[ Page 975 ]

CONTENTS

Ruling.

Contempt of parliament.

Mr. Speaker — 975

Mr. Smith — 976

Routine proceedings

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

Amendment to section 43.

Mr. McGeer — 977

Hon. Mr. King — 977

On section 43.

Mr. Wallace — 979

Hon. Mr. King — 979

On section 44.

Mr. Wallace — 980

Hon. Mr. King — 980

On section 47.

Mr. Chabot — 980

Hon. Mr. King — 981

Mr. McClelland — 982

Hon. Mr. King — 982

On section 48.

Mr. McGeer — 982

Mr. Chabot — 983

Hon. Mr. King — 983

Amendment to section 53.

Hon. Mr. King — 984

Mr. Gardom — 984

Amendment to section 56.

Mr. Gardom — 985

Hon. Mr. King — 985

Amendment to section 57.

Mr. Chabot — 985

Hon. Mr. King — 985

On section 57.

Mr. Gabelmann — 986

Mr. Steves — 986

Mr. Chabot — 986

Amendment to section 59.

Mr. Gardom — 987

Hon. Mr. King — 987

On section 60.

Mr. Wallace — 987

Hon. Mr. King — 987

Amendment to section 62.

Hon. Mr. King — 987

Amendment to section 63.

Mr. Wallace — 988

Hon. Mr. King — 988

Amendment to section 64.

Mr. Wallace — 988

Hon. Mr. King — 988

Amendment to section 65.

Mr. McGeer — 988

Mr. Gabelmann — 989

Hon. Mr. King — 990

Mr. McGeer — 990

Hon. Mr. King — 991

Mr. McGeer — 992

On section 69.

Mr. Gabelmann — 993

Hon. Mr. King — 993

Mr. Gabelmann — 993

On section 70.

Mr. Chabot — 994

Hon. Mr. King — 995

Mr. Gabelmann — 995

Mr. Wallace — 995

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 996

Division on section 70 — 996

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1973

The House met at 8:39 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I promised at the adjournment that I would submit my decision on the question of whether a prima facie breach of privilege had occurred with respect to the rules of parliament in this House as raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith).

The Hon. Member raised, as a matter of breach of parliamentary privilege, a complaint that the Hon. Premier discussed a message bill, apparently one of which this House has no knowledge, within these walls on a television programme to be heard by the public on October 28 next.

The Hon. Member supplied a script and, accepting it at this time at its face value only for the purpose of discussing it and presenting a decision based upon it, I quote from it as follows. Here it uses the initial "B"; I presume that means Mr. Barrett in the script.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The boss.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The words quoted which I think are relevant to the question before the House were:

"Now, there is another situation that should be said publicly too — and I have not discussed this before publicly — but we have to have emergency powers in British Columbia. We have no emergency powers in B.C.; we have no emergency powers to allow us in a situation like this to make alternative decisions on behalf of the people of B.C. Now, that's a serious shortcoming in our own legislative process and I seriously believe we are going to have to do something about that"

Then somebody intervenes whose name is Butters. (Laughter.)

"Question: Is that kind of problem covered by the Petroleum Corporation Act?

"Barrett: "No, I would think we would have to seriously consider another Act, because the energy crisis, as it comes and goes, is such that it is completely unpredictable and I feel we as a government must have some legislation in abeyance to protect the people of British Columbia."

Then some mysterious person with the initial "N."

"Mr. Premier, you already have such legislation drafted, have you not?

"Barrett: Yes, it was drafted and signed by the Lieutenant-Governor. We were holding it there because we didn't have the legislative authority to make the necessary alternative moves we should make. There's no need now for such legislation at this time, but it must seriously be considered, perhaps even next session in a much more calmer atmosphere. It might be introduced, so we might have a very rational, thoughtful discussion about the needs for such powers."

N again:

"Mr. Macdonald will simply keep it in his pocket, will he?

"Barrett: "Well, he's got awfully big pockets." (Laughter.) "I'm sure it will be kept on the shelf. Yes, it will have to be; will have to be considered."

That's the end of the quotation which, so far as I can see, has relevance to the proposal.

I intervene on the script to say this: if the matter, is a matter of privilege, it is really not for the Speaker to determine whether there has been an offence: against the House; that is for the Members. It is not for the Speaker to determine the truth or otherwise of that script. I'm only taking it at its face value for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case might be made out that could be taken to a committee of privileges to determine.

Going on with my own remarks now, the Hon. Member submits that this is a breach of privilege and I'm grateful for his supplying me with certain references: Erskine May, 17th edition, pages 613-617. The Hon. Member points out — and I quote from his own remarks in this House:

The matter of privilege is the fact that the Premier of this province did today indicate in an interview that a message bill had not only been before His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, but has already been signed by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor without ever coming before this House. And this constitutes a breach of privilege of parliament: that a message which His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is required to bring in through a cabinet Minister was signed by the Lieutenant-Governor before it was ever brought in, discussed, debated, or in any way disposed of in this House.

Let it first be made clear that the Hon. Member is somehow unaware that the procedure by which a message is sent down to the House involves His Honour first signing the message before it ever reaches this chamber, so nothing really turns on that aspect. It is no breach of privilege, as the Hon. Member avows,

That a message which His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is required to bring in through a cabinet Minister was signed b y the Lieutenant-Governor before it was ever brought in, discussed, debated, or in any way disposed of in this House.

Quite to the contrary, every message must be signed by His Honour before I would consider reading it to this assembly. No such message has been presented to this House and, indeed, judging from the

[ Page 976 ]

evidence submitted, may never be presented to this House. That, however, is not for me to speculate.

The events which are reported did not occur in this chamber. There has not been the presentation of a message or the introduction of a specific bill relating to the subject in question. What is said outside the chamber may not necessarily affect the proceedings within this room, unless it is shown that the House somehow has been subjected to contempt.

Privilege has been referred to in Sir Erskine May exhaustively. I dealt with a comparable matter in our Journals last February 1, 1973. In addition to the privileges specifically claimed, such as freedom from arrest, free speech, and the freedom of access to the Sovereign, there are others that have been asserted and enforced by parliament, such as the right to provide for their own constitution, to govern their own meetings and to punish those guilty of contempt of the House. Freedom of access to the Lieutenant-Governor, representing Her Majesty, is preserved by the House as a whole through the Speaker and is not accorded to individual Members. He represents the House to the Sovereign, bears its messages and addresses, and claims their undoubted rights.

On the other hand, the Crown may express its will to the House by message which, when delivered to the House at Westminster, is expressed by commissioners appointed under the Great Seal. In this province, the communication is by a document called a message signed by His Honour which, when produced to the House, is acted upon immediately.

Generally the message recommends introduction of a bill. It may not; but it usually does. It may relate to constitutional powers or affect the revenues of the Crown, or other matters referred to in the British North America Act, 1867, specifically sections 54 and 90.

What happens if no message is received by the House? There can be no prima facie contempt of the House by reason of the fact that a message had been contemplated and was not sent forward. Until it reaches the House, it is not a matter within the concern of this assembly.

Then the question arises that even if a matter was given to the press before it got to the House, as was referred to in that Speaker's decision I mentioned in February, that does not constitute thereby a contempt because contempt was settled back in 1870. All the available methods by which you could create a contempt against the House have been pretty well brought out by that. Anyway, that's an aside. (Laughter.)

Now, dealing with this case….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're denying our creativity, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The fact that somebody has alleged that a message was prepared and signed is merely historical; it has no significance to our proceedings within this assembly. It could be something that happened in 1890 or happened yesterday or happened today. Unless it comes to this House, we have only got signification that a message bill was prepared. But it obviously was not expended, so the Hon. Member perhaps struck too soon. (Laughter.)

In the circumstances, I cannot find a prima facie case of breach of privilege, and I so have to give my opinion on that point.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I've listened with interest to your remarks concerning the matter that I brought before you when we first met this afternoon. I feel that the matter I brought before you, while I may not have explained it in the detail that I should have, is still, in my opinion, a problem with respect to privilege in this House.

I agree that perhaps I was in error, and I thank you for drawing to my attention that the points that I based originally, and then referred to later — that the bill while it was signed, did not come before the House — was something that you brought to my attention this evening.

But the fact is this, as I see it, Mr. Speaker. It is true that a message bill must be signed before it is brought into the House. But it is wrong that a message bill which has been signed by the Lieutenant-Governor should be discussed by the Premier or any other Member of his cabinet prior to submitting that bill to the Legislative Assembly. And in that respect I suggest to you Mr. Speaker, that there was a breach of privilege. The Premier should never have discussed that particular matter even though someone in the news media had knowledge of one way or another of the fact that a bill had been prepared.

As a matter of fact there's an article this evening written by two members of the press gallery in The Vancouver Sun referring to this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it true?

MR. SMITH: Is it true? Are the remarks that are contained in that transcript true? If they are I suggest to you, and I submit that there has been a breach of privilege and that the Premier exceeded his authority; he exceeded the rights of parliament and abused the Members of this House by discussing that bill before it came before the assembly.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in all courtesy to your position and to the Premier, that if that bill was discussed….

[ Page 977 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no bill….

MR. SMITH: There's no bill. There was a message which was signed by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor and I would suggest Mr. Speaker, that it is the duty of the Premier to put that bill on the table forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: On your point of order, may I explain to the Hon. Member, so that there's absolutely no mistake on this point, it is not the business of this House the advice that the Ministers of the Crown give to His Honour or what His Honour does. That is not the business of this House and we must not intervene in that.

It would be reprehensible of this House to even have the temerity really, to demand of His Honour that he explain what he does in the privacy of his councils, for the House to question those councils when a bill is not submitted to this House. It is merely an historical fact unless the bill is presented to this House and then we have a different situation that was covered in the February decision that was exhaustively gone into at that time.

I point out that the Hon. Member is in error. As I said, I think he acted too swiftly. If there was a bill to be produced it certainly is not in this House. And it appears from the statements that he himself produced to this House that there was no intention of proceeding with such a bill.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not intend to challenge your decision, as you have outlined it. But I suggest to you that there is a serious affront and I have no alternative but to file with this House a notice of motion concerning this very matter this evening.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: If the Hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications and ferries (Hon. Mr. Strachan) would like to talk, let him get his seat and speak from there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! From here on you have the right of course to file a notice of motion which in due course can be considered by the House.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

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

LABOUR CODE OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

House in committee on bill 11; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On the amendment to section 43.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman just as a point of order to commence here. Are we considering the amendment as put forward that is duly moved by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) at the last sitting, Or does this motion have to be put forward?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are considering the amendment.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I merely stand to support this very simple amendment which gives directions to the Labour Relations Board.

It's very clear that past decisions have bogged down in wrangling as to what percentage of the members of a working group have signed up with any particular union. It is quite clear that the board has ignored — I'm talking about the previous Labour Relations Board — situations where the overwhelming majority of the workers have clearly indicated a preference for an alternative union.

One only has to refer to the situation in Trail of a year ago where the workers quite clearly wished out of an American union and into a Canadian union. And despite the very evident information laid before the Labour Relations Board, the board chose to ignore it, not even demanding that a representative vote be taken. It's this sort of denial of democracy instituted by bureaucratic boards appointed by the provincial government that does so much to contribute to labour unrest in British Columbia.

The amendment put forward by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is designed to circumvent this kind of arbitrary action by government appointees. Therefore, in that spirit, I recommend the acceptance by the Minister of Labour of this particular amendment.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): That's a lost spirit, Mr. Chairman. I think I pointed out last night that we don't want to encourage internal disruption and internal discontent within the trade union movement. We do want to provide an opportunity for the workers to indicate the union of their choice.

It is traditional in every jurisdiction that I am

[ Page 978 ]

familiar with that such a preference as against an existing union for an aspiring union must be indicated by 50 per cent plus one of the membership wishing a change.

To suggest that we should reduce that membership to a simple 35 per cent would, I submit, provide a situation where dissident workers — and there are some; there are always some who are unhappy with a contract settlement or something of that nature — that such a small minority of the total workforce in the unit would then be free to make application for certification.

This could have a very serious effect on the bargaining committee in making recommendations for contract settlement. It would, I submit, create a situation where a bargaining committee would not recommend a contract settlement unless they were confident that a very, very large majority of the unit would vote in favour of it, and that would serve to minimize the possibility of achieving a contract settlement and serve no one's best interests.

And so I oppose the proposition. I think that the 35 per cent requirement is adequate as an indication to provide a vote for a new unit. Certainly where there is an existing union, we would be encouraging small groups to create disunity and disharmony within the trade union movement. I certainly don't welcome, and I don't think the trade union movement would welcome that kind of a situation.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it is almost a plausible-sounding argument from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), but it neglects two things, Mr. Chairman, and I think it only fair two things, Mr. Chairman, and I think it only fair that these be presented publicly.

The first of these is that it is always dangerous to deny democracy, even for a trade union. The safest course of action, whether it's electing a government or choosing a union….

HON. MR. KING: You don't elect governments with 35 per cent.

MR. McGEER: You elect them with 38 per cent, Mr. Member. That's one of the unfortunate things: that this little government here is dictating to the people of British Columbia when it has a decided minority of the people supporting it, I only hope that the opposition — and I speak for all the parties here — comes to its senses, because it's quite clear that the majority in British Columbia is being pushed around.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, unite tonight and let's go.

MR. McGEER: Well, and you should fear this, Mr. Premier: perhaps the opposition parties will unite and you'll be dead when they do.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: But that's got nothing to do with the plight of the working man in British Columbia. Because I don't think that governments should, by their laws, manipulate against democracy in a labour union. When in doubt — just as the Chairman of this House should do — when in doubt, step out and let the majority rule. That's the intent of this particular clause.

The Minister of Labour may say that a dissident minority — 35 per cent — proven to a Labour Relations Board is a pretty large minority. And by the time you get to 35 per cent, you've probably got a lot more than that behind you.

What I'm against, Mr. Chairman, and why I support this particular amendment, is what has taken place so many times before in the history of the labour movement in British Columbia. The labour unions of this province are in the grip of the American labour movement. Make no mistake about it. There are all over British Columbia working men who wish to escape from that yoke.

Everything we're doing in the way of legislation — seeking technicalities, denying established groups of people the opportunity to have a democratic vote — these are all working against the establishment of what the working man in British Columbia really wants to have, which is his own Canadian union representing him.

I am under no delusions as to why the Minister of Labour rejects this particular amendment. It helps to introduce democracy into the selection of unions which shall represent a bargaining unit. These Canadian unions will come, despite the Minister of Labour and the NDP government. Probably they'll be made stronger by the kind of repressive legislation which works against their interests. Nevertheless, we should continue to put forward reasonable and fair amendments to give these working men a fair opportunity to have the union of their choice.

I am disappointed in what the Minister of Labour has said and I ask him once more to take a second look at this particular amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm hurt and filled with chagrin that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) questions my motives and my integrity in this matter. I take the position that the workers of this province have the full right to indicate the union of their choice. I think it would be most regrettable if a government which is charged with the impartial adjudication of matters that come before the Labour Relations Board should state a preference for any particular union. Surely, if you pre-state that, what chance, what hope have the

[ Page 979 ]

workers got of an impartial adjudication of certification applications?

I can only hope that the Liberal Party never comes to power, because the interests of the working people of this province will certainly be in question if that sad day should ever arise.

In terms of my interest and my motivation for the workers of this province, I can assure the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that none of my ancestors ever read the Riot Act to the workers who were seeking their legitimate rights in this province. And certainly I never did either.

We want to provide a democratic vote for the workers when they can indicate that there is justification for such a vote.

Now with respect to the criticism the Member inferred against the Labour Relations Board in their adjudication of the Trail application, I would suggest that there are ground rules, there are laws, which constitute the structuring of a trade union. And when a trade union fails to comply with the laws which govern the structuring and development of a trade union, then certainly that is not a technicality; that is a very serious matter. We don't want bogus trade unions in this province — and I am not suggesting the Trail people were bogus. But if you allow a breach of the laws which govern the constitution of a trade union, we could open the door to company-dominated unions and a variety of other involvements that are certainly unhealthy.

The adjudication in Trail was made by the Labour Relations Board, I presume, in very good faith. They named and reported the infractions of the laws which prevented that group of workers from making and filing their application for certification. Now that union has a perfect right to overcome those breaches of the law and make application again this year, I understand. If they can produce cards to indicate that over 50 per cent of the members wish to have a vote, then a vote will be held. The Labour Relations Board is governed — it's bound — by a majority consensus of the workers in those circumstances.

So I want to set those questions to rest. I don't think the Hon. Member should cast reflections on the integrity or the motives of the existing Labour Relations Board.

Now, I've been critical of the law structure under which they functioned, but I think that the members of that board operated in good faith and with integrity.

Amendment negatived.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to talk a little bit about 43(3) which says that "notwithstanding…where the board is satisfied that a representation vote is unlikely to disclose the true wishes of the employees…. ." — and we've already had some discussion on this in second reading. The

Minister has explained and others have commented on the fact that there are times when intimidation can lead to the vote not representing the wishes of the workers.

I think this is a very serious principle we're involved in here and I think the Minister had already commented — and I'm speaking from memory hen. and not from the reading of Hansard — but I seem to remember the Minister commenting that it's quite a small incidence of cases where a situation is this serious. Nevertheless, this principle that a vote really, doesn't say what it appears to say is a principle that, frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would really quite like to apply to the election results of last August.

Maybe the vote doesn't always say what certain parties want it to say, but this is giving the board tremendous powers to that degree of interpretation. It seems to me that this is a very dangerous precedent and if it is likely to be used on very rare occasions — using a concept that the Minister himself has used — maybe we should try the bill without this kind of dangerous concept. Then, if in a year from now the board or the government feels that it does need this to give the board this power, it can be introduced.

In the meantime it would seem to me it would be a safer and more acceptable philosophy that we generally accept that votes say what they appear to say. But if there are some occasions when this kind of power is needed, as in 43(3), then it should be brought into the bill by an amendment by the government, let us say, in a year's time.

With that thought in mind, Mr. Chairman, I move that we amend section 43 by deleting subsection (3). so move.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the apprehension which the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) enunciates.

I fully admit that this is an unusual power to vest in the Labour Relations Board. At the same time I stress that it is an unusual power to meet an unusual situation. However, there are those situations that the board has been faced with, and experience has proven that in not a few situations a representation vote cannot reflect the true intent and the true wishes of a small unit of workers to indicate their preferences.

When an unfair labour practice has been proven by an employer — and I use one illustration of the alien immigrant workers who are threatened by an employer with deportation or with a report against their illegal status if they indicate a preference for the union — when that kind of situation develops and that unfair labour practice is proven by the board, then I submit that irreparable damage has been done. It's very, very unlikely that those workers will have either the knowledge or the courage to state their true wishes in a representation vote. Irreparable

[ Page 980 ]

damage has been done to their ability to freely express their preference.

There are other situations which have come to the attention of the existing board. It's not a generally frequent situation, but it has happened on more than a few occasions, and the effects are so devastating and the losses so great that I think some device has to be tailored to meet that particular circumstance and to offer redress to workers who are so discriminated against.

The provision contained in section 43(3) provides also that the board has the authority to grant certification on a limited basis. Within a 12-month period the board can review the status of that unit, and if a fair indication is not received that the union does, in fact, represent the majority wishes of the members of that unit, then a representation vote can be ordered at that time. This seems like an adequate safeguard to ensure that union is not forced upon that unit against their better judgment and against their will.

It is a rather unique thing. It's an unusual provision, but I suggest that the consequences of situations such as I have outlined are devastating such that unusual provisions have to be devised to come to grips with that problem. Again, I would suggest that this be given a chance to work. If abuses do emerge, the board has the wherewithal to meet them. Certainly, if they don't execute good judgment, we have an opportunity next year after this has functioned to have a hard look at it.

Again, if any Member of this Legislature can suggest to me and document an injustice that has been visited upon the workers, then I would be quite happy, based on fact, to consider amendment. But not at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Amendment negatived.

Section 43 approved with amendment.

On section 44.

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

MR. WALLACE: Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, in many ways it does resemble the amendment that I have on the order paper, but I would like the Minister to comment on the fact that 44(1) states: "Upon an application for certification, the trade-union may request that a representation vote be taken…" The amendment, in which we are in. agreement, states: "…prior to a determination, by the board, of the appropriate bargaining unit."

I would certainly accept that part of the amendment, but I wonder if the Minister would consider the point expressed in my amendment to the effect that when an application for certification is made it need not only be the trade union that would be interested in wanting to have a representation vote. Would he consider the inclusion of the words: "A trade union, or any persons affected, may request that a representation vote be taken"? In other words, it might be, for various reasons, the wish of the employer that a representation vote be taken.

It seems to me this would just make the whole subsection 1 of 44 that much more accurate and fair for all concerned. Maybe not only the trade unions would want to have a representation vote taken, and the inclusion of the words "or any person affected" just seems to me to give a fairer and more complete application of the principle which is embodied in 44(1). Perhaps the Minister would care to comment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I really don't think the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) intends to imply that the employer should have an interest in determining the wishes of a group of employees to the union of their choice.

MR. WALLACE: An interest in whether there should be a vote?

HON. MR. KING: No. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the employer has no legitimate interest in that decision, except to the extent that he should have a voice, perhaps, in who should be included or who should be excluded from the unit. But in terms of the preference of the employees for a union or for their preference between one union and another, I submit that the employer has no legitimate interests whatsoever. I quite frankly know of no jurisdiction where such a proposition is implied.

Amendment approved.

Section 44 approved with amendment.

Sections 45 and 46 approved.

On section 47.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On section 47, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper which has the effect of deleting this section, because the section deals with units which are partly supervisory. I personally believe that the mixing of supervisory personnel with other employees will cause a great deal of friction and difficulties within a plant. Also, the fact that supervisors in many instances do deal with employee grievances in turn would create a conflict of interest in many instances.

Basically, supervisory personnel have always been regarded as a branch of management and in many

[ Page 981 ]

instances they get involved, probably not in directly negotiating a collective agreement, but at least in making recommendations as to what should be brought into the collective agreement in certain areas. For that reason I think there will be a great deal of difficulty by the inclusion of partly supervisory units with other employees, as well as making it difficult for the supervisory personnel to relate as to where their allegiance might lie — whether it lies on the side of management or on the side of the trade union movement. I think that will be a troublesome one for the plant concerned, a troublesome one for the trade union, and probably a troublesome one for the Labour Relations Board to administer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would make a point of order before we proceed, and that is that this amendment calls for deletion of a section. The proper procedure is to defeat the section. Therefore I would declare the amendment out of order and take the comments of the Member as speaking against the section.

MR. CHABOT: You're suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment is out of order. Is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've ruled your amendment out of order.

MR. CHABOT: You've ruled it out of order! Mr. Chairman, that's shocking! I'm here speaking for what I think is in the best interests of the working people of this province and here we find a Chairman ruling the little Member for Columbia River out of order. (Laughter.) Shocking! Shocking, Mr. Chairman!

HON. MR. KING: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it may be somewhat shocking but not quite surprising.

To speak to this particular section, I would point out that it has traditionally been the policy of the Labour Relations Board to allow for the inclusion of supervisory personnel in a bargaining unit if they did not have as their primary function the right to hire and fire, or if they weren't primarily exercising the management function in terms of access to confidential industrial relations information. The Member for Columbia River well knows that criterion.

At the same time I think we have to recognize that there is a growing interest by middle management in trade union representation.

The existing Labour Relations Board has allowed for the inclusion of shift bosses in mines to be included in bargaining units. There are many situations which the Member for Columbia River should be familiar with where members of bargaining units exercise a supervisory function without conflict to their relationship with the company.

I refer the Hon. Member to my own personal profession. I am suggesting that engineers on the railway….

AN HON. MEMBER: Hoghead.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, hogheads…and conductors on the railway, each and every trip, exercise supervision over certain employees on their crew. The very question of exercising supervision does not imply a conflict with their relationship and with their function for the company.

I think that the Wood task force has dealt very extensively with this proposition and recommended essentially the type of language that is contained in this legislation. Further, I would point out that you have to read this particular Section in accord with the definition of an employee contained in the first section of the bill.

MR. CHABOT: I certainly don't agree with the definition that the Minister of Labour places on the role of the engineman on the railway as being in a supervisory capacity. He is an employee and I am sure that he would not be expected or asked to cross a picket line on the railroad. In view of that, I refrain from suggesting that he is a supervisor.

My role on the railway was in a supervisory capacity.

HON. MR. KING: Is the picket line your criteria?

MR. CHABOT: No. What I am suggesting is that there is a possibility of the situation where a supervisor, because of his responsibilities, might be asked to cross a picket line to perform a function on the part of management. I have seen those situations develop. You would put that supervisor in a very embarrassing situation. If his own members of his bargaining unit were on the picket line, he would be very hesitant to cross the picket line and he'd find himself in a serious dilemma as to where his responsibilities lie.

I have no qualms or arguments about the supervisory personnel being one bargaining unit, but it is where you mix the two. I've experienced the situation where, in my capacity as a supervisor on CP Rail, I've been asked to cross a picket line in a pulp mill, and I didn't. I asked them please — because not only of my responsibility as a supervisor, but as an MLA….

AN HON. MEMBER: And you like it.

MR. CHABOT: So they did send another supervisor down to cross the picket line because I wouldn't cross the picket line because of my position.

He can be asked to cross the picket line and it can

[ Page 982 ]

be a very embarrassing situation. Where his allegiance would lie in that particular situation, I don't know. It would be very troublesome. If an individual that belonged to the same bargaining unit who was a supervisor of a certain group of people crosses a picket line, you'd better believe that there could be trouble.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I should point out that whether or not they belong to the same unit as other workers in the plant is a decision for that category of employees and the board as to the appropriateness of the unit. It well may be possible, and indeed it is possible under the legislation, for such a classification of workers to form their own unit, or indeed be included in an existing unit. That's their preference, though, I suggest.

With respect to the picket line proposition, I think the Member answered his own question. Surely the picket line is a matter of conscience, whether it happens to be your own particular bargaining unit or some other. Surely, as the Member has indicated, he let his conscience be his guide. I would suggest that the same holds true for any supervisor.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, just briefly to follow this up again, I realize that it may be the preference of the board or of the unit itself to decide whether or not these people do belong to the same unit. I don't think anyone really has any serious objection to supervisory personnel being brought within a unit. There is a problem of conflict of interest which arises if those two classes of employees are mixed in one unit.

I think the Minister probably got a letter from the Municipality of Surrey, which has expressed some serious doubts of this. They have put it better, I think, than I could, and I would just like to suggest that he read that letter if you haven't already read it.

I'll read one paragraph of it to you so that you understand their position. They pointed out that a stipulation of membership in the local union, in CUPE, in the municipality of Surrey is a requirement that:

"New members take an oath that they will do nothing to injure the interests of any member of the union. On the other hand, we require a superior to function in a managerial capacity and to direct and discipline the employees reporting to him. Both requirements are in themselves perfectly legitimate but when brought together, a situation-provoking conflict arises."

I would suggest, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that that conflict does arise and it could cause some serious problems — for instance, in areas which employ members of CUPE and many other areas as well. I would just like the Minister to seriously consider that problem and perhaps make some changes in that area.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just observe that I pointed out already that shift bosses in mines do belong to bargaining units of the steelworkers, of the miners' federation and so on. I have never heard of any great conflict or any great problem in terms of foremen exercising the supervisory function over fellow employees.

MR. McCLELLAND: We're not talking about foremen now. This is not foremen.

HON. MR. KING: I have heard of no great problem in terms of them even recommending discipline for the workers in their charge if they fail to perform their duties adequately.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's the level above foreman.

HON. MR. KING: The suggestion by the Municipality of Surrey that the contractual provision that requires no member shall do injury to a fellow member hardly implies, I would suggest, any dilution of the responsibility to management. I think that means in moral terms. That's contained in many collective agreements. I think that's an academic thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I proceed on to section 481 would just like to quote an authority in regard to the decision I made in ruling out of order an amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to section 47. I quote from May, page 549 and 550, section 6.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I accept your ruling. There's no need to quote me the authority.

Section 47 approved.

On section 48.

MR. McGEER: I don't intend to move the amendment standing in the name of the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) regarding section 48, in deference to the ruling that you were finally able to make, despite the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

We accept your approach to this, Mr. Chairman. We don't want to let this section pass without voicing our objections. I think there has been a considerable debate before about this whole matter of dependent contractors. I am afraid that the government and the Minister of Labour have got this blind eye…

[ Page 983 ]

HON. MR. KING: What do you mean?

MR. McGEER: …to weaknesses in this particular Act. I think that our party and other Members of the opposition should do everything possible to wake up the Minister, even at this late date, and point out to him that this business of the dependent contractors is going to come back and cause him, the government and the Labour Relations Board no end of difficulty. So we plead with the Minister to accept the spirit of this amendment and to vote with us against section 48.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I take it that your smile is not a cynical one — that we are still able, despite our differing political philosophy, to debate a bill, section by section, upon its merits. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there is no merit at all in section 48, and we oppose it.

MR. CHABOT: On section 48…I said it before a little earlier in the definition and interpretation section 1: there is concern out there on the part of the independent contractors with the inclusion of the clause relative to dependent contractors. They are concerned with the possibility that, come next negotiating year, next year, there could be an attempt for the inclusion of the dependent contractors or the independent contractors within the framework of the master agreement of the IWA, and with a concerted effort there could be pressure on the part of Forest Industrial Relations in order to reach a collective agreement with the IWA.

They might be inclined to pressure those independent contractors who work for them to participate in the master agreement in order to resolve a work stoppage. And that is one of the real problems. That is one of the areas in which the independent contractor could really be destroyed.

I'd hoped in a previous questioning of the Minister that he would give us a definition of his interpretation of an independent contractor and a dependent contractor, because I'm sure that when the Labour Relations Board is finally constituted they will examine the Hansard very closely to see the areas of concern expressed by the representatives of the people in this assembly. They will also examine the statements made by the Minister as to the various definitions he has established in the discussion of this labour code of British Columbia.

I had hoped that the Minister would stand in his place tonight and tell us what he considers to be a dependent contractor and an independent contractor, which in turn will probably dispel the fears that the independent contractors have out there, as well as give some guidance to the board once it is fully constituted so that they will have a clear-cut definition that will make their job that much easier when they are faced with trouble in this particular 983 section.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and I had this discussion earlier on today, as a matter of fact.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, were you on that?

HON. MR. KING: Oh yes, I followed right behind you, Jimmy.

It occurs to me that it is somewhat curious that the Member for Columbia River would suggest that I give instructions to the Labour Relations Board which is, in effect, a quasi judicial independent tribunal, allegedly free from political interference — it should have been in the past and certainly is now. I have no intention, Mr. Chairman, of giving any instructions to that board.

The term "dependent contractor" is indeed defined in the definition section of the bill.

MR. CHABOT: It includes everybody.

HON. MR. KING: It points out that the test of dependency relates to whether or not the contractor more closely resembles an employee in his relationship with the parent, whether he is economically dependent and hence should be classified as an employee rather than in independent contractor.

Now I can see no reason for great apprehension in placing the destiny of a contractor before the Labour Relations Board, because under the existing system and under the new system every trade union, every group of employees who wish certification, its destiny adjudicated by the Labour Relations Board; every employer and corporation has its destiny placed before the Labour Relations Board when it comes to exclusions of employees from a union and when it comes to unfair labour practices charges. So I can see no reason why this group of allegedly independent contractors should fear this kind of test of their particular relationship. Have they something to hide?

MR. CHABOT: No.

HON. MR. KING: If they are genuine and bona fide independent contractors, then they have nothing whatsoever to fear. But certainly they will have to bring evidence before the board to justify their independence. It's as simple as that.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there is a possibility that the workers in the employ of the independent contractors might not want to belong to a trade union. They should have their rights respected as

[ Page 984 ]

well. And the fear here is really that the Minister says "within the framework of the economic circumstances between the employer and the independent." You'd better believe that every independent contractor is economically tied to his employer. They are all economically tied. Certainly they are. Because they have a contract with an individual, with a particular…. Pardon?

HON. MR. KING: The degree of economic dependence.

AN HON. MEMBER: 38 per cent? 42?

MR. CHABOT: Now the degree, the degree is substantial, I must say, because it has to be substantial if you have a contract with some individual. You're dependent on him to fulfill that contract and give you money, so the degree is great. The degree is great.

No, I think one of the great fears is the fact that the determination of their destiny, or the destiny of their employees who might not want to be part of a union, might be predicated on the fact that a small group within the framework of a particular operation — it might be small operations, and your big operation — is subject too, to the whims of a group of small operators. I'm talking about one-to-two-employee situations which might affect the destiny of an operation of 100 employees, where the employees, the vast majority of the employees might not want to be part of a bargaining unit or part of a union structure.

I think that should have some bearing, because here in section 48 it says a majority of the dependent contractors consent to representation by the trade union. Now the majority of the small contractors might predicate the destiny of the larger contractor. That's the only thing to fear here in that situation.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Member's concern there and I think if he reads section (A)(b) in section 2 he will find that the board has the flexibility there to ensure that the peculiar relationship of the contractor is protected and recognized. The majority consent of independents is recognized. There must be a majority consensus. Reasonable procedures must be developed to integrate dependent contractors into the bargaining unit, which recognizes their ownership of equipment and machinery and so on.

The point is if a contractor is found to be dependent and is an employee within the meaning of the Act, then he is subject to all the other considerations that any employee is subject to with the exception that the peculiar circumstances of his ownership and operation of equipment are recognized. I think that is an adequate safeguard.

Section 48 approved.

Sections 49 to 52 inclusive approved.

On section 53.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 53 as amended.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I had an amendment there too, Mr. Chairman, a copy of which has….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 53?

MR. GARDOM: That's right, a copy of which has earlier been filed with you. The Hon. Minister didn't mention to the House what his amendment is, but I see that he strikes out the words "trade union" and says that "any person." So that it will now read "where a question arises under this section the board, on application by any person, shall determine what rights" and so forth and so on.

I would like to know what the Minister's logic behind his amendment is. My amendment was not to leave it exclusive to trade unions but was also to bring in employers' organizations. So my amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have read that "when a question arises under section 53(2) the board, on application by a trade union or an employers' organization, shall determine what rights, privileges and duties have been acquired or obtained," and so forth and so on.

The Minister has decided to grant this right to any individual whatsoever who doesn't necessarily have to be a party to the collective agreement. I would like to know the logic for his amendment, which he has not explained to us.

It seems to me starting off with "trade union", by amplifying that to "employers' organization" would have better handled it than the Minister's amendment. He must have a reason for this and I would like to know what it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe, Hon. Member, that the definition of "person" would cover that. A person in the definition section, "'person' includes a corporation, an employer, an employers' organization, a trade-union, and council of trade-unions."

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would make the same point that "person" is defined within this Act. So the intent here, I might like to point out, is to allow an employer to make application because in

[ Page 985 ]

a situation where a business is merging, or a portion of it is closing down, then surely the employer has a right to know and to plan for the effect that might accrue to the union people.

MR. GARDOM: Which your section did not initially state, and that's the purpose for my amendment. So we are thinking along the same lines.

Section 53 approved with amendment.

Sections 54 and 55 approved.

On section 56.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to move, on behalf of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), Mr. Chairman, his amendment to section 56. It is to the effect that wherever the word "representative" appears in this section that it be deleted and the word "agents or agent" be substituted as the context may require.

The logic behind my colleague's amendment is that within the definition section we refer to bargaining agents but nowhere within the definition section do we find the word "representative." It seems to be that my colleague has established a good point in this, unless the Minister has some specific reason for having the word "representative" which has escaped us.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, there is a specific reason, Mr. Chairman, for using the term "representative" rather than "agent." section 15 in the old Act provided for "representative" rather than "agent." This is a continuation…

MR. GARDOM: But where does that apply in this Act….

HON. MR. KING: …and it's used rather than "bargaining agent" because historically this word was used and is a continuation provision. The legislative draftsman and the legal advice I have secured have made that point very specifically, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GARDOM: Well, whatever that meant I'm not too sure.

HON. MR. KING: It seems that I'd prefer their advice.

MR. GARDOM: Well, it's not a question of preferring their advice; they're referring you to a definition on a former statute which you don't have in this one. You say this is hunky-dory, yet your bill is a law unto itself. I think you had better re-consult your advisers and suggest to them that if they're going to utilize terminology in a former statute, they'd better use the definitions under the former statute which you have not included here. I so move.

Amendment negatived.

Section 56 approved.

On section 57.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper; I hope you'll rule it in order. It deals with the deletion of "the word 'one' and substituting therefore the word 'two' and by deleting the words 'or on its own motion'."

I hope I can delete that one word "one" and make it "two" because what we're talking about is the certification of councils of trade unions. I really can't understand how one trade union could be certified as a council of trade unions, and that's the reason for this.

Also, I don't really believe that the board should have the power on its own motion to establish a council of trade unions. Maybe the Minister has some justifiable reasons for the board on its own motion to dictate that trade unions must form a trade council. It will be very interesting to hear just what the justification for this might be.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I certainly do have some motivation for including this kind of a section in the bill. I would think that the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) would be very, very acutely aware of the need for this particular kind of section.

MR. CHABOT: I am, but not for one union though.

HON. MR. KING: I think you're misinterpreting the language. This bill does indeed provide for the combination of a number of trade unions into a council. I want to stress in the House with respect to this section that it's one of those very sensitive provisions that will have to be exercised only in extreme circumstances.

I think that a number of trade unions, in particular instances, have done a very admirable job of forming councils and eliminating fragmentation which is objectionable from every point of view, The days of units composed of 10 or 30 or 40 people tying up an overall industry composed of thousands of workers is most unrealistic and is unjustifiable, in my view, from any point of view.

This is a salutary section, one might say. This gives a message to the trade-union movement: it is preferable that you get out and solve that problem,

[ Page 986 ]

such as has been accomplished in the construction industry and building trades where an admirable job has been done. I think this holds out some inducement, it's salutary, and infers to other problem areas that unless they are capable of doing the job in a voluntary way, there is a legislative provision here to come to grips with major problems when they occur.

It's one of those sections, like a number of others, that I certainly hope doesn't have to be used at all. But such a provision is necessary to protect the public interest that the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is so concerned about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Join the club.

Amendment to section 57 negatived.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, there's a man on his feet.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Chairman, on section 57, before you rush along. I do appreciate very much the tone of what the Minister says about the need for this section. Despite that, it's a section 1 find unacceptable.

One of the main purposes in this legislation is to try and achieve some…

AN HON. MEMBER: Must be good.

MR. GABELMANN: …form of labour and industrial peace in British Columbia. I'm afraid this section will lead to the opposite result. It's a section that allows for the Labour Relations Board, whether they use it or not, in a compulsory way to force unions to sit down at the same table.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, you're arguing against your Attorney General.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the fact that the Labour Relations Board, if it's operating properly, is unlikely to force unions together that can't possibly sit down together. But the problem with the section isn't that this isn't a desirable goal; the problem is that a great many people in the community, particularly in the trade-union movement, are going to be very mistrustful of the board and of the government and of the Minister as long as this section remains in the legislation. It seems to me that it's going to invite the attitude of suspicion, the attitude of lack of trust that will, I think, lead not to more industrial peace but in fact to less. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I can't at all be happy with this section.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I am a bit concerned about this section as well. I recognize the problems and what the section is designed to do. I think the intent of this particular section is very progressive. The idea is to have joint bargaining to create the one-big-union idea within a particular bargaining unit, and I think this is an admirable aim. I can see where it will help to stop some destruction within various bargaining units when one group may have a strike and settle, and then another group the next week will go out and cause some destruction in a particular industry.

I can also see where the joint bargaining will be of benefit to some of the unions within a bargaining unit. Some unions, because they are very strong and well-organized, are able to get greater benefits than others. These stronger unions, if they were involved in a larger bargaining unit, would, in effect, be able to help some of the other workers along in the other unions. I can see this is another admirable thing about this clause.

However, I am somewhat concerned about the compulsory aspects of it. My own feeling is that something like this could go in if the majority of unions in any bargaining unit were able to call for a trades council; this might be an acceptable alternative. For example, in the building trades we have three or four unions such as the plumbers, the electricians and the ironworkers who are opposed to joint bargaining, but the majority of unions are in favour of it. My feeling is, in this area at least — and I would hope in others — that the compulsory aspects of this Act would not be needed. I am. a bit concerned that we have to go the compulsory route.

There is one other aspect I'm a little bit concerned about as well. I'm just not sure how this will work out; we'll be watching what happens in the future. I'm a bit concerned that the idea of joint bargaining will have some effect on the Canadian unions and may, in effect, become more of a discouragement to them.

This may be good or bad depending on what happens. If the unions working in a particular unit do form into a separate type of union, it may end up with something entirely different from either the Canadian or the international. But under the present set-up it may be somewhat detrimental to Canadian unions organizing within a bargaining unit when they are all combined together.

MR. CHABOT: Just very briefly I do want to say that I support the concept of joint bargaining and the desirability of this kind of situation. I'm sure that in many instances labour disputes would have been resolved a lot quicker had there been joint bargaining.

I never thought I would have some friends — the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) and the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) — supporting my intent to remove, or on its

[ Page 987 ]

motion relative to the board on its own motion setting up a council of trade unions. I never thought I'd have that kind of support.

Had I known that support from those two Members was forthcoming I might not have presented the amendment. (Laughter.) But nevertheless I think the Minister should really tell us under what circumstances that on its own motion the board might decide arbitrarily that parties should be put together.

Section 58 approved.

On section 59.

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

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to speak to the amendment, because I want to make sure, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is carried, Make no mistake of that. Mine was proposed many days before the Hon. Minister put his in and I find a striking similarity between the two. As a matter of fact they're almost identical. So, in view of that fact, and in view also of the fact that the Hon. Minister, with his usual humility, neglected to refer to authorship, I indeed intend to support his amendment and withdraw mine, which is just the same and which first came in.

HON. MR. KING: I'm happy to see, Mr. Chairman, that the Member is learning all about humiliation.

Section 59 approved with amendment.

On section 60.

MR. WALLACE: section 60 is a very good section, but we just wonder if by including a section with this very reasonable protection that the employee should have against the employer, would it not be reasonable to have the same applied….

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you speaking to 60?

MR. WALLACE: I'm trying, Mr. Chairman. It's not always easy, but I'm trying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Stay with it.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you Mr. Chairman, you're more encouraging to me today than you were yesterday. Thank you very much.

To be serious, this kind of clause leaves the implication — and I'm sure that this is not intended — that by making sure that employers need not be penalized unfairly by employers' organizations while it says nothing about the possibility of employees being equally penalized or unfairly treated by unions, and the inclusion of 60, without a similar clause in relation to the protection which employees might have against unions — suggests that the government is anti-employer and pro-union.

The amendment that I have suggested, Mr. Chairman, would simply, in very similar language, make sure that no union could unreasonably refuse membership to an employee. In very similar terms, namely, "that no unions shall refuse membership in the union to an employee or terminate an employee's membership except for a cause which in the opinion of the board is fair and reasonable," and I won't repeat the whole amendment. I have it written and signed, Mr. Chairman.

We've already discovered that a motion to delete a whole section is not in order, so I would wonder if the Minister would consider that this would really add completeness to the intent of section 60 by affording the same kind of protection and fair play to the employee that he is extending in 60 to the employer?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, indeed the same requirements are made upon a trade union in section 5 of the bill which was dealt with some time ago. It prohibits the use of coercion to induce or indeed to prevent anyone from becoming a trade union member. And that includes the trade union. Similarly section 7 requires and imposes a duty of fair representation upon a trade union.

I would particularly point out those two sections to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). And I would point out also Mr. Chairman that, in addition to this new type of protection that individual workers have under this Act, once again we have the ombudsman who can hear complaints of individual injustice against any trade union member, as indeed he can against any member of an employers' group. So, I would suggest that the requirements for fair play, the requirements preventing discrimination and coercion, are even-handed in this legislation and apply equally to management groups and trade unions.

So, I suggest Mr. Chairman that the amendment is not necessary; it's redundant and repetitive.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 60 and 61 approved.

On section 62.

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

[ Page 988 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 62 approved with amendment.

On section 63.

MR. WALLACE: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. This is moved because of the fact that section 39(2)(b)(i) contemplates an uncertified trade union having a collective agreement, and this amendment would take note of that section and correct our reading of section 63.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the provisions contained in section 63 have been modified. The intent is basically to change the time to commence bargaining from five days after notice to 10 days so parties can be reasonably prepared. It imposes an obligation on the parties to bargain in good faith in trying to come to an agreement.

Now in terms of determining the acceptability of a collective agreement which has been consummated between an uncertified unit and an employer, the board is obliged to consider the structure of the group purporting to represent the employees in that unit. And they have the full jurisdiction to determine whether or not there are implications, or inferences that the unit is dominated from a management point of view. And I submit that they have the full authority to determine whether there's any consideration which would mitigate against the acceptability of the collective agreement.

I really suggest that the Member's amendment is not necessary and I oppose it for that reason.

Amendment negatived.

Section 63 approved.

On section 64.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman on 64 the amendment we have is quite a simple one. The Minister has refused some of my amendments tonight because he says they're not needed. I just suggest to him that in this particular section he's got several words that indeed are repetitious and unnecessary.

The last words, "who is included in or affected by the argument," you've already said that in the section. And if we're going to follow the precise nature of the bill and not put in words that aren't necessary, I'm just moving the amendment that we delete the words at the end, "who is included in or affected by the agreement…."

It's a very minor amendment, but since we've discussed the fact, as the Minister has just said, that some of the amendments I've introduced tonight are not necessary, I think we've got a little bit of the Minister's verbiage which isn't necessary in this section.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this is a matter of legal language and I am not prepared to accept the Member's amendment on that basis. The intent is clear: no change in the parties bound by collective agreement except to add a council of trade unions. What the Member for Oak Bay views as redundant language simply recognizes the unusual structure of councils of trade unions, should they be formed, as separate and distinct from the normal bargaining unit over employees.

Amendment negatived.

Section 64 approved.

On section 65.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. The amendment states, Mr. Chairman:

"No clause in any collective agreement shall restrict or preclude any of the parties of the agreement from doing business with any person who is an employer having a collective agreement with any other trade-union certified under any Federal or Provincial statute or any employee of such an employer."

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) can open his mind a little to this particular problem and show a breadth of vision that he hasn't previously demonstrated.

This amendment strikes at the very heart of the worst abuse that has ever been tolerated in the labour movement of British Columbia. It's an abuse which should hang as a cloud over every single Member of this assembly who's been elected in the past 15 years. We have tolerated and accepted clauses in union and management contracts in this province that have prevented members of Canadian unions — duly certified — under provincial and federal statutes, from appearing on any construction site in British Columbia.

We have absolutely excluded members of Canadian unions from appearing on construction sites in the Province of British Columbia. Laws of this province have permitted and condoned this kind of thing. It's another evidence of the absolute grip that American unions have upon the labour movement in Canada, and specifically in British Columbia. If there's ever been a disgrace with how we have operated labour and management in this country, this is that disgrace.

Can you imagine! — the Teamster's Union, an American-controlled union and the Building Trades Council — to a member, American-controlled —

[ Page 989 ]

passing sweetheart clauses in their contracts…really holding a gun to the head of the Amalgamated Construction Association of British Columbia and preventing members from any Canadian unions showing up on that construction site. If they do…downing tools and walking off the job. That's what we've had for the last 10 years in British Columbia, tolerated and condoned by the laws of this province.

MR. GABELMANN: The IWA is not American.

MR. McGEER: The IWA isn't American! Mr. Chairman, what kind of nonsense is that?

Right here in Canada we discriminate against our own workers joining and being members of Canadian unions. They are taken down and tried in the United States and found guilty of the crime of advocating membership in a Canadian union. And on the side these same unions put clauses in their contract, and enforce them, disallowing an employer of this province from permitting his employees to be represented by a Canadian union, even though they're certified under the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia.

I've read testimony in this House produced in the courts of British Columbia showing how members of American unions have appeared before employers in this province and said, in effect, "Force your employees to belong to our union or we'll see that you and anyone you employ will be denied work in this province." It's gangster tactics. If the Members of the New Democratic Party haven't the courage to step out in this House and say so, I will.

It isn't good enough, Mr. Chairman, for a country that's proud of its heritage and anxious to chart its own political destiny in the future to continue to tolerate in its labour movement this kind of an unacceptable practice. I know the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) agrees with me; he says, "yes." I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that he backed down because he brought forward a bill to outlaw this very thing two years ago. Then, when the American unions descended on his government….

I don't really know whether they broke his will or they broke the will of the Premier and the other Members of the cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I suspect that's true, Mr. Chairman. I suspect that he was forced to back down not by the unions, but the other Members of his caucus and cabinet who didn't have enough courage to stand up to this kind of thing. But it doesn't make it any more acceptable.

I found another thing too, Mr. Chairman, and that is that it's been very difficult even to have this point of view put forward by the press in British Columbia, because they too are controlled by American unions. Yes, the reporters' union is an American union. And the members who work in the composing rooms, they're members of American unions. They've got no more appetite for this kind of thing than the B.C. Federation of Labour.

I don't think the general public is aware, Mr. Chairman, of what the true situation in British Columbia is, but it's time they found out. It's time we threw out this shameful blot on our labour relations record; it's time we began to give Canadian unions a fair break in this country.

I daresay, 10 or 15 years from now when this abuse is corrected by some government with a little backbone, that people will stand in this House and refer back to this period in our history as one when we tolerated the most intolerable abuse of all: namely, the forcing of Canadian working men, in order to get a job on a Canadian site, to belong to a union controlled by a foreign country.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't think we would have the spectre of Bill 88 raised again in this chamber at any time in our history in this province. That speech was a disgusting performance. I have heard it before when I sat in the gallery in years prior to the last election. It is absolute garbage, and I think those American reporters up there should know about it, Mr. Chairman.

If that doesn't illustrate the absurdity of that idiocy that has just been spouted across the way, I don't know what would.

The intent of this motion by that so-called friend of the labour movement is to bust the closed shop. That is what it is about. He talks about the fact that American unions are preventing Canadian unions from going on building sites. In fact, those agreements that are made between the Building Trades Council and the construction industry also prevent the IWA from sending trucks onto those sites. In that Member's terms the IWA is an American union. It is a lot of nonsense, Mr. Chairman.

Before the reporters are sucked in to reporting that kind of nonsense, they should be made aware of the fact that that Member doesn't know the first thing about the labour movement in this province.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The amendment is designed to bust the closed shop and nothing more. It is a ploy for management to gain control, absolute control, over that industry, Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be tossed out in the most vigorous way possible.

[ Page 990 ]

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I know a certain Liberal senator who is going to be cut to the quick by that performance tonight. I'm not sure who the Member was attacking but I would suggest that when he uses such terms as "gangster tactics" and when he uses such terms as "sweetheart agreements," that it is somewhat disgraceful. Then the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has the colossal gall to question the courage of this government.

I would suggest, if he's genuinely so concerned about these aspects of the trade union movement, that he has an obligation to attend the trade union conventions in this province and to stand on the platform and enunciate his position before the trade union movement.

He talks about a lack of courage, but I have yet to hear of that Member attending one of the workers' conventions and speaking out against the injustices and inequities which he sees in the organization of that group. Surely you have that kind of obligation.

I applaud everyone's interest in Canadian sovereignty but I think we have an obligation to be consistent. I can't really recall that Member speaking about the branch plant companies in Canada who were instructed by American parents not to continue to do business with China a few years ago.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's different.

HON. MR. KING: That was under federal jurisdiction under a Liberal government. I didn't hear one protest from that Hon. Member across the way. If his concern is genuine, how come he wasn't more vocal on the question, on the threat and spectre of British Columbia consumers being deprived of natural gas while the flow still continued across the U.S. border?

I accept the Member's concern. I wouldn't question his integrity and sincerity. But surely he has a responsibility to be consistent. If he's going to make that kind of inflammatory speech in the House, using terms like "gangster tactics"…"sweetheart agreements," surely he has a responsibility to go out there and beard the lion in its den. Tell them what you think of them. That's a freedom fighter. Don't tell me. Don't tell this House. Get out there where the action is and demonstrate what a big man you really are.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to demonstrate my consistency to the Minister of Labour — to repeat the charges that I have made. Gangster tactics have been used in an attempt to bust Canadian unions, specifically the Victoria Paving Company. The testimony is part of the Hansard record of this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Go to the courts.

MR. McGEER: The sweetheart agreements have been taken to the courts; it was the very testimony that appeared in those sweetheart agreements that I read before this House. I would be most happy, Mr. Chairman, to appear on a platform before any labour group in British Columbia and make these same statements.

I regret that the B.C. Federation of Labour hasn't extended the kind of invitations to Members of the Liberal Party that they do to Members of the New Democratic Party, but my offer stands.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, it was a left-handed invitation but it was there. There was a time when the Liberal Party, in order to get its view across — I think this was still when the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) was working for the B.C. Federation of Labour — was even prepared to buy advertising in the B.C. Federation of Labour newspaper. Do you know what, Mr. Chairman? They wouldn't let us even buy advertising in their paper.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, it isn't why I'm mad. I merely state that I am happy to stand up and make the statements I make here anywhere in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Minister of Labour about American branch plants in Canada. If we were debating legislation regarding American branch plants, I would be up saying exactly the same kinds of things.

We're debating labour legislation. I'm sure that if I were to get up and make the kind of speech suggested by the Minister of Labour, you, Sir, would have been the first one to find me out of order.

One can have a Canadian union and one can have a Canadian business without it being owned and controlled by government. I know that is a novel suggestion to some of my friends opposite, but it is possible — at least, now. Heaven help us if they stay in power too long.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, with respect to natural gas in British Columbia, I thought I had made the point to the Premier and the Minister of Labour that we were being very foolish indeed to export a depleting resource at any price. The policy of the New Democratic Party isn't to cease those exports; it's to sell more at a higher price. What good is that going to do British Columbia? After all, the policy right along has been to sell as much natural gas to the Americans as we can at as high a price as we can get.

I don't see any change in that policy with the New Democratic Party government. I don't care what the

[ Page 991 ]

market price for natural gas is today. In retrospect it will appear as though we have sold out our most valuable resource for a pile of beaver skins and a tot of rum.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Your National Energy Board. Your National Energy Board.

MR. McGEER: Well, "Your National Energy Board," says the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please; I would ask the Hon. Member…. Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to stray away from the amendment.

MR. McGEER: No, but the invitation, really, Mr. Chairman, was put forward by the Minister of Labour. He challenged me to say something on the subject and I am saying it. I'm saying that we aren't protecting a Canadian resource. We haven't in the past, we aren't at the present time and we're not going to in the future as long as that government is in power.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I'm not afraid to advocate Canadian policies, whether it applies to natural gas or not, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Labour is not in his chair and I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his remarks relevant to the amendment.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you will be the first one to point out that the Minister of Labour is bringing red herrings across this argument because he is embarrassed by it.

Mr. Chairman, what we have done here in British Columbia with our labour relations legislation is a disgrace. It is not what the Canadian working man wants. He doesn't like being held in the grip of American unions — shelling out all this money that goes across the border. He wants control of his own union.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How about car insurance?

MR. McGEER: He wants control of the money which he gives to the union movement. I think that the attitude of the working man is no different from the attitude of the average citizen. Here we have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to strike a blow for Canadianism. Let's knock them out, one haymaker at a time. Start with American unions tonight, move on to American businesses as soon as the Premier and the Attorney General can bring forth legislation. Come up with a common sense policy — we'll support it; but come up with the kind of legislation that protects these kinds of blatant practices and someone with a little concern for the future of Canada has to stand up and hold a light to that government. You're selling out. That's what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) in this government is doing, Mr. Chairman, and he ought to be man enough to admit it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You got a way with words. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: You got a way with facts!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Members on both sides of the House to keep their remarks strictly relevant to the amendment before us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, what's the amendment before us?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member who just sat down suggested I should be embarrassed and after that performance I am somewhat embarrassed. (Laughter.)

Let me just make this observation: you know, it just seems to me that that speech is misplaced. If you feel so strongly go out and preach the gospel to the trade union movement. They are the people who decide their own destiny. They are the people. If you feel so strongly about it don't stand in these hallowed, protected halls and take such a strong emotional stand. Get out there where the action is and tell them like it is, Pat.

There's one other point that was made. The Member suggested that there's been a great deal of gangsterism in the trade union movement. I resent that. I've been a trade unionist for 25 years.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): That's what he means.

lnterjection.

HON. MR. KING: Well I won't ask the Member to withdraw. I don't think she really meant that.

However, I'm proud of the working people of this province and I'm proud of the working people of Canada. I have complete confidence in the implicit honesty and sincerity of the average working people. When it comes to the record of the trade union movement compared to the number of people that they represent, I think they have a record in terms of

[ Page 992 ]

abiding by the law that is second to none. When we look at the number of corporations that have been convicted under the combines Act legislation — rather pale legislation that was developed by that Member's government — we find some pretty shocking results in terms of hooliganism in terms of breach of the law affecting millions of taxpayers in this province.

What really comes to mind when the Member talks about gangsterism is the very old friend of mine who passed away just the other day, the former Member of Parliament for Kootenay West, he who was known as the "squire of the Kootenays." I can recall when the Liberal government in Ottawa expedited and allowed the entry into this country of a trade unionist from the USA who has a record of crime and violence as long as your arm, one Hal Banks, and the Member for Kootenay West fought and protested allowing that man into Canada in the first instance. And who let him in? Who let him in? That great Liberal party that all of a sudden has a new-found concern for order and Canadian autonomy in the trade union movement. Shame on them!

If the Member wants to read about gangsterism in the trade union movement I suggest that he read Hansard, but Hansard from the federal House of Commons, when Bert Herridge fought a valiant fight to prevent the entry of Hal Banks into this country.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who brought him in?

HON. MR. KING: And what was the record? I suggest that the blackest mark against the trade union movement in this country was the record of Hal Banks while he was involved in the Seafarers' international union in the country of Canada.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who brought him in?

HON. MR. KING: And who let him out? (Laughter.) Who let him out when he was facing literally dozens of criminal charges for beating up on innocent trade unionists? He slipped away under the auspices of a friendly Liberal government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

AN HON. MEMBER: Who found him?

HON. MR. KING: Was there an attempt made to extradite Mr. Banks from the USA? Some newspaper reporters went down and found him when the Liberals said they couldn't. They found him living on a ship. But no extradition proceedings were taken against the honourable thug.

That Member has the audacity and the colossal gall to stand up in this House and talk about gangsterism in the trade union movement. I say shame on him! It's a shocking sham! If you have the courage of your convictions, through you, Mr. Chairman, you'll get out and you'll be consistent, and you'll preach your story to the working men and women of this province.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I stand up…

AN HON. MEMBER: …for Hal Banks.

MR. McGEER: …to agree with what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) had to say, because if there was an awful, despicable, unconscionable thing that was done, it was for those dirty Liberals to have Hal Banks in Canada. I absolutely condemn them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, well!

MR. McGEER: It was a disgraceful, unforgivable act. And Mr. Chairman, I want to pay tribute to the squire of the Kootenays, who formerly was in this House, for the battle that he carried on against that kind of thing. I want to tell you that were the squire of the Kootenays in this House he never would tolerate the kind of legislation that that Minister of Labour has brought in. He'd be standing up and saying the very things that I'm saying now. Rest his soul in peace.

No, Mr. Chairman, I can agree with the Minister of Labour about what those dreadful Liberals did in Ottawa. I think he's right, and if I were an NDP in Ottawa today do you know what I'd do? I'm dump those awful Liberals. That's what I'd do if I were an NDP in Ottawa. (Laughter.) If I were an NDP in Ottawa I wouldn't keep them in power to get a $390-a-month pension.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: I'd consider it beneath my dignity. Mr. Chairman, if I were an NDP in Ottawa today I'd stand on my principles and I'd throw those dirty Liberals out of office.

AN HON. MEMBER: So would we!

MR. McGEER: I'd stand up and tell them about all this into the past, including what they did with Hal Banks. Yes sir, if I were an NDP, Mr. Chairman, I'd be consistent. I'd have no hesitation in condemning the Liberals for their sins of the past or the present but I tell you this, Mr. Chairman: if the squire of the Kootenays were in this House today he wouldn't be voting for this legislation. He'd be as ashamed of it as I am. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why don't you quit the Liberal party?

[ Page 993 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What party?

MR. McGEER: I don't have anything to be ashamed of. I didn't bring this legislation in. I didn't try and defend the Liberals in Ottawa. And I don't try and defend the anti-Canadianism that has been the policy of the New Democratic Party that's in the pocket of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

I don't think any government, whether it's the federal Liberals or the provincial NDP, should be in the grip of the American labour movement. So, Mr. Chairman, let the Minister of Labour show that he's got a little bit of courage, even if those federal Liberals don't have any courage. Let him stand up and strike a blow for Canadian unionism even if those federal Liberals won't do it.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): What happened to Walter Gordon? Where's Walter Gordon?

MR. McGEER: Let him show, Mr. Chairman, as a representative of the Kootenays, that he's got this same kind of courage and statesmanship as that former squire that he so much admires.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 65 to 68 inclusive approved.

On section 69.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to make a couple of comments relating to this section which deals with mediation services. During the election campaign we, as a party, campaigned very vigorously and very energetically on behalf of a policy that called for improved mediation services in the province. There's been no doubt in my mind at all that the Department of Labour, encouraged by the Minister, has made a number of steps in that direction.

What I'm worried about in section 69, Mr. Chairman, is that the principle that was established by the Socreds, the principle that during the term of a mediation officer no strike or lockout can be allowed, is a provision that both labour and management, Mr. Chairman, are unhappy with.

I'm not so concerned whether they're unhappy with it or not as I am with the fact that it's a section that's going to lead to mistrust on the part of both parties. As long as there is mistrust of the legislation, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that it is going to make the legislation much more difficult to be effective.

I'm not sure that it isn't a good idea to have the provision relating to the first 10 days. Perhaps it's a good idea that during the first 10 days of the mediation officer's appointment no strike or lock-out can take place. But when it's allowed that the Minister on his own if he wants to can extend the appointment for a future unspecified period of time, you then have a situation where the guys on the job particularly won't know whether they are going to be able to go on strike at some specific date or not because that mediation officer's appointment could be extended.

Despite the good intention of the section, I believe it is going to have the opposite effect. The intention of the Minister is to have legislation that produces industrial peace, and I can't quarrel with that. But the problem with this section, as I said, is it has already led to fear and mistrust and, most of all, suspicion. As long as we have suspicion on the part of either party or both parties, the legislation is going to be very, very difficult to make workable.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I wish that the legislation did not have any provision for the extension of mediation officers' appointments.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour's (Mr. Gabelmann) point is well-taken. I think it should be regrettable and I think it would be an act of folly to use a mediation officer as a device to prevent workers from exercising the right to strike.

I certainly give an undertaking to this House that in a situation where a mediation officer has served and given his best efforts to resolve a dispute and has failed, in those circumstances I would not consider extending his term simply to thwart a strike.

But the opposite consideration is of importance. In reality and in practice I have experienced, within the year that I have occupied this office, a confidential request by one or other of the parties, and frequently both parties, that the officer be left in because they really didn't want to exercise those ultimate options. They wanted an excuse, without indicating so publicly, that would save face for them; they wanted an excuse to continue to conduct the discussions and prevent a possible strike from taking place.

Under those circumstances, the flexibility of leaving him in can be very beneficial and can, in fact, contribute to a settlement without a work-stoppage.

If there is an indication by the trade union that they feel nothing more can be contributed or gained by the officer, then I think it would be most unwise and most imprudent to leave the officer in or extend his appointment. That is the intent of this section, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't disagree with what the Minister is saying. It seems to me that that has happened: one party or the other, and sometimes both parties, have made a request to have the mediation officer's appointment extended.

There are two points to be made. One is that if the

[ Page 994 ]

parties in fact do want to continue discussions, do want to have the mediation officer continue in that role, then that can happen. But under the legislation, going with that at the present time, under section 81(2)(b), is the fact that they can't strike in that period.

It seems to me that if a union wants to strike at 2 o'clock in the afternoon because they have reached an impasse, but the mediation officer's appointment is still in existence and has a period of time to go, or the company wants to lock-out in the same situation, they won't be able to. I think that's the problem with the section.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is, as I said before, the whole question of suspicion. From the beginning, my whole approach in dealing with this legislation has been to try and make sure we have legislation that is not viewed with suspicion by either party. That's the problem with this section, and I don't think the explanations the Minister has made deals with that. He wants to have the mediation officer's appointment extended, fine. But don't prohibit the right to strike or lock-out in that period. That's my point.

HON. MR. KING: (Mike not on.)

Section 69 approved.

On section 70.

MR. CHABOT: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the same reasons that I said before, I rule the amendment out of order.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, the amendment's out of order. Where do you put the emphasis: on the delete or on the renumbering? I'm putting my emphasis on the renumbering of the section and you're putting it on the deleting, Mr. Chairman. I think, Mr. Chairman, you are mis-directing the emphasis that should be placed on my amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the effect of deleting the section entirely is the same thing as defeating it. The proper procedure is to defeat it; therefore you should speak against the section and urge the Members to defeat it.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I just thought I could renumber it a little bit.

Mr. Chairman, the…. He has ruled it out of order; I guess we'll throw it away. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, what we are discussing here in section 70 basically is compulsory unionism. Whether you like it or not, you're going to get a union; you're going to get….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly. Compulsory collective agreements, compulsory unionism; what's the difference? I'm going to say this: the aspects of this section are going to be extremely disruptive; they are going to cause a lot of problems.

How many first contracts do we deal with in British Columbia? Unfortunately, I don't have the figure, but it's numerous. A great number of first contracts are dealt with in British Columbia, and how many really go unresolved? How many really result in not getting a collective agreement? Very few, very few indeed. Certainly they make the headlines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give me a hint.

MR. CHABOT: Sandringham for one makes the headlines. There are others, and eventually they are resolved, such as the Shoppers Drug Mart was eventually resolved. But very few really result in non-signing of a first collective agreement such as Sandringham Hospital.

But what's going to happen is that you are not going to get true collective bargaining, and it is going to be most disruptive. There isn't going to be bargaining in good faith, as the Minister has spelled out in the Act in numerous areas, because the employer in many instances, knowing full well at the end of the road he is going to be forced into a collective agreement, is not going to put his final offer forward. He knows that the collective agreement will be resolved by the Labour Relations Board.

I think that in many instances the union, as well, will be unrealistic in their demands. They won't always put what they really believe should be their objective, relative to a collective agreement, as far as wages are concerned; they will lean heavily on the Labour Relations Board to resolve their dispute. This will create a lot of problems.

I don't think it is always necessary that a union win. They take their chances once they're certified as to whether they get a collective agreement. One union official put it very well indeed — the former international rep, I believe, of the operating engineers — on the Sandringham dispute. He suggested that the union had lost and that they can't be expected to win every dispute; they can't be expected to get a first contract in every instance.

I think you are going to find a proliferation of trouble in the signing of a first contract because of this section that has been introduced in the new labour code of British Columbia. I think it is a most one-sided type of section. It's one which brings compulsion in signing a first agreement. It is not the type of section I could support.

[ Page 995 ]

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat surprised at the position taken by the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot). I view it as an obligation once certification is granted to bargain collectively in good faith with the objective of achieving a collective agreement.

In a situation such as Sandringham, under the former Minister of Labour's tenure in office, the company was found by the Labour Relations Board to have failed to bargain collectively.

MR. CHABOT: Don't get me started on that one.

HON. MR. KING: No adequate device was available under legislation which would have offered any meaningful penalty, any effective penalty upon that employer. He had to stand idly by, as I had to stand idly by subsequently, and watch the true intent of a certified bargaining unit — which implies collective bargaining and a contract — be completely thwarted and frustrated by an employer's determination to refuse to recognize a trade union.

Now certification is provided under our law and it implies recognition. And there are penalties for a failure to bargain in good faith.

This section seeks to ensure that those provisions are meaningful and effective.

Now the proposition that this will act as a disincentive to collective bargaining, I think is somewhat absurd because surely no employer or union would face the possibility of a protracted strike simply as an excuse to have the Labour Relations Board impose a settlement that they may or may not agree with.

The prerogative and the discretion lies with the Minister of Labour as to when the board should intervene and impose a collective agreement under those terms. Now the board similarly has the discretion to look at the bargaining record of the parties in determining what kind of a collective agreement should be opposed or, indeed, if one should be opposed at all at that stage. So I think that there is no disincentive to meaningful collective bargaining. There is the knowledge that somewhere down the line, though, the parties are going to have to come to grips and sign an agreement, learn to live together and settle their own problems, Also I should mention that if, in rare occasions — and I certainly hope it will be very rare occasions indeed I hope it never has to be used — but if on those rare occasions it does have to be used, the provision is that the contract shall not exceed one year. It's a device to get the parties to learn to live together and become used to the proposition of bargaining collectively. And hopefully that will get them off on the right foot.

But I can't accept that we just disavow any responsibility for a unit of workers, such as the girls at Sandringham, simply because they lack the economic muscle to gain a collective agreement — and simply because they're women. To me that's discrimination by a failure to recognize the inadequacy of their economic muscle. Surely if we pay lip service to collective bargaining that should be achieved without the strike weapon, we shouldn't take the position, "Look, if they can't bring the company to their knees, they lose the strike." That's hardly compatible with the proposition the people on the other side of the House have been putting forward. The big strong unions are not going to lose strikes, it's only the little groups and usually the female workers. I think they need a hand-up along the way, and that's all the section does.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, during the debate in second reading I made very clear my feeling on this section.

The Minister's arguments are well put and on the surface, I think, sound quite reasonable. My concern with it is, first of all, it's a basic principle for me that in labour relations there is no room for a compulsory settlement of wages and working conditions.

The Minister suggests that people can be forced to live together for a year and in that time will learn to love each other. Unlike the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), I'm not very fond of using marital analogies, but I think that analogy is appropriate in this case. I suspect if you put two people who didn't love each other together for a year, if they survived the year they sure wouldn't decide to continue it beyond that point.

Mr. Chairman, the problem of first agreements is a difficult one. The point has been asked of those of us who oppose compulsory settlement of these first agreements — how else do you give them the economic muscle? Because they're weak, because they're women in the service industry and they don't have that kind of power, as the Minister has explained.

The Minister's solution to giving them power is to have the government intercede, supposedly, on their behalf, I'm not particularly confident that that's the kind of power we should be giving these people. It seems to me that if we simply give them the power that the employer can't hire anyone to take their place on the job, then we've given them all the power that they need. Mr. Chairman, I won't pursue this at this time; I could make an hour's speech very easily on the subject. It's one that I feel very, very strongly about, but I will leave it at this point.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we also feel that this is not a good clause, and most of the reasons have already been stated. In particular the Minister has pointed out in previous debates how rare an occasion is that this power is required and questionably it is a

[ Page 996 ]

measure of compulsion.

We feel even from a non-partisan point of view that the union movement itself has expressed very substantial concern about the compulsory nature of this clause. While the Minister in very good faith believes that in a few occasions this is necessary, the thought has been expressed that this opens the door, however slightly, to an extension of the use of compulsory powers in the hands of the Minister in labour-management problems which should be settled somehow or another by the principle of collective bargaining which he so correctly upholds.

Therefore, for that reason we feel this is a very potentially serious and disruptive section of the bill which even the union movement itself, as I say, has clearly stated its apprehension about because of this precedent of giving the Minister compulsory powers to impose agreements. This is something which the government has always said that it would strongly resist.

I would suggest that even at this late hour the government consider very seriously whether the rare occasions where it might be needed justify the weakening of the whole bill in this regard in that it contradicts a fundamental principle expressed by this government on many occasions — in fact as part, I think, of the election platform in the labour part of their programme — that they are completely opposed to compulsion. Here the government, however slightly, has set a very serious precedent for itself by opening the doors in a realm of compulsion. We oppose the section.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Chairman, just one word. I don't want to see this whole matter confused and distorted as being something that's aimed at the whole labour relations process. What this section of the bill is talking about is first contract, and first contract only.

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the first contracts are the great problem as far as women are concerned — we particularly know that in our department. There has been no success in this particular area. And Mr. Chairman, there can be no way out of this. I've heard all sorts of criticism, but I've heard no positive suggestions at this point. Really and truly I think this is an excellent experiment that the Minister of Labour is carrying on; I don't really think we should inhibit this process. I think this is a really good try to bring about some sort of parity in this whole question.

Section 70 approved on the following division:

NAYS — 12

YEAS — 30

PAIRED

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker, would you ask leave that the vote be recorded?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee 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, and further reports that on section 70 in committee a division took place and asks leave that this be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:10 p.m.