, the employer does have the right, and that's provided in section 4, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have an amendment here dealing with subsection 2(e) which deals with the "professional strike breaker or an organization of professional strike breakers;". My amendment is on the order paper in my name, and my amendment would be an attempt to make it more even-handed. If we're going to wipe out professional strike breakers, let's similarly wipe out professional picketers.

I have concluded, on the advice of the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), that it might be better to put this amendment in at the end of section 4, so with your permission I'll withdraw that amendment and put it in at the end of section 4.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I've again read section 4 and I'm afraid I don't find in section 4 the Minister's answer that the employer does have the right to refuse to allow the employee to work on union business during business hours. I'd like him to explain that before we leave this section. I think it's giving him a right, but he doesn't have the right to refuse to allow him to do so. I don't find that in section 4. If he does, maybe he can explain it.

HON. MR. KING: Well, perhaps he's not reading section 4 as I do. It starts out with: "Except with the

[ Page 820 ]

consent of the employer, no trade union and no person acting on behalf of a trade union shall attempt, at the employer's place of employment during working-hours, to persuade an employee of the employer to join, or not to join, a trade union." No person except with the consent of the employer. That seems clear enough to me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MORRISON: I'm sorry, I'm a little thick in the head, Mr. Chairman, but I still see that section 3 allows an employee the right to be paid for working on union business. It doesn't say anything about persuading other employees to join; it says that he has the right to not have his time deducted for doing any union business. It says that he will have that right.

I want to know if the employer has the right to say, "No, you cannot do it during working hours." I don't find that in 4 but I certainly find it in 3. I'm sorry I'm being a little niggly on this point but….

HON. MR. KING: That refers, Mr. Chairman, to matters under the collective agreement where safety committees and grievance local shop stewards and so on are empowered to take up matters during the course of the shift. I would suggest that's imperative in view of the need to deal expeditiously with possible health and safety hazards which could exist on the job.

MR. MORRISON: Again, I don't find that either. Really what I'm driving at is that it's fairly obvious in item 3 that an employee will have the right to decide arbitrarily what is union business and to say that he is therefore conducting union business.

I don't see that it concerns safety or other items. It's a very broad clause. I think that the employer should have the right to have some say as to whether he does or does not conduct that kind of business during working hours for which he will be paid, rather than doing the job for which he is employed.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, this is customarily a matter which is covered by collective bargaining. I have outlined the issues which are usually involved in the kind of business that union representatives are customarily allowed to do on the job, and they involve safety and health measures. They are usually matters of joint negotiation between the employer and the employee. This legislation simply acknowledges an existing practice and allows that to continue. There is no increase in rights in this legislation as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MORRISON: My understanding is that an employee would be able to decide arbitrarily that he is doing union business and therefore not be at his bench, or whatever his particular job happens to be, and the employer doesn't have the right to say, "I'm sorry, that doesn't fall under these categories." This is a very broad phrase.

The way it was explained to me by a union man was that he would have the right to say, "I'm doing union business and that's it, period." And the employer had no right to say, "You are not. You should get back."

I realize that if it's for safety or health items, that is under the bargaining agreement; but this is much broader than that.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the wording of the section indicated that "an employer may, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, permit an employee…." Now if you're suggesting that infers an arbitrary right I would simply disagree, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MORRISON: I'm glad to hear you say so.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to 4(4) line 8 where you have" …provide him with food and lodging at the current price…." As in most logging camps and in many other company cafeterias where the food is perhaps subsidized, we would be put in the position, by passing this section, whereby the employer would be subsidizing, perhaps to a degree at least, a union organizer. This would, I think, create the type of potential influence which should not exist. The employer should be totally at arms' length from any union organizer and he should not be put in the position of subsidizing him one way or another — or indeed of overcharging him.

I would suggest deleting the words "at the current price" and substituting the words "at cost," just to preserve the principle, Mr. Chairman, that employers should not have any financial relationship, favouritism or otherwise, with a union organizer.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the section requires that no employer shall deny access to a trade union representative and further, upon a direction of the Labour Relations Board and upon request by the representative, "the employer shall provide him with food and lodging at the current price, and of a similar kind and quality as is provided for the employees."

Now that's quite clear. "Current price" indicates the customary price that the employer is charging for his employees. This is to prevent any differentiation or any discriminatory prices against the legitimate

[ Page 821 ]

representative of a trade union. To seize on that as a valid matter for amendment is rather picayune in my view. I certainly oppose that amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As mentioned earlier, I'd like to add in section 4 something which would be parallel to section 3(2)(e). If we are to bar the use of professional strike-breakers, it would seem at least of equal importance perhaps to bar the use of professional picketers. The principle would be the same in either case.

I would have that section 4 amended by adding subclause (5): "No employee or union or persons acting for an employee or union shall use or authorize or permit the use of any professional picketer or organization of professional picketers."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the whole intent of this Act hinges largely upon the jurisdiction and the authority of the Labour Relations Board to deal with the whole matter of industrial relations, right from the point of certifications through the collective bargaining process, the law of strikes and picketing. To suggest now that we are going to attempt to deal in this section with the board's authority to regulate the law of strikes and picketing would be to completely change the whole thrust and the whole basis of this legislation.

I am quite confident, Mr. Chairman, that there are adequate provisions in future sections later on in the legislation which give the Labour Relations Board full authority to govern and regulate legal, valid picketing rights of trade unions. The section that the Member suggests here, the added section in the amendment, would be completely redundant to provisions that are contained in future clauses of the legislation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I appreciate what the Minister has said about the thrust of this legislation. We went through that at some length during the second reading debate.

I thought there was unanimity on all sides of the House that we were adopting this new approach to labour-management problems based upon the equality between employers and employees and that the board was being clothed with powers and responsibilities which would ensure that that equality would in fact be recognized and realized.

But Mr. Chairman, I am regretfully drawn to the conclusion, based upon the Minister's consistent refusal of amendments in this House, that he is trying everything he possibly can to destroy that equality by placing onuses upon employers and by refusing to accept a similar onus for the employee and the trade union. If this is in any way to indicate the kind of decision that we're to have from the Minister and from his appointed Labour Relations Board then I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation which we all greeted with so much anticipation is going to fail.

The Minister talks about the powers of the board and we aren't even discussing those in the section. We're talking about certain limitations on the activities of trade unions.

In section 3, under unfair labour practices which place limitations on the activities of employers, the Minister had no hesitation in putting a limitation, saying: "You employers can't use professional strike-breakers." Why does he resist an amendment which would say to the trade union: "And you trade unions shall not use professional paid picketers either"? Is he suggesting that the employers in this province have consistently engaged in professional strike-breaking activities but that unions have never used paid organized picketers? I'm sure the Minister is not making that suggestion to this committee.

If we're to have equity be the guiding light in this legislation and for this board, then I think the Minister had better give some serious consideration to the offhand way in which he refuses amendments which are designed only to give equality.

We're not asking anything for the employer that we're not asking for the employee in this particular amendment. All we're saying is that if you're going to have activities of this kind, then let them be carried on by members of the union who happen to be involved in activities entitling the men to picket. Let's not allow union members to go on strike, accept employment in other industries and then hire some professional picketer to go and carry the signs up and down. This has been one of the problems, Mr. Chairman, which has affected the conclusion of strikes and lockouts in this province.

It seems to me that at this particular time, when we're giving this new opportunity, we should be a little more flexible in the way in which the Minister is receiving amendments. It's not that these amendments haven't been on the orders long enough for the Minister and for his staff to have given them careful consideration. I must say that the response the Minister is giving in turning them down indicates that he hasn't taken the trouble to look at them.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I think that in all probability the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) didn't take too much time to think out the amendments which he drafted. I would further point out that when the House gave unanimous consent to the bill on second reading, that was your prerogative; that was your option. You passed the bill with approval in principle, without commitment and without any assurance from me that I would grant

[ Page 822 ]

amendments that the Liberal Party happened to put forward.

I wonder, by the speech the Victoria Member gave, whether he's more concerned with equity for the parties or equity for the Liberal Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

HON. MR. KING: I'm interested in legislation which is workable and practical.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be chippy.

HON. MR. KING: The suggestion that you can draw a fair analogy between a striker's rights to obtain other employment and a management group's right to hire professional strike-breakers is just absolutely shocking, and reveals to me a complete bias against the working people of this province by the Liberal Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

HON. MR. KING: Certainly there is equity and there is equality for the employer to hire individuals off the street and continue to operate if he can.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Act specifically prohibits it.

HON. MR. KING: It certainly does not.

MR. WILLIAMS: It certainly does so. I put in "hiring" on the order paper and you wouldn't accept it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: The Member is quite wrong as usual. He is displaying his ignorance of labour legislation, I suppose, because I have the best legal advice on the interpretation of professional strike-breakers. It in no way impedes an employer's right to continue to operate his business, if a strike is called against him, by the use of his existing employees if they choose to cross the picket line or, indeed, by hiring individuals off the street.

Professional strike-breakers are clearly defined. If I can't get that through the Hon. Member's head it's not surprising, because we don't have too much industry in the industrial area of West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Well, at least we have a feeling for working people in the City of Revelstoke, and perhaps that's why we're here and you're over there with that pathetic little group of yours.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to have this debate because once again it reveals the philosophical difference between us and the Liberal Party. The equity that they are suggesting for employers and workers in this province is weighted heavily, as is traditional for the Liberal Party, in favour of the employer.

Certainly we are interested in equity, and most of the House — indeed all of the House — voted support in principle on this bill. I'm not going to have the workers' rights eroded by petty amendments from the Liberal Party.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would request that all Members please keep their comments strictly relevant to the amendment we are considering.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I speak to both sides of the House, in charity.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You might have made those comments, Mr. Chairman, a little earlier.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment put forward is put forward, we think, to create the even-handedness which the Minister and other Members of the government talked about. Now if every time we put forward amendments we're going to be treated in this way — and the attack made on our motive which some other Chairman might see fit to comment upon and stop a Minister from doing that — there's going to be no way we're going to get through on anything approaching a reasonable time, or with reasonably sincere and searching discussion, all 47 pages of this bill. We're on page 5. We haven't gone very far.

If the Minister really would like to have us listen closely to his arguments — and I trust that he would listen closely to ours — we could then vote as we see fit, depending on our views, on the merits or otherwise of the amendments, and that would be the right way of handling this bill in committee. But if every time we are to have these chippy, foolish attacks upon individuals in this House, we're not going to get very far very fast.

The amendment in question is, we think, an amendment which would create a little more even-handedness in this section, section 4, as compared to section 3. We know full well, as the Minister has pointed out, that the board is going to

[ Page 823 ]

have an important role. But time after time in these amendments that I have brought forward this afternoon, he has referred to the board in collective bargaining. I would simply repeat that we're discussing rights of employees and employers and unfair labour practices.

Now for better certainty they're put in this section so as the board can be guided as to what our intentions are. We think that an amendment of this nature, which would wipe out professional picketing, is appropriate in the light of the section 3(2)(e) referring to professional strike-breakers.

Now the Minister doesn't know why he doesn't like it. If he's going to have to consult with those brilliant legal people that he has, we can wait. We can adjourn this committee and he can go and discuss it with them and come back when he's got some answer — which we could then discuss. But to suggest that these are not put forward in good faith, as a result of considerable examination of this and other bits of labour legislation, is trivial.

Mr. Chairman, I refer you to the professional strike-breaker definition — "A person who is not a party involved in a dispute…."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's perfectly relevant to this debate. We are discussing the even-handedness of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you give the Hon. Member a chance to show that they're relevant to the section?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. Now we have there a dispute with the primary object, in the opinion of the board, to prevent, interfere with or break up a lawful strike. That's precisely the type of definition which prevents, in this bill, the hiring by an employer of employees off the street, which he indicated an employer was free to do. If, under this legislation, an employer is free to go out and hire anybody off the street to break a strike, as the Minister has just indicated to us that he is, well, obviously this bill shouldn't proceed any further. It is so obviously full of flaws that we would have to vote it down right now. I trust the Minister will clear up this misapprehension of his and indicate to the House that it is not possible to do that, because by so doing, of course, you'll have nothing but further labour disputes in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is put forward to make section 4 equivalent and similar to section 3, at least in this respect. For this reason we think it's perfectly in order; we think it will add to the even-handedness of the bill. It will add to its acceptability with both sides in labour disputes in British Columbia. We think that for these reasons it is a worthwhile and genuine amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister seems to be contradicting himself from one day to the next. When we dealt with section 1, I moved an amendment to the definition of "professional strike-breaker," which would specifically exclude a bona fide employee of an employer. The Minister refused that amendment, saying "Oh no, that would give the employer the right to go out in the street and hire people to keep his plant working during the course of a strike."

Today when we try to put this amendment in to prevent the use of professional picketers, and I raise the same matter, he says, "Oh no, an employer can go out on the street and hire people to keep his plant going during the course of the strike." Now the Minister can't have it both ways.

HON. MR. KING: Sure he can.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, the Minister can have it both ways? (Laughter.) So this is what equity means to the Minister. He can have it both ways….

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't even got it one way.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I've got it quite clear, Mr. Minister, exactly the way you're going to run this legislation; and if the board takes direction from you, the whole Act will fail.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of giving the board direction. That's the difference between the NDP and the Liberal Party. We believe in independence of quasi-judicial agencies. The Members just reveal a complete lack of understanding of industrial relations.

MR. WILLIAMS: We understand you; that's the problem.

HON. MR. KING: In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, the Member quoted me as saying that an employer should not have the right to go out on the street and solicit workers if he is struck. Now, I never made any such statement. An employer does have that right. You are confusing the interpretation of professional strike-breakers, despite the fact that we haven't arrived at that particular section of the legislation yet and are supposed to be debating section 4. So perhaps if you'd be patient you would see that the dire consequences you are predicting are completely without foundation.

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 824 ]

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise on section 5. In section 5, where you have coercion and intimidation, you deal entirely with intimidation "that could reasonably have the effect of compelling or inducing any person to become or refrain from becoming, or to continue or to cease to be, a member of a trade union." Now, that's fine. I know that even-handedness is a desirable objective and I would like to point out that there are cases in this province — and I'm thinking specifically of an individual union, the IWA, and specifically of the case of truck loggers — where efforts have been made to prevent truck loggers, self-employed people, from organizing themselves in their own groups.

I fear that if this amendment passes without some sort of even-handedness we are going to find that while it is impossible, and rightly, for someone to carry on acts that could compel or induce a person to cease to be a member of a trade union, we have no such prohibition against people being intimidated in their interests or in their desires to get an association of independent contractors or even employers organized.

So I would suggest that what we need here is an amendment by inserting the following: "No trade union and no person acting on behalf of a trade union shall participate in or interfere with the formation or administration of an employers' organization or contribute financial or other support to an employers' organization" This specifically refers to the case of the independent contractors and their associations, which as we know have played a certain role in the economic life of British Columbia.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the definition of "person" includes "a corporation, an employer, an employers' organization, a trade union, and council of trade unions." So the wording contained in section 5 prohibits coercion by any of those parties involved in industrial relations.

If the Member is suggesting that employers' activities in terms of joining accredited associations might be subject to coercion, I would suggest that I believe it is section 7 that covers that. The duty of fair representation is contained in section 7, which guarantees the rights of employers' organizations.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has made a mistake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would direct the Hon. Minister to the amendment contained on the order paper. I believe he has misunderstood the amendment as to which one it is that we are talking about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're discussing an amendment to section 5 to make this even-handed so that just as no person shall use coercion, et cetera, to force anyone to refrain from becoming or continue or cease to be a member of a trade union, we are doing the same thing on the other hand. We are making sure that no trade union, or no person is going to act in a way which will interfere with the formation of employers' associations. It would seem a necessary amendment or at least an obvious omission to this Act that they don't have that here. It could be done, Mr. Minister, no doubt by rewording section 5, but I am suggesting it be done with a separate subsection of 5.

With reference to the Minister's remarks about section 7(l), 7(l) talks about "bad faith in the representation of any of the employees." It doesn't talk about at all….

AN HON. MEMBER: Section 7(2).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You've got it back to front again. Section 7(2) talks about an employers' organization. Section 7(l) talks about the trade union acting in bad faith, or what-have-you, and it only talks in terms of "representation of any of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit." It does not deal with those same people interfering with the establishment, organization or administration of an employers' group, and that's why I think the amendment should come in section 5.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the parallels which the Member draws are not really synonymous. An employers' group is not subject to the same kinds of fear of intimidation and coercion that individuals are in the exercise of their rights to join a trade union. Certainly it is inconceivable to me that a union is able to significantly affect the desire of companies involved in the forest industry or the construction industry to form accredited associations to represent that group at the bargaining table. It is rather inconceivable to equate that with the threats to individuals that we are trying to provide for and protect in the reference to trade-union rights.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we have had already in the province a fair amount of trouble on this very point and again I refer specifically to the individual truck logger, the individual owner-operator, and the IWA. Now, I'm not against the IWA for trying to increase their influence and power in the Province of British Columbia, but nor, on the other hand, should I encourage them to do so at the expense of the individual operator.

The situation can easily arise, Mr. Minister, where you have individuals who have their entire capital and lengthy mortgages sometimes — big mortgages and

[ Page 825 ]

bank loans — tied up in their equipment being hassled by a union which wishes to have those people not join with other self-employed contractors. Under those circumstances it is a very real fear indeed; it could very easily lead to fear, intimidation and coercion and has done so in at least one section of this island with which I am familiar.

Perhaps the Minister cannot visualize it, as he indicated to the House, but I trust that this example has indicated to him that a little imagination, and perhaps experience in an area other than his own, would indicate that there is a problem, that there is a need for even-handedness, and that there should be such an amendment accepted by this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to section 5 pass?

Amendment negatived.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on section 6. It is a very simple amendment. It only changes one word from "one" to "each" and also reflects that each party accepts the collective agreement which they signed probably in another province or another country.

I think that it's important that this be changed from " one" to "each" to simplify the decision-making on the part of the board. I think you are putting an onerous decision on the part of the board because of certain situations that might develop. There might be an anxiety on one or the other party to have the collective agreement sent to the board for a decision and for its endorsation as a valid collective agreement in the province, and I think that if it was put upon both parties to submit the collective agreement and say that they do accept the collective agreement there would be a lot less difficult and less troublesome decisions to be made by the board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed with the proposed amendment, I would ask the Hon. Member to hand it in in writing to the Chair.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to speak in favour of the amendment. I have an amendment on the order paper which carries the same meaning; only the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) did it much more neatly than I did. Never use two words where one will do, Jim.

But it does seem, in the interest of complete understanding, that if some agreement is reached outside of the province perhaps both parties should state in writing to the board that they are in agreement with the arrangement which has been decided outside the province. It just seems in the interests of proper understanding that each of the parties notifies the board that they accept that agreement. Surely this would make life much simpler for the board. On the other hand, if one party only notifies the board I don't know on what basis the board would otherwise know whether it is acceptable to the second party. So it just seems like one of these simple amendments that should make it very clear that the board would be in a better position to decide if it had written notification from each of the parties.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if a collective agreement is signed outside the province, it's quite possible for one of the parties to sign the agreement yet fail to ratify it; so in effect they enjoy the best of both worlds. They can have the benefit of the national agreement without a bona fide collective agreement within the province in terms of our provincial statutes. This is the kind of situation we want to prevent where one or another of the parties attempts to have the best of both worlds.

If we required both parties to file, we would not catch the trade union who had signed the agreement but was refusing to ratify it provincially. It is only by allowing the provision for either of the parties to notify the board that an agreement has been signed that we can be assured that the board is apprised of the settlement and can take the necessary action to investigate and determine whether the collective agreement must be executed in the province. That is the reason why one party is required to give notice.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. This is just an amendment which clarifies the language contained in section 8. It's a housekeeping amendment which does not require additional comment.

Amendment approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right at the very end of that section, 8(7): "On an inquiry by the board into a complaint under clause (d) of subsection (2) of section 3, the burden of proof that he did not contravene clause (d) lies upon the employer." Now clause (d) if we refer back, talks about "discharge,

[ Page 826 ]

suspend, transfer, lay off, or otherwise discipline an employee for the reason that the employee is, or proposes to become, or seeks to induce any other person to become, a member or officer of a trade union; or participates in the promotion, formation, or administration of a trade union."

The problem as I see it is that what we are doing here is putting the entire burden of proof upon the employer, and it's virtually an impossible burden of proof to discharge. In other words, if there is an employee who is inefficient and incompetent, or untrustworthy, lazy — whatever genuine reasons an employer may have for his firing — all the chap has to do is to attempt to induce a number of friends of his to join the union, or he can talk up union affairs with them.

Then when the disciplinary action is taken, the employee will be in a position of saying, "Aha, it was done because of my union activities," and the employer must prove otherwise; and how can you prove otherwise? It's a burden of proof which is extraordinarily difficult because undoubtedly there will be plenty of evidence, if the employee has any brains at all, of union activity by him.

Now I would think that a better way of dealing with this would be to alter it so that the burden of the proof should be on the complainant.

The other point, or I guess it is a supporting point, which is very closely allied to it, is that under normal circumstances a man is innocent until proven guilty. In this situation we are reversing the situation and we are creating an onus of proof of guilt on the employer, which would strike me as being very unusual and quite contrary to the general principles of our law.

I realize full well that in certain circumstances, and particularly in automobile cases, there has to be a burden of proof — where the burden of proof might be shifted to the man who has committed an offence and who has to prove his innocence. That is something which has crept in, particularly in automobile accident cases, which have to be very rigorously examined by any judge or person or Legislature. We don't want to extend that principle unnecessarily. I wonder whether the Minister would comment upon this necessity of putting the burden of proof upon the employer.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this section places the burden of proof upon the employer for alleged breaches of the unfair labour practices sections concerning any form of discipline for union activities. I suggest that the issue in such cases is the intent of the employer: what was the employer's intent in assessing discipline? He alone has the evidence of such intent and it would seem to me, under these circumstances, that he alone can best offer evidence on what his motivation was.

I point out also that an offence under this section is not a criminal offence, so the consequences are not particularly formidable in law. The Woods task force concluded in its report on this matter that the onus of proof is on management because of the principle that a person who is best apprised of the facts should carry out the burden of proving what they are.

I think it is quite evident that the employer must first of all have taken disciplinary action against an employee during the course of a certification move. There are reasonable grounds under those circumstances to suspect that he may well have been trying to circumvent the legitimate activities of a trade union.

If such a charge is made, which is not, I repeat, a criminal charge, then he seems to be the person in the best position to reveal to the Labour Relations Board, who would be investigating, what his true intentions were.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he considers this a fair and equitable way of dealing with labour and management. In other words, in a dispute of this kind, it seems to me extremely important that the law itself be scrupulously impartial without presuming wrongdoing on the part of management or wrongdoing on the part of labour.

I would just like to ask the Minister, if he considers the way this particular section is worded, does it adhere to that rule of scrupulous impartiality on the part of the section itself.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, as we were not getting a comment on that, I wonder whether the Minister would accept an amendment which would deal with the question of putting the burden of proof on the complainant so that the person complaining of it … which is the standard procedure….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, under this legislation we are getting some very curious things indeed, Mr. Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that adding on the third line the following: "On an inquiry under this section…the burden of proof should be on the complainant…."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the amendment would really be taking the labour rights of the employees back to the dark ages because when

[ Page 827 ]

an employee is, let's say, fired, the employer knows the reasons. In the case of intimidation for trade union activity or because he has been sticking up for his rights in some respect, the employer not only knows the real reason but he can produce five other reasons to send that employee down the road. How does the employee go about protecting himself? All of the facts and information are in the hands of the employer.

So when there is that kind of a complaint — "I've been discriminated against because I'm trying to defend my rights as an employee. I am trying to defend the right of people to belong to a trade union." With all the facts of the thing in the employer's hand we've got to make it that the employer has to come forward and justify the act he has committed against the employee.

Time after time in this province employees have been discriminated against for trade union activities and they've had to go before the Labour Relations Board to try to prove a negative. They've got to make out the case that what the employer did to them was unjust, but they haven't got the facts and the employer doesn't have to give an explanation.

Now we say if there's a case where the board should hear of discrimination, that employer should come in and justify his act. It's as simple as that.

You say that the employee is the plaintiff; but I say that he's a plaintiff who can't possibly prove a case in so many instances. It's up to that employer to justify the act that he's taken and, if he doesn't justify it, let the board order reinstatement, back pay, whatever.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I kind of wonder if the Attorney General is aware of the fact that we're going to have a board under this Act whose job it will be to determine questions where there is difficulty. Certainly in a normal court situation it might be extremely difficult for an employee to prove, as the Attorney General has pointed out, that he was fired for union activity. But the whole purpose of having a board — and by golly, we've heard enough from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) about this great board and how it's going to take care of these anomalies — is to sort out the truth or otherwise. When it comes to burden of proof, I think that the person complaining must at least be the person who should come up to the board and say, "I have been fired, laid off or whatever because of union activity. Here is what I've done." Now instead of that, it's going to be the other way around.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's thrown out. The employer doesn't have to say a word.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Attorney General, if you would later on like to address the Chair in the regular manner, we'd be delighted to hear your views.

The fact of the matter is that the board itself is going to have enormous discretion. If they are convinced, or if they have a strong suspicion that a person has been treated in this way, they'll be quite happy to accept the employee's view, I'm sure of it. That's the whole purpose of having a board which isn't bound by the legal precedents which the Attorney General's head is so full of.

The whole purpose of having this very flexible board — the opportunity of having a panel and officers appointed so quickly and set up so well — is to get around the type of fusty legal thinking which the Attorney General puts forward today.

All we're suggesting is that if a person is complaining about being laid off, he should at least indicate that he is the guy bringing the complaint forward; it should not be reversed and put upon the employer. The standard procedure which we feel would be much more acceptable, assuming of course you choose a good board — that's always an assumption that we have to make when we're dealing with sections such as this — is that he'll get a fair shake and a decent hearing from the Labour Relations Board as properly constituted and that he will not have difficulty in proving a case — if he has a case. But to shift the onus of proof the other way, we feel, is going too far.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member didn't seem to quite understand the Attorney General. There's no indication that the board is going to start processing an action against an employer unless indeed a complaint is received from some employee who feels he may well have been discriminated against.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Read the first line of subsection (7)….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Into a complaint….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

HON. MR. KING: Into a complaint that has been received.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

HON. MR. KING: Obviously there's not going to be an inquiry without a complaint.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Precisely.

HON. MR. KING: And in the meantime, if an

[ Page 828 ]

employee has been disciplined, dismissed, he is suffering in a way that may well be irreparable.

I would suggest further that the Member's concern for the interests of the employer is quite amazing because this only applies to a pretty narrow period in time, that period in time in which the trade union is engaged in organizing activities. It seems somewhat significant to me that the Second Member, the Liberal Leader, would defend the rights of management to discipline and fire during that narrow period of time when the union just happens to be exercising an organizing drive, an organizing campaign. Surely, if there's a valid case for dismissal and discipline, it doesn't have to be coincidental with that narrow period in time when the trade union is attempting an organizational drive.

The rights of management to discipline and fire are fully protected in this legislation. But in that one narrow period — and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is room for grave doubts about the basis and the motivation of discipline — I think it's incumbent upon this House to ensure that those people who are taking the precipitous action should be held to account and be obliged to reveal their true reasons for the action to the Labour Relations Board.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Amendment negatived.

AN HON. MEMBER:  I'm sure I never heard a single "No."

AN HON. MEMBER: I heard some "No"s.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay. Are you on section 8?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well which amendment are you voting on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We were dealing with the amendment proposed by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to section 8.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, on that point, Mr. Chairman, could I have clarification? The Minister introduced an amendment to section 8 in three parts and we had one vote. I presume that we amended three different parts in one vote.

Can I then just ask for clarification from the Minister that the elimination of the 14-day waiting period is the essential content of the third part of his amendment and that action can be taken immediately after the date for compliance of the order?

HON. MR. KING: Yes. It was felt, Mr. Chairman, that more force and impact would be given to the findings and decisions and orders of the board if the board is free on their own discretion to enforce them when they think appropriate, rather than being precluded from doing so for the period of 14 days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 8 as amended pass?

Section 8 approved with amendment.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. CHABOT: On section 11, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I'd like to move.

Section 1 deals with the matter of religious conscience, and I fail to understand the attitude of the government in dealing with this matter.

I am sure the Minister has had dozens of letters asking for consideration on this very section. These people are not only opposed to belonging to unions, they're opposed to contributing as well to a union, and these people deserve to have their freedoms protected.

I'm not talking about every individual who belongs to a particular religious belief. I'm talking about people with strong religious convictions.

How many do we have in the Province of British Columbia that take objection to the phony religious clause that's been instituted in section 11? Because that's what it is. It's a phony, irresponsible section that has been instituted in this labour code.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): It takes a phony to see one.

MR. CHABOT: When I mention the word phony, I hear from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). He recognizes the word very quickly. He knows a phony when he sees one.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: He knows very well, because he's the biggest phony on that side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You blew it.

MR. CHABOT: He's the biggest phony.

I can never understand, Mr. Chairman, why this government will not give some consideration to these people — the type of consideration that is given in Saskatchewan, the type of consideration that is given in Manitoba, the type of consideration that is given in Ontario, the type of consideration that is given in

[ Page 829 ]

England. They've instituted reasonable, rational pieces of legislation. There is a section there that provides protection for these people and you people bring in a phony section. Yet in the Speech from the Throne you suggested that there would be a section in the new labour code that would give genuine protection to the people of strong religious beliefs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now tell us what you did.

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting in my amendment, Mr. Chairman, that an amount equal to the union fees be contributed too to defray the cost of the labour ombudsman, the great protector of individual rights. I think that it's only fair that these monthly premiums or monthly dues be directed towards assisting the labour ombudsman to protect these people with their freedom.

If the equal amount is not sufficient, I'm sure that those people out there who have strong religious beliefs would be prepared to contribute substantially more than an equal amount.

I listened to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) just a few days ago talk on this very matter in which he said that very few people in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba had opted to use the provisions of the section incorporated in the labour laws of those provinces. Well, it's quite obvious why: in those particular provinces they don't have the percentage of an organized labour force that we have in the Province of British Columbia.

There's also the fear that has been generated in the minds of those people because of certain pieces of legislation that have been introduced in this Legislature. One is the Public Works Fair Employment Act — again compulsory unionism, union enforcement. These people are being surrounded and that's why they're concerned at this particular time. We see the public service Labour Relations Act as well, constantly infringing on the rights of these people to be gainfully employed in areas of not contributing to unions.

There are only a handful. Let's look at the civil service; I would say there's no more than maybe 15 to 20. This is just a guess, but I would guess about that many who might be concerned with the inclusion of a legitimate and workable religious conscience clause in the labour agreement. What you're doing is restricting the areas in which these people can work by the passage of all these additional laws which force people to be part of a union structure or to contribute to a union structure.

I think one has to be charitable and considerate. Put yourself in their place and realize the type of dilemma these people are in. If these people, who will not belong to a union and will not contribute, find themselves in a position where there is a clause which forces them to contribute to a union, they'll seek employment elsewhere. But they're being surrounded in British Columbia, and that's why they're concerned when they see the various pieces of legislation that are being introduced from time to time in this Legislature in the last year.

I speak with concern and certainly with sincerity on this very issue. I hope the government will accept my amendment because it is given in all sincerity and with concern for these people out there, and there are very few of them. I hope the government will accept the legislation which, in turn, will not affect to any substantial degree the type of financial structure of the unions because we're talking only about a handful of people who have strong religious beliefs in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to ask the Members to refrain from using words like "phony." I didn't interrupt the last speaker because he referred to people on both sides of the House when he did it. But I hope that you treat each other….

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke that phrase, I didn't say both sides of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we know what you meant when you first said it. Nevertheless, I would hope that you treat each other with more respect.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I have never really spoken to any great degree in this House on labour legislation because I feel it's a highly….

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: There's the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) again, wanting to stifle free debate and free opinion, as usual.

…because I believe that the whole matter of labour relations is highly emotional. But I do feel compelled to speak on this amendment which we proposed through our Hon. Member for Columbia River, which we support, and which I personally support.

I would draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that in Canada today we have just seen the close of a most unusual situation where we as a nation have extended to people, who left their own country for

[ Page 830 ]

less than conscientious reasons, the rights and privileges of becoming Canadian citizens. I speak in terms of those immigrants in Canada, some of whom were commonly called draft-dodgers and were indeed people who wished for one reason or another to escape the responsibilities imposed upon them by their country to defend their country. We extended to them amnesty and all the privileges and responsibilities of our country.

Canada, during the last war, recognized the right of conscience and the conscientious objector, and they were allowed, providing this was a sincere motive — and it's very easy to ascertain whether it is — the right to take a different path. Not opt out, Mr. Minister, but take a different path.

Yet this government is denying people who have a strong Christian conscience and a strong Christian belief the right to take another path. Not opt out, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, but take another path. Surely neither the state in itself or through its government, or a union, or an association, be it professional or otherwise, has the right to come between a man or a woman and their true, expressed conscience or religion. This is one of the other reasons that I would stand with my colleague and ask that this amendment be accepted.

Surely what we are proposing and what these people are willing to comply with can in no way be interpreted as a threat to unionism or any single union, either in British Columbia or Canada.

As my colleague pointed out, one, these are a very small group of people; two, they are very sincere in their objectives. They live in this manner; in their daily lives they practice this mode of living. Three, and perhaps most important of all, surely the objective of unionism, the accomplishments of unionism and the benefits of unionism to the individual members must be right and strong enough in society and right in their benefits to the individual that the majority of people are going to want to join a union and not have to be compelled. Surely that is what one major factor of unionism is all about. They don't need to be protected by legislation such as we are trying to amend.

So I would ask, in speaking to this amendment, that the Minister would seriously consider the strength of the unions, the rightness of their objectives and the benefits of those objectives to the individual members, and let this stand on its own merit. In so doing, he should acknowledge the rights of an individual, where he has a clearly-expressed mode of living and conscience, to exercise his right, not, as I say, to opt out but to take another avenue.

Surely the acceptance of this amendment will strengthen unionism because it will show the confidence of the unions themselves, it will show the confidence of the Minister of this government in the acceptability of this new legislation, and it will acknowledge individual rights for which we all stand.

In accepting this amendment, the money which would otherwise be used for union dues will be used for a noble purpose, if you want to call it that way, within British Columbia, neither of benefit to one side over the other but to the mutual benefit to both sides and to the individual.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favour of the amendment put forward by my friend from Columbia River. The principle of the amendment is very similar to the following amendment on the order paper which is the one in my name. His calls for the moneys to be turned over to defray the cost of the labour ombudsman; mine suggests the money go to a charity. Essentially, they are very similar amendments.

Mr. Chairman, it's been said that the test of democracy is the treatment by the majority of minority groups. In a situation such as this, we could hardly have a more classic case. We have a very small number of people — estimates have been given but I've heard no serious estimates which have exceeded 500 people in this province — people who would feel that their religious convictions required them to take advantage of an amendment such as the one we are discussing or the one immediately following; a very small minority of people whose motives are difficult for the rest of us to understand. I must confess I have difficulty understanding their specific point of view. I don't share it, but they have it and they believe it, obviously in all sincerity. I think that, even though I may not be of their persuasion, we should allow them to have the option they so obviously desire. It is a genuine minority and it is perfectly simple to sort out any phonies — I use that word advisedly, Mr. Chairman, after your recent remarks — who might attempt to make use of it. It is a very simple device to do that. It is something which has been done in other jurisdictions and has been done with the conscientious objectors, dealing with other specific matters. I'm referring, of course, to those who object to bearing arms in time of war.

It is possible to sort out the people who are attempting to evade their responsibilities from those who have genuine conviction. That poses no problem to acceptance of an amendment such as this.

It's as well to cast our minds back in the history of the Province of British Columbia and to realize that

[ Page 831 ]

those who are objecting to this type of amendment on the grounds that it will destroy unionism have not been in the past particularly — and I use the word in its non-partisan sense — liberal in their approach to people of other faiths, or other religious or racial extraction coming to British Columbia — the East Indian worker problem, the Chinese, the demonstrations against Japanese.

We have had a fairly long history in British Columbia of intolerance; it is the worst province in Canada in this regard. And unfortunately there's no question, if we but examine the history of our province, that labour unions in the past have been involved. I think, therefore, in this situation we should examine this amendment and the subsequent one, in terms of principle….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly, as the Hon. Member points out, there are plenty of other problems. He mentions the CPR, and I would presume he's referring to the use of Chinese labour in that regard.

Certainly we have at the present time almost hysterical criticisms against such an amendment by saying that it would destroy the union movement. I have looked at the two other jurisdictions where the legislation follows the general trend of these two amendments — Ontario and Manitoba — and this simply hasn't happened there. The two jurisdictions that I've looked at have not had a problem of this type of legislation being used for breaking unions or indeed for people trying to evade their responsibilities.

So I think that the Minister and the government should consider this amendment, and the subsequent one, in the spirit in which they are put forward and should accept them. The number of people involved is small, but to them it is an important amendment.

The effect upon others — the majority in any union or a majority elsewhere in the work force — is minimal. Indeed it's turned out to be totally negligible in Ontario and Manitoba.

Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all Members of the House to support my friend from Columbia River's (Mr. Chabot's) amendment.

MR. WALLACE: This party also supports the concept that this issue should be looked upon as a very important area in which a person's individual conviction should be respected. I won't repeat all the arguments of the two former speakers, but certainly the contacts I've had with the various citizens who have lobbied in the building recently, and who have contacted us by letter, leave me in no doubt that this is something about which they have genuine conviction, and also that they represent a small number.

I think one point that should be made clear is that the word "dues" — and I'm using d-u-e-s, in case there's any misunderstanding. Maybe I don't pronounce it right. There are heads shaking on the other side. "Doos?" Once again, Mr. Chairman, my dialect causes all kinds of problems, but I'm referring to the d-u-e-s.

I think that the payment of some fee implies membership. The two words are complementary one to the other; one becomes a member in an organization by paying a certain fee. Regardless of the particular religious concept involved in this, I think in any area of human endeavour, if you pay a fee and become a member, these two features are completely complementary.

To suggest in section 11, whether it's to do with religion or anything else, that you pay your fees but you don't become a member, to me in itself seems contradictory.

Mr. Chairman, in the last line in section 11, after the long preamble, it says "the employee shall be deemed not to be an employee." This again confuses me. I don't know how you can be described as an employee in the first part of the sentence and then described at the other end of the sentence as not being an employee, when in point of fact you've gone through the most obvious manoeuvre of paying a certain amount of money to become a member of the union. To me this clause should either be scrapped completely or it should be made meaningful.

One meaningful way I think, which would in my opinion do the union cause nothing but good — I think that the union cause would be enhanced, not damaged by this movement — is a matter in which the objectivity and the goodwill of union members can be tested: do they in fact respect one of the basics in our democratic society that the majority do always give fair consideration to the minority? It's such a fundamental pillar of all we believe in our parliamentary system that while the fear has been expressed by unions — someone said hysterically — that this would weaken and be the thin end of the wedge towards destroying unions, I beg to differ. I think that this is the kind of statesmanlike decision which, if this government will take it, will strengthen unions. They will strengthen this government's respect for the wishes of minorities offered with

[ Page 832 ]

genuine goodwill and sincerity, and, furthermore, meet the very reasonable requests of a very small number of people who have made the request.

But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that as the clause stands, and as the individuals in society have pointed out to all parties in the opposition and presumably to the government, the clause does nothing to meet their request as it stands, because they are still in effect paying money to the union. And when you pay money to any board or union or government, you are in effect accepting the validity of what that organization or party or government stands for.

The basic problem here is that these individuals in society do not accept, per se, the function and the attitudes and some of the behaviour of unions. You are making it really impossible for them, on one hand to say, "Oh well, we'll pay our membership fees but we won't be members." It just doesn't make sense. As I say, it would make a great deal more sense if the membership fees were to be payable either for the use of the ombudsman or, as suggested in the following amendment, to some charitable cause.

This proposal, as has been stated, does apply in two other provinces with no damage at all, as far as one can determine, to the general union cause in these provinces. As I have said earlier in these remarks, and I'll just repeat in closing, in my view the union, the government, would lose nothing, but in fact would gain a great deal from following this principle that sometimes a very small minority has a point of principle which, by being accepted by the majority, strengthens and enhances these fundamental ideas we have about democracy in this country.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to support what the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) have said regarding this particular section.

If governments can respect the strong personal feelings of individuals to the extent that they would relieve them of the obligation to defend their country with their life, then it seems to me union leaders and the union movement are doing themselves the worst possible disservice by failing to respect that degree of personal feeling on the part of a very, very small percentage of the population. I could hardly believe the fact that the head of the B.C. Federation of Labour would come over here and actually lobby the MLAs over as fundamental a democratic principle as this one. To me, it signifies a monumental insecurity on the part of those union leaders.

What I wonder is simply this: if we have to hold men to such account by laws that we pass in this province, I am talking about the resistance shown by the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), if we have to hold human beings to this kind of account by laws we pass in the Legislature, then we must ask ourselves: how strongly are these union laws and union regulations being forced against the will of many other people?

If the union leaders haven't enough confidence in the belief of their union members and in the union movement itself to respect the feelings of a small percentage of the population in the same spirit that governments themselves in time of peril will respect these feelings, then those union leaders may require from us more and more in the way of stringent and dictatorial legislation to protect their interests over those of the workingmen they allege to represent.

I think that the amendments which have been proposed to this particular bill are very moderate ones. I believe that it would be in the interests of the government and the Minister of Labour to accept this amendment. I believe as well that it would behoove the union movement itself to demonstrate self-confidence in itself and the feeling that it had the following of its membership in spirit as well as in law.

I regret it very much, Mr. Chairman, whenever we pass legislation in this House that clearly violates the spirit of conscience and goodwill on the part of any segment of our society, because the more we indulge in that kind of thing as a legislature, the more we are sacrificing the very freedoms that legislative assemblies of this kind are all about.

It's almost a trivial point, Mr. Chairman, because there are so few people who feel strongly about this particular law and this particular ethic. They have become very vocal. They have written many letters; they have contacted the media; they have whipped Ray Haynes into a state of frenzy — not that that takes a great deal. They've got a point, and because they have a point it is worthy of the time and deep consideration of this House.

I support the amendment and I hope the Minister of Labour will indicate his support as well.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): I just wanted to comment briefly on the proposal made by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and supported by the other political parties. In doing so, I want to say first of all that this labour code won't stand or fall, won't fail or succeed on the basis of section 11, whether it is amended or not. It really isn't essential to the thrust of the legislation. If it were to be excluded

[ Page 833 ]

completely, it wouldn't make any difference in the terms of the success of the Act.

I think it's unfortunate that this question is even raised in the legislation. I think that the proposal, both in the section itself and in the proposed amendment, would satisfy no one. For that reason I am curious about its inclusion.

I just want to say that it's not a question that really requires us to spend the kind of time we have spent on it because it is just not that important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GABELMANN: I believe that, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I should take a bit longer than I intended to take and talk about it just a little bit.

The first point is that if people in this society want to gain some benefit from groups to which they belong, then they should be paying for those benefits.

MRS. JORDAN: Maybe they don't want to belong.

MR. GABELMANN: The legislation as it is framed takes into account that people will have to pay some fee for services, in effect. I am not very happy with that; I think we have copped out in our solution to the problem because we have said you don't have to belong and you don't have to be a member of the union. I think it is more important to be a member of the union than it is to pay the dues, quite frankly. That's where our responsibilities lie as citizens, and that is to participate in a membership capacity, not in the financial capacity. However, that's my beef with the section; I am not particularly uptight about it.

I want to suggest what really is, I think, the proper solution to this problem. If people honestly do have a conscience and they can't possibly belong to the trade union or they can't possibly pay dues to that trade union, then there is an obvious solution to their situation: let them continue to work at that job, let them have all the rights of every other worker, but say to them that if they are not prepared to pay the costs of running that union, then they don't get the benefits that the union has won for the workers in that plant.

The simple solution to that is that if the union is negotiating a contract that pays $5 an hour, the worker gets $2 or $2.25 or $2.50 or whatever the minimum wage happens to be. You pay that worker the minimum wage, because he has contributed nothing to the union which has negotiated those wages. You pay him the minimum wage, Mr. Chairman, and you say to the company that it can't get away with the difference. The company would have to make up the difference between the minimum wage and the collective agreement amount and give that to the same place that the union dues are going to.

If we are going to be fair in this section, let's be fair all the way around. That is a solution. It's probably just as absurd as the solutions proposed in this whole question.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hear from, I think it was the Member for the flood plains (Mr. Schroeder) talking about that attitude being sick. I find it sick and repulsive that people are not prepared to pay their fair share in this society by paying their union dues and also paying the responsibility they have to participate in the decisions of the people that they are working with if they are involved in a union situation. If they don't want to be involved in that union, if they don't want to be involved in the work of that union, if they don't want to be involved in the financial responsibility, then they can go and get a job somewhere else. They don't have to work there, you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much do you pay the arthritic society? You enjoy their benefits.

MR. GABELMANN: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I'm flatly opposed to the proposed amendment. I am really quite ambivalent about the section itself because it doesn't solve any problems. It doesn't come to grips with any of the difficulties that are being raised by both sides and I will just leave it at that.

I did want to suggest there is a direct parallel between being a member and paying dues and getting the benefits for that. You can't have it both ways; you can't have the benefits if you don't pay the freight.

MR. MORRISON: I rise to support the amendment. As a former employer who had two employees who felt extremely strongly about this type of coercion, I would like to use their examples, if I may.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they have a choice?

MR. MORRISON: They were qualified employees, highly-trained and skilled, who felt, on religious grounds, that they would not support a union either financially or by being members. The union to which they belonged ultimately required, through their contract, that they either quit or be fired. These two individuals, in fact, no longer work at the trades at which they are trained. They simply saw that they could not live with the union. They could not, under conscience, support the union. They therefore gave up their employment, for which they were highly

[ Page 834 ]

trained and skilled, and because that particular skill is almost completely unionized in this province, they no longer are employed in their skill.

There are many. people, I am quite sure, who feel as strongly as these two, who are prime examples, and who are being completely surrounded. Their means of livelihood, their alternates are disappearing. There was a time when some of them could have left their employment and gone to work for an employer who was not unionized. The legislation that we have before this House is very rapidly reducing and removing that possibility.

I believe that people ought to have the right, if they so desire, to continue in the employment for which they are trained, and are not compelled to support the union financially. They have no objection to having the same amount of money deducted from their wages; therefore, I believe that this amendment, which suggests that that amount of money be sent to the government to be used for the ombudsman, is an excellent amendment and I therefore support it.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I would like to add my comments to the debate on section 11. My first impression on listening to the remarks by the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on the amendment to section 11.

MR. BARNES: Pardon me, the amendment to section 11. The remarks just made by the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) regarded the rights of members who have conscientious reasons for not wanting to belong to a union. Let's face it; whether or not we pay the dues, this is just a beginning. I think that now that we are into this debate — it started off a little soft; I think people were soft-pedalling — let's face it, this is an issue that's far more serious than might meet the eye.

We have a trade union movement in this country. As a matter of fact, the trade union movement is all over the world. It involves people struggling for their rights. I think that we're trying to put a red herring in the thing as far as the opposition is concerned by talking about expending funds for other causes rather than the union movement.

I'm not suggesting that people should support the union who do not believe in it, who have reasons of their own personal conscience for wanting to opt out. But what are the Members suggesting — that we have no union movement? I think this is what they are saying. I think they are saying that this is the beginning of the end for the labour movement as far as they are concerned.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I think what they are suggesting…. Mr. Member, we are in B.C. now and you know it.

I would suggest further that the problem in our struggle — the people on the streets, the ones who are working for an equal break in the benefits of our society — is that it is pretty hard on all of us. As someone mentioned earlier, it's the problem of fighting in a war when you don't believe in it.

There are those who would prefer to be left at home or have some other alternative. But there are those who have to go out and pay the dues. This is the reality of the times. It is not a matter of choice. We have no choice. If we don't have the movement, what do we have? As far as I am concerned, I think that we may have made a mistake in trying to resolve a very difficult problem with the conscience clause, because it is just a beginning.

Perhaps that should have been left with the union. It was an attempt, on behalf of the government, to recognize the rights of certain people. I think it may have been a mistake because we are not in a position to do two things. We are going to do one or the other. We are going to recognize the labour movement and let it bargain for those conditions under which it operates, or we are not. This is what we are faced with.

As far as I am concerned — and I think I can speak with a fair amount of authority because I have had to fight for all kinds of rights dealing with human conditions — certainly if we don't permit the unions to make the decisions, then I think that is the beginning of the end for their movement. I would suggest that this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is a good attempt to undermine the whole labour movement.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: The thing about it, Mr. Chairman, is that we are getting a lot of chit-chat because this is really the issue. Surely people have a conscience and sure they are concerned and we all care about that. But I think that the Members in the opposition are using this as an opportunity to try to undermine the labour movement. I really believe that. I think they know it. I think we will find those people who have a conscience can find ways of resolving it the same as we all have to do. But I certainly don't see any other alternative for this government.

I must say that I don't feel good about the decision we have made. I think it is a tragic situation. I have listened to contingents and delegations as well that have come to me and said "What about our rights as conscientious objectors? We are opposed to belonging to a union. In fact, we don't feel that we should even be voting." Some of them have said, "We feel that we have our domain and our own beliefs and our God is something else" — or whatever. This is

[ Page 835 ]

their right.

We have a problem in this society. We have a collective bargaining system that requires full respect. It is a legal bargaining entity. I don't see how we can turn around and say that that is going to be undermined because some people object. Sure, it's a problem. The solution is going to have to be a heck of a lot better than just saying, "Fine, they can belong to the union but they don't have to pay their dues," or, "they can pay their dues to some other entity."

I think that this is a difficult problem but I am not satisfied that we have gone the right route by even including this section. I think that it is a problem where the government again, probably indiscreetly, has made the mistake of trying to assist in a very serious area and has allowed an opportunity for the opposition to misuse it. It looks to me as if this is what they are trying to do instead of understanding that this really is a matter of cooperation.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) made a good point. He didn't intend to, I don't think, but he did nonetheless. He suggested that perhaps there should be more cooperation and more belief in themselves — more self-confidence on the part of the union movement. Perhaps this is where the problem lies. Perhaps the people instead of saying, "We don't want to vote; we don't support it" — let's face it: it's a reality; why don't the conscientious objectors go to the labour movement and say, "Let's resolve this problem. Can't we work out something instead of putting it into the hands of the government?" The government is trying to do peace-keeping at a level that is very difficult for it.

We're made to look right now as though we are being unfair, when really we have gone a long way in trying to assist.

I will just conclude by saying I am sure that in good will we will find a solution to this problem, but it won't be found by having Members of the opposition trying to use it for political reasons — which is, of course, what they are doing.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): I want to talk about the amendment. I don't think this discussion on section 11 would even have been possible in years gone past. I talked to the previous Minister of Labour, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), on Thursday night at His Honour's banquet. I said that we are taking risks here and I think we are willing to take risks. Any time you make any possibility — in this amendment or in the section itself — of allowing people to take the kind of option that we in the section are trying to do, you are obviously taking risks. In a sense the hand that is trying to help people is burnt.

First of all, we are taking risks which I think are very necessary. I must say I agonized over this amendment because I would like to think that it was possible that money could go to the Minister of Finance — that there would be the mechanics to see that it would go on to other groups.

I personally, as a clergyman, would not welcome the money to my church. I would see it as really…"scab" is a heavy word, but in many ways it is undoing the things that….

The Methodist Church historically, if you know the history of this country, had a great deal to do with the original organizing of unions in this province and other provinces historically. I wouldn't welcome it and I know several priests in Vancouver have said very publicly that they would not welcome it. One was written up in the paper when he addressed a meeting about three weeks ago.

The thing, really, is that we are talking about a very small group of people. For instance, in my own communion I doubt if there are really many people there. We met with some of these people on Thursday, as a small group of backbenchers. It was a very, very small group of people. We really respect them; we respect their opinions. At least we are even opening the door to this kind of discussion, which I doubt has been held in this Legislature before.

But there are prices. The Premier said that part of the price for just having a collective agreement, whether you are a member of the union or not, is that you are certainly benefiting from this. I think that part of the justice and mercy and the humility that I would expect of Christian people would be that you are willing to pay that price.

Maybe Caesar wasn't the right word when we talked about Caesar two weeks ago. I don't know. It means to me that you pay, in this case, to the union. In many cases "Caesar" means, to the state, simply the price of having the equity and the kind of standard of living that many of us are appreciating.

In reference to the amendment I worry, because I doubt that we could have a mechanism, even through our present Minister of Finance, to see that money would go to the appropriate group. Who would decide what is appropriate? After all, I think that we could get to be pretty selfish here. Jeremy Bentham spoke about the whole benefiting rather than small groups who can be very, very selfish; in a sense they can do more jeopardy than good.

I appreciate that many of them simply want to go upstream or they want to elect out, yet many of us are in this Legislature because we'd like to be an influence for good. This is a risky business, sitting in this place here, but many of us have chosen to be an influence, hopefully for justice, equality and good.

In reference to the trade unions, I'm not all that impressed with some. I was at an IWA banquet on Saturday night and I wasn't that impressed with the union chap who sat next to me. Yet I feel that we need to be an influence for these people. I think that

[ Page 836 ]

union is basically one of the more just unions. But we're here, and I would hope that, in reference to the amendment, the money goes to the union. I also hope that influence goes to the union to see that they are more just, they are more humble, they are more merciful in this time in history. Many of the Members know that the attendance at union meetings is not very great. I am told that when there is a major issue they might get 10 per cent out at the IWA in the New Westminster local of 6,000 people. It's very doubtful that 600 people will come out to a major meeting. So influence, membership and involvement are important. I really think that by neglect and by apathy the situation gets worse. So I really can't vote for the amendment, although I appreciate the sincerity of the person who is moving it.

It's an agonizing thing. I wish that even the bureaucracy of the Minister of Finance could be as fair as he would like to think it is. We have certainly thought of this option, but I can't stand in support of the motion.

I must say that I still have misgivings about the section itself. Small groups want to elect out. I appreciate that and I feel that I would like them also to be an influence for good. We can't afford to just be detached from society; we have to take risks; we have to trust; and we have to believe that the trade unions and this Legislature and any other group can be better by our simply being here. Thank you.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, you can't have a debate like this without people being political. As a matter of fact, every debate we have in this House is essentially political. Some things have to do with political courage or the lack of it, or making moves or not making moves. Once putting it in that perspective, we deal with this amendment that's before us.

When the Socreds were in power, I do not recall that they ever raised this as an issue even in this House. Ever. Now to come in and be sanctimonious about it is either a death-bed repentance or it's an attempt to try and reverse a position that they refused to discuss when they were government.

You can say everything you want, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, but I recall the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) at one time saying in this House that he brought in the bill last year. Well, he was Minister of Labour; he never brought in a bill when he had the power to change it; he never discussed the issue, never got concerned.

There was always that moralistic attitude by that former administration that they were the ones chosen by God to rule this province. If anybody brought God into politics, it was the former administration who accused this whole party of being godless socialists. That was good enough to avoid any responsibility of discussing a conscience clause.

MR. McGEER: Godless socialist Marxists.

HON. MR. BARRETT: My good friend was Marxist socialist. At that time I had to ask the question who they were talking about: Groucho, Harpo or Zeppo.

But the fact is, they can't play the argument on this amendment that they were concerned. They never did a thing about it when they were in office.

For lawyers and doctors to advise this particular section, you can't practise in this province unless you're a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

MR. McGEER: That's not true.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not true, eh? You can't turn a scalpel without your membership. The medical association is voluntary, but you can't practise unless you're a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. There's no way of opting out, no way of opting out.

Now, the lawyers. It's not good enough for the lawyers to say, "It's okay; we don't have a conscience clause because lawyers don't have a conscience." (Laughter.) That's not good enough either, Mr. Chairman. I have hope for the lawyers; someday they'll develop a conscience. There should be a clause for them too, but they don't have it. I don't see them getting up fighting for it.

Now look, we have taken this issue as a bone of contention. We have said all along that we've got to come to grips with it and we've come up with what we think is the solution that's necessary. You don't have to agree but for goodness' sake, at least have the honesty to admit that you never did a thing about it when you were in government for 20 years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if I may go on, the reason why we have picked this approach against the amendment is simply that the trade union is not a giant machine operating as an automaton; it is a collection of human beings who by their history have come to work freely at the work place, to act collectively around working conditions and salaries. The trade union movement, as much as it's maligned, is still in essence the same democratic body that brought it into existence at the turn of the century with the crafts and then, from there, into the industrial union.

What do you expect of workers when they come together at the job place? Look at the history of legislation in this province and you find that every inch of progress that was made in terms of legislation

[ Page 837 ]

came out of the guts of the trade union movement in this province.

The trade union movement has taken a collective position on the job, and you join the union as part of the working condition. If you don't believe in the trade union, then you do at least have an obligation to pay to your fellow workers for the struggle they're carrying on on your behalf. There are two choices you can make. You can opt out of the union, your fellow workers are struggling for you, and meet that cost. Or do the other thing, which I find more attractive: if you don't like the direction of the trade union, then get in and get involved and turn it towards another direction.

We do it here in this House. That's what democracy is all about. You all pay your taxes, but you sure hate this government and you'd like a conscience way of opting out. But just try and not pay your taxes and see what the Minister of Finance does to you in the Province of British Columbia. (Laughter.) That's what it's all about. You pay your taxes as part of the human condition that you find yourself in. This is not a perfect society. We're taking a step that we think is a device to deal with this problem.

I speak now to the Liberals and the Conservatives; I wiped out the Socreds as any part of this whole debate because of their approach. They bring this kind of amendment now when not one of them has stood up and said why they didn't bring it in when they were in government. Not one of them.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I will.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You will, huh? (Laughter.) Oh well I'm glad you finally found that as part of the reason why you didn't.

To the Liberals and the Conservatives, I say to you that this is a position we've taken as a party, as a legislative body, to meet the problem. That's the decision we've made and we hope it goes to solve the problem.

I find it absolutely essential in a free society that people have some mechanism to opt out. I do. People who do make decisions based on conscience are more than welcome in any democratic society and particularly more than welcome in totalitarian states.

But there is a penalty for stepping out of tune. Everybody must pay taxes; everybody must deal in the reality of the world they live in. Had I been in a position to have my taxes deducted for defence, to write down to Ottawa and say, "Deduct my share of income tax from national defence because I don't believe in Bomarc missiles," what opportunity would there have been for that? There isn't. There is an alternative to what we have posed, and the alternative is to get involved in the union movement.

But if you're prepared to opt out of society, or opt out of the organization, you must pay what society demands and you must pay what the group demands. You can't go to the work place and expect your fellow workers to spend their evenings, their weekends, organizing and struggling and fighting for better work conditions while you walk on and say, "I want no part of it; I won't even pay my fair share of it," and yet still expect to get the same wages and working conditions. You must pay, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What about Manitoba?

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is British Columbia. British Columbia, blossoming under a new Legislature that for 20 years wouldn't even allow a discussion on this, Mr. Chairman.

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. It's one of those moments again when only those of us who were here before can feel that sense of revulsion and hypocrisy when the Socreds talk the way they do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman, marks their role in this debate because they never fought for this when they were in the government. Of all the people to bring the amendment in, the man least qualified on a non-political basis to do it is the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) who never fought for this.

Oh, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that they're all so willing to listen. You know, Mr. Chairman, the vacuum of expression over there won't wash away the guilt of the fact in this argument that they did nothing before. We have made a decision; this is the course we're going to follow. We have raised this issue, not buried it. This is the choice that we've taken and we'll stand on this choice. We reject that amendment completely.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): This particular section has caused me considerable agony, if you like, because there are aspects of it that have required considerable soul-searching. I mean that in the literal sense of the word because, in speaking to the amendment, we're faced with two problems, both really epitomized by the attempt of the Hon. Member for Columbia River in his amendment to resolve — at least in one sense.

First of all, if we accepted the amendment, it would make the trade unions two-time losers: they would lose in the obvious way that the small bargaining units might very well be weakened, by this section at any rate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DENT: And secondly, if they were also to

[ Page 838 ]

lose financially, then they would be in effect two-time losers. This is putting a burden that I think is unfair; I think it's almost unfair anyway.

However I support the concept because I believe it's something that has to be grappled with; it's something we have to take a hold of and face.

There is a bona fide case for conscientious objection. I think, just to make that case clear, I should briefly say what it does mean to be a religious objector: what is the meaning of this; what we are talking about when we're talking about a person who objects on religious grounds?

I used an example in a previous debate and I'll use it again briefly. In the book of The Acts, there was an incident where St. Peter — or Peter if you prefer not to call him St. Peter — but Peter was imprisoned along with another one of the Apostles. He is commanded first of all by the Sanhedrin that he was not to preach in the name of Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem. That was the order he was given by the governing authorities of the day.

However, he had received another command from God directly that he was in fact to preach in the name of Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem. He was faced with a real dilemma: on the one hand he had been told he was not to preach in the name of Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem by the local authorities; on the other hand he was commanded by God to preach in the name of Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem.

So he went out and preached in the name of Jesus, he was arrested, brought before the Sanhedrin again and he was asked to explain his actions. His answer is famous, and has been used as an example of conscientious objection right down through the centuries: "Should I obey God or should I obey man if there is conflict between the two?"

That's the issue as far as conscientious objection is concerned. Should I obey God or should I obey man? And so he chose to obey God and was subsequently imprisoned for disobedience to human authority.

Conscientious objectors down through the centuries have been inspired by Peter's example, that they would do the same thing. A conscientious objector who believes in his heart and in his soul and in his mind that he cannot support a trade union movement, either by joining it or contributing money to it, must obey his conscience; he must obey the command of God and not do this. I respect him for this.

However, we also who are legislators have another issue in this regard, and I think that the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) was trying to meet the objection of the conscientious objector. I think he was in a genuine way trying to meet the objection of the conscientious objector.

However, I thought there was a way out. When we talked with this group of conscientious objectors that we met with the other day they said, "Well, if we could just give the money to the Crown, we wouldn't object if they in turn gave it back to the trade union," or at least they sort of implied this, because then it would be the responsibility of the Crown as to what happened to the money. Now that's a little different from the amendment but it's roughly along the same principle.

Now if this were done, as I thought, maybe this would meet their objection. On the other hand it would be duplicity on our part to do this, knowing what we were doing. We could not support this, so it would appear the only way out was the Hon. Member's amendment. However, we come back to the original point I made, that the trade union movement would then be two-time losers.

Now as has been pointed out by the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) and by the Hon. Premier, the trade union movement has as much claim to being a movement inspired by God and by the Holy Spirit as any other organization or any conscientious objector. There is plenty of historical support for that idea, because many of the original trade union organizers were inspired in their actions by the Methodist revival of the 18th century. The coal mines of Scotland, for example, were organized by a convert in the Wesleyan revival. Many other trade union leaders have come out of the Christian movement — Woodsworth, the founder of the CCF party, was imprisoned; he was a Methodist minister and he was imprisoned because he was fighting on the side of the strikers in the Winnipeg strike, as a matter of conscience and obedience to God.

I met a man today who used to be a fellow clergyman of mine in the Cariboo. He was with a group of the coalition against southern Africa. He's a very dedicated, conscientious young man in the ministry and again, as a matter of obedience to God, he is acting in the way that he's acting.

But in the trade union movement particularly there are many, many people who are there for religious reasons. I know a person who's an officer of the Federation of Labour. He's an evangelical lay pastor in one of the churches in Burnaby. And he's had to defend his position many times in the face of fellow Christians who disagreed with him. But again, this is a matter of conscience too.

Now we who are here in this Legislature have to take a look at this thing that I mentioned about two-time losers. The fact is that smaller bargaining units could very well be endangered by this section if the right combination of circumstances arise. In other words, say a bargaining unit has eight people in it and three people opt out on religious grounds. Now I asked these conscientious objectors, "What would you do if you were in that situation, if there were eight people in that bargaining unit and there were three of you and you opted out, would you cross the

[ Page 839 ]

picket line and go to work in response to your feeling about obeying God?" And they said that they would.

Obviously that's going to weaken the effectiveness of the strike, and it may make it so it won't succeed. So in this respect I would almost oppose the section on that ground. Almost.

But if we added the additional thing that the union wouldn't get any financial support either, then that would be in a sense making the union a two-time loser in the situation. Therefore, on the grounds of religious conscience, in a sense, I would stand opposed to this amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: I gather what the Hon. Member for Skeena has said is that all of us and all of our organizations act in accordance with the word of God. Even the Ku Klux Klan does that. I'm certain that the Hon. Minister wouldn't like to suggest that there's any comparison between what we're debating here today and some of the philosophies of that organization.

I agree with the Premier. I think that this is the first time we've had a chance to debate this problem in this House. It is a matter of social conscience, and I congratulate the government for introducing it into this section. But having done so, I for the life of me cannot understand the objection of the government Members to the amendment, unless it is because the amendment is so simple that it attacks the very basis of the trade union movement, the friends and masters of the government, namely money. That's what hurts.

We'll allow, under section 11, any person with a conscientious objection to go before this all-wise, all-powerful Labour Relations Board and convince the board that they should be allowed to act in accordance with their conscience. We'll give them that right. But we won't affect the money that the union wants. I think all of the arguments that we've heard from the government against this amendment make this quite clear, but how much money is really involved?

The indications from the Province of Ontario, where they have similar legislation, are that about 500 people have qualified under this particular section — 500. How much money would this be to the union? How much are they losing?

Mind you, it's very important. I notice that the government employees' union, which is not even formed yet, which is not even certified, had a meeting last weekend. They're going to take 1 per cent from every employee, with a maximum of $10, because when you're earning $2,000 a month in some categories it gets pretty high. So they've got an upper limit. If you earn $400 a month from the government, they're going to take 1 per cent of that for the union, and they aren't even certified yet. But they're getting their funds built up, all these contributions which are so essential to carry on the work of the union.

That's what it's all about. That's why the government is opposing this amendment. They're prepared to let the conscientious objector follow the dictates of his conscience, but they're not going to take away from their union masters the right to extract their dollars. That's what all of you have been saying today.

For the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) who, on a matter of principle, objected to several sections of this legislation, to stand in his place and make his objection to this amendment on the basis he did, clearly showed that he didn't care about the worker. If you're non-unionized to him you can work for the minimum wage; whereas if you're unionized you get the full benefits. And for any person who has a conscientious objection, the union should get the additional money. What a sham!

I support the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: Unfortunately the Premier has come in the House and made his statements and run off. He's not interested in listening to the facts as they are. He suggested that we're going to write off this party over there, the official opposition, because they had never done anything about this when they were government. I want to say that in the short period of time, the 18 months that I was Minister of Labour, it was never an issue. That's why nothing was done. It was never an issue.

I want to say the reason why it's an issue today is because that Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has gone around this province and told people that one of his jobs will be to get more people in the unions in British Columbia. He has said that he thinks that it's desirable to have 75-80 per cent of the labour force in British Columbia organized. No wonder there's apprehension and fear out there in the country. No wonder there's fear out there when you hear irresponsible statements like that from the Minister of Labour, who's supposed to be an impartial Minister, not siding with either side. He's indicated very clearly that he is "king" of the unions.

When they introduced their Public Works Fair Employment Act, again they put the fear of God into people who object to belonging or contributing to unions. That's why there has been a series of letters being sent to the Minister and to the various Members of this Legislative Assembly.

I wouldn't doubt for one moment, with the lack of respect that that government over there has relative to contracts, that had there been a true religious conscience clause instituted in the labour laws of British Columbia, they'd have thrown it out, just like they've indicated their lack of concern for legally constituted contracts in this province.

The Premier says, "They must pay their penalty."

[ Page 840 ]

We're suggesting that they pay. That's what this amendment is all about. But we're not suggesting that they pay to the unions, which is contrary to their religious convictions.

And then we heard the Member, that great champion of minority rights the First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) say, "This amendment is the end of the labour movement; it's the death knell, the undermining of the labour movement." What a bunch of rubbish! What a bunch of nonsense! They're not even willing to listen. They say, "Oh well, that's Manitoba; this is British Columbia." The NDP government in Manitoba brought in a true religious conscience clause. Why can't you do the same? Why can't you give those people, those few people in British Columbia who are concerned about their rights with the direction which you're leading this province relative to unionism…?

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Saskatchewan did the same thing. They instituted it. And how many people have attempted to get their rights in those provinces? Very few.

But in British Columbia there's always been 58 per cent of the labour force which they could be gainfully employed in, because only 42 per cent is unionized. But here when the Minister says that one of his objectives is to have 75-80 per cent of the labour force organized in British Columbia, no wonder there's concern out there. You should be concerned too, because the NDP over the years stood on many soap boxes in this country and pleaded the rights of minority groups. They stood up as the champion of those people, those minority groups, and today they'll be trying everything.

Their forefathers and all those people who believed in the socialist movement are being betrayed by the reaction to the amendment that's being presented right now. I'll tell you that very few people across this nation will believe you people again when you stand up and attempt to say that you are concerned, that "I am a champion of minority rights." You've betrayed your concern by your statements on this amendment that I propose.

Not too long ago the national government allowed an exemption to a group of people from contributing to the Canada Pension Plan. They allowed the Hutterites and the Mennonites to opt out of the Canada Pension Plan. Did they tell them no, you must contribute to the plan, but you won't get any of the benefits? Certainly not. They allowed them to opt out from contributing to the plan and participating in the benefits of the plan.

In my opinion, they've shown tolerance and understanding by the introduction of this exemption which they introduced. That's all we're asking today, is for that government over there to show some understanding and some tolerance for a minority group which we are pleading for on the floor of this House. I hope the Minister will get up right now, because the debate has being going on for some considerable time. There's been a strange silence from the Minister and I hope that he'll get up and, after having listened to all the debate, say he'll accept the amendment as a rational, objective and responsible one.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I have met these Christians and they're very, very impressive. They're very, very sincere people. I've examined their arguments. I've looked at their quotations from the Bible, but I cannot see the relevance: I don't see how you can connect Christianity with the labour movement. But we must respect their rights.

MR. PHILLIPS: Right on.

MR. CUMMINGS: The opposition parties — I wonder who their masters are, because they're willing to use 50 Christians; and yet they're willing to bust 200,000 union people in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: You know your masters, don't you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are they?

MR. CUMMINGS: I can't support this amendment at all, because you're going to end up hurting 200,000 people.

Interjections.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Commercial Transport and Communications): I do a good job at that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I admit that on occasion I get a little worked up about issues of conscience and that sort of thing. I don't apologize for that. I am usually expressing a very deep-seated feeling. I make no apologies for that — for the fact that I feel emotionally about many things related to the affairs of this province, especially as they affect people.

I feel pretty strongly about the rights of every group in our society. But I must express a deep disappointment, especially in the official opposition — first of all, because, as the Premier and others have

[ Page 841 ]

said, they did nothing about this. And it was an issue. It's been an issue as long as I have been around the trade union movement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Never! Never!

MR. STRACHAN: Oh, yes. There was the former Minister of Labour…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Never! Never!

MR. STRACHAN:…now moving amendments expressing phony high dungeon and indicating a moral position that he knows absolutely nothing about.

What I find the most reprehensible about the kind of statements of the former, ex, once-was, never-was, Minister of Labour is the demeaning process to which he subjects this whole question. I recognize the validity of people who have conscientious religious objections to joining a specific group or body. I recognize that.

They have been demeaning that group here today by inferring that their objection was not a matter of religious conviction but was a matter of… "money" is the way this gentleman over here expressed it. It wasn't a matter of deep religious conviction, which we recognized and met. You are arguing this whole thing on the basis of what happens to money.

MR. CHABOT: That isn't what he said.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You were arguing that way. This motion is putting the emphasis on what happens to money, not what happens to people. This section recognizes what happens to people and gives people the right to join or not to join. The minute you get into the money end of it, then you are demeaning their whole attitude, the whole approach. I suggest that you have contributed nothing whatever to the rights of people to have conscience in this province when you slide right over it to the money angle of it.

HON. MR. KING: I have listened intently to the debate that has gone on by all Members of the House. I don't want to question anyone's sincerity or anyone's motivation. I wouldn't suggest that the fact that the former government failed to pay attention to this particular problem, or failed to introduce legislation to even recognize the problem…

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't listening.

HON. MR. KING: …was an indication of insensitivity. Far be it from me to infer that their new-found interest is a political interest rather than one of genuine concern. The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) raised a number of matters which I do feel impelled to deal with. He criticized my statement that I would like to see 75 or 80 per cent, or indeed 100 per cent, of the working people of this province organized and represented by a trade union.

I think it is significant that the Member for Columbia River objects to that suggestion and finds it objectionable. I think this is proof positive of the different attitudes that held sway in the Minister of Labour's office under the former administration and that which is ensconced in the office at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I find nothing repugnant whatsoever about trade unionism. I believe, as do such other democratic institutions as the United Nations, that every worker has the right to be recognized and be represented by a trade union. I see nothing to apologize about in putting that statement forward. I am simply suggesting that the restrictive shackles which have been placed on labour people in this province over the past number of years by an anti-labour administration should be removed to make it easier for those people to obtain the benefit of trade union organization. That's what we are talking about, and I certainly make no apologies for it.

If the former Minister of Labour, as he has clearly indicated, did not have as one of his objectives the encouragement and organization of working people in this province, then I suggest that he was even more of a disgrace to that office than most people had recognized up to this point.

Now I heard one other statement this afternoon from that sanctimonious, platitudinous individual, the leader of the Liberal Party. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it was one of the most poisonous statements the hon. gentleman has uttered in this House when he suggested that the trade union movement discriminates against racial groups. Now that was the statement he made: that certain workers had been discriminated against.

Well, you know, he should read some of the books of what working conditions were in this province, and indeed on the North American continent, before trade unions were recognized after a hard and very, very bloody fight to be recognized in law. He should read some of the books on the plight of the coal miners when they were mowed down, they and their families shot by the national guard who were called out by reactionary administrations like the Liberals and Socreds.

He talks about discrimination against workers. Perhaps that Member can recall the discrimination that was perpetrated against the Japanese natives of this province when a coalition of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party denied citizens, Japanese citizens, of this province their freedom and the right to vote, and shipped them like cattle to the Interior of the province and incarcerated them in work camps.

[ Page 842 ]

Perhaps that is the kind of discrimination the Member resents. Well, if it is, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what he is doing in the very party that was the founder and the initiator of such discrimination. I think it's poisonous and shocking that he should come out with such suggestions in this House.

The question of religious freedom is one that is protected in this bill. No worker is compelled to join an organization against his religious convictions, and that's more than was ever granted under the former administration.

There's no way that this government is prepared to let anyone off the hook from paying their fair share of the cost that protects them and gives benefits and advantages to them.

We have heard some of the sanctimonious cries and utterances from across the floor, but they don't ring very true. They do reveal a basic bias and a basic discriminatory attitude toward trade union organizations in this province. Because what are trade unions? They're the organization and the tribunal of the working people of this province. They are more democratic, I suggest, than any on those groups across the House. I think it is shocking that they should undertake such poisonous attacks as we have heard here this afternoon on the working people's institutions.

MR. CHABOT: The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was castigated very seriously by the Minister. I think he should have an opportunity of replying.

The Minister very clearly indicated by that harangue — and that's all it can be called, and a political harangue at that — his lack of consideration for the minority groups. He has no consideration at all. He attempted to portray the Members of the opposition as being anti-union. We believe in the right of association — the free right of individuals to associate themselves with the unions if they so desire. But we don't believe in compulsory unionism, I'll tell you that right now. We don't believe in that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you had.

MR. CHABOT: No, there should be a right of association. For him to suggest that we have no tolerance or respect for the labour movement is strictly hogwash on the part of that Minister. I was a member of a trade union a lot longer than he was and a lot earlier than he was — because I am a little bit older than he is, I guess.

Nevertheless, I always felt it was an opportunity to participate and contribute to an organization that could assist us in negotiating better working conditions and better wages as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: I can't think of one railroad union that will admit that you were a member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. CHABOT: I want to again plead with the Minister, despite his blowing his cool from time to time. For me, with my background, it is sometimes difficult under certain circumstances, to be calm.

I do want to once again ask the Minister — and I know that he has almost ruled the acceptance of the amendment out — one last time; maybe other Members will want to ask as well. Give it serious consideration, because I think it will fill a very genuine need in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll be brief, but I just have one very serious matter that I want to bring up this afternoon. I heard it during debate on the principle of the bill and I've heard it again this afternoon: that is, aligning union dues with taxes. There have been several Members on that side who have aligned the paying of union dues and the benefits from union dues with the paying of taxes. The Premier very clearly this afternoon said that they were both the same and deriving the same benefits.

I'm just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we're having two forms of government in British Columbia: the government of the union leaders and the government of the NDP. I know they're aligned.

It's very interesting for me to watch the leaders, particularly the cabinet Ministers, over there this afternoon who have been wallowing in the mire of their own bureaucracy. The Premier jumped in and wallowed around for awhile. But it's come out very, very clearly that there are two types of government in British Columbia: the government of the bureaucracy of the unions and the bureaucracy of the socialist government. And they're in bed together.

This matter was never an issue before. Why didn't the official opposition bring it up as an issue when they were in opposition? They stand up and piously say that this matter was never brought to the floor of this Legislature before. I'll tell you why it was never brought to the floor of this Legislature before: it was never an issue. The previous government didn't go out and frighten everybody in British Columbia and hold a club over their head. The intent of the government over there is that people are going to have to become members of a union whether they want to or not. Put this bill in with Bill 153 and that's the intention; the Minister of Labour has already said that.

But I wonder how fast the present government is going to be to protect the rights of some of the civil servants that they have jockeyed around and are still jockeying around, people who have given years and years of service to this province. Now this government thinks nothing of cutting them out entirely, bringing in their own party hacks to replace

[ Page 843 ]

them. Yet they stand piously on the floor of this Legislature and say they're for the little man. They're for the little man as long as this can force the little man to contribute to their coffers; that's why they're for the little man.

If they were half as secure in government as they thought they were, they would certainly accept this amendment. But they're not secure in government and they know what will happen when the labour union leaders get in bed with them and talk to them if they allow this amendment to stand. That's the whole problem….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that what you do in bed?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's the whole problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pillow talk.

MR. PHILLIPS: But if you're half as brave and strong as you think you are, you won't be afraid of some 50-odd persons who want to stay out of labour unions because of their conscience.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if the Social Credit Party gets into bed with John Birch, we'll have incest. (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. KING: Let's examine what these people on the other side are saying; let's just reconstruct the statements they're making. "It's a dangerous thing, it's coercive and it's discriminatory that trade-union organization and representation may be extended to larger numbers of workers in this province" — that's what you're saying — "that those unorganized people are being discriminated against by extending trade-union organization." That's the position you're taking.

This reveals, just as surely and just as clearly as it could be revealed, the basic bias, the basic hostility, the basic disrespect that that party over there has for the trade-union movement, which is an institution of the workers. I recognize that. You have a right to feel that way; that's the difference between your party and the government. But let it be clearly understood what you're saying.

No one is being coerced into joining a trade union. The provision is contained in this Act which gives every worker a free democratic vote on the question of representation. It seems to me that you're simply decrying the opportunity for workers to have a fairer opportunity to record their own preferences.

On the question of the religious conscience clause and the proposition of allowing them to direct payment of the equivalent of trade-union dues to some other tribunal, I want to say this: I respect the groups that are objecting on the basis of religious conscience, at least some of them. There are a number of different types; there are a number of different religious denominations. I want to stress that. Most of them, in my view, are very sincere.

But I think it's a dangerous principle when we start to write legislation which will provide minority groups to opt out of decisions of the majority….

MR. CHABOT: Manitoba did.

HON. MR. KING: On a question that, in my view, is not a legitimate question…of religious conscience.

I think there is something objectionable to be found in the justification that some of these people hold out. They quote the scripture: "Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers." Now, if that's not inflammatory, if that is not derogatory to the hundreds and thousands of Christian people who make up the membership of trade unions in this province, I don't know what is. When I suggested in a letter that the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) likes to quote that such a statement borders on bigotry, I make no apology for that statement because the scripture they use as justification infers that trade-union members are less than Christians. I think that is intolerance, my friend. That certainly isn't the kind of tolerance that you were appealing for this afternoon.

It's one thing to demand anyone to be a member of an organization or an association against their will — and I agree with the opposition on that point; no one should be compelled to join an association. But, by golly, I think it's unrealistic. I cannot accept it as a matter of valid religious conscience that anyone should be forgiven from paying their fee-for-service, their fair share of the cost for the advantage and the great benefit they receive. And that's the question.

We have a difference of opinion on it, fair enough. Manitoba; fine, they did it. This government is not prepared to recognize that as a valid matter of religious conscience and, be that as it may, we have a difference of opinion. You're entitled to vote on the amendment the way that you see fit, but certainly we oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

[ Page 844 ]

NAYS — 31

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I realize from the government's statement that the amendment which I had which was similar in principle to that of the previous amendment but which would have the employee's contribution, instead of going to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), go to a charity, in the light of the government's attitude there's no way that such an amendment could pass. The amendment, however, I would like to put in. I feel it's a worthwhile one. I regret the government's attitude. I don't feel it necessary to continue to canvass this particular issue any further, but I move this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 11 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 14

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I would like to raise a matter of personal privilege. I find this very difficult, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the Members will bear with me for just a very few moments. I'm following the procedure laid down in section 55 of the Constitution Act and I hereby give notice of my intention to resign my seat in this Legislature, effective tomorrow. Perhaps the House would give me the privilege of just a very brief statement in regard to that, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. BROUSSON: I stood originally for this Legislature with a commitment to serve my constituency as its Member here and I've tried to carry out that responsibility. But conditions have been changing with ever-increasing demands of time from the Legislature. This for me is the dilemma because I've had in recent months an escalation in my business responsibilities and opportunities and there simply is no longer enough time in the day for me to follow two careers under these conditions. I'd be irresponsible to my family, to my constituents and to my business associates if I did not face those facts and make a choice. My choice must be to follow by business career, where I believe I can make the greatest personal contribution at this time.

I hope in the future that this time commitment, this demand, would not make it impossible for business and professional people to serve in this Legislature. I believe it will be a sad day for British Columbia if no business and professional people bring their points of view, expertise and experience to this House. Personally, I hope in future to find other ways that are more compatible with my commitments to serve the community.

Before I go, I want to express my deepest regret to my colleagues in this group, and I want to express my confidence and admiration for them all. I want to thank the wonderful people of North Vancouver-Capilano for their great support through three elections. More than that, I want to thank people all over British Columbia who have supported me in some of the projects and campaigns in which I have been personally involved.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say how grateful I am for the opportunity of having served in this chamber, and I want to thank the Members of this House for the patience in the last few moments and thank many of them for their friendship. And, Mr. Speaker, my special thanks to you for your courtesy and forbearance.

[ Page 845 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is with shock and regret that the Hon. Member's statement has been heard by me. I can understand the reasons expressed by the Member, but there are times in this House when those of us who are Members and have had an association over a period of time begin to feel a bit of a family instinct beyond being politicians. That Member came to this House with an attitude and an approach that was always positive; I can't help but express a deep sense of personal loss that the Member has decided on this course.

He has served his constituency and issues beyond his constituency in a manner that should stand as the example to all who wish to enter public life in this province. He has always had a sense of humour and a sense of purpose while in this House, and has never taken up so much of his own time or his own presence that he couldn't spend time with visitors or with his colleagues.

The role of a politician is changing in the modern world; this change started not in this House but in North America some 15 years ago. I'm sorry that we're losing a man of such personal integrity in terms of the kind of pressure that is on people now to come into public life. I needn't say too much about the experience our friends are having south of the border, but this is a time of great cynicism in politics. When we lose a Member such as the Member from North Vancouver-Capilano, then we all lose something.

I'm sorry, too, that the two careers are impossible to serve, but I'm convinced now that being a politician is a full-time career if we want to make the system work.

I hope that whatever the Member does in the future, there will be nothing but happiness and satisfaction for him and his family. I admire him very much personally, and I can't overstate the case of regret at his decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I have the sad task, under section 55(1) of the Constitution Act, to put a notice in the Journals of the House to the effect of the Member's notice, which I will have to do and, further, I will have to issue a warrant under that section to the Deputy Provincial Secretary.

LABOUR CODE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 11, intituled Labour Code of British Columbia Act.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of the Whole House having in charge Bill 11.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table with the House an agreement signed today between the Province of British Columbia and the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:11 p.m.

ERRATUM

The following lines should he corrected to read as shown:

Page 775, lines 18, 19

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Golf is not just for the wealthy.