Hansard — Wednesday, October 24, 1973 — Afternoon Sitting

CONTENTS

Statement

Availability of natural gas to B.C. consumers. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 906

Mr. Smith — 906

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 906

Mr. Wallace — 906

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

B.C. Railway strike. Mr. Phillips — 907

Natural gas contracts. Mr. Wallace — 907

Wage agreement for B.C. Hydro linemen. Mr. Curtis — 908

Reduction of natural gas exports. Mr. McGeer — 908

Premier's trip to Alberta. Mr. Bennett — 908

Contract for ferry design. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 909

Abuse of Mincome asset allowances. Mr. Wallace — 909

Privilege

Ommission of statement on answers to questions. Mr. Schroeder — 910

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 910

Mr. Speaker — 910

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act (Bill 90). Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 911

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act (Bill 91). Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 911

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act (Bill 89). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 911

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act (Bill 85). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 911

An Act to Amend the Public Bodies Information Act (Bill 92). Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 911

Transportation Assistance Fund Act (Bill 93). Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 911

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

Amendment to section 23.

Mr. Gardom — 912

Mr. Wallace — 912

Hon. Mr. King — 912

Mr. Gardom — 913

Hon. Mr. King — 913

Mr. Wallace — 913

Mr. Williams — 914

Mr. Wallace — 914

Hon. Mr. King — 915

Amendment to section 24.

Mr. Gardom — 915

Hon. Mr. King — 916

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 916

Hon. Mr. King — 916

Mr. Williams — 916

Hon. Mr. King — 917

On section 27.

Mr. Chabot — 917

Hon. Mr. King — 917

On section 28.

Hon. Mr. King — 917

Amendment to section 30.

Mr. Wallace — 917

Mr. Williams — 917

Amendment to section 31.

Mr. Gardom — 918

Hon. Mr. King — 919

Mr. Gardom — 920

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 920

Hon. Mr. King — 920

Division on amendment — 921

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 921

Hon. Mr. King — 921

Mr. Wallace — 922

Hon. Mr. King — 923

Mr. Wallace — 923

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 924

On section 31.

Mr. Williams — 924

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 926

Hon. Mr. King — 927

Mr. Wallace — 927

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 929

Mr. Gardom — 929

Hon. Mr. King — 930

Mr. Wallace — 931

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 932

Mr. Gardom — 932

Mr. Liden — 933

Mr. McGeer — 933

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 934

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 935

Mr. Rolston — 936

Amendment to section 33.

Hon. Mr. King — 936

Amendment to section 34.

Hon. Mr. King — 936

On section 38.

Mr. Williams — 936

Hon. Mr. King — 936

Amendment to section 40.

Hon. Mr. King — 937

On section 42.

Mr. Chabot — 937

Hon. Mr. King — 937

Amendment to section 43

Hon. Mr. King — 937

Mr. Chabot — 937

Hon. Mr. King — 937

Mr. Wallace — 938

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 938

Hon. Mr. King — 938

Statement

Record of filing answers to questions. Mr. Speaker — 939

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 939

Appendix

Report of Special Committee — 940

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1973

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a group of 60 students from Qualicum Beach Secondary School who have come down under the direction of their teachers, Mr. McMurray and Mr. Coates. They won't be coming into the gallery until 3 p.m., but I'm sure that they would appreciate a warm welcome from the Hon. Members at this time.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have a visitor in the Members' gallery today from the fair City of Revelstoke. I would ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to Mrs. Vincent Rizzuti.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate it if the House would join me in welcoming a group of students from the Ideal Free School who are visiting us with their teacher, Mr. Gary Nixon.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that today is United Nations Day. I think it's particularly appropriate that we draw this to your attention today when we have a number of students in our gallery, because I think we all appreciate that although the United Nations certainly has not been able to bring peace to the world we must never denigrate their efforts in attempting to do this. I do think there are many positive contributions which the United Nations has made in many other areas, and any who have been there and seen the number of committees on health and education and human resources realize that they're a very active, working group for the benefit of all mankind. Thank you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join with the Hon. Minister of Education in her words. With warfare and bloodshed in the Middle East, it was to the United Nations that people first looked, and we in the opposition would like to join with her in wishing the United Nations well and also urging all Members of this assembly and those who may be listening to us to take an interest in the affairs of the United Nations by joining the associations that they have in virtually every city in our country. This type of support, we think, will do a great deal towards making that body much more effective.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I too would like to join the remarks of the two former speakers. Through the course of history we have had wars and through the course of history we have tried to prevent them and find ways of mediating them. We have had some very major wars; we have had some rather minor wars, and we're having some today. Despite the fact that they're small wars, they're still very serious.

I feel that while the United Nations has been attempting to keep a peaceful atmosphere over the world, it has not been an easy job for it. I commend those who have extended themselves in this particular field and I think that it will take much more cooperation, much more liaison and much more feeling on the part of people to bring about peace in this world.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The Conservative Party would like to commend the Minister of Education for bringing United Nations Day to our attention. We would strongly support the concept which, as she quite rightly states, has not met with all the success that human beings around the world would have wished. But I personally feel that as the world matures and as civilizations mature in small countries and in large, the United Nations has actually exceeded the expectations of many people. Its recent action in bringing at least a fitful halt to the hostilities in the Middle East is the kind of action without which the whole world or the superpowers might well be engulfed in a frightful worldwide bloodshed.

I feel that in recognizing the worldwide nature of the organization we should also recognize our local citizens who contribute their efforts to the local branch. Particularly, I think that we should commend Larry Ryan, who is the local branch President in Victoria, and that this House should give him recognition for the tremendous efforts he makes.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It's not often I have this privilege, but I'd like to draw to the attention of the Members of this Assembly the fact that we have in the Members' gallery this afternoon Mrs. Dorothy Thompson, wife of the vice-president of the North Peace Socred constituency. Accompanying her is Mr. Glover. I wish the House to welcome them.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Delivered by hand under date October 24, 1973, under the letterhead of Westcoast Transmission and the signature of Kelly Gibson, is a letter to Mr. James H. Rhodes, Chairman,

B.C. Energy Board.

"Dear Sir:

I have previously informed you of the difficulties we are facing this coming winter in our gas supply and the necessity of having to curtail deliveries to our various customers.

"However, as a result of a series of meetings concluded just this morning, I am able to assure you that we will meet the requirements of all our Canadian distributor customers up to their respective contracts or demands or nominated demands for up to Nov. 1, 1973."

I do emphasize that no overrun gas will be available. Mr. Speaker, this is a vindication of the position of the Province of British Columbia and a great victory following the passage in good order yesterday afternoon of Bill 70 on its second reading. The essential domestic needs of the consumers and industries of British Columbia will be met. The hands on the valve will be Canadian. It is not as a result of augmented supplies but good sense that has brought us to this happy position.

MR. SMITH: I listened to the remarks to the Attorney General and I presume that the last two or three paragraphs were paraphrased or his own words, not the words of the letter of Mr. Gibson.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're the letter, but they came over the phone, The last sentence reads, "…contract demands or nominated amounts…."

MR. SMITH: The question I would pose to the Attorney General is that if he is talking about contract customers, that does not necessarily include all of the people who are serviced by natural gas, and that might just refer to those people who have an industrial contract with the Westcoast Transmission. Would the Hon. Attorney General please clarify that point?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll be glad to, although it isn't question period, Mr. Speaker. When they say that nominated amounts will be met as of November 1, those are the winter nominated amounts of Inland and the other utilities and Westcoast — they will be met, so industrial and domestic customers will be satisfied.

MR. SMITH: In that case, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the letter from Mr. Gibson to assure the House and the people of this province that British Columbia will be looked after first.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to hear that this gas shortage that the government has been telling us about for so long will not occur in British Columbia. If this is a vindication of the government's position of yesterday where they were calling for "turning off the tap," calling for breaking of contracts, I would be very surprised. I would think it would be a vindication instead of the sensible approach to the problem taken by Westcoast as well as many other people which was, of course, to look for other supplies to make up for the loss in northern B.C.

We would welcome this. We would point out that if this is a vindication of the position, I guess it's like Napoleon vindicating his victory in Moscow or in Waterloo. We feel instead that it shows the reverse; it shows the sensible approach was to look for other supplies of gas before going into any rash moves or breaking contracts and "turning off the tap."

AN HON. MEMBER: How come they didn't find it before yesterday?

MR. WALLACE: Naturally we also are delighted that B.C. customers will not suffer. My immediate question perhaps would be more appropriate in the question period and the Minister can answer it later: There is no mention of the supply of gas to receivers outside the provincial boundaries. To what degree will this result in breach of contract and so on and all the question of federal intervention?

MR. SPEAKER: That would be an excellent one for question period. I think we should have enough statements on this subject now before the question period.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to rise on a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Last night in the House, as per Votes and Proceedings, by leave of the House the Hon. David Barrett, Premier, made a statement that he had been informed that the strike on the British Columbia Railway had ended. I would like to have the Premier clarify if he intentionally tried to mislead the House, because the strike on the British Columbia Railway is not over. The last of the voting is taking place at 9 o'clock tonight. I took the Premier at his word and went out and said, "Oh, these great socialists have solved the railway strike."

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member indicate to me what page this is?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's votes 29 and 30, page 5, Mr. Speaker, the very top of the page.

He made a statement that he had been informed that the strike on the British Columbia Railway had ended. That to me is misleading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we don't know what has

happened. All we do in Votes and Proceedings is indicate what statement was made in a form that will indicate the substance of the subject matter. It's not for you or me in this matter to claim it as a breach of privilege.

What has to happen, presumably…. If there is something in that statement that you doubt, it's not a question of it being changed in Votes and Proceedings or that the Votes and Proceedings are incorrect The matter can be raised, of course, in question period.

Oral questions.

B.C. RAILWAY STRIKE

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to ask the President of the British Columbia Railway and the Premier if he intended to mislead the House last night by giving this information.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I gave the House the information that was given to me. A memorandum of agreement was signed and I was informed that the strike would be over and the men were in the process of going back to work. The words that I used:

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

This afternoon initiatives between the B.C. Rail, the government representative, Mr. Kinnaird and the shopcraft union have brought about a resolution of the strike. It's my understanding that the men will be returning to work as soon as possible.

That is my exact statement and that is exactly what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing misleading.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Never mind speeches. Do you have a supplementary?

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary on the same question. When the Premier and the president of the railway recently said in this House that the railway had never made money and never would make money, was he anticipating the settlement of the strike?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not at all. I was explaining how in the past shares had been bought in that company to provide it funds to give it capital and operating deficits. I say that it wipes out the accumulated debt. It was a method of the previous government to lead the people of British Columbia into believing that the railroad was making money when in fact it has not, it is not and it will not be making money. It is just like another highway.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have here before me a British Columbia Financial and Economic Review, 33rd edition, July, 1973, under the hand of the Hon. David Barrett, Minister of Finance, which says that in 1965 the British Columbia Railway made $1,744,969 profit; in 1970, $896,923; and in 1972 it made a profit of $992,499. Was the Premier misleading the people of British Columbia when he put out this economic review in July of this year? Was he under his own…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I was continuing the practice up to that time of the former administration. We are no longer going to continue that practice of not charging the railroad interest for loans or paying off its capital debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Truth in government for a change.

NATURAL GAS CONTRACTS

MR. WALLACE: I would like to ask the Attorney General whether he is in a position at all to expand on an earlier statement this afternoon. While we certainly welcome the fact that British Columbia customers will be receiving their contracted gas supplies, does this mean in fact that we will be breaking contracts with El Paso?

I would preface that by quoting from yesterday's report of Macdonald's meeting with Mr. Love that "possible gas shortages were discussed at considerable length but no major decisions resulted." Has he had any message in any way, Telex, telephone or otherwise, from Donald Macdonald?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There have been no messages from Donald Macdonald that I know of and I have been in my office very recently.

In answer to the first part of your question, we have always considered that the matter of export of materials from Canada should be those only that were surplus to our needs. That should be an implied condition of all exports out of Canada, particularly of energy resources. This, therefore, is not in any sense a matter of breach of contract.

MR. WALLACE: One supplemental question. I noticed the Minister's very careful stress on the word

"implied." In other words, does it in fact say in written agreements that this is a condition or a clause upon which our exports will be based, or is this simply our own natural self-interest which is implied? The word "implied" leaves in my mind the doubt that in fact we are breaching a contract.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I see no difference in the case of B.C.'s natural gas from the situation when the federal government, for example, curtailed the export of butane recently, about two weeks ago, to the United States.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A supplementary question to the Attorney General. Do I interpret correctly the Attorney General's statement — that Mr. Gibson's letter today represented a vindication of the government's action of yesterday afternoon — to mean that the Westcoast Transmission Company has capitulated to threats, real or implied, from this House, and is dishonouring commitments to customers across the line? Or is it merely that Westcoast Transmission has been able to find alternative sources of supply in the United States and would have found these sources in any case?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There have been no threats, but in my opinion the constructive debate of yesterday and the passage of Bill 70 through its second reading was one element in the happy position in which we find ourselves today.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that questions are becoming hypothetical and that, of course, is prohibited.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question to the Attorney General on the same matter. It's obvious, from the statement that you made in the House and the letter you received from Mr. Gibson representing Westcoast, that they have moved to accommodate the people in British Columbia and assure their gas supply for this winter. Will the Attorney General ask the Hon. Donald Macdonald to ratify the position of Westcoast Transmission in their decision to protect the consumers in British Columbia so that it does not, in any way, jeopardize the position of Westcoast Transmission as a supplier to El Paso under the rules and regulations of the National Energy Board? Will you move to try to get a confirmation and ratification from the Hon. Donald Macdonald?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In view of the clear terms of this letter from the utility concerned here that supplies are assured, I don't really think further action on our part is required. I take this assurance as stated. I am sure that our supplies are assured.

I really can't speak for the Hon. Donald Macdonald. As a matter of fact I have had a little trouble getting a reply just recently from him.

WAGE AGREEMENT FOR
B.C. HYDRO LINEMEN

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): In the absence of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), may I direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) in his capacity as a director of Hydro? Is it correct that tentative agreement has been reached between B.C. Hydro and the outside linemen for a wage settlement in the amount of approximately 30 per cent over the next two years — an agreement to be ratified within the next several days?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There has been a tentative memorandum of agreement. The question of a settlement hasn't been completed yet and the actual complete terms I'll have to take as notice.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Minister could give some indication to the House of the approximate percentage increase, which I understand is in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent, including fringes.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll take that as notice.

REDUCTION OF NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

MR. McGEER: To the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), do we take his statement this afternoon to mean that in the future British Columbia will move to reduce the exports of natural gas below the levels at which they are today? Is that the long-term policy of the government implied in this statement?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, our policy will be consistent to make sure that the essential domestic and industrial needs of the Province of British Columbia will always be met first.

PREMIER'S TRIP TO ALBERTA

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): To the Hon. Premier: I would like to ask, in light of the announcement by the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), are you still going to Alberta tomorrow?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, arrangements were made this morning for the Attorney General, myself and Mr. Rhodes to visit with the Premier of Alberta tomorrow afternoon. Since the receipt of this

letter from Westcoast Transmission I have instructed my office to inform the Hon. Peter Lougheed that our meeting will be postponed.

CONTRACT FOR FERRY DESIGN

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). May I ask whether the contract which a press release of this announced today for the design of two car ferries went out to tender so that Canadian companies could participate in tendering for this particular contract?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): As I have already reported to the House, we asked for submissions from a firm in Victoria as well as the firm in Seattle.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister whether or not, subsequent to the design sketches being prepared by Nickum Spaulding, there was any attempt to have bids put by any Canadian company?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've already answered that question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister please to check the record and indicate to the House "yes" or "no" now — whether or not this was done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You may ask a question, but if it has already been answered you can't press for a further answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It has never been answered.

MR. SPEAKER: You may ask but you don't necessarily need to get an answer. That's also in the rules.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, he doesn't have to answer if that is your statement, but naturally you ask him in the hope that he will answer it.

ABUSE OF MINCOME ASSET ALLOWANCES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). In view of some recent allegations of abuse of Mincome in relation to the fact that people are transferring income-producing assets into other forms of assets, and in view of the Minister's statement as I read it in today's press that he intends to do nothing about it, would he make some comment as to whether he accepts this as a justifiable action on the part of citizens whose assets include Cadillacs, et cetera?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): I am not prepared to comment, Mr. Speaker, on the last reference to this particular case that was referred to in the paper. We take all the precautions that we can possibly take in respect to the implications for Mincome. I am quite satisfied with the lengths to which we go. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with senior citizens, I'm quite happy with the results that we've got.

Obviously if we have some abuse of the system, once we are able to detect this we quietly tell the people that they are no longer in receipt. But in no way are we going to be able to introduce the kinds of procedures that are going to be able to fill any of the loopholes, so-called.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. At least could I ask the Minister that in cases such as this which are drawn to his attention, can we be assured that he will investigate?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes. The Member has my assurance on this. Let me just say this: a number of people have spoken to me about this and I have said that what I need are facts. I have yet to receive any facts in my office.

MR. WALLACE: But you will investigate them if you….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I point out, in preface to my supplementary question, that we are not dealing with abuse of the present system; we are dealing with a loophole in the present system which allows people legitimately to claim who are wealthy people.

I ask the Minister, in the light of this fact having been brought to his attention over a year ago in our discussions on the establishment of the Mincome plan in this Legislature, whether we now could have his assurance that those remarks made then will be reconsidered and that he will come up with changes to the plan which might plug that loophole — such as were suggested over 12 months ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's answer one at a time.

HON. MR. LEVI: I don't think that the Hon. Member's question really relates to this one. You have been talking about the question of income with the $2 and the $1 tax back. That is something that we have discussed continually with Ottawa.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That is just another aspect of it.

HON. MR. LEVI: But in respect to wealthy people, I don't want it to be suggested in this House that wealthy people are applying for Mincome, because I don't think that's the case. That just isn't the case. As far as we have been able to identify, more than 99 per cent of the people on Mincome have been perfectly frank with us about their assets. I don't think that we want to in any way besmirch the programme by a suggestion that one or two people may be getting through it on a loophole basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Oh, a point of privilege? Would you state your point of privilege?

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have two questions in regard to procedure. In the Votes and Proceedings of October 23, yesterday, there appears an answer to a question which stood on the order paper for a long time in my name — an answer to question 7. It was on page 2 of Votes and Proceedings October 23.

The question was asked originally of the Premier as president of the council. The answer comes from the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). My first question is, am I to assume that this is a partial answer to a question because it only comes from one of the divisions of government of whom the question was asked?

The second question, though: on page 6 of the same issue of Votes and Proceedings it stated that the Hon. Minister made a statement relating to an answer filed by him at the afternoon sitting to question 7 standing on the order paper.

I checked with Hansard and I do not find that statement, and I'd like to know what the statement was.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well if it is not in Hansard, I certainly made a statement. Just at 11 p.m. last night I stood up and I said: "At 6 o'clock tonight I filed an answer relating to question 7." I said, "That was partial information and further information will be available at a later date."

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you. That does not appear in Hansard, whatever the statement was. It should be looked after because if this can be deleted from Hansard, Mr. Speaker, then anything else could also be deleted. I think we need to look at it.

MR. SPEAKER: The problem is whether it got picked up by Hansard. Sometimes Members' microphones are not up.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can always hear you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not if you're speaking.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The fact that the matter is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings is a clear indication that certainly the Clerk heard what I had said.

MR. SPEAKER: I will certainly check with Hansard to see why it isn't in Hansard, but that kind of error can happen.

I also found out why, when a report from committee included some recommendation for the House to record a vote, there was no way of picking it up by microphone. The Hansard staff were trying to do it by what amounted to custom because they had no words on any tape. Now we have a microphone just there with a cut-off button that will allow that to be done.

Is there any further question, Hon. Member?

MR. SCHROEDER: No, I'm satisfied.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, is it proper for a question to be asked of one Member of the executive council and the answer to be given officially by another?

MR. SPEAKER: Usually the proper course is that if there's been an error by the Member asking a question as to jurisdiction of particular Ministers, the question is sent back by the Clerks to the particular Member and redirected to the proper Minister. But there may be occasion when, out of courtesy, it merely is passed over to the proper Minister rather than sending it back. Now what happened here I have no knowledge, and I would have to look into it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually the answer should have been sent to the Premier's office or the office of the Minister of Finance for collection. That was my part of the answer, and it came to me in that form. After it was done it was drawn to my attention, and that was why last night I took the earliest opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to what had happened.

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If indeed that is a partial answer to the question, then I must insist that the question remain on the order paper until it is fully answered, because the answer to the question is couched in language that would cause anyone to believe that it was a total answer. Let's get it straightened out.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, thank you, Hon. Member. We'll see that it is.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on the same point I asked a question exactly in the same line as question 73 which was answered last night partially — they answered item B only of question 73 — and I see that 73 has disappeared.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, is 73 on the Votes and Proceedings?

MR. MORRISON: Yes, on page number 3 the answer for question 73 appears, but it was item B only of that question which was answered. I resubmitted the question to the Clerks today in order to get the other two items, but if 73 remains on the order paper then I don't need to resubmit it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: (Mike not on)…to question 73 is to be filed today. The error was noticed in my office.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that clears it up as well — thank you.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Are we into introduction of bills?

MR. SPEAKER: No, but….

MR. GARDOM: We've been here 40 minutes. I thought we might soon arrive there.

MR. SPEAKER: Editorials come first. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE COUNTY COURTS ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 90 intituled An Act to Amend the County Courts Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 90 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE SUPREME COURT ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 91 intituled An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

Bill 91 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. GARDOM: I think the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) wants the floor. He's in an odd position; he must want to do something. (Laughter.)

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE COUNTY COURTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill 89 intituled An Act to Amend the County Courts Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 89 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. GARDOM: Author! Author!

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE SUPREME COURT ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill 85 intituled An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There must have been a leak here. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: You're reading my mail!

Motion approved.

Bill 85 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PUBLIC BODIES INFORMATION ACT

Mr. McClelland moves introduction and first reading of Bill 92 intituled An Act to Amend the Public Bodies Information Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 92 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
FUND ACT

Mr. McClelland moves introduction and first reading of Bill 93 intituled Transportation Assistance Fund Act.

Bill 93 read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders. Committee on Bill 11.

LABOUR CODE OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
(continued)

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

On section 23.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are considering the amendment standing in the name of the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

Amendment negatived.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, Mr. Chairman, we went a little bit out of order there concerning this amendment, but that's not distressing. I would move the amendment in my name, a copy of which the Clerks have and which was delivered to them last night to section 23.

Section 23 now reads: "The board shall make all its decisions in proceedings under this Act available in writing for publication." The amendment, Mr. Chairman, reads: "The board shall publish all of its decisions in proceedings under this Act."

I think it's somewhat a pithier amendment — I'm not lisping, Hon. Member — somewhat a pithier (laughter) amendment than that of the Hon. Member for Columbia hyphen River (Mr. Chabot). I indeed submit that it is a decided improvement to the government proposal, because I'm saying that it must be mandatory that the board publish its decisions resulting from proceedings, which it should do for legal certainty, for clarity and for conciseness. That, essentially, is the substance of my argument. Because this board is going to become a law unto itself, those laws should be published as matter of right.

The government section as it now reads, Mr. Chairman, does not go that far; they merely say "make available for publication" but they do not say how, or when, or where, or in what form these decisions will become available for publication. So I say: make it more simplistic, make them not just available upon request but published. I'm not talking about intra-departmental memoranda at all but only of decisions of the board and of the body of precedent that this board shall certainly develop.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the tenets and the precepts and principles of natural justice that a citizen shall be entitled as of right to know what is decided, by whom it is decided and for what reason it is decided. I do not think that it should be incumbent upon anyone to have to come cap-in-hand to the board to seek out reasons.

In conclusion, it should be a matter of right and the way that I have phrased my amendment would so become a matter of right that the board "shall publish all of its decisions in proceedings under this Act." I so move that amendment.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, very briefly on the amendment, I think that this is an excellent amendment and would carry out the precept that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. This is the theme which the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has often mentioned in this House.

Last night the Minister used the phrase that the reasons "insofar as possible" would be published. It seemed to me that since the parties concerned before the board are more likely to be satisfied by the decisions of the board, it doesn't seem the least bit unreasonable that we should ask the reasons to be published. There is no point in wasting more time in repeating the arguments of last night, but I do think also that it was very well stated by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that the publication of these reasons would form an accumulating body of evidence which perhaps in the course of time would make it easier and easier for the board to carry out its function. Therefore I support the amendment.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I support the intent of what the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) have put forward; that is the intent and, indeed, the provision contained in the bill now.

The problem is, as I outlined last night, that if there is a statutory requirement to provide written published reasons for each and every decision, the board could be bogged down to the extent that it simply couldn't continue to handle expeditiously the total volume of certification applications and other matters that will come before it.

It is the intent that decisions that are contested in any way, or applications that are contested in any way, and as a consequence controversial in nature, will indeed be published and made available to the parties.

The other point is that not all of the board's decisions will be in response to adjudications of party issues; some of these decisions will be administrative decisions. And while I appreciate the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey's (Mr. Gardom's) intent, I just don't feel it too practical in view of the fact that many decisions will be administrative and the board

will require some flexibility in how they make this administrative procedure available to the parties.

MR. GARDOM: Of course I was not talking about newspaper publication — the Minister understands that thoroughly, I'm sure. Are we to take it from the Minister that as a matter of right — as a matter of right — any party to a proceeding before the board will be entitled to written reasons for decisions?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the parties do not have the absolute right in each case. What I have tried to outline is that the board will give reasons for controversial decisions.

I would point out to the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that under the provisions constituting the ombudsman section, 133 (b), the ombudsman has access and can demand reasons for decisions that are given by the board. So they are not insulated, as is currently the case, where they can hand down a decision and completely refuse to give reasons for that decision.

It is the intent that they will, insofar as possible, give and publish reasons in any contested adjudication that comes before them. In other circumstances, should an individual feel that he has been aggrieved in any way he has access to the ombudsman who could then demand and require the board to give justification for their decision.

MR. GARDOM: The point that I was making — and the Hon. Minister really has emphasized my position as opposed to detracting from it — he said, "Yes the ombudsman does have a right to demand written reason." I'm just saying that any party to a proceeding surely should have the same right to demand a written reason.

If he can say, "I want to have the reasons of the board as a matter of right," then an individual should have the same right. After all, who's the person most affected — that individual or the ombudsman? Obviously it's the individual.

There's not a court hearing in the land wherein a person cannot request reasons for judgement. They're recorded. I'm saying the same thing here.

If the Hon. Minister was appearing in front of the board in a labour-management dispute as management or labour, and I was on the other side, surely to goodness one of us would be entitled to go to the board and say, "Look, you made a decision saying X, Y, or Z. I want to have your reasons for your decision," — or — "I want to have your reason written out for me." I don't want to have to go running down the hall to knock on the door of the ombudsman and say, "Hey, go and get these fellows to give the decision to me."

As a matter of right, let reasons pass to the individuals before the board if they request it. Can you give that undertaking?

HON. MR. KING: I already have given that undertaking, Mr. Chairman, that in contested adjudications before the board, the board will give reasons — written reasons for the decisions.

I also pointed out that there are other decisions which are made by the board in an administrative way. If the board were required to publish reasons for every administrative decision that was made in addition to every adjudicative decision, then I think it would seriously impair the board's ability to deal expeditiously with the very, very many complex problems that will becoming before them.

So there's no intent and there's no desire to submerge reasons that should be given in the case of a contested hearing before the board. I think this provision clearly covers that situation.

MR. WALLACE: I'd just like to add the comment that again the Minister has used the phrase "insofar as possible" and that isn't in the bill. Not that "insofar as possible" really means anything; it means as far as it's possible in view of the board. And that again doesn't give us protection in the statute.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I fail to see why we should take refuge in the fact that the ombudsman can, if the party requests, go to the board and ask the board to give the ombudsmen to give the party reasons. Now, this seems to me just a further encouragement of bureaucracy. Why shouldn't the parties in front of the board themselves have the clearly established right to ask for reasons?

I'll be possibly introducing my amendment in a minute — which is second best to what we're now discussing. But it seems to me the arguments have been clearly made. Maybe the Minister himself would amend the clause to exclude administrative decisions because that word isn't included in this clause we're debating either.

I accept that point of view very readily that he doesn't want the board to be fiddling around with a lot of paper work publishing administrative decisions, I agree with that. But anything which is contentious or contested, indeed, the reasons for the decision on such a contest should be published. Perhaps the Minister would bring in one of his own amendments to clarify it to that degree. But to take refuge in the fact that if somebody's got enough time and effort and trouble to go to the ombudsman, then for him to go to the board and create another whole run-around of paperwork and bureaucracy, I don't think is what the Minister would want himself.

This ombudsman, I would presume, is going to be busier than a one-armed paper hanger by the time he gets finished. Surely we should do all we can to minimize the need for an ombudsman. The amendment of the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), I think, would prevent the use of the ombudsman in certain cases where it would be very simple for the board itself to give one or the other party the written reason.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the courts certainly don't publish all their reasons for decisions. Under section 23: "The board shall make all its decisions in proceedings under this Act available in writing for publication." The parties do have access; there's no question on that point. So surely you're not suggesting that the board should publish every decision that is made. The parties unquestionably have access to the reasons for the decisions and the decisions that are made by the board, and I think that's quite adequate.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could perhaps deal a little further with the point that he last spoke about, namely this making available the decisions for publication.

It's mandatory that the board do this so that any person coming to the board requesting a copy of any decision the board may make must be given one, quite obviously, and having been given one, must be then entitled to go ahead and publish it. Now, am I to understand that the board itself is not going to be required or obliged — in fact it's unobliged — to make any regular publication of its decisions but that others are going to be able to do this as a matter of commercial practice? This certainly happens in the courts of the land, We can't stop them, Mr. Minister. If any enterprising publisher wishes to publish the results of all the decisions of the Labour Relations Board, administrative and others, the board, under this section, must give those decisions and make them available. I would like to know whether the Minister recognizes that this is a possibility.

In dealing with the amendment and the Minister's rejection of it, I was disturbed when he said a few moments ago that he would give us assurance that in matters of contest before the board reasons would be given for the decision. Mr. Chairman, there's nothing in the legislation which obliges the Labour Relations Board to act one way in respect of contested matters before it and some other way in uncontested matters.

If the Minister intends this to be the case, then I think that he should perhaps withdraw this section at this particular time and bring in an amendment because the Minister has no control, he tells us, over this board. They establish their own practice and procedure; they are the judges of this legislation when it's passed. And no assurance that the Minister can give to us in this committee can in any way affect what the board in its wisdom may see fit to do in future years.

I agree with the Minister that to oblige it to give decisions and reasons in respect to purely administrative matters, as to whether there should be one secretary or five or matters of that kind, would be ludicrous.

If the Minister is of the mind that, when there are contending parties before the board, there should be an obligation on the board to give reasons with its decision, I would think that he should make this very clear in the legislation. Even if the Minister does somehow or other have means of controlling the Labour Relations Board — and I sincerely hope that's not the case — he, with his wisdom, might not always be the Minister; we might have someone else as the Minister who would take a different view. If it is enshrined in the legislation, then I think there's no question that, in contested matters before the board, the board gives its reason with its decision.

Without offending against the philosophy which underlies this legislation and without delaying the work of this committee, section 24 could be passed over for the Minister to reconsider and bring it back at some later time.

There's one other point that I think should be made. The Minister has raised the question of access to the ombudsman. Well now, I don't think the Minister intentionally wished to mislead the committee, but the fact of the matter is that if the board does not give reasons for its decisions, any party going to the ombudsman is not thereby going to get them because the reasons don't exist.

The ombudsman provision is quite clear: if the board exercises discretionary powers without giving reasons and the ombudsman learns of this, then the ombudsman may make some investigation into the practices of the board and, having made that investigation, is to report to the Minister of Labour and to this Legislature with his recommendations as to what changes should be made.

The availability of the ombudsman does not resolve this particular problem of the board giving reasons with its decisions. All the ombudsman can do is create a fuss if the board does not do so and then, bringing the matter to the attention of the Minister and to the Legislature, recommend, I assume, that there be amendments to ensure that the board does not continue to exercise discretions without giving reasons.

That is all the more reason, Mr. Chairman, why I suggest the Minister should pull this section temporarily and provide specific legislative assurance that reasons will be given, even if only limited to those cases where there are contended matters before the board.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, you have my

amendment which would be added to section 23 as it now stands. It is a second-best attempt to enshrine in the legislation the fact that anyone who wishes to have written reasons would be entitled to get them.

We've already debated this afternoon that it should be the right of anyone involved in a contested decision to have that right, but the amendment I am suggesting would make it quite clear that a person could, in fact, obtain written reasons.

I'll just read the amendment, Mr. Chairman, after the word "publication": "…and shall, upon the request of any interested person, give written reasons for any decision within a reasonable time."

I just feel, Mr. Chairman, that this further clarifies, without any doubt at all, that persons or parties interested in a decision of the board should at least have the right to seek a written statement of the reasons and to have that written statement within a reasonable time. I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that we should give this present structure an opportunity to work. I would suggest that if any of the fears which the Members on the other side of the House express reveal themselves as being a fact after watching the operation of the board, then certainly a case could be made based upon fact for specific instructions such as are suggested in the amendment.

But there are considerations here which made me somewhat apprehensive about accepting the kind of amendments the Member for Oak Bay suggests. Parties could use such an opportunity to attempt to deal with the board on matters that really do not involve their interest directly, and perhaps a great deal of harassment could result in terms of the board functioning in a reasonable and expeditious manner.

I think the intent is clear that those parties affected by decisions before the board will receive reasons for decisions that affect them. I'm afraid if we attempt to phrase this in legislative language, we may include rights that in no way contribute to the interests of the parties or to the smooth and efficient functioning of the board.

I would point out again that if the board is found to abuse any of the powers that are vested in it, there is the outlet of the ombudsman who can demand and scrutinize the reasons and points of law that are made by the board and so on. In the final analysis, if parties can come before my office and prove a case in fact of abuse by the board of any of these powers, then certainly I would be receptive to amendment.

Let's give it a chance to function. If any of the grave fears of the opposition Members emerge, then I'll certainly be receptive to looking at it. But I prefer to give it a chance under this structure.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to waste the time of this committee. First of all, I believe that justice must be seen to be done. If the Minister is suggesting that we've got undue apprehension, I must also confess that he must have undue apprehension at not accepting such a simple, straightforward amendment for fear of some form of harassment. I don't really, Mr. Chairman, understand what he's implying.

The phrase says, "upon the request of any interested party," and I would imagine that the straightforward meaning of the word "interested" would exclude any troublemaker who would simply be seeking to create problems as a result of a board decision. I would think "interested party" would be easily definable and that the information and the written reasons need not be spread far and wide to people whose involvement was distinctly remote or questionable and where they were seeking the information, as the Minister says, to be a nuisance, Again, I think we're losing sight of a fairly important principle: you look after the interests of the majority but you do not sacrifice the interests of the minority. There may be minority reasons why somebody interested in a dispute and the settlement of a dispute or a decision would want to have the written reasons.

I really feel that the Minister must have some reason for putting this clause in this way. I wonder if, even at this point in time, he could tell us on what experience he's basing this particular phraseology in this section and why this is so much better than what we're asking in the amendment I have on the order paper to the effect that: "upon the request of any interested person, give written reasons…within a reasonable time."

HON. MR. KING: Well, I would just respond, Mr. Chairman, that not one jurisdiction in Canada requires the board to give written reasons in each and every case. The problem involved in the interpretation of "interested parties" can certainly be quite broad. I don't know who you would define as an interested party. That could be very, very broad indeed.

Again, I can only reiterate, I would prefer to give this a chance to work. If the abuses emerge that the Ministers are apprehensive about then we'll act on it, but we're acting on an unproved hypothesis at this time and I'm not sure it's well founded.

Amendment negatived.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

MR. GARDOM: On behalf of the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) I would move the amendment which is on the order paper. I've a copy

here for you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, it's to the effect of amending this attestation clause. In the third line thereof you will see the words "perform the office of member." The amendment is to the effect of now reading "perform the office of chairman or vice-chairman or member." It is submitted that the affirmation clause as it is now phrased does not cover the chairman or vice-chairman. In that regard, the Hon. Minister and his capable assistant could refer to section 12(2) wherein we find definitions of chairmen and vice-chairmen, and of members. I so move on behalf of the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I am informed by the legislative draftsman that "member" does include those people designated as chairman and vice-chairman of the board. There is no attempt here to relieve those people of the obligation to take the oath of office that is provided in the section. I would suggest that, under those circumstances, the amendment is not really necessary because what you are trying to accomplish, and what I agree with, is in fact accomplished under the language of the current section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): The Minister's views were my own when I first read section 24, but then I looked at section 12(2): "The board shall be composed of a chairman, one or more vice-chairmen, and as many members equal in number representative of employers and employees, respectively," et cetera, et cetera.

I looked at section 13(3)(c) and it says: "the chairman, or a vice-chairman, and one member representative…and one member representative…" and section 13(3)(d) where it said: "the chairman, or a vice-chairman, and members…." In other words, in sections 12 and 13 a clear distinction was drawn between members, the chairmen and the vice-chairman.

Now, I checked the definition section and there is no definition of member. I might add — as my hon. friend for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has brought to my attention — the same question of distinction between these three groups of citizens — chairmen, vice-chairmen and members occurs in the quorum section under 14.

Therefore, I concluded that a reading of the bill indicates that there is no provision for the chairman and vice-chairman to be members. If they were members, sections 12 and 13 and 14 which we have already passed become very questionable indeed. I would think they would have to be redrawn.

So the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), I think, is very much in order. It's a drafting alteration which takes care of a drafting failure. It is not something which brings the courts into play, which this government has no wish to do, apparently. It's not something which in any way alters the provisions of the Act. All it does is cover a drafting oversight and is precisely the type of constructive amendment this party has been consistently putting forward in this debate.

I would suggest that the amendment would be nothing but the rectifying of an error already made in drafting. It would be rectifying it for greater certainty to prevent any misunderstanding. It's an amendment which I think if the Minister wants to show his flexibility in accepting opposition amendments he could do without the slightest qualms at all.

HON. MR. KING: Well, I'm less impressed and concerned with showing my flexibility than I am with the practicality of the amendments put forward.

I am not convinced that the Member's argument is correct. As I indicated earlier, the best legal advice I could obtain — I admit I didn't seek the legal advice of the Second Member for Victoria — but the best legal advice I could obtain assured me that "member" does in fact include those people designated as executive members of the board. "Member" is not a generic word. It is a word that is not defined in the Act. It is explained to me in the terms that it's not a word of art so it is not restrictive as it applies under this Act.

Despite my disagreement with my friends across the way, if they are concerned about it, I'm quite prepared to accept the amendment. I am sure it is implicit in the Act, but for double certainty and to assuage any apprehension they have, I'll accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment approved.

On section 24 as amended.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, briefly, the oath or affirmation which the chairman, vice-chairman and members of this board must take is a very important step in the formation of the board. It is restrictive, I suggest, that the oath only precludes the disclosure of any evidence or any other matter brought before the board. I would like to amend by adding the words "or otherwise coming to my knowledge in the course of my duties as a member of the board."

I suggest that because of the wide scope that the board and its members will be given to deal with matters, either in the board or as a panel of the board, they will become apprised of much information which will not necessarily fall into the category of evidence. It may, indeed, not be a matter in the strict sense brought before the board. It would come to their knowledge. I think that it would be

appropriate to oblige them at the time of their taking office to keep confidential those matters as well. The amendment does not in any way offend the words that are there. It only extends them so that there will be no question as to the rule of confidentiality that would have to apply to the members of this board.

HON. MR. KING: I don't really think this amendment is necessary. I think the wording that requires the confidentiality of any matter coming before the board is pretty broad in scope. I think any conceivable relationship that would require confidentiality of a board member would have to relate in some way to his capacity of a board member. Therefore, it is covered in the language "evidence or other matter brought before the board."

Now, we have to differentiate between one's private life and their responsibilities as an appointee to the board. I am quite sure that the wording of this particular section protects the broad interests and needed confidentiality of the position.

The reference of the board includes "panels of the board" so any conceivable matter that would be brought before a member, whether he was sitting in panel or on the entire board, would be covered under section 24.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved with amendment.

On section 27.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Section 27 deals with the objects and policies of the board. In the section it says: "…the board may from time to time formulate general policies not contrary to the Act for the guidance of the general public and the board;…" Beyond that it says: "…but the board is not bound thereby in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its duties." In subsection 3 it says: "The board shall publish all policies formulated under this section and all amendments or revisions thereof."

Well, they are going to set policy which they hope there will be some semblance of guidance from the public, yet this is policy that will not be subject to guidance to the board. Yet in one particular aspect it says here: "the board may from time to time formulate general policies not contrary to the Act for the guidance of the general public and the board;…"

If it is for the guidance of the board, I don't know why it should be necessary for the board to disregard a policy decision which they've brought down when the Act says it is for their guidance. But apparently they don't have to be bound by that as general policy statement or position.

HON. MR. KING: I would point out that this provision simply allows the board to make rules and establish its policies to assist parties appearing before the board in the preparation of their case. I think it is an important innovation that will assist the parties in understanding, from precedents and administrative decisions published by the board, the processes and functions which would assist them in preparing their cases.

The board can similarly, in addition to making such publications, conduct hearings and call for any evidence from interested parties in establishing policies that are consistent with the efficient functioning of the board.

I think it would be a mistake to bind the board by precedent. I think there has to be some flexibility here in terms of general customary outline and guidelines. I think it would be a real mistake to bind them by precedent as the courts have done, because that's the very inflexible approach that we are trying to get away from in terms of industrial relations.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 28 approved with amendment.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we feel that there is just one simple word there that should read "shall" and not "may": "The board may upon application or on its own motion," et cetera, "file in the Supreme Court a copy…of any order…." We feel, so that any order will in fact be registered in the Supreme Court, to enhance the efficiency and the effect of that order, that the word should not be "may" but should be "shall." I so move.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WILLIAMS: Section 30 is necessary to permit the board to make certain that its actions are not frustrated. It simply prescribes that once having made an order it may file that order in the supreme court and henceforth the order is then enforceable as if there had been a judgment of that court. I don't quarrel with that.

But, Mr. Chairman, when we are dealing with the

enforcement of court orders it has long been considered appropriate in our country to make certain that those people against whom orders are enforceable know of the existence of such an order and recognize that it is enforceable. It is for that reason that judgments of our courts have always been delivered to the person against whom the judgment is enforceable.

I'm not suggesting that in this case the board should be put to the task, when taking the authority under section 30, of delivering a copy of the judgment to each person against whom it is enforceable, but I suggest that notice that such an order has been filed and is therefore enforceable as a court order should be given to such persons.

Therefore, I move an amendment to section 30 by adding subsection (2), which reads simply: "At the time of the filing of such order the board shall give notice thereof to every person against whom compliance with such order is enforceable."

In this way, Mr. Chairman, there will be no occasion for any person to find that an order made by the Labour Relations Board and filed in the supreme court and therefore enforceable as an order of that court, that no person who may be obliged to comply could ever say "I didn't know" once the notice is given.

Amendment negatived.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, in moving the amendment to this section, a copy of which you have, I would mention to the Hon. Minister and the Members that there is a similar amendment to section 33, and a similar amendment to section 34, too.

This is more than just a housekeeping amendment. It is much more than that because it is in order to comply with the amendment to section 150, and this appears to be the appropriate time to discuss it, Mr. Chairman.

What this amendment does is simply this: it enshrines a right of access to the courts of this province in two ways. Firstly the board may, on its own initiative, apply to the supreme court for an opinion on any question of law respecting the interpretation of the Act or, with the permission of the board, so may any party to proceedings before the board seek the assistance of the court in dealing with the problems of the interpretation of this very difficult and innovative legislation. I'm not going to dwell on this point, Mr. Chairman, because it was debated at length last night. Unfortunately at that time it was voted against, notwithstanding the fact that it appears, in my view and in the view of the total opposition, to be a most beneficial suggestion for labour-management harmony, for the assistance of the board and for the assistance of the people who appear before the board.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will give jurisdiction to the B.C. Court of Appeal. It will give the B.C. Court of Appeal jurisdiction to set aside an order of the board, or to remit to the board matters for its reconsideration, or to stay proceedings. But only on three grounds: (1) the misbehaviour of a board member or his lack of capacity to fulfil his duties; (2) an error of law affecting the jurisdiction of the board; (3) an error resulting in the denial of natural justice.

Now we heard some discussion yesterday evening from the Hon. Attorney General about his interpretation of the Act and the fact that it protected the philosophies and the doctrines of the concepts of natural justice. But it does not, Mr. Chairman.

These are philosophies and principles which have caused very serious conflict over the years. I suppose you could say it was spawned by the barons in Runnymede in 1066. One of the most notable abuses of the principle of natural justice was during the days of George III which gave rise to the American Revolution and which in fact is creating at least half of the havoc that is besetting the United States today, and this is a disregard of the basic protections of the rule of law.

I am advocating in this amendment something that is absolutely analogous to section 108 of the Minister's own Act. Under section 108 a person has a right to go to the court of appeal in arbitration proceedings, for exactly the same reasons and on exactly the same grounds as I am suggesting here, for any abuses that may happen in front of the board.

Now we all know, Mr. Chairman, that forgiveness is divine. But erring is most evident otherwise and the capacity for error is an apparent and obvious and continuing and existing human characteristic. This board is supposed to be very human, but they are going to make mistakes. Make no mistake of that fact. And to suggest infallibility of performance without recourse to any higher authority, to cure abuses or direct rehearings or do justice or equity, is something that is not only smacking of so-called regal right from regal might but is absolutely, basically and unquestionably unfair.

There must be protection, Mr. Chairman, from errors. There must be protection from abuses and there must be protection from wrongs and mistakes. And, if there have been denials of natural justice, there must be an access to the court of appeal as has been suggested with this amendment.

And that's all that we are asking, that the concept of not only the possibility but in all likelihood the probability of error be recognized and that as far as

possible we see that safeguards are built in, protections are afforded and avenues for remedy are installed within the legislation.

You know, day after day we've heard arguments in here — and most often, strangely enough, from the Hon. Attorney General — that it's all right to grant the right to abuse power if the abuse is not planned to be exercised. But what I'm advocating and what he apparently is very reluctant to agree with is to create the right to prevent the possibilities or probabilities of the abuse of power, and to see that we have a statutory check to prevent this denial of natural justice.

I would suggest that the premise I'm arguing for has far better historic, ethical and moral qualities than the arguments of the Attorney General. But in the socialistic state that has been created in British Columbia you're using as a means to your end — your end conceivably is to be a structured socialistic society — you're using as your means the incorporation of a raft of power bills — a raft of power bills.

It's a power not to the people, but vast and unlimited power to the cabinet of this government to the detriment and the lessening of the power of the people and the. lessening of individual and group rights and freedoms, and without checks and without balances and without recourse of appeal to the courts — and without even hope for some help, save and except the ballot box.

You see this in the powers in the land Act, in the powers in this bill, Mr. Chairman, in the agricultural bills, the mining legislation, the energy legislation. Yet the Attorney General continues to say, and the Minister continues to support him, that, "We want this kind of power but we're not going to be using it."

I'm asking for protections for the individual. They say they won't give that but they'll try to see that the individual is not harmed. Well, if they're prepared to agree that the individual should not be harmed, they should be prepared to see that that protection for the individual is built right into the statute. Otherwise we're going to have to rely, as a test for mercy, upon the length of this government or the Attorney General's left foot, both as to the prevention against excessive power and as to providing built-in rules for natural justice and fair play for the individual.

Well, the chancellor's foot in feudal days used to be considered at one time the time-honoured manner in which to judge mercy, but fortunately that has been outlived and changed. I certainly think it should not be something that should be resurrected by this government in this day and age. But it is.

We've heard from the Minister over and over again how the courts have failed in labour-management situations. I say they've not failed. That's not a popular stand to take. The courts have not failed; I'd say that the law has. And I would say that the citizens' responsibility to conform to the law has failed. That's the fault of the parliament and that's the fault of the litigants.

In management-labour situations it's been pretty evident, Mr. Chairman, that both sides have certainly abused the judicial process. Some of the litigant disputants in these confrontations have blatantly stated that they won't follow the law under almost any circumstances. They've advocated one law for management and one for labour and one for the rest of society.

I say it's absolutely impossible to have any stability within a country or equality of standards or mores for its citizenry with attitudes such as that. That's not what the people want; they don't want three laws, one for management, one for labour and one for everyone else. I think that's totally unacceptable and a Balkanization of principle.

What we're saying here is this: enshrine the concept of natural justice; give this built-in protection; do not say, Mr. Minister, as the Attorney General did totally erroneously, that it is within the statute. Because it is without the statute.

This statute has become a law unto itself. To reiterate, I'm saying that if we find these situations of misbehaviour of a board member or of lack of capacity to fulfil his duties if there is an error of law respecting his jurisdiction or an error resulting from a denial of natural justice, give the people then the right to go to the court of appeal to seek an effective remedy — to have the matter referred back to the board to see that justice shall be done.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I can't find anything in section 31 that gives the cabinet any authority or any power whatsoever. I'm not quite sure what the Member was debating in that sense. But I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that he makes a very strong case from a legalistic point of view for power of appeals, the right to appeals and so on. But there's an important difference to be drawn between the Labour Relations Board and the courts that that Member's so familiar with.

This is an administrative tribunal. This tribunal has now power to assess punitive damages as does the court in criminal or civil law. I have outlined last evening and again today some of the important safeguards that are contained in this legislation to prevent abuses of power.

I suggest that to try to draw an analogy between the courts of the land and this board is somewhat unrealistic because they're in existence for totally different reasons and dealing with totally different situations. I think that adequate safeguards are provided in this legislation to ensure that there are no abusive powers that mitigate against the legitimate interests of any individual.

MR. GARDOM: With all respect to the Minister's argument, he's missing the point. If the abuse of power occasions — and it can — if there is a denial of justice, which can happen — let us hope that it won't, but it can happen — under those circumstances the board today is infallible unto itself. If a board member misbehaves, if he does not have the capacity to fulfil his duties, the board is omnipotent unto itself and no one can go forward to another jurisdiction to compel that person to perform or to suggest that there should be a rehearing by other people or that there should be a reversal of the position taken by the board.

If there is a denial of natural justice, it comes to a complete end. There's no appeal to anybody; there's no appeal to yourself under these circumstances. So you're saying, "Make the board almighty and omnipotent, and if they err, it's too bad."

You say no, no. You tell me where there's one check and balance if they make a mistake that's illegal. There are none. No, no, my foot! Last night the Attorney General was giving us a great discussion about the denial of natural justice and saying there are built-in protections in this Act.

Now he's had a whole night to read the statute again for the second and third time and he's starting to quote cases left, right and centre — and so far we've got 153 sections. Of the 153 sections, you just name one whereby it is possible to go to another jurisdiction or seek another remedy if this board does deny natural justice. Go ahead.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to repeat myself, but there's a clear distinction between appealing a decision…

MR. GARDOM: This is not appeal.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know, just let me finish.

…or questioning a decision that's made within the board's jurisdiction in terms of whether it's right or wrong. The requirements of natural justice, which you don't spell out in an Act — you never spelled it out in the Act….

MR. GARDOM: You didn't spell it out in this one.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It doesn't require to be spelled out in an Act, but it does require that inferior tribunals, as they're known, must observe the rules of natural justice. If the Hon. Member will read the leading cases on that subject starting with Board of Education and Rice, you'll find that there is no section under which somebody moved to defend the rights of natural justice. That's part of the common law. All inferior tribunals…. The Law Reform Commission is looking at this, as you know, too.

MR. GARDOM: Do the prerogative writs apply to this bill? Yes or no.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They could.

MR. GARDOM: The Minister says "no."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They could, but not in terms of any appeal. This is lawyers' talk. They couldn't in terms of appealing because the decisions are made by the board. But in terms of the board peremptorily cutting somebody off without any hearing, for example: yes, they could.

MR. GARDOM: You think they could?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's no question in my mind about that.

MR. GARDOM: If the Hon. Attorney General is of the opinion that the principle he's advocating to the House should apply, let's have it built into the section. Let's stand this section over, because the Hon. Attorney General is failing to take into consideration that the very thing I am arguing here this afternoon you have provided under your own section 108.

You can go to the court of appeal if an arbitrator misbehaves or if he's unable to fulfil his duties. You can go to the court of appeal if there's an error of law affecting the jurisdiction of the arbitration board. And you can go to the court of appeal if there was an error of procedure resulting in denial of natural justice. I'm saying, have a similar provision for the Labour Relations Board. You cannot advocate one solitary logical reason why that should not apply.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Except it's unnecessary.

MR. GARDOM: Except it's unnecessary, the Hon. Attorney General says. Why is it necessary in arbitration proceedings? And why is it unnecessary in proceedings before the Labour Relations Board? Would the Attorney General care to answer that?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Minister wants to take a crack at it. Okay.

HON. MR. KING: (Mike not on)…that there is a supreme court decision, a finding that an arbitration board is not, indeed, an inferior tribunal. Therefore it's not equatable with the Labour Relations Board and the issue of natural justice would have to be spelled out in legislative language to apply to that type of tribunal. Now the question arises that you

cannot find an article in this section granting natural justice. Can you find one section preventing it?

MR. GARDOM: Yes!

HON. MR. KING: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the Member cannot make a case for natural justice without legislative language empowering him to do so I wouldn't recommend him as a lawyer.

MR. GARDOM: Well, that's awfully kind of you. I return your retainer, thank you. (Laughter.)

What was your question again? I've forgotten. (Laughter.) Oh yes, you said: where within your bill is there a denial of natural justice? There is a denial of natural justice by not permitting the very things that I'm advocating be established as statutory enactment. That's it, because you have made the board omnipotent unto itself.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: They're not? You can go to an ombudsman and he may hold a few hands, and that's about his total authority under the thing. About the only check here is the ombudsman, and that's all.

There's no recourse for anyone to see that board abuses can be properly cured one way or another, and the capacity to abuse is built in within this statute. The prevention to seek redress from the capacity to abuse is also built into this statute. So you have therefore eliminated redress to any other area for help or assistance. I'm not talking about appeals — the Attorney General knows that and you know that too.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Silence can't eliminate natural justice.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot	Richter	Jordan
Smith	Fraser	Phillips
McClelland	Morrison	Schroeder
Bennett	McGeer	Anderson, D.A.
Williams, L.A.	Gardom	Wallace

NAYS — 34

Hall	Macdonald	Barrett
Dailly	Strachan	Nimsick
Stupich	Hartley	Calder
Nunweiler	Brown	Sanford
Cummings	Levi	Lorimer
Williams, R.A.	Cocke	King
Lea	Young	Lauk
Nicolson	Skelly	Gabelmann
Lockstead	Gorst	Rolston
Anderson, G.H.	Barnes	Steves
Kelly	Webster	Lewis
Liden

PAIRED

Curtis

Radford

AN HON. MEMBER: Record the division.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

On section 31 as amended.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, which is an amendment to section 31(l)(b) dealing with the fact that it may be possible for employees to act in a manner which would be inconsistent with their responsibilities and which would harass or slow down the employer's operations in a manner which we think would be interfering with normal operations. We would like, just as there are other prohibitions here which are given to the board for exclusive jurisdiction, to add in a subsection to make the whole section more even-handed.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that in section 31(1)(b) you have the restraint or prohibition from any person or group "ceasing, or refusing, to perform work, or to remain in a relationship of employment," and you have a prohibition against "picketing, striking, or locking out…communicating information or opinion in a labour dispute by speech, writing, or any other means of communication."

I would like that to be amended so that, "the harassment of employers, by concerted employee action to cause slowdowns, sick book-offs, overtime bans, or other methods of interfering with normal operations" be similarly given to the board for exclusive jurisdiction in accordance with lines 1 and 2 of section 31(l).

I have the amendment in my hand and I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the question of overtime permits is a matter which lies within the jurisdiction of the Board of Industrial Relations. I question the wisdom of transferring that authority to the Labour Relations Board, which, I am quite confident, is going to have quite enough problems to adjudicate during the course of their preoccupation with mainly industrial relations problems. I think the provisions of section 31 deal with any conceivable disruption that could occur as a

result of an industrial relations problem, and the amendment the Member moved would certainly affect the structure of the department and would reduce the responsibility of the Board of Industrial Relations which has the background, the personnel and the expertise to do an adequate job in terms of regulation of overtime permits. I oppose the amendment on that basis, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is perfectly correct in stating that the Board of Industrial Relations is responsible for overtime permits, and we would certainly not suggest in any way that this power be taken away, changed, altered or otherwise affected.

What we are dealing with here under 31(l) is the jurisdiction of the board in a case where there is harassment of employers — those are three of the first four words of my amendment — by way of overtime bans. In other words, overtime might well be permitted by the Board of Industrial Relations; it nevertheless would result despite their views that it could take place. We might find overtime bans being used strictly to harass employers.

Under those circumstances, with this amendment, the board that we're talking about under this Act would then have the opportunity of stating that such an overtime ban, used for the purpose of harassing the employer and his operations, was the type of thing that they should have under their authority.

I agree that the board will work very hard, as the Minister has indicated, but if we are to go through (b)(i), (ii) and (iii) — "ceasing, or refusing, to perform work…picketing, striking, or locking out…communicating information…." et cetera — this really does no more than flush out and make more even-handed the existing subjects which are given to the board for its exclusive jurisdiction with respect to a complaint under section 28. I would, with respect, suggest to the Minister that the Board of Industrial Relations' jurisdiction over overtime is in no way affected by this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WALLACE: On section 31, entitled "Jurisdiction of the board," I will try not to cover all the ground we covered last night, since obviously we've got differing points of view. I think we should put it very clearly on record that we in this party do not accept the extent to which the Minister has taken this new direction in setting up a board with powers of exclusive jurisdiction as described in line 2 of section 31.

Based on the fact that it has given this board tremendous power and that it wanted to get labour disputes out of the courts, we feel, as the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has put it so eloquently, that even with this change of direction and this differing thrust, there should still be some mechanism of appeal. As that Member also stated very clearly, the implication right through this bill is that the board is going to be perfect and not make mistakes. That really is quite an overwhelming conclusion for any piece of legislation to make.

The Attorney General is always keen on going back to 1066 and talking about common law and the Magna Carta and everything else. If it's so easy to do all this by implication and general acceptance, why are documents like the Magna Carta ever written in the first place; why do we have the Human Rights Act or any other written document or statute which guarantees the individual certain rights? If it's all so easy-going and everybody understands this and we don't need it written down and it's just an accomplished understanding for the last seven centuries, then I would submit that the great deal of time and trouble we spend in writing and debating statutes is quite unnecessary.

But I don't think the practice shows that. I think the common acceptance of courts of appeal superior to other courts means that even judges make mistakes, either by judgment or by interpretation of the law. I think the attitude of this government is really shocking by the extent of power it has given to this board without the right of appeal.

Furthermore, people are liable to suffer damages of one kind or another, but the decision of the board is final; it excludes any party from seeking damages in court. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that's just going a bit far.

I think that the Minister has a sound idea in trying to minimize the involvement of the courts in management-labour disputes; we certainly agree with that aim. But again, I think that if you look at the record and all forms of judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, they certainly make mistakes. I'm not able to put it in the legal language of the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), but certainly as a layman and as a person who sees human beings making mistakes every day in life — and judges and other people — I think it's just ridiculous to suggest that the decisions of this board shall be above any question or any mechanism of appeal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who do you appeal to from the surgeon?

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: Well, at least, Mr. Member, if the surgeon makes a mistake you can still take him to court and sue him for disability or damages or what-have-you.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, at least there are some avenues of appeal on behalf of the widow and the children. (Laughter.)

The fact is that appeal mechanisms exist. All that the Member's comment proves is that every human being is fallible: surgeons make mistakes, politicians make mistakes and ministers of the church make mistakes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, St. Peter did.

MR. WALLACE: And that's why, Mr. Chairman, there is all this business about the accepted traditional ideas of common law and the guarantee of natural justice, et cetera, et cetera. If the government really believes — as the Attorney General has said twice in the last 24 hours he believes — that such measures of natural justice will be available, what is to stop us putting a written guarantee of that in this bill?

That brings me to the first amendment to subsection (2): to delete the words following the word "thereof" in line 5. My amendment would have the effect of permitting parties who dispute the judgment of the board to at least enter suit for damages.

Mr. Chairman, I'll seek your direction; I presume we should vote on that amendment and then proceed to the second part of the same amendment. With advice from my legal neighbour here, I'll move the whole amendment.

I would like to just expand on the whole question of the appeal mechanism. For example, a question has been asked of me: is there any…?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I suggest that the House dealt with this bill in second reading and gave unanimous approval in principle. The Member's amendment would destroy the whole principle of the bill, which that Member voted in favour of. I suggest that the Member is out of order and in complete variance with the approval in principle that was given to this bill in second reading.

MR. WALLACE: Might I answer that point of order, Mr. Chairman? If the Minister would care to consult the Hansard, he will find that when I spoke and supported this bill in principle I said that with any bill of 153 sections it would be ridiculous if there were not a few sections which we opposed. If you consult the Hansard, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you will find that I pointed out very clearly that my main reservation in supporting the principle of the bill in second reading lay in exactly this section and in this aspect of the bill.

I think it would be unreasonable for any Member who strongly disagrees with one or two sections out of 153 sections to damn the whole bill. This is the kind of thing that opposition politicians are always being accused of. Negative, negative, negative, oppose, oppose, oppose.

I'm supporting the bill in principle but I object to one particular aspect of lack of appeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that it is reasonable that you can speak about the amendment you are suggesting. Nevertheless, if the amendment changes the principle of the bill, and it is deemed that it does, then we regret that the amendment is out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who deems that? Who deems that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is my ruling.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'll challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, but I have to challenge that ruling. This is a part of the total principle of the bill and I would like to argue on your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. WALLACE: The fact is that I'm accepting, Mr. Chairman, the concept that we should have a stronger Labour Relations Board. I'm only saying that as part of that strength there should be a method….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think there's any further debate once you are challenging the ruling that the amendment is out of order.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee has been discussing a proposed amendment to section 31; it is the amendment standing in the name of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). I ruled the amendment out of order and the Member has challenged my ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The question that has to be determined is whether the Chair will be sustained on its ruling.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: That was the most unjust decision you've handed us this session. That's for sure. You can't even let me discuss it. You had to cut me off. Why can't you let me debate it? It's ridiculous!

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: You'd been debating it for half an hour then, as well as last night.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you want to close off debate to me — is that it? You just can't argue that point because it is the principle of the bill.

HON. MR. KING: Well, be consistent. You voted for it in principle. Now you are trying to destroy the principle. Be consistent. Be consistent.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to the Hon. Members that, under the rules of standing orders, debate on the question cannot occur. All I can do is put to the House whether the Chairman's ruling shall be sustained. I've done that and the Hon. Member has asked for a division. Do you still wish for a division, Hon. Member? Yes? One Member is all that is required.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 34

Hall	Macdonald	Barrett
Dailly	Strachan	Nimsick
Stupich	Hartley	Calder
Nunweiler	Brown	Sanford
Cummings	Dent	Levi
Lorimer	Williams, R.A.	Cocke
King	Lea	Young
Lauk	Nicolson	Skelly
Gabelmann	Lockstead	Gorst
Rolston	Anderson, G.H.	Barnes
Steves	Kelly	Webster
Lewis

NAYS — 15

Chabot		Richter		Jordan
Smith		Fraser		Phillips
McClelland		Morrison		Schroeder
Bennett		McGeer		Anderson, D.A.
Williams, L.A.		Gardom		Wallace

PAIRED

Curtis

Radford

The House in committee; Mr. Liden in the chair.

On section 31.

MR. WILLIAMS: On subsection (2) which is the extreme limiting subsection which might in any way give the courts of this province any right to adjudicate with regard to the jurisdiction of this board, I think it is perhaps important for the Members of the committee to note the serious step that is being taken in dealing with this section.

The Minister said in the course of debate a few moments ago that this Labour Relations Board, as an administrative tribunal, was something different from a court. And he's right. I think the members of the committee should recognize the significant distinction between a court and this Labour Relations Board.

The significant distinction is this, that the Labour Relations Board is an arm of the executive of government. It is a creature established by statute but appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It's part of the executive branch of government.

The courts of this province on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, are completely independent of the executive branch of government and it has always been intended that that would be so. We don't have the separation of a written constitution, as is the case in other countries, but we do have adequate safeguards to ensure that the judges of this country, this province, do remain independent of the executive arm of government.

Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that the Members of this committee and the Members of the government have not learned a lesson from what has occurred in the United States of America in the last seven days. Here we are, hearing from the Minister of Labour that we are advancing in this new area where we shun the courts, regardless of what rights a person might have otherwise to go to the courts of the land. The exclusive jurisdiction is being given to this branch of the executive of the government.

Now it was the actions of the executive of government in the United States of America which created all the problems of the last few days and weeks and months. Mr. Chairman, thank God that there were separate courts in the United States of America! Thank God that the people in the United States of America still have access to those courts! But here we are establishing the administrative tribunal — that's a fine sounding name, administrative tribunal; here we are establishing an arm of the executive of the Government of the Province of British Columbia against which no citizen has any right of appeal.

Don't you recognize what we're doing? Are you in favour of this? Do you want the people of this province to have no rights of access to appeal from improper activities of the executive branch of government? Is that where you're leaving us in this province?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. Right on.

MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, what we

have just seen in the past few minutes indicates clearly to me that that's exactly what you do want. Not only is there to be no access to the courts once this board is established, we're not even able to have the right to debate about it on the floor of this committee; nor to introduce amendments, because as soon as we do introduce amendments which might ensure that the people of British Columbia will have access to the courts once this Labour Relations Board makes errors, we're told the amendments are out of order. The Chairman has so ruled and the government, to a man, has stood in his and her place in this House and upheld that ruling.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. WILLIAMS: You know, we shouldn't have any right to challenge the ruling of the Speaker, but thank goodness in this case we have. Because now it is available, to every person who cares to look, to recognize how far this government and their supporters in this House are prepared to go in the limitation of freedom and liberty in British Columbia. That's what it comes right down to; no access to the courts.

The Attorney General is getting ready to make a speech and I hope he does. I hope that the Hon. Premier, when he sends out his press release this week, will include a verbatim transcript of what the Attorney General has to say, so that the people of this province can recognize how badly advised they are on matters as fundamental as this.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I heard what you said last night. Unless you're prepared to recant from what you said last night, anything you say today will only substantiate my opinion.

We take the most serious step when we say to the people of this province, "When you come before such an administrative tribunal as this, regardless of the error it may make, you're not going to have any access to the independent courts of this province."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's shocking.

MR. WILLIAMS: "We will appoint people to the Labour Relations Board whom we see fit," so says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, "and we'll remove them, and that Labour Relations Board will be empowered to run things as we think they should be run." That's executive decision. That's executive decision without even reasons as we've heard in the debates earlier this afternoon. And when that situation comes about there's no appeal to the courts of this province. That's what we're talking about in section 31, and that's what we're seeing repeated in section after section after section of this Bill 11.

We've an amendment standing on the orders with regard to a subsequent section which, in view of the ruling of the Chair this afternoon, supported in a standing vote by the NDP, can never be moved in this House. And they all interfere with the freedom of the citizen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Open government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. WILLIAMS: They all destroy the citizen's access to the courts against the unlimited, unbridled exercise of executive authority through administrative tribunals established by the executive. We've almost come to the stage where we should have a written constitution which will have enshrined in it….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against the unwritten constitution in England, eh?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not against the unwritten constitution of England, but the actions of this government are convincing me that we should be concerned that what has heretofore been deemed to be the source of our freedom is being taken from us. And the Attorney General smiles. He thinks it's funny.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I think you're wrong, that's all.

MR. WALLACE: Let us debate it anyway. Are you going to cut if off again?

MR. WILLIAMS: You won't stop us from debating it.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yeah, well you sure made a mistake five minutes ago when you cut it off.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's cut off if you don't follow the rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ho, ho, ho!

MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if any support is needed for the intention of this government to take away from the citizen that freedom, it's found in section 31(3), which does extend in a very narrow, closely-limited set of circumstances a right to go to the courts. And if, as the Attorney General is suggesting from his seat — and as I trust he will testify when he rises to his feet

— that what they're doing is not taking away the jurisdiction then why, Mr. Chairman, is there a special need in subsection (3) to provide that the courts shall have jurisdiction in a very narrow, limited case?

No, Mr. Chairman, we are seeing here not the erosion of liberty and freedom; we're just seeing big bites being taken out of liberty and freedom. A hastening of the erosion we saw in the previous administration is taking place today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the British constitution, or the English constitution and common law, was adopted in this province in 1858 and it's never been abrogated. Part of that constitution, as the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, is written: we have Magna Carta; we have the Bill of Rights.

A great body of it is unwritten common law and none of that is being abrogated. And when I suggest in this bill that the right to go to the courts in terms of a denial of natural justice is still present, I say that it's present in terms of all of our inferior tribunals in the Province of British Columbia. I wouldn't call them parts of the executive branch.

Let's take the Workmen's Compensation Board for a minute.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh I know, you want to wriggle off the hook. You don't want to look at another example of where we have, in the legislation and Workmen's Compensation, and with the full approval of the Liberal Party of British Columbia, provided that a workman cannot go to court.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, for good reasons, because both sides recognized that endless appeals and damage actions were not the way, so they denied access to the court.

In the Workmen's Compensation Act — do you agree with that, Hon. Member?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, do you agree that the Workmen's Compensation Act denies action to the courts? Do you agree with that?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, never mind that. The Act as it is written denies access to the courts, and I suggest you vote for that quite regularly.

Now, I wouldn't call the Workmen's Compensation Board the executive branch of government; I would call it a quasi-judicial tribunal. I think, increasingly in modern life, we will find that specialized tribunals will deal with special problems. We have set up small claims courts and you may say that's part of the system — is it? It's a provincial court created with limited jurisdiction. We set up Workmen's Compensation Boards. It may be that in terms of family law we'll go some day in that direction. That's debatable.

This is similar to the Workmen's Compensation Board. There is spelled out here limited access to the court, but over and behind that, when my friend says that regardless of any error there is no access to the courts, I would remind him that the prerogative writs which have existed from Star Chamber days in British legal history….

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, we will. We are going to have supper together. We have no legal disagreements whatsoever. Our disagreements are in the field of sports, entertainment, other things. On this bill, we are of one mind.

It isn't true to say that regardless of any error there is no access to the courts. This is similar to the Workmen's Compensation Board and I ask the Hon. Member who has taken his seat whether, apart from the sections in the Workmen's Compensation Act which specifically deny access to the court by either the employer or employee, there is written into that Act a private section which says no writ of certiorari and so forth under any circumstances can lift to the courts a question which has been before the Workmen's Compensation Board. I don't think there is any private section in this bill, is there?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is? Okay. Let's deal with this section, but let me just say this: in spite of that section, the rules of common law apply and the question of natural justice applies. There have been all kinds of cases. One by Tom Berger, who is now Mr. Justice Berger, in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Board established clearly that in Canadian law the principles of natural justice apply to that tribunal.

I suggest that there is no difference here and I suggest it's a mistake in terms of labour relations, which is what we are discussing, to try to drag back into the courts, with their technicalities and with their delays and with their expense, the actual questions of labour relations. In the opinion of this government in this bill, that kind of a dispute could not be settled in the courts. It wasn't really a legal conflict under the adversarial system between employer and employee; it was a social problem and a

labour relations problem which had to be looked at in depth in those terms. So we propose a more appropriate tribunal.

We are doing nothing here that hasn't been done under the Workmen's Compensation Act. As I say, the unwritten laws of England apply to this inferior tribunal as they do to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

HON. MR. KING: The Attorney General has made the point very well, and I won't comment further in that regard. But I would like to make the point in response from the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), who shouted "Closure" on a question of order on the admissibility of his amendment.

My point of order was simply on the basis of rules on the basis of law that you are very concerned about. I felt that your amendment was certainly injurious and in conflict with the central intent of the legislation which the House supported unanimously in principle.

That in no way curtails your right to discuss the particular section that you moved the amendment to. You are free to debate that as long as we sit this evening and all day tomorrow, if you so wish. I just resent the inference that there is any move to stifle the debate or impede your right to express your opinions on this particular section of the bill or any other section during the course of this committee stage.

MR. WALLACE: The explanation given by the Minister seems to me picayune in the extreme. I am now allowed, apparently, under debate on this section to say anything as long as I like till kingdom come but I wasn't allowed to say the same things under the amendment — is that what you are saying, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. KING: I thought you had finished with your amendment when you moved it. You had been discussing it for 30 minutes.

MR. WALLACE: Now, that is exaggeration in the extreme, but I don't propose to get in a long-winded argument with the Minister. Let's get back to facts and principles. I expect your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

I feel that I can support this bill in principle by saying that there is good reason to minimize the involvement of the courts in labour-management disputes. Because I do believe that to be a reasonable point of view, I supported the bill in principle because in large measure I feel that a well-appointed board of experienced people with expertise could do a better job than has been done in the past.

How, by accepting that fairly obvious principle, I should be considered to be contradictory when I put forward the point of view that you've gone too far in that principle, I am just at a loss to understand. All I am saying, as far as section 31 and jurisdiction of the board is concerned, is, namely that in my humble opinion you've gone too far in the power that you are giving to the board.

I still am at a loss to see how my amendment could be out of order simply because, to a degree, it differs with the overall principle of the bill. We could have 153 sections that cover ombudsmen and special officers and a whole lot of things with which I entirely agree. Yet, because I oppose one part of it, I am expected to oppose the whole bill in principle on second reading. I think that is a very regrettable interpretation by the Minister.

I've said time and time again in this House that the problem with opposition politicians is that they are so often given to opposing just because we are on this side of the House and you are over there, and that the whole democratic parliamentary system thereby loses a lot of its meaning. That's all I'm trying to say this afternoon.

I feel that in all faith and conscience I can support this bill in principle with one or two exceptions. One exception to me is very, very, very important, and that is that in giving more strength and power to the board, giving it this extent of jurisdiction, you have simply exceeded your good intentions. You have gone too far by completely — or not completely…. In section 31 agree that where an immediate and serious danger to life or health is occurring, or likely to occur, the court can issue an order.

I think that just bears out our point completely: that by including that very slender exception to your general rule, you admit that there may be times when the board might not be in a position to act or might make a mistake. If there are times when the court has to have that degree of authority to issue an order, I submit there are also going to be times when the board will make mistakes, either of fact or of law, and there is no way that the injured party can either claim damages or even claim justification of the fact that he has been wronged.

I met a man in the hall 10 minutes ago — and the Attorney General knows Mr. Bedford very well and the Attorney General might even have comments to make. He is a man who has been blackballed, and he tells me that he is now in a position where he has no access anywhere. He can't get a job because he can't get into a union and he has no mechanism of appeal other than to go to the courts.

I suggest that if this man — and I don't know the details of his problem, but he tells me that he has been looking for a job for many, many months and the Attorney General has been trying to help him prior to the present time — goes before the new Labour Relations Board under the new Act and they make a mistake, where can he go?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, let's look at it in another way, Mr. Attorney General. Under the jurisdiction under section 31, supposing this gentleman's problem arises now and he goes to the Labour Relations Board and, for whatever reason, they misinterpret law or fact; where can that man go to get any further consideration of his future livelihood; of his right to work; of his ability to be employed, to be a member of a union or not to be a member of a union? Where does he go? There is nowhere to go in this bill — none.

HON. MR. KING: There is. What about the ombudsman?

MR. WALLACE: The ombudsman — that's right. He has no power. He has the power of inquiry, the power to report. But he has no power; he has only the power of inquiry. The power of persuasion, the Minister says. Well, all I know is that I am busting my guts here today, and my power of persuasion as to the need for appeal doesn't seem to be falling on very receptive ears.

I would say that if we can open the door this little bit where there is serious danger to life or health, can we not open the door a little wider to allow people or parties before the board some mechanism of appeal? That is all I am asking. I don't think that that is anything other than a very reasonable approach.

The Minister keeps repeating that this is not a court because they can't enforce penalties. Okay, I'll accept that. But the fact is that that's about the only power they do not have. Certainly they have the power over parties, employers or employees, to make a decision, and other than their own right to reconsider their own decision, which is a…. I don't accept that as being adequate either, otherwise we wouldn't have the legal system we have in the province.

When one body or one level of court makes a decision which is questioned, the reconsideration doesn't take place before the same people. This is like asking a person to reconsider his own decision. Surely the reconsideration should take place in front of other parties, another board or another court.

The Minister, the Attorney General, has made it quite plain that, at least by tradition or precept or habit, this kind of concept has existed for centuries. If he believes that and says that in this House, Mr. Chairman, why is it so immensely difficult that we cannot get just one little clause — one eensy-weensy sentence — in there to say that a person or a party may have some right of appeal.

I just can't imagine the absolutely stubborn, unrelentless opposition to what I think is a very reasonable request. It does nothing, on the other hand, to weaken the board, in my opinion. It is the one area where the board would be perhaps strengthened in that parties appealing before the board, if they knew that they had some right of appeal, would perhaps have that much greater faith in the board's actions and deliberations.

I think it is a very frightening example of this government's attitude that parties will appear in disputes before the board knowing very well that this is it: once the board has given the decision, the parties before that board have nowhere else to go — other than to the ombudsman, who I think is a very poor and second-rate mechanism by which to try and insure that parties in disputes receive every measure of fair play and just decision that human beings can possibly provide in our very complicated society today.

I submit that this has to be one area that surely the Minister, in the light of the pleas from the other parties in the opposition…it isn't just this party. There is real concern that there is no such mechanism of appeal. By providing some mechanism you would, in fact, strengthen the bill, you would strengthen your own government's awareness of the importance of individual rights and freedoms and it would also make it quite clear that you really, as a government, honestly believe and are willing to put in writing the precept and concept that your own Attorney General has stated last night in debate and again today.

As you quite rightly said, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I have been repetitious. This is one of the most important, if not the most important, aspects of this bill. You are setting an example, which I think is also dangerous, that this session or next session or a year from now, I fear that we'll come back with other bills setting up other judicial or quasi-judicial boards, and the same argument that the Attorney General has presented by way of the Workmen's Compensation Board will be thrown back at the opposition next time around.

Well, what are you getting all upset and excited about? There is no appeal mechanism in the labour code. That's what we will be told a year from now when we complain about some other bill that you are trying to bring in with the same power. Two wrongs never made a right and two blacks never made a white. The fact is that I may not….

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): That's for sure!

MR. WALLACE: I must make it very plain, Mr. Chairman, that I wasn't talking in racial terms.

I think this argument that because some particular was omitted from some previous existing legislation…it should not be used logically as some excuse or justification to keep on doing it that way.

I keep coming back to the point that if the

Minister accepts that this right does exist and it is just a matter that it isn't usually written in the statutes, what is to stop us from being as innovative as the bill itself and put this kind of appeal in black and white in the bill?

I just feel that for all these various reasons we must most strenuously oppose section 31. I would say further that if this is symbolic of some of the other bills that we are going to be debating in future sessions based on the same premise that you can give this amount of power because the right of appeal and rights to the individual are guaranteed by custom rather than by writing, then I think we will have many lengthy debates which will be repetitious.

But I hope that the government, by virtue of seeing how concerned we are about this, will reconsider 31 and will give greater consideration in future legislation to incorporating very important basic individual rights.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I meant to add to what I said a while ago that there is a lot to be said for what the Hon. Member for Oak Bay is saying. The unwritten law, while in my opinion, it applies here, is something that should be examined to make sure that it is effective in modern terms, because there are many inferior tribunals in many fields — increasingly in modern life.

Accordingly, since the inauguration of this government, one of the subjects of study of the Law Reform Commission has been administrative tribunals: to study the safeguards in terms of the rules of fair play that must apply to these tribunals, in terms of the openness of their proceedings, and other matters.

Now it may be that, as a result of the report they will make, we should have codified in British Columbia these common law rules I am speaking about in the form of an administrative tribunals Act.

MR. WALLACE: Like the one I introduced last session.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. And that is being actively studied and considered. I don't want to leave the impression, because it isn't on the books right now, that the common law of England has been repealed because, in my opinion, it has not.

MR. GARDOM: I think that we've got to get back to first principles here. What is being argued by this side of the House today is a very, very simple concept. We say that if there happens to be denial of natural justice, there should be a right for people to go to the court of appeal in this province — in labour-management relations and following hearings and decisions of the board.

What are some of the principles of natural justice? One is that you have to have people whose rights are affected receive notice of the hearing. Particulars of the allegation should be furnished. There has got to be a proper hearing in public, the right to examine witnesses, subpoena witnesses and be represented by counsel — which the government has not agreed to have written into the legislation.

Decisions have to be rendered by those people who make them — which is not written into the legislation. Reasons for judgments mandatory have to be available — which is not written into this legislation. There has got to be a right of appeal — which is not written into this legislation, but absolutely taken out of it.

The Attorney General, who has now left the House, said that the common law of England came to British Columbia by proclamation in 1858, and that is correct. It provided historic safeguards. One of the most historic was the inherent jurisdiction of the courts of the land to prevent abuses against individuals by use of the prerogative writs, habeas corpus, prohibition, certiorari and mandamus. These were pillars, Mr. Chairman, establishing and entrenching the dignity of the individual and the rights of the individual. These were democratic safeguards, almost sacred democratic safeguards, preserving individual rights. They have disappeared in British Columbia in October of 1973 in this bill. Make no mistake of that.

The Attorney General wondered whether or not there is a private section, as he said. He didn't think there was. Well, if he were here, I would read to him a part of one section which he says doesn't exist. He said that the prerogative writs are still there and oh, yes, you can go to the courts.

The Minister of Labour says no. I support the Minister of Labour's interpretation though not his stand, because I'm reading section 34 too. "A decision, order, or ruling of the board made under this Act in respect of any matter in which jurisdiction is conferred by this Act…." In respect of any matter, any matter in which jurisdiction is conferred by this Act, is "not open to question or review in any court," Mr. Attorney General, "and no proceedings by or before the board shall be restrained by injunction, prohibition, or any other process or proceedings in any court." That is a total emasculation of the prerogative writ. It is true that the unwritten law that the Attorney General is talking about clearly applied; it clearly applied from about the middle ages, it clearly applied in British Columbia from 1848 until October, 1973, insofar as this statute is concerned. But the Attorney General's centuries of belief in the unwritten English common law have dissipated in this one section. I would say that this is indeed a dark day for individual rights in

the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the position which my friend, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, is taking is quite different from the position the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) takes. The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey indicates that there is no provision for natural justice in the bill. We have already debated that point.

MR. GARDOM: That's not correct.

HON. MR. KING: I challenge his position that natural justice is not available to people coming before the board.

MR. GARDOM: That's not correct and you know it.

HON. MR. KING: Now there's no section in this bill which seeks to deny natural justice and I understand that silence is the main factor upon which natural justice is decided.

I want to deal mainly with the position taken by the Member for Oak Bay. He sought to introduce an amendment which would have had the effect of completely throwing back to the courts the jurisdiction for industrial relations matters.

Now perhaps he's not completely aware of that. Perhaps that wasn't his whole intent, but he provided for an appeal by way of trial de novo, which I am advised provides a completely new hearing, a complete reappraisal without respect to the decision that the Labour Relations Board has made.

Now I take the position that the interests of industrial relations can best be handled by people and an agency which has the background and expertise to understand the day-to-day complexities involved in this important field. If we are to make the decisions of that tribunal subject to the courts, then the party before the board which loses the decision will, as an automatic reflex, appeal to the courts and we're right back on the merry-go-round that we have been on for the last number of years.

Now the point that the Attorney General made with respect to Workmen's Compensation is an important one. I don't think anyone would argue the premises on which the decision was made to insulate decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Board from the courts. Obviously, if appeals to the courts were allowed, a great amount of the money which is funded and designed to protect the interests of injured workers would be expended in litigation, deciding the administrative procedures and the appeals of workmen against decisions of the board, and that would serve no one's best interests.

I think we have to define very clearly here what we disagree on. I fully respect the Member's attitude. You have a perfect right to debate and oppose any section of this bill you don't agree with, but let's be very clear on what we're trying to accomplish. On the one hand you're saying that the government is jeopardizing the individual's right to justice and to appeal before the board. I want to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, through you, that situations such as the certification application for the Shoppers Drug Mart chain in Vancouver provided litigation in the courts and the Supreme Court of Canada for over two years, and it provided the company with an opportunity to foil the organizational attempts of the trade union.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're not advocating that.

HON. MR. KING: You know, we could write laws in this particular Act that grant and guarantee workers' rights. But if we're going to toss them to the courts so that corporations can foil the intent and the application of those laws…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you're begging the question.

HON. MR. KING: …we are not going to have any impact whatsoever on industrial relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the argument.

HON. MR. KING: Similarly, arbitration cases have been held up and have been argued in the courts for months and sometimes years. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the House that this is certainly not serving the individual interests of the working people of this province. No way.

So what you are arguing is for the restoration of that same old game — throw it all back to the courts so that the industrial relations questions, which are complex and which are work-a-day in nature, will be once again solved in the legal atmosphere.

I want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not criticizing the judiciary, not one bit. But the courts are not geared and the laws which they administer are just not geared to recognizing and coming to grips with the problems of industrial relations.

So there's our difference of opinion. Let's identify it very clearly. I suggest that it will serve the best interests of both employees and employers to have an independent administrative tribunal make the decisions based on the social and industrial concepts rather than the legalistic ones.

When it comes to breaches of natural justice, I disagree with my friend from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). I say they have access to natural justice.

MR. GARDOM: Not if it's denied.

HON. MR. KING: I also point out that the Legislature is the final tribunal holding authority and, if there are abuses, we are always supreme to amend legislation and overcome abuses.

We have for the first time in the province, under this legislation, established the office of an ombudsman. While he hasn't the coercive powers he certainly has the power of focusing public attention on abuses, not only by the Labour Relations Board but the Department of Labour in its entirety, trade unions who may abuse the individual rights of some member, or indeed management groups who may abuse the rights of some of their minority interests.

So I just feel that there certainly are adequate checks and balances here. I disagree with the Members across the way when they suggest, by throwing this whole question back to the courts again and opening that door, that they are serving the individual interests of the people of British Columbia. We have a disagreement there, I think it's clearly defined. By all means you're free to vote against the section, but this is my position and I want to have it identified very clearly.

MR. WALLACE: I appreciate the Minister's comments. I think the mark of excellence in this chamber should be recognizing the right that we agree to disagree, but I would like to question some of the comments that the Minister has just made.

First of all, we are not throwing everything back at the courts, because that's where they go in the first stage under the present law. You can have ex parte injunctions which stir up the waters right off the bat, within a day of a strike starting perhaps. The kind of example that he quoted of Shoppers Drug Mart is not what we want at all.

The amendment, or the changes we would like to see would be simply to allow some mechanism of appeal, but not automatically in every case when someone is unhappy. The Minister stated that this would automatically mean that the decision of the board in every dispute would be appealed.

Well now, I think, Mr. Chairman, that's rather an extravagant interpretation of what we're trying to suggest should be available. Just because an avenue of appeal exists doesn't mean that automatically every case is going to be appealed to the courts. So it is not a matter, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, of this party suggesting that we should throw everything back into the courts of the land. It isn't that at all. After all's said and done, how many criminal or civil cases are appealed? It certainly isn't that every one that goes through the one level of court proceeds to an appeal court — no way.

I am suggesting that it would not be automatic that every decision of the board would be appealed, but what I am suggesting, and what the Minister didn't take the trouble to answer or didn't consider answering, was the fact — and I'll pass very lightly over the amendment which was ruled out of order — that the Minister is not even allowing an appeal mechanism where there may have been a mistake on a point of law, not even that.

Even if I for a moment am prepared to accept his argument that the facts of the dispute could probably best be debated and deliberated by the experienced men and women on the board who have the background and training — and I do accept that that kind of person would serve the role better than the courts — we do, as I've said many times and as the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has said many times, feel that even on determining a point of law or a procedure of law within the Labour Relations Board, mistakes will be made.

Never mind the facts as to who is right and wrong as to the evidence presented, but look at the whole process by which the board carries out deliberations or interprets a point of law. If a mistake is made there the parties have no mechanism of appeal whatever, even to the court. Surely the best persons in our society to decide whether law has been properly applied must be the judges of the courts — who else? That's what they do every day, civil or criminal, and I'm asking that at the very least then if the Minister were so concerned about disputes automatically being appealed to the court, would he at least consider Mr. Chairman — and I'm sorry he's out of the chamber at the moment — that appeals could be made from Labour Relations Board decisions on a question of law to the courts? Who is more appropriately equipped to give somebody some right or some hearing to determine whether or not they have received proper…?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that's exactly the point, Mr. Member, and you and I have been hammering away at it most of the afternoon. I am not saying that I am prepared, but if I were prepared that there could be no appeal on a question of fact, surely to goodness in our society today there has to be some appeal on a question of law. But no, no, this section 28 says that these people on that board are infallible — they're not only infallible in judging fact but they're so all perfect that they won't make mistakes in the way in which they determine the law or the extent of their jurisdiction. Now I don't think that that applies to any court in this land on civil or criminal suits, and I'll stand to be corrected by the lawyers if there is.

Again, if we revert to the Attorney General's statement that we depend so much on established concepts over centuries, I understand in Britain you can finish up in the House of Lords to appeal a parking ticket. If that concept is sound and reasonable that there is always some other level of

court to which you can appeal, and we've done it since 1066 and before…. I keep coming back to this point, Mr. Chairman, that this section gives no mechanism at all to an employer or an employee or a union, after the decision is handed down by this board, to appeal to a court and to the expert persons concerned, namely the judges, as to whether law has been misapplied.

I would welcome the Minister's comment, even on that partial aspect of appeal. Would he consider at least amending or introducing a government amendment which would at least open up the avenue of appeal on a question of law, not a question of fact?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Chairman, what this Member is trying to do is undo all of the new direction of this bill — all of the new direction of this bill. He wants to take us right back where we started, right back to the dark ages of Social Credit. Mr. Chairman, what we're trying to do is get away from that. This section does not in any way deny a person right to access to law under the situation where he's denied natural justice.

MR. GARDOM: In the law courts.

HON. MR. COCKE: No, sir, and you know it. Mr. Chairman, they know it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: This whole question just revolves around the fact that they want to take us back to where we were before; they want to completely emasculate this new bill; they want to change the whole course of events after having voted for it in principle. They voted for it in principle and now they want to destroy it in this one section, this heartland of this bill. The core of this bill is section 31, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I can understand the Member over there. He's very excited because now there is an open constituency and, heaven knows, the leadership might be challenged. It's excellent fodder. It is the Conservative approach, however. It cannot be the approach of this party on this side of the House.

We have watched for years and years and years the courts take over this whole procedure. The courts are finite as well, Mr. Member. What makes you think that the courts are some sort of an area where natural justice can be delivered? In labour affairs it seems to me that people much more competent in labour are what we're looking for, and that's precisely what this is all about.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's what this is all about, Mr. Chairman, and those people are trying their very best to make this bill completely nothing — nothing much more than what we had before, by virtue of going back to the courts. Refer to the courts, refer to the courts. And, Mr. Chairman, we certainly can't go along that way.

MR. GARDOM: A few moments ago the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), and now the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), have attempted to follow a bit of the old Bill Buckley system of establishing a premise of straw and then attempting to label it to another side and then shooting it down. At no time has it been advocated by this party, by the Conservatives or by the Social Credit, for that matter, that we should return to the courts to be the appropriate and best forum for labour-management relations. That's not advocated one single, solitary bit.

We're not talking about opening the courts to labour-management relations; what we are talking about are abuses of legal processes. We're just saying this — it's a very simple thing and I cannot see how it's not appreciated. We're saying that if a board member misbehaves, if there happens to be an error of law, if there is a denial of natural justice — under those circumstances there should be an access to the court of appeal to either set aside an order that was improperly made to send the matter back to the board for re-hearing to tell them to take a proper look at it, or to say to the board, "Stop the music — there is a stay of proceedings." That's the concept that we're arguing about this afternoon, and only that point, and it's not too much assistance for any of us to have the Minister of Health, following the Minister of Labour, muddy the waters by the approach that they now attempted to take in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, this bill is silent to the provisions of natural justice. "Yes," says the Minister of Labour — he said that in the House two or three times — "It is silent to the provisions of natural justice." I agree with that. If the board happens to follow those concepts, and if we don't find board members misbehaving or having a lack of capacity to fulfil their duties, if we don't find errors of law, and if we don't find denials of natural justice, well and good, but if those things do happen — and this is the crunch of the whole of the argument — not only do we not find within the provisions of this bill any access to redress but we find a complete denial, a complete emasculation, a complete deprivation of the historic right to seek redress.

It's pretty simply stated, and if the Minister of Health can't understand this language, and if the Attorney General can't understand this language, it's difficult for me to comprehend, because their legislation says this, Mr. Chairman, and surely this is

clear to everybody in this assembly and to everybody in this province:

"A decision, order, or ruling of the board made under this Act in respect of any matter in which jurisdiction is conferred by this Act…is not open to question or review in any court" — is not open to question or review in any court — "and no proceedings by or before the board shall be restrained by injunction, prohibition, or any other process or proceeding in any court, or be removable by certiorari or otherwise into any court."

For the Attorney General to suggest that there's still court access — that is an absolutely totally incorrect and specious argument on his part.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Chairman, for years we've lived in a climate in labour management that's created a great deal of hostility. Many of us have been suffering under that situation and have been part of that bad climate. I see as the objective of this whole bill, the whole principle of it, in this section at least, that we want to change that climate.

To me what we've had has been years and years of court battles. There has been a heavy cost and it's created a lot of hard feelings, and it's created a lot of hostility. I think that I personally have enough injunctions to paper this room.

I had my family home taken from me in 1967; I never got it back until 1972. That's the sort of feelings that we've had generated in the labour movement as a result of going to court — always going to court.

As I see it now, the kind of argument that's being made by the opposition is that you could go back to the court for various decisions. To me that means that anyone who has the dough, anyone who has the finances, is going to be appealing and being back in the court, and we won't have really changed anything.

As I see it, that's the sort of thing that has created a real problem for the small employers and for the smaller unions. The larger employers, the big companies, and the big unions have been able to spend a lot of time in court. But it's been a heavy drain on both of them and besides that it's created that kind of climate that we must change. I see the lawyers being quite interested in this. It's absolutely true. In the court case that I was in — it lasted for many years — the biggest winners were the lawyers on both sides.

To me if we don't change that sort of attitude in the labour-management field in this province, we won't really have changed the direction and we won't really have improved the climate. I say to the opposition that if they don't like the section, they can vote against it, and so they probably will. But, in my view, it's the most important thing we must change if we're going to improve the climate.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I couldn't ever hope to match the eloquence of a lawyer in full flight describing the fundamentals of human rights, because they deal with this kind of thing at first hand every single day.

HON. MR. COCKE: Ad infinitum.

MR. McGEER: Ad infinitum — the Minister of Health is quite correct. But what he doesn't recognize and what the Member for Delta apparently doesn't recognize and what the Minister of Labour is unwilling to recognize is that the retention of lawyers and these appearances in court and their appeals are there to give the individual who feels aggrieved his full rights as a citizen of a free country.

I suppose that the average MLA first comes across this feeling of grievance when he gets inundated as a newly-elected Member with all of the long appeal cases of those who feel injured by the Workmen's Compensation Board. Because this is when you get exposed to the true feelings of people who feel that justice neither has been done nor has it seemed to have been done.

No one, Mr. Chairman, no group every spoke more eloquently for appeal than did the Members of the New Democratic Party on the question of Workmen's Compensation Board cases, and the fact that this board did not have appropriate provision for appeal. I've heard the Attorney General and the Minister of Labour and Mr. Justice Berger, who was mentioned here, bring individual cases here to this legislative chamber because there was not that appeal, demanding on the floor of the House that the government take action to provide such an appeal.

Then, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney General this afternoon tells us that this Act, which allows for no appeal, is quite all right because of the example of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the very thing he condemned so hard when he was in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, it's exactly the same principle. There aren't half a dozen colours to human rights. There is only one; it's simple, and it should be consistent and absolute in all our legislation: appeal to the individual who feels aggrieved by any board given absolute power. Mr. Chairman, this government was not one month old before it brought before the people of British Columbia an Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote that today to the Minister of Labour — his own words when he introduced that Act. He said that this bill was to "amend the Workmen's Compensation Act to provide a truly impartial and representative review board to which appeals may be made from decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Board." His first great

work in coming to office. He cited the Unemployment Insurance Act, saying that the operations have come under criticism, but in the case of this particular Act, the review panels have been generally well accepted.

Then he goes on to say, "I think by divorcing the representatives of our appeal tribunal from any association with the Workmen's Compensation Board, then the worker can rest assured that he is indeed receiving an impartial and independent appraisal of his case."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Members of the opposition, in accepting this particular bill and voting for it, pointed out that the proper case for appeal, as always in our society, is in the courts of law because we have enshrined in our society the independence of these courts and ensured their impartiality from politicians and appointed tribunals that have special interests.

Every government should be consistent and every Member should be consistent. Mr. Chairman, sitting in opposition — and I've been consistent in this — I find it just as little hard both to take the hypocrisy of the New Democratic Party once it gets to power and to take these repeated speeches of the Premier condemning the hypocrisy of the former government.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're totally confused about what you're saying. You talk about appeal in one section and then you voted for that section.

MR. McGEER: I'm perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney General may try to draw a veil over things that he knows better about. We're not talking about two different things when we start talking about human rights and justice. There's only one way, and that's to give the individual his full rights to a hearing and an appeal from that hearing. There's no intention to provide that in this legislation.

Somehow the mistaken concept has become implanted in the minds of the government, first of all that this is going to be a kind of family court sort of thing, and everybody is going to love this new panel that's being set up and that while they may have a little difference of opinion, really they're going to settle this thing like husbands and wives. Nonsense!

There's going to be pretty tough hearings before this board. They have an unenviable task, and anybody who thinks the adversary relationship is going to vanish from labour-management disputes in this province must be living in another world. There's going to be hard, tough bargaining at the table and a series of hard, tough decisions before this panel, and the people who are losers are going to go away angry. And if you don't have that process of appeal, if justice is not done and does not appear to be done, you're only going to aggravate the situation more than it's aggravated today.

The philosophy that you're the good guys and everybody else are the bad guys, and suddenly the good guys are in power and therefore everything they bring down will be accepted with grace and good judgment and all the problems in British Columbia will vanish overnight, is just naive nonsense. It's because you've come to believe your own propaganda and have come to accept your own naive nonsense, that you can have the gall to come before this House and be completely inconsistent, and try to tell those in the opposition who have clear heads in this matter that it's apples and oranges. Nonsense!

This is a bad section in this Act and, Mr. Chairman, it will be the undoing of this Act.

This debate should be remembered because it's evidence that the government is not only inconsistent, it's wet behind the ears. And until you cope with some of the facts of life, that didn't emerge in 1973 but had their origins in an understanding of human nature that commenced hundreds of years ago, you're going to continue to inflict bad legislation on the people of British Columbia and create problems rather than solve them.

But what I find saddest about this particular section and the attitudes of the government is that they show themselves so capable of arguing one set of values in opposition and another set of values in government. And even when they are in government, they argue one set of values with the bill they introduce one year for Workmen's Compensation and another set of values when they bring in labour legislation the next year. Mr. Chairman, it isn't good enough, and we oppose this particular section.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Chairman, I can't resist getting up on this section after listening to the previous speaker involve the Workmen's Compensation Board. The New Democratic Party when we were in opposition fought for the Workmen's Compensation Board cases to be placed in the hands of the courts…

AN HON. MEMBER: You liked it better over here.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …as on appeal. I was one who spoke many, many times in regard to Workmen's Compensation and never at any time did I ask that the appeals of the Workmen's Compensation be sent to the courts, because the Workmen's Compensation originated for the purpose of keeping those cases out of the courts.

Prior to 1916, if a person got injured he had to go to court to prove his case against his employer, and long litigation went on, and the lawyers made money on it many times. In many cases a person who was

injured didn't have any money or sufficient money to go to court at all, and he didn't have any rights to get compensated. So the compensation board was brought in to take those cases out of the courts and to place them under what we might call trial by their own peers.

To say that there haven't been cases that were maybe not rightly done by, I'd be the last one to say that, because I have felt many times that the decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Board were not always right. I don't suppose the decisions of this board will always be right in the minds of everybody. But if they honestly try to do the proper thing I'll give them that credit and I'll give them that opportunity to solve some of the problems that have blown up over the years between management and labour, and that is a wall of suspicion.

I'm rather surprised when I hear people talk about taking it to the courts, because for years trade unions had to fight and try to elect members into the Legislature and put political pressure to get some of the amendments that they had. In 1902 they even had to fight to make trade unions so that they couldn't be sued in the courts, because at that time the trade unions were so weak that they could have been ruined by taking them into court. It was in this parliament that the bill was passed in 1902 that made it impossible to sue a trade union, and this was one of the great milestones in the building up of the trade union movement.

But the wall of suspicion that has been built up has never been broken down. Don't forget the laws that have been made to a great extent were made by the so-called people in authority and the so-called people that were in the know and in the money. That's what the laws of this country have been built up over. They weren't made for the working people. Every time the working people gained anything they had to fight hard to reach that plateau.

They went on for years in this regard, and yet the wall of suspicion is still there. I don't think you're going to break it down easily, but one way I think we are going to break it down eventually is when management realizes that their employees are part and parcel of the whole affair and bring them in in cooperation with themselves.

We hope, and I hope, that this Act will help to bring about this kind of cooperation between the employees and management, and that it will be acceptable. An awful lot is going to depend upon the commission — there's no question about that — and upon these people. An awful lot. Maybe if we find the wrong people in there we'll have to change them and put somebody in there who can do the job better.

But nevertheless, I think that the people on that side of the House who have watched this over the years, who have been government for years and tried to solve the problems and didn't get to first base with solving them, should give us a chance to solve those problems now. We're over here now and we're going to make that attempt. I hope that we succeed and I hope that you will applaud when we succeed to that effect.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I'd like to take a few moments to make a few remarks in this debate. I've been impressed in most cases by the debate that's gone on this afternoon. It seems that there are quite a few Members of this assembly who are extremely well versed in the law and have a very, very poor memory for history. The history in this province in the past five years has been absolute and total turmoil, in spite of the fact that one side or the other had access to the courts.

Both as MLA for Kamloops and as a member of the labour movement definitely involved in labour-management relations over the last 14 years or more, and sitting across the table from management on many occasions, I support the amended section that is before us now.

When we talk about this sacred access to the courts, apparently the lawyers in this assembly today have forgotten the many times that judges in this province have said they admit they are not equipped to hear labour disputes under the present system. It has been said by more than one judge in this province.

I'd like to hearken back on this access to the courts to a situation in 1965 when there was a large strike in the province that had been going on for almost five months. The former Premier of this province (Mr. Bennett) came with the labour Minister to the Vancouver Hotel and proposed a suggested settlement to both sides. And all of the companies and all the unions accepted the proposed settlement as a basis for an agreement on their dispute, except one of the oil companies. When they sat down with the union in their office they said, "Yes, we will accept this as a basis for dispute, but we want these other 31 changes also." And all the labour board could tell us under the law was that what this company was doing was immoral but it was not illegal. The only option the union had in that case, a union of 75 members, was to take that company to court after almost five months on strike when they were already deeply in debt. It was absolutely impossible.

The judges admit that labour disputes should not be in court; the lawyers think they should. It has been said in this House that we must have that final appeal to the courts, when people have been to court many times and had to make a final appeal to a

higher court and still they weren't satisfied. I can see both from management side and labour side that there will be decisions made by this board, perfectly correct under the Act, but the party that's on the losing side will appeal, if they're financially able, and put a stalling tactic of years and years into labour-management relations that will simply keep the pot boiling and take away entirely from the thrust of this Act to bring about a new relationship of labour relations in the province.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I just really wonder if the Hon. Member next to me (Mr. Wallace), if he was really serious about his amendment, really voted for the bill. He seems to be out of order and contrary to the whole idea of the bill which wants to deal with the real root problem of labour that we're dealing with. You know it's somewhat analogous to talking about abortion when you should be talking about birth control, or talking about divorce — and lots of lawyers spend a lot of time on divorce — when we should be in this country doing something to prevent divorce, and provide marriage preparation.

I really wonder if some of the Members — and this is a crucial section of the bill — really understand what we're doing here. I suspect that there will still be access to the courts. Later on in section 108 it describes the access on the arbitration section. Even with that I suspect there will still be quite a run on the courts.

But let's minimize that just like I'd like to minimize the use of the courts for divorce — which I think is very unfortunate, it doesn't help the problem — and the analogy of dealing with abortion when we should be talking about birth control. I think we ought to get on and have a vote on this section and move on to the other essential aspects of the bill.

Section 31 approved with amendment.

Section 32 approved.

On section 33.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), I move the amendment standing in his name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 33 approved with amendment.

On section 34.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 34 approved with amendment.

Sections 35 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to section 38 I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to indicate the need for this section and the effect of it. The Members will notice that on application of the employer or trade union or on its own motion the board may give a declaratory opinion. And my question is: what effect does a declaratory opinion have? If it has no effect, I don't know what the section is doing here. Are we going to have the chairman of the board standing up on Mt. Tolme giving a declaratory opinion and then sitting down and it's of no consequence?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, there are a variety of uses, I submit, for this approach by the board. The board has the jurisdiction on the law of strikes and picketing and it would seem advisable, in line with the conciliatory approach that we are attempting to take in this legislation, for a trade union, for instance to seek a declaratory order from the board as to whether or not a certain picketing activity would in fact be legal or illegal. In that way they would serve to prevent a breach of what would be declared law.

Similarly, in organizing campaigns a trade union could seek a declaration from the board as to what was an appropriate unit and thereby save themselves the expense and the activity of seeking to organize all employees in a plant which are not necessarily appropriate to the unit they are seeking certification over. A declaratory order by the board or an opinion by the board would be appropriate and very helpful under those circumstances.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, do I understand that one of the functions of section 38 then is in connection with the provisions of section 42, which deals specifically with the determination of an appropriate unit? How can it give a declaratory opinion without doing all the things that it says in section 42, which is to examine records, to make inquiries, to hold hearings, et cetera, in order to determine whether the unit is appropriate?

I'm not quarrelling with the section, it's just that I don't understand its effect and why it is required. Insofar as determination of an appropriate unit is concerned, section 42 gives the board all the power that it needs there without giving a declaratory opinion.

HON. MR. KING: Well, that's absolutely true, if the board is simply adjudicating an application for certification that is made. But it seems useful for us to empower the trade union making the application to seek an opinion on the appropriateness of the unit before it seeks to sign up members. In other words, the board adjudicating the application may disallow the inclusion of certain employees in that particular unit. It would be helpful for the trade union to have that knowledge prior to doing the work of signing them up and so on. So there's nothing inconsistent between the two sections.

Sections 38 and 39 approved.

On section 40.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 40 approved with amendment.

Section 41 approved.

On section 42.

MR. CHABOT: Section 42 deals with the appropriate bargaining units and it's always been a very troublesome one for the trade union movement, not being familiar with what is an appropriate bargaining unit. In any instance where an application for certification has been turned down, there's never been any reason. The only reason given by the board is that the unit is not appropriate for collective bargaining. It's most frustrating. I'm sure it's one of those matters they would like clearly spelled out: what really is an appropriate bargaining unit?

I would hope under this section that the board would determine and set out very clearcut guidelines as to what constitutes an appropriate unit. I think it would be most helpful if they would do this and would give some guidelines and some reasons when there is a turndown for an application for certification. If a reason was given as to why it's not appropriate, I think it would be most helpful. I'm sure that the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) has spoken on this as well. He understands the frustration which the union movement feels about this particular section.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member's point is well taken; I agree with him. It is most helpful for some guidelines and some precedent to be established in terms of determining the appropriateness of a unit.

I would point out, too, that the previous section we just dealt with, empowering the board to make a declaratory opinion on a designated unit, would be most helpful before the union had expended the time and the expense of signing up members who would, under the old situation, be subsequently excluded from the unit. That in itself will, in cases that are marginal, serve to eliminate some of the frustration the Member is talking about.

Section 42 approved.

On section 43.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper on section 43.

Amendment approved.

On section 43 as amended.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on section 43. It's one which clarifies the section relative to representation votes.

The present section which appears there is very ambiguous and extremely flexible; it gives far too much power to the board to decide whether a union will have a representative vote or not. I'm wondering, in view of the wording in subsection (3), which is the prime subsection I object to, if the Minister would tell me under what circumstances would a vote not reflect the true wishes of the employees or of the union members.

There's also the built-in flexibility in that section in which the board could withhold a vote and withhold certification as well. The board has the power to impose conditions on unions on the basis of certain terms and conditions not being substantially fulfilled; the board has the power of cancellation of certification; and the board also has the power to certify without a vote.

I'm sure the Minister has read my amendment to it; it clearly specifies under what circumstances there will be a representative vote and will not be a representative vote. I would hope the Minister would accept one little amendment which clearly defines who shall be certified and who shall not be certified without the interference on the part of the board.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the question the Member asked regarding the board's discretion to certify without a vote is clearly in the situation where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the workers' true intent can't be determined. That would occur in the situation of an unfair labour practice having taken place in such a way that the effect was so devastating and so frightening to the members of that unit that

there was little likelihood they could exercise their prerogatives and their options without fear of some consequences that would befall them consistent with the unfair labour practice that had been perpetrated against them.

I would use as an illustration a number of cases, which I think the Hon. Member is probably aware of. Certain firms have recruited alien immigrant workers and held them in bondage, in essence, by threatening to reveal their illegal status in the country if they paid any attention to a trade union, and so on. In those circumstances, the employers hold a weapon over the workers such that it would be impossible to determine the true intent of the workers.

In those unusual exceptions, then the board has this particular right. I think this is something which should not be curtailed; it's something that has to be exercised obviously with great sensitivity. I would oppose the Member's amendment on that basis.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has quoted rather an extreme example of how this section might be of use, but, once again, we come back to the point that, in our opinion, this gives a degree of unfettered discretion to the board to decide when a vote would not truly represent the true wishes of the employees.

We in this party can see there are some occasions when there is difficulty in determining whether intimidation or coercion of one kind or another is being practised, but there are provisions elsewhere in the bill where this kind of intimidation or coercion can be dealt with. We don't feel that the risks of that happening are so great the board should be given this amount of power as in 43(3). I would move the amendment standing in my name that subsection (3) be deleted.

Amendment negatived.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Section 43(2): "Where the board is satisfied that not less than thirty-five per cent and not more than fifty per cent of the employees in a unit are members in good standing…the board shall direct that a representation vote shall be taken."

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that there be more flexibility in this section. The board being satisfied that less than half are members strikes me as being a provision that would lead to difficulty. I would prefer other wording which exists in other Acts to permit the board, when they are satisfied that from 35 per cent to 65 per cent — in other words, somewhere around the 50 per cent mark — are members, that they shall direct that there be a representation vote.

A further suggestion, Mr. Chairman, would be that where the board is satisfied and has good reason to understand that there is more than 65 per cent who are members, it would seem to be unnecessary to place the burden on them of insisting the vote be taken. If more than 65 per cent are members, if the board is as well-constituted and impartial and filled with the wisdom of Solomon, as the Minister suggests it will be, it's fairly absurd to suggest that they, under those circumstances, should insist upon a vote.

I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, the amendment standing in my name on the order paper which would be to delete the present 43(2) and substitute:

"If the board is satisfied that not less than 35 per cent and not more than 65 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit are members of the trade-union, the board shall, and if the board is satisfied that more than 65 per cent of such employees are members of the trade-union, the board may direct that a representation vote be taken."

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose that type of amendment. I think that would encourage every dissident element of trade unions to seek application for certification. While I agree that all workers should have the right to express any desire to change their union, I don't think it should be freed up to the extent where we welcome and encourage certification moves against the trade union movement in an internal way. I think this would serve to create great foment and weaken the trade union movement. The trade union movement did not request such a provision in the broad representations which we received from them, and I don't think they would welcome the Member's amendment now. It is their internal affair and I suggest that the amendment would not serve their best interest.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid that I have difficulty following the Minister in that the board, under section 43(l), is virtually granted powers anyway, but in view of the lateness of the hour I would move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again. (Mike not on.)

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Leave has been asked from the committee to record a vote that took place in the Committee of the Whole House.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presented the report of the special committee to prepare and report lists of Members to compose the select standing committees of this House, which was taken as read and received. (See appendix.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, this is a good time to tell you what my investigation on the matter of filing answers to questions revealed. They are not included in Hansard because it really is not a proceeding in the House. It's something which is recorded in the Journals, and since the Clerks always record that filing in the Journals, it's not something that's read out in the House, and there's really no point in Hansard just recording that somebody files answers to questions. It's already recorded in the Journals; that's what I'm told by the Hansard staff. It's been the custom for years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it arose yesterday. The Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) was not questioning filing of answers, but there was a statement made by the Minister related to the filing of a question earlier in the day that I think would be appropriate to be recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I agree, because it was not in the same context of the formality of standing and saying, "I'm filing an answer to question number so and so." Because it was a statement correcting something, I'm asking that that omission be included in Hansard under Errata.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's an errata?

MR. SPEAKER: You would not understand what errata are, Hon. Member. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

APPENDIX

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Special Committee appointed September 13 to prepare and report lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House for the present Session begs to report and recommend that the personnel of the Select Standing Committees of the House for the present Session be as follows:

STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS—Messrs. G. H. Anderson, Cummings, Dent, Gabelmann, Lewis, Steves, the Hon. Ernest Hall, the Hon. A. B. Macdonald, Messrs. Morrison, Phillips, and Gardom.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS—Messrs. Cummings, Gorst, Nunweiler, Rolston, Skelly, Mrs. Webster, Mr. Liden, the Hon. Gary Lauk, the Hon. Phyllis Young, Messrs. Fraser, Bennett, Morrison, McGeer, and Curtis.

AGRICULTURE—Messrs. G. H. Anderson, Cummings, D'Arcy, Kelly, Lewis, Liden, the Hon. D. D. Stupich, Mr. Phillips, Mrs. Jordan, Messrs. Williams and Curtis.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING—Ms. Brown, Messrs. D'Arcy, Liden, Nunweiler, Rolston, Ms. Sanford, the Hon. J. G. Lorimer, the Hon. L. Nicolson, Messrs. Schroeder, Fraser, Williams, and Curtis.

LABOUR AND JUSTICE—Messrs. G. H. Anderson, Barnes, Ms. Brown, Messrs. D'Arcy, Dent, Gabelmann, the Hon. W. S. King, the Hon. A. B. Macdonald, Messrs. Chabot, Smith, and Williams.

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN RESOURCES—Mr. Barnes, Ms. Brown, Messrs. Calder, Gabelmann, Rolston, Mrs. Webster, the Hon. D. G. Cocke, the Hon. Eileen E. Dailly, the Hon. Norman Levi, Mrs. Jordan, Messrs. Schroeder, McClelland, D. A. Anderson, and Wallace.

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS—Messrs. Calder, Gorst, Kelly, Lockstead, Skelly, Steves, the Hon. W. L. Hartley, the Hon. Graham Lea, the Hon. R. M. Strachan, Messrs. Morrison, McClelland, McGeer, and Wallace.

ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES—Messrs. Calder, Gorst, Liden, Lockstead, Skelly, Steves, the Hon. L. T. Nimsick, the Hon. Jack Radford, the Hon. R. A. Williams, Messrs. Chabot, Smith, D. A. Anderson, and Wallace.

Respectfully submitted.

A. B. MACDONALD, Chairman