[ Page 1025 ]

CONTENTS

Introduction

Presentation of David Lewis to the House. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1025

Mr. Richter — 1025

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1025

Mr. Wallace — 1025

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

Tabling of emergency measures Act. Mr. Smith — 1025

Taxation of Plateau Mills. Mr. Wallace — 1025

Barrett-Lewis rip-off parleys. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1026

Design studies on Gabriola ferry terminal. Mr. Curtis — 1026

Withholding of information re emergency measures Act. Mrs. Jordan — 1026

Sexual discrimination in government salaries. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1026

Contract settlements with B.C. Rail workers. Mr. Phillips — 1027

Price control and guaranteed maintenance of natural gas supplies. Mr. McGeer — 1027

Canadian Cellulose tax appeal. Mr. Smith — 1028

An Act to Amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act (Bill 95).

Hon. Mr. Nimsick. Introduction and first reading — 1028

An Act to Amend the Soil Conservation Act (Bill 94).

Hon. Mr. Stupich. Introduction and first reading — 1028

Guarantee of Natural Justice Act (Bill 98). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 1029

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

On section 76.

Mr. Williams — 1029

Hon. Mr. King — 1029

Amendment to section 77.

Hon. Mr. King — 1029

On section 78.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1029

Hon. Mr. King — 1030

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1030

Mr. Williams — 1030

Hon. Mr. King — 1031

Amendment to section 81.

Mr. Wallace — 1031

Amendment to section 84.

Mr. Wallace — 1031

Amendment to section 85.

Mr. Chabot — 1031

Hon. Mr. King — 1032

Mr. Williams — 1032

Mr. Chabot — 1032

Division on amendment to section 85 — 1032

On section 85.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1033

Hon. Mr. King — 1033

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1033

Hon. Mr. King — 1034

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1034

Amendment to section 87.

Mr. Gardom — 1034

Hon. Mr. King — 1035

Mr. Gardom — 1035

Hon. Mr. King — 1036

Amendment to section 88.

Mr. Williams — 1036

Division on amendment to section 88 — 1037

On section 90.

Mr. Williams — 1037

Hon. Mr. King — 1037

Mr. Williams — 1038

Amendment to section 93.

Mr. Wallace — 1038

Hon. Mr. King — 1038

Mr. Wallace 1038

Hon. Mr. King — 1038

Amendment to section 94.

Mr. Wallace — 1039

Hon. Mr. King — 1039

Amendment to section 96.

Hon. Mr. King — 1039

Mr. Wallace — 1039

Hon. Mr. King — 1039

Amendment to section 109.

Mr. Wallace — 1039

Hon. Mr. King — 1039

On section 116.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1040

Hon. Mr. King — 1040

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1040

Amendment to section 114.

Mr. Wallace — 1040

Amendment to section 121.

Hon. Mr. King — 1041

Amendment to section 122.

Mr. Wallace — 1041

Hon. Mr. King — 1041

Amendment to section 126.

Mr. Gardom — 1041

Hon. Mr. King — 1041

Mr. Gardom — 1042

Amendment to section 133.

Hon. Mr. King — 1042

Amendment to section 137. 

Hon. Mr. King — 1042

Amendment to section 138.

Mr. Gardom — 1042

Amendment to section 139.

Hon. Mr. King — 1042

Amendment to section 143.

Mr. Gardom — 1043

Amendment to section 145.

Mr. Gardom — 1043

Amendment to section 146.

Mr. Gardom — 1044

Amendment to section 150.

Hon. Mr. King — 1044

Mr. Gardom — 1044

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1045

Mr. Williams — 1046

Hon. Mr. King — 1047

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1047

Division on amendment to section 150 — 1047

Amendment to section 152.

Hon. Mr. King — 1048

Report stage — 1048

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act (Bill 40).

Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. King — 1048

Report stage — 1048

An Act to Amend the Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance Act. (Bill 39).

Committee, report and third reading — 1048

An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act (Bill 43).

Committee, report and third reading — 1049

Medical Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 81).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1049

Mrs. Jordan — 1049

An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, 1964 (Bill 82).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1053

Mr. Wallace — 1053

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1054

Department of Consumer Services Act (Bill 48). Committee stage.

Mr. Phillips — 1054

Hon. Ms. Young — 1054

Report stage — 1054

Farm Products Industry Improvement Act (Bill 68).

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Williams — 1055

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1055

On section 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1055

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1055

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1055

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1056

Mr. Williams — 1056

Amendment to section 3.

Mr. Wallace — 1056

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1057

Division on amendment to section 3 — 1057

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill 96). Hon. Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 1058

MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, frequently we have many guests in this House, but rarely do we have a guest with such national significance as we have today. I'd ask the House today to welcome the national leader of the New Democratic Party, a man who has had the most envied career in public life in Canada. As a founding member of the CCF and later the NDP, David Lewis has given tremendous service to the people of Canada. I'm proud that he's able to spend a few moments with us today.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, we wish to welcome Mr. Lewis out here to British Columbia, really the choice part of Canada. I know that he gets a little bored sometimes in Ottawa; it's always nice to come out here and be refreshed and we welcome you here today.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I join in welcoming Mr. David Lewis to our midst today. During over four years in parliament, when we were both Members of Parliament together, I enjoyed many opportunities to speak with him and get to know him well. It's a great pleasure to see him here.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We also in the Conservative Party would like to welcome him to British Columbia. We hope that you find the weather a little more pleasant than Ottawa, and that you take back our good wishes to the House of Commons.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the House that there are 44 students from Gladstone High School in my riding in the gallery along with their teachers — Mr. Campbell, Mr. Dobson and Mr. Mellislav.

I sincerely hope that education at Gladstone is better than it used to be. My wife fortunately graduated from that high school when standards were lower. (Laughter.) She didn't develop the kind of judgment which I'm sure girls from Gladstone would have today. I bid them welcome.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Wait till he gets home.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like, before we go on, to introduce two fine native carvers from the Queen Charlottes who are now in Victoria — Mr. Jones and

Mr. McFadden, who are in the gallery just above the clock. They are the source of my carvings.

Oral questions.

TABLING OF
EMERGENCY MEASURES ACT

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Premier.

In the last few days a number of statements have been made, Mr. Premier, concerning a particular Act that has never been presented to this House. It's referred to as an emergency measures Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: The Act was drafted. When will it be filed with this Legislative Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is a rule that anything that's on the order paper is not the subject of the question period. There's a notice of motion and a motion on the order paper, put there by the Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: There's a motion regarding a matter of censure; there's not a motion on the order paper concerning the question that I have just posed to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: I would not want to misunderstand the Hon. Member, but I gather he's talking about the same subject matter — a message bill that is not before the House that he is asking the Premier to disclose at this time in the House — when that very matter, I believe, the Hon. Member has appointed on the order paper by motion. Is that the very matter to which you refer?

MR. SMITH: I'm asking the Premier a simple straightforward question: when will you file that Act or that proposal on the Table of this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Again, I point out that that's the subject of debate relating to a question that's ordered on the order paper. Consequently, under Beauchesne's rules and under the rules of May it would not be appointed in question period.

TAXATION OF PLATEAU MILLS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources a question regarding the direct government ownership of Plateau Mills. Would the Minister comment on the approximate sum of federal income tax which it is anticipated will be saved the company? Secondly,

[ Page 1026 ]

does the Minister anticipate that this action will lead to a depressing of the shares of competitive companies?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid Mr. Speaker, that we don't have any firm figures with which I could provide the House at this stage regarding the question of corporate income tax at Plateau Mills. But I might note that we did acquire companies that had related problems, such as Ocean Falls. And we saw Plateau Mills as an opportunity for some form of profit in relation to other enterprises that might not be profitable at all. It now appears that most of the enterprises we have will be profitable. I'm sorry we made that mistake, but that is the fact.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: if this advantage to one particular company depresses the fortunes of other companies, does the government then intend to buy into the other companies at the depressed prices?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We certainly don't expect that there will be any depressing effect on other companies. But as I indicated on Friday, I believe, Mr. Speaker, there is a case for the government looking at ways in which we might serve the communities better in regions such as this. We'll seriously do that.

BARRETT-LEWIS RIP-OFF PARLEYS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Premier whether his flagrant case of government favouritism and corporate rip-off has been discussed with the leader of the national NDP?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not a question of corporate rip-off, Mr. Speaker — it's the people getting their own back.

DESIGN STUDIES ON
GABRIOLA FERRY TERMINAL

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications: could he bring the House any new information with respect to early design studies for any possible ferry terminal on Gabriola Island — the status of the work that is going on in the design stage now?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): We're still waiting for the wind and wave studies, which will determine where the terminals will be. We can't start to design them until we know exactly where it's going to be.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: therefore no specific location has been selected to date with respect to the shoreside facilities.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not to date, no.

MR. CURTIS: And a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may: could he give us any indication as to the likely time of the completion of the studies to which he's referred — a matter of two months, six months, a year…?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've asked for them as soon as possible. I prodded them last week to get me an answer very soon.

WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION
RE EMERGENCY MEASURES ACT

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Premier. Last night on a news television broadcast known as "Capital Comment" the searching questions of one of the reporters, Marjorie Nichols, caused the Premier to reveal the presence of action taken by this government that was not known to this House. And my question is: did the Premier intend to reveal this information to the House, had Miss Nichols not tripped him up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is covered by a prohibition in Beauchesne which is to the effect that matters anticipated on the orders of the day shall not be subject to questions during question time. Therefore I have to make exactly the same….

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that he was tripped up several times last night, not just on the B.C. war measures Act?

MR. SPEAKER: I have no knowledge of what he was doing. All I know is that if you look in our Votes and Proceedings you will find a transcript of what was alleged to have been said, submitted by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). Therefore it is the subject of orders of the day and should not be in question time.

SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN
GOVERNMENT SALARIES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour. May I ask him whether he has taken up the question of blatant sexual discrimination in government jobs with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), responsible to the Civil Service Commission, whereby, in last Saturday's

[ Page 1027 ]

paper, starting salaries for men and women in the Queen's Printer were 85 cents apart and top salaries were $2.14 apart? It occurs, Mr. Speaker, on page 26.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I am informed that the chairman of the Human Rights Commission has been in touch with the Provincial Secretary's department to remove any references to sex which exist in their advertisements for jobs.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask a supplementary? If we are just going to delete the references, perhaps we are no more ahead. But the starting salary for men is $3.24 and starting salary for women is $2.39; top salaries are $2.14 apart. Has the Minister taken any steps in the year that he has been Provincial Secretary to stop this blatant discrimination of unequal pay for equal work?

HON. MR. KING: I would suggest that the Human Rights Branch of my department has been very actively engaged in removing many of the old discriminate anomalies that have existed over many years with various departments of government between females and males. I would suggest further that if the Member has specific representations he would want to make, he would make them to the Director of the Human Rights Branch.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a final question. May I ask the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to make the Human Rights Act apply not only in private industry but also in public service? At the present time there is no way we can use the Human Rights Act and no way we can use the Director of the Human Rights to get at discrimination being practised by the Provincial Secretary's department.

HON. MR. KING: That will require legislative change and I will have something to say on that, Mr. Speaker, within the not-too-distant future.

CONTRACT SETTLEMENTS
WITH B.C. RAIL WORKERS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to direct a question to the President of the British Columbia Railway. The president of the railway is aware that we just finished an untimely strike on the railway which was damaging to the economy of British Columbia. I would like the president of the railway to tell me how many contracts are still unsettled with the workers on the railway.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Two.

MR. PHILLIPS: What progress is being made toward settlement of these contracts with the idea of not having any more strikes on the railway, Mr. President?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are both negotiating, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In case negotiations fail and we are faced with another strike, are shippers of perishable goods going to be given sufficient warning this time, Mr. President?

MR. SPEAKER: We are not permitted hypothetical questions in question period.

PRICE CONTROL AND GUARANTEED
MAINTENANCE OF NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In view of the presumed price increase for crude oil in eastern Canada, can the Premier tell us whether he has the power, in his view, to prevent price increases for heating oil and gasoline in the Province of British Columbia this winter?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We don't have the power at the present, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Somewhat along the same line. I wonder in relation to the solution of the natural gas crisis last week if the Premier is in any position to give some details to the House with particular reference to the source of the additional supply. If this involved National Energy Board approval, could he tell the House whether the National Energy Board has given a form of approval, let us say, to Westcoast Transmission or to Alberta and Southern Gas Co. when, in fact, they did not choose to give this government any guidance?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I find the question not only most interesting but the speculative answers absolutely intriguing. In this situation the best I can do in answering your question is by a matter of speculation.

It appears that the Government of British Columbia, not receiving a formal answer to the specific question asked by the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) in regard to the maintenance of gas supplies in the Province of British Columbia, was informed by a private carrier, Westcoast Transmission, that somehow they had made arrangements to guarantee our supply. To this day we have not yet had an answer from the federal government. I can only presume that phone calls or

[ Page 1028 ]

exchanges of communication took place between Westcoast Transmission and the National Energy Board because, at this moment, we have not heard from the National Energy Board, against or for the position taken by Westcoast.

We find this an anomalous situation, which I am sure is embarrassing to the Ottawa government, where a private corporation seems to have direct contact with the National Energy Board while the duly-elected provincial government received no reply whatsoever on a request made to the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

We did receive a reply acknowledging the telegram, attempting to interpret the telegram as some difference of opinion between Mr. Rhodes and this government. As of this day we have not had a policy decision from the federal government.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I just repeat the first part of the question. Does the Premier know at this point in time how much of the additional supply will be provided from Beaver River and Pointed Mountain and how much from Alberta? Do we know that fact?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know the source of the guaranteed maintenance of supply. It may be that Westcoast will actually cut its American consumers down the whole 10 per cent that was to be shared, relatively speaking, across all the production in British Columbia. All we have is a letter from Westcoast saying that they will guarantee our supply in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental to that, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier tell the House if, in fact, he has any information at all as to the fact that Westcoast has verbally received approval from the National Energy Board to cut exports?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I have no information on that at all, Mr. Member. I must say, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, it is an insult to the Government and the people of British Columbia that such an arrangement would take place between the National Energy Board and Westcoast without us being informed.

MR. McGEER: I would like to direct a further question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Has he consulted with the Attorney General as to whether the government indeed does have power to prevent price increases in oil through the Energy Act we passed last spring?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There are sections of existing Acts that have not been proclaimed that apparently have that power.

CANADIAN CELLULOSE TAX APPEAL

MR. SMITH: My question is to Hon. Mr. Barrett. Has CanCel advised the government that the tax appeal at Prince Rupert would be held up and not proceeded with at this time with respect to section 37 of the Assessment Equalization Act?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as noted.

SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION
IN GOVERNMENT HIRING

MR. McGEER: To the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Provincial Secretary given instructions to the Civil Service Commission to eliminate any discrimination in pay for jobs in the government service with respect to sex?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is an ongoing policy of the government, and the commission has been advised that that is the policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker, may I also say, in connection with the previous question which perhaps could have been addressed to me, that I am advised by the Queen's Printer that the information in the advertisement which the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) mentioned is really not quite the case given to the House. The advertisement is for the bindery department. The people are not doing the same job and it reflects the wages settled for the different jobs in the bindery department with the trade union concerned.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
COAL MINES REGULATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick moves introduction and first reading of Bill 95 intituled An Act to Amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 95 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
SOIL CONSERVATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of Bill 94 intituled An Act to Amend the Soil Conservation Act.

[ Page 1029 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 94 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

GUARANTEE OF
NATURAL JUSTICE ACT

Mr. Wallace moves introduction and first reading of Bill 98 intituled Guarantee of Natural Justice Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 98 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

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

LABOUR CODE OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

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

On section 76.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I wonder if the Minister would indicate whether over the weekend he's had an opportunity to consider the reference to arbitration in section 76(1) in the light of the amendment that he moved to section 74 and why, if he's not going to move an amendment, he gives the parties the opportunity to provide for settlement of technological change disputes by means other than arbitration and yet, when you come to section 76, that alternative method is not made available to the parties?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, this was discussed on Friday last. I gave an indication that this was a drafting requirement, which is not indeed inconsistent in legal terms, and that's the answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't wish to go on in the matter, but I don't understand the Minister's response that it's a "drafting" matter. It simply says that where the employer has introduced technological change that does certain things, either party may refer the matter to an arbitration board. What's wrong with using the other method of settlement which you've also given the parties the right to have under section 74? Why do you have to force them into an arbitration board?

HON. MR. KING: The concept here, Mr. Chairman, is that there is and has been for many years a provision in collective agreements for the final resolution of contractual grievances arising during the term of a collective agreement by arbitration without work stoppage. It seems to me that the provision for resolution of questions and disputes that arise with respect to technological change should be settled on the same basis wherever possible.

Now the provision does reside with the board to use other devices should arbitration fail to solve the problem. Indeed, there are five different steps which can be taken before the right to strike is granted on any technological change question. So I see nothing inconsistent.

Section 76 approved.

On section 77.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 77 approved with amendment.

On section 78.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, this is the question dealing with definitions for the technological change. The point I'd like the Minister perhaps to make clear, as he's had an opportunity over the weekend to go over the discussion we had when this was discussed in the light of section 74, is precisely what change in equipment or material might constitute the technological change?

The concern that has been expressed in the industry is, I think, a very genuine one. The difficulty that arises under this very broad definition is that they believe any change of one type of material for another might well be considered a technological change and they feel that their whole system of contracting can be disrupted as a result. I wonder whether the Minister would like to give a definitive comment on this, which of course can be used by the board in the future when they are searching for Ministerial intention and also for legislative intention when we pass this section?

[ Page 1030 ]

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that in section 76(i) one of the provisions states: "That the change be made in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement unless the change alters significantly the basis upon which the collective agreement was negotiated." Now the board, when taking into consideration any question that comes before it on the technological change issue, would surely recognize in the construction industry that the contractor indeed has no control whatsoever over the materials the architect and the engineers require in the specifications for a particular contract. So in my view by no stretch of the imagination could the contractor, who is the employer, be held accountable for any change in material on the premise that that constituted technological change.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister for his comments. The point on which I would like perhaps to have a more specific word is the fact that there may be relatively few people in one union engaged by a contractor for certain specific jobs. A change in material — brick for wood or wood for brick — might mean that all but, say, two out of the six would be laid off. To those people concerned — the four laid off of course, or two-thirds of the people employed — it would be a pretty substantial alteration for them, thinking from their own point of view which of course they very properly should.

Under those circumstances the union would, I feel, have a pretty good complaint under section 78 if two-thirds have been laid off because of a change in material. Surely that's precisely what section 78 is talking about; and of course section 78 read in conjunction with 76.

Now under those circumstances, where a relatively small number of people are employed in a specific and perhaps very highly-skilled trade, a large number of them, maybe the majority, would be laid off by what is overall a relatively small alteration in the building. If I were a member of that union, I would feel that we had been savagely hit by technological change because a material is being substituted. I would feel personally somewhat dissatisfied with the reply of the Minister which indicates that the contractor could nevertheless continue to operate because overall, in terms of the whole project, this is a very minor matter.

If it's two out of six, it's a major matter to the people concerned. I wonder if the Minister might just give us a word on that, whether or not under those circumstances his general statement might be modified or whether his general statement would indeed hold true?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to indicate that a change in material is not a technological change. If a change in material worked to the detriment of the employment of carpenters, for instance, and the alternate material being used provided work that fell within the jurisdiction of another union, then of course there's no net result, there's no net decrease in the number of jobs available. I question very strongly that that type of situation can be categorized as technological change. The employer per se has no control over that situation. The materials that he'll use are dictated to him by the owner, the architect or the engineer.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, I think from the vantage point of reasonable confidence in the new Labour Relations Board, that they certainly will have the perspicacity to discern between those kinds of situations.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, we're delighted to hear the Minister say so clearly that the change in the use of a material would not be a technological change. If that's the case, I wonder why he's put the words in this section.

It very specifically says: "the introduction by an employer of a change…in equipment or material from that equipment or material previously used by the employer…." It would seem to me that what the Minister indicates is his view of what the Labour Relations Board would decide in a given situation.

It would be better to take the word out altogether and substitute something more in keeping with the expression of philosophy which the Minister has just given us. If "technological change" is to mean simply a change in the method of doing work which results in a net reduction of the number of employees who are employed in a particular industry, then it would seem to me appropriate to say so; but to use other words and to trust the wisdom of the Labour Relations Board in arriving at the same kind of decision that the Minister has reached in his mind I suggest is to cast uncertainty upon this section and to create very, very serious problems.

Now as the Minister has pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the problem in such instance is not — in the first instance at any rate — likely to be that of the employer. But so long as these words remain here, then you can imagine exactly the reaction that the carpenters' union is going to have when there in fact is a change in material from one that carpenters are employed to work with to material where some other union, maybe metal workers, are going to be engaged in.

As soon as that occurs, regardless of whether the employer would class it as a technological change, it certainly is going to appear to be that to the union because of the use of the word "materials" in this section. I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman, if there isn't a change made in this definition to express more clearly the intention of the Minister, that we will provoke jurisdictional disputes in respect of which the

[ Page 1031 ]

employer has difficulty.

The Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), a long-standing member of the carpenters' union, shakes his head. I'm sure that means that his union would never be involved in a jurisdictional dispute. But perhaps the Minister might put my mind at rest, at least, as to why these specific words were chosen, because it does create this possibility.

HON. MR. KING: Once again I can only stress that I feel that the Members across the way are confusing two situations. I think you're confusing the question of jurisdiction between trade unions with the question of technological change. Now there is a jurisdictional board set up in the construction industry. There's a blue book which governs the jurisdiction of the trade unions and their inherent jurisdiction in that industry. Management and the unions decide this question on any given issue.

We're not looking here at which trade union holds the jurisdiction to perform certain work. That is a question that is outside the provisions of this section that apply to technological change.

I would point out that the definitions here are quite broad. We are conducting a debate here, it seems, which is confined to the circumstances existing in one industry. But the key to it, I think, is that the application is what's going to be important rather than the breadth of the definitions. The board is going to have to be very discerning in their application.

It is provided here, as I pointed out earlier, that one of the questions the board will ask is: "Did the employer sign a contract with the knowledge at hand that some material change in working conditions was going to alter the terms and conditions upon which that contract had been negotiated in good faith?"

I point out to you again, Mr. Chairman, through you, that the employer you were referring to in the construction industry does not have the kind of control of his product which would bring that situation into question.

Sections 78 to 80 inclusive approved.

On section 81.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The whole question of strikes is included in section 81. We feel that everyone acknowledges the severe hardship of prolonged strikes and the fact that the longer a strike goes on the harder the positions of the opposing sides tend to become, with a lack of ultimate solutions sometimes, or with an unsatisfactory solution.

We have an amendment on the order paper, which I needn't repeat word for word, Mr. Chairman. It has the effect of stating that after a strike has been in effect for 21 days, there should be another vote. Subsection (4) is added also to suggest that as long as a strike does continue, a vote of the employees should be taken at intervals of 21 days to give strikers the opportunity to review their decision based on what has happened in the meantime and on the various factors that have come to their notice, or changes in their own thoughts or decisions about the strike.

We feel that this is just one mechanism whereby we might be able to cut short some of these extremely long strikes which cause so much hardship to the employers, the employees and to the economy of the province.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment standing on the order paper to section 81.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 81 to 83 inclusive approved.

On section 84.

MR. WALLACE: We have an amendment to section 84 which is just introduced to avoid conflict with section 4. It just means putting before the word "a" in the first line, the words "except as otherwise provided in this Act." As I say, this is simply to avoid misinterpretation of section 84 in terms of section 4.

Amendment negatived.

Section 84 approved.

On section 85.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): section 85 deals with the spectre of picketing. We see a new concept being introduced in this section 85 called an "ally." What it appears to do is to legalize the secondary boycott.

I think it can best be defined by projecting an example of what might take place by the application of the ally in the picketing — the ally of the particular plant that's involved. It would be quite conceivable, by using the example of a supermarket, that all the suppliers to the supermarket could be struck because they're allies in providing the goods that might be moved to the supermarket by supervisory personnel.

We see the spectre of the transportation companies as well being involved in being an ally because they're transporting goods to the supermarket; and, of course, they in turn might be getting their goods from the airlines. And the airlines are another ally, part of the chain. The ship line as well, because certain goods that move into a supermarket come into Canada by ship — they could be part of the ally structure.

[ Page 1032 ]

Also, the B.C. Hydro supplies electricity to a supermarket; they might even be classified as an ally. And the oil and gas that might be supplied for heat could be classified as an ally.

It appears to me that the application of this ally clause in the legislation is a broad enlargement of the right of picketing in British Columbia, one which will be most disruptive, in my opinion.

We see also the possibility of goods manufactured under fair conditions, in a particular plant that might have been struck six months or a year after the goods had been manufactured, whereby the goods, probably being in storage, would be unavailable in many instances because of the application of the ally clause to these goods.

So it appears to be a very troublesome clause. The burden of proof rests upon the individual who is classified as an ally with the board. It's one which will cause a lot of disruption, a lot of delays, and will be most inconvenient for the workers of British Columbia. It appears in the definition and the interpretation that the workers of British Columbia could be used as pawns.

It's not the type of section that I could support because I think it's one which expands unnecessarily the right of using a very brutal and ruthless weapon — the right of secondary boycott. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the definition of "ally" is contained in section 85 quite clearly in subsection (2) of section 85: "For the purposes of this section "ally" includes a person who, in the opinion of the board, in combination, or in concert, or in accordance with a common understanding with the employer, assists an employer in a lockout, or in resisting a lawful strike."

I submit that the significant language there is "in combination, or in concert, or in accordance with a common understanding." I think that outlines very, very clearly that the apprehension expressed by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is an apprehension without foundation. I think the intent of the provision is extremely clear and I submit that the philosophical justification for this clause is that trade unions do not have the right, under the picketing, to extend their picketing activities in an unrestricted way.

If employers who are not directly involved in a dispute wish to remain free from the conflict, then I suggest that it's only reasonable to expect them to remain impartial and to not form in concert with a struck employer to minimize the effectiveness of a strike. In my view, it's even-handed. It is a correct approach, and I oppose the amendment on that basis.

MR. WILLIAMS: I suggest to the Minister that the important words in section 85(2) are not the words "combination"…"concert" or "common understanding," but are in the first line in the words "includes a person." It means that the definition of "ally" essentially is: any person who, in the opinion of the board, is an ally. It also, incidentally, includes people who fall into those three categories. So the definition is as wide as the horizon, Mr. Chairman.

If the Minister is prepared to suggest that an ally is only a person whom the board finds is acting in combination or in concert with others, or in accordance with a common understanding, then let him restrict the definition of ally to people falling into those three categories. Then we'd be happy to accept this section and to reject the amendment. But the Minister, I suggest, has not carefully considered the circumstances here and is leaving to the board some indication of what the category "ally" includes, but no limitation at all.

MR. CHABOT: The problem here, I think, is that, in many instances the original interpretation, or the original definition of an ally, will be outlined by the union. The union will feel that a particular employer is an ally of a particular other employer who is probably on strike or in a lockout situation. In their interpretation of an ally a plant which might have no relationship whatsoever, in the eyes of the board, might be struck and inconvenienced and be forced to appear before the board to justify that it's not an ally in the dispute.

That's the problem that's really going to be created here because, in many instances, they'll find that plants have been shut down and the employer will have to appear before the board to justify that he's not an ally.

It's going to cause a lot of inconvenience not only for the plant involved, but for the workers as well.

Does the Minister agree that there is a possibility this might happen? Would you like to say it out loud, Mr. Minister? No. He says, "No, he wouldn't like to speak on it."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 34

[ Page 1033 ]

MR. CHABOT: When reporting to the House, I would appreciate it if you would inform the Speaker that a division took place in committee and ask leave for recording the results of the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, 85(1), Mr. Chairman. Here we have a provision whereby people could be hired for the purpose of professional picketing. It's a subject we discussed before, I believe, in the definition section when we were dealing with professional strikebreakers and the need for even-handedness. The fact is, if I understand it correctly, that at that time the reply came back that professional picketers were not inconsistent with the Act and were not equivalent to professional strikebreakers; but in my mind they are.

If we are to bar the assistance that one side may hire, I think we should bar the assistance that another side may hire. If a person is not willing to go on strike himself, I feel, perhaps, that he should not be in a position of hiring others to do his work for him. So I would think that in this section 85(1) in the second line where you have, "A trade-union, a member or members of which are lawfully on strike, or locked out, or any person authorized by the trade-union, may picket…" — I would like to have "or any person authorized by the trade-union" deleted so that those who actually take part in picketing are actually people affected and not people simply called in at a certain price to take on a job which I would think would be essentially that of the person who would be on strike.

The situation might be whereby funds are plentiful, whereby a union could employ large numbers. Yet a union which had perhaps fewer members, less money and perhaps a much more justified case, a much more justified reason for striking against an employer, would be in a far less powerful economic position because they are simply not able to hire professional picketers. To equal-up and even-out the power between these trade unions relative to one another I would move that we delete the phrase in here which allows for professional picketers. I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment put forward by the hon. leader of the Liberal Party. I would point out that in the first instance the employer does have the right to continue to operate with any employees who may choose to ignore the strike. He has the right beyond that, should his employees exercise their option to strike, of hiring individuals off the street in an effort to continue his operation. It would seem inconsistent to me to prevent a trade union from receiving assistance from a brother union or indeed from hiring pickets, if they so chose, when the employer has the right to go beyond the unit in terms of finding personnel to continue his operation. I would say that that is an equivalent and a synonymous right and I would suggest that we should not weaken the position of either side in that respect.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister is saying that it is possible for someone to be hired off the street for the purpose of continuing an operation during a strike, despite the definition section dealing with professional strikebreakers, despite the comments about professional strikebreakers, it would indeed appear that this would be an even-handed provision and I would agree that my amendment under those circumstances would be inappropriate because it would not even up the point in terms of employer-employee. In terms of the point I made about the relative position of two unions, of course, the validity would be there.

But I am troubled by this reference, once again, to a person being hired off the street for the purpose of continuing operations during a strike. It appears to me that in the definition section on page 3, line 2: "a professional strikebreaker means a person who is not a party involved in a dispute whose primary object," in his and "in the opinion of the board, is to prevent, interfere with, or break up a lawful strike…."

Now, the question is: what does "interfere with" mean? I would say that where a person is hired off the street and comes and works for an employer and prevents the employees from legally and rightfully putting their economic muscle to work to prevent that employer from making the same type of product or the same profits that he had previously, then they are having their rights seriously interfered with if indeed the employer can go off and hire who he wishes. If there was anything which I think describes a professional strikebreaker, it is someone being hired off the street to continue operations regardless of the strike so that the employees are under a disadvantage. The legitimate certified trade union and the employees who are members of that union are at a total disadvantage to put the economic pressure that they would like to on the employer because he can go out — as the Minister has now said, I believe, three times in this Legislature — and hire anybody off the street.

If this section in the definition section about

[ Page 1034 ]

professional strikebreakers doesn't mean what it says, the last thing we should permit is a situation to develop in British Columbia where, despite picket lines, despite legitimate employee grievances with the employer, we have a situation where he can go out and engage in what I believe is strikebreaking, namely hiring people whose sole purpose it is to prevent those employees of his, the previous employees, from taking on this type of work.

I only suggest that the Minister reconsider the many statements he has made about other labour disputes existing in the province — Sandringham Hospital is one. I just don't think that we are going to have much in the way of labour peace if the Minister continues to offer open invitations to employers to prevent strikes from being effective by allowing them, or stating that he intends to allow them to go off and "hire people off the streets," to use his own words.

What does the definition section mean, if it doesn't mean that you cannot hire people whose sole objection it is is to break up the strike by way of working for the employer? If I can take the Minister's words which he just put forward, it would only mean people who come to rough-up the strikers, I guess — people who are there to prevent the strikers from walking up and down the sidewalk. If that's the only thing that interferes with a strike in the Minister's opinion, I'm very surprised. I would think that interfering with a strike would be taking work at a company or in an industry where the other employees, the ones who are certified, have decided they are going to withdraw their services.

Now, if strikebreaking means something else other than the definition, we should know now because I just don't believe that the definition of professional strikebreaker, as it appears in the definition section on page 3, would permit hiring off the street, which the Minister has indicated any employer is free to do when his own employees have struck.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to believe that the hon. leader of the Liberal Party has such little experience in the field of industrial relations that he cannot differentiate between two situations.

Employers have historically had the right to hire off the street to replace strikers.

Reference to the Sandringham Hospital dispute was made. That hospital is now full of people who failed to recognize the picket line and have gone in to perform the jobs which were traditionally performed by the strikers.

I take the position, Mr. Chairman, that a picket line is a matter of conscience. And if the leader of the Liberal Party is suggesting that we should introduce legislation which would prohibit a citizen of this province from exercising his option to take a job with a struck plant, then I'd be very surprised and find that very inconsistent with the attitude he has displayed to the rest of this legislation.

"Professional strikebreaker" deals with a type of organization which is specified quite clearly in the legislation which has as its primary purpose the breaking-up or interfering with a strike. There are such organizations, as I pointed out earlier, in Canada which exist for this sole purpose, and charge very handsome fees. There is no intention for a lasting relationship of employment with a struck plant; rather they come in and indulge in tactics which would impair the effectiveness of the strike and then their specific function is over.

But I think we should leave it up to the conscience of the workers of this province as to whether or not they wish to respect the picket line. Similarly, I think we should leave it up to the conscience of individuals as to whether or not they wish to serve picket duty. Those are internal decisions and ones based on conscience, I presume. I doubt the wisdom, quite frankly, of attempting to legislate that kind of provision and that kind of an obligation upon the citizens of this province.

So if the leader of the Liberal Party can't discern between a private citizen's right to accept employment, even though a strike might be underway, and an organization which comes in and perhaps employs dogs or a variety of electronic bugging devices, and so on, in an effort to break-up and interfere with a legally-conducted strike, then I don't know what I can add to persuade him.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question of dogs and bugs and other things is interesting and it does shed quite a bit of light on what is meant in the definition. If the Minister only believes that the professional strikebreaker as defined is an organization or a group of people whose sole purpose it is is to physically interfere with the operations of the strike as opposed to keeping the industry or business going, well, his definition is quite different from what I expected the definition to be and quite different, I might add, from what I thought the definition was when we first looked at this Act.

If that is the case, I'll be quite willing to withdraw my amendment. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, leave of the House to withdraw the amendment standing in my name on section 85(1).

Leave granted.

Section 85 approved.

Section 86 approved.

On section 87.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey):

[ Page 1035 ]

First of all, I was unfortunately not in the House this afternoon when introductions of guests were given, and I hope I am not duplicating things, but I see a very good friend of mine in the gallery, Mr. Bud Dobson, with a group of students. I indeed wish them a very happy time in Victoria today.

Section 87(a) as it now reads, Mr. Chairman: "No action lies in respect of picketing permitted under this Act for (a) trespass to real property to which a member of the public ordinarily has access."

Before moving my amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would draw to the attention of the Minister that it's pretty obvious that members of the public have access to stores and offices and warehouses, to factories, ballpark stadiums, even to press galleries, I suppose, and to almost any kind of land or premises one can name. If picketing happens to constitute a trespass to real property, to land or buildings, and damage results from that — for example, broken windows or tom fences or ripped partitions, or what have you — those are special damages, namely out-of-pocket expenses, and obviously there will be a cost of repair.

In my view, that should be paid for because your section, as it now reads, gives a picketer a right to wreck with impunity and no one in society should have that right. Trespass at common law is provable without damage. That is, it's enough to appear in front of the court and, providing one can show the other party went over the property line, that is sufficient to give cause to a successful action, even though actual damage did not occasion.

If damage does happen, Mr. Chairman, the section the government has proposed here will have the result of saving the negligent or the wilful or the property-wrecking picketer from suit. I say that that's an invitation to assault to land or assault to premises. It certainly is an invitation to create breaches of the peace and cause serious and expensive physical damage. This is a very ghastly concept.

So my amendment, Mr. Chairman, a copy of which you have had filed with you, would read as follows: "No action lies in respect of picketing permitted under this Act for (a) trespass to real property to which a member of the public ordinarily has access" — and I'm adding these words: "save and except for all special damages occasioned and proven."'

That's the substance of the amendment. So if there is trespass to real property arising out of picketing, and actual physical damage does happen, then a member of the public or the owner or whoever has unfortunately experienced actual damage, has the right to maintain a suit for reparation. Because you've got to remember that your bill, as it is now phrased, has emasculated all access to the courts — totally.

I'm providing this as an avenue for a suffering person, corporation, group of people, whoever it may be, who has sustained actual damage, to be able to recover that damage as the result of the kind of expenses or fault, call it what you will, that can arise from picketing.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have no argument with the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey's (Mr. Gardom's) intent here, but I do submit that the section does not insulate any person from actions which would accrue from acts of violence or acts of negligence. It simply provides that no action will accrue from the act of trespass. Only that. But if there were broken windows or if there were personal injury, a civil action would lie under either negligence or assault or something of that nature.

MR. GARDOM: Brought about by the trespass.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, but the point is that we don't want trespass in itself to be the criterion upon which an action results. What we're trying to provide for here….

MR. GARDOM: That's what I put the amendment in for.

HON. MR. KING: No, it's a situation whereby a supermarket-type operation may be struck and there may be one or more entrances and exits to that place of business housing a multiplicity of employers. Surely the union has a right then to picket the store or the business enterprise to which their strike is directed.

In that type of common unit we could have actions for trespass by seeking to picket in a legitimate way and in compliance with this act otherwise. But I stress that in the wording of section 87, it makes it clear that trespass is the only act which will not be actionable in terms of the courts. If there are any of the other results which the Member has expressed concern about that flow, action is indeed available on those particular points.

MR. GARDOM: Number one, where is it available under the statute? Perhaps it would be interesting for the House and for all of us if the Minister would indicate exactly where under the statute it is available. You've made a statement here. You just show us within your bill where the thing that you stated is available can be seen, because I haven't found it in your bill.

The second point is that your argument, the statements that you've made in the House, thoroughly support the premise that I've raised here. I'm not talking about the situation of not permitting trespass. I'm saying for trespass that causes damages, under those circumstances, there should be

[ Page 1036 ]

a remedy. And you agree with me; you agree with me. So that's why I put the amendment in. I said, "trespass to real property to which a member of the public ordinarily has access"…no action lies there…"save and except…" — and here's where you join with me, and this is the amendment: "… save and except for all special damages occasioned and proven."

Perhaps I could illustrate the situation of special damages. The special damages are the actual cost of physical damages that have happened — breaking of windows, knocking down of walls, breaking in of doors — the actual damage, not the question of walking across the property line. So you see, really you're agreeing with me.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, section 87 says that, "trespass to real property to which a member of the public ordinarily has access." Now if damage accrued from a picketer traversing a thoroughfare or a street to which the public ordinarily had access, I would suggest that that damage would be based either upon negligence or criminal intent or something of that nature, and there is nothing in this Act which seeks to prohibit actions in the civil or criminal courts for such situations.

If the Second Member for Point Grey can indicate to me any section of this Act which withdraws a citizen's recourse to the courts for that type of situation, then I certainly would be receptive to amendment. But I submit that that is not the case, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Section 87.

Amendment negatived.

Section 87 approved.

On section 88.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, section 88 is a strange section as it is presently worded. It would seem to suggest that there are some specific provisions in this Act under which a trade union or other persons are entitled to picket. Following upon section 87 which says, "No action lies in respect of picketing permitted under this Act," I'm compelled to conclude that section 88 was intended to make clear that certain permissions or authorizations were required.

Now if I may just go back briefly, Mr. Chairman, to sections 84 and 85, I must say that, when I first read through this bill and in all my subsequent readings of this bill, I was delighted to find the words in section 84. I've always felt that for too long the trade unions were under severe limitations which didn't apply to employers with respect to many of the activities that trade unions were entitled to carry on in this province.

They were precluded, I thought, from disseminating information which was very pertinent to the continued operation of a trade union — lawful information made unlawful by statutes of this province. I agree that trade unions should be permitted to disseminate information concerning their particular activities, whether there's a strike on or not. I'm certainly in favour of sections 84 and 85.

But, Mr. Chairman, picketing is one activity carried on by unions which has very dire consequences if there happens to be something in error in the decision as to whether the picket should be mounted or not. It has very serious complications for the trade unions and the members of trade unions.

Too often a responsible member of a trade union is faced with a situation where, arriving at his place of work or at some other place of employment where he has to carry on some lawful activity — and I'm speaking, say, of truck drivers who suddenly arrive at a place of business for the purpose of delivering goods — and they see someone walking up and down across the driveway or on the sidewalk carrying a sign. Now they don't know whether it's a sign which is advertising a bingo game or whether there is, in fact, a lawful strike in progress.

Yet that individual workman, that individual trade union member, suddenly is faced with a serious decision for him to make. Now he can, of course, park his truck and get out and phone his employer or the dispatcher and phone his trade union and say, "What's going on? Am I entitled to go into this place or not?" But it is a decision which too often the individual workman must make, and because under section 84 we are extending the opportunity, not only to trade unions but to other persons as well, to communicate information in certain ways at various places….

I recall the remarks made by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), who wondered if he would in the future be able to take part in picketing or the dissemination of information, say with regard to the sale of California grapes or other products of that kind. I think that section 84 would permit him to do that, but if that was not truly a picket because there was not a work stoppage, then I suggest that it might be the kind of picket line that a responsible member of a trade union could cross. It will still place as a very serious decision before the individual workmen or trade unionist, and it could all be so simply solved.

With this new Labour Relations Board, with the chairman having the powers that he has and with various panels being established I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it would be convenient and speedy and proper for any person wishing to disseminate

[ Page 1037 ]

information or to picket, in the case of a lawful strike, to first of all make application to the Labour Relations Board, or to an officer of that board, or to a panel of that board, for approval of the activity which was to be carried out, and if it was approved — and this would cover as well the opportunity of picketing at a supposed ally of an employer — then there would never be any question raised as to whether a responsible trade unionist should or should not cross that picket line. If, on the other hand, it was simply an information picket to advertise some particular event and not one which might therefore be binding upon the conscience of a trade union member, then that could be indicated as well in the approval given.

Two things would be accomplished. First of all, it would ease the difficult decision that trade unionists must make as to whether or not they should be bound by what appears to be a picket line. Secondly, it would put a stop to some unfortunate activities that have been carried on which have created very bad relationships and much criticism of trade unions, and that is the so-called "mystery picket organization," where picketing is carried on and the trade union gets a bad name because serious hardship and interference is caused to an employer and to the general public without good cause.

It could all be solved by making the application to the Labour Relations Board first. Then the board would be able to consider whether the circumstances were appropriate to permit the picket; if not, they could refuse to disallow it. Having disallowed it, it would then very simply solve the problem which is created by section 87 as to whether or not the picketing was permitted under the Act, and it would also solve some of the problems which will arise out of the next section, section 89, which deals with whether certain activities are actionable or not.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I have pleasure in moving an amendment to section 88 by deleting the section in its entirety and substituting the following: "No person shall communicate information, or express sympathy or support, or picket in accordance with the provisions of section 84 and 85 unless first authorized so to do by the order of the chairman, the board, or a panel thereof." I move that amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 33

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, when you rise reporting, would you advise the Speaker of the division on the amendment to section 88 and ask leave to record it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed.

Sections 88 and 89 approved.

On section 90.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased if the Minister would indicate the reason for the inclusion again in this particular part of the legislation, section 90, the right for the board to issue declaratory opinions in such a narrow compass as is provided in section 90.

I would point out to the Minister that there's a declaratory opinion provision earlier in the Act, but in this case it is a declaratory opinion as it relates only to a complaint of a person having his "employment, business, operations, or property…damaged by reason of an agreement or combination that…affects trade and commerce…." I would like to know precisely the reason why the Minister, feels that this should be included in this particular part of the legislation, and I would ask him if he would indicate what effect he expects such declaratory opinions to have.

HON. MR. KING: This section, Mr. Chairman, deals mainly with those situations which arise in boycotts and "do-not-patronize" lists and so on.

I would point out that in many areas of industry in the province provisions for this type of activity are contained in the collective agreement. We simply seek to authorize the board to pass a declaratory opinion on some of the very complex situations that will accrue partially from the party's authority to regulate their own affairs and partially because we recognize that that contractual right in some circumstances will transcend that particular area and go into other situations where the board should

[ Page 1038 ]

have jurisdiction to give direction.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the Minister would hope that the board in this way might be able to persuade employers or trade unions to discontinue some boycott or "do-not-patronize" activities which heretofore have created difficulties between the parties in the hope to make sure that we engender this better spirit of cooperation?

HON. MR. KING: That's right.

Sections 90 to 92 inclusive approved.

On section 93.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move our amendment standing on the order paper relating to subsection (2). Where there is no stated clause in the collective agreement then subsection (2) says that "it shall be deemed to contain the following provision…." This really amounts to binding arbitration by an individual arbitrator, as I understand it. Either of the parties to the dispute "may…submit the difference to arbitration and the parties shall agree on a single arbitrator." The decision of that arbitrator is "final and binding upon the parties."

We just feel that there is a much better mechanism than having one single arbitrator who can, in fact, impose a decision. We would like to move the amendment standing in our name which states:

"Each party shall appoint one member to the arbitration board and those two appointees shall agree upon a chairman. The arbitration board shall hear and determine the difference, and shall issue a decision, and the decision is final and binding upon the parties and upon any employee or employer affected by it."

I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I presume the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) realizes that a provision for arbitration of disputes during the course of the collective agreement has been contained for some time in the statutes of the province. I would suggest that a provision requiring an arbitration board composed of three people would really only contribute to delays in the selection of a board and the time which would be required for them to come to grips with the issue at hand.

I would point out further that we do seem to be witnessing a trend towards more mutually-agree-upon industry arbitrators in a variety of the industries in the province. I don't think we should do anything to discourage that trend, so in the interests of expeditious handling and in recognition of the trend that is developing for trade unions and industry to be able to come to mutual accord on the choice of some person to act as an arbitrator in their particular industry, I suggest that this provision is the most advantageous way to go.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask the Minister then if he is, in effect, saying that it is easier to find a single arbitrator acceptable to both parties than it is to have a group of three, one representing each party and an agreed upon chairman? In this case, I'm assured that that is the reason you want it, not so much as saving time in finding three people. I wouldn't have thought that the time and energy involved in getting a three-man group instead of a one-man group should surely be the issue at stake. The issue should be the justice of the decision that's made, whether it's made by one or by a board of three.

But am I to understand from the Minister's comment that really the principle he is following is that it is easier to find a single arbitrator acceptable to both parties, even when the wish for arbitration might be at the request only of one of the parties, which is the way this reads in subsection (2): "…either of the parties…may…notify the other party…and the parties shall agree on a single arbitrator "? I just feel that it would have been simpler to set up a group of three, as the amendment suggests.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, just to comment a bit further, one of the acute shortages in the Province of British Columbia is the shortage of qualified, experienced arbitrators. I think that from a departmental point of view we're certainly going to have to do something about that in the ensuing months and years.

The point I tried to make, Mr. Chairman, is that many industries have a permanent arbitrator which the parties agree upon. He remains available to arbitrate disputes that arise during the course of that collective agreement. Now, it's difficult for me to appreciate just how the parties may agree to a board of three, which would stand in readiness and be available for arbitrations when they occurred. So that would result in an ad hoc appointment for every grievance that emerged, whereas under this provision it recognizes that single arbitrators have been accepted by certain industries and unions, and they stand ready and prepared to undertake this kind of function.

So from both standpoints — from the standpoint of the expediency of dealing with these things and from the standpoint of recognizing the emerging trend — I think that it's the way to go.

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 1039 ]

Section 93 approved.

On section 94.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment there, and really it is just including the words "such other method agreed to by the parties." Section 93, in subsection (1) (b) states: "for final and conclusive settlement without stoppage of work, by arbitration or such other method as may be agreed to by the parties…." It would just seem reasonable to include that same phrase in section 94, and I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, what this provision seeks, to do is to allow the Minister to modify arbitration procedures contained in a collective agreement to ensure that they are, indeed, workable and that they will satisfy the intent of the previous section, which requires the parties to resolve disputes during the term of the collective agreement through arbitration.

I might, just for clarification, point out to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay that over the past few years we have found that some of the statutory requirements for contractual provisions have been misunderstood or have been complied with in such a way that the intent was violated, with a consequent result in labour turmoil and conflict. This is a provision simply to ensure that when they do comply with the provisions of section 93 they do so in an effective way with a procedure which will, indeed, come to grips with their problems and provide for a reasonable and practical way of handling those disputes.

Amendment negatived.

Section 94 and 95 approved.

On section 96.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 96 standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am referring specifically to section 96 (c) (ii) which states that they may "inquire into the difference and, after such inquiry as the board considers adequate, make an order for final and conclusive settlement of the difference," while subsection (1) (a) refers to either party to the collective agreement having the power to either seek a special officer or to refer to the board. What subsection (c) (ii) really does is a form of compulsory arbitration at the request of one party to the dispute.

If I have misread this, perhaps the Minister will correct me, but it seems to me that, based on the language in 96 (1) (a): "if at any time…either party to the collective agreement requests the board…" for some form of assistance in the form of an officer and then there are certain options open as to how the dispute can be handled; in (c) (i) one of the methods in which it can be inquired into means that it can result in an order for final and conclusive settlement of the difference. In my interpretation that means that this is a form of compulsory settlement at the request of one party.

The amendment I would offer to section 96 (c) (ii) would be to inquire into the difference and, after the inquiry the board considers adequate, make recommendation to the parties for the settlement of the dispute. We think this is following in line with the general principle that where there is any measure of compulsory settlement at least both sides to the dispute should have an equal and fair opportunity to be heard and to have as much influence as each of them can have in reaching the final decision.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, under section 96 (ii) the parties can write their own provision for the arbitration that the Member is concerned about. If they are not prepared to live with the condition contained in the Act, they can simply write out an agreement which is tailored to and suits their situation.

What we simply do here is provide a minimum requirement. If they are not prepared to accept it or find it too restrictive in any way, they are not precluded from negotiating the terms of their own arrangement. I think that's quite flexible enough to serve the interests of both parties.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 96 to 108 inclusive approved with amendment.

On section 109.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment to section 109 standing in my name on the order paper. We are going back over old ground, but I am simply restating that we should acknowledge the fact that there is no mechanism for appeal to the courts. The amendment on the order paper states that we delete all the words after "conclusive" in the second line. I so move.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I point out that section 108 specifically provides the appeal which the Member for Oak Bay seeks to amend section 109 to provide. I submit that the amendment is not necessary.

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 1040 ]

Sections 109 to 115 inclusive approved.

On section 116.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in 116 you have:

"Where a special officer makes an order on a matter not provided by the collective agreement, or where the order differs from the provisions of the collective agreement, the order is binding on the parties to the dispute or difference for a period not exceeding thirty days."

The difficulty that I see is the fact that the order may well differ from the agreed-to decision of the two parties, and here we have a provision for the special officer coming in and setting aside the collective agreement. It is a principle which I think we should accept only with the gravest of reservations and only after due explanation by the Minister.

Surely collective agreement must be honoured as far as possible. If there is any need to set it aside under certain circumstances, I am sure the Minister would like to indicate exactly how and when he envisages the collective agreement being suspended by the operation of a special officer's decision.

HON. MR. KING: In response to the Second Member for Victoria, I would point out that there is no intention here to set aside a collective agreement per se; there is a recognition that under certain circumstances it is necessary to vary the provisions of a collective agreement, where no provision exists or has been anticipated, to come to grips with some of the very complex and unique disputes that come to light in the province during these troubled days.

With new technology, with a work force ever expanding into the more isolated regions of the province, it is difficult to provide in a collective agreement for provisions to govern every type of situation which will be encountered on the job site and which will ultimately lead to a dispute that can tie up an industry.

What this section simply does is recognize that you can't compact into the terms of a collective agreement every dispute in which the Department of Labour receives a request to intervene. Experience has proven that many of these disputes transcend provisions of collective agreements and, we have to have some resources and some devices for coming to grips with those unusual situations.

I reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that there is certainly no desire to upset collective agreements which are negotiated in good faith between the union and employer; but by the same token we cannot continue to be restricted from coming to grips with disputes simply because there is no mechanism in the collective agreement governing that kind of dispute.

So that is the intent here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to thank the Minister, Mr. Chairman, for his remarks, which apply correctly to the first part of section 116. section 116 however, is a two-part section.

I quite appreciate the need, where there is no provision in the collective agreement, for some sort of provision for the special officer to make an order. That makes a great deal of sense.

The concern I have is here the two parties have specifically come to agreement on the provisions of a collective agreement and this is thereafter set aside. I think this opens the door to agreements arrived at in good faith being set aside, or at least the effort being made to set them aside by use of a special officer, by the threat of labour disputes or by the threat of a slow-down, shut-down, strike, lockout, whatever it might be. There might well be the use of the special officer to get around the provisions of a collective agreement.

I would amend this section by leaving it completely intact as far as the arguments of the Minister go with respect to matters not covered by collective agreement but amend it by deleting "or where the order differs from the provisions of the collective agreement." It would then read: "Where a special officer makes an order on a matter not provided by the collective agreement, the order is binding on the parties to the dispute for a period not exceeding 30 days." It would delete the reference to the officer putting aside terms of a collective agreement and refer only to areas where the 0 collective agreement is not clear or does not cover the situation.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WALLACE: May I ask leave of the committee to go back to 114? You moved along very quickly and I missed an amendment.

Leave granted.

On section 114.

MR. WALLACE: The amendment I would like to move in section 114 is to delete subsection (e) which states that a special officer may "arbitrate such dispute or difference himself." We just feel that for this person who is an appointee of the Minister, this is an excessive amount of power that is being granted to the special officer to arbitrate the such dispute or difference on his own. This is the amendment on the order paper; and I so move that we delete subsection (e).

[ Page 1041 ]

Amendment defeated.

Section 114 approved.

Sections 117 to 120 inclusive approved.

On section 12 1.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 121 approved with amendment.

On section 122.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this section deals with an Industrial Inquiry Commission, and again we feel that the power granted to this commission is more than we can be pleased with.

In particular, in subsection (7) we feel that all the powers of the Public Inquiries Act should not be made available to the Industrial Inquiry Commission set up under section 122. I would move the amendment on the order paper to the effect that we delete subsection (7). That is, as I say, the section which says that during its period of appointment the Industrial Inquiry Commission would have the powers under the Public Inquiries Act.

We would seek to delete subsection (7).

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to observe that the powers contained in subsection (7) are the identical powers which were contained in the previous legislation for an Industrial Inquiry Commission. While that in itself may not be justification to take unto itself powers, I do suggest that in the kind of inquiry that many Industrial Inquiry Commissions are constituted to serve it is essential to come to grips with the circumstances on the job, perhaps — circumstances which can contribute to a confrontation and to a strike, Certainly if the inquiry is commissioned to deal with a rather inflammatory kind of situation like that, then it's essential that they have the authority to go on the property to view the circumstances on the job. It could well be that the dispute itself is related to safety on the job, or some such other issue. Certainly we don't want to delay that kind of inquiry by having the commission run to the courts in order to obtain permission to exercise its legitimate functions.

Amendment negatived.

Section 122 approved.

Sections 123 to 125 inclusive approved.

On section 126.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, under section 126 the Minister has the right to enter at any time during regular working hours any place where work is done by employees or, similarly, any time during working hours he can enter any place where an employer carries on business, and he is entitled to inspect anything. He's entitled to interrogate any person, dealing with any matter or thing that is taking place or has taken place concerning any matter referred to under this very, very broad legislation.

These are extreme powers. They are very strong powers and they are very obviously labour-weighted powers. I say that there should be equity and there should be balance. We should have fairness. If it is quite satisfactory, within the reasoning behind 126, to enter any place of management, any place of an employer, certainly it should also be quite satisfactory to look into the offices of any. trade union.

I would like to point an example to the Hon. Minister in support of my amendment, which is to include as 126 (d) the words: "a trade-union carries on business; or" — and you have a copy of that amendment filed with you, Mr. Chairman. If, for example, a trade union fails to maintain or keep proper records under section 143, we don't see the powers of the Minister to go into that office, into that trade union office, and see that it has complied with the terms of section 143.

So I am merely saying that there should be a similar right of entry here into trade union offices as there are provided in the other subsections under section 126.

HON. MR. KING: Well, it would appear, Mr. Chairman, that my friend and I have a basic disagreement. I feel that the labour code seeks to govern the relationships generally between employees and their employers. It seeks to set the framework by which those two parties will negotiate and regulate their relationship in the factories and the plants of this province. To suggest that it is equivalent to regulating that relationship and ensuring that they comply with the laws of this statute to making internal investigations of a trade union is, to me, somewhat unrealistic.

I would suggest that that proposition would have as its equivalent prerequisite the entry, the investigation and the interrogation of the Employer's Council or the Construction Labour Relations Association, and so on. In short, I suggest that these organizations are independent. They are organs that simply represent the two parties in the regulation of their business. I don't think the Member's

[ Page 1042 ]

amendment is well-founded.

MR. GARDOM: I would mention in closing, Mr. Chairman, that it's the Minister's language that is so broad and expansive. There is a power to inspect any matter or thing that's taking place or has taken place concerning any matter referred to him under the Act. He could well have a reference to him under the Act that a trade union was not maintaining records or books and not furnishing information to its members as is required to be furnished by the statute under section 143; and the Minister's not giving himself the right to enter and inspect under those situations of default.

That is the reason for my amendment: to provide the Minister with equality of approach to trade unions as is given to him against employers under section 126.

Amendment negatived.

Section 126 approved, Sections 127 to 132 inclusive approved.

On section 133.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 133 approved with amendment.

Sections 134 to 136 inclusive approved.

On section 137.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 137 approved with amendment.

On section 138.

MR. GARDOM: section 138 is the penalty section. It is a section dealing with fines concerning people who commit offences against the Act. But the section as it stands, Mr. Chairman, does not provide any rights or remedies for individuals who have suffered loss or default as a result of illegal strikes or as a result of illegal lockouts.

The amendment standing in my name reads, as adding section 138 (2): "Every person who commits an offence under this Act, or the regulations, or refuses to carry out or observe an order made under this Act, and in so doing causes special damages to any person who is not a party to a dispute herein shall be responsible for all such special damages occasioned and proven."

That is the substance of the amendment and it is very clear the way it stands. It stems, Mr. Chairman, perhaps from the law of negligence with that long-established principle that one is not entitled to injure one's neighbour. In the event that one does cause injury to his neighbour as a result of an act or omission, then you are responsible at law for that injury or that damage.

By virtue of the tremendous interdependency of society today, we find the general public in the situation where they can suffer substantial loss and damage resulting from an illegal strike or an illegal lockout. I fail to see why the third party should have to sit idly by if the situation of illegality presents itself and they incur all sorts of damages.

Just by way of illustration, say the Minister of Transport and Communications got into a violent argument with the Minister of Mines and they started to become involved in fisticuffs. As a result of that, one of them knocked the Minister of Agriculture out and he lost a tooth. Well, under those circumstances I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture would have a remedy against each of those combatants. As the result of their illegal act themselves, they caused damage to him. He should be able to seek remedy and seek rectifications through the courts.

This is the very same principle that I'm advocating here. If management and labour through illegal stoppages cause harm to other people and those people can prove that they have suffered special damages, they should be entitled to a remedy.

So far we've seen the greatest thrust of this statute has really been to deny the common law precepts that have existed for hundreds of years, to deny access to the courts. I feel it is necessary, as a little bit of counter-balance, to have built into the legislation a protection for the innocent third party from illegal strikes and illegal lockouts.

If that innocent third party suffers damage, Mr. Chairman, he, she or they should be entitled to claim.

Amendment negatived.

Section 138 approved.

On section 139.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 139 approved with amendment.

[ Page 1043 ]

Sections 140 to 142 inclusive approved.

On section 143.

MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, Mr. Chairman, which provides for better accountability than the section we have in front of us from the government side. The one proposed by myself is very akin and very parallel to the provisions of the Companies Act, which is now in force in this province and came in as a result of this administration's Act. It's contemplated that it will work very successfully with corporate structures. I do feel that we again should have some kind of an equality here.

I'd like to inform the Members of the House of the substance of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, because in hearing it I'm sure they will all agree — and certainly the Minister — that it better states accountability than has been proposed by existing section 143. The amendment reads as follows, Mr. Chairman:

"(1) Every trade-union and every employers' organization shall keep proper accounting records…" — the duty spelled out — "…of all its transactions, which said records shall be kept at the principal address of the trade-union and employer organization in the Province of British Columbia."

I emphasize there that we're stating that these records have got to be maintained in B.C. and not in Atlanta, Georgia or Columbus, Ohio.

Subsection (2) is very much the same as the government subsection (1):

"Every trade-union and every employers' organization shall make available, free of charge, to each of its members, before the first day of June in each year, a copy of the audited financial statement of its affairs to the end of the last fiscal year, signed by its president and treasurer or corresponding principal officers."

Subsection (3):

"No person shall be the auditor of a trade-union or employer organization if he is not independent of the trade-union and the employer organization and their respective affiliate members, officers, and directors."

This provides for the independent auditor which the government amendment does not do.

Under (4): 

"The financial statement shall contain information in sufficient detail to disclose fairly and accurately the financial condition and operations of the trade-union or employers' organization for its preceding fiscal year, and shall be in accord with generally accepted accounting principles,"

Subsection (5):

"The board, upon the complaint of any member that the trade-union or employers' organization has failed to comply with subsection (2), may make an order requiring the trade-union or employers' organization to file with the board, within the time set out in the order, a statement in such form and with such particulars as the board may determine."

And finally, subsection (6):

"The board may make an order requiring a trade-union or employers' organization to furnish a copy of a statement filed under subsection (5) to such members of the trade-union or employers' organization as the board, in its discretion, directs, and the trade-union or employers' organization shall comply with such order according to its terms."

So, I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that within the amendment as proposed we have a far, far better defined process for accountability. Accountability is the name of the game with this section. Without any question of a doubt, I consider this to be an improvement upon the measure suggested by the Minister.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Amendment negatived.

Sections 143 and 144 approved.

On section 145.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name, which is to the affect that,

"Every trade-union, employer, and employers' organization shall maintain a principal address within the Province and shall file written notice of the same with the board and every party to a dispute shall in writing notify the minister and the other party or parties of its principal address in the Province."

The object of this is that there will be an address within the Province of British Columbia. This is what we're talking about, and we don't want to have to find addresses for unions outside of B.C. for the purposes of this. If it happens to be an international union, let them maintain a principal address within the Province of British Columbia.

It provides for legal notice to be effectively handled within B.C. Your section, as it now stands, does not.

Amendment negatived.

Section 145 approved.

[ Page 1044 ]

On section 146.

MR. GARDOM: I'd similarly move the amendment to section 146. It is to the effect of deleting the existing section 146 and substituting this, Mr. Chairman:

"A document may be served on a trade-union, employer, or employers' organization

(a) by leaving it at or mailing it by registered post addressed to the principal address of the trade-union, employer, or employers' organization; or

(b) by personally serving any officer or director of the trade-union, employer, or employers' organization."

This again is terminology that is consistent and is parallel to the Companies Act. I fail to see how the existing 146 came into being. If the Minister is able to advocate a better reason for his than for mine, I'd be happy to accept it, but I cannot see it.

Amendment negatived.

Section 146 to 149 inclusive approved.

On section 150.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 150 as amended.

MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman, a copy of which you have; it now stands in my name on the order paper. It is to renumber sections 150 to 153 and to add a new section 150:

"(1) The board may either on its own motion, or with leave of the board on a motion of any party to any proceedings before the board, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Supreme Court of British Columbia any question of law respecting the interpretation of the Act."

"(2) (a) The Court of Appeal may set aside an order of the board or remit matters referred to it to the board for reconsideration or stay the proceedings before the board on the following grounds only:

"(i) That a member of the board misbehaved or was unable to fulfill his duties properly; or

"(ii) That there was an error of law affecting the jurisdiction of the board;

" (iii) That there was an error of procedure resulting in denial of natural justice.

" (b) An application to set aside an order or stay the proceedings of the board shall be made within fourteen days next after the order has been made.

"(c) The rules governing appeals to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court apply to proceedings under this section."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment is very, very obvious. We had some very weak-hearted and weak-sistered protestations from the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) that the common law of England, from its inception until 1858, and the common law of Canada, from then until this day, truly applied to this bill. These prerogative writs which have emanated from the 13th century on sprung initially from the curia regis or the King's Council; they are royal protections from the abuses of power of governing officials. It would seem, upon a close analysis of the legislation, that these writs have disappeared for all practical purposes, save and except one small illustration which the Hon. Minister brought in by way of amendment.

We have 600 years of precedent with these writs and 600 years of protection applied through thousands, and literally hundreds of thousands of fact situations in all of the Commonwealth countries in the world. These writs have been able to do justice and perform equity and to see that might was not right. We find these historic protections essentially dashed to smithereens in this chamber.

Later on, Mr. Chairman, the evolution of the common law first of all came upon something known as "a writ of error" which turned into a form of appeal. We also see that that is emasculated within this bill.

We have heard some very cheerful statements from the Hon. Attorney General that the rights I'm speaking of continue to be able to be applied under this statute, but, cheerful though it may have been, it's nothing more than cheerful nonsense.

We also find that the law of natural justice is certainly not built into this legislation one bit. There are very strong statutory shackles in this bill, and the strongest one is under section 34 which says,

"A decision, order, or ruling of the board…is final and conclusive, and is not open to question or review in any court, and no proceedings by or before the board shall be restrained by injunction, prohibition, or any other process or proceeding in any court, or be removable by certiorari or otherwise into any court."

Then the Hon. Minister aided and abetted that section — as sort of an accessory after the fact — by eliminating any vestige of hope for any degree of protection for these historic and basic freedoms by bringing in, as his final guillotine, his amendment to section 34 where he said, "… the board has exclusive jurisdiction to decide for all purposes of this Act any

[ Page 1045 ]

question." For all practical purposes he has absolutely closed the doors of the courts and ended the hopes and the protections that have been offered by centuries of judicial freedoms under the common law system of jurisprudence.

So there it is, Mr. Chairman: the board is an organization that has been legislatively spawned in 1973, that is unto itself for all reasons, without question and without the ability to be questioned. It has the right to determine as it may deem fit, and only it, without restraint, without guidelines and without precedent, save only unto its own adjudication. It's pretty well a hydra unto itself.

I'm glad I've got the attention of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) because I remember the very passioned speeches he used to give in this House in the field of workmen's compensation. He made some excellent points indeed, and I'm glad to see that some of the measures he advocated during opposition have now come into being. One of the strongest ones of all was the right of appeal, because he recognized the capacity of man to err.

But within this government we don't find any right to sue it, and I find, with their daily dictating, the erosion of civil liberty in this province. It's very peculiar to me why we haven't heard a great deal from the civil liberties union; it's very strange to me why we have not heard a great deal from the Members of the government side who are officers of the court, for example, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (HON. Mr. Lauk) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), all of whom have claimed to be great civil libertarians over the years., Their silence is absolutely deafening now.

I'm making this plea, once again, that the Minister give thought to the introduction of a safeguard, of a check and of a balance.

I read this morning, coming over to Victoria, a statement on the editorial page of The Vancouver Sun written by Dave Ablett. He was essentially talking about one of the rights to sue the Crown; I quote what he says:

"So those who argue that a Premier would not place himself above the law and that it cannot happen here are correct. A Premier, acting as Premier, cannot place himself above the law because the law itself allows him to remain beyond legal challenge. There are few greater powers.

"'This is all more than vaguely disquieting.

"If we have a system of law that will allow a head of government to do legally what we consider, in another system, to be contrary to democratic ideas, is not this part of our system, in itself, contrary to democratic ideas?

"And does it not also raise a question as to whether we, indeed, live under a rule of law? Is it not fair to say that when one man, a Premier, can determine that the legality of his actions will or will not be tested in court, then it is that man — and not the law — that determines whether justice is done?"

We can apply that, of course, to the fact that within the Province of British Columbia there is no right today — and the word is right; this is not privilege — there is no right to the citizen to take action against his government. In this bill you have given almighty, earthly power unto this board, and still we find citizens who cannot go to any source whatsoever but the person who first was the judge and the jury; they have to go to them for appeals.

We cannot sue the Crown in B.C.; we don't have that check and balance. Surely it's not an unreasonable thing to suggest that the check and balance of a right to proceed to appeal should be enshrined within this legislation as opposed to being emasculated from it.

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the premise that was raised by one or two government Members. I think the Minister, when he got into a heated debate under Bill 11, once said that we're trying to go ahead and have our labour-management relations back in front of the courts. That's not the substance of the argument one bit. We're attempting to provide safeguards from human error. This is the way to do it; you have provided none.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This amendment is fairly important to us in this party. It has been explained extremely well by my hon. friend for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

We see in this amendment the word "may." It's not a question of the board having things forced down its throat; it's the board "may either on its own motion, or with leave of the board on a motion of any party…." The board is being asked that where it has perhaps misbehaved, where there is an error of law, an error of procedure, it shall be possible to have appeal to the courts.

It's not a question of appealing to the courts on whether or not the board made a correct judgment in accordance with the facts before it, We're not asking them to appeal on the grounds that the judges in the court may have a different opinion from the members of the board; it's not that type of appeal at all. It is a very specific appeal, and in my mind it is critical to the continued system of democracy as we know it — the Canadian system of law — that appeal be permitted. Appeal here is for excessive powers and it is an appeal which I think we certainly should introduce into the legislation.

The amendment to section 34 of the Minister's that was mentioned was passed quickly; we'd had our major discussion before that about appeal on section

[ Page 1046 ]

31. But I do feel that this amendment here, which specifically sets out the type of appeal in a very limited form — the type of appeal the Attorney General talked about as though it was implicit in the Act, which to my mind is not — is really critical to the proper functioning of legislation in this province.

We have no separation of powers in this province, legislative and executive; none in the British parliamentary system. We've seen virtually no desire, with the possible exception of two Members, one from Richmond and one from North Vancouver–Capilano, to vote against the executive on any issue. The Legislature, to be realistic, in the present situation affords absolutely no check whatsoever on the executive, none whatsoever. It may in the future, when the backbench realizes that they have been asked to erode some very time-hallowed traditions of our system, but at the moment it doesn't. We have no way of checking in that regard.

We've seen the American example over the last few months where appeal through the courts and a separate legislative and a strongly functioning legislative branch effectively prevented executive abuse. We have seen these things and yet we are here asked to grant powers which are just staggering in bill after bill after bill. We in this party regard the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) as absolutely vital.

I mentioned earlier today, Mr. Chairman, when questioning the Minister, an advertisement which led one to believe, correctly — I have checked it out since — that pay for men and women would be different. I then found out that the reason for this — which made things twice as bad — was, as the Provincial Secretary explained, that women wouldn't be allowed to do certain jobs and men wouldn't be allowed to do other jobs. In addition to pay differential and pay discrimination we had job discrimination. The Minister's reply to me was, "Well, go and see the director of Human Rights." But there's no way in this province that this type of legislation can be applied against Crown agencies or, indeed, to the Crown or Crown corporations in so many instances.

If we turn back, at this stage, the modest amendment of the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, we would be doing a tremendous disservice, in my view, to our public and to us in our role as legislators. We simply wouldn't be acting responsibly and in accordance with our oath of office.

Mr. Chairman, the minor amendment here, carefully thought out and carefully worded, would in no way send questions which are properly before the board to an appeal court for reconsideration of questions of fact. It would only be in the case of misbehavior, error of law, error of procedure and denial of natural justice. Under those circumstances, I find it impossible to believe that the legislative branch, the Members of this House, would fail to accept such an amendment.

Examples are legion; examples south of the line are just as obvious as can be about the need for protecting the rights of courts under certain limited circumstances. If there is any criticism of this amendment, my only criticism would be that my hon. friend has simply not gone far enough and that the right of appeal should have been extended. Given the modesty of the amendment, I just fail to see how we can fail to accept it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to support this amendment. We are seeing in this country today a proliferation of administrative tribunals and of individuals and groups of individuals established under legislative authority, too often under the authority of the executive of our government in this province or the other provinces of Canada — in fact the national government as well. When we find, as we do in this bill, that the wide-ranging, all-powerful authorities of these administrative tribunals are beyond the review of the courts of the land, then we must have the gravest of concern.

It is easy to suggest that somehow or other the courts interfere with the smooth and expeditious working of relationships between individuals or groups of society, and this is given as an excuse for this kind of legislation without any of these safeguards. But consider, Mr. Chairman, what the courts were established to do. The courts were established to regulate the interrelationship between citizens, and they have that full responsibility. Yet when we come to deal with a matter of this kind, when we find that labour unions, employers' organizations and, indeed, individual employers and individual employees under the most difficult circumstances are thrust into opposition one with the other, and very serious problems are raised for determination, those citizens, employers and employees, are denied the right of access to the courts.

It is unthinkable to me that this government would permit this to happen. It is even more unthinkable when you consider the refusal of the government to accept amendments similar to this earlier in the legislation as being undeniably the result of the refusal of this government to allow this particular board — as I said before, an arm of the executive of this government — to be challenged in any way. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is all-powerful; there is no question. Yet they wish to clothe these 10 or more men or women forming the Labour Relations Board with similar infallibility, similar omnipotence and the absolute, unfettered, uncontrolled right to deal with the rights of men and women and groups of men and women in our province.

[ Page 1047 ]

It's not a matter of whether or not we stand for the courts, as opposed to any other group in the resolution of disputes. Great opportunities are given in this legislation for the resolution of differences by arbitration by arbitrators or arbitration boards, or by the use of special officers. Certainly there is a wide-ranging right of review given to a labour ombudsman. But, Mr. Chairman, when it comes right down to the final crunch between the individuals involved in these matters, they are denied access to the courts. It is retrogressive; it is anti-democratic. I support the amendment and I urge all Members to do likewise.

HON. MR. KING: There were some rather exaggerated statements made, I feel, by the three Liberal Members in describing the powers of the Labour Relations Board. Really we have basically had this discussion a number of times in respect to different provisions in the legislation.

I would point out again that this is an administrative agency. It is not an executive branch of the government; it is a quasi-judicial agency.

MR. GARDOM: Can't they make mistakes?

HON. MR. KING: Certainly they can make mistakes, in the same way that the Workmen's Compensation Board makes mistakes. I don't think the Hon. Member would suggest that the funds that are developed and earmarked for the prevention of industrial accidents and the rehabilitation of injured workers should be used up in litigation in the courts.

MR. GARDOM: But that's not the point.

HON. MR. KING: Nor do I think that in these circumstances the important question of industrial relations should be frequently appealed to the courts on various points of law simply to open the door to the question and the adjudication of industrial relations matters in the courts, which has proved not to be the most appropriate agency for dealing with this question.

In terms of the powers of the board, I would suggest that the Legislature certainly sits every year. Any question or inference of unbridled powers without checks and balances are always subject to review in this Legislature, which is the highest law-making agency in the land. If any of the grave concerns of Members on that side of the House, who are incidentally all members of the legal profession, prove to become a reality and if they can come before this Legislature and demonstrate a factual case for any of the hypothetical concerns they state, then we can certainly change and amend and reduce the powers of the Labour Relations Board.

I feel that there are adequate checks and balances.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, we have for the first time in the Province of British Columbia an ombudsman who will have powers to focus the attention of public opinion on any abuse of the individual liberties of anyone involved in industrial relations. This is a new check and balance, and I think it is adequate to ensure that the interests and the rights of the parties are protected.

We had a debate, particularly from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), on the question of natural justice. He rather stubbornly refuses to accept either the Attorney General's position and advice or the position that I have put forward on the basis of the best legal advice I could obtain that the course of natural justice is, indeed, open to the parties at all times.

We have had this debate before and I certainly don't intend to get into a prolonged debate on it. We do appear to have a difference of opinion. Be that as it may, I suggest that when the vote comes that division will be revealed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, just one point to the Minister. For 20 years we had the Legislature; for 20 years we've had public opinion; for 20 years we've had the checks and balances that he was talking about. Am I to sit here and listen to him say all that was perfectly adequate and that really during that period there was no need for legislative protection of the citizen? If that is the case, there is no way we could possibly support this bill.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 32

[ Page 1048 ]

PAIRED

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, when you make your report to the Speaker it would be much appreciated if you would inform him of the division that occasioned in committee. I would ask leave that it be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Section 150 approved with amendment.

Section 151 approved.

On section 152.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 152 approved with amendment.

Section 153 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Labour Code of British Columbia Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports that divisions took place in committee on amendments to sections 85, 88 and 152. and asks leave that these divisions be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 1 approved with amendment.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 39, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
SERVICES AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 39; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 39, An Act to Amend the Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 43, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE HUMAN TISSUE GIFT ACT

[ Page 1049 ]

The House in committee on Bill 43; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 43, An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Second reading of Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

MEDICAL CENTRE OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, in rising to open debate on second reading of Bill 81, Medical Centre of British Columbia Act, I'd just like to say what the purposes of the Act are.

The purposes of the Act are to actually create a body known as the B.C. Medical Centre. I think that probably I've discussed to some degree here and to some degree prior to this sitting — or that is, prior to this session of parliament — many of the reasons for setting up this body.

The reason that we mainly felt it to be absolutely essential was that the health services as they relate to education were having a great deal of difficulty. The health services, as they relate to tertiary care, were having a great deal of difficulty, and we just knew of no other way than to tie the services together under an umbrella organization that could best coordinate these activities. That's precisely what we went about doing.

Mr. Speaker, in the years to come in British Columbia there's going to be a real need for highly-trained technical personnel, and we just cannot in this province go along relying on other jurisdictions doing the training for us as we have been doing in years gone by.

We have to take responsibility, as the Premier has often noted. We're a province this side of the mountains and we're a province that is well-endowed with resources. It's our responsibility to see to it that we do take care of our own needs. From that standpoint, I would go a step further and indicate that we could be of assistance to the rest of Canada and, for that matter, other parts of the world.

Mr. Speaker, in discussing this question, I thought I'd like to go on to say that the board of directors of the medical centre will be given some authority in this Act. They have to be. Their authority will be to help them to do that kind of job; it would be to help them to coordinate the policies and planning for the functions of the clinical aspect in the hospitals. Also they'll be coordinating some of the activities of different hospitals that are under the umbrella board with the educational facilities — not only the University of British Columbia but also the colleges in the province of B.C.

I think that that's a real step forward because now we have some organization that is going to be charged with the responsibility of putting the two departments together: that is, the educational aspect and the health aspect. So I think that that is going to serve this province well; it is going to serve the people of the future better than they have been served.

Mr. Speaker, there's one other aspect and that is the provincial council. We thought at first that we would just have the medical centre Act as it applies to the Vancouver area, and relate it with the universities. We found afterwards that there was a great need out there in the regions for regional representation, not only from the hospitals but from the colleges. Therefore, we've expanded the organization to take in and assist the whole provincial scene as a large unit.

Mr. Speaker, I would therefore move second reading of this Medical Centre of British Columbia Act.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, through you, I would ask for adjournment of this bill at this time on behalf of the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), who is unavoidably away from the House this afternoon.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Debate can be carried on in committee. We cannot accept an adjournment at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it there's no motion actually before the House from the Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: No, there isn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member proceed then, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the Minister of Health on Bill 81, Medical Centre of British Columbia Act. I was a little bit surprised that they were so brief. He mentioned just two points: that they were endeavouring to coordinate the medical training aspect with the medical service aspect and referred to

[ Page 1050 ]

nursing; and then he said that they were endeavouring to sort of coordinate these activities throughout the province.

Unless I'm wrong, a close examination of this bill raises some very serious questions which the Minister hasn't alluded to in his opening remarks. I touch first on this whole business of coordinating training programmes in British Columbia — in itself, a very commendable move, a move that has been developing for some time, starting with the moving of the nurses training programme to BCIT on a pilot project basis, and then its entrenchment as a highly commendable and acceptable form of nursing training in British Columbia.

It's very much in keeping with trying to dispense forever with so-called cheap labour in hospitals. This has been a tradition throughout the world in the medical profession, where nurses have, in fact, very definitely provided unpaid and cheap labour in the hospitals. Certainly medical students and residents and interns have provided unpaid labour in hospitals.

But at this time there was also a very serious question as to how much you can streamline the training programme of a medical person who's going to have to assume responsibility for judgment decisions. In nursing, I speak in terms of a judgment decision based on experience as to when you administer certain drugs which are left as a PRN order — in other words, an order for sedation for example at the nurse's discretion.

The same with doctors. The question there was: how important a certain amount of practical experience on wards was for nurses and on wards for doctors — in the field for doctors and, again, in the field for nurses in the form of psychiatric training and public health training, just to mention two. For doctors it would be in-the-field training in terms of general practice and psychiatric training. I don't think this question has been fully answered.

I would hope that the Minister would give the House some idea as to where his department's and his own thinking is going. Is all the nurses' training in British Columbia going to be streamlined to a two-year programme with very little practical experience? If so, will this training take place solely in institutions like BCIT? Will they be moved out of the hospitals, in all hospitals in the province, to vocational schools or regional colleges? If so, what arrangements will be made to give nurses, in this instance, practical experience on the ward?

While I might be accused of being in the old guard, I had the option — if I might recite a personal experience — when going into training myself after some time at the University of British Columbia, of taking the two-year nursing programme that the Red Cross started in the Province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, and taking the training at the Vancouver General Hospital, which was a three-year programme.

At the end of two years, having opted for the three-year training programme, those of us who did this sat down and assessed very carefully what we felt our reaction would have been if we had graduated after two years. Our feeling at that time was that we would have been hot shots clinically, but not so hot in that ever-important aspect of nursing which is empathy, compassion and judgment in relation to the norm.

You cannot recognize the abnormal until you have a very working conversance with the norm. I realize that there are many authorities speaking on this subject, and I don't class myself as an authority, but maybe a few years' experience do count.

I think if it is the Minister's intention to move all nurses' training into a strictly clinical environment, this would be wrong. There must be provisions, speaking in terms of what we now know as the registered nurse, for her to have opportunities to work on wards and out in the field in order that she can become, as I mentioned, conversant with the norm and also that she can benefit from this people-contact, which is a very maturing experience.

You can read all you want to about how to handle death, for example, but until you've experienced the many aspects of dying and your own reaction to this in relation to your own loved ones and then in relation to young children whom you haven't known but whom you've nursed, or older people and their reactions, you just have not got the degree of maturity necessary, firstly to handle your own self in these situations and secondly to have developed the judgment as to when death may very well be imminent, not on a clinical basis but on a basis that these things sometimes just happen and the patient is often the best criterion for stating when it's going to happen.

I don't want to overemphasize the fact that I don't think you need to spend all your time on the wards as cheap labour. I abhor this practice. But many hospitals have been, in fact, relying on student nurses to make up their components in their staffing. Will the Minister use this as a means of training but reimburse the student nurses, or will there be an expansion of the nursing components for the hospitals to fill this gap so that we will be expanding our nursing services in the acute care and other care areas as we should be doing?

Some mention has been made by the Minister that they were thinking of taking over St. Paul's as a start. I would like his view on this. Has this been discussed with the board at St. Paul's and what provisions have been made?

The next question that arises in relation to training concerns the training of doctors in British Columbia. Are the Minister's words to be interpreted to mean that the government will eventually take over the training of medical students in British Columbia, and

[ Page 1051 ]

that this will no longer be in the hands of the University of British Columbia or, as has been hoped, perhaps another university, the University of Victoria in British Columbia?

In the form of training, what provisions has the Minister made for the training of orderlies and other allied services on the wards? And because he brought up the subject of training, I'd like to know what thoughts he has given, in light of this legislation, to the allied professional services, such as the practical nurses who are asking for as much as $500 a month during their training period and are likely to receive this, through negotiations, starting in the Kelowna hospital? How has he related these demands in terms of his training, programme for nurses and medical students as they relate to this bill?

When he speaks in terms of training and moving it under government, the question that comes to my mind is: are we moving personnel in British Columbia? If so, what prompted him to do this? Was it natural evolution from previously-started programmes or is this the result of the Foulkes report? What did the Foulkes report have to say about training in British Columbia? What part has the Foulkes report had in the drafting of this legislation in relation to training? And, if it hasn't had any part, why is the Minister contemplating such sweeping powers as are given to him and the corporation in this bill before the Foulkes report is in?

We wonder, in fact, when we examine this bill in detail and see its powers and not hear the Minister mention its powers, why hasn't he held this bill until the Foulkes report is made public? I would ask the Minister why we have not seen the Foulkes report and why he's bringing this bill in before the Foulkes report is in.

When you examine this bill, which ostensibly should have been designed to facilitate the takeover of Shaughnessy Hospital, we see that it establishes not only the takeover of the Shaughnessy Hospital without any details as to what this takeover entails — what is the government paying for the hospital; what is the arrangement for its development? — but instead we see the establishment of another monolithic corporation which totally enters upon any hospital-planning process throughout this province.

What is this corporation to do, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister?

HON. MR. COCKE: Sit down and I'll tell you.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, you had lots of time to speak. Why didn't you bring up these then?

HON. MR. COCKE: I wanted to to know what kind of crazy questions you'd come up with.

MRS. JORDAN: Crazy questions, Mr. Speaker? This is a crazy bill! A bill that brings monolithic corporate structures into the medical care of the Province of British Columbia; a bill that is designed to facilitate the implementation of the Foulkes report, and the Foulkes report is not made public yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. COCKE: I can't hear.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, if the Member can't hear, he'd better start listening to the people of British Columbia, because the people of British Columbia are getting fed up with enabling legislation which brings about sweeping changes in this province based on reports paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia at an exorbitant rate….

AN HON. MEMBER: Blank cheques.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, blank-cheque committees, blank cheques to an NDP medical hack. I vouch that that Foulkes report will contain a good deal of the Foulkes report that was given to the NDP caucus some two years ago.

Speaking of this, gentlemen, the Minister said that it's amazing how, since he took over office, the troubles in New Westminster have abated. We suggest it is because he took the core of the problem in the New Westminster hospital and took him out of that hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: Removed the source of the trouble.

MRS. JORDAN: He has taken that "problem child" and put him at a very, very handsome salary in a position of being almost a medical tsar in the Province of British Columbia; a man who has never practised medicine and a man whose qualifications go very much questioned in the medical world, the nursing world, the allied world, and indeed in the minds of many of the free thinkers in the world.

And so, Mr. Minister, we want to know why you've brought this in now. Where is the Foulkes report? Why do we as Members of this Legislature have to listen to the radio for little glimmers of leakage from that report, not by the Minister but by this medical tsar, a confessed Marxist, handling the medical care of British Columbia? We're concerned, Mr. Minister, because we have looked at other areas of Canada and the United States and Europe where this type of thinking has prevailed. And we see in store for British Columbia, not only this Dr. Foulkes' current practice of piecemeal leaks, but we see a practice of monolithic piecemeal medicine.

The problem in Manitoba today, acting upon a

[ Page 1052 ]

programme which Dr. Foulkes has favoured very strongly, is that after only two years, when you discuss it with the people involved, they tell you in that short period of time, where they brought in professional administrators, professional this and professional that, that it is the structure itself that has become the master and has become the important aspect of medical care and that the patient is long-since forgotten. Is this what we're to have in British Columbia, a monolithic medical structure, expensive, completely impersonal and really unrelated to patients and how they feel? Patients' feelings are a great part of their medical treatment and their medical care. The leaks by Foulkes have set an example that we don't want to support in this province and we don't want a leaky medical system.

The medical system in British Columbia probably provides — and greater authorities than myself have said this — the very highest quality of overall medical care to the greatest number of people of anywhere in the world. This is a system that is not perfect but it is a sound basic system and it is the system upon which the Minister should be building and adjusting, always keeping in mind the patient.

The Minister talks in terms of, "We'll always preserve fee for service" — he always seems to think in terms of money, and that is not the issue. When you talk about fee for service, what in fact you are thinking about is the confidentiality that can exist between a patient and a doctor — the confidence that patients must have in their doctors, particularly if they are to undergo any major medical treatment.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): What bill is she talking about? Get back on the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Is this the leaky Foulkes report? And is this a bill setting up a structure that is going to do away with this? When you set up a structure, Mr. Minister, and say to the public, "Our doctors are all going to have eight-hour days and their weekends off," it's going to have tremendous public appeal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What section is that in?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, it isn't going to have patient-appeal. When the public become patients, it won't have public appeal either. The most important thing that has to be kept alive and nurtured in all medical treatment is the relationship of the patient to all medical staff, whether it is the lab technician, the practical nurse, the nurse, the doctor or the hospital board. We should be working on a system that is going to enhance this and not on a system that is going to become, as I mentioned, a monolithic corporate creature, destined to a theory of medical care, destined to efficiency and not in fact destined to serve the patients themselves, and that will in the long run detract and destroy the fine medical care that we have in British Columbia now.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister says, "Well, why do you call it a monolithic corporate structure?" Because it has the right to acquire any real and personal property in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. COCKE: So does every other hospital in the province.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister says, "So does every other hospital in the province." Not every other hospital in the province has a base in Vancouver which will centre out and spread out through the whole of the province. Does the Minister mean that the hospital board in Fort St. John would be interested in acquiring property in Vancouver? Highly unrealistic. But it is here in this bill, Mr. Minister. If you don't think it's important, why did you put it in the bill?

This is another example of broad, sweeping powers to a board that's not answerable to this Legislature, which is set up by this government and given almost unlimited financial powers. Then he says we are not going to use it, or it's not going to do its job. What are we setting it up for if it isn't going to do its job?

When we look at the section, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, which gives this board the power to operate business related to the medical and hospital world — what other boards in British Columbia in the medical area have this power?

We wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether in fact this monolithic structure, this impersonal medical structure that he is creating, is going to become involved in the manufacturing and distribution of drugs, the manufacturing and distribution of surgical supplies, the manufacturing and distributing of many other forms of medical equipment in the Province of British Columbia. Is this part of the intention of this bill and the Minister? Certainly the powers are in the bill.

Why does this board have to have the power to be a holding company for multiple landholdings around the Province of British Columbia? What institutions is the Minister planning to put under the jurisdiction of this board? And if there isn't an intent to put other jurisdictions under this board such as hospitals in other parts of the province, or in Vancouver, for that matter, is there going to be a public vote on this? Will it be the board of the affected institution that will decide what is best for the patients and then make a recommendation to the public? Or will this be another grab, another taking over of hospitals?

What about the future of hospital boards in British

[ Page 1053 ]

Columbia? Are they going to be answerable to this board that the Minister is creating in this bill? Are the hospital boards in British Columbia, who have reflected very strongly a community interest and community aims and objectives and the management and direction of their hospitals, going to be nothing but rubber stamps for the policy of this board? What will the relationship be?

The Minister is making copious notes, and it would appear that he probably hasn't read his legislation very well. Would he accept an adjournment?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult the Minister.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I'll accept adjournment, because this Member isn't speaking to this Act. Under those circumstances, since she has been speaking about the whole health…

MRS. JORDAN: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. COCKE: …that's the kind of adjournment that we'll accept.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that the Hon. Member has extended the legislation far beyond what is certainly stated in the bill, and is apparently prognosticating on matters that are not covered in the bill. I would ask the Hon. Member in second reading….

MRS. JORDAN: I don't want to debate the bill with you, Mr. Speaker, but we feel that many of these powers are in this bill. Will the Hon. Mr. Barrett accept adjournment of this bill? I move that it be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT, 1964

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on Bill 82: This is an amendment to the Mental Health Act that provides basically some housekeeping up until section 13. In section 13 what we have done is to improve the situation, as far as we can, for this whole question of involuntary committal. Up until now, there were what we considered to be some anomalous situations and we have tried to improve that. Involuntary admissions previously could be for one of two reasons — someone requiring medical care and treatment or for their own protection or for that of society. This amendment will limit the involuntary committals on both of these considerations.

We have also changed the review panel, Mr. Speaker. The prior review panel was a professional panel. We feel now that the patient has a right to appear, if he wishes, on that review panel, so that the panel will be composed of a person representing the patient and a person representing the facility, and the chairman will be appointed by the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I consider Bill 82 to be a very simple bill, and I would therefore move second reading.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Very briefly, I would like to support this bill with particular reference to the review recommendations. The fact that there is a new type of review so clearly spelled out that at any time after three months after admission the patient is entitled to be heard and the fact that the patient has the Opportunity under this bill to be represented in that review panel by a person of their choosing I think is a forward-looking concept. The whole trend of mental health care is hopefully that we will have better and better techniques to keep people out of these facilities in the first place.

It is interesting to note in passing, Mr. Speaker, that very often overlooked in our society today is the degree to which you hear comments made about the dangers of medications and drugs. Some of the bad side-effects and complications of drug treatment are quite rightly emphasized.

On the other hand, I think society is perhaps not fully aware of the tremendous revolution which has taken place in the last 10 years in terms of being able to treat certain mental conditions with medications without restricting the individual patient to a facility. Some of the institutions of past decades perhaps were necessary then, but today it is becoming more and more obvious to physicians that if there is any way possible for us to treat the mentally sick person without going through all the rigamarole of certifying them under the certificate of two physicians and all the distasteful features that go along with that procedure, then it is equally important and incumbent upon physicians to recognize that once they have gone through such a procedure with such a patient, the patient should be given every possible avenue of appeal to be sure that he is not being kept in a mental health facility against his wishes or when the treatment is no longer necessary.

It really distressed me the other day when I came across a patient who is presently at odds with the compensation board because of a disability. Because of the difficulties he is having he expressed the concern that certain statements of physicians

[ Page 1054 ]

involved in the case led him to believe that all they were trying to do was disturb him so much that they could lock him up in a mental hospital and get him out of the hair of the compensation board. So citizens in our society are very much aware of the fact that this legislation exists to commit a person to a mental facility.

I can certainly assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that it is one of the most serious and most distasteful jobs that a physician does and it has one of the most serious effects on the relatives. I am sure that under this bill and the provisions particularly of section 14 — and I hope they will be given a great deal of publicity, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker — it does ensure and reassure members of our society who might be afraid of the fact that they have heard of people being locked up in mental hospitals and, as it were, forgotten about with no way of leaving the hospital of their own free will. This kind of provision will give them a clearcut review panel and two days' notice in writing, and one of the panel will certainly be a person that they will choose. This is just exactly the kind of reform that I strongly support. I think this is a good bill.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We first have to deal with second reading. The Minister closes the debate. Is that your contribution now?

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, yes. That's right. He did such a good job of it I decided that maybe I didn't have to. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) read this bill as being opposed to the last situation we heard in this House. That is exactly what it is aimed at, Mr. Speaker. The bill is aimed at making the system much more open, giving people an opportunity to participate directly in their own affairs. I'm delighted to put this amendment, Mr. Speaker, and therefore move second reading of Bill 82, An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, 1964.

Motion approved.

Bill 82 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 48, Mr. Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER SERVICES ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Liden in the chair.

On section 5.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): As we closed the debate on this particular section, I was in the throes of asking the new Minister (Hon. Ms. Young) if she was going to go throughout this province and tell the young people in the schools of this province about the harmful effects of tobacco, which I consider to be a product that maybe shouldn't be on the market. Since one of the purposes of her new department is to, warn the people, as she explained to me, of any product that was unsafe and harmful to people, I would like the Minister to assure me that she is going to do just this with that product, tobacco.

We have just finished discussing some bills to do with the Department of Health and I feel, Madam Minister, that if some of the harmful products in the province were off the market maybe we wouldn't have as many problems in the health department as we have. How long can the people of this province continue to provide hospitals and doctors to cure ailments which people have brought on themselves by the use of these harmful products?

I think you have a fantastic responsibility and a wonderful opportunity, Madam Minister, to do something for the people of this province in your department. I would like you to assure me that you are going to do that.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, I shall give the Hon. Member's suggestion every consideration.

Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 48, Department of Consumer Services Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
IMPROVEMENT ACT

[ Page 1055 ]

The House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Liden in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I wonder if the Minister in dealing with the interpretation section would advise the committee why, in respect to agricultural enterprise and agricultural industry, the disposal of food was included as part of the definition.

It seems to me that there are many ways in which food may be disposed. Obviously the most common one is by way of eating. Does this include restaurants? Are they involved in the disposal of food and, if so, is it intended that people in the restaurant business will be able to obtain loans available under this legislation?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, it's not that we are going into the restaurant business but in some cases food that is left over in restaurants, for example, is used for animal feed. There might be some processing of that sort of food for animal food and for that reason we want to include it in that interpretation.

MR. WILLIAMS: With regard to the agriculture industry, would the Minister clarify my earlier query of him as to whether production includes the farm, so that farm loans may be available under this legislation as well as others that we have before us in the House?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, not for "farm" in the primary sense but possibly in the secondary sense. For example, a feedlot operation, while it is farming in a sense, is not the primary raising of the livestock; it is taking the livestock that have been raised to a certain level and then feeding to a higher level before processing. In that case, while it's not directly farming, it is production.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A query of the Minister, Mr. Chairman. Recently I saw a press release dealing with the federal-provincial small farms credit provisions, a programme which I believe this province entered into over a year ago; we were one of the first to sign it.

I would like to know whether or not under that programme there will be duplication with this particular section or whether this is an expansion of that programme, or exactly how do the two things fit together? I ask this question, Mr. Chairman, because I understand that only $3,500 under that programme has been loaned out in British Columbia, an insignificant amount compared with $1.7 million in the Province of Alberta.

We have had, I believe, only three applications under that programme, compared with well over 900, I understand, in the Province of Alberta. Yet the two programmes of the two provinces are essentially similar. Indeed, Alberta went into the federal programme after us.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as the Member said, we were one of the first to enter into agreement with the federal government on this small farm development programme.

This programme is handled by the Farm Credit Corporation along with their ordinary lending. The difficulty we've had in the Province of British Columbia is that farms are so much more expensive per acre here than they are on the prairies. The sort of circumstances where this loan would apply is particularly where a farmer can add to his farm by absorbing the next door farm. These situations just don't seem to come up in British Columbia to the same degree that they have in other provinces.

We have material printed on it; we've sent it out often when there are requests for credit, when expanding farms come up. But it seems they just very rarely fit the circumstances in the Province of British Columbia.

For that reason, we have continually put before the federal government the possibility of extending the limits; the amount available is just too small for British Columbia. While they have listened to these presentations, and have recognized the need for this, they have not yet acted on it. They haven't said no; it's just that they haven't gotten around to expanding the limits for B.C.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong the discussion on the small farm development programme, but all other provinces, except for Quebec, have had a fairly substantial number of loans granted under it. The Province of Ontario, which I expect would have similar problems in agriculture that we do, had many, many score — I don't know how many in total. The overall report I saw of the total in Canada indicated that B.C. was lagging very badly, despite the fact that we were one of the first signatories to such a programme.

The thing that strikes me as curious is that here we have federal-provincial moneys which are being used in other provinces — the provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta and the rest — in substantial quantities for improving the farms, for getting young farmers involved in farming and for lending the money to purchase the farm. Things of this nature are

[ Page 1056 ]

being done in other provinces, but apparently not here. It's not to say that section 2 in this particular Act is unnecessary; it's just simply to say that we seem to be setting up a fairly expensive provincial programme when there are existing programmes which have not been fully exploited.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, all I can say again is that, relative to Ontario, B.C. is a smaller-farming province. It has a much lesser number of farms in total so there would be less use.

But again, the administration of this is entirely by the same group of officials who are administrating the Farm Credit Corporation as it is in every other province. The provincial government has some responsibility for making farmers aware of the programme; we have done this and are continuing to do it, by correspondence. The only answer is that it isn't as appropriate in B.C. as we hope it will be when the federal government does get around to making the limits higher.

It's a programme that we'd like to use not so much for improving farms; it's one to expand a farm or make it possible for a retiring farmer to dispose of his property to someone who's coming in.

We would like to use it; we like the idea of getting more federal money. But for the time being — at least up to this time — the lending has almost entirely been by the Farm Credit Corporation under their previous plan rather than under this one.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could direct the Minister's attention to 1(a). The Minister, by this provision, is restricted to making grants, loans, or affording guarantees for the "handling, processing, storing, or disposing of agricultural products produced in the Province…." I wondered if. the Minister would comment as to whether or not he feels it would be unduly restrictive.

I can understand the desire of the Minister in making loans available which will foster our agricultural industry, but in order to make viable a processing operation or, indeed, a storing operation, it may be wise if the operators of such an industry could also deal with products they might obtain from outside this province.

In our tree-fruit industry, for example, circumstances arise whereby at certain times of the year it is obligatory that the processing division acquire products from outside the province, In the case of Sun-Rype, a significant amount of the production of that operation comes from the handling of fruit concentrates which certainly do not come from this province.

Altogether from those particular instances, there are occasions when, by reason of the stage of the harvest of our apple crop, it is found necessary for Sun-Rype to acquire apples from other jurisdictions in order to keep their processing going. They do so on a loan or exchange basis, whereby certain quantities of apples are acquired, often from the State of Washington, on the understanding that similar quantities will be returned. It's on an exchange between the two producing states.

I would think that it would be improper to restrict the authority of the Minister under this section because of circumstances of that nature. If the Minister were concerned that he might be advancing credit to an organization which would largely obtain its agricultural resource, the natural product, from outside the province, he has that authority under the regulatory section of 11. I would think that section 11 (a) gives him the right to prescribe qualifications to qualify as an agricultural enterprise. I would urge the Minister to seriously consider removing the words, "produced in the Province."

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, we want to direct the attention of the people in the agricultural community and beyond that to the fact that we're particularly concerned with agricultural products produced in British Columbia. The situations the Hon. Member described would not in my mind rule out the application of this section.

For example, to use the very illustration that he had of Sun-Rype: if we were considering extending some assistance under this legislation to Sun-Rype, the fact that they used produce from another country for some seasons of the year — or even all year to some extent — would not rule out assistance to that corporation which is primarily engaged in handling products produced in British Columbia.

If we find in experience that this is being unduly restrictive, then we will consider amendments. But at this time I'm assured that there's no intention to interpret the Act the way the Member is concerned. If there were, then I would be wanting the same amendment.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, section 3 is entitled, "Grants, loans, and guarantees, etc." We believe the principle of this bill to be that grants, loans, guarantees and various incentives should be made available to support the processing and packing facets of agriculture in the province.

But, as with other bills, we just see no need or reason as to why the government should invest or buy an interest in an agricultural enterprise. We believe that it is the function of government to provide various forms of financial assistance to the agricultural industry, such as some of the mechanisms the Minister has discussed in the session earlier: farm

[ Page 1057 ]

income assurance, provided it spells it out, and farm credit, as long as we have some specific detail.

We in this party just fail to see why subsections (b) and (c) should be necessary or advisable, permitting the government to invest in shares, debentures and other securities and to purchase an interest in an agricultural enterprise, Do you think we could get some order, Mr. Chairman, so that I could be heard?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, so the Member can be heard. (Laughter.) Carry on.

MR. WALLACE: We've already had an example of where the government has bought an interest in another part of the private sector of the economy in this province and then carry out a subsequent act to escape income tax and place themselves in a favoured and preferred position in relation to other private competitors.

I think frankly, Mr. Chairman, that if it is the government's intent to gain total control over various sectors of our economy, whether it be sawmilling or agricultural or whatever, I wish the government would be a little more direct and explicit.

To slip subsections (a), (b) and (c) into a bill which is supposed to make various forms of loans and guarantees available to the industry when it really opens up the door to the government actually acquiring financial control over the industry, then I think that this is, certainly to us, most undesirable and unnecessary.

We've said that it is the legitimate function of government to create conditions whereby the farmer and the agricultural industry can get a fair return for their efforts and make a fair income and a fair profit, taking all the unique situations and aspects of agriculture into account. We just fail to see what is the necessity for (b) and (c) in section 3 and I wonder maybe if the Minister would care to respond, since it's close to 6 o'clock, what is the real motive? Or am I reading motives into the bill which don't exist?

As I say, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, it would seem to us that this part of section 3 is not really in keeping with the other parts of section 3 which very clearly make it obvious that there will be various grants and loan moneys and guarantees available to people engaged in the processing of agricultural products. Since we've already had our fears confirmed in relation to Plateau Mills that the government wants to buy into certain companies, not just simply to sustain them when times are difficult but take over the company and presumably make life more difficult for the remaining private companies, can we look at this section 3 in the same light and regard this as just another attempt, piecemeal perhaps, to give the government power to acquire control over this aspect of the agricultural. Industry, namely the processing of agricultural products?

I would move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, Mr. Chairman, to amend section 3 by deleting all the words in clauses (b) and (c).

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the government is not prepared to accept that amendment for reasons that I thought I had made clear several times previously. In the first place, the farmers themselves want government participation in many instances. They want to know that there is someone in there with them, someone helping share the load.

For example, the alfalfa cubing plant. In the discussions we've had so far, originally it was a third and we've scaled ours down when they showed more interest in their own part; it's down to 29. We're not prepared to accept the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment defeated.

MR. WALLACE: Division, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a minute, you need eyes in the side of your head. I have an amendment on there too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with the amendment on the floor right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, in view of the hour, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, I called for a division, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A division has been called.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 33

[ Page 1058 ]

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

Leave granted.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Hon. Mr. Strachan files answers to questions 177 and 179.

Hon. Mr. Radford files answers to questions 152 and 124.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPAL ACT

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

Bill 96 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions 91 and 119.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

ERRATUM

Page 934, line 41, column 2 should read:

Workmen's Compensation Board cases not to be placed in