[ Page 881 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

On section 12.

Mr. Wallace — 881

Hon. Mr. King — 881

Mr. Wallace — 881

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 882

Hon. Mr. King — 882

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 882

Hon. Mr. King — 883

Mr. Chabot — 883

Hon. Mr. King — 883

Mr. Williams — 883

Hon. Mr. King — 885

Mr. Gardom — 885

Hon. Mr. King — 886

Mr. Chabot — 886

Hon. Mr. King — 887

Mr. Gardom — 887

Mr. Smith — 887

Division on amendment to section 12 — 888

Privilege

Construction noise in Parliament Buildings. Mrs. Jordan — 888

Routine proceedings

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

On section 13.

Mr. Chabot — 888

Hon. Mr. King — 888

On section 16.

Mr. Williams — 888

Mr. Wallace — 889

Hon. Mr. King — 890

Mr. Gardom — 890

Mr. Williams — 891

Mr. Gardom — 891

Hon. Mr. King — 891

Mr. Wallace — 892

Hon. Mr. King — 892

Mr. Gardom — 892

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 893

Mr. Williams — 893

Hon. Mr. King — 894

Mr. Wallace — 894

On section 21.

Mr. Gardom — 895

Hon. Mr. King — 895

Mr. Gardom — 895

Hon. Mr. King — 896

Mr. Wallace — 896

Hon. Mr. King — 896

Mr. Gardom — 896

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 897

Mr. Gardom — 897

On section 23.

Mr. Chabot — 898

Hon. Mr. King — 898

Mr. Chabot — 899

Mr. Phillips — 899

Mrs. Jordan — 900

Mr. Chabot — 901

Hon. Mr. King — 901

Mr. Chabot — 901

Hon. Mr. King — 901

Privilege

Construction noise in Parliament Buildings.

Mrs. Jordan — 902

Mr. Speaker — 902

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1973

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Committee on Bill 11.

LABOUR CODE OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

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

On section 12.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, with particular reference to section 12 (2), we feel that in giving the power to this board and in taking the controversial aspect of labour relations out of the courts it must be very important that the members of this Labour Relations Board, having such authority, should, as far as is humanly possible and appears to be possible, be neutral and objective.

We feel that the phraseology used in subsection 2, where certain members are representative of the employers and certain members representative of the employees, in fact suggests, if not directly states, that at least those members of the board shall be, in fact, on the side of the employers or the employees, as the case may be.

We feel that the members of the board as far as possible must be completely independent in their views and that this particular designation of members being representative of one or other of the two parties lines up the board right there and then as at least being three against three or four against four, as the case may be. We would be much happier with the make-up of the board if the members were not designated as representing either labour or management, employers or employees. We feel that the word "representing" means that they specifically favour presenting the point of view of that particular segment, either employers or employees, that they are in fact serving on the board.

With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to amend section 12 (2) by deleting the words "equal in number, representative of employers and employees respectively" where they appear beginning in the second line. I so move.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): The composition of the board is of particular significance. We are attempting as a central concept of this proposed bill to transfer the adjudication of industrial relations matters from the courts to another agency which possesses the specialized skills to deal with the very complex problems of industrial relations, based on some expertise and based on some involvement and some experience with those problems.

If the board which will be responsible for handling these problems is to be other than a court, then it must be clearly seen to be an administrative agency which is representative of the complex interest of the parties involved in industrial relations. To suggest that the board should be composed of people who have no background and no experience in that area of industrial relations is to me somewhat unrealistic.

MR. WALLACE: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. KING: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the section which the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) refers to does provide that "the chairman, and one or more vice-chairmen…" which clearly enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint as many executive members as he deems appropriate, who may be chosen from the public or may be designated without reference to the representative aspect that is provided for in the board members. I think that on this basis we have a board that's composed of a representative structure not only in terms of trade unions and management groups but in terms of the public interest also. I oppose the amendment on the basis that the legislation as contained in the Act is flexible enough to ensure that not only the interests of those parties to industrial relations but the interests of the public are adequately served.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry if I haven't made my position clear. Although I stated that the amendment did not want certain members equal in number to be clearly designated as representing the employers or the employees, that is not at the same time suggesting they should not have a training and a background in this very complicated field. I believe that it would be unrealistic to appoint people who have not a background. But I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that not everybody with a background in this complicated field is identified very clearly with either employers or employees. I'm simply suggesting that if this board is likely to function well, in our opinion it will not do so if equal numbers of the members on the board are clearly there because of their experience in one or other of these two particular fields — either employee interests or employer interests.

The Minister keeps making the statement that this is not a court and, in his statement of a moment ago, that this has to give the appearance of not being a court. The fact is that it very clearly is a court, with powers that equal or exceed courts existing in this

[ Page 882 ]

land at the present time. I suppose we're going to have the Minister repeat, as he's done many times that the mere fact that this board does not have the legal ability to impose penalties disqualifies it from being described as a court. And as far as that goes, Mr. Chairman, I might say that since this board has the power to decide the extent of its own jurisdiction I would submit that this board probably has the jurisdiction to decide whether or not it can impose penalties.

Therefore all this protestation by the Minister that we shouldn't either call this a court or regard it as a court I think is a matter of semantics. And I would submit that when a new approach is being taken, and when this degree of authority is being given to a series of appointed individuals, the question of objectivity and neutrality of these individuals in their action on the board is of paramount importance. We have the example already, Mr. Chairman, of the individuals who have been chosen to serve on this board. I'm making no personal reflection on their ability or their experience; I'm simply saying that the choice does indeed show quite clearly that the board will consist predominantly of two halves — three representing employees and three representing employers — and the only person who is clearly an academic and not identified with one or other camp is the chairman.

The fact is that this section clearly gives the government the power to appoint a board where certainly the majority of members will be in equal numbers representative of employers or employees. We think that that removes right off the bat the measure of objectivity and neutrality which at least we consider would be very important in deliberating the very thorny issues that will be taken to the board.

We reject the Minister's repeated opinion that this is not a labour court. In our view the power it has is very much the equivalent of a court and the composition of the board as described in section 12(2) we feel is not the best start to the tremendous responsibilities and challenges which the board will be facing. I repeat that it would be much better if people of skill and talent and experience could be put on the board, people who have no previous clear definition as having been allied with the interests of the employers or the employees.

Amendment negatived.

On section 12.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend section 12 by giving a guarantee to the Canadian unions that they will have a member on the board. Now I realize that there are many people who feel that specifically Canadian unions should not be given this guarantee.

I can understand that when you start giving guarantees you can get into other groups that also want guarantees. But we have had the situation in Trail which is fairly well known where, in my view, the fact is that the majority of the people who work for Cominco were denied the opportunity, by way of technicalities mainly, of having the union of their choice, and the Canadian union they wished to establish did not get the recognition they hoped for.

Now I realize that there can be differences of opinion on this, but I would like to point out this Canadian union movement is growing. It is strong at the present time, not only in Kitimat but elsewhere in the province. And to ask that one out of the 10 people on the board be a member of such a union would, I think, be a desirable thing. It doesn't dilute materially the number of the total board.

It does give a guarantee to the members of this particular form of unionism who believe that they have not been adequately treated by the previous government's legislation. Mr. Chairman, I think that an amendment to this effect, which I have in my hand and will present to you in a moment, is in order.

I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that we amend section 12(2) by adding the following sentence: "At least one member of the board shall be a representative of Canadian unions."

HON. MR. KING: The second Member for Victoria seeks to designate in legislation a preference for a particular type of trade union in the province. While I would suggest that every Member of this House has a perfect right to his own emotional attachment, to the internationals or to the Canadian unions or to any specific trade union, I would certainly question the wisdom of a government, which is charged with adjudicating the affairs of the trade union movement in an impartial way, indicating a preference in trade union legislation. I think that the concept is most repugnant and I have no intention of allowing this government to become involved in the workers' democratic right to indicate and make the choice of the union which they think can most adequately represent their interests.

Now in terms of appointments to boards, I think that unquestionably the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has traditionally held authority to make appointments. To try to dilute that authority by legislative requirements is, in my view, faulty and not consistent with harmonious trade union relations. So I completely resent and repudiate the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I fail to understand why the Minister resents and repudiates the amendment. We are not here, as apparently he believes, deciding on who should deal in terms of certification. We are dealing with what is essentially a legislative prerogative, namely the appointment to the

[ Page 883 ]

board itself.

Now four members are appointed already by the Crown. I indicated that I think they are good choices, and wish them well. Six are not yet chosen. We are asking that this specific section be amended so that one area of the Canadian union movement will have a representative.

We are not asking that any decision be taken, any preference be shown by the Minister. We are not asking him, and I quote his words, "to adjudicate a preference." We are not doing that. We are indicating only that we feel that one out of three should be a member of a union movement which is growing in the province, which has a specific point of view, which is obviously at loggerheads on many occasions with the many other areas of union activity and others in the union movement. We feel this in no way implies a preference; it merely gives a guarantee that one out of the board of 10 people will be a representative of a group that genuinely feels — I don't want to discuss whether or not they are correct in this feeling — they have been discriminated against in the past. I would think, if the Minister reconsiders his position in the light of the fact that we are not showing a preference with respect to certification, he might indeed realize the merits of this proposal.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make this observation. I recognize what the Hon. Member is "ahsking," (laughter) but you know the board is structured in such a way that under the new framework the reasons for decisions will be given, the board will operate in a much more open way than has been the case heretofore, and I think that all parties affected by decisions of the board will have access to the reasons that the board has for handing down its decision. This in itself, I think, will serve to prevent many of the feelings of injustice that parties have felt who have been affected by board decisions in the past.

Certainly the amendment the Member is presenting is one which would dilute the authority of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council which is traditional. I don't know of any jurisdiction which has provided for the appointments of members to boards in a legislative way rather than through prerogative of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's right there.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, there is growing fear in the province that recognition will not be given to the Canadian trade union movement by the government. There is fear in the province as well that there is a close relationship between that government and that Minister and the international labour movement in this province. I think it is important that recognition be given to the Canadian union movement because they are a growing force; they are a reality in this province and I think they deserve recognition as well.

All this amendment asks of the Minister is that he appoint one of a 10-man board from the Canadian union force. I think it is a very simple amendment and a responsible amendment as well. If the Minister will tell us now that he is giving serious consideration to the appointment of a representative of the Canadian union movement in British Columbia, I would be glad to vote against the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I am giving serious consideration to appointments to the Labour Relations Board which will be representative of the interests involved in industrial relations. I'm giving serious consideration to appointments who are capable of doing a job. I am less interested in affiliation than Members of the opposition seem to be.

When the Member for Columbia River suggests that there is a close relationship between me and the international trade union movement I say yes, there is a close relationship between me and all the working people of this province, no matter what union they are represented by. That is a relationship which was conspicuous by its absence under the administration of the Member for Columbia River. I suggest that his concern for the choice of the trade union movement was conspicuously absent when he occupied this office just one short year ago.

The Members can rest assured that the appointments that are made to the Labour Relations Board by this government will be well thought out. They will be composed of capable people, as has been displayed in all the appointments thus far made by the provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

AN HON. MEMBER: Double talk!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): The assurances that the Minister has given us as to the calibre and quality of the appointments the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has heretofore made will be applied to the appointments in this Labour Relations Board forces me to rise in support of this particular amendment. If what we have seen in the past is what we are to see with respect to the appointments to this board, then I have the most serious concern.

What the Minister said in his remarks a few moments ago I think establishes the need for just this kind of legislative protection. He tacitly admitted that the decisions of the Labour Relations Board heretofore have been against Canadian unions. But now that we are going to have the right and in fact

[ Page 884 ]

the obligation to have decisions in writing and with reasons, he suggests this won't happen — that if they had been obliged to disclose the reasons for what they did in the past, then the Canadian unions wouldn't have had the trouble at Cominco.

Obviously there was something about the judgmental quality of what the Labour Relations Board did in those days which gives the Minister reason to criticize.

Mr. Chairman, for the Minister to respond as he does to this amendment, as he has with all the others, his conciliatory approach seems to show through at all times. Whenever you don't have any reason on your side, what you do is you stoop to political innuendo — and that's his answer.

Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that this is not good enough for the Canadian unions. They are a growing force in our community; they are a growing force in this province and in this country. When we're embarking upon this new direction in labour relations, according to the Minister, with this new vehicle, the Labour Relations Board, to fail to recognize this obvious movement is, I suggest to the Minister, short-sightedness of the very worst kind.

In responding to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), he indicated that it was important that there be equal representation from people who have particular knowledge and skill, and I agree with that. We have not yet come so far from the labour relations jungle that we can ignore the wisdom of having representatives of employers and employees on the board so that justice will not only be done but seem to be done as well.

But when we have this significant group of Canadian unions who are constantly at loggerheads with the internationals, I think it is also wisdom to ensure that they are represented on this Labour Relations Board. The Minister has not given us any assurance that this will be the case.

What is one of the larger unions in this province? — the IWA. At their recent convention how difficult the problem was for them to overcome the impact of the Canadian union movement! They went so far as to suggest that their national headquarters should somehow or other be moved to Canada so that perhaps they could stave off the threat of Canadian nationalism taking place in unions. That failed because it was suggested that if this was to happen their brothers south of the line might somehow or other feel that they were being badly treated.

Yet we've had the Hon. Attorney General and the Hon. Premier saying that there's no reason why anybody in this province should genuflect to any foreign-dominated group in reaching decisions that we have to make in this province. Well, why don't we at least have a Canadian union representative assured on this Labour Relations Board just in case the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council happens to make a mistake in the wisdom of his selection.

HON. MR. KING: Don't cast aspersions on….

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure that the Hon. Minister of Labour would never make a mistake. But you know, some of his colleagues might force a mistake on him, and I can think of a number of names of people who seem to have great influence with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or some of the Members of that council. I would hate to think that the Minister would be put in the embarrassing situation of coming back at some future time and saying, "Well, I tried to get Canadian union representation on the Labour Relations Board, but somehow or other the rest of the council wouldn't go along with it."

You know, there's the Premier and the Attorney General and so on — and Ray Haynes — and the whole group of them might never be able to come to a decision. Mr. Chairman, we have had from this government legislation — the Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), who hasn't spoken in this debate, brought legislation in this spring under which you can't become a miner in this province unless you are a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant and become a Canadian citizen within a specified number of years.

We have the Companies Act where very shortly you won't be able to be a director of a company in this province unless you're a Canadian resident. We have amendments to the Land Commission Act which are going to preclude anyone from acquiring Crown lands or Crown leases unless they're a Canadian. There are moves afoot to suggest that no one should own any land in this province unless they are a Canadian.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not suggesting I'm against it. But if I'm not against it — and I'm sure the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is not against it — then why doesn't he stand up and support the Canadian unions having one, just one, representative on this Labour Relations Board?

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: I see. So we make some exceptions. It's strange, Mr. Chairman, that we have to make the exceptions when we're running into a matter of labour relations, because, Mr. Chairman, we might somehow or other be criticized or taken as criticizing those friends of the government who in the labour movement are prepared to put down Canadian unionism. I think that it will be interesting to see on the vote on this particular amendment all those

[ Page 885 ]

Members of the government who are prepared to stand up for Canadian unionism — home-grown, home-owned and home-operated and with a representative on the board to make sure that when the decisions are made in this board, the interests of Canadian unions are given proper consideration — not after the fact when the reasons are produced, but right there at the decision-making table when all the discussions take place…that the interest of Canadian unions are really taken into account.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's a presentation by a member of the legal profession, a sleek and suave representative of the legal profession — representative of a party that aspires for office…

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Don't be so smug, smug, smug.

HON. MR. KING: …that aspires for the government of this province, a man who stood with all the other opposition Members on second reading of this bill, approval in principle, and fully supported the concept contained in this bill, and gave an excellent speech, I thought, on the need for rational discourse.

Now here we have him standing and attempting to drive a wedge between the various elements of the working people of this province, making snide remarks about relationships with people such as Ray Haynes — including him as a member of the executive council. I don't blame you for groaning; you should be ashamed. That's scurrilous, snide and it's certainly not calculated to do anything for a responsible climate of industrial relations in this province.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that once again the Liberal Party has revealed itself as a party which is not really interested in the workers' interests, but is more interested in inflaming the climate with hostility and ill-feeling in the trade union movement of this province.

I have no intention of accepting an amendment which would infer preference for either the international unions or the Canadian unions, or any other type of unions. That is the workers' choice; that's their decision. I'm confident, Mr. Chairman, that the workers will make that decision with a greater degree of responsibility and integrity than we could expect from Members of the Liberal Party. I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister introduced this bill, he called to this House for temperance, for good will and cooperation. I'd say, Mr. Chairman, that all Members of the House of all parties responded in accord. I think they have advanced very cogent reasons themselves and arguments themselves supporting the premises that were first mentioned by the Minister. I think there was unanimity in the House and there was genuine and general agreement of all the Members that what we've had in labour-management relations has not worked, and what the government has put forth is a valiant attempt towards better solutions, and it certainly should be given a better chance.

The Minister in his opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, clearly welcomed opinion, he stressed flexibility and he and the Premier both welcomed amendment. The Premier made a great analogy to the Land Commission Act where opposition amendments were considered and in some cases accepted, and there were also a raft of government amendments.

But notwithstanding, I'd say, the peace and the light and the good will, and notwithstanding the specific request, Mr. Chairman, from this Minister for the opposite point of view — and the opposite point of view in this opposition represents 60 per cent of the voters in the Province of B.C. — that yesterday during a full day of committee, and which he started to carry on tonight, the Minister, I say regretfully, abandoned his position of decision via cooperation and consultation.

You launched into a very vitriolic tirade and you used the most extreme rhetoric, in varying degree and in varying volume, and occasionally rather lamely supported from other government members. I think that you came out with some of the most unfair and extreme language that this assembly has heard yet this session.

Now you accused yesterday, and you started to do it again tonight, various Members of the opposition of being "ignorant," "interested only in party equity," having "biases against the working people," being "pathetic," "lacking any understanding of labour-management relations," being "sanctimonious," "platitudinous," "shocking," "discriminatory," "phony," being "a disgrace to office." You called some of their statements "poisonous." You said they had "basic biases, hostilities and disrespect"; you even went to the extreme of the highly questionable taste of referring to "incest." And tonight you've used the word "scurrilous." Mr. Minister, I may say that I have a lot of respect for you as a Minister of the Crown; I admire your courage but I certainly do not admire for one minute the approach that you have taken in this bill in committee. I think it's demeaning to the Members of the House, I think it's demeaning to the public, I think it's demeaning to you and I hope you stop it. I'd say that your terminology has certainly been no advertisement for temperate approach, it's been no advertisement for moderation or cooperative spirit. Mr. Chairman, if this Act and this section we're discussing at the present time is going to work in any manner that's going to be paralleled to the performance of the Minister, we're not going to have

[ Page 886 ]

a very good time with this new Act in the Province of B.C. and there's going to be little hope for its survival.

I want to say this to you absolutely as clearly and distinctly as I can, and I'm speaking for myself and I'm sure I'm speaking for every Member of the opposition — Conservative, Liberal, and Social Credit: We want to see this thing work in the Province of B.C. We want to see it work, and the remarks that I'm going to make in this debate directed to any amendment are going to be directed to that end and to that end only.

It's my feeling, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Hon. Minister, that any amendments that are introduced by any opposition Member, in the same way as any amendments that are going to be introduced by the government or the bill itself is being introduced by the government, are for the good of the people of the Province of B.C. They should be received in that light by you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that the Hon. Members confine their remarks strictly to the amendments, and I apply this comment to both sides of the House.

HON. MR. KING: I want to thank the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey for his summary of my remarks in the House yesterday. I'm glad to see that he paid that much attention to the remarks I had to make.

The Member, while portraying a mantle of tremendous responsibility and temperance, failed to mention that my remarks were in response to certain statements from that side of the House which accused the trade union movement of this province of racial discrimination, accused this government of illicit relationships with members of particular unions, accused this government of being in bed with the B.C. Federation of Labour and Ray Haynes, and various other scandalous and scurrilous innuendoes. Mr. Chairman, if I resorted to rather expressive and descriptive remarks in reacting to such suggestions, I suggest that the response was justified.

Certainly I, in opening the introductions to debate on amendments to this legislation, did not indulge in that kind of personal attack. I discussed whether or not I was prepared to support the amendment. I discussed the anticipated effect of the amendments offered by the opposition on the intent of the legislation and its possible effects on the trade union people and on management. And because I took a stand in opposition to those amendments, various Members of the opposition chose to respond with innuendo.

My approach is somewhat different from yours. I'm rather blunt and straightforward. I don't indulge in innuendo too much and I make no apologies for that. I'm of the working people, and I take a direct, blunt approach. I think that perhaps working people of this province understand that approach and find it somewhat more honest than the kind of innuendoes that we have been subjected to from that side of the House.

So I make no apologies for the remarks I made but I suggest this, Mr. Chairman, that if the Members are prepared to refrain from that kind of innuendo and discuss the merits of this legislation on the basis of its content, then I have no interest in engaging in the kind of debate that was witnessed here yesterday and again this evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would appeal again to both sides of the House in the spirit of good will to confine their remarks to the section before us, section 12.

MR. CHABOT: I'm sure, despite what the Minister says, that the amendment which was introduced by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was introduced in good faith. It wasn't introduced as a wedge which the Minister attempted…

HON. MR. KING: I never suggested his amendment was.

MR.CHABOT: …attempted to suggest it was a wedge between the Canadian union movement and the international union movement.

The Minister tonight and yesterday as well used many reckless and intemperate statements in this House. All we're asking for is that fair consideration be given to the growing Canadian union movement in this province. That's all this amendment asks.

It doesn't suggest that you give an unfair balance in this. All we're asking is that consideration be given, because there is apprehension out there that there was an unfair decision rendered by the board relative to the Canadian workers' unions' application for a representative vote to represent the workers at Trail and Kimberley not too many months ago, and their representative application was turned down on a technicality.

Those people at that particular time were concerned. They felt that they'd been betrayed by international representatives on that board. I think that as a Minister of the Crown you have a responsibility to remove that suspicion which exists in the minds of those people who belong to and represent the Canadian union movement in British Columbia. I want to say one other act on your behalf, Mr. Minister…

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got your politics mixed up.

MR. CHABOT: …which is suspect by the Canadian union movement in this province is your

[ Page 887 ]

not-too-long-ago appointment to the Labour Relations Board of a representative from the international steelworkers. They were shocked with that kind of a blood-relationship appointment to the Labour Relations Board of this province. They've become suspect. And all this amendment is asking is that you give them fair consideration.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) now, is that the kind of responsible dialogue and debate that you want me to respond to in a positive way?

MR. CHABOT: That's the kind of dialogue you're asking for.

HON. MR. KING: Is that the kind of poisonous innuendo that you want me to refer to and respond to in a reasonable way? "Blood-relationship," the Member for Columbia River says. The Member is consistent; he's wrong as usual. Quite wrong. The representative who was appointed to the Labour Relations Board had completely severed his relationship with the United Steelworkers of America and was an independent workingman of this province. He had no union affiliation, no official capacity with the United Steelworkers. So the Member is quite wrong and I find his inferences customarily scurrilous and poisonous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would appeal to the Hon. Members to please refrain from using inflammatory language and ask them to engage in the debate in the spirit of goodwill.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll never get the bill through.

MR. GARDOM: Just in speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's out of order. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: …and in response to our Minister of Labour who addressed a question to me, two wrongs don't make a right, Mr. Minister, and you have the responsibility of leadership. From this seat in the House you'll never receive innuendo; it'll be a direct statement.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I've listened with interest to the debate from speakers on both sides of the House this evening, particularly to the remarks of the Minister of Labour. If I was worried before about the labour climate I'm more so now. The remarks that he's directed towards the opposition who have proposed an amendment in good faith seem to me to indicate an attitude on his part that he wants to retaliate against the opposition in some means for proposing an amendment which would give recognition to Canadians and Canadian unions.

What are we in this country if we're not Canadians? Is it a sin to stand in this House and acknowledge before the public that we think it's true that Canadians took pride in their own entity, in this country, and by so doing…?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: You weren't even in when the Minister started this debate, Mr. Premier, so just sit down and keep quiet for a little while.

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

MR. SMITH: Is it not time that we gave recognition by an amendment such as this, which only asks that one person out of ten be a member of a Canadian union within this whole structure and this whole board. Certainly, I would think the Canadian people would applaud this suggestion because it does give a small measure of recognition to the fact that Canadians and Canadian unions are an accepted part of the union life of our province and our nation.

For the Minister to stand in his place and direct the remarks that he has to the Members of the official opposition and the Liberal Members in this House, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 32

[ Page 888 ]

PAIRED

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on the rising of the committee, I would ask that you would report the vote to the Speaker and ask that it be recorded in the Journals.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of personal privilege on behalf of the official opposition to ask your ruling on a matter of privilege under standing order 26.

It is quite clear that the construction activities underway in this building are incompatible with the access to normal parliamentary amenities of the opposition, their right to office staff who can be free to work in the freedom from noise and from the surroundings, the right to receive and hear incoming phone calls, and the right to receive delegations and people in surroundings which are free from abrasive noises. It is clear, Mr. Chairman, such is not the case in this House at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I point out to the Hon. Member that it's not, allowed by standing orders to raise a matter of privilege in committee and I would therefore ask her to wait until the committee has risen.

MRS. JORDAN: I always assumed we had the same privileges in committee. If that is your ruling I would then move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again in order to bring this matter of urgent concern to the official opposition….

Interjections.

Motion negatived.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) had an amendment on section 13, but in view of the fact that I have the floor now I will continue debating section 13. (Laughter.)

Section 13(4) says that, "The chairman may terminate an appointment to a panel and may fill a vacancy on a panel howsoever caused." What we're discussing is the appointment of a panel, which can constitute a one-member panel, a two-member panel or a variety of people on the panel. I really believe that the termination of appointment by the chairman of the panel, which can be a one-man panel or a variety of representatives of the board on the panel or other people, should be, for cause, the termination of this panel.

I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, on section 13 (4) to amend by deleting the words, "howsoever caused." and substituting the following: "By reason of a vacancy caused by reason of death, illness, or conflict of interest."

I don't think that in this subsection 4 the chairman should have the authority of removing without cause anyone who is a member of the panel, nor even the removal of himself, without a statement of cause. For that reason I move the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHABOT: The amendment has been lost. Would the Minister give me an interpretation or a justification for the subsection in section 13 as it presently reads for the possibility of the chairman terminating the term of anyone elected as chairman of a panel?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the panels may be designated to adjudicate a particular appeal or application before the board. There are certain circumstances when one member of the board can form a panel to hear a particular application before the board which is uncontested and is an academic type of application.

As the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) well knows, one of the great problems of the board has been expeditiously dealing with applications that come before it. This type of flexibility in a situation which is uncontested should serve to increase the speed and the dispatch with which the board can handle those kinds of situations which are not controversial and are uncontested. There is the added protection, of course, that any such decision that is handed down is always appealable to the entire board, should the decision of the individual panelist or, indeed, a panel of three, be objected to or appealed. If during the course of hearings members party to the adjudication which a panelist is making should appeal for a broader panel to hear it, then the chairman would have the authority to dismiss the individual panelist and assign a panel of three or, indeed, a panel of the entire board to hear the particular case.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the extensive

[ Page 889 ]

authority which the chairman has to establish panels of the board is obviously an appropriate one, when one considers the vast number of matters which the board will be called upon to consider. For the board to be obliged to, sit as a board at all times would, I'm sure, frustrate the work which will be presented to that board.

Now we're dealing in section 16 with a very specific discretion that the chairman is given — to establish a panel to consider questions of law. I must say that when I first read this section 1 was disturbed that it was not made obligatory that the chairman establish such a panel. The question immediately comes to mind as to what happens if he does not immediately establish such a panel. Then, obviously, there is no place to which a question of law can be referred.

But there is even a matter of greater concern in section 16, because if the chairman does happen to establish such a panel and does refer questions of law to it, then the ruling of that panel, when given, is binding on the entire board and also on other panels of the board. It is this aspect of section 16 which gives me the greatest concern.

I note when I read later in the Act, particularly section 107, that the draftsmen of this legislation saw fit in specific circumstances to give the right — and I emphasize the word "right" as opposed to "obligation" — to the board to refer a question of law, by way of a special case, for the opinion of a judge of the supreme court of this province. It seems to me, when dealing with section 16, that without making it obligatory the board should have the right at any time — not just in the special circumstances in which section 107 applies.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I think that when parties from labour or management or both are before the board and a question of law arises in the course of representations being made to the board, it should be mandatory on the board to refer those questions of law, by way of special case, to the supreme court. Only in that way will the board be able to develop the basic precedents, through its reasons and decisions, which will enable the parties coming before the board to know in advance and recognize what they may expect in the way of decisions from the board.

I know that the Minister consistently says the board is not a court. I'm not going to get into that semantic argument, but it is obvious that if the b o a r d is to function effectively repetitive applications before the board on the same or similar sets of circumstances should be avoided. The one way that they are avoided is that reasons are given, decisions handed down, reported, and published. This is provided for. But in order to provide some certainty, the possibility of continuing questions being raised should at the outset be put to rest as quickly as possible by this board or any panels of the board. In my view this can best be done if the board has the right and, in cases where parties are before them, the obligation to refer questions of law to the supreme court for an opinion. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend section 16 by deleting the section in its entirety and substituting the following words:

"The chairman, the board, or a panel of the board may, at any time, and shall at the request of any person involved in any proceedings before the board or a panel, with the leave of the chairman, state in the form of a special case, for the opinion of the Supreme Court, any question of law respecting the interpretation of this Act or arising in the course of such proceedings. Upon the receipt of such opinion the board shall make a ruling upon the question of law which, when given, is binding on the board or the panel, or the person involved in such proceedings."

Mr. Chairman, this amendment gives the right, but not the obligation, to the board to send any question of law to the supreme court for an opinion. It also gives the right to a party before the board to ask that a question of law be referred to the supreme court, and the chairman of the board must give his leave before that step is taken, so that the board constantly remains in control of referrals to the supreme court. Then, if such a referral is made and an opinion given, the board brings back that opinion before itself and makes a ruling based upon that opinion. Then, and only then, is that question of law binding on the board or a panel or any of the parties before the board.

I suggest that it does not take away any of the authority of the board but merely expands the rights that it has and gives them an opportunity, at the very outset, to embark upon their work, their deliberations, avoiding continuous and repetitious arguments being presented to them on the same question, application after application after application. In such a way the work of the board will be lessened over the months and years, certainty will be given to the kind of decision that the board can be expected to make, and parties, when confronted with a problem, will know or have an opportunity of recognizing the likelihood of the board's judgment or decision on the particular application, and I move that amendment.

M R. WALLACE: I wish to support this amendment. It is very similar to the amendment which we have on the order paper to section 16.

One of the great concerns that we have in general about this whole bill is that in taking disputes away from the courts — again with the best of intentions on the part of this government to find a new way to

[ Page 890 ]

settle disputes — we are concerned that on the other hand it has gone too far in even eliminating the possibility that the courts should play a part where the question of law, the interpretation of law, may be in doubt. It seems to us that the thrust of the bill is, as the Minister has stated many times, to set up a different type of Labour Relations Board of highly skilled and experienced people who will bring better understanding to the nature of disputes than has existed in the other established courts of the land.

The reason that this party supported the second reading of this bill in principle was that we were more than willing to give this new concept an opportunity to function. But on the other hand, we do not see that this new concept should go so far as to completely eliminate the function or the possible positive use of the courts in some part or other of the deliberations or decisions of this Labour Relations Board.

We feel also, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has said, that there must be times — or we would anticipate because of the diversity and the complexity and the number of decisions which this board will have to make — that there are bound to be times when there will be uncertainty as to points of law in their deliberations. It seems to us only to make good sense that the Labour Relations Board in such situations should be free to refer doubtful matters of interpretation of law to the supreme court.

I would differ somewhat from the amendment in that I am not sure that I understand or accept the final part of 'the amendment which still leaves the chairman of the board the right to disagree with the interpretation placed on the question of law by the supreme court. The only difference between his amendment and the amendment that I have on the order paper is that the opinion of the supreme court in such a situation would be binding upon the board or the panel.

But that is a much smaller point — than the main issue in this amendment. That is that the bill in section 16 should allow this avenue to the board or panel to submit matters, where there is doubt or honest difference of opinion as to the question of law, and that such matters should be referable, or it should be possible to seek the guidance of the supreme court.

Therefore, while I have some hesitation about accepting the last sentence of the amendment, certainly the underlying important principle that this avenue should be open, to the board is something that our party supports quite strongly.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) that his reference to section 107, providing to the board the authority to request a decision on a point of law from the supreme court, is not quite accurate. The reference in section 107 is to an arbitration board rather than to the Labour Relations Board, so there is no precedent set in that section in terms of referring points of law to the court.

I can appreciate the concern of the opposition to transferring this entire function from the courts to the Labour Relations Board. Indeed, this concern was held by the government to the extent that we recognized that there must be capable legal representation on the executive branch of the Labour Relations Board. I think we certainly have that capable legal representation.

It may be significant to note that under the old system there were very, very few appeals to the courts on points of law in which the old Labour Relations Board was found in error. The new structure will, I repeat, require the board to publish ,the administrative body of laws it's compiled. It will require and make it incumbent upon the board to provide reasons for their decisions so that they are more available to the focus of public attention. And of course there is, in the final analysis, the scrutiny of the ombudsman to question and investigate decisions of the board.

So it seems to me that there are adequate checks and balances to guard against abuse of the powers of the board. I just feel that we should give this structure, this system, an opportunity to function and work. If we find that there are abuses, that there are frequent injustices, then certainly we can take another look at it.

I think that it is a new concept. It is one that generally labour and management both have advocated: the removal of labour relations matters from the courts. I think we should give this structure a chance to function and scrutinize it closely as we go along.

I oppose the amendment on that basis.

MR. GARDOM: I would just like to very much support the amendment and the remarks that were made by the two earlier speakers on this side of the House. I quite appreciate the premise raised by the Hon. Minister. But the reason that this has been advanced here is that we think it would be preferable — not mandatory; it's a discretionary proposal — that the board may go to the supreme court if it so chooses, or a party appearing before the board may request the opportunity with the leave of the board, or the leave of the chairman, to make his application to the court for determination of a question or a point of law arising out of the interpretation of this statute.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this definitely provides an avenue to an opinion that is independent of the board and, if anything, this would be totally helpful for the board. Let us hope that they are not

[ Page 891 ]

going to run into the situation of needing it very often. The Minister has given us illustrations in his statement to the House that the former board did not run into this situation too often.

But we have a new Act here. We have, to a great extent, a new philosophy in labour-management relations. I think that we should provide every check…and every check is perhaps impossible, but this at least is another check and another balance.

Now you have shut it off completely at board level. We can have the situation there of the board being judge and jury and also, in the initial situation, judge and jury of the interpretation of the Act and judge and jury for a rehearing before it. That is why we're saying here to the government and to the Minister that this proposal is a better one. It is one that would give a greater protection for individual rights and, apart from anything else, would be a terrific relief to the board if it arrives at an imponderable position. This can happen under this statute.

Where the board is literally 50 per cent one way and 50 per cent another on a question of legal interpretation, this very board would say, "My gosh, I do wish that we had an opportunity to have this explored in front of a supreme court justice." That is the reason for the request.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would just like to take one second longer and attempt to see whether I can't convince the Minister that perhaps he should change his mind.

You are creating, Mr. Minister, the most serious difficulty for your board. If you look at the words of section 16, to which I referred in my earlier remarks, the ruling on the question of law under section 16 is binding on the board. There is no discretion in that regard.

Mr. Minister, if the chairman establishes a panel and refers a question of law to that panel and that panel gives a ruling, that ruling is binding on the board or on another panel. You can't be much more positive than that.

So the panel, once established by the chairman, has this completely autonomous power. You think that would end the question. Except, Mr. Chairman, when you look at section 36 of the Act, you find that, "…upon the application of an employer, a trade-union, or other person, or on its own motion," — the board may — "reconsider any decision or order made by it, or by a panel, under this Act, and may vary or cancel any such decision or order…" If the panel makes this so-called binding decision on a point of order, that's not the end of it, Mr. Minister, because any person may come to the board and say, "I ask you to vary that decision," and section 36 is the grounds for such a request.

If the board has had the right — I'm not saying the obligation — given to it under this amendment — a right, Mr. Chairman, which it does not now have any place in the Act — to go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an opinion, and its decision on the question of law is based upon an opinion of a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, then under section 36, the board is on solid grounds to refuse a request from an employer, a trade union or other person to vary that decision. But if the decision has been made simply by this panel, then how does it refuse to exercise the discretion that section 36 permits? How does section 36 function at all in respect of this binding decision of a panel on the point of law?

I think, Mr. Chairman, that we are, in sections 16 and 36 as they presently stand, creating more problems for the board. The amendment, which is before the committee now, I suggest would provide the board with an opportunity — not an obligation but an opportunity — of obtaining an opinion quite separate and apart from the board itself, or from any of the parties who may be before the board, on a point of law such that it could withstand any subsequent request for variance and provide an answer to a problem which might otherwise dog the board, application after application after application.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we over here have effectively made the analogy between the request under this section and what the Minister and the government have already brought in under section 107, where an arbitration board has the right at any stage of the proceedings to state a special case for the opinion of the supreme court.

I would respectfully suggest that, certainly by analogy, we have far more serious and onerous proceedings, effecting far more serious rights and responsibilities of individuals, groups, trade unions and management, under this section than under the check and the balance that the government has provided under section 107. If they can provide it for the minor situation, should it not indeed be all the more plausible and all the more necessary for the major situation?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that, under the amendment offered by the Liberal Party, the board would have the authority to refer a question of law to the courts but it would not be incumbent upon the board to act upon the decision handed down by the court — well, the opinion.

It seems to me that this would be a reflection upon the integrity of the court. I seriously question the wisdom of obliging the board to take this course of action without making it mandatory upon them to act on the basis of the advice received from the courts. So that's the very point; it is not obligatory. I

[ Page 892 ]

think that to seek the court's opinion and then to act in possible variance with that decision would reflect on the integrity of the courts.

This is an administrative tribunal, and it has been pointed out on many occasions that it will, in fact, build up its own body of administrative laws as it proceeds. We have legal counsel on the board who will be cognizant of points of law. We have, as pointed out earlier, the ombudsman who is a check and balance on the decisions that are handed down by the board.

I would simply suggest that this system should be given a try; I don't think there is any way that this structure imperils the rights of parties appearing before the board.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to debate and introduce my amendment which seeks to meet the requirements which the Minister has just outlined so clearly, anticipating, I'm sure, my amendment.

I needn't cover the earlier points as to why we think the members of the board are fallible human beings. There will be times, when, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has said, the board may be equally divided on the interpretation of a point of law, in all honesty, with the best of intentions, and so on.

My amendment makes it optional for the board to seek advice from the court. The amendment states that, "The board or a panel may, at any stage…state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Supreme Court any question of law arising in the course of the proceeding…" But the final part of the sentence, Mr. Chairman, states "…and the opinion of the Supreme Court is binding upon the board or the panel and may not be reconsidered pursuant to section 36."

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that meets our natural concern that this option should be open to the board. It also preserves the respect and the integrity of decisions of the supreme court, which is what the Minister was worried about in answering the amendment from the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think we're in the unusual, infrequent situation whereby the Minister has, in rejecting one amendment, stated what would be required to make the amendment acceptable. It just so happens, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment seems to meet these very requirements. It's with real hope and faith in the Minister's sense of objectivity — his arguments are so good and they agree with mine — that I feel that the Minister will accept this amendment. I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would observe to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay that hope springs eternal from the human breast. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Okay, sit back, I know it.

HON. MR. KING: But while it's true that I suggest that to seek an opinion from the courts which was less than obligatory would be an aspersion or a reflection on the integrity of the court, this does not suggest that I favour a decision or a reference to the courts at all. Indeed, I have stated consistently that the whole object and concept of this bill is to remove from the courts the whole question, the whole jurisdiction and responsibility for industrial relations.

We have a board which is administrative in structure and administrative in function. It's a board which is representative of the parties involved; it's a board which has legal representation and should, therefore, be cognizant of points of law.

Again, I can only reiterate that there are adequate checks and balances. I simply am not prepared to offer any opening to the courts which would result in opening up this whole field to the type of adjudications that we've had in the past and which have proven unsatisfactory in terms of coming to grips with real problems and the real issues in the complex world of industrial relations.

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting argument but it's a bit of an "Alice in Wonderland" kind of argument, with all respect to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and also to the Minister, both of whom are establishing weighty premises here that it would have to be stated within the Act that the board would follow the decision of the court. That's not the case at all. By common law it would be incumbent upon the board to follow the decision of the court, because that would be the law of the land. You don't have to have a statutory enactment — as the Attorney General I thought would stand up and say — you don't have to have a statutory enactment to say that the court's orders shall be followed. You know, I'd rather hoped that this great tiger and champion of the rule of law, the Attorney General, would have voiced a few remarks in this particular debate, because as Attorney General of this province it is very much within his bailiwick, the rule of law. We find that it's not being supported by him tonight in the slightest.

MR. WALLACE: He ran out of natural gas.

MR. GARDOM: He ran out of natural gas, said the Member for Oak Bay. Well I'm not too sure what he ran out of, Mr. Chairman, but he certainly has run out of any supportive statement for the rule of law in the Province of B.C. Insofar as this statute is

[ Page 893 ]

concerned.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, one of the disasters really for the courts of the land, for the labour movement, for management and industrial relations — as it has been the degree to which lawyers have interpolated themselves into the problem of labour relations, has been the delays in which cases involving human rights and labour-management negotiations have been tied up for months and years; I can remember cases that have gone for three years through the courts and through the appeals and through this and that — has been the expense which has gone along side-by-side with this legalistic approach to labour relations.

Now there is nothing revolutionary in this section or in the suggestion that the Labour Relations Board should, within its ambit of powers, decide points of law. There have been many cases before private arbitration tribunals where the tribunal itself has had the right to decide a point of law and the courts have looked at that later and said that that point of law was not correctly decided — look at the ABC Metals case — but within their powers it is not up to us to interfere.

So I say that this is a very progressive step. I'm inclined to think, although I can't speak for the courts, that it would be welcomed by the courts that they don't have to bring the technicalities of the law into a human problem which is the labour relations situation. I think it would be applauded by the public….

MR. GARDOM: Any legal case is a human problem.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know. But in settling a labour dispute there are intangibles there leading right back to the cause of the dispute which an application of law is not able to resolve. I think it's a great step that the Minister of Labour has taken in relieving the courts of what has been an increasingly burdensome thing to the courts and has increasingly drawn them into the vortex almost of the political problems involved in labour relations.

I hope that this board will be respected, by management and labour and the public, as a body that's highly qualified both to act impartially and with perception and according to the rule of law. I'm sure they'll do that.

So I think section 16 is a good section and I think the attempts of the Liberal Party, the shrinking Liberal Party, to draw this labour relations procedure back into the courts of law is a mistaken course. I don't think it's in the interests of labour relations, I don't think it's in the interests of the courts and I don't think it's in the interests of the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to please keep their smart remarks strictly relevant to the amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to speak to the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay. That's what we're debating, in case the Attorney General didn't know.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know. Another to take it back to the courts.

MRS. JORDAN: He got carried away there.

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand why the Hon. Attorney General is confused in this particular amendment. He spoke about the delays there are in the courts. That's his responsibility. He spoke about the costs of litigation in the courts. Mr. Chairman, there isn't any Member in this House who knows better than the Hon. Attorney General about delays and costs, because he was a well-recognized labour lawyer before he was moved to his exalted position. And he's got experience without end in this matter of delaying proceedings before the courts and the matter of the costs of labour relations proceedings. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: A poacher turned gamekeeper.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: He needs some experience.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, you know they talk about the sinner who repents; they talk about the poacher who turns gamekeeper; the Attorney General stands before us the very epitome of both of those. (Laughter.)

The trouble is, Mr. Chairman, that he has repented too late. He poached too much. (Laughter.)

Do you still have that gold-lined brief case they gave you? Oh, let's forget that. (Laughter.) It's a beautiful brief case. The gold is probably all gone by now.

But, Mr. Chairman, when dealing with this question of the amendment before us, as I have been for the past few moments, we're talking only about the right of the board to take this opportunity if it feels the need. That's right. The need. And it's not mandatory. The Attorney General recognizes that. It's not one of these long matters of great human concern. It's only on a question of law that the board may feel the need of an opinion. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that there have been times when even the

[ Page 894 ]

Hon. Attorney General has felt in need of an opinion.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: His wife's opinion.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now he may never have accepted an opinion but I'm sure he's felt the need of one, even to support his own preconceived notion of what the law might be. That's what the board has here, the right to seek that confirming opinion.

I'm sure this board when faced with the problem will in its wisdom see what the law is as clearly as can be. But it just might help if they said well, let's go and get somebody's confirming opinion. In fact the Hon. Attorney General earned his largest fees in giving opinions. If you talk about human misery that's resulted from the consequences of those (laughter)…. I won't go into that.

But, Mr. Chairman, if the HON. Attorney General is putting forward an argument against references to the courts that this is a matter of great human need and human concern, is he suggesting that we should take the matter of domestic relations out of the courts too? Is that the next move that we're to see? Is the Hon. Attorney General, with his great experience at the bar of this province, going to suggest when the litigants appear before the judge that it's not a matter of human concern and human conditions each time?

I suppose you may get the odd case between mammoth corporations where there's not much human concern — only dollars involved. But I know, if you go into the courts of this province, day after day after day it's the human concern that the judges deal with. Are we to take all of this away from the courts? Is this the rule of law that the Hon. Attorney General offers us as an example of why we should reject this amendment?

I would think, based upon what the Attorney General has said in the past few moments, that the Hon. Minister of Labour would accept the amendment now. I'd be terrified, Mr. Minister, at the kind of opinion which the chief law officer of the Crown has just given to this committee.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I listened intently and I enjoyed the debate between the lawyers of the House on this particular section of the bill. I just don't know how relevant that legal discussion was to the interests of the working people of the province.

Nevertheless whether one happens to be a labour lawyer or a corporate lawyer, I certainly don't want to be quite as insensitive as the Attorney General was to the interests of the legal fraternity. I would suggest, rather than viewing this as a move to eliminate your business and your retainers before the courts, you view it as a technological change in the legal fraternity. You will note that there is a technological change in this bill. Although I hope it won't be too disruptive to the long-term interests of the legal fraternity, I'm sure they will find some other worthwhile and meaningful undertaking to participate in.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would disabuse the Minister of the idea that we're all lawyers on this side of the House. But whether we're lawyers or laymen there are certain human aspects to this and that is that all human beings are fallible, and sometimes, as in medicine, a second opinion is an excellent idea. In my profession we can sometimes call in two or three excellently-qualified, well-motivated, well-informed specialists, but still there often has to be some further avenue of consideration.

In one respect in this little debate tonight I'm rather pleased that the Minister has made it totally and absolutely clear that the court shall have no place in this area of labour-management relations. If I heard him correctly he said that even to leave the Labour Relations Board with this teeny-weeny little option to submit some question of law to the supreme court — that even that teeny-weeny little bit was in no way to intrude upon the central underlying philosophy of this bill that the court shall be out totally.

Well, I just don't think that that's the understanding the citizens of British Columbia have about our system of democracy and the whole question of people having disputes of one kind or another, whether they be civil, criminal or labour relations in nature. Certainly, speaking for our party, this is the one theme of this bill which gives us a great deal of concern: the premise inherent in the bill in general and in this section specifically that the members of the Labour Relations Board are infallible and, because they're infallible, they can be given total and complete powers and we don't need any avenue of appeal.

Now I just regard that, Mr. Chairman, as the most expansive, extensive, unrealistic attitude to this very complex matter of human relationships as they exist between employers and employees. I would appeal in my last attempt on this section that surely where we have stated clearly that it is at the wish of the Labour Relations Board that it may seek another opinion in the supreme court, and since surely the supreme court does have the respect, as the Minister himself has said, of the citizens of this land…. It has the trust and the confidence that its decisions are made in an atmosphere of neutrality and objectivity.

But no, not even in this very small aspect is the Minister willing to relent and suggest that maybe the board might save itself many problems in the future by being able to choose at its wish to go to the courts

[ Page 895 ]

on a question of law.

As one of the former speakers said very clearly, it could in fact prevent an accumulation of problems perhaps arising from one mistaken interpretation of law. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this is what we have all said in second reading on this bill: that we want the bill to work — we really do.

We feel that in many respects it has innovations and new concepts which are well worth trying. The Minister has also said, as he said about Bill 42, that you would listen to constructive, positive suggestions which in our opinion — and I'm glad the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) shakes his head in agreement — would help to make this a better bill.

Surely that's the function of opposition in our parliamentary system — not to shoot and snipe at each other and create personalities and enemies, but simply to take a logical, rational approach and come up with amendments which, in our view, give a chance of making it a better bill and serving the people of British Columbia better. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment does in fact do that without in any serious way undermining the principle which the Minister so clearly defined as being a principle of removing disputes from the courts of this land.

As I said earlier, I think that that concept has gone much too far and, as I said in second reading on this bill, I'm sure it will be challenged in the courts as being unconstitutional. Indeed, it completely contradicts one of the basic ideas of justice in our system which is that a person should always have some avenue of approach to the courts when a matter is being adjudicated. We have this in the civil field. We have it in the criminal field.

I suggest that this principle can be mitigated somewhat, Mr. Minister. You don't have to have as complete and total exclusion of the courts. In this particular I'll be arguing on section 33 in the same vein about appeals. But, at least in this section, we're not even making the avenue of second opinion open to the person before the board; we're leaving the option to the board itself when it honestly runs into a situation when there is a 50-50 or almost equal division of opinion on the board. I would suggest that the basic principle of the bill would lose nothing if the Minister would accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I would move the amendment, Mr. Chairman, standing in my name on the order paper and I'm passing a copy of it up to you together with other amendments.

One of the primary concepts of the principle of natural justice is that a person is entitled, if he wishes, to preparatory research and advice and assistance of a representative of his choosing. And the individual is entitled to make that choice. The law that has evolved really over the centuries has given him that right and it's now a centuries-old legal precedent. I feel that it should be very clearly stated within this section as it is now not. I think this would be one small plank in the platform of natural justice which is not clearly illustrated within the legislation, as has been mentioned by ourselves and by other Members in debate.

The amendment is just purely and simply to the effect that…I'll read the first three lines: "The board shall determine its own practice and procedure but shall give full opportunity to the parties to any proceedings to present evidence and to make submissions…" — and after the word "submissions" the amendment is "with or without counsel."

So this gives the opportunity to an individual, if he so chooses, to have a representative give him assistance in a hearing before the board. It is not built into the legislation and it is not mandatory within the legislation as it now stands. I think this is an unequivocal right and it should be granted.

HON. MR. KING: This section is pretty well identical to the old Act. The board never did deny to applicants before the board the right to legal representation or otherwise. I don't really feel that it's necessary to spell out in legislative language each and every provision such as this.

The board will make its procedures known to the parties. Certainly if there were a denial of the right to representation of the party's choice, then certainly I would consider bringing in an amendment to instruct the board to do that; but it seems redundant to me. It's a natural course that they would indeed provide and recognize any representative of the parties.

MR. GARDOM: I'm pleased to hear the remarks of the Hon. Minister. He's saying that it is a natural course — and that's true; it's a natural course under established precedent that we have today. But you've given this board almighty power within its own confines to define its own rules and procedures, and it is not there.

If the board, irrespective of your good wishes and my good wishes, decides that it is not possible for a person to have representation on counsel, then that will not happen. It's just purely and simply as clear as that.

You've indicated to the House and to me, Mr. Minister, that you approve in principle without any question that which has been recommended. You say that "it is a matter of a right;" so I say, just establish the right. You say it happened before in a former

[ Page 896 ]

board, so for goodness' sake if you submit to us — as you have done and very correctly and validly so — that this is a right, then make it a right. Establish it as a right within the statute.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to give the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that commitment. If he looks at section 21, it states that "the board may, subject to the approval of the Minister…." — and now I will undertake to give that Member a commitment that I will not approve any procedure which — does not provide for free representation by the representative of the choice of the particular party.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to support this amendment for the very clear reason stated by the Member. With the utmost respect, I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the present Minister may not always be the Minister of Labour.

For him to stand in sincerity in the House and, I'm sure in all faith, give us his personal commitment that he would instruct the board that this is his interpretation of the section…. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I just can't see, if he believes that it's wise that the person should or should not have council — and we think it's a good idea…three words; all we're asking is three words, just to put the words in the bill.

Again this is an element of the debate in this session about a lot of the bills. We are assured by the government that the bill means certain things, and when the opposition just suggests a few words to try and make it unmistakably clear that that's what the bill does mean, no dice — we don't get anywhere.

I really fail to see, Mr. Chairman, how the government, which claims that it wants a better bill and will listen to the opposition…. We are bringing forward amendment after amendment after amendment in good faith with constructive, positive values, and this one surely, three words, to which the Minister has agreed…. Now if we are all agreed on it, Mr. Chairman, why cannot the Minister simply agree to put these three words in the bill?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Obviously it is a fair question. The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) asks when I am going to get mad. I'm trying very hard these days not to get mad about anything.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, that's right. Got to set a good example.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, let me just ask the Minister once more if he believes this is a good idea.

Since his personal commitment cannot always relied upon in the sense that he may not always occupy this position, if the principle outlined by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is valid and the Minister has accepted that it is valid, and it is three words we are asking for, Mr. Chairman, let's at least have the government, before the witching hour, accept one of the opposition's amendments. It's the smallest one and the one that the government has verbally agreed to.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the observation that if the Member for Point Grey is suggesting that some amendments should be accepted on the basis of volume, why I'd certainly question that proposition.

I think there are some 50 or 60 amendments moved by the opposition. While I accept that they are moved in good faith, we have genuine differences of opinion on these questions.

MR. WALLACE: We have agreed on this one.

HON. MR. KING: If I find that any such amendments offer anything of significance to strengthen this legislation, then I would be receptive to supporting the amendments. But simply to suggest that because so many are offered we have some kind of obligation to accept one on general principle is a little bit foolish. I certainly don't question the Member's sincerity in putting them forward, but I feel that his amendment in this case would do nothing to significantly strengthen the bill.

MR. GARDOM: This is the point that the opposition has unfortunately failed to get across to the government side, and the government side is, refusing, absolutely refusing to accept the premises that we are offering, both in this particular section and in the general legislation. You are not taking into account human frailty.

The Hon. Minister says, "Yes, this is a good proposal." The Hon. Minister says, "Yes, I will give my personal commitment to see that this proposal becomes the law of the land in the Province of British Columbia." We respect the Minister. We thank him for his commitment and we thank him for his wisdom in appreciating the point. But he's not necessarily going to continue to be the Minister, as mentioned. He's not necessarily going to continue to have the same attitude and we can have another situation, Mr. Minister, where we will have a person blatantly opposed to the position that you are taking, which is a totally valid position.

I don't think anybody in this Legislature right now, if you had a free vote, would disagree with this premise — not in the slightest. But if you do not build safeguards into statutes and particularly into statutes

[ Page 897 ]

wherein you eliminate the rule of law, which has happened here, you will have eliminated legal precedent from today back to the year of 1066.

You have even suggested that the fundamental principles of natural justice do not apply from the precedent point of view to this legislation. You say that that is true insofar as this bill is concerned. You said that you hope that they shall apply, but there are not any built-in safeguards to see that they do apply, particularly insofar as recourse to appeal, which was discussed a little bit earlier, out of order, as it is now being suggested by myself, similarly out of order.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: But they are not built-in, Mr. Attorney General. You build them in in weak sections under 107 and 108 for minor situations and in the major part of the ballgame you totally leave them out.

I think if we are going to go ahead in any democratic society, which is a flourishing society, and statutorily eliminate precedent — and we have a great precedent of jurisprudence which goes right back to 1066 — and if you don't build into the statute certain basic principles and basic rights, again relegated to the principle of natural justice, you are primarily putting awesome power in the hands of these people who have to interpret it, and you are putting them into an exceptionally difficult and it could well be compromising position.

This is why we are saying to you, with all respect to your commitment, which I thoroughly accept, that a commitment is not satisfactory. We can have a new government; we can have a totally new cabinet; we can have a totally different outlook and attitude to the whole point. But the job that we have to do is a job for every one of us in the Province of British Columbia, and surely the way to do that is not to have to rely upon hopes and upon promises. Let's see it built into the legislation where it should be, and where the Hon. Attorney General absolutely knows where it should be.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister has pointed out, this is the same section that is in the previous legislation. There were a number of court decisions under the previous legislation. They all went to the effect that natural justice applies to any tribunal, including this one, even if there is a private clause written in.

For example, if somebody does not get a fair hearing, under that section as it was in the old Act, that hearing could be by way of letters and representations. I didn't necessarily mean an oral hearing. The board had the right to make that decision. That was decided in the supreme court in the case, I think it was, of Martin v. Roberts about 10 years ago. But there is a right to be a fair hearing. There is a right, if there is a viva voce hearing, to counsel. Or there is a right that no member of that board shall be biased who sits on a particular appeal, for example, if he represents that industry.

MR. GARDOM: Where do people go if he is?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to give legal advice to anyone here. But I'm just saying that the rules of natural justice apply to a tribunal of this kind. They must live up to those rules, and you don't have to state all these safeguards in the legislation. Even if you had what is called a private clause….

MR. GARDOM: If there's a violation can they go to the court?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, a violation of natural justice, in my opinion….

MR. GARDOM: Under this Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. No question about it.

MR. GARDOM: Well, thank the Lord. You're the first person who has said it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Certainly. In terms of a fair hearing and so forth, that is right. The board must give fair hearings. It must not have somebody sitting on that board who is biased.

MR. GARDOM: And if they don't are they subject to the prerogative writs?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One Member at a time.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Natural justice applies to all inferior tribunals.

MR. GARDOM: This is your own interpretation but I can tell you that your board, under this statute, if it makes an error, if there is a denial of natural justice and a person seeks relief through the courts, the board can argue that he is not entitled to that relief through the courts because the board is the sole arbiter of the interpretation of the Act.

With every respect, Mr. Attorney General, what you are offering today is vague hopes. And we want more than vague hope. If what you say is correct, put it in the bill. We like your suggestion. Let's have legislation saying exactly what you've stated, Have it become a part of this statute, and then we'll have something.

[ Page 898 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's there.

MR. GARDOM: Name a section. Name one section where this is there — one section.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: section 21, the one we are talking about.

MR. GARDOM: section 2 1, the Attorney General says. You can go to the court under section 21. I don't see the right to do that under section 21. Try another section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to return to the consideration of the amendment and address the Chair, please.

MR. GARDOM: I'm on it. The Attorney General has stated to this House that if there is a denial of natural justice a party to proceedings before this Labour Relations Board has the right to go to the courts of this land, and I say to the Attorney General: show me the section within this Act where you can do it. There's not one such section.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Now the Attorney General is agreeing it is not built in the statute and a moment ago he said it was built into the statute.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It wasn't in the old statute.

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Attorney General, you certainly are being volatile tonight, and very, very flexible in your attitude to the law. I appreciate without any question of a doubt the sentiments that you have expressed, but I say put your sentiments into writing and put your sentiments into this statute. Let's have the rule of law in the Province of British Columbia and let there never be a denial of natural justice under the provisions of this bill by statute. Incorporate those provisions within the bill.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

MR. CHABOT: On section 23, I move the amendment standing in my name which deletes this section and substitutes the following: "The board shall make all its decisions and the reasons for its decisions in proceedings under this Act available in writing for publication as a report, and any party to dispute under this Act available provided a copy of such report upon request in writing to the minister." The section presently reads: "The board shall make all its decisions in proceedings under this Act available in writing for publication." It is very dry reading indeed, seeing the decisions and not knowing what the reasons are.

The Minister presently does publish the decisions of the board, but, without the reasons, it is of very little use to anyone really. It might be of some direct use to the union applying for certification or something of that nature to see the decision in print, but it certainly doesn't make the board responsible for publishing reasons. There has been a great hue and cry over the years, primarily from the trade-union movement, for the board to publish reasons for their decisions.

Not too long ago, when the Minister moved second reading of this legislation, he suggested at that time that some of the reasons would be published. I hope it won't be only a selection of the reasons for the decision but that there will be publication of all the reasons.

I think it will be of great assistance not only to the trade-union movement but to management as well if there's a catalogue of all the various decisions brought down by the board. I think it would eliminate many appeals that go before the board. The end result would be a better understanding and relationship between the union movement and management.

I hope the Minister will, in view of the statements made in second reading of the bill, accept the amendment in the good faith it's presented.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, section 23 provides that the board shall make its decisions in proceedings under this Act available in writing for publication. As I understand it, the Member for Columbia River seeks to make it mandatory upon the board that reasons for each decision be given and published.

I would point out that, in 1972, the board adjudicated in excess of 1,100 applications for certification. It would seem to be completely unnecessary; in fact, it would be very difficult for the board to find the time to publish reasons for each of those 1,100 decisions. Certainly they do not publish reasons for every decision that is handed down in other jurisdictions.

This would be counterproductive to the whole intent here, which is to make the board flexible enough so that it might deal expeditiously with applications that come before it. Certainly it is the intent that in controversial cases the board will, in fact, publish reasons for their decisions and they indeed will be published.

I feel that the Member for Columbia River's amendment contributes nothing to this particular section and I oppose the amendment.

[ Page 899 ]

MR. CHABOT: I hope the decisions and the reasons that will be published on this selective basis will not be the same kind of format and approach as is being taken in publishing the occasional and non-controversial decisions that are brought down by the Workmen's Compensation Board. I hope it will be far more meaningful, when decisions of consequence are published, that the reasons will be consequential as well.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Attorney General agrees, Mr. Chairman, and I hope, in view of the fact that he agrees, that the Members of the backbench have now seen the light and will be prepared to support the amendment that I've just recently presented.

The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) just smiled back there, Mr. Chairman, and I'm absolutely positive that that Member agrees with this amendment. I think if he agrees with it, he has the responsibility of a stand in this House this evening. Tell that Minister over there that that's the way the B.C. Federation of Labour sees it; the B.C. Federation of Labour supports this amendment. He speaks for that group on many occasions in this House and he professes to speak for other trade unions as well. I'm sure that he'll support this thing.

It's been a very frustrating thing, I think, to the union movement that there have been no reasons published on decisions of consequence brought down by the board. I hope, in view of the support which has been suggested, it'll be forthcoming by the Attorney General. Not only will the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour and the Minister of Labour accept this amendment, but I'm sure the Premier will as well. He seems to be nodding either in sleep or in approval; I don't know which. I'm sure that it's a good amendment and will be conducive to a better relationship between management and labour problems.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I must say that I'm terribly disappointed that the Minister of Labour did not accept this amendment. I think it's a good amendment and I think it's one of the focal points of this whole piece of legislation. The Minister of Labour can laugh and chuckle away to himself, but if this bill is going to work, if you're going to set up a tribunal — a Labour Relations Board, a court, call it what you may — if the people who make up this board are not going to stand on their own feet and make the reasons for the decisions available to the general public, the people in labour and the people in management, I really don't know how they're going to function and be credible in the eyes of the public.

I don't care if there are 2,300 decisions a year; there should be reasons for decisions made. Three, five or ten years from now you would be able to build up a library of Labour Relations Board decisions based on the reasons for their decisions. Then anybody in labour or in management would be able to go to that library when a particular point comes up. Am I not right Mr. Attorney General? The reasons are laid down as to why the decisions are made; lawyers use it for reference. I think this would be an excellent idea. Certainly somebody has to pay for this Labour Relations Board, and the cost of them and so forth.

I'm sure that all of the deliberations are going to be kept. We keep a record of all our deliberations here so that we can go back years from now and pull out Hansard and say, "Well, we said this; this is the reason for this, The Minister of Labour gave a decision for this, and it's down in Hansard why he didn't accept it." We're doing that. Is it not as important that this new board which is established give reasons for their decisions? I think this is really an excellent amendment. I think that in this particular section there could be credibility as to the working ability of this Labour Relations Board, and I mean it in all sincerity.

Mr. Attorney General, you seem to have a great deal of influence. I've gone to my wife and I've given her a decision and she'll say, "Why?" By the time I get through explaining why I've made that particular decision, sometimes I've changed my mind. I know that every time I give her a decision, she's going to say, "Why?" because that's the type of person she is. That way we reason together rather than if I come in and say absolutely this is my decision without having to reason why. "Yours is not to reason why. Yours is but to do and die." That seems to be what this board wants to do.

But in all sincerity, I think people are much more responsible….

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Come on, show us some leadership.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why do you support this amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: I support this amendment because I really feel this is going to be…. (Laughter). Now listen, this is no laughing matter, Mr. Attorney General. You said you're going to be a sincere government; you're going to accept sincere….

I honestly feel that if this board would catalogue the reasons for its decisions, we would be able to look back in future years and be used by both labour and management as a great vast storehouse of knowledge. I think it would go a long way to helping to make this particular piece of labour legislation work; I really do. I don't think that it's going to work any great hardship; I think it would be a great forward move to

[ Page 900 ]

have this library of decisions years from now. The sooner we start….

That's what happened with the mediation board. They were to build up a vast storehouse of knowledge so that when a particular problem came up, they could go to it. If I remember, I was in the House when the mediation commission was set up. One of the purposes was to assemble facts and figures as to what happened under their jurisdictions — how much this particular company made, or how much they paid.

One of the prime functions of the mediation board was to assemble a vast storehouse of knowledge so that when a problem came up they could go to it. I think that recording the decisions of this Labour Relations Board would assemble a vast storage of knowledge. I don't mean just the decisions, but the reasons for the decisions. I think it's a very good amendment and in all sincerity I think the Minister is not being very wise in not accepting it. I certainly support it.

MRS. JORDAN: I rise to speak in support of this amendment. Carrying on from my colleague's statement, I think that we often know and see that a board's or a judge's or a politician's or a doctor's or a lawyer's or a teacher's decision is often more readily accepted if it is a "no" decision if the people know why. That is an application that should apply to this board because people are going to go before this board which is all-powerful and some of them are going to get a negative answer or the portion of a negative answer.

Their natural human reaction is going to be more positive or more accepting if they can understand why that decision was the way it was, and if it's "no," why it's "no." I think we've all found as politicians that when we go back to our constituencies we can't bring glad ridings all the time. We can't put the roads where everybody wants them or the parks or anything else.

HON. MR. LEA: Why? Why?

MRS. JORDAN: That's just it, Mr. Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea); if we can tell them why the time isn't right, that other areas of the province have priorities that must be considered more, then they are much more accepting of what the decision is and much more reasonable, I think, in their approach as they continue to work for this objective. You usually get marching mothers over cross walks, Mr. Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea), if you can't give them a good logical reason "why not" that has a human relationship. If you don't know that, you're going to find it out.

I'd also suggest that a body as powerful as this body is going to be, from which there is no recourse at all unless it steps outside the limits of its own law, is in the long term going to be adjudicated as much by the reasons for its decisions as, in fact, by its decisions. Its decisions are going to have a profound effect on all our lives in British Columbia and, indeed, in British Columbia's role within Canada as it influences other labour organizations or extensions of British Columbia labour organizations, and as it influences other people who work either in management or labour throughout Canada, because undoubtedly it's going to set precedents.

British Columbia has continually led in many areas in labour organizations and one assumes that this board will too. If it's going to have such an influence on working people and business outside the province, there also should be available, upon request, the reasons for that decision. Then people can better accept the influence that it's going to exert.

For the Minister to suggest that the board wouldn't have time to do this or that its work would be impeded by such requests I suggest is absolute nonsense. He himself is in a position of extreme responsibility now and I would strongly suggest that he doesn't write all his own speeches and all his own legislation; he delegates. If we are to have such an supremely powerful and important board in this province, surely among all the expenses that this government is indulging in they could afford to at least properly staff the board and buy them a Xerox machine so that the decisions, which I assume within the board will be in writing, can be copied upon proper request and administered to the correct department.

I don't think you should charge but if you want to, Mr. Minister, if you're worried about the expense encountered in issuing or answering a request for written decisions, then even charge for the Xeroxing. But to use this excuse that they wouldn't have time leaves the Minister open to some suspect as to his credibility.

I think the point made by my colleague is so valuable that it must be reiterated. That is that because of the influence that this board is going to exert, because of its all-powerful role in our lives, the decisions it makes must be recorded. I wonder, when we point out that this indeed was a practice of the mediation commission, if this isn't why they're afraid to incorporate such a statement within their own Act.

I don't think, Mr. Minister, you should be afraid of the reasons for the decisions that this board makes. If they are wrong, then it must be brought to the proper attentions and those decisions in the future will be used in a better way or contradicted. The value of building up a library of this type of information can hardly be over-estimated.

There is a lack of decision recording, there is a lack of human information and, in fact, factual information all over the world in labour-management

[ Page 901 ]

relations. The effect of strikes, the effect of wage increases — all of this should be part of the library that you are trying to build up through this new Act. (Laughter.)

Well, to the teensy-weensy Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) — he has shown great restraint tonight and I want to show him that I'm quite willing to accept great restraint. I think we are trying to prove once and for all tonight that the Minister and the government are, in fact, prepared to accept amendments. If they don't accept reasonable amendments on these bills, then we, of course, will have no other recourse but to go back to other manners of attack. I would ask the Minister again to accept this amendment and to let it be known to all concerned and who are interested the reasons for the decisions of this board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: We're getting close to home.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will allow the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to continue to speak on the amendment. I didn't see him out of the comer of my eye.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't standing, that's why.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, it's unfortunate that the Minister is being his usual arbitrary self and not willing to elaborate further with the exception of a few feeble arguments on the question of publishing reasons for the decisions of the board.

The Minister almost suggested that the board will have to do the typing and the preparation of all these documents themselves. There's such a thing as a secretary to the board, a secretary who can take a little bit of shorthand. That's one of the qualifications of the secretary, I presume, of the Labour Relations Board. All it means is a little bit of typing. That shouldn't be difficult, because this government in the last 14 months has hired over 8,000 civil servants. With that kind of an increase in staff, certainly you could assign one, or maybe two if necessary, to type the reasons for the decisions from the Labour Relations Board.

I'm not going to repeat the arguments of the need and the importance of giving reasons from decisions of the board. I can see no reason for the board to fear publishing their reasons because there's no right of appeal really beyond the realm of the board. There should be nothing to fear. I just can't understand why the government is not prepared to publish reasons for decisions. This has been a long cry from the labour movement for many years.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish that the Minister would stand up and tell us why he doesn't want this vast storehouse of knowledge to be kept in the Province of British Columbia? I'd like to know why?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't use the word hypocrisy in this chamber because I don't think it's too parliamentary, but I would remind the official opposition that one of the grave criticisms that the courts did heap on the former Labour Relations Board was the fact that they were not obliged to and indeed did not provide reasons for the decisions.

For 20 years that group over there sat there and administered the affairs of the province. They were the ones that constructed and made appointments to the Labour Relations Board, and not once during that period of time did I hear one protestation from the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), who actually administered the office of Minister of Labour for a certain period of time. Now it seems that there is a new-found interest in the board becoming democratic and revealing the reasons for the decisions. It sounds pretty hollow. It sounds pretty insensitive and pretty hollow, in my view.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's obvious that the board will, insofar as is possible, give reasons for the decisions and publish them. To suggest that we require the board to do so in every case would be absolutely unrealistic, would unduly slow down the procedures before the board and mitigate against the working man which was the tradition of the former administration. I oppose the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: I am surprised to hear the Minister of Labour speak tonight. I am not going to call him a hypocrite; I'm not going to call him a traitor; but I'm going to say this: I never thought that I'd see the day in this House when a Minister of Labour would stand in his place and attack a board of government like he attacked the Labour Relations Board, attack the former Deputy Minister of Labour, who has now been side-shuffled at a higher salary, and attack the other representatives on the board from management and labour. It was a most disgraceful and unnecessary attack, Mr. Minister. There is no reason for you, because you want to practice cheap politics, to go ahead and attack an independent board which has taken an oath of office. You know that full well. It is not becoming for a Minister of the Crown to make the kind of attacks you made tonight against the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia. You should hide your head in shame.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that as usual the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is twisting and subverting the remarks that I made. I did not attack the board…

[ Page 902 ]

MR. CHABOT: You certainly did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: …that the former government failed to require in legislation that the board publish their opinions. And the vocal, hysterical Member for Columbia River is as irrelevant and as wild as usual. He is inconsistent and inflammatory as usual. No one really pays too much credence to his wild protestations…

MR. CHABOT: They should all quit tonight, that kind of an attack against the board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Your credibility is zero, zilch.

But I want to set the record straight, Mr. Chairman. I did not at any point attack the integrity of the board; I attacked the inconsistency of that government for failing to live up to and be consistent with what they advocate now, the written reasons and published reasons by the board. They never required it in their era, and it seems pretty inconsistent for them to do so now.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

[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. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee further reports that a division took place and asks to have it recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: On what section?

MR. CHAIRMAN: section 12.

Leave granted.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I want to report that I tabled a partial answer to question 7 at 6 p.m. tonight, and other information will be forthcoming. I want to table answers to questions 167 and 168.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of personal privilege and speak for the opposition in relation to the disorderly noisy and impossible conditions under which the opposition are expected to debate the important legislation such as we tried to debate tonight. The employees that are working in our offices this evening are using jackhammers, and are working in competition to secretaries who are paid out of public funds and who are there to perform a service which they cannot perform tonight because of the noise, the dust and the flying plaster. Our telephones are not all working.

And it is not, Mr. Speaker, as if these employees are employees of an independent contractor who is under contract to do this job. They are, in fact, employees of the provincial government, the Department of Public Works, and are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). We feel, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to play our proper and responsible role in debating the legislation, to work nights and afternoons, which we are willing to do, we must at least be extended the courtesy of having the use of our offices and surroundings which are reasonably conducive to our staff to work and to work ourselves.

We suggest, Mr. Speaker, in bringing this to your attention, if the government wants to renovate the buildings in such a hurry that they should plan these renovations around the sittings or around the sessions, and if they wish to call sessions or sittings then there should be enough communication between the Premier of this province, the House Leader and his Ministers to see the work of all Members of this House is not disrupted as has been the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I think I have gained a very complete knowledge of the problem. May I say that immediately the matter was brought to my attention, I say immediately the matter was brought to my attention by the chairman of your caucus, I went down there, ascertained the problem and stopped it.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Obviously, Mr. Speaker, she hasn't been back to her office to find out that you have made so much progress while all the hot air has been….

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, if this is the case after I tried to introduce this into the House this evening, we appreciate it. But the matter was brought up by our caucus chairman earlier in the evening and it was not attended to. We appreciate your attendance and we hope that in future you will see that our offices are not disturbed.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that questions of privilege relating to outside this chamber actually are not matters that can be raised in committee. Under the circumstances, when it was brought to my attention outside the

[ Page 903 ]

Committee of the Whole House, I immediately took action on behalf of all the Members.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw resolution 16 standing in the order paper in my name.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:07 p.m.