[ Page 997 ]

CONTENTS

Introduction

Presentation of delegation from State of Washington to the House — 997

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act (Bill 85). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 998

Mr. Gardom — 998

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 998

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act (Bill 89). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 999

Mr. Gardom — 999

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 999

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

Amendment to section 73.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 999

Hon. Mr. King — 1000

Mr. Chabot — 1000

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1001

Mr. McGeer — 1002

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1002

Mr. Wallace — 1003

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1006

Mr. Gardom — 1007

Mr. Gabelmann — 1007

Mr. Curtis — 1009

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1009

Mr. McClelland — 1010

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1011

Hon. Mr. King — 1012

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1013

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1014

Mr. Steves — 1014

Mr. Phillips — 1015

Mr. Cummings — 1017

Mr. Chabot — 1017

Mr. Phillips — 1018

Division on amendment to section 73 — 1018

Mr. Wallace — 1019

Division on amendment to section 73 — 1019

On section 74.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1019

Hon. Mr. King — 1019

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1020

Hon. Mr. King — 1020

Mr. Williams — 1020

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1021

Hon. Mr. King — 1021

Mr. Steves — 1021

Amendment to section 75.

Mr. Wallace — 1022

On section 76.

Mr. Chabot — 1022

Hon. Mr. King — 1023

Mr. Williams — 1023

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1973

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce to the House a number of visiting legislators and their wives from the State of Washington, from the Senate of the State of Washington. On the floor of the House today I would like to introduce to the Members the Hon. Ray Van Hollebeke, Acting Majority Caucus Chairman; Hon. George Fleming, Majority Caucus Vice-Chairman and Secretary; Hon. George Clarke, Senior Minority Member present. Accompanying them, and in the Members' gallery are: Mrs. George Fleming; Mrs. George W. Clarke; Senator and Mrs. Pete Francis; Senator and Mrs. John D. Jones; Senator and Mrs. A.L. Rasmussen; Senator and Mrs. Eugene V. Lux; Mrs. Ray Van Hollebeke; Senator Booth Gardner; Mr. and Mrs. Stewart Clark — all of whom are in the Members' gallery.

It's another return visit — by the Senate this time — and as Provincial Secretary, I take a great deal of delight in introducing them; as Minister of Travel Industry, it perhaps gives me even more delight.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like the privilege of adding a personal note. Among the Senators is a former roommate of mine at Seattle University, Senator Van Hollebeke, the Majority Caucus Leader. Ray's career and mine seem to have paralleled somewhat — the labels are a little bit different. (Laughter.) I must say in the ironies of one's lifetime experience or fate, or whatever you would have it, it is a great privilege for me to welcome Ray Van Hollebeke as a Senator to our Legislature.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we of the official opposition are very happy to have the contingent of Washington Senators and their wives here today. I think these visits add a great deal to the feeling between the State of Washington and British Columbia. While I realize both the State of Washington and British Columbia are only a very small part of this continent, I think it is a good initiation to get this sort of exchange going, On behalf of the official opposition, we welcome you to our province.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, this is becoming a Friday morning performance — almost as regular as bran flakes. We are exceptionally delighted over here to bid the warmest welcome to our visitors, but I would like to ask the Hon. Premier one question: how long is this session going to last, because we have 50 states to go? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: We only intend to annex one state.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in welcoming our distinguished guests. I appreciate the opportunity to have met a number of them before the sitting commenced today. I understand that Alberta and Oregon are getting very worried. (Laughter.)

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, in your gallery, I am sure you will be pleased to know that we have three Business and Professional Women: Mrs. McMasters, who is from Victoria and Chairman of Public Relations and Affairs — I use the "relations" more advisedly that I do "affairs" in speaking of women's activities — and their two Vancouver cohorts, Mrs. A. Michie and Mrs. B. Michie.

When I met Mrs. McMaster in the hall she said, "There are two NDPs in the gallery, would you like to welcome them?" I said, "Yes, indeed I would," because I was going to ask what had happened to the Social Crediters — of course there have never been any Conservatives, and Mrs. McMasters is a Liberal. But I find to my chagrin that both these ladies are Social Crediters. I would ask you to welcome them all as they try to gain a better understanding of the parliamentary process and conduct in British Columbia on behalf of working women in British Columbia.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that we have a visit from the students of Claremont Senior High School today. They will be accompanied by their teacher, Don Sanford, whose sister-in-law is the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). I would like the House to join with me in welcoming them to the House.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 85, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE SUPREME COURT ACT

[ Page 998 ]

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading for this bill, I should tell the House two things it does not do. Full disclosure: in the first place it does not constitute a bill to pack the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Secondly, it does not make it impossible for any Member of this House to accept one of the judicial vacancies hereby created. I move second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Attorney General has told us what the bill does not do, now perhaps he would tell us what the bill does do — who the two people are?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the debate. Sorry. Did the Hon. Member wish to speak?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: With leave of the House, may the Hon. Member speak?

Leave granted.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we are of course in accord with the suggested measure of increasing the bench of the supreme court which has been heavily overworked over the past years. There's no question of a doubt about that.

I would have hoped, however, that in the bill, at least in his remarks to the bill, the Hon. Attorney General might have indicated to the Hon. Members perhaps some increase in the duties and responsibilities of the courts, and particularly during the long vacation months of July and August. I think we're now living in a society complex to the extent that it is not wise to keep our courts closed for litigation during the summer months.

I well appreciate the need for the judges to have their time off and also to have their time to prepare and furnish their reasons for judgment, and a great deal of the summer months are consumed by the supreme court judges in doing that. But that in itself is not an argument for the fact that the courts should be closed at that time because if we had an increase in the number of judges they would quite effectively be able to have their relegated holiday periods and also their time within which to prepare their judgments.

I think there's been a considerable strain upon the supreme court bench and I think that they should all indeed receive the accolades of the people of British Columbia for the amazing work they have done. It always seems to be fair game to criticize a judge in society, but very, very rarely does one ever find people in society saying too much to help him.

I'd also hoped that the Attorney General in this bill would have had another measure — and that is one to provide interest on judgments. The Attorney General and I have discussed this at length over the years; it has been one of the extreme shortcomings in our system of jurisprudence that it is not possible for a judge in our country, as it is in some of the states in the United States, to grant interest upon a judgment.

This would tend to lessen the amount of litigation and it would also, without any question of a doubt, bring about more just rewards. In these days of high interest rates, Mr. Speaker, in many instances a defendant who doesn't have the necessary moral precepts, shall we say, chooses not to pay an obligation and prefers to run the risk of trial knowing it could well be lost because, in the final analysis, he would end up more in pocket in interest earned than having paid it in the first situation.

Take the case of a $1 million claim…and this abuse is not really found too often in the smaller claims but in the larger ones, and it's the larger claims that block the courts — make no mistake of that fact. If you have, say, a claim for $1 million, interest at 10 per cent on that over one year is a considerable amount of money. It's $100,000. If the defendant is able to stall the case for the better part of the year….

MR. SPEAKER: May I tap the gavel for a minute?

MR. GARDOM: Delighted!

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to point out that it doesn't seem to include that principle in the bill. It has to do with judges, and they are not allowed to deal with the money in the court except by order.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, with all respect, Mr. Speaker, the intent of my remarks, as Mr. Speaker well knows, is to indicate to the Hon. Attorney General the fact that it's regretful that within this bill there is lacking the necessary measures to give the courts the jurisdiction to do that of which I am now speaking. So we have a situation where there is a stall for a year and there's $100,000 interest that comes to the defendant. There's $100,000 at 10 per cent on this large claim. If he knew that when he went to court he would have to face a judge proclaiming as the amount of the judgment plus an amount of interest, we would not have the courts cluttered with a number of claims.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, I agree that we're looking very seriously at the use of the courts and the expense of courtroom facilities all through the year with holidays spaced out through the year, which is a way to reduce unnecessary delays in the court and to take the best advantage of our facilities. In terms of what the Hon. Member said about prejudgment interest on

[ Page 999 ]

judgments, I hope to file next week the report of the Law Reform Commission in this House, and I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see action on that next spring. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 85 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
COUNTY COURTS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill, It enables county court judges to have their full powers when they visit another county to look after the backlog of work in that county, so there's more mobility among our judges.

It empowers the chief of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to have general superintendence over the county court, because we don't have a chief of the county court. It's so closely interrelated that if we are to have a judicial flow without, as I say, undue delays, there should be some general superintendence. I move second reading of the bill.

MR. GARDOM: Is it contemplated that there'll still be a senior judge of the county court within this measure? I'd ask the Attorney General that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In Vancouver or where?

MR. GARDOM: Yes. The other point is that when introducing this bill it's surprising to me that the Attorney General has not given thought to increasing the jurisdiction of the county court, because if you did that you'd greatly relieve the workload of the supreme court. If memory serves, the jurisdiction of the county court at the present time is $2,000. That came in many, many years ago. We've run into an inflated monetary situation, and why couldn't that be put up, say, to $10,000 today and make the procedures in the county court easier, make it more available to the public to get to? After all, one of the prime purposes of the courts is public availability and instead of increasing it, you seem to be detracting from it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we'll give consideration to the jurisdiction of the court along those lines. We always are doing that. In terms of the senior judge of the….

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, that's not in the bill. I don't want to debate with the Hon. Member, but he would be astonished possibly to understand the extent to which the serious assize cases have gone into the county court and that kind of thing. It's a changing picture all the time. But in terms of the senior judge, if there are five or six judges at the county court in Vancouver one of them will be senior. But it isn't an official position, and it happens in that county only. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 89 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

LABOUR CODE OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

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

Section 71 and 72 approved.

On section 73.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, section 73 deals with firefighters, police and hospital unions and essentially, as I read it now, gives the right to the union, in case they feel they're going to be locked out by the employer, to elect for an arbitrator to take over.

It seems a very curious provision because it would strike me that the reverse of the situation is far more likely to be the case. In other words, the hospital administration would be far less likely to close down the hospital than — I trust, an extremely rare situation — would the employees of such a hospital be willing to do the same thing.

It strikes me that to be at all even-handed in this, and indeed to make the concept which is in this section of resolving the dispute by arbitration effective, it would be necessary to grant the same rights to both parties. In other words, if the hospital union or policemen's union or firefighter's union feels that the employer is being unreasonable — if they wish to take the thing to arbitration or they feel that there is dragging of the heels there — they certainly should have the right that's granted in this section. But in addition, if the employers — namely the hospital, the city in the case of policemen or firemen — feel that the same type of tactics are being

[ Page 1000 ]

practised against them by the employees, they in turn should have the same rights.

We're dealing here with essential services, and we're dealing here with a situation…and if we cast our minds back to the Montreal police strike for example, a strike which led at least to the death of one man, and if we cast our minds back to the problems of hospital and medical withdrawal of services and the experience of some jurisdictions, in particular of Saskatchewan…. If we think of these things we realize that we're not going to permit a situation to exist in this province where the entire firefighting apparatus, for example, of the City of Victoria or Vancouver is non-operational.

In other words, there was a withdrawal of services. I think it's time for us to consider honestly at this stage what precisely we're doing with essential services.

Now I know that it's easy enough for us to pass legislation and say, "Oh, well of course we're going to give firefighters and policemen, and hospital employees the right to strike." It's pretty simple in the abstract to say that. But we know that in actual practice, if such a situation occurred, the government would bring in emergency legislation on the floor of this Legislature and that right to strike would be snuffed out like a candle in a high wind. It wouldn't exist.

If we are to put in the concept, of which I approve, of the unions having the right to insist upon compulsory arbitration when their employers — the hospitals and the cities — are treating them cavalierly, I think the same right should be granted to the other side. In other words, the even-handedness.

I've argued even-handedness before in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, on similar proposals, but none perhaps is quite as clear as this one. Because we know full well that in actual fact firemen, policemen and hospital workers will be brought to work by legislative action. We know that. It's a fact of life that we're all going to have to face up to.

So we're in a situation where to suggest that they and only they can go for compulsory arbitration and their employers cannot is, of course, to indicate a situation which will be at complete variance with the facts if a labour dispute in this area took the course that I have indicated.

I therefore, Mr. Chairman, would suggest that section 73 (1) be amended so that we delete the whole thing and put in its place the following words: "Where a dispute threatens an essential service, either party may apply, by giving notice in writing to the Minister and to the other party, to resolve the matter by arbitration."

In other words we extend the section. We accept the concept of this section but we extend it to the more realistic situation that might occur.

At the same time we set up and make it clear in our legislation that we are going to have machinery set up to settle essential-services disputes without necessarily coming to the floor of the Legislature where passions are inflamed, where indeed, as in the case of Montreal, there may be bodily injury or death resulting from such a work stoppage, and where the emotional climate of the province is not conducive to a rational, dispassionate settlement of a dispute. We are serving notice, by putting an amendment of this nature, that there will be compulsory arbitration in essential services at the request of either party and that this compulsory arbitration can be worked out beforehand dispassionately and reasonably between the two parties; they can set up a system so that if a crisis does occur they will have at least established the framework and the machinery to settle and resolve it in the best possible way.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment, I feel, is a modest extension of the principle that the government has incorporated into section 73 (1) and I so move.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in the Member's reference to even-handedness. I wonder how he reconciles his concern and his objective of attaining even-handedness by seeking to extend the equivalent right to opt for compulsory arbitration in the ease of firemen, policemen and hospital workers, when in fact no equivalent right exists in terms of the right to strike and the right to lockout. It's unthinkable. I frankly don't know of any case in history where a municipality has locked out firemen or, indeed, policemen.

So in effect there is no equivalent right. There's no right to lock out. The only people who are relinquishing a meaningful course of action, a meaningful weapon, here are the employees who, if they opt for compulsory arbitration, do relinquish that right to strike. To suggest that it is an even-handed concept to provide to the employer the right to commit his employees to compulsory arbitration in that situation is to me more realistic.

The provision here allows the employees to elect to resolve their dispute, either by the collective bargaining process or by compulsory arbitration. It's been my experience that the firemen, certainly, have indicated a preference for a system of arbitration to resolve their disputes. Now this is available to them at their own discretion. I think it's unrealistic and unacceptable to suggest, though, that workers, whether they are firemen, policemen, hospital workers or indeed any other group, should forfeit the right to strike at the discretion of management, particularly when the management has no equivalent right in effect to lock out in this kind of situation. So I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr.

[ Page 1001 ]

Chairman, I rise to support the amendment because the Minister has indicated very clearly that it's discretionary power. He's indicated that the firefighters would be inclined to go the arbitration route and I know from my experience that the police unions would be inclined to go the arbitration route as well. Not too many years ago, in fact in the spring of 1972, the registered nurses' union opted voluntarily to go before the mediation commission for a binding settlement on their dispute with the hospitals of British Columbia.

I think that these three groups, which have been clearly identified as essential services, really want a genuine arbitration procedure. They don't want this wishy-washy, half-baked procedure which is established in this section of the Act. From my experience and my discussions with these three groups of essential workers, they have indicated they prefer arbitration to settle their disputes, and that's in fact basically what would happen by the institution of this amendment.

It's a reasonable amendment. It's an amendment that ensures that we won't have disruption in the areas that have been clearly identified as essential service areas in the province.

However, because of certain circumstances that might develop in a dispute between these various groups and management, they might not opt to go that route. Then what is the procedure? Is the procedure that we call the Legislature together? — which can be very inconvenient to the public; it certainly doesn't protect the public interest by calling the Legislature together in the event that the police force and the hospital workers have gone on strike.

So in effect really I think we must be realistic about this, that basically these people do not have a right to strike. Because if we spell it out here, which we have done, they have been given the right to strike.

They might opt not to strike, but they might opt to strike. If they do opt to strike then it's quite obvious that we as legislators would not tolerate that kind of situation. Therefore I think that this amendment, which is being introduced by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is a reasonable one and one which would meet with the approval of the three groups which we have referred to in this section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to a degree by the Minister's remarks because I think that his remarks indicate that the true import of the amendment was not completely grasped. Perhaps if I explain it again it's a possibility the government will accept this amendment.

The Minister made clear that some groups — he specifically referred to firemen, and the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) has indicted other groups of nurses and police in addition — are interested in proper compulsory arbitration proceedings. I applaud wholeheartedly these men and women in these unions who have taken this responsible position, but I just pose this question to you, Mr. Chairman:

A short time ago we had a Minister of the Crown announcing that a strike was settled, not on its merits but because a gun was held to his head. Now I wonder for how long the responsible people who are trying hard to keep essential services going in this province and who suffer — let's face it, who suffer frequently in the course of their duty and also because of the fact they are in this unique position with respect to other workers — I wonder how long they're going to continue to want to act responsibly when they see other unions acting — in their minds, the minds of the nurses and the firemen and the policemen — less responsibility, and where Ministers of the Crown agree that irresponsible action leads to larger settlements.

Now I'm afraid this situation has come up very recently. I hate to think that the government's good intention in 1973, which is essentially to accept the good will and good faith and responsible position of policemen, firemen and nurses, has been put it in this weak-kneed section of the Act. We accept their good faith. We say, "Sure you can do that," but at the same time we in no way make it necessary for them to act in a way which will continue this responsible course of action in the future.

Indeed elsewhere it's clear that encouragement is being given by Ministerial action on settlements to far less responsible attitudes. The words used by the Minister were, "Why should they relinquish the right to strike? "

The Minister knows full well right now — and I wish he'd admit it — that the police in Vancouver, if they go on strike, will not be on strike for minutes before the Premier will be called upon and the Attorney General will be called upon to reconvene this Legislature to put the men back to work. Now why should they be given…. and why should we discuss this phony, phony situation where relinquishing the right to strike is essentially relinquishing something they don't have, because as soon as they use it, we're going to take it away? Now we know that; every one of us here knows that. Why don't we face up honestly, why doesn't the government face up honestly, to a situation which they know to exist, we know to exist, the policemen know to exist?

It's this attempt to deal with these things in a — I won't say dishonest — but I'll say a cavalier way. An attempt to cover up the truth, which really is not in the best interest of labour in this province or of management or of the public. And who will be more hurt than the public in the case of a hospital strike or

[ Page 1002 ]

a firemen's strike or a police strike?

The Minister has made his view. He talked quite eloquently about relinquishing the right to strike. But they don't really have it. When he faces up to that fact, then we can go back and start discussing amendments which are realistic in terms of arbitration.

He talks about, "Well, they're probably going to accept arbitration any way." That's fine. As I said, these people are mostly responsible, but they are at the same time seeing other Ministers of the Crown acquiescing to what the other Ministers themselves have admitted to be irresponsible strike action and irresponsible settlements.

Mr. Chairman, I trust that explaining the amendment more fully will give the Minister an opportunity to reconsider his position. Because it really is ridiculous for us to stand up in this House and talk about rights to strike, when everybody knows that they don't really exist — to talk about this great right as something sacrosanct and yet we know full well that we're talking about something which is totally fraudulent because we're going to take it away if they exercise it. Therefore, it really, in effect, is non-existent. I trust the Minister, having considered those points, will reconsider his position.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to carry this debate a little bit farther by asking a hypothetical question of the Minister of Labour. Las week we had a hotel fire in downtown Vancouver. It's all very well to say that the minute the police went on strike or the minute the firefighters went on strike, of course we'd be called in to emergency session of the Legislature. After two or three days we'd arrive; after two or three more days we'd pass a bill. But a conflagration could start in Vancouver or Victoria 10 minutes after the firefighters went on strike.

Five lives were lost just last week in downtown Vancouver as a result of a hotel fire. What would be the attitude of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) one hour after the firefighters went on strike if a major fire did break, out? Would he refuse to cross the picket lines — let the buildings go up in smoke and people die? Because according to his attitude, he'd be a scab if he crossed that picket line and took a fire engine out.

It's fairly obvious, I think, Mr. Speaker, to see the dangers of a strike among firefighters, even for 10 minutes. But that same danger exists — to a lesser degree — if you've got a strike, even for a short period of time, in a hospital or with the police force.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): How about the federal nurses?

MR. McGEER: I don't think they ever should have been permitted to go out on strike.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): They went out anyway.

MR. McGEER: Yes they did, and I think that there should be a means of settling by compulsory arbitration any disputes where life or a limb of any citizen may be at stake. We've carried this idea of the sanctity of a right to strike too far when we place in jeopardy the lives and health of citizens of this province.

That's why I ask the Minister of Labour directly: what would he do if the lives of people were at stake because of his legislation?

It's quite clear in this particular section, as it now stands, that the firefighters can go on strike. No matter how swiftly we might move, it's quite possible that could be the particular moment that a vandal set a fire somewhere, because the indication of that fire in downtown Vancouver was that it had been deliberately set.

Unfortunate as it may seem, we do have a very, very small percentage of individuals whose degree of responsibility to their fellow man is negligible. We do have people who take bombs on aircraft, who assassinate presidents, who deliberately set fires. They are deranged but they exist in society and they move freely in this society.

So were there to be a firefighters' strike, it's by no means inconceivable that some nut with a vengeful hatred of his fellow man deliberately starts a fire in a densely crowded area of one of our major cities. We have to think of and anticipate some of these things. It's our responsibility as legislators not to place legislative guns in the hands of irresponsible people.

It was the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who admitted he had a gun to his head and that the terms of the settlement were based on irresponsibility. And it would take a very blind union leader not to be encouraged by that sort of thing.

So Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister of Labour to give a little deep thought to this particular section because he's exposing a very vulnerable side of our society. I for one say it's absolutely wrong. Amendments are required of the sort that the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) put forward. I urge in all sincerity for the Minister of Labour to consider accepting it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I note the quiet, calm approach of drama given by the former leader of the Liberal party. He proceeded to say or suggest under this particular section, without the amendments, "We'll put legislative guns in the hands of irresponsible people."

Then going back over his speech, he listed some of

[ Page 1003 ]

the activities that would be possible if this amendment was not passed. Included in those possibilities he named bombs on planes, fires — he named assassinations. The only thing he stopped short of was Watergate.

Now, by innuendo, the Member is trying to leave the impression that if responsible people are given responsible rights, all of a sudden they become irresponsible. He finds it necessary to talk about….

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): He didn't make that point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He did so make the point, Mr. Member. You go back over his calm approach of saying that. He said, "…legislative guns in the hands of irresponsible people." That's exactly what he said.

At this very moment, we witness the results of not having mature labour relations between his own federal jurisdiction and the federal hospitals. Law or not, the federal nurses are walking the streets on a picket line, and with devices there for them to come to some resolution of their problem. Are you suggesting that someone's going to run into Shaughnessy Hospital with a bomb, assassinate the administrator or start a fire because the nurses aren't there? Of course not, Mr. Member. But the way you drop the words in your calm dramatic approach obviously left, or the attempt was to leave the impression that these people are going to turn into monsters if they're given the right to strike.

The impression is that somehow those nurses who were on the picket line were begging the government not to recognize them as equal citizens. "Please keep us downtrodden so that we'll have an excuse to stay downtrodden." When the doctors went on strike in Saskatchewan they were acting as human beings, not as doctors. They were reacting to a situation that they found themselves in and no law in the world would have deterred those doctors in Saskatchewan from going on strike.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It was wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was wrong. Of course it was wrong. But laws have never stopped people from doing things that are wrong and laws have never kept people in line to do things that are right.

In the final analysis individual placement of acts depends upon the conscience of the person involved. A sick person who is taking a bomb on a plane doesn't check to see whether or not there is a right-to-strike for the airline attendants before he takes the bomb on. If there is an assassination taking place, his evaluation of his particular act doesn't relate to this section to find out if civil servants have the right, or firemen are on a legal strike, before he makes the assassination attempt.

What we are trying to do is to bring some rational, mature approaches to dealing with people who work in sensitive jobs. The federal government tried it itself. We're going to try here, too. But there is no legislation in the world that is going to guarantee good human behaviour. We can't even guarantee it in this House, and we're the cream of the crop, allegedly. That's what we keep on telling ourselves.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I find the drama-laden, very, very unnecessary analogies that were drawn by the former leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. McGeer) right out of the 16th century. You're not dealing with serfs, slaves or peasants. You're dealing with people who have put many years into training in their own walk of life before they have taken those jobs. And when a nurse goes out on a picket line, don't tell me she's enjoying that experience or that she's holding a legislative gun at the head of her employer. When a registered nurse is out on a picket line it simply means she's tried every single possible avenue to get a reasonable contract to work and there was nothing left for her to do.

You can't treat people, just because they are nurses or doctors — yes, doctors, too; and I won't say lawyers — just because they are nurses, or doctors, or firefighters as if they are something separate. They pay the same price for a loaf of bread and a quart of milk as everyone else.

This is a bargaining device. This party believes in people as human beings and we are suggesting that as human beings, regardless of their vocation in life, they be given the right to speak on the basis of equals. If we are wrong, Mr. Chairman, then our faith in human behaviour will be proven wrong. But we believe in people. We believe that people are responsible; they do have common sense and will respond to equal rights with equal responsibility. I completely reject the amendment from the Member.

MR. WALLACE: Debate on this section and on this amendment really follows on somewhat from the debate we held yesterday. The Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), in winding up yesterday's second reading on another bill, made it quite clear, in describing and debating collective bargaining rights, that implicit in that right was the right to strike, that there could not be one without the other.

But here, Mr. Chairman, we have a section in the labour code where the firefighters, the policemen, and the hospital workers are given every encouragement to go to binding arbitration. And while the words "essential services" are not used anywhere in the section, the reasoning is quite clear and receives my full support, namely that those persons, firefighters, policemen and hospital workers — and I look upon doctors and nurses in the same category — are a special category of employees who,

[ Page 1004 ]

if they strike, subject the public and the community not only to considerable distress but real danger to their life.

It seems strange to me that my argument of yesterday was refuted by the government in terms of public employees who indeed would create tremendous distress and difficulty for the public if they were to go on strike. And yet here we have my argument of yesterday, which was rejected in regard to the public service employees, being accepted by the government in regard to firefighters, policemen and hospital workers.

The Premier, with the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman, accused me of being inconsistent. I think if anybody is being inconsistent it's that government. In other words, we are accepting that firefighters, policemen and hospital workers are essential but the public service employees are not essential.

Why could we not have a clause in section 73 of this bill similar to the clause we had in yesterday's bill? It is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, and this point has been covered several times, that if one party tries to bring in an amendment to the labour relations bill or the public service employees' bill it will be ruled out of order. So if there is anybody inconsistent around here I don't think it is this side of the House. It's the government.

I said yesterday — and I stand by it and this party certainly believes it very strongly — that there are certain segments of society who should not have the right to strike. Now that is our difference of opinion with the other side of the House.

It is not, as I said yesterday, that we in any way lack support for the idea of collective bargaining. But we have to make it plain, apparently time and again, that you can have collective bargaining without the right to strike.

It is obvious from the definition and the phraseology used in section 73 of this bill that the government does indeed recognize a different attitude, a different philosophy towards firemen, policemen and hospital workers. I would think that by recognizing the importance of settling their problems through binding arbitration, as defined in section 73, they realize that it is just quite impractical and ill advised that any of these groups of employees should be able to strike and throw the whole community, or maybe even the whole province, into serious trouble.

The amendment which I favour also makes it clear in subsection (I) that if the concept is to be that they should have binding arbitration rather than the right to strike, then surely both the trade union or the employer should have the option to suggest that the point has been reached where collective bargaining has failed and it is time to seek binding arbitration. And the amendment proposed by the Second Member for Victoria, (Mr. D.A. Anderson) would meet that requirement.

But I think more important than the point of giving both parties the option to seek binding arbitration is the point I made initially, that yesterday the government made it very, very plain, through the Hon. Provincial Secretary, that collective bargaining means nothing unless you have the right to strike.

Well, here we have three particular groups of employees where….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you are saying that they unquestionably have the right to strike, and you approve of that, I take it? The government believes that firefighters, policemen and hospital workers should have the right to strike. Is that what you are saying, Mr. Provincial Secretary?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): You read the bill.

MR. WALLACE: Well, we may differ in the interpretation, but your interpretation seems to get a little different each day we're in this House. That wasn't the interpretation I heard yesterday.

I would submit that you can't have it both ways: you are saying that you are trying to make them go to binding arbitration, and yet you also say that the interpretation of section 73 means that they can go on strike and, as such, you are saying that firefighters, policemen and hospital workers should be able to go on strike.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm glad we've got that clarified. Through you, Mr. Chairman, let me go over that again, because naturally I want to understand what you feel over there. You are saying that this section — and I hope the Provincial Secretary after I sit down will stand up and clarify any misunderstandings I have….

HON. MR. HALL: That would take too long.

MR. WALLACE: Now that's a rather ridiculous remark. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, we are all trying to be sure that we understand the exact meaning of what is a fairly complex bill. I don't think the Provincial Secretary really meant to make such a snide remark in relation to a sincere attempt to get the truth of what this bill really means.

The Provincial Secretary has interjected in the debate that this section gives these workers the right to strike. Now he's shaking his head. Mr. Chairman, this gets more and more confusing. A minute ago I

[ Page 1005 ]

tried to say that they were encouraging binding arbitration to prevent strikes. At that point the Provincial Secretary said they could strike; now he says they cannot strike. I sincerely do hope that the Minister of Labour some day will clarify the meaning of this section.

Our party wants to make its position very, very clear. There are essential services in society and the workers in these sections, in our opinion, should not have the right to strike. Should we ever become government, they will not have the right to strike for the reasons I have outlined.

It is all very well for the Premier to say that people act responsibly, and they do 99 per cent of the time.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): What about the doctors in Saskatchewan?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, what about the doctors in Saskatchewan? I have never said anything different than I said in this House this week on the debate; the action of the doctors in Saskatchewan was totally wrong and should not have occurred. The lady Member (Mrs. Webster) who interjected simply makes my point that people do not always act responsibly. When they act irresponsibly, there can be very serious danger to the public good and even to the lives of individuals in our society.

It really doesn't answer the problem for the Premier to say that people act responsibly. Let us hope they will. We know that at most times they do, but there can be a small percentage of times when, by acting irresponsibly, the consequences to society are very grave indeed.

This is the point which makes us feel so strongly about the importance of recognizing that certain groups of employees have to be looked upon differently from the great majority of employees. As I tried to make the point yesterday, the word "essential" and the word "service" mean two very important things to society. If it is essential, it means you just cannot, even for a short while, get along without them.

There is the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) shaking his head. I suppose you can get along without hospitals, can you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: You don't think there was some real damage when the doctors went on strike in Saskatchewan. Don't you think people suffered?

HON. MR. BARRETT: But that was illegal.

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

Interjections.

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

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I keep getting interrupted; I feel I am entitled to answer the interruptions.

The other argument that the Premier puts forward is so facile that he throws up his hands and says, "It's illegal." It really doesn't matter whether it's legal or illegal; people are going to suffer. It is the same Premier who is always talking about law and order.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's exactly the point I am making.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that each Member wait their turn to speak rather than interrupt the Member. Order, order! I would request the Hon. Members wait their turn to speak and let the Hon. Member for Oak Bay carry on.

MR. WALLACE: It is obviously a very popular topic, Mr. Chairman.

The Premier, quite rightly, talks about respect for law and order and has done in this House many times, and so do we.

AN HON. MEMBER: So did Spiro.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, that's a great comparison. I think we will overlook that remark. (Laughter.)

The fact is that this government has shown its weakness in the face of illegal acts. While the Premier may criticize attempts by legislation to produce good and responsible behaviour on the part of citizens, the fact is that his own government caved in in the face of an illegal act.

The basic concept of an orderly society is that the first function of government is to govern, to uphold the laws and to see that the laws are obeyed. If that, Mr. Chairman, isn't the first function of government, I don't know what is.

If public discomfort and damage has to be regarded as more important than upholding the law, then indeed we are in trouble. I agree with the Premier to the extent that you cannot legislate good behaviour or responsible attitudes. I would also submit that you cannot have a government submitting to illegal acts and capitulating to the perpetrators of these illegal acts.

I feel it makes the ground rules of society a little clearer if government were to take the responsibility of defining those essential services where strike is illegal. If a person wishes to pursue a career in one of

[ Page 1006 ]

these fields — doctor, fireman, policeman — it should be the well-recognized, mature, sensible attitude that if such a person must have the right to strike, then those particular callings and professions in life are just not open to him. If any person in our society feels so strongly that he or she must have the right to withdraw service and he or she wishes to pursue a job such as firefighting or medical practice, then it just should be a condition in that profession that the right to strike does not exist.

Obviously, the two sides of the House differ; but I think it is important that each side of this House puts its opinion clearly on the record. That is what I am doing now.

The Premier, who says you cannot legislate good public behaviour, is correct. To return to my earlier point regarding the government's function to govern, I would submit that if our philosophy existed and those parties did not have the right to strike in the true sense of the government upholding the law, then there should be penalties against persons who break the law and who go on illegal strikes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Slavery.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon, Mr. Minister? Slavery? Slavery, Mr. Chairman? Slavery to protect the public good? Is that what it is?

AN HON. MEMBER: You know better than that.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I say, I think the debate on section 73 probably has to be the most important section to clarify for this House — and also clarify for the public of this province just exactly what the difference is between the government and the opposition. Because I make the point that certain rights cannot be extended to essential services, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) interjects the word "slavery." A very interesting, different concept.

I think the history in the origin of trade unions was to free the worker and give him fair play in the marketplace and justice in his employment. Any good aim or any good goal of society always has to be tempered and balanced against possible dangers and disadvantages. Because we believe that there are certain segments of society who cannot have the right to strike, the Minister of Health says this is slavery.

Frankly, I always had a great regard for the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance and that comment really shakes me. I think if the Premier was upset about the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) talking about bombs and assassination, I am equally distressed to find the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance thinking in terms of slavery because doctors should not have the right to strike. I think that's a pretty ridiculous and extravagant way to look at this problem which both sides of the House are sincerely trying to resolve.

The government, in its debate yesterday, made it clear that public employees of the government are not to be looked upon in the same light as the firefighters, the policemen and the hospital union. I am reconsidering the whole matter. I still hope to bring in an amendment to yesterday's bill which the government will consider, for the simple reason that this section 73 contradicts what the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) said yesterday. Again he winces and looks very distressed. As I say, I hope he will explain the problem.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: That is the second time you have tried to get me to sit down and stop talking on this question of essential services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HALL: Are you going to hog it all day?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: They are divided over there, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) thinks I should carry on and the Provincial Secretary thinks I should sit down. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) is in the middle. That's where the highway always should be.

Anyway, the point has been made that the government said yesterday that you cannot have collective bargaining rights without the right to strike. Yet in regard to firefighters, policemen, and hospital unions their attitude is a little different.

I'm suggesting very clearly that they should not have the right to strike. If binding arbitration makes sense for these groups, and if the government is going to be consistent, they should accept the same philosophy of encouraging binding arbitration in the employment of public service employees.

Furthermore this amendment makes it only fair that it should not be restricted to the trade union to seek or elect to go to arbitration when collective bargaining has failed.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to be brief and deal with section 73. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked me if this section takes away the right to strike. The answer is no, and that's why I shook my head. The Member later on asked me if, indeed, it gave them the right to strike — the answer is no, that's contained in another section — and I again shook my head. So I was right.

[ Page 1007 ]

I want to refer you to line 5 — "may elect" — and I say to you, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that full and free collective bargaining contains the right to strike. What section 73 does is to say to firefighters, police and hospital unions that "When you've reached some sort of an impasse, if you want you may elect."

MR. GARDOM: What the Hon. Provincial Secretary stated, almost as a Sermon from the Mount, is open to the parties at any time in any event. It doesn't have to be built into legislation.

HON. MR. HALL: You tell him — not me.

MR. GARDOM: But in this section we're talking about firemen, we're talking about policemen, we're talking about hospital workers, we're talking about essential service, we're talking about jobs with an extremely high degree of public responsibility, that are vital for the functioning of society. And it's well-motivated people who go into these endeavours. There's no question of a doubt about that. They're not press ganged, or dragooned, to become nurses, or firemen, or policemen. We live in a free society and they elect, themselves, to take those jobs.

When they're electing to take those kinds of jobs it's our position that they should accept it as a condition of service that they do not have…. And it's not a right to strike — I've heard the words "right to strike" spin through this chamber continuously. Mind you, it's not a right to strike in these essential services; if anything it is a privilege — certainly not a right. At one time it was considered a right, definitely. But it has become, by virtue of the proliferation of society and the interdependence of society, a privilege. And we consider that it is a privilege that should be denied as a condition of employment in essential services. And that's the whole point of the argument over here.

I think the amendment that has been moved by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) states it exceptionally well where he says, "Where a dispute threatens an essential service, either party may apply, by giving notice in writing to the Minister and to the other party, to resolve the matter by arbitration." So at least we've got two sides of the coin as opposed to the one in the bill as it now stands.

I gave the illustration before, and I'm going to repeat it, of what happens in the event, say, of a doctor walking off the operating table because he's going on strike. My friends, he cannot do that. He cannot do that under the existing laws of this country, because that man could face a claim for criminal prosecution for criminal negligence. He could face disbarment from the hospital, he could face a claim for damages from the injured individual or the next of kin of the person who died on the operating table. And make no mistake of that fact.

This is not a right under essential services, it's a privilege. And it's a privilege again as I say by virtue of the fact that we have become so terrifically dependent upon each other by virtue the technological changes that have come about such that one cannot exercise what was formally considered to be a right under these circumstances to the detriment of the public weal.

In discussing this section, and in the NDP and the socialists bringing in this thing, it seems to me that I'd call this a "labour boss section," because it's got absolutely nothing to do with the wishes of the general public.

If you had a plebiscite of the people in British Columbia today, I can assure you that 95-98 per cent of them would back the measure that the Member for Victoria has introduced this morning. They do not wish strikes in essential services. They do not wish strikes in essential services! Ask the people — just ask the people. You're trying to force-feed this stuff onto them.

Do you know what you've done by refusing to accept this amendment? This amendment is one of the most serious ones in the whole bill. By refusing to accept the amendments which prevent the emasculation of the courts, it seems to me that…. Speaking for myself — and I do hope there will be others following it — I'm certainly going to be greatly inclined to vote against this bill in third reading. Because there's been a gross departure from the principles that were originally enunciated in this House by the Minister when he introduced this bill in second reading.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Chairman, the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) suggests that the majority of British Columbians don't want people in the essential services to strike. And that's true, quite true.

The people on the job, the people in this House, and the people in the community don't want strikes. They not only don't want strikes in the essential services, but they don't want them in any other sector of society.

This could be a long week's debate on the philosophical point, so I will try and be brief, but I wanted to deal with two things. One is the philosophical questions raised by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). And then I want to deal with the specifies of the amendment.

The question of slavery was bandied back and forth across the floor during the Member for Oak Bay's comments. Frankly, I agree with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) that if you say to any group in society that you cannot strike and you're not

[ Page 1008 ]

allowed to leave your job collectively, then that is a form of slavery. It may not be a direct parallel to the kind of slavery that existed in the southern States, but it is a form of that slavery. There are some people in our society who are going to have to be firemen, some people are going to have to be policemen, and some people are going to have to be hospital workers. Whether they choose it or not, there have to be some people performing those tasks. So you're saying to those people that if they feel it's essential for them to make their point in collective bargaining they don't have the right to withdraw their services.

But, Mr. Chairman, you do have the right to withdraw your services — you just don't have to go to work. Just don't show up. In fact you can quit your job. The point is that everyone in this society has the right to strike, whether we enshrine it in the law or not. You just don't show up for work. And that's the point.

The amendment introduced says let's solve it by compulsory arbitration. The intent of the amendment is to reduce strikes in these services. Unquestionably the effect of this amendment will be to have a proliferation of disputes and a proliferation of strikes in public service. What the legislation does is devise a procedure by which we can avoid disputes in the public service.

If the hospital employees, the firefighters and the policemen go into collective bargaining knowing that the employer, whether it's a municipality or the provincial government or whoever it happens to be, has the right to impose a settlement on them, they are going to be very uptight and very unwilling to listen to fair discussion. Because they know that people on the other side of the bargaining table can impose a settlement.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: The fact is that in public service operations the employer also has the club because he is, in effect, the government. And where does that leave the person on the job? That is the point we have to remember. We have to give them some power in the situation. What the legislation does, and what the amendment doesn't do, is that it allows for an attitude of trust, allows for a feeling between the two parties that they can resolve their dispute.

Mr. Chairman, I thought when I came to this Legislature that I wouldn't have to go into basics. But it seems that Members, particularly in that Liberal Party, just don't understand the feelings, don't understand the emotion that people who work for a living have.

The fact that the Liberal Party Members have never worked for a living perhaps has something to do with that.

MR. GARDOM: Don't be stupid! What an asinine remark! Absolutely stupid!

MR. GABELMANN: Lawyers and doctors and….

MR. GARDOM: I've done just as much or more work than you've ever done, my friend, and make no mistake of that!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Workers of the world unite! Let's have the spirit of goodwill in this debate.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, there's work and there's work. If lawyers, for each case they worked on, had to have their fees set by some collective bargaining procedure between the lawyer and the client, I wonder how they'd like it. And if they couldn't solve those problems, to have some third party come in…

MR. GARDOM: There is a third party, dumbbell!

MR. GABELMANN: …and impose the settlement.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: The lawyers that I know, Mr. Chairman, impose a fee on their clients.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: Tell Ray Haynes to write something better than that for you.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, maybe I should start again because we obviously….

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I haven't been very articulate, and maybe I haven't explained it very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. GABELMANN: I do want to be serious for a moment because I think the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was serious in his comments. He was stating a point of view and attitude, one that I totally disagree with, but one that I respect coming from him because I know he believes it. I'm not at all that certain about some of the other comments that have been made from other sections of the House. But the point, Mr. Chairman, to that Member for Oak Bay, is that it doesn't matter whether you allow people the right to strike or not.

If they are in a situation where they want to strike because of the situation, they're going to. That's the point. So what we have to do is devise laws that create a way around that, to create a feeling for those

[ Page 1009 ]

people that they do have some options, that they don't have to sit there and take what the employer gives them; and in public service that's the feeling.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Read the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay, I'll read the amendment. The amendment calls for arbitration….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Read it, read it.

MR. GABELMANN: The effect of the amendment would allow for compulsory arbitration; is that not right?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Both sides.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay, both sides. You know this is the point I've been trying to make — both sides. The employer is also the government who imposes the compulsory arbitration. If you can't understand that problem, faced from the point of view of the working people, then you're not going to understand anything.

Interjections.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I would like to have my turn when it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: "In that case, sit down," the Member says. I feel very strongly about this because I really think that there's a breakdown in communication between the two sides of the House on this section. If I may cite a couple of personal examples, I think that some of the most pleasant work I have had to do in municipal service in this province has been in negotiation with representatives of the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers, the police union, and the B.C. Association of Firefighters.

We've had some very awkward and strenuous, sensitive discussions with these organizations from time to time when agreements have been about to expire or have in fact expired.

But I think really the government is missing the point here with respect to the firefighters and police officers. They do not want the right to strike. They have made this abundantly clear to me. I would think they have made it abundantly clear to others. They want avenues of recourse to third parties, of course. They want to be able to get to an independent arbitrator or board of arbitration, but they have behaved extremely responsibly in negotiation.

They have always, I think, held paramount above their dispute with the employer — not government, as the previous speaker indicated, because government in that context means the provincial government, but "employer" meaning the municipality, which certainly doesn't carry the clout of provincial government and the ability to bring in new provincial legislation at the drop of a hat if it is required — their responsibility to and in the community.

They've been unhappy with previous legislation, but surely the Minister of Labour, with his knowledge of labour-management relations, knows that these people do not want the right to strike. They seek this other avenue which would avoid the conflict leading to a strike. But we must bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that somewhere at some time in some police association or firefighters' association, there are going to be some hotheads who would pursue the right to strike to the fullest, and the word "may" is just not the right word in this particular case.

I think the amendment as introduced by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is a good one. I wish that the Minister of Labour and the government as a whole would face up to the situation that we are talking about very responsible people, serving their communities in the province; but there is still that possibility, remote or not so remote, that at some time a police force or a fire department would go out on strike in a situation of extreme intensity and difficulty.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Chairman, this is rather an interesting debate, and I think that many times we miss the point. We're all talking about the right to strike. I begin to wonder whether strike is the right word to use because in the populace it's got a cynical connotation — something like "war." I don't think people realize how a strike comes about; many of them don't realize what a strike is and, to me, nobody wants a strike.

I've been on many conciliation boards between management and labour and I've usually found that the workers would lean over backwards rather than strike. They'd do anything to prevent a strike. Many times it's the rigid position of the people who claim to be management that brings about these problems. To put it in law that you cannot strike…!

When a person goes to the bargaining table and he knows that he has no right to do something that somebody else has a right to do…. Because we must not forget that the only article the average worker has to sell is his labour power. Under our system we say that if people have something to sell they've got a right to say how much they want for it. If the worker feels that he is not getting enough for his labour power, the product that he has to sell, then to say that he hasn't got the right to say that he's not going to sell it in one case and in the other case you

[ Page 1010 ]

give that right, it creates friction, The old cliché, "You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink," is still true in this case. It doesn't matter how many laws we put on the statute books, you can say to a man that he's got to continue to work and yet he doesn't have to do it. We can look back in history and people have died because they wouldn't do what somebody else said they had to do.

Many people died in the war because they wouldn't give information to the enemy. They were killed. You go back through history; back in 1880 in England they tried to bring in a law forcing people to work. It didn't work, and in 25 years the law was gone. They had to do away with it.

The United States is littered with laws that were brought in to try and make people do something they didn't have to do. I don't think for a minute that placing on the statute books that a man has no right to withdraw his labour will do any good. We've got to educate.

Don't forget that many people today, who have inherited great deals of money from their grandfathers or great-grandfathers, make their contribution to society by renting that money and making their living off the rent. The people who really make the contribution to society are the working people who produce, because you create nothing unless you produce. That's the real contribution to society.

The people who are contributing by investing money that has been earned 100, maybe 200 years ago — they would starve to death if somebody didn't contribute their labour power to produce. That's what we must not forget.

I think someday, when people will realize that we're all a part of the whole, we might come to some solution whereby the contribution of people will be the principal thing. We won't be splitting between labour and management, but we'll be all in the same boat as producers and we'll receive from that production our just returns.

Only then will we get away from worrying about people withdrawing their labour from essential services. The only way you can stop that will be maybe by education or by fair treatment. I'm sure that this is the way we want to go. We say that everybody must have that same right, the same right. To say that some have it and some haven't only creates friction and problems, and weakens the case altogether. I think that as time goes on this will eventually get less and less in the country.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief as well. The Minister of Mines made an interesting speech — it would be nice if anyone in the House could understand it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We understand it.

(Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: He's pointed out that he doesn't understand the problems so he's come up with some kind of a simplistic solution that really doesn't mean a thing.

The voice of the B.C. Federation of Labour spoke earlier in the debate. He too indicated much of the problem we have with labour relations in this province. It's because of the glorification of the strike as a weapon in a dispute between two people. I spoke about that yesterday.

The Premier as well got up and made his performance again today and said that it's only through rational and mature approaches that we're going to start to settle labour disputes. Well I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the first way to start on a rational mature approach is to be honest. Be honest in your legislation. And that's not what you're doing.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

On the one hand the Minister of Labour and everyone else over on that side of the House is saying, "These people in essential services must be treated the same as everyone else." But you're not treating them the same because you know very well that you will not allow them to strike because you'll take some kind of action the minute they walk off the job that you wouldn't take in any other kind of a service. So you're not treating them the same and you're not being honest.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is the only Member, in my opinion, to have really hit the nail on the head so far in this House — and that is that the people of British Columbia do not want our employees in essential services to go on strike or to have the right to go on strike. If you'd go out and talk to the people, Mr. Chairman, you'd find that is the truth.

A strike in that kind of service, whether it be a firefighter or a policeman or a hospital service, does jeopardize the lives of thousands of people in this province. We can't allow them to go on strike and to place those lives in jeopardy.

I'm not too happy with this amendment because I think it really fuzzes up the whole question which is: do we allow the people in essential services to go on strike? But because the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) stood up in this House in all of his high glory and said, "We're going to accept amendments to this legislation. We'll be happy to take your suggestions and include them in this legislation." But he's shown us in this House that he has no intention of accepting anybody's own amendments. So we have to put forward amendments like this, which, even though they fuzz up the whole question, they're the only way we can get around this problem of allowing

[ Page 1011 ]

essential services to go on strike.

That's really what we're in objection to on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman. If we allow the people in essential services to go on strike, we're only perpetuating the problem that was indicated so well by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) earlier this year. And we're going to have a perpetual gun to the heads of responsible employers in all of these vital services.

This is an exceptionally strong weapon, and an exceptionally strong weapon in the hands of an irresponsible trade union leader. I don't think that we can allow it. I think that we must support this amendment, but we must also go on record as being totally opposed to the right to strike for essential services in this province.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Chairman, I just can't imagine why that side of the House continually tries to fluff up, continually tries to confuse the issue by erecting this kind of straw man that they obviously don't understand. It's just unbelievable; it's incredible. Here is a positive section, a positive section in this bill that provides essential services an opportunity to seek this way out of labour confrontations.

MR. McCLELLAND: Vote for the amendment.

HON. MR. COCKE: I certainly will not because what that does…it's a very negative suggestion. All we hear over there is gloom and doom about these strikes, and so on and so forth. But at the same time, Mr. Chairman, did you note that among the arguments that they raised, these were very responsible people that they were talking about. We agree that they were very responsible people, Mr. Chairman. Those very responsible people, on most occasions, if they come to that point in time where they must select that final way to achieve agreement will likely opt for this section.

MR. D.A, ANDERSON: What if they don't?

HON. MR. COCKE: If they don't, that Member knows that the final authority rests here in this chamber. That's neither here nor there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! No, no!

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. That's under any circumstance, that always has been the law. The law is created here. But you don't put those kinds of laws on the statute books because of the fact….

AN HON. MEMBER: They did.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes they did. Compulsory…. You saw what happened to Bill 33. You see what happens to that kind of high pressure stuff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do it anyway.

HON. MR. COCKE: What do you mean, do it anyway? We're talking in terms of a devastating situation and everybody knows that's what happens under those circumstances.

But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, what this does, it provides a vehicle, a vehicle that's right there and very readily ascertainable that the people can go this route. They don't have the route however, imposed. We believe in a little bit of freedom around here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. That's something you two don't understand. You want to enshrine that heavy-handed stuff. Yet that bunch over there were the people who did enshrine compulsion, compulsion, compulsion.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's have a little order. Let's have a little order.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a heavy hand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Socialist!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's the heavy hand of a capitalist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that that bunch over there were not responsible. As a matter of fact, they're most irresponsible, but I recognize that they all weren't responsible for Bill 33. Some of them were, especially that former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot). He was around. He voted for that; he voted for that piece of compulsion. Now he wants to put that on our heads.

No, Mr. Chairman, we don't believe that the way to go is this compulsory route. We believe that the way to go is to respect people — respect them for what they are and what they have to contribute.

Mr. Chairman, one of the Members suggested that we should take amendments, and the Minister of Labour said, "Certainly." He's amended the bill with a lot of ideas which have come forward. But the fact of the matter is: that kind of an amendment would never be acceptable to this side of the House, and

[ Page 1012 ]

they know it.

HON. MR. KING:: Mr. Chairman, this has been a rather wordy debate. So many things came to my attention that I wanted to comment on, but I'm not sure I can deal with them all. There were a great many things said.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The last speaker didn't say much.

HON. MR. KING: I do want to try and wind this debate down in a rather temperate way. I would just like to point out that some of. the statements made this morning were not particularly temperate. I don't think it serves anyone's best interest to have Members of the Legislature using such terms as "irresponsible trade union leaders", "irresponsible people with legislative guns in their hands" — using the terms "scabs" — which I have never used in this House. I don't think that's really too responsible from a party that likes to adopt the mantle of responsibility. The leader seems to try very hard but falls somewhat short.

MR. PHILLIPS: Your halo is slipping.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), he's a nice little chap and I like him very much. But he has no monopoly on sincerity and I don't think he should try to portray that in too much of a righteous fashion. I accept his position; we have a difference of opinion. And so be it. This is the agency; this is the institution where those differences of opinion should be enunciated and the vote that eventually comes on this legislation will reveal the different attitudes that the parties hold. And that's good.

The people have a right to determine the approaches of the various political parties to this question or any other. But to try to make points to justify a position by using inflammatory language of that kind against the parties involved out there is to me not too palatable. If you want to attack me in that vein, why, be my guest. But I think we should avoid making slanderous statements against the practitioners of industrial relations in this province, be it the trade unions, or be it the management groups.

Now one of the points that I wanted to make was that the people involved in the police departments, fire departments and hospitals have had the right to strike over the past number of years. When the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and Members of the Social Credit Party talk about it being dishonest to provide the continued right to strike, I wonder how they reconcile that with the position that has obtained for the past period of years? Surely they were aware that in the background lurked the mediation commission, the monster of their making, with the arbitrary right to impose compulsory arbitration, not only on the hospital workers, policemen and firemen but on every worker in the Province of British Columbia. Now if that's an honest approach, if that's consistent with what they are saying here today, then I certainly don't appreciate that kind of consistency.

But there is a point that was confused quite a number of times, and I don't think deliberately so, by Members of the Liberal and Conservative Parties. You say on the one hand the policemen, firemen and hospital workers are responsible people. I agree that they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every one?

HON. MR. KING: No, not every one. But generally speaking they are responsible groups who recognize that they are involved in a service that is tremendously important and emergent to the well-being of the public. They recognize that, and that is why the firefighters particularly, and the police officers, indeed the hospital workers also, made representation to the three special advisers to my department asking for options, asking for some alternatives to the strike weapon.

Now that's exactly what we have provided in this legislation. We have provided an alternative. If they feel as a matter of good conscience that the strike weapon is unacceptable as a method of resolving their differences, they can now opt for compulsory arbitration. But it's their decision; it's not imposed upon them. And the problem with compulsory arbitration, it tidies it all up very nicely and the politicians can forget all about it: "Well, that's looked after. It's tucked away in a nice little shelf."

But I suggest that although you may question whether or not all those people are responsible, you can similarly question whether every municipality that bargains and employs these groups is responsible also. If a group in society, whether it's a trade union or anyone else, has a feeling of being aggrieved, has a feeling of failing to keep pace with counterparts in society, has a feeling of being discriminated against in economic and social terms, notwithstanding the legislative terms that you're suggesting we apply to them, then I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that these people are going to take action to draw their plight to the attention of the public, whether or not we write laws saying, "Yes, you may" or "No, you can't."

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) answered his own question. He said that yes, there is a good chance that people will go out despite the laws. But we debated this bill in second reading and I drew to the attention of the House at that time that we're trying to change the accent and the approach to

[ Page 1013 ]

industrial relations from that of a punitive approach, where you pass rigid laws and demand compliance and, if that is not met, then you visit harsh penalties upon the parties.

Let's face it, Mr. Chairman, this is what has been tried for the last 25 years in this province. I would suggest with all humility that the industrial relations record that obtains in this province is not one that I would like to continue. The record of the previous Minister of Labour is, quite frankly, not one which I would like to emulate. I'm not being unduly critical, I'm just suggesting that his approach and the approach of the former administration certainly never provided labour peace and industrial stability in this province. So it's about time we took a new approach. This is what it's all about.

To argue that we must impose this in an arbitrary way is to me unrealistic. These groups have asked for this option and they now have it. I don't think in a legislative way that we should presume irresponsibility on the part of any group in society. I think that's wrong. To me it's rather a repugnant concept.

So let's give this a try. I'm sure that these parties are responsible. I think they've proved that over the past number of years where they have, in fact, had the right to strike. I can't recall a strike by firemen or policemen in British Columbia, and they've had the right to strike. Now if that isn't a demonstration of responsibility, I don't know what is.

I might draw to the attention of the House also that in many other jurisdictions, where there has been a strike in these basic public services, they usually have maintained a skeleton or emergency crew to ensure that the public interest was not irreparably damaged.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the railway strike? No way!

HON. MR. KING: No, that's true in that situation. But you know, you have to examine both sides of the coin. If the circumstances are repressive, then you build up a body of hatred and resentment that is going to manifest itself in a harsh and irrational response. That's true of all social relationships. So this is what we're talking about.

These people have an option. What we've sought to do all the way through this bill is to provide a number of options to the ultimate weapon of strikes.

We assert that everyone has the right to withdraw their labour, and we may disagree philosophically on that. Fine. Well and good. But we have tried to provide options, alternatives to the use of that ultimate weapon and surely that's going to be the test of whether we succeed or not.

It's going to take some years. I can't make any guarantees in this respect, but it is a new approach.

The punitive approach hasn't worked, so let's give this a valid try and let's do so with some degree of goodwill and in a spirit of cooperation on all sides of the House to help make it work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, since I moved this amendment the debate has been very wide-ranging and I think perhaps Members in their speeches have forgotten perhaps what the amendment precisely is. In the effort to set up straw men which were then destroyed — efforts done by virtually every Minister and government Member — I think again the point of the amendment has been lost.

The amendment is to 73(1) and it would be to say, "Where a dispute threatens an essential service, either party may apply by giving notice in writing to the Minister and to the other party to resolve the matter by arbitration."

Mr. Chairman, much is made of the fact that nurses in the federal service are now on strike. They are on strike for a number of reasons because, in my personal opinion, the Treasury Board offered them far less than they should have. They have a legitimate grievance.

Why are they on strike? I believe they are on strike because there isn't an intelligent, sensible method accepted by both sides for compulsory arbitration of a dispute of this nature. It is accepted that if there is such a dispute the thing to do is to go on strike.

Strikes, Mr. Chairman, are really what are at fault in terms of being mistaken as an end, when they are really a means; they're a means to settle a labour dispute and this amendment would only substitute a different means. They're a clumsy method; they're a method which involves tremendous hardship. Let's not kid ourselves. This strike of nurses is involving hardship and very, very possibly loss of life,

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): The other Member said it was a privilege.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The strike that has been taking place is the type of thing that I think we should get around by substituting some other mechanism. Strikes are clumsy as can be. Some groups have far more power in strikes than others, as the Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has made perfectly clear in his statements; the discussions of B.C. Rail have made it perfectly clear that there are certain groups which have far more power under that weapon than others and therefore it is clearly a very uneven, unfair weapon within the labour movement itself in terms of resolving the disputes of. varying groups. We're suggesting that in these essential services a separate and different type of approach, a different means be used to achieve the

[ Page 1014 ]

same end.

Mr. Chairman, we've had a fair amount of discussion of this being intemperate and immoderate. We don't think so. We think that in a situation such as this, where we know full well — and I do appreciate the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Cocke's) honest approach to this question — that the Legislature will be called into session to handle the problem in an essential service, we are not dealing fairly and honestly with the members of the labour movement who are going to be taking this legislation and trying to make it work in their own lives; we are not, when we refuse to recognize the fact that of course the right to strike in essential services will be abridged by legislative action almost as soon as it takes place.

We know this will be the situation in the case of firemen. We know it will be the situation in the case of policemen. I don't know whether all hospital workers or nurses will be in that position, but at least we know in the other two cases it will be that.

It's unfair, and it's unwise, and it really is dishonest to talk about strikes and the ability to strike and allowing people to strike when we know that as soon as it took place we would have breached that right away and we would prevent them from continuing and we'd try and settle it by legislative action.

This type of amendment tries to avoid the problem by setting up the machinery beforehand. So that it can be settled beforehand, the machinery can be put together in a dispassionate and quiet way prior to any dispute hitting the headlines or prior to any fire that may be started by an arsonist under the circumstances suggested by my friend from Point Grey. Prior to that happening we could establish machinery which would take care of the problem. It is not an amendment which destroys the labour movement in any way, shape or form. It is a type of amendment which some of these people themselves have been talking about when they ask for arbitration in their disputes. We think that it's the type of amendment which we put forward in good faith and which the government should consider in good faith, instead of putting forward, as they have done, a large number of straw men which they have proceeded to knock down thereafter.

It is not an amendment which we think in any way destroys the principle of the bill. It's not an amendment which destroys even the concept of 73 (1); it extends it logically to a position where we feel it should be, and I would urge that this amendment be accepted.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I'm not the kind of guy, I'm sure, that would go around saying, "I told you so."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LEA: But in second reading of this debate I said that this bill should be the one bill in this House that would prove where we are, philosophically. And I believe that now we're to the point where each side is letting the other side know where they stand in regard to society. It's becoming obvious and clear. But I don't think there is a society that can make it which says, "We're going to take certain groups and take away privileges and rights and give them to another group that the rest of the group doesn't have." You just can't do that and survive.

Was it Bonhoeffer, when he was released from the Nazi prison camp, who said, "You know, they came along and they arrested the Communists — it didn't bother me, I wasn't a Communist"? He said, "They came along and they arrested another group. It didn't bother me — I didn't belong to that group. But," he said, "then they came along and arrested me." And he said, "You know, nobody else cared either — I was the last one."

That's what life is all about: you just don't take one segment of society and say, "We're going to do something special with you," or "We're going to take something away from you." We're in it together, and we have to allow and give to everyone the same rights and privileges that we enjoy ourselves. That is the way we have to go, or we'll destroy ourselves as a society. If you can't understand that basic fact of life. And I believe that what we're all here to do is to try and decide which side we're on philosophically. I think you're doing it nicely and next time it won't be 60-40.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I listened with much interest to the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) a couple of minutes ago talking about setting up machinery beforehand to avert strikes and problems in the essential services. I'm wondering if he's really read this Act, because what we are doing is setting up the machinery beforehand. With the type of machinery that we envision, contrary to what he envisions, we are putting implicit in that machinery some degree of trust and responsibility which we are placing upon the working people in the essential services.

I wonder about that particular Member's feelings and what his concept of trust and responsibility is. It seems to me we are saying, "We trust the working people to act responsibly." And we have that little band of lawyers over here saying, "We don't trust anybody, even each other." Maybe it's because of the type of occupation and the type of party they belong to that they don't have that kind of trust, that they want to control everything, and that they cannot delegate trust and responsibility to other people.

I'd like to give an example of how this might

[ Page 1015 ]

work, myself having been a teacher for a long time. We have always gone to arbitration over any of the problems that we have in the schools — over our wage increases, over technological change, over teaching and learning conditions, and so on.

I think that we have, over the years, developed a fair amount of responsibility. We had a one-day strike a year ago, and it sure took a lot of soul searching even before we went out for that one day.

One of the checks that we have to consider is that when people in the central services go out on strike they have to consider the balance of how this is going to affect the public. They have to consider that if teachers go out on strike this disrupts family life when the kids have to be home from school. The firemen have to consider that people are concerned that their homes are not protected if there's a fire. So this is a check against strike action from the general public.

We also have to consider that when you're in a service such as hospitals, fire halls and policemen, as with teachers, it saves the public purse a lot of money by going out on strike. So you're not really hitting up anybody on a monetary value.

MR. CHABOT: Teachers aren't an essential service.

MR. STEVES: I didn't say teachers were an essential service. I'm using the comparison because there is a public check there; I'm giving this as a comparison because we do have arbitration in most of our disputes. We would like the right to go on strike, if need be. But if we were to go on strike we have these other checks that we consider.

With regard to giving the essential services the right to go for arbitration, I think they can judge these things responsibly, and they would generally take the arbitration route rather than strike action. In fact, I can't foresee a group in essential services having to strike when they do have the right to call for arbitration. They would be able to judge that in effect they may be creating some problems if they did go out on strike. I don't think anybody in essential services wants to do that. I think they are responsible people and that they can be trusted and that we should give them that trust.

For those Members of the Liberal Party who don't think people have any intelligence other than their own, and that they can't trust people, I say let's give them a try for a change, and see if there is some intelligence out there in society outside of the Liberal Party, It seems to me that the attitude I get from that little band is that they're the only ones that know what's good for everybody else, and that they would like to impose their will on everybody out in society, and in the workforce as well.

I think that we should trust people, and try and work together rather than impose decisions upon them.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I've been trying to stay out of this debate because, as I said in second reading, the party wanted to be logical.

However, the remarks by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), in bringing in the analogy of what happened in Germany before the war, reminded me of what is happening today in Canada. I can remember a few years ago when there used to be a strike, for instance in the automobile industry. The general population of our country would say, "Well, the automobile workers are out on strike, but that doesn't bother me."

And then a little later there would be a strike, we'll say in the lumber industry. By and large the general population would say, "So there's a strike in the lumber industry — well that really doesn't bother me.,, And there would maybe a strike in some of the petroleum industries. And the general public would say, "Well, so what? That really doesn't bother me."

But then there was a strike by the post office workers. And everybody in Canada said, "That really bothers me."

And then recently there was a strike by the airlines — just one segment of the airlines — and it threw the entire travelling public who travel by air into a state of turmoil.

And more recently there was a strike by our national railways.

What I'm really trying to say is that it wasn't very long ago — some 10 years ago — that when there was a strike they were not strikes in essential services; they were strikes by some of the manufacturing industries. And it didn't really bother the public at large. But then a particular government in Ottawa decided that all of the civil servants should have the right to strike whether they were in essential services or not. What has really happened now is that we have strikes in essential services and they do bother everybody. It is not in the public interest.

I appreciate the Premier's remarks in saying that we can't legislate people, but I also want to remind you of what I consider a very reasonable person, a very well-thought-of person in one of those major unions in the United States, recently said — a union which has a fair amount to do with the business that I'm in. That was George Meany, a very well-thought-of man. What did he say? He said, "I think we're entering a period in our history where strikes have got to be outdated."

HON. MR. BARRETT: We don't agree with that.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier says he doesn't agree with Mr. Meany. But the Premier probably realizes

[ Page 1016 ]

deep down in his own heart — and I think before the next election he's going to take some action which will prove exactly what the Premier thinks. He doesn't want to say it at this time, but the Premier really thinks that strikes have got to be outdated and that there' got to be a new method of solving labour disputes.

Now I realize that the people employed, the ordinary individuals, 99 per cent of them are very conscientious people and they are in those particular services because they want to do a particular service to the public. However, as I said before and I said it two weeks ago, Friday morning when I was discussing second reading of this labour bill, I said that both in business and in labour you get — and I won't say overzealous, and I won't say irresponsible — I will say overambitious labour leaders the same as you get overambitious people in management. This is where the crux of the situation comes in.

Although these people are all very well-meaning, they will follow the leader, Mr. Premier. You know that and I know that. They may not want to do it but if 50 per cent of them do it, the other 50 per cent are going to go ahead. You know that there have been some very brutal disputes in labour where people who don't follow are sometimes intimidated. You know that, Mr. Premier.

Now the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) made a little talk in the House not long ago. I would have thought that we were back in the 1920s. We've progressed, Mr. Minister of Mines. We have progressed a lot since then.

HON. MR. KING: Not really.

MR. PHILLIPS: We are living in 1973. Your government is serious about trying to solve the labour problem. The official opposition is serious about co-operating, very serious about co-operating, but we must also realize our responsibility to the public at large. What is in the public interest? I said in this debate, at the very beginning of this debate, that the public interest is not even defined under the definitions. I think we have a very serious problem, This government says they are so greatly interested in the public interest and they don't want to legislate against strikes.

I want to refer you to the Energy Act which was passed in this House in the last session. What do you have the power to do there in a case of emergency where the public at large is involved? You have the power to enter, to seize, to control and to charge…

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): Speak to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: …back to that particular utility if they should withdraw their services because it would involve the public interest. Wouldn't it, Mr. Premier? You have taken unto your government those powers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Come one, we'll discuss it in the court.

MR. PHILLIPS: Haven't you, Mr. Premier? And yet you say, "Oh, no, we can't legislate against strikes."

Just let there be a strike by management in a utility where the interests of the public are involved and you've got more than police power. You can do whatever is necessary to protect the rights of the people. Now is that far removed from having a strike in an essential service? Not at all. I don't mind you people getting in bed with labour union leaders but I don't like you to prostitute yourselves to them. You've got to take a firm stand on this.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's only 12:15.

MR. PHILLIPS: I realize that it's only 12:15 and, as I say, I did honestly and sincerely not want to get into this debate. But I felt compelled to say these few words, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: When are you going to get into the debate? I'm sorry I asked that question. You've done a wonderful job, but we don't agree with your question. Carry on.

MR. PHILLIPS: You say, Mr. Premier, that you can't legislate people to stay on a job. You know full well, Mr. Premier, that if you pass a law whereby a person going on strike is going to be fined and it's going to hit him in the pocketbook, you know what will happen, Mr. Premier. You know what wages are all about. You know what fines are all about. Certainly if these labour union leaders who are leading people in essential services to strike are going to be fined, you know what effects it will have too, Mr. Premier.

However, Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is that we've got to come to grips. This is 1973 and the people are fed up with being denied certain services the same as they would be fed up if their gas was shut off, if the telephone was shut off and if their hydro was shut off. You've taken the police, dictatorial, complete powers under the Energy Act to protect the public interests. All I am saying is that you've got to take a firm stand in regard to other certain….

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm in order. Yes, sir, you'd better believe I'm in order. I'm hitting home, aren't I, Mr.

[ Page 1017 ]

Minister of Labour. I'm telling you the facts. You've got to stand up and be counted. You've got to face these guys in the labour business and tell them exactly that it is the public interest you are interested in. They are the people we've got to protect.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's the matter with you? Oh, now, now.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's venom if I have ever seen it in my life — coming right out on the floor of this House.

However, that's the type of thing we've got to do away with. We've got to be calm. We can't spew hate on the floor of this House. We've got to be logistical. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Logical. (Laughter.) Or whatever it is.

I am glad I made these few remarks because the Minister of Labour listened; the Premier listened. He knows that he has these police powers under certain other Acts and a lot of Acts that he is passing. We tell him when he passes these Acts what great powers he is taking unto himself. Now he is going to have to realize…. He says he is interested in the public interest. Well, he's got to remember that some strikes aren't in the public interest and this is where the whole crux of this debate comes in. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to say these few words this morning.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I didn't really want to get involved but I have been hearing words called responsibility. The responsibility of firemen. The responsibility of policemen. The responsibility of nurses. I would like to have one more responsible — the Legislature.

We have the most irresponsible opposition there is. The working man won the right to strike. The only person who can take away that right is this Legislature in a specific Act for a specific length of time. You might as well face up to the fact that the responsibility is here.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: You can't make laws to take away the responsibility from us. If we force a settlement on people it becomes a political act, because we have taken away a right. I just wanted to make this one point. You'd better be responsible and vote against this amendment.

MR. CHABOT: I'll be my usual brief self. I just don't understand the significance of this statement of the Member who just spoke. I do understand the significance of what the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) was attempting to say.

That Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance stands up here from time to time and attempts to fuzz things up. I think he hasn't looked at the Act. It's quite obvious to me that he hasn't examined it. I think he's been too busy reading Colonel Foulkes report. Mr. Minister, you are supposed to make that report available to the House. Colonel Foulkes was making that report available to the public yesterday. Most disrespectful to the House. I think you should pay attention to the legislation that we are discussing, not getting involved in allowing Foulkes to go off half-cocked in the public sector.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: We're talking about the public interest now relative to section 73.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. State your point of order.

HON. MR. COCKE: The Member is being irrelevant as usual. My point of order is that he's not speaking to the section. What he is speaking about he knows nothing about, and it is quite incorrect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. We're dealing with an amendment to section 73 and I think that's what the discussion. should be.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. Colonel Foulkes released a report last night which the Minister said he'd release in this House.

HON. MR. COCKE: He never released a report last night. He made a speech.

MR. CHABOT: Bits and pieces of the report were released last night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you please stick to the amendment that is on the floor?

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will. Now that Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance over there talked about compulsion. We're opposed to compulsion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

[ Page 1018 ]

MR. CHABOT: Bill 33 was a compulsory Act. It is quite obvious that you haven't read this Act because there are certain phases of compulsion in this Act too. You'd better believe it. You'd better read it. Two of your backbenchers, the sawdust twins, voted against parts of the compulsion that are reflected in this legislation.

All we are asking is that the Minister, before he stands in his place and attempts to discuss the amendment which we are discussing at this time, recognizes what he is saying and does not constantly make a fool of himself in this assembly. Now, I think that the essential thing we are discussing really is whether the workers have the right to strike or not in this essential service.

The section, as it presently reads, allows the one side to opt for arbitration. In fact, it gives a strategic advantage to the union in collective bargaining, and there's no doubt about that. By allowing the right of arbitration only on one side, it will create difficulties.

I think the amendment, even though I'd prefer a different amendment than the one we are debating at this time, will allow a better balance between both sides and, in many instances, would eliminate the necessity of calling the Legislature together to resolve a public-interest dispute. It would be less damaging and it would allow the two sides to be more responsible in their negotiations so that there wouldn't be any disruption.

I'm sure that the Premier is anxious to resolve this. He just said "aye" so I presume he's willing to vote for the amendment. If the Premier will continue his "aye" I'll take my seat right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to comment on the words that our friend from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) gave us a moment ago when he talked about responsibility. And that's what we're talking about: responsibility to the public. I want to tell the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain just how responsible the Premier is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Forty-five to one.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier was going to bring in this Legislature the War Measures Act to protect the public interests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, come on.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. Does the backbench know what was in that Act? Do you know what was in that Act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please deal with the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm dealing with the public interest, the right to strike and that fantastic power the Premier was going to take unto himself by bringing a bill into this Legislature. (Laughter.) Boy oh boy, I would sure like to know what was in that bill, Mr. Chairman.

I tell you, that's responsibility. He thought we were going to freeze to death this winter and he said, "No way." He was going to bring in a bill into this Legislature to freeze the assets of Westcoast Transmission. All we are talking about here is an amendment, a small amendment to protect the public interest in case of strikes of police and firefighters, right? Responsibility to protect the public interest.

But the Premier was going to protect the public interest by bringing in a bill. You know, it didn't affect me. They said it in the lumber industry but it didn't affect me. They said it in the mining industry, and pretty soon there was a bill that said it in the petroleum industry. It didn't affect me.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, it was your Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) that brought it up.

HON. MR. LEA: Don't ruin things for the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: But I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what was in that bill. I'd like to know what was in that bill, and I'd like to know if that bill was to protect the public interest. How far reaching…? Order? Order, they say. I say order too. I want the bill brought in the House. Bring the bill in the House, Mr. Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, talk to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Bring the bill in the House and then we'll compare this little amendment that we are asking for, just to protect the people from strikes in two essential services, with that bill the Premier spewed to the press without it being brought into this Legislature. We'll see what responsibility is and we'll see what the public interest is.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 34

[ Page 1019 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in the House, when you rise and report, would you tell the Speaker of the vote and ask that it be recorded in the Journals.

On section 73.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: I wish to move the amendment to section 73 (1) on the order paper. I'll be very brief because this has a more limited goal than the amendment we've just defeated. Again, I make it very simply this: my amendment doesn't seek to delete the section, as the former amendment did, but simply builds into the section the simple phrase of three words "or the employer," meaning that not only the trade union but the employer may also elect to seek arbitration.

I think this side of the House is clearly in favour of the principle of arbitration. But, as the Minister has said many times in this debate, Mr. Chairman, there are two sides who have to be given fair and just consideration. Surely if we are encouraging the principle of arbitration to prevent strikes, we should be encouraging both sides to seek arbitration.

I would have to disagree very strongly with the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) who said the employers of policemen and firemen are the equivalent of government. They are the equivalent of a municipal level of government, but I think it's quite wrong to imply that they have anything of the legislative clout which is held by the provincial government. I think that is really inaccurate. If this government really believes that the thrust of this whole legislation is to give fair play and fair consideration and justice to both parties in a dispute, then if one party should be encouraged to seek arbitration, surely, Mr. Chairman, it's painfully obvious that that same opportunity and encouragement should be extended to the other party, namely the employer. I move adoption of this amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 34

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I ask that when you report to the Speaker, you tell him that a division took place and that it be recorded in the Journals.

Section 73 approved.

On section 74.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Section 74 deals with technological change. It's a matter of acute concern to the entire construction industry — labour as well as management. I know the Hon. Minister wishes to get on, but I wonder if he would, first, explain the amendment and second, deal with to some degree the submission of the CLRA brief in particular. I could go through the arguments that have been put forth by the industry, but I won't do so. I'll simply wait until we get some sort of explanation from the Minister before I consider putting my amendment forward.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to section 74 is a drafting one. It's to bring conformity and uniformity between this particular section — 74 — and section 93 (1). There was a difference in language there as it referred to review by certiorari or arbitration and technological change. This is to bring uniformity to those two sections, It's drafting language.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: While my colleagues check on 93 (1) — where I personally don't see

[ Page 1020 ]

where certiorari applies — nevertheless….

HON. MR. KING: Section 93 (1) (b).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Section 93 (1) (b), thanks very much.

May I ask then whether the Minister has had a chance to look at the brief of the Construction Labour Relations Association concerning technological change, whether he would like to comment on the points made in that brief, because otherwise I would think that perhaps we should exclude the construction industry from the provisions of this particular section.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, indeed I have looked at the Construction Labour Relations Association brief. I met with members of their executive and again with other representatives of their group.

We have a basic disagreement in terms of the effects of this technological change. I feel, on the best legal advice I can obtain, that the apprehensions held by the Construction Labour Relations Association that technological change would become involved in the question of jurisdiction are without foundation.

It clearly applies to a relationship between employees and employers that is a continuous relationship and whereby workers' security of employment is threatened by technological change.

Now, that's not the case in the construction industry where they hire from hiring halls, and there's no continuity of the relationship. In that way it seems impossible or most unrealistic to suggest that the technological change clause could be applied to an issue which is properly a determination of who work properly belonged to — a jurisdictional issue.

MR. GARDOM: The Minister was talking about certiorari. I don't see any reference to certiorari in either of these sections. Would he please indicate to the House what his reference is in this regard?

HON. MR. KING: I say, Mr. Chairman, I made the point, I think, that it seeks to prevent an action or a review by certiorari. The wording is changed for that purpose.

Amendment approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on this question of technological change, I would wonder whether the Minister would deal with the hypothetical situation where, through no fault of the contractor, alterations are made either by the architect or by client commissioning a building where, say, wood was used instead of cement on a wall. Under the terms of the Act, I would think this would be the type of technological change which could be involved. Even though it's not a substitute in the entire industry of one system of construction for another, it's a substitute of one material for another.

It would seem to me, in this particular instance, where after the construction has begun and, say, on the facing of a building they switch from one material to the other, the wording of the Act would imply to me that because the material has switched, it would be a technological change, or could be considered a technological change.

I wonder if he would like to indicate whether under those circumstances the whole collective agreement comes up for reconsideration. Clearly it will mean substituting one trade for another if you substitute one product for another — wood for cement, for example, or vice versa. I wonder whether that would, under those circumstances, result in the technological change provision coming into effect. I would trust that it didn't, but the reading that the lawyers of the Construction Labour Relations Association have given this bill has indicated to them that it would.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it should be recognized that in the first instance this section of the bill on technological change provides for the parties to negotiate their own technological change provisions, so we seek first of all to make the parties responsible for resolving their own problems.

I indicated earlier, though, that should the issue of technological change find its way to the Labour Relations Board, it's inconceivable to me that the Board would hold as technological change a situation where an architect imposed a certain type of building material on a contractor and then the contractor was held responsible for imposing technological change there in fact he has no control whatsoever over the product, and the product may indeed be changed due to architectural or engineering requirements. So in the unlikely situation that that kind of question got to the board, I have no doubt in my mind what the answer would be.

I should point out that there are a number of steps here, I think five specific steps which can be taken before the question of technological change…. Well, there are four steps before it gets to the board. So the intent and the provision is for the parties to come to grips with this problem and solve it themselves in the first instance.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister would indicate whether or not he thinks it would be acceptable if the collective agreement made provision for the reference of a question on technological change to be referred to the Labour Relations Board

[ Page 1021 ]

in the first instance? I can recognize that there might be some difficulty in arranging a situation where the contract itself would provide for arbitration and your amendment now opens the way for some other method of bringing about a settlement. It seems to me that since under subsequent sections we will deal with the final result of various steps which will bring the matter of technological change for decision to the board, would the Minister consider that to be an appropriate subject to be included in the collective agreement, thereby enabling the parties to shortcut the successive steps in section 76?

HON. MR. KING: The main proposition is, so long as the parties negotiate a mutually-agreeable arbitration procedure, that there's no restriction on the type of arbitration which would be allowed.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, could it go to the board?

HON. MR. KING: Pardon?

MR. WILLIAMS: Could they provide for it to go to the board?

HON. MR. KING: They could conceivably, but that's not the intent of that particular amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, my problem with 74 is related to section 78. With your indulgence perhaps we could have a look at the interpretation section, dealing with technological change. I might add….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's related to a guy by the name of Connaghan.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, maybe. I don't know whether that's relevant.

Section 78 (i), under "technological change;-

"(i) the introduction by an employer of a change in his work, undertaking, or business, or a change in his equipment or material from that equipment or material previously used by the employer in his work…."

It would seem to me that this is a very wide definition and that under those circumstances it might well be argued, by many people affected by any change due to an architect's alteration of a design or something of that nature, that this did constitute technological change within the meaning of 78(i), in which case, 74 becomes a pretty tricky thing for the industry to handle.

I wonder whether or not the Minister would like to comment, with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, on 78 (i) as it relates to 74 at this stage. Because the definition in 78 (i) was certainly in my understanding at variance with what the Minister said a few minutes ago.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, section 76 must be read in conjunction with the section the Member refers to because, although the definition contained in section 78 is quite broad, it's modified in section 76 and sets out the specific considerations that may be considered by the Labour Relations Board. So I don't think there's any danger of unrealistic imposition of penalties on employers.

The questions that are taken into consideration are: Does the change affect the terms and conditions or security of employment of a significant number of employees who have a collective agreement and does it alter significantly the basis upon which a collective agreement was negotiated? And that's a very significant aspect. It hinges upon whether or not the employer had prior knowledge when he negotiated the contract and brings into question the whole point of good faith. So I think that that modifies sufficiently to assuage the Member's concern.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As a final point, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister would indicate to the House whether he intends to have this whole question turned over to the special construction industry board which is being set up under this Act? I realize that's essentially an advisory board, but the concern that has been expressed and the difficulties that have surrounded the whole construction industry in past years in British Columbia make this something of more than simply passing interest. It could be extremely important.

I wonder whether the Minister could give an indication to the House at this stage that this whole question, despite the passage of these sections, will be referred to that board or that group for their consideration so that they in turn can perhaps suggest improvements in the way these sections will work?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, discussions are underway now with a view to setting up a construction review panel which would be charged with monitoring very closely all of the new legislation as it applies to the construction industry and to coming back with recommendations for amendments they feel might be necessary. Discussions are underway with construction labour relations and they'd be empowered to look at this section.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Chairman, sections 74 and 76 I think have to be discussed in the same context because section 76 explains to some extent section 74.

These two sections are ones which I mentioned when I was talking on the original principle of this bill regarding arbitration procedures. I'm somewhat concerned with this particular clause in section 76

[ Page 1022 ]

about the compulsory aspects of it, although not as concerned as I was with the first collective agreement or some of the other ones earlier. I am a bit disturbed about it because I think when you have compulsion, the compulsory aspects of a clause such as this affect the working man more than they do management.

If section 74 passes it calls for provision of arbitration without stoppage of work. This in my opinion would be acceptable if it did provide that the arbitration would be called for by the working man, very much in line with section 73, where the working man in the essential services is able, at the request of the union, to call for arbitration. But I do not feel that it should be at the call of either party, as is outlined in section 76, where in effect we are again giving responsibility to the workingman in essential services. I think that this responsibility should extend to technological change agreements as well and in effect that they should be given that same right in some manner that, when compulsion is called for, it would be the representatives of the workingman who would call for it rather than management.

I think that when management has this right they can hold out for rather atrocious demands and take an extreme position, And, when they call for arbitration, you then get a situation where it swings in that direction. I would much prefer to see it in a situation where it was exactly the other way.

Section 74 approved.

On section 75.

MR. WALLACE: It's rather a small point, but the third line refers to the Minister considering the report of "a person appointed by him." We feel that's rather an all-encompassing word to use. Since later in the bill the definition of "special officers" seems to fill the role that would be required in section 75 to look at the matter of whether a collective agreement does have some reference to technological change, I would move an amendment to the effect in line 3 that we delete the third word, "person", and replace it with the words "special officer." I so move.

Amendment approved.

Section 75 approved with amendment.

On section 76.

MR. CHABOT: This is the one that deals extensively with the introduction of technological change. I'm going to say at the outset that I'm in favour of this kind of amendment but with certain reservations.

The Minister has said, and we have said as well in the introduction of this new legislation, that we hope a new climate can be established in the province. We find now that with this section in the bill — the introduction of technological change — even though the Construction Labour Relations Association, which incidentally is the largest employer in the province, was heading towards a new climate with their particular workers, that the president of CLRA has used some fairly strong language in criticizing this particular section as it relates to the construction industry. He's most upset. He feels it will be most disruptive.

I think we must take into consideration the fact that they employ about 60,000 organized workers in the construction industry, composed of 60 locals of unions. The president of the Construction Labour Relations Association has said that that section is completely unworkable as far as the construction industry is concerned. And they have been making in my opinion, and I'm sure in the opinion of the Minister, tremendous progress with establishing a new climate between management and the labour unions. They are slowly progressing to establishing a trade council for joint bargaining and now it appears that with this there is a possibility that that might go down the drain.

You can't really relate the construction industry to any other industry because the construction industry is worked as a mobile unit, it's worked as a dispatch from hiring halls and its workers jealously guard their areas of jurisdiction.

We find that with this particular section there's going to be, without any doubt, a great number of problems created. In the area of introduction of new products, a certain craft will indicate that they feel that that belongs to their particular jurisdiction and you'll have a great number of problems. The problems will stem primarily from the definition of a technological change and where the jurisdiction should lie. There'll be tremendous delays which will cause a great deal of inconvenience, not only to the construction industry but to the workers in the construction industry as well.

I had hoped that the Minister would reflect the concerns — construction labour relations went to a lot of work in preparing this brief which they made available to the Minister.

Apparently, at least at this stage, the Minister has not indicated that he's prepared to listen to their concerns. There are other provinces — if I remember correctly, the Province of Ontario recognizes the construction industry as a unique industry with unique problems. I think that this government and this Minister should also recognize the problems that will develop in the construction industry by the application of section 76.

I would hope that there will be some amendment, in fact. I don't see any on the order paper, but maybe the Minister has one ready to present on this

[ Page 1023 ]

particular thing dealing with the construction industry. I do want to say again that I support the matter of technological change, but it's going to cause a great number of problems in the construction industry.

I hope the Minister will listen to the concerns expressed by CLRA and really indicate to this House and to the people of British Columbia that he really believes in establishing a new climate in labour relations in our province.

HON. MR. KING: I'd like to respond briefly to the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). I don't think he should say that I haven't listened to the Construction Labour Relations Association. Indeed, that group and the trade unions are telling me that they've never had an opportunity to discuss and consult with the Minister of Labour as much as they have in the last year.

MR. CHABOT: That's rubbish!

HON. MR. KING: Although we may not agree on everything, the door is certainly open and I've had a great many visits and discussions with these groups.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that despite the alarm sounded by Mr. Connaghan, the president of Construction Labour Relations Association, his fears are not really too well founded. I had a lengthy meeting with him in my office and we went over in detail each fear and concern that was expressed by him.

The construction industry has a method now for resolving jurisdictional disputes, and I see no reason why that question should become involved in the process of determining technological change. I think that it's somewhat of a false issue and I don't think we should try to infer that they are one and the same problem. So I have indicated that we are prepared to closely monitor the effects, that we're prepared to work with the Construction Labour Relations Association and the trade unions involved to watch very closely the application of this legislation and to move to amend anything that is unduly injurious to the industry.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister has got a very serious procedural problem in section 76. Section 74, casually read, would seem to indicate that the provisions there are narrowly limited, but that division in section 74 for the collective agreement to provide for arbitration or other means of settlement of stoppage of work seems to run in direct conflict, Mr. Minister, with the closing words of subsection (1).

In section 74 you have said that every agreement shall provide means for final and conclusive settlement by arbitration or other means, and yet when you come over to section 76, you specifically provide that either party may send the matter to arbitration. Now, if the contract has got provisions for final and conclusive settlement by means other than arbitration, then section 76 is running diametrically opposed to section 74 as you have now amended it.

I think that what you require is an amendment to the last two lines of section 76 (1), or else you are going to destroy the effectiveness of the collective agreement that the parties themselves have negotiated for this specific purpose.

So saying, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, until the Minister can consider this amendment.

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 in committee two divisions took place on section 73, both on amendments to section 1. The committee requests that leave be granted to record these divisions in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to file the interim report of the Law Reform Commission on debtor-creditor relationships, Part IV, "Prejudgment Interests."

Leave granted.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw notice of question 182 standing on the order paper in my name.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:55 p.m.