[ Page 2401 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

County Courts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 74). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2401

Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 73). Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 2401

Interpretation Act (Bill 110). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2401

Statement

Signing of contract to take over Veterans', Shaughnessy, and George Darby Hospitals. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2401

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Contingency plans to ensure Vancouver Island power supply. Mr. Bennett — 2401

BCTF resolution governing possible ejection of members. Mr. Gibson — 2401

Unit to combat organized crime. Mr. Wallace — 2401

Ocean Falls newsprint for Victoria area newspapers. Mr. McClelland — 2402

Meetings of policy committee to combat B.C. flood threat. Mr. Curtis — 2402

Availability of lease agreements for government-purchased lands. Mr. Phillips — 2403

Government aircraft on strikebound airports. Mr. Morrison — 2403

Compulsory medical examination for old-age pensioner drivers. Mr. Fraser — 2403

Special arrangements for Mincome cheques distribution. Mr. Wallace — 2403

Request for funds by ROSS committee. Mr. Gibson — 2405

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates

On vote 129.

Hon. Mr. King — 2405

Mr. Fraser — 2408

Hon. Mr. King — 2413

Mr. McGeer — 2416

Hon. Mr. King — 2419

Mrs. Jordan — 2420

Hon. Mr. King — 2424

Mr. Dent — 2425

Mr. Wallace — 2429

Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 109). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 2434

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming a group of 80 students and their teachers from Marian High School in New Westminster, that gem of all B.C.

Introduction of bills.

COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled County Courts Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 74 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.

CRIMINAL INJURIES
COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 73 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.

INTERPRETATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Interpretation Act.

Bill 110 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. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I'd like to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, at 11:30 a.m. today the province took responsibility — I signed a contract on behalf of the government — to take over the Veterans' Hospital in Victoria, Shaughnessy Hospital in Vancouver and George Darby Hospital in New Westminster.

This will become part of our health care programme and I just want to say especially that we've made provisions for those veterans that will need care in those facilities on an ongoing basis. And the federal government, as part of the contract, are providing us with $11 million, roughly, to upgrade the premises.

Oral questions.

CONTINGENCY PLANS TO ENSURE
VANCOUVER ISLAND POWER SUPPLY

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Would the Minister advise the House if the power supply to Vancouver Island continues to be critical? And if so, has B.C. Hydro developed any contingency plans to prevent brownouts?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

BCTF RESOLUTION GOVERNING
POSSIBLE EJECTION OF MEMBERS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A question to the Minister of Education. Some time ago the Minister undertook to meet with the BCTF and discuss with them the question of the resolution whereby persons who fail to co-operate with his or her professional organization could be ejected from that organization and thereby, in effect, denied the right to teach in British Columbia. The Minister undertook to discuss this with the BCTF and comment to the House on it. Has she had a chance to do so?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No. Because of the intervening recess we have the meeting slated to take place following the House opening again. So the meeting has not taken place, but we have a date set up.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister say exactly when? It's been well over two weeks now.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, the date has been set. I don't have my calendar with me, but I believe that it's sometime next week.

UNIT TO COMBAT ORGANIZED CRIME

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney-General, particularly in the light of recent murders, when the unit to combat

[ Page 2402 ]

organized crime will actually begin to function?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, as much as I'd like to give a firm date, I'm not prepared to do that at the present time. We are moving with our planning just as quickly as we possibly can. We are now putting together an advisory committee, and I'm not quite ready to announce those names.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary. Could I find out from the Attorney-General whether the new building at Main and Cordova will be used for the new crime unit? Or will it in fact be used for the provincial courts as originally planned?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, again there's been a survey of court facilities in all of the municipalities and regions of the Province of British Columbia — in view of the provincial assumption of responsibility — including present court facilities, their future expansion, the possible dividing off of family and small claims courts from the criminal courts. That has happened also in the City of Vancouver.

But the recommendations have not come to me and I've made no decision at this time with respect to the Vancouver situation. The suitability or the unsuitability of that new building at 312, I think it is, or 322 Main Street: no decision has been made.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A supplemental to the question dealing with the court building in Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. The press reports today, Mr. Attorney-General, that people associated with the courts have been instructed to keep their mouths shut about this matter. Have such instructions been made from the Attorney-General's department?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, if they have been given — and they've not been given — they've been quite ineffectual. (Laughter.)

OCEAN FALLS NEWSPRINT FOR
VICTORIA AREA NEWSPAPERS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Could the Minister tell us whether or not any newsprint has been made available from the Ocean Falls operation for any Victoria area newspaper?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Minister then if the government still has a deal with the Gotzman Central National Organization to market newsprint for Ocean Falls on the world market?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Crown corporation has, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister first of all tell us whether there's a sliding scale of prices for that Crown corporation in that agreement, and whether or not the Minister would table that agreement in the House so all Members could look at it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid I don't have the details at hand, and I indicated on a previous occasion that the document was not available, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Could the Minister indicate whether it is a fact that the Ocean Falls output is designated virtually 100 per cent for the international market rather than reserving some of its production, as is usual, for the Canadian market?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is an agreement with respect to most of the production, which is for the world market. It was made at a time when the market was considerably different than it is today. But, as Members are no doubt aware, because of the precipitation and freezing and cold spring, production at Ocean Falls until this week has been on a one-machine or half-production basis. That has now changed so that, in fact, because of the hydro-electric problem and power problems — and energy problems generally — Ocean Falls has not been able to operate on a full production level for much of the early spring of this year.

MEETINGS OF POLICY COMMITTEE
TO COMBAT B.C. FLOOD THREAT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, on another subject, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In a news release dated April 8 of this year on the subject of a potential flood threat in several parts of central and southern British Columbia, the Minister indicated that a cabinet emergency policy committee has been formed. Would the Minister indicate to the House if the committee has had a meeting or any meetings thus far this month?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, the committee has met — the staff committee involving members of Water Resources, Department of Highways and the Provincial Secretary's emergency measures group. I've

[ Page 2403 ]

forgotten their name; they have been meeting constantly on a very frequent basis as well. I expect to take part in a meeting this Friday with municipal officials in the lower mainland in the Abbotsford area.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on the same. Recognizing the complex nature of the problem and the unpredictability of the weather, is the Minister assured that the province and local governments could handle more than one serious flooding problem in a given area within the next eight weeks?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I must say that all the preliminary things, particularly with respect to water-level controls — that is with dams and the like in the Nechako, Bridge River, the Columbia and elsewhere — steps have been taken several weeks ago to do the most we can. Similarly, there has been a gearing up and preparatory work with respect to funding for emergency activities.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the lack of long-range activity by the previous administration is causing some of the problems today.

AVAILABILITY OF LEASE AGREEMENTS
FOR GOVERNMENT-PURCHASED LANDS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Housing. Would the Minister advise when he plans having lease agreements ready for leased land which he has purchased in municipalities and is assisting them in getting ready for housing, so that those who are interested in this will know the terms of the lease, what the taxes are, what the lease payments are going to be, et cetera?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Very soon, Mr. Speaker. By that, without making commitment, I would hope within two weeks.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will you be forwarding these documents to the municipalities? Will you be advertising the terms in the paper so that people who are interested in this leased land will be able to make application, or how do you plan on handling it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, we'll make particular effort to notify the Village of Chetwynd and also to notify people in Williams Lake, where these will be the first to get off the ground.

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT
ON STRIKEBOUND AIRPORTS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Could he advise the House whether the government aircraft are using the Victoria and the Vancouver airports at the moment while the air firefighters are out on strike?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's my understanding that they're doing so within the fuel regulations of the Department of Transport federally.

MR. MORRISON: Could he advise the House what safety precautions are being taken at the airports and at the hangars in case of fire?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got the detailed information, but I presume that it is the same sort of precautions that are taken at places like McKenzie and other airfields where we land that don't normally have an on-site fire brigade.

COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION
FOR OLD-AGE PENSIONER DRIVERS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I have a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles requires that a person 70 years of age and older has a medical every two years; 80 years and older, a medical every year. I understand that the B.C. Medical Plan will not pay for this. What are you doing to relieve this hardship with the old-age pensioners?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm glad you brought it to my attention. I'll check and see, first of all, if what you've laid out is in fact the way it's done, and then I'll check into it.

SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR
MINCOME CHEQUES DISTRIBUTION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Human Resources what special arrangements are being made for the distribution of Mincome cheques during the postal strike?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): I think the Provincial Secretary has a statement to make, so I think it might be in order for him to answer that.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I was anticipating a question. Had not one arisen I was going to ask leave to make a statement at the close of question period.

Naturally the Legislature will be aware that the cabinet has been very concerned over the imminent strikes over the last while in the delivery service of

[ Page 2404 ]

important cheques. I want to announce that we have coordinated a contingency plan for the distribution of government cheques as a result of the problems caused by the postal strike.

The three Ministers concerned most directly are the Minister of Human Resources, the Minister of Transport and Communications and myself. Beginning today, Mr. Speaker, the handicapped, Mincome and social assistance cheques will be sorted by districts and municipal offices, and will be delivered by the provincial postal service by government transportation to the distribution points.

Local offices will be asked to arrange for places and times for the cheques to be picked up by the recipients and, where necessary, they will be delivered to the recipients. Advertising through radio and newspapers will also advise the public of these plans.

The very serious situation in Vancouver, because of the size of the problem, is being handled by the Vancouver office, who will have to distribute more than 40,000 cheques. Again, the priorities will be handicapped, Mincome and welfare recipients. The government is making every attempt to see that all the recipients of cheques issued by the provincial government have them delivered with the least amount of disruption to their daily living.

We have yet to hear from the federal government as to what their plans are for the distribution of old-age security and guaranteed income supplement cheques which would normally be due for delivery starting this Friday, April 26.

Similarly, the government is very concerned over the fact that the present arrangement federally for the issue of unemployment insurance cheques, which is distinctly a federal responsibility, has been limited to two days a week, Thursday and Friday, and we certainly would urge the federal government that this distribution programme be improved and put on a five-day basis.

The Workmen's Compensation Board: the Minister advised the cabinet this morning that the cheques are being distributed through the 12 British Columbia offices of the WCB. The recipients should phone the local offices and first have their claim number handy. In areas that are served by a WCB office, as reported in the paper this morning, government agents will be able to handle it.

We expect it to be a costly programme, even though it's a federal responsibility in terms of the dispute. We're unhappy that this has been the occasion. We know that there will have to be some real effort made by the government employees. The union is fully aware of this programme and is supporting it, as indeed are the postal workers, who don't wish to cause the kind of hardship for the people on fixed incomes and so on, and so forth.

We know that it's going to be a costly programme and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is making extra special arrangements for those people who will no doubt be applying for emergency assistance on the basis of need. That covers the situation to date, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in these deliberations in cabinet has any consideration been given to a permanent system whereby more responsibility can be placed on the recipient to pick up the cheque at a pre-arranged spot, rather than have everyone have their cheque mailed? There's nothing unusual about this since it's done in the United Kingdom; they have had a great deal of experience in distributing various kinds of cheques. It would be perhaps appropriate for the cabinet to tell us whether this kind of long-term planning is being considered.

HON. MR. HALL: I don't want to use the time-honoured phrase "I'll take that as notice" because that is an ongoing debate in the department. In terms of my own responsibility as Provincial Secretary, if you care to look at the estimates which we may get to later on this year, you will notice the incredible amount of money it now takes to mail stuff out from this department.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary: in the deliberations in planning the moves that you have made to have this mail moved have you had these actions sanctioned by the union involved?

HON. MR. HALL: We have been in discussion with our own people who have made sure that the normal arrangements between unions are observed. We are stating now in the House that this scheme has the approval of the people involved in the dispute.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have the people involved in the mail carriers union given this their sanction? Actually it's a strike-breaking tactic, if you want to get right down to basics.

HON. MR. HALL: Well, we could have a debate about that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplemental: in view of the government's recognition of the serious inconvenience and hardship that this strike is bringing to certain citizens has the government considered asking the postal workers to go back to work while their union resolves their problems with the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you talking about a responsibility outside of the realm of this government's jurisdiction?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This government has

[ Page 2405 ]

assumed a responsibility with respect to the delivery of mail, which is a federal responsibility. I think they would urge the postal workers to get back to work.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question exceeds the bounds of the rules. Does the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) have a question?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I have extended the time by three minutes in view of the long statement.

REQUEST FOR FUNDS
BY ROSS COMMITTEE

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Could the Minister advise whether the ROSS committee (Run Out Skagit Spoilers committee) requested the government for a grant for costs to assist them in making a presentation before the U.S. Federal Power Commission, and whether the government turned them down and on what grounds?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I must admit that I have read the newspaper accounts and I'm not aware of any recent requests by ROSS for funding. So it may have simply gone astray. But I'm not aware of any with respect to my office.

MR. GIBSON: Could the Minister perhaps take it as notice then, Mr. Speaker?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Sure.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

On vote 129: Minister's office, $78,724.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I really don't wish to delay the passage of the budget for the Department of Labour because it's a very vital department. However, there are a few things I would like to say about it before we push on if my colleagues can spend the time on it.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, last year we saw a considerable change in legislation affecting the Department of Labour. There were major changes in the industrial relations field in terms of the abolition of three former Acts and the development of the British Columbia Labour Code. Of course, under the Labour Code quite a new broad area of services is offered by the Department of Labour to the parties to collective bargaining. We have such provisions as you have become familiar with, I presume, as special officers who can be dispatched by the department to intervene in disputes that are tying up important industries in the province. For the record, I would like to note that there is quite an increased use of industrial inquiry commissions, which we have found have been very, very acceptable to trade unions in the province and to management groups.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that under the previous administration only two or three industrial inquiry commissions were used and something like a dozen or 14 have been used in the short time that this government has been in office. I just use that to show that apparently this device is becoming more acceptable and more popular as a method of solving strike situations in the province. We've had a pretty good degree of success from the use of industrial inquiry commissions.

I'd just like to comment that in addition to that we have provided under the new Labour Code that under the arbitration system the Department of Labour can provide financial assistance to an industry which agrees to designate a full-time arbitrator. It is my feeling, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very useful expenditure of funds by the Department of Labour because if an industry has a mutually acceptable arbitrator to which they can refer their grievances, then I think there is a much greater chance that grievances and problems on the job will be resolved within a framework that the grievance procedure was initially designed to take care of. With a full-time arbitrator I think it's money well spent by the department to ensure that the full financial cost of that type of thing does not fall solely on industry and on the trade union. I think this will, over the course of time, prove to be a very worthwhile investment from the Department of Labour's point of view in terms of stabilizing the economy of the province.

The much broadened mandate that the Department of Labour has, not only in terms of services to the field of industrial relations but also in terms of the designation of a new branch of the Department of Labour, namely the Manpower Development Branch, has of course called for quite a significant increase in the budget for the Department of Labour. We for the first time have a branch of the department which is responsible not only for training needs in the province, for pre-apprenticeship and tradesmen's qualification, apprenticeship training and so on, but an agency that is responsible for trying to develop a comprehensive and cohesive manpower strategy for this province. So we in co-operation, for instance, with the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, can project and monitor what the specialized skill requirements will be in the province in areas where we anticipate a good

[ Page 2406 ]

deal of development and also to coordinate and co-operate with industry and the trade-union movement in terms of identifying those areas in the province now where there is a gap or a shortage of skilled tradesmen.

I would just observe in this respect, Mr. Chairman, that in my view too often in the past the Province of British Columbia has relied on the influx or the infusion of workers from out of the province and, indeed, outside the country altogether to meet the specialized skills that are required by industry in this province. I think that that's a very serious mistake to go that route. Surely we should be addressing ourselves to developing the skills and the proficiencies of our own people in this province and ensuring that they are mobilized for the jobs that will become available before we consider the immigration of outside workers to this province and to this country. So I think that the work of the Manpower Development Branch is certainly going to be central and crucial to an organized economy, an active industrial province, which will ensure that we not only have industrial development but we have the trained staff to facilitate the development as it takes place.

In the area of industrial relations there's been an increase in the budget, as I've indicated. The Mediation Services Branch is one of the crucial branches of the Department of Labour. We have had to beef up that branch of the department to not only ensure that we have enough mediation officers to accommodate the disputes that crop up from time to time. I would observe, Mr. Chairman, that although the only really significant labour problems that seem to be apparent in the province today are federal ones, we don't want to become lethargic. We may have labour problems in the provincial jurisdiction at any time too, so we want to make sure that we have the mediation officers who can attend to the various steps of negotiations that are going on at any given point of time in the province.

In addition to that, we have found there has been a real need for up-to-date training of mediation officers. We're paying more attention to ensuring that these people can get the kind of training necessary to be conversant with the latest skills and techniques in mediating disputes. There are always changing trends and patterns, not only in the province but throughout Canada, throughout the Dominion and certainly in other nations which can be of benefit to us in terms of techniques we might utilize to bring parties together and prevent work stoppages. So, the Mediation Services Branch has been increased in number. We're looking forward to more effective training methods, certainly more liaison between mediation officers from this province and those in the federal service and other provincial jurisdictions too.

We cannot accomplish this type of thing, and I think it's an essential service, without the provision of more funds in terms of salaries and also in terms of travel expenses to meet the need of the conferences that will be held, usually by the federal government, from time to time.

I think the record of our mediation officers in disputes over the past year speaks well for the usefulness of that particular branch. I think most Members of this House have had occasion to view the effectiveness of some of our mediation officers at work.

I know that in the troublesome Victoria Press strike a number of the opposition Members and I believe one Member from this side of the House were concerned enough and co-operative enough to offer their assistance and meet with the parties, and, I believe, to discuss with the mediation officer, Mr. Clark Gilmore, the history of that dispute. I appreciate their efforts.

As they know, an industrial inquiry commission has now been appointed to investigate into that dispute when mediation failed. I hope as a result of the commission recommendations that a settlement will be forthcoming. We do have the assurance of the parties that recommendations flowing from the industrial inquiry commission will be seriously considered and that the union will put to a vote of its membership the recommendations that are made. So, really that's the only major dispute facing the province at the moment in the federal jurisdiction. I'm hopeful that a solution to that one will be found very shortly.

The industrial relations officers are another area that perhaps is not generally too well understood. Perhaps many Members of the House are not totally familiar with the work of industrial relations officers — the whole labour standards side of the Department of Labour. This involves our officers and investigators who are charged with the responsibility of doing the routine inspections in the plants and factories of this province to make sure that the statutory requirements to pay the minimum wage, to comply with the Hours of Work Act, overtime and so on are understood by the parties, also enforced. Of course, with the ever increasing industrial development of this province, it's necessary to secure more people just to keep pace.

In addition to that I think it's fair to say in that area also we are trying to do a little more than simply police the regulations. It's been my experience, certainly, that many employers, indeed many working men, were not knowledgeable, were not familiar with the legislation which did exist on the statute books to regulate their relationship in the absence of a trade union organization. So, we hope to ensure that we have adequate industrial relations officers perhaps to play an educational role, to make the employers, particularly new employers, aware of

[ Page 2407 ]

what their obligations are under the various statutes of the province. This, hopefully, will make for more responsible employers, better informed workers and, hopefully, less prosecutions.

As a matter of interest, I point out that our industrial relations officers in 1973 made 48,893 calls in investigations in connection with unpaid wages, holiday pay, statutory holiday pay and so on. So you can see that the demands on this branch of the department are increasing in a very rapid way.

Again, it's necessary to, I suspect, constantly increase the budget for that type of service which grows with the economy of the province. I think it's important rather than just taking the policing approach to it, the rather punitive approach, that we try to get across to the people involved the importance of understanding their obligations so they can, in fact, comply with them and minimize the chance of prosecutions under the various statutes.

Again the factory division of the Department of Labour is increasing in much the same way. This is the branch responsible for the health and sanitary conditions that exist in the factories and plants in the province, and it's tremendously important, of course, to the health of the working people of the province. Here again, we must ensure that we have adequate people to do the kind of job that's necessary and again concentrate as much as possible on an educational approach which will make people aware of what their obligations are.

We are short-staffed in terms of qualified factory inspectors. The record shows that currently the branch is only able to inspect approximately 7 per cent of the total number of industrial-commercial establishments in the province. There is provision in the budget this year to significantly increase the factory inspection branch so we can keep pace with the inspection and educational services which they provide.

I'm just going to briefly highlight some of the changes that are taking place in the department, not only in terms of administrative structure but also in concept — the type of department we want to develop and the kind of services we want to give. I'll just briefly mention some of the different branches and the changes that are taking place rather than go into any great detail on the specific tasks before them because under the vote of the department, Members of the opposition will have an opportunity to question each particular section of the department. Rather, I just want to give you an overview, if possible, of the changes and the approaches taking place under the department.

I believe I mentioned last year, Mr. Chairman, that the Elevator Branch of the Department of Labour has been critically short-staffed. On assuming office, we found a backlog of over 1,800 inspections that had not been conducted in the province. I found this particularly alarming in view of the fact that we're dealing here with the public's safety.

As Members are aware, we not only do the provincial inspections but we also have a contract with the federal government to do the federal elevator inspections in the province. I just don't think we can tolerate that kind of marginal approach to something that is a very, very crucial requirement from the public safety standpoint. Again, we've had to increase the budget to train and secure the kind of inspectors we need to perform this important function.

I've dealt with the manpower area and most branches of the department. Another important programme we have, which I will be able to deal with under a bill that's before the House, is the student summer employment programme, so I'll wait for that occasion to comment on the student summer employment programme. I'm sure many of the opposition people are interested in the new thrust the Department of Labour is taking in that respect.

The other area of the department which I have not mentioned at the moment...and I'm sure you're all familiar with the important changes that have taken place in the Human Rights Branch of the Department of Labour. A bill was introduced last year, and I think that bill has been hailed by most people interested in human rights in the province as a very, very long step in the efforts of the government to ensure that people do in fact have equal opportunity in this province.

Now the total bill is not proclaimed as yet because we're in the process of gearing our administrative structure to a point where we can in fact accommodate the kind of changes and the kind of inspection and education that's necessary in the human rights area to ensure that this legislation is not just something that obtains in Victoria or Vancouver but has equal application throughout every corner of this province and to every group in this province, whether they be native Indians or women in the workplace or whatever.

To do this, of course, we have provided for boards of inquiry which will have the power and the teeth to deal with blatant acts of discrimination where they take place. Nevertheless it's necessary to find the right kind of people and set up the necessary agencies to do this job. We are in the process of doing that now and we certainly hope that in the very near future — I frankly hope within the next month or so — we'll be in a position to bring in the rest of the Human Rights Act and give final effect to it.

Now, before I sit down and turn over the floor for brief comments to the opposition people, I would like to announce to the House, Mr. Chairman, that the industrial inquiry commission that was set up some time ago to deal with the registered nurses' dispute in the hospital industry in the province has

[ Page 2408 ]

been concluded. I have just had the report delivered to me. We have a settlement and I'm pleased to announce that the parties co-operated with the industrial inquiry commission and I understand that the settlement was voluntary.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: In any event, the main points in dispute, as I understand it, were voluntarily agreed to. There may well have been some peripheral issues which the commissioner handed down a binding decision on.

I'd just like to once again point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is a real credit to the unions involved and to the industry involved, because it was a very, very difficult dispute — tremendously emotional and complicated issues were at stake in that dispute. We often get into this whole debate on public interest disputes, but I have held from the outset of that debate that people should be granted equal rights. There should be no second-class trade unionists, any more than there should be any second-class citizens in the province.

I think this is a real affirmation of a public interest dispute being solved through the collective bargaining system where the people who were granted the responsibility proved up and showed that they justified every measure of responsibility that we vested in them. I think it's a real triumph for the collective bargaining system. Lord knows, it has enough detractors. I think we can all offer criticism. I'm not suggesting that it's sacrosanct or anything like that, but on the other hand we hear much too frequently the bad news and I think it behoves us all to show some interest and at least acknowledge those that demonstrate real responsibility in the industrial relations world.

So thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll look forward to a few opposition questions.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I appreciate the Minister's opening remarks that he is in a hurry, but I want to say a few things here, Mr. Chairman, and I'll proceed to do so. First of all, on behalf of our party, we are certainly happy to be back here from the rugby recess. We're quite amazed at the empty seats over there, but no doubt in the next week or two they'll start filling up.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Look behind you, Alex.

MR. FRASER: Oh, all 10 were here at two o'clock.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yes, the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), but anyway we'll get off that subject now.

I'd just like to say to start with that the Minister of Labour seems to have done a fairly good job in the portfolio up till now. As a matter of fact I think he's done a better job in that than he has as MLA for Revelstoke-Slocan. According to the local paper the Revelstoke Chamber of Commerce are after him for not representing them properly and...

HON. MR. KING: They sent me a letter of apology.

MR. FRASER: ...you also have to look after your riding. The budget certainly is up in the Department of Labour and needs some looking at. It's up from some $8 million-odd last year to $14.5 million this year. I don't think we in the opposition have anything to criticize about that because labour is getting more technical all the time, and certainly we need more staff to keep up with the ever-changing scene.

We are happy to hear that there is a settlement in the nurses' situation and I imagine the Minister will give the press details on the fact that there will be no stoppage there in that vital field.

I would say this year is certainly going to be the big year as far as labour negotiations in the Province of British Columbia are concerned. There are over 400 major contracts expiring in the province this year covering approximately 185,000 employees. Over 50 per cent of the union membership in the province is affected, and this union membership affects 18 to 19 per cent of the labour force of the province.

The labour contracts expiring are in several fields but particularly in the forestry, construction and hospitality divisions. As you well know, Mr. Chairman, forestry is the largest industry we have in the province and any work stoppage there is certainly fatal to the general economy of the province. The construction contracts are up and the hospitality division's contracts are up. Other contracts that are involved are B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries, the newspapers which the Minister referred to, and shipyard agreements. These are just some of the contracts that are coming up this year.

I'd like to just read a few of the contracts that are up for expiry this year and the dates they are up. We have quite a few that have already gone past the date of expiry. The B.C. Ferries contract expired March 31; the construction labour relations contract, which comprises 25,000-odd union people, expires shortly on April 30; we have pipeline construction contracts expiring on April 30 with 625 employees affected; and there are several small contracts, until we get down to probably one of the largest, the forest industrial relations contract which expires on the coast on June 14 and represents 29,000, almost

[ Page 2409 ]

30,000, workers.

A large contract at Cominco expires on June 30 where 3,600 workers are involved. In the Interior Forest Products, a contract expires on June 30 affecting 5,000 workers in the forest industry. Then again, on August 31 we have a contract expiring with 1,200 further forestry workers in the North Cariboo Forest Labour Relations Association. The Northwood Timber contract, again in the forest industry, expires on August 31, affecting 750 workers, and so on down the line.

It certainly means that this is a very big year in British Columbia so far as labour is concerned. We're just really getting into that now in the province. It's certainly going to be the biggest year we've seen for some time for contracts to be renegotiated. As I said earlier, the forest economy, being SO per cent of our economy — at least, everybody says so — is very directly affected. In turn, if anything happens there it will affect practically every citizen in the province.

I would like just for the information of the House to read out of information that I found in the Labour department on unions in British Columbia that have a membership greater than 5,000. This is in the year 1973. The International Woodworkers of America had a membership in 1973 of 44,500 people. These are the major unions that I'll be speaking of here. The British Columbia Teachers' Federation had 22,000 members; the British Columbia Government Employees' Union had 17,930; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers had 16,000; Canadian Union of Public Employees, 15,000 — and some of those are already having their difficulties.

Registered nurses, which the Minister has just announced as being settled — 14,400-odd; Public Service Alliance of Canada — 13,000; the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners — 13,000; the United Steel Workers of America — 12,300; Hospital Employees Union — 10,000; Labourers' International Union of North America — 9,400 members; International Union of Operating Engineers — 9,300; United Paper Workers' International Union — 9,000; Hotel and Restaurant Employees — 8,440, and a lot of those contracts are coming up this year; the Federation of Telephone Workers — 8,200, and I think this is another one that is coming up; the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers — 7,969; and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers — 7,465.

Just a couple, more here, Mr. Chairman: Retail Clerks' International Union — 6,000; United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union — 5,400; Pulp and Paperworkers of Canada — 5,223. These were unions with memberships greater than 5,000 during the year 1973.

British Columbia, as I understand, Mr. Chairman, is the most unionized province in Canada, with 42 per cent of the workers organized. The national average is around 33 per cent, This year, for the first time, other than so many contracts up for negotiation, and a crucial year, we also have the new provincial Labour Code which we will soon find out how it is going to operate and how it will stand up under the tests of this year. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that last fall when that passed into law, our party and most all parties agreed with the new Labour Code, and we certainly wish it well.

I would like to deal with the responsibility of the new Labour Relations Board. There are four key officers on this board: Mr. Jack Moore; Mr. Ed Peck; Mr. Weiler, the chairman; and Nancy Morrison. We would like to know, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, what kind of a contract these people have. I think it has been in the press, but the reason we are asking this is the performance of this government so far on some contracts they have had. I particularly refer to the contract ICBC had with Mr. Adams and the settlement he received when his services were dispensed with. Also, of course, the famous Mr. Bremer and his contract with the Department of Education and the settlement he received.

We would like to know the details. In other words, in these people's contracts, if they are no longer required, must you pay their contract and pay them a bonus — which has happened to the two people I mentioned — or is there another detail that the Minister has not mentioned in regard to these people on the Labour Relations Board? In other words, if you have to dispense with them, what is this going to cost the public of British Columbia?

Another thing I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, is how come there are no representatives from Canadian unions on the Labour Relations Board? Many charges have been made by union people and others that the Minister is biased against Canadian unions. It would appear that, as related to the appointments to the Labour", Relations Board, there must be some substance to this because nobody from the Canadian unions is on the Labour Relations Board. I understand they submitted names to go on, and I would like the Minister to reply why this didn't take place.

It would appear that the Minister is biased against Canadian unions. I would like to know why he favours American-based unions as against Canadian labour unions. You favour that way and other Ministers of this government say, "Yankee, go home with your capital. Yankee, go home; stay home." The tourists, the Minister of Highways.... And here we have the Minister of Labour apparently favouring American unionism here. I think the people of the province need some answers on that.

I would like to read something I have received from the place called Trail where there are problems with the Canadian workers, and questions that I

[ Page 2410 ]

believe have been put to the Minister. I don't know whether he has answered them or not, but I don't think he has. The questions ask: Why were workers at Trail, Kimberley and Salmo again denied a representative vote by the Labour Relations Board? For the second year in a row, these workers have organized an independent Canadian union and have been denied a vote by the Labour Relations Board. Somehow the Labour Relations Board keeps finding reasons why these workers should not be allowed to vote on what union they want to represent them.

Why did the Labour Relations Board include an additional 300 persons as part of the bargaining unit that are not part of the current contract? The Canadian union has a good majority signed up but the Labour Relations Board has included 300 persons as part of the bargaining unit. They are not part of the current contract. This addition means they don't have 50 per cent signed up.

Why can't the Canadian union have access to the records? The Labour Relations decision is wordy but vague, rejecting the application simply because there wasn't a majority signed up. The union should have access to the company's statement of the number of people under the contract. This is the information the Labour Relations Board based its decision on and should be available to all parties.

Why wasn't the numerical date on the bargaining unit available to the union during the sign-up period? No one is required to release figures on the number of employees in the bargaining unit prior to the vote being taken. Why can't that number be set during the sign-up period so the applicant union knows what to aim for? This would prevent the Labour Relations Board from pulling stunts like adding extra persons to the bargaining unit not covered by the current contract.

Why do you need a lawyer to figure these things out, to interpret the decisions of the Labour Relations Board, to understand the Labour Code? Any working person should be able to read the Code and understand what has to be done to form a union, bargain collectively, et cetera. The Labour Relations decision should be written in plain language that anyone can understand. Perhaps these things are not meant to be understood by those they apply to.

Why was no representative of an independent Canadian union appointed to the Labour Relations Board? I have mentioned that earlier.

These independent Canadian unions are democratic and often militant unions run by the workers themselves, not labour bureaucrats. Were they ignored because they might ask embarrassing questions of the government?

By your actions, Mr. Minister, you have made it clear that the B.C. government is on the side of the U.S. unions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Multi-national unions.

MR. FRASER: Over 5,000 Canadians have demanded an end to the B.C. government's collaboration with the U.S. unions. The Labour Relations Board's decisions must be reversed.

It ends by saying that a vote should be taken so that they can chose the union they desire.

I would like to read a letter that was written to the Minister, which is a bit alarming if you read the content of it. And I intend to read excerpts out of it, Mr. Chairman, a letter to the Minister written by the Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers (CAIMAW) about the publication of the decisions of the Labour Relations Board. There seems to be something wrong here in the way that they are actually announced.

This letter was written on March 26 to the Minister. It says:

"We are calling upon you" — the Minister — "to immediately appoint an independent authority to investigate the administration of the present Labour Relations Board.

"The organization of CAIMAW is deeply disturbed at the treatment we are receiving at the hands of the Board. I will list our concerns and give you an understanding of our grievances.

"On the Afternoon of March 21, 1974, the Labour Relations Board Deputy Registrar contacted our office and informed us that the Board had rejected CAIMAW's application bid for Western Canada Steel employees who are presently represented by the United Steelworkers of America.

"On March 22, 1974, a representation vote among 200 workers at Noranda Metal Industries, New Westminster, took place. The vote was between the United Steel Workers of America (bargaining agent at Noranda since 1958) and CAIMAW. CAIMAW won 104 votes to 84 for Steel.

"On March 21, 1974, late in the evening, the United Steel Workers of America issued a leaflet to the workers at Noranda Metal Industries. The following is quoted directly from the leaflet.

" '400 Western Canada Steel workers stay Steel. CAIMAW's application has failed because they couldn't sign up 50 per cent. 4,200 Cominco workers stay Steel. CAIMAW's application at Trail, Kimberley and Salmo failed because they couldn't sign up 50 per cent.'

"Only at 11 a.m., March 22, 1974, did the board's deputy registrar phone our office and inform us that CAIMAW's application bid for Cominco employees in Trail, Kimberley and

[ Page 2411 ]

Salmo had been rejected. He also notified us that a telegram would be following.

"According to The Vancouver Sun of March 23, Mr. Ron Bone, Registrar of the Labour Relations Board, said that the Cominco information was released only after 9:30 a.m., March 22, 1974, to both CAIMAW and the steel workers.

"Mr. Minister, the steel workers knew on March 21, 1974, about the CAIMAW application at Cominco being rejected. The board only gave out this information 11 a.m., March 22, 1974.

"Who released the information to the steel workers? We want to know, Mr. Minister.

"The registrar, Mr. Ron Bone, is directly responsible for the administration activities of the Labour Relations Board. We must conclude, therefore, that the control of releasing information from the board's offices is in the hands of Mr. Bone both directly and indirectly. This position is confirmed by Mr. Bone's statements to The Vancouver Sun on March 23, 1974.

"The registrar has obviously failed in his responsibility and he should be dismissed from the office of registrar."

They go on and ask the Minister to fill the office of the registrar with a civil servant as it was prior to the appointment of Mr. Bone. That's a good question. Mr. Bone was an appointee. Before, this office was held by a civil servant who should be unbiased in all ways. It's certainly questionable as to whether Mr. Bone is or not.

"We go further in questioning Mr. Bone's complete lack of sensitivity in releasing the information on Cominco and Western Canada Steel at a time when such information could be used in a way to influence the representation vote held on March 22 at Noranda Metal Industries. Surely if the actions of the registrar are to appear to be objective, impartial and fair, then information must be released in a way that workers, such as the Noranda employees, can exercise their franchise without being unruly and unfairly influenced. Again, we go to the steel worker representative in The Vancouver Sun of March 23. We were desperately hoping for the information to come out before the vote at Noranda.

"The steel workers succeeded. They got their information."

It would appear there is justification for criticizing the activities of the Labour Relations Board.

"We are more than ever convinced that unnecessary and undue delay takes place in issuing decisions favourable to CAIMAW. The reverse is true when the decision is not favourable to CAIMAW. We can supply you with more detailed information, if necessary.

"We put before you some examples.

"On January 11, 1974, CAIMAW applied for certification for 110 Shell Canada Ltd. employees. The vote took place on March 15 and 16. CAIMAW got a clear majority. At this time, March 26, we have not," — I repeat Mr. Chairman, they have not — "received notification from the board of certification."

So that seems to justify what they say. When the decision is against them, they certainly get it in a hurry. When it's for them, they don't seem to get notification very speedily.

"On March 16, 17 and 18, your investigating officer checked the records for 3,600 workers on our Cominco application. The board issued that decision to CAIMAW on March 22, 1974. Why the haste?

"We won a representative vote by 60 per cent on March 22 at Noranda Metal Industries against the steel workers. March 25 we are told there is to be a hearing to decide who won the vote.

"On November 14, 1973, CAIMAW won certification for 15 mechanics at Arrow Transfer in North Vancouver. Previously, the certification was held by the machinists union since 1961. The Labour Relations Board took the certification away from CAIMAW on March 8, 1974, and gave it over to the Canada federal labour board's jurisdiction. At the time the board was giving jurisdiction away to the federal body, the Minister of Labour of B.C. was asking the federal Minister to bring fishermen under provincial jurisdiction.

"Is it any wonder that the board's credibility is in doubt? We find it difficult to accept that a board dominated by representatives from the American-based unions can mete out justice to independent Canadian unionists.

"Yes, we could accept the board's decision on Cominco and Western Canada Steel if the board had credibility in our eyes. But we cannot accept the haste with which these decisions were issued. That's the question to be answered by the registrar.

"A board which appeared to act fairly and issued decisions with some consistency and was truly representative of all segments of the labour movement would get our support.

"We sincerely and earnestly trust you will give the matters raised in this correspondence great consideration and then act as we request so that justice to Canadian labour will not only be done but seem to be done."

That was a letter, as I said, written to the Minister on March 26 by the Canadian Association of

[ Page 2412 ]

Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers which seems to further justify the fact that there seems to be favoritism of American-based unions against Canadian unions. I would like again to ask why, Mr. Chairman.

Just another thing. I'm sorry the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) is not in his seat because this certainly affects his riding. I want to read a telegram addressed to the Premier of the province, dated March 25, before he left us for his rugby holiday. He no doubt received it before he left. It was sent to the Premier of the province by Mr. Roger Crowther of Ashcroft, B.C. on the subject of Canadian unions. This is what he had to say:

JUST RESIGNED AS MEMBERSHIP CHAIRMAN FOR YALE-LILLOOET NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAUSE FOR SECOND YEAR COMINCO WORKERS DENIED RIGHT TO VOTE FOR UNION OF THEIR CHOICE. SUGGEST YOU KICK THE CRAP OUT OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD.

THIS IS NO CHICKEN AND EGG MATTER BUT A SABOTAGE OF WORKERS CHOICE TO STAY STEEL OR GO CAIMAW.

STEEL'S AL KING SAID LAST WEEK THAT TO GIVE CAIMAW A VOTE AT WESTERN CANADA STEEL WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF DEMOCRACY. SINCE WHEN HAS A VOTE BEEN DETRIMENTAL TO DEMOCRACY? BILL KING'S APPOINTMENTS TO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD MAKE ME THINK THAT HE SHARES HIS BROTHER'S VIEWPOINT.

BOARD REGISTRAR RON BONE OF OTEU OF AMERICA HAS TWICE RELEASED PRIOR INFORMATION TO INTERNATIONALS AND PRESS IN THE CASE OF CUTE APPLICATION IN JANUARY AND CAIMAW APPLICATION LAST WEEK. REPLACE BONE WITH CIVIL SERVANT WITH NO BUSINESS OR UNION VESTED INTEREST.

INTERNATIONAL UNION MONEY TAKEN FROM WORKERS AGAINST THEIR WILL TO SUPPORT YOUR CAMPAIGN DID NOT ELECT YOU. WORKERS' BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS FOR 40 YEARS DID. REMEMBER FAIR IS FAIR. WE ARE THE BOSS. GIVE COMINCO WORKERS A VOTE OR ELSE WE SAY FUDDLE-DUDDLE DAVE NEXT ELECTION.

That wire was sent to the Premier of the province by Mr. Crowther of Ashcroft. It didn't go to the Minister of Labour, admittedly, but no doubt he knows something about it.

I would like to say to the Minister on Canadian unions that the funds derived from their membership stay in Canada. I recall — in fact we still hear it — that the government you're a member of believes in the funds staying in Canada, particularly as applied to Icky-Bicky...pardon me, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. One of your long suits in selling Autoplan was the fact that all this money would stay in Canada.

You seem to reverse yourself when you come around to unionism; you cater to the American-based unions. It's certainly also in reverse of other things that you have said. We can't understand why you're so biased against the unions involved. I think there's some hypocrisy being practised here; and it certainly should be discussed at greater length in this House as to just how far he's going to take this biased policy.

I would like to mention a couple of cases of organizing unorganized workers. I don't know whether the Minister's aware of them or not; he possibly isn't. I'm particularly thinking of a firm, a sawmill, in Vanderhoof and another sawmill at 100 Mile House. They had, we'll say, in each case around 100 employees in each mill — a minimum of 100; I think one has more than that.

The organizers went in to organize these unorganized operations. I certainly haven't got it in writing, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, but I wonder just what these men are being told. The men have told me that when the organizers go in, they are telling the men that they're in favour of a union and the men are in favour of organizing. But before anything actually happens, they're certified and the union tells them that they will get a vote. Well, we know that this doesn't happen, if more than 50 per cent are signed up, and of course they proceed and they grant certification., It seems to me that possibly the workers are at fault for not knowing the labour Act. But it is causing a lot of difficulty in the operations. Of course, they go ahead for certification. In one case — and I think soon in the second one — we're going to see a shutdown of operations. I don't think that the Department of Labour want to see this happen. But now that they have granted certification, the men involved in the units do not intend to take any part in the unit. It is going to end up with the men out of work and these mills down. I would like to hear the Minister comment on that because this is a rather serious deal.

I think that another thing said at the time when an individual is approached is that he's one of the last few to sign, and to be on the bandwagon he should join up. The other inducement apparently is given regarding union dues. If they sign now, they will have a bargain rate, and if they wait until next week, why, there will be a different rate.

I think there's something here that possibly the Minister could comment on, but I haven't mentioned the company names. No doubt the Minister's aware of the cases that I mention. I'm not making any charges; I'm just stating facts regarding these operations. I think there is trouble ahead inasmuch as there are going to be some people out of work over the...misunderstanding is probably a better way to

[ Page 2413 ]

put it.

As far as we're concerned, as I said earlier, our party supported the Labour Code in the fall session. We hope that there is labour harmony in the province this year and that the province will continue on as it has done and that there will be no work stoppages, which cost all the citizens of our province a lot of inconvenience and, of course, money as well.

Another subject, Mr. Chairman, that I deal with only slightly is the Christian conscience clause in the Labour Code, where the Labour Code allows a man not to belong to a union, but he must pay union dues. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, we're wondering why those dues can't be channeled to a charitable organization as so many citizens seem to want to have done. As a matter of fact, I've had considerable correspondence on that. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that.

Mr. Chairman, so they can't say that we held up his vote too long, I'd just like to summarize a bit for the Minister and say that we would like to know the tenure of the Labour Relations Board members. If they're dismissed, as has happened in the case of Mr. Adams from Icky-Bicky and Mr. Bremer from Education, is there a premium paid, and so on and so forth, like there was to the Members; and, if so, how much?

We'd also like to know, Mr. Chairman, why no Canadian union representative is on the Labour Relations Board. As I said, it would appear from these actions that the Minister is biased against Canadian unions, and I would like to hear his remarks about that. As I mentioned earlier, these people asked and submitted names to stand for the board, but apparently they weren't even considered.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): They're pro-Yankee.

MR. FRASER: It would appear that.... Yes, they're pro-Yankee. As I said, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) says, "Yankee, go home." So you over there are very inconsistent from one branch of government to the other.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's got a forked tongue.

MR. FRASER: It seems that you have several standards.

What's the situation at Trail? We'd like to know what the situation is there and the Canadian union involvement. The other thing we'd like to know is why the registrar of the Labour Relations Board is not a civil servant. Furthermore, as I indicated here in my talk, he seems to be — his office anyway — giving decisions out, information . out, again showing favoritism to the international unions.

Well, this case that I mentioned: the one union got the information on March 21; the other one got it on March 22. That is really hardly fair, Mr. Chairman. Then there's the Christian conscience clause — and I believe that there's a motion on the order paper about that. But we'd just like to have a few answers from the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Hoffa will get you.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I feel that it might be advisable if I respond to the Member for Cariboo at this point while the comments he made are fresh in my mind.

In the first instance, he suggested, in light of all the contracts that will be up for renegotiation this year and the large number of working people who are represented in those contracts, that the new Labour Code is on trial. I would like to correct the Member on that premise, Mr. Chairman.

The new Labour Code has really very little to do with the normal collective bargaining system under the new Labour Code as most other jurisdictions have. So there's nothing there that's significant in terms of new provisions for collective bargaining.

What we have under the new code, I hope, and under the new administration, is perhaps a different attitude in terms of aids and services that the department might give. But in terms of legislation, the structure is still essentially the same for the purpose of collective bargaining. So I don't think you should view it as the Labour Code being on trial in terms of the bargaining that goes on this year.

I think it's fair to say that a test of the Labour Code will be a couple of years to monitor the whole climate of industrial relations in the province with respect to trade union certifications, the growth of the labour movement and, hopefully, an impact on the high incidence of wildcat strikes that developed under the tenure of my predecessor. So I think that's a fair test for the Labour Code.

The Member is curious about the contract provisions of the Labour Relations Board members. I would just point out that they do have five-year tenure contracts. This is deemed to be essential, and this was discussed under the debate on the Labour Code: that it's essential for the independence of the Labour Relations Board that they have some security of tenure. I think it's a concept which most people in this House respect: that the board is in fact independent from government and must be so, because of its adjudicative responsibilities.

Now with respect to any damages that may accrue, that's a hypothetical situation. I have no way of anticipating what damage actions could possible accrue from the termination of any contract. That would be a matter for the legal circumstances involved, I presume, in the particular case. So I'm not at liberty to speculate on what obligations the

[ Page 2414 ]

government might have if one of the people were terminated.

Quite frankly, in my view, the job that the Labour Relations Board has been doing is one which I'm very proud of, and I'm certainly not anticipating any termination of any member of the Labour Relations Board.

The Member for Cariboo dealt at some length with the union representatives who were appointed to the Labour Relations Board, and he decried the fact that no, what he called, Canadian trade union member was appointed to that board. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that Member should do his homework, because he's obviously getting his facts from someone who does not know the situation over there.

We have one member who was appointed to the Labour Relations Board, representing the public service area, who happens to belong to the largest Canadian trade union in this nation, and that is Mr. Kramer of CUPE. Now that is an independent Canadian trade union; so I just don't know what the Member is talking about. Further to that, if he wants to get mixed up in the politics of trade unions, well, be my guest. But I certainly have no interest in that whatsoever.

I believe that we should leave to the trade union people the freedom of choice, the right to select and vote for the union which the majority supports. I have no intention of getting into a highly political debate, in my view, on the question of which trade union a group of workers may want to have represent them.

Now the other point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I did not make appointments to the Labour Relations Board on the basis of what union the individual happened to belong to, or what management group or what firm the management representative happened to belong to. Rather, I made it on the basis of the key industries of this province, to make sure that the basic and crucial industries of this province were represented on that Labour Relations Board, because that's where the bulk of the action takes place. Obviously you need someone well-informed and experienced in those key, crucial industries to serve a useful role on the board.

So if the Member for Cariboo wants to get into a situation where he becomes an advocate for a particular trade union, well, be my guest. But, as I say, I don't think he's serving the interests of the working people of the province of British Columbia by taking that posture.

Quite frankly, I must go on to say that his questions on the Labour Relations Board functions to this point are very distressing to me. He has read letters which would seem to tarnish the credibility of the Labour Relations Board. He has not even bothered in some cases to quote the authority; and I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, for the record, that a number of letters went to the Labour Relations Board accusing various members of certain improprieties that proved to be the basis of libel actions. Perhaps that Member has just read one of those letters into the record of this House. I think that's grossly irresponsible.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: It certainly sounded like it. He didn't quote the authority. I ask him to table those documents so I can tell. I have no way of knowing. Certainly the language sounded very, very similar. In the case I'm referring to a letter of apology was sent to the member of the Labour Relations Board, who had been besmirched by that kind of charge, which proved to be completely unsubstantiated and unfounded.

I think that the Member, in all fairness, should table every document he referred to. Quite frankly, I don't know what kind of a speech he made beyond reading certain letters and the Labour department's research bulletin. If it hadn't have been for those documents, the Member wouldn't have had too much to say.

But this is a serious thing. The Labour Relations Board is independent and it must remain independent. By golly, I challenge that Member, or any other Member of the House, if you have information of impropriety of any member of that board, to come forward and place it with the House, or place it with my office, and we'll certainly take action. Now the one letter the Member read was from a Mr. Roger Crowther at Ashcroft.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: And a telegram, yes, and he quoted that. For the record, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to read my response to that telegram where Mr. Crowther made certain allegations. The letter reads:

"Dear Mr. Crowther:

"The Premier's office has referred a copy of your telegram of March 25 to this office for reply. I can only point out that the Labour Relations Board is a quasi judicial agency and completely independent from government. Were it not so, there might be some validity to a suggestion that political interference or preference could be exercised in any application before the board. The chairman of the board, Mr. Paul Weiler, is a law professor of some renowned standing in the Province of Ontario, and accordingly has no interest in the preference of choice of unions which B.C. workers might happen to prefer.

"Additionally, the members selected to serve on the Board are well-experienced individuals in

[ Page 2415 ]

terms of industrial relations and have my complete confidence in terms of their impartiality. There is absolutely no proof that the Labour Relations Board has either released information in a preferential way, or indeed undertaken any action which could give advantage to a union in British Columbia.

"Many unions, during the course of a raid situation, publish propaganda which would seem to benefit their case. The government or the Labour Relations Board can in no way control the claims which are made under these circumstances. Surely, on the basis of such propaganda leaflets, you would not want to presume guilt on anyone's behalf.

"If any firm evidence exists of improper conduct by any member of the Labour Relations Board, or indeed of any other branch of government, I would certainly urge you to bring it to my attention. In the absence of such evidence, however, I am not willing to condemn anyone."

And I thanked him for his views.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Minister, as well as other Members of the House, that if there are any comments which may be construed as charges of impropriety against any member of the Labour Relations Board, this would be out of order in debates on estimates. It should be rather the subject of a substantive motion. Rather, the matters which should be discussed are those which are clearly the responsibility of the Minister whose estimates we're considering.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, that Member was allowed to proceed to read documents which certainly imputed partiality and bias on the part of the Labour Relations Board and certainly on the part of my office. I resent that. It may be a kind of attractive political proposition to do that, but I think it's pretty irresponsible also. I think it's irresponsible without some firm evidence to back up that kind of charge. There just is no such existing evidence. If there is, I certainly defy any Member of this House to bring it forward.

[Mr. Liden in the chair]

Now one other question brought up was the Trail situation, the Labour Relations Board decision at Cominco. The Chairman's point is well taken; I am not responsible for each decision that that Labour Relations Board makes. Quite frankly, I find it somewhat ironic that particularly Members of the official opposition should question that kind of decision and say that the members of the union affected didn't know what the Labour Relations Board based the decision on, because for 20 years under the old board that you people administered there were no decisions written. The decision was completely arbitrary.

In this case, the Canadian workers got a written decision and they were notified in the Trail situation, which involved not only Cominco's plant in the City of Trail, but also Salmo and Kimberley — a unit which was designed under the former Labour Relations Board under your administration, Mr. Member — that despite the inclusion or the exclusion of part-time workers they still did not have the necessary majority to gain a representation vote. And that decision was sent out by the Labour Relations Board; they are quite aware of it. Under any criteria in terms of the unit, they did not have a majority.

Trade unions, you know, go out and they do their own political thing. If they lose a decision who do they attack? They attack the Labour Relations Board or me or someone else, and that's fair enough. But I think it's rather shocking and shameful for Members of this House to get into that kind of dispute when it is really a political issue between the trade unions themselves. There's absolutely no justification for the kind of imputations that were made by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). I don't think that that's going to do a great deal to contribute to industrial peace in this province. I don't think that's going to do a great deal to modify attitudes and dampen hostilities. That's not the kind of speech I like to hear in here at all.

As for the question of the employment of the registrar of the Labour Relations Board, he was not employed by my office. He was hired by the administration of the Labour Relations Board. And he is a civil servant, in effect, to the Labour Relations Board.

Now, the fact that he has a trade union background certainly is no aspersion as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Chairman, I am not ashamed of my own background, and I'm not about to accept a premise that anyone with a trade union background is okay if he happens to belong to a Canadian union but is somehow untrustworthy if he happens to come from an international.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You come from a lame duck party.

HON. MR. KING: I've been listening to the quackery from Golden for years, Mr. Chairman. I don't know where the ducks are existing. Quite frankly, this is kind of an inane debate, and I don't want to dwell on it too long except to say that I appeal to the opposition Members that if you want to hammer me for something in the Department of Labour's approach to industrial relations, be my

[ Page 2416 ]

guest. But I don't think you should do or say anything without some pretty hard evidence which would serve to tarnish or impair the credibility of an independent judicial agency or quasi judicial agency in this province, It's tantamount to attacking the courts, and I think it's irresponsible.

MR. CHABOT: Labour courts.

HON. MR. KING: It's not a labour court, but I suggest to you that the principle of independence is very, very similar. It's not the adjudicative responsibilities of the agency; rather it's the independence. That's the principle that you are jeopardizing and I think that's wrong.

He went on, Mr. Chairman, to talk about the steel propaganda bulletin that was put out which indicated to certain people that the information had been released ahead of time to one party and not the other. That is just not true. That was simply a presumption by the steel union that they were going to win the situation in Trail. They went ahead and they put out a bulletin, apparently, indicating that they were going to win or that they had won. They did not do that on the basis of any advice or any information that they received from the board.

There's no way we can control that kind of situation. All unions are guilty of it — not just steel. So I don't think that's very significant.

The other question that he raised regarding another letter he quoted from was on a vote which the Canadian union won. I believe it was Noranda. The Canadian union won the certification vote. Now if the board is all that biased and if I am all that biased against any union in this province, how come these people are winning certifications? The facts are that provided it qualifies and meets the regulations of a bona fide trade union under the Act, I am not interested in which union the working people of this province select to represent their needs and their aspirations.

I think the working people in that respect would do much better if the politicians stayed right out of the whole question and left that up to the intellect and to the interest of the working people of the province.

I think there's two other questions the Member asked that I did want to respond to. He asked regarding new certification applications at certain mills up in Vanderhoof, I believe. Apparently some members were upset because the board had not conducted a vote after a certification application was made.

I would just point out to the Member that in that kind of situation if a majority of people sign up application cards to the union and that application is not contested either by management or by another union interested, then in effect a majority of membership cards delivered to the board is a referendum application. It's a referendum vote of the membership. A majority consensus is being provided indicating they wish to be represented by that union. So obviously it would be duplication and completely unnecessary in my view to conduct a formal vote under the auspices of the Labour Relations Board in every situation such as that. So really it's up to the members — if they do not want to support the union then obviously they have the choice of refraining from joining it.

The Christian conscience clause I think was the last point mentioned by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that we had a very comprehensive debate on that question of the Christian conscience clause when the Labour Code was introduced last year. I made my position very clear, and it hasn't changed. I certainly feel that anyone who benefits from a collective agreement negotiated by a trade union has an obligation to pay his fair share of the costs of administering the union involved and so on. We have provided that they are free from a mandatory requirement to join if they oppose on a truly religious principle, but in my view they should not be relieved of their obligation to assist in the financial cost which benefits all the workers involved in that unit. So that's my view, Mr. Chairman. The situation hasn't changed as far as I'm concerned.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, it's nice to be back from the rugby recess. I don't know how many of us got in shape during the particular week, but the news we get from Japan isn't all that rosy as far as the industrial future of the province is concerned. I suppose that bears on the Minister of Labour's remarks.

I enjoyed what the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) said this afternoon. I thought he made some excellent points about Canadian unions. I was surprised not to hear from "Jobs," the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot). I guess he got fired from his post as the shadow Minister of Labour.

Mr. Chairman, that may have had something to do with the policies that he followed as Minister of Labour, which as far as international unions are concerned were remarkably similar to the policies that the present Minister of Labour is following. Quite frankly, they're anti-Canadian unions. I make that accusation forthrightly and directly. I said so about the former Social Credit administration and I say so about this one.

In fact, I feel that the present administration is in bed with the American labour movement. I say "American labour movement" because an international union is controlled and directed from the United States — every single one of them. Nothing on this earth will shake control of those

[ Page 2417 ]

so-called international unions from Washington. It's a problem we face in British Columbia that I brought up again and again in this House. The decisions of the Labour Relations Board this year are one more example. There is no question that the people of Trail who worked for Cominco and the others in that unit were denied democracy by the members of the Labour Relations Board. Frankly I think the whole works should be dismissed — every last one of them. They are a pro-American union and that isn't good enough for British Columbia today.

The decision of that Labour Relations Board, which I claim is biased in favour of American unions and biased against Canadian unions, was apparently transmitted to the steelworkers in advance of a vote taken in a lower mainland jurisdictional dispute. I'm happy to say that CAIMAW won that. Despite what the Minister of Labour says, information was leaked to the members of that international union....

HON. MR. KING: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this charge was made. I have read material on it. I have indicated that an investigation was made and there is no basis for that kind of charge. I suggest that Member should withdraw that allegation unless he is prepared to table documentary evidence. I think that's an irresponsible position to take.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. I think you should submit documentary information....

MR. McGEER: ...I just state the position that the people in United States Steel...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you prepared to withdraw?

MR.McGEER: ...were able to bring out a leaflet. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw they had it directly, I'll say those people had ESP.

There's no doubt as to what should have been in Trail; there should have been a democratic vote of all the people involved. Only when such a democratic vote is taken can the Minister of Labour stand up in this House and say that people have been fairly dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. McGEER: For several years now this business of Canadian unions being thwarted by actions of the government and the Labour Relations Board has been going on. There's no question that the American union movement has found it very profitable indeed to have a Canadian satellite. Something like 89 per cent of all Canadian workers are forced to belong to these American unions. It's been estimated that in the past nine years $100 million of Canadian workers' money has left this country for the benefit of this so-called international union movement.

I brought in legislation in this House, Mr. Chairman, saying that there should be, by law, a representative of one Canadian union on that Labour Relations Board. Is that so out-of-line, Mr. Chairman? — one Canadian union member against all those American union members. One Canadian union member to protect the rights of Canadian workers to be Canadian if they choose. One Canadian union member to say that when there's some doubt, as there was in this Cominco situation, there should be a democratic vote instead of a slick ruling that this particular Canadian challenger, CAIMAW, hadn't managed to sign up 50 per cent of the workers in that union.

The Labour Relations Board refused to divulge how many there were in that bargaining unit, and therefore how many CAIMAW they had to have signed up. They kept that information secret and then brought that out as a reason for not giving certification to the union. They didn't have any reason at all for not asking for a democratic vote.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Labour left at this time. I know he finds it uncomfortable in this Legislative Assembly. He finds it uncomfortable because he and his government have been protecting the American union movement for years.

Mr. Chairman, I think stiff action needs to be taken. I noticed just the other day that the union Pat O'Neill heads had voted in favour of becoming a 100 per cent Canadian union. I applaud them for that because now the union leaders are beginning to act in a way that the union men want.

Our problem is that there are too many people in politics on labour relations boards in positions of influence in the union movement who have the vested interest in maintaining ties with these American unions. It's standing in the way of what the workers of British Columbia and other parts of Canada want.

We are elected by the people; we are elected by rank and file union members as well as others. It's time this Legislative Assembly began to act in accord with the wishes of those who elect us. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, what those people want and expect us to do is to foster the development of Canadian unions for Canada.

No other country in the world is dominated the way Canada is by unions of a foreign country. No other country in the world finds itself in the position that Canada finds itself in. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is, that good enough? Is it good enough when we know

[ Page 2418 ]

perfectly well that the average Canadian worker wishes to be removed from this vice? It can only be done by forthright action on the part of legislative assemblies like this one and by the federal government of Canada.

I say, it's high time we began to act, not just by administrative decisions, but by the kind of legislative actions that will give Canadian unions an even break. That's all they need, an even break. Because with the desire of the workers to have their union dues which are raised in Canada remain in Canada, to have the regulations and the contracts made to suit Canadian positions and not those of a foreign country, you will begin to see the rise of Canadian unions as they should rise in this country.

What are some of these things, Mr. Chairman? First of all, a fairly simple one: namely, a representative of Canadian unions on the Labour Relations Board. Secondly, a decision, whenever there is doubt, not to use technicalities to thwart the Canadian union movement, which the Labour Relations Board is doing now, but to have a proper democratic vote in every instance, and know that if the American union is to be continued it is being continued because of a vote of every single member of that bargaining unit.

Thirdly, the passing of laws in this country that would outlaw such things as the "sweetheart agreement" which made it impossible for a member of a Canadian union to work on any major construction site in British Columbia for years and years. Mr. Chairman, who benefited from that? In those days when Social Credit permitted that kind of a "sweetheart contract" to survive and flourish in British Columbia, Senator Ed Lawson gained from that with his International Teamsters. And I'll bet that the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) wishes now that he'd brought in the kind of legislation I asked for when he was Minister of Labour, outlawing those kinds of "sweetheart contracts." I'll bet he wishes he'd done that now. It's never too late to repent, Mr. Chairman, never too late.

No contract should be legal, signed anywhere in this country, that denies a member of a bona fide Canadian union from access to that job site — nowhere in Canada. Those kinds of discriminatory clauses exist today in this country. They should be outlawed, every one of them. No Canadian working man's union dues should travel across the border. They should stay in Canada for the benefit of the Canadian working man.

I don't know if the widely quoted estimate of $100 million of Canadian working men's dues going across the border in a period of nine years is correct or incorrect. It's a federal government figure and it's been widely quoted. But if it's 10 cents, it's too much. I think the Canadian union man who pays his dues because he has to in order to work should know that his money is staying in Canada to benefit the Canadian union movement. Again, Mr. Chairman, it's not too much to ask in this day and age.

Some of the Hon, Members think I'm making strong remarks today. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) thinks so; he's scribbling notes over there.

Mr. Chairman, I have made these speeches before many times. I will make them again.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Many times!

MR. McGEER: And I am disappointed there hasn't been more progress.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You could be wrong.

MR. McGEER: The Member for Kamloops is a member of an international union.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You'd better believe it!

MR. McGEER: You'd better believe it, he said, and thinks I might be wrong. I'm sure the Member for Kamloops doesn't agree with me and I think the Member for Vancouver South doesn't agree with me. I know the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) doesn't agree with me. But, Mr. Chairman, there were 7,000 union members who recently took a vote who agree. They were members of the pulp union.

Remember when Pat O'Neill was head of the B.C. Federation of Labour? He resigned that job and took, what was it? — a $35,000 job with the international pulp when the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada, a Canadian union, threatened.

MR. CHABOT: A horrible bribe!

MR. McGEER: The whole idea was to protect the American union movement in Canada. The Pulp and Paper Workers were a little too dangerous — a "Made in Canada" union. But even Pat O'Neill's union is now saying they want to be Canadian. I consider that progress, Mr. Chairman. Never too late to repent.

And that is why I have high hopes that over a period of time perhaps even the Minister of Labour will see the light the way Pat O'Neill did, the way the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) has, the way the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) has. It is clearly the wish of the Canadian working man. You don't have to look very hard to find out that basic fact.

That is what I am asking the Minister and the Members of his caucus to do. I am asking him, when he finds that out, to begin to take the kind of action only government can take to produce results on behalf of that Canadian working man.

[ Page 2419 ]

HON. MR. KING: That was a very interesting conclusion the Member espoused before he took his seat. On the one hand he congratulated Mr. Pat O'Neill and the United Paperworkers International Union for their recent move which was to sever their relationship with their international parent in the United States and form a totally independent Canadian union. And quite frankly, I have no argument with that whatsoever. That is a decision, as I can only reiterate, which the trade union people of this province should make.

On the one hand the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) recognized and congratulated that trade unionist and his union for taking that kind of action. Then he concluded with a plea for action which only the government could take to affect the balance of the Canadian trade union movement in this province.

How inconsistent can you be? On the one hand you recognize that an international union has, through their own structure apparently, the wherewithal to comply with their members' interest if indeed that interest is to form an independent Canadian union. You acknowledged and accepted that. Then what action are you suggesting the government should take? I reject the proposition, Mr. Chairman, that I as the Minister of Labour or any politician should become involved in campaigning for a union which the working people in this province might choose to represent them.

Indeed, the whole Member's speech was really a re-run of what he said last year in the debate on the Labour Code. He talked of discrimination against Canadian trade unionists. Well, perhaps it's timely that I should once again remind that Member that I oppose discrimination against the trade union movement, against the working people of this province, whether they belong to a trade union or not.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Certainly we have a conscience clause. Certainly we have. We have a conscience clause which allows people to opt out if they do not believe, on the basis of religious conscience, in belonging to a trade union. If you do not agree with that, that's fine; you and I have a philosophical difference. But I certainly support the legitimate attempts of working people to obtain representation in this province.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey does not speak from a very solid platform when it comes to his interest and his defence of working people in this province. If he wants to go over some of the history of the growth and evolution of the trade union movement in British Columbia, he will find people like an old-time mayor by the name of Gerry McGeer, I believe it was, who read the riot Act to the working people of this province on the court house steps for asserting their right to strike and the right to organize, I think it rings rather hollow when this Member gets up and gives an impassioned speech about the interests of working people. That is not consistent with the record of his family relationship in this province; it is not consistent with the position the federal government has taken.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Tell us about your brother.

HON. MR. KING: I am very proud of the relationship with my brother who is the representative of the steel workers' union. He is working for the trade unionists and the working people of this province. I am not a bit ashamed of that; I am very proud of it. In fact, I would suggest that individual has done far more for the working people than any politician from the Vancouver–Point Grey area of the Province of British Columbia.

But the other question is: what about the Liberal record? What about the record of the federal government in Ottawa? International relationships. Remember Hal Banks? They brought him in against the protestations of many eminent Canadian trade unionists and politicians. They brought him in to terrorize and gangsterize the working people in the Seafarers International Union. And, by golly, he went out with charges pending against him. There were no extradition proceedings ever taken against him to make him come back and face those criminal charges. The Liberals said they couldn't find him. But the newspaper people....

MR. McGEER: It was terrible.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: I am just reiterating a debate that went on last year. But I think that it is timely to remind everyone....

MR. McGEER: Point of order. The Labour Minister is absolutely correct; I completely agree with everything he said. If I were an NDP in Ottawa, I wouldn't support them another day, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. KING: I think that is pretty good advice. I want the people of British Columbia to take note of that: the former leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party does not believe the Liberal Party is worthy of support. I agree with him and I suggest that is not only the case in Ottawa; that is certainly the case in the Province of British Columbia

[ Page 2420 ]

too.

It is a pretty hollow display the Member puts on. It is a real mockery of concern for working people. His background and the record of his party does not lend itself to the kind of things he is saying.

The majority of his speech was dedicated to advocating what internal trade union policy should be. I am not prepared to argue that one bit. But I was there; I was an active trade unionist for many years in this province. No one had more criticisms of the trade union movement than I did at that time in many ways. But it was constructive criticism from within. I suggest that if that Member, the First fighting Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), wants to go on to give his counsel to the trade union movement, he is using the wrong forum. He should be speaking at the B.C. Federation of Labour convention, he should be challenging them to adopt and pursue the kind of policies he is advocating. He should be speaking to all the unions of this province. Really, what the Member is doing is advocating what is essentially internal trade union policy. Quite frankly, I don't think we should spend the time of the House discussing that kind of internal matter. But I certainly encourage that battling Member to go out there and spread the good word among the trade unions of this province. Certainly, I would be interested to see what kind of reaction he got.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I listened to the Minister of Labour with great interest and also the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) who was the victim of the vicious political attack not even on his own person but on his uncle. (Laughter.) It's a change from the Premier who just attacks people's fathers.

The Minister of Labour has said this afternoon during his various presentations, with all earnestness and seriousness, that that is an internal matter of the unions and he doesn't feel we should be political about it. In the next breath, he's turning around and being as political as we just saw him now. I would suggest to this Minister that he dashes in and out of this political issue like a breath of spring in a hot sauna. That isn't in itself in the best interests of good labour relations in this province.

I don't want to dwell to any great extent on the issue of Canadian unionism but I do want to suggest, after listening to the Minister's comments, that, while it might be unparliamentary to call it hypocritical, if there's any similarity it's because of the basis of his stand that he has taken not only in this debate this afternoon but in former debates.

HON. MR. KING: No similarity between you and I whatsoever.

MRS. JORDAN: I didn't say there was any similarity, and I certainly hope for your wife's sake there isn't. (Laughter.) Come to think of it, for my husband's sake too.

But really, Mr. Minister, the charges have been made in this House after listening to you say you want the best for the working people of British Columbia, you don't believe in discrimination and you believe in the right of choice. You then take the stand you do against Canadian unionism. It suggests you're afraid to take a stand on an issue that must be met and in which the Minister of Labour should stand firm and offer the opportunity of choice and the right to the workers themselves.

The Minister himself and the NDP, both at the provincial and federal level, have talked in terms of Canadian content in industry, Canadian content in terms of shareholders, even Canadian content in terms of the television we see. But when it comes to Canadian content in the terms of dealing with the multi-national unions, then the Minister backs off, and becomes weak-kneed.

We want it on record, Mr. Chairman, that we in the official opposition are for Canada for Canadians and we are for Canada for the people of Canada and particularly the working people of Canada. We feel the Minister of Labour, who has enunciated a policy in this province which he intends to pursue to encourage the membership in unionism in the province, should follow through with his other statements in terms of right of choice and the democratic opinion. He should not only let but help the unions of Canada take their position so the workers have the right to control their own destiny in unionism and the workers have the right of choice as to whether they want to be linked with the multi-national union bosses or whether they want to devise their own Canadian union system. Give them the right, Mr. Minister, and face this issue. All we ask is that the option be there. That's all they ask.

The Minister has brought up a number of other points which I'd like to mention. One is this whole matter of the Christian conscience clause. The Minister constantly fogs this issue every time it comes up by saying there is a Christian conscience clause. But we all know it's not really a conscience clause at all; it's merely a sop to try and make it look in the public eye that the Minister is doing something for a minority group in this province. If the Minister's intention is to truly have a Christian conscience clause and to truly recognize this minority group in terms of their rights but doesn't want to give them the right to opt out of the union, then I would suggest to him that there are some tremendous inequities evolving from this clause which demand his attention. If, as the Minister says and as they are compelled to do, these members should and must pay their full union dues, then surely they have a right to a certain portion of the benefits from those dues

[ Page 2421 ]

when they're involved in a strike.

I think this is an issue that might well be referred, if the Minister doesn't want to deal with it himself or if he's afraid to deal with it himself, to the labour ombudsman as one of the first issues. Surely if those who wish to utilize the Christian conscience clause as the Minister describes it and if they do pay their full union dues but don't participate in the union activities, meeting and picket duty, then there must be some reasonable way to come to an agreement where, if there is strike pay to all the members who are on strike, those who are contributing through fees to the support of the union might receive just a portion of that strike pay. They're faced with the same problem of supporting their families and themselves during strike action.

It seems to me that this acknowledges what the Minister in his mind wants to do for the authority of the union. They get their money; those who are utilizing the so-called Christian conscience clause in turn get fair treatment in terms of their share of that money used for strike pay on a proportionate basis. Perhaps it would be half of what the other workers would receive, but surely they have a right to receive a portion of that benefit to which they are compelled to contribute.

The Minister got up many times talking about discrimination and how he wanted to be fair to everyone. When one looks at his department, one wonders what on earth has happened to the women of this province. I would refer specifically to the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labour and its director. This used to be a very vital and active department which contributed a great deal to a more equitable situation for women in this province. I don't suggest it was a perfect situation. But even the NDP Member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) stated in one of her speeches in Hansard, September 20, 1973:

This province is probably far ahead of most other provinces in terms of meeting some of these recommendations...

and these are the recommendations from the Status of Women report done at the federal level —

...and in terms of meeting its responsibilities.

This is from one of the Members of the NDP government in regard to the position of women in B.C. In terms of their legal rights and their rights in the work force.

That Member should know because she utilized the services of the Women's Bureau a great deal in her work as ombudsman for SWAG (Status of Women Action Group) in British Columbia in Vancouver and never did give any credit to that bureau. Nor did she give any credit to the director of that bureau. Yet there is no way SWAG could have got off the ground nor taken the stands it did, nor that Member play the role she did, nor arrive in her position in politics as she did without the full-hearted benefits of that department which is supported by taxpayers and which has an enviable record.

But, Mr. Minister, when we look at what has happened in British Columbia under your leadership of this department, it appears to me you've guillotined the Department of Labour's Women's Bureau. Where is it? Prior to your administration this department was very active around the province. The director was available for any number of conferences, whether they were women's conferences or whether it was in schools where I myself had her not only in the constituency I represent but many other constituencies in this province, where she went in and spoke not only of the rights of students in the work force and in the labour force but of their responsibilities, which is essential if we are to evolve a responsible and fair working situation in this province. She was available and managed extremely well for industrial conferences, for management conferences.

She, through her experience in the labour force as a member of a union (and a very active member), brought to the people of British Columbia a very broad scope and perspective in this area and then achieved a distinguished career within the civil service. Where is this director today and where is the bureau? We hear nothing from them, and the public is concerned. When you go around the province, you find that women's groups and many other groups which want to have guest speakers are directed by the NDP to have the new Pooh bear of women's rights as their speaker and not a civil servant, not a member who can point out both sides of the question and who can deal specifically with the problems of labour as they relate to women.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that you owe a great deal to this department and that you've neglected it shamefully. I listened very carefully to your opening remarks this afternoon where you covered, one, two, three, four, all the great changes going on in your department, all the great progress that had been made. I listened and I listened and I listened, and not once did the Minister mention the Women's Bureau which was one of the outstanding women's bureaus in Canada.

I don't want to go into the specifics of the estimates, but I looked down at the salary scales and the positions within the Minister's own department. Talk about discrimination. The Minister is sitting on a powder keg of discrimination against women in his own department.

His own secretary — which is essentially an order-in-council appointment, a political appointment as you like to call them — gets $11,000 a year. When I brought this up under the Premier's estimates, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) said: "Well, now she can bargain." She's an executive secretary, she doesn't bargain. These rates should be set by

[ Page 2422 ]

order-in-council.

Why is it, Mr. Minister, while you yourself harbour a paltry sum in the area of $40,000 a year, your secretary, who really is the backbone of your efficiency, your competency, your ability to function as a Minister, and the front appearance of your office, gets a paltry $ 11,000 a year when her wage increase goes through. Right now she's only getting $9,456. But the executive assistant gets $17,000 the first year, the first appointment. And on down — I think all your lady stenographers are grossly underpaid.

Then one goes down and can't help but recall the tremendous increases in salaries this government has given — the massive salaries to various commissions, the amount of money given to Mr. Bremer, the amount given to Mr. David Cass-Beggs, all sorts of commissions around this province.

And what does the Director of Human Rights get? — the one lady appointed to a position. She gets $16,000 a year — $ 16,236 when her increase comes. Right now she's getting $16,020. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this is an example of blatant discrimination against women.

What does the Director of the Women's Bureau get? She gets $18,420. Now, Mr. Chairman, it was clearly evident in the past that this most competent lady was slated for bigger and better things and more responsibility within the Department of Labour. What happened to those promotions? What happened to an increase in salary for her commensurate with her responsibilities? The salary given to the Deputy Minister — $39,000; the ombudsman-to-come — $39,000; the Vancouver Associate Deputy Minister gets $32,000; the special consultant gets $33,000; Director of Manpower Training — $25,000; the Director of Human Rights, a lady — $16,000, as I mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, surely in the many appointments this Minister has made to his staff there was room for a competent, qualified and proven successful woman. There was certainly room within the Minister's estimates and the way the government is adjusting salaries and throwing money around this province to pay both these women a fair and equitable salary in comparison to the male appointments he's made to his department.

I don't begrudge these men their money if this is what the Minister thinks they're worth. This is in no way to detract from their salaries, but in fact to point out the hollowness of the Minister's stand and statements in so many of these areas, and the hollowness of this government as it really plays with women in this province.

How many lady heads of committees, heads of commissions has this Minister appointed, has this government appointed? They are token representations and they certainly don't fall within the salary scales of the other political appointments they have made. I think this is most disappointing because I'm sure that the Hon. Minister would like the women of this province to feel that politics wasn't the main thrust of his discussions of fair treatment and fair choice for the working people of this province. I suggest that the three examples that I have given do in fact make a mockery of some of these statements.

I'm sure the Minister is going to get up and talk about the hospital dispute and say what great things the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) did in eliminating discrimination in that area, and I agree with that except that the other discriminatory factor it created the very complex problems which the Minister talked about a few minutes ago. I will reserve my comments on that until I've seen the agreement which I hope the Minister will make available as soon as is suitable.

I'd like to pose two or three other questions to the Minister. One goes back to the B.C. Telephone strike which took place in the Interior of this province, and a problem which arose that was not anticipated by anyone, but which, in my view, must be solved before any other possible strike takes place which would involve the various parties.

The previous administration had worked out with the telephone companies, with the unions and with B.C. Hydro and those unions, the common use of as many poles as possible. This was to have the Hydro lines and the telephone lines on the same poles for practical reasons, for cost reasons and for environmental reasons — the idea being to cut down the number of poles we have on our landscape. All entered into this in good faith.

In all fairness I would say no one anticipated the situation which arose, which was, in fact, a strike by one party that imposed a hardship on any functioning of the other party. In other words, the telephone strike made many power poles hot. I wish to say at this time that where it was a crucial matter of extreme health interest, really almost a matter of life and death, the Deputy Minister was most helpful. And in the end the Minister was helpful and the union certainly listened. I don't wish to condemn anyone at this time for action at that time.

I do suggest to the Minister that these hot poles, for whatever reasons they were hot, actually were not directly involved in the services that they were supplying to the people, the essential services. We had people living 20 miles out in the bush in trailer courts in 20 degree and lower weather. Families who could not get their power connected, so they were living without heat. We had many people who were building homes for themselves and because the line had to go to a hot pole, in the middle of their construction they couldn't carry on with their building. In these terms they lost their employees and the employees lost their jobs.

There was a tremendous amount of interest being

[ Page 2423 ]

paid to various financial institutions by innocent people who had not planned in their budgeting for the building of their homes for this type of an overriding of expenses. In many cases families who had committed themselves to $18,000 mortgages or $20,000 mortgages found themselves having to pay an extra $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 and even $4,000 because of the delay to their construction — not because of a construction strike, not because of a power strike, but because of the telephone strike which was using the poles from which their power should have been connected.

There were many instances, Mr. Chairman, where people were living in unfinished homes. We got a backlog through people who were building homes and were living in one home or apartment which had been rented and sold and they couldn't move out to their new homes or new apartments. The other people couldn't get in, so many families had to go into motel accommodation. This is not only hair-raising for a period of months if you have children, but it's very much more expensive than the average family can possibly afford.

Mr. Minister, I did request of you and your department that when the strike was over and when everyone was in a relatively happy frame of mind that the Minister request B.C. Hydro and their unions and B.C. Telephone and their unions sit down and have a rational discussion about this type of situation which really isn't related to the key of the strike, but in fact proved a tremendous hardship and a tremendous cost to a lot of innocent people who were left absolutely helpless. They could do nothing; the Minister could do nothing.

I'm sure when one thinks of the responsible attitude of the members of unions, and I'm sure of the responsible attitude of the various boards, that a solution can be arrived at where for public interest and in this instance for environmental reasons, economy, not to any company but economy to the taxpayers of British Columbia, we use a common entity — in this instance, poles — that some provision should be made where the one service should not be cut off by the disagreement of another service.

I can envision the various members of the department saying, "Oh, that's heresy. The whole thrust of strikes is the impact by the worker in terms of how he can bring his concern to the public's attention, and this is done through economic hardship to the public or in some other manner." But I would suggest that this is not a civilized approach and that the average worker and the average union leader in this province well appreciates this. And when they analyse the problem that we ran into there, they would indeed — and I would challenge them — take a responsible attitude so that the strike of one group and a disagreement of one group doesn't work an undue hardship financially or health wise on innocent people who have no power whatsoever. They have no clout; they have no voice.

It's the Minister's responsibility as the guardian of the public of British Columbia — unions, management and the public — to have an impartial view in this and to look for a reasonable solution. I hope the Minister will comment on that.

I don't want to go into the details of the student summer employment programme, but I would like to know what, indeed, the Minister plans for the discriminatory action that is going to evolve from this programme where summer students of grade 11 and 12 education, with no experience, are going to be working for the government at a higher salary on a temporary basis than many of our permanent government employees and many of our responsible secretaries.

I'd like to ask the Minister what he has in mind in terms of what I call the single, over-50 women in British Columbia who have worked for many years, who are divorced, who have raised their families, many of them on welfare, many of them on a very minimal amount of money, perhaps achieved through alimony, many of them who have worked themselves to support their families, and many just single older women. These people, basically because of having been married, having come through a time and era in our social evolution when training opportunities were not available 20 years ago, find themselves in a position where they are forced to take lower-paying jobs. There is no financial incentive or opportunity for them to really get on to any type of a training programme so they can better themselves and achieve better-paying jobs, more interesting jobs, more challenging jobs.

Many of these women are extremely bright; they've had a wealth of experience through life. But when they go to the government or when they go to an employer and ask for a job or apply for a job, they're classed as having no experience. In fact, they're highly responsible and would be highly responsible employees.

I would urge the government and the Minister to embark on a programme for these women. I recognize the problems in dealing with the federal government and their inability to really comprehend this type of problem. They put on sort of a pitifully little false front, really, in terms of, well, you can do this and that. If the Minister hasn't, I hope he will talk to this vast number of women. You'll realize their situation is hopeless. A lot of them are not on welfare — and this should be made very clear. A lot of them are holding down jobs now. But they're tired, Mr. Minister; they're tired of taking the dregs of the job market and the dregs of the income.

I think we as legislators in this assembly should evolve a programme — and I'm sure the Minister would get the full support of all Members of this House —

[ Page 2424 ]

so that these women have an opportunity to train themselves in an interesting field, a field in which they may have great capabilities (though not all the technical background in terms of school education) and so they get an opportunity for jobs which pay better and which offer better hours so they can have an opportunity to fight inflation and to enjoy many of the things in life that everybody else wants to enjoy.

I suggest, while every effort should be made to help young people, these people are the neglected people; these women are the ones who have borne a tremendous responsibility in our society; these are the women who deserve the attention and deserve some of the funds. They're taxpayers and they're not getting the benefits of their tax dollars; they're not getting any help or any opportunity to change their way of life.

They're being crunched down by stereotype employment and by inflation. Many of them are in difficulties with the assessment situation. They've had homes or worked hard to own homes and they find now, because of inflation, if they sell their home it's worth a lot. But it's impossible for them to live in it. They simply cannot afford the taxes on today's inflationary market.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister will very clearly point out his great faith in the Women's Bureau and outline his exciting plans for this bureau that I'd be glad to help him design if he hasn't got it. I would strongly recommend that the director of this bureau achieve her rightful place in his department and in this government and in service of the people. While the Human Rights Commission has a very important role to play, this should not overshadow the role played by the Women's Bureau in this province that directly relates to working conditions and labour.

Also, I would suggest the Minister do something about the atrocious, discriminating salaries for women in his own department.

HON. MR. KING: I'd just like to respond to the Member for North Okanagan. The first question I think she brought up was the question of Canadian unions. She felt there was some hypocrisy on my part for not ensuring and apparently legislating Canadian unions. I would just point out that the mechanism for determining what trade union shall be chosen to represent workers is essentially the same as it was under the previous government for 20 years. The board has changed in personnel and in terms of structure but the function is identical. The former government sat for 20 years and they did not deign to interfere or show preference for a Canadian union over an international. I think that was proper; I think that's correct.

I think if we accept that the working people of this province are intelligent and have the experience and knowledge to select their own bargaining agent, then I don't think there's any place for politicians offering in a rather condescending way advice or legislation of what that choice should be. I don't know what she's referring to when she talks about hypocrisy because the structure hasn't changed in that sense. We live under the same concept.

The religious objectors. Well, we have a disagreement on that, you and I. But I would point out that religious objectors are not obliged to belong to an organization to which they object. If there is a strike, they have the freedom not to strike.

MRS. JORDAN: It's impossible!

HON. MR. KING: Oh, this happens. It happens, and they have that right. I would point out further, if they do go on strike and they're not members of the union, I would say most local strike funds pay strike benefits to all workers who go out on strike, not just to members.

MRS. JORDAN: No, they didn't. There are many instances where they didn't.

HON. MR. KING: Far the majority do. However, again, strike benefits are a matter of union policy; it's something I don't propose to get into in terms of legislation.

Discrepancies in salaries. Again, I'm rather surprised you're concerned about existing discrepancies and salaries in my department. I appreciate your concern, but I am surprised and I'll tell you why. The greatest discrepancies existed between the old mediation commission; $42,000 a year. Do you know I don't have one person in the Department of Labour that receives that amount now? Three of them are receiving $40,000 and $42,000 a year. I would remind you at that point in time the director of the Women's Bureau was paid far lower than she is now. She's had the benefit of a 10 per cent increase, I believe, last year. Collective bargaining is on the horizon for them...

MRS. JORDAN: So has the Minister.

HON. MR. KING: ...so we won't have to, in a condescending, patronizing way, grant alms to the workers of this province. They'll be able to bargain collectively for it, as any self-respecting worker should have the right to do. You talk about discrepancies. That was the most glaring one I have seen.

I have some good news for the Member for North Okanagan. She's apparently concerned about the Women's Bureau. Well, it's still there. The only change made is that the staff has been increased so

[ Page 2425 ]

they can do a more effective job. That's the only difference. In addition to that, we have a Human Rights Branch with a woman director.

MRS. JORDAN: $16,000 a year?

HON. MR. KING: That was formerly a male under the other government. Her salary has just been adjusted to range from $18,000 to $21,000 a year. We take human rights seriously.

MRS. JORDAN: Why isn't it in the estimates we're debating? Don't these estimates relate to what the Minister is going to pay?

HON. MR. KING: I'm suggesting that that Member shouldn't be too concerned. I think that women are being very, very well looked after under the Department of Labour. The functions, though, I would like to point out, of the Human Rights Branch and the Women's Bureau are quite different, The function of the Women's Bureau has been, under the former administration and so far under this one, to address itself to training and job placement and that kind of thing. The Human Rights Branch is quite another function altogether, although it can be related to equal opportunities in terms of training and job placement. But I would not want to feel the Member found any great conflict between these two separate and essential roles which I recognize within the Department of Labour. In fact, my only concern is to make this whole department and that kind of service more effective in the future if possible.

I would point out further that we have two, I believe, female industrial relations officers. There are many, many positions in the Department of Labour being filled by very capable females. We have a vice-chairman of the Labour Relations Board who is a very, very capable female. Certainly I think the record of this department is one which should not be viewed with any criticism in that regard. I hope that I've answered the basic questions the Member asked me.

The only point the Member made regarding the telephone strike last year and the problem with the joint use of the poles by Hydro and the telephone companies is a point that is well taken. I recognize the problem and have discussed it with the Member before. I can assure the Member, Mr. Chairman, that we'll do everything we can to defend against the recurrence of that kind of problem.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): First of all I would like to make this comment about the Minister. I think our present Minister is the finest Minister of Labour that this province has ever had.

The second thing is that I think that his actions since he became Minister of Labour have probably saved the people of this province hundreds of thousands of dollars because of the fact that many labour disputes were settled before they got underway or in their early stages. This has been a tremendous saving to the people of the province. I think it's also because of his efforts that we are not yet experiencing anything like the kind of labour difficulties that are being experienced presently during the federal jurisdiction. I just want to start with that note.

The second thing refers to the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), who is not present here, but I hope somebody conveys the remarks to him.

He and I have one thing in common: neither one of us are really in a good position to comment on labour management relations, especially on trade unionism, because neither one of us have had any direct experience as members of a trade union, except if you consider the medical profession as a trade union or the teachers' federation as a trade union. But they're not, strictly speaking, trade unions in the same sense that others are. So I think that both of us would be well advised — and some other Members too — to be a little careful about the kind of remarks that we make about trade unionism. Having said that I'm going to make some comments.

Now, I can only make some comments based on the point of view, you might say, that I'm entitled to as an ordinary citizen or as somebody who is not actually directly involved in trade union jurisdictional disputes or trade union–employer disputes — as an interested citizen, as an MLA representing a constituency containing many, many people who do not belong to trade unions and some, of course, who do.

I would like first of all to present very briefly my own views about what I think about trade unionism and trade unions. First of all, as a Christian socialist, I'm interested in the fact and proud of the fact that the trade union movement to a great extent arose out of the Methodist revival of the 19th century — the religious revival of the 19th century. Many of the leaders of the coal unions and so on in England became interested in trade unionism because of their religious convictions, because of the terrible conditions that they saw and the belief that they had to do something about them. That tradition has been carried on right to this day, both by active Christians and by people who do not profess to be Christians. But they've maintained that tradition of trying to better the working conditions for the employees on the job. I don't care what trade union we're talking about, whether it's American, Canadian or whatever, their main aim is to do that.

In terms of the jurisdictional thing, I think that the main requirement is that the method or the machinery that is used to settle jurisdiction disputes

[ Page 2426 ]

be one in which everyone has complete confidence. Before I explore that subject I want to just say what a trade union should have if I was going to pick a trade union, just to put my own views on record.

First of all it should be both free and democratic — that is, free from any interference of employers, of governments and of other unions, and democratically controlled by its rank-and-file members. I think that every one of us would accept that that should be the basis for any organization in a free society. I would even hope that the day will come when companies will be managed in that manner too, because certainly companies are anything but democratic in the way that they operate. So it should be free from interference from companies, or employers. Believe me, I've seen instances, some recently, of interference by employers in the activities of certain trade unions and this is a very real problem. If I was going to pick a trade union, if I was in that position, I'd make sure I didn't pick one that was company-controlled or employer-influenced. It shouldn't be influenced or controlled by the government either.

The second thing is that it should be a strong, fighting, responsible trade union. What is the good of a trade union if it doesn't fight for its workers to improve its safety standards, working conditions, pay and sick benefits and so on? If you don't have a trade union that fights for you what's the point of having a trade union?

So if I were going to pick one I would make sure that I picked one that did a good job for me. That particular condition is common to unions whether they're international in character, whether they're purely Canadian in character, whether they're British or whatever they are. They are trade unions that are fighting trade unions and will fight for the employees that they represent, and get the best deal that they can.

The third condition if I were going to pick a trade union is that it should be an organization that is loyal to our province and country without being regionally chauvinistic or parochial, and that's not an easy thing to come by. That is to say, it should clearly be as Canadian as it can be and as loyal to the Province of B.C. and hopefully even to the region of the employees that it serves. We have an international trade union in our area, in part of my riding, that I believe meets those conditions to a great extent. It has a great deal of interest in the local problems of the employees in that area. On the other hand I have a Canadian trade union that is entirely Canadian, a so called breakaway union, and it's also concerned about local conditions and the conditions of employment and so on. So obviously you can have both international and so-called Canadian trade unions that will meet that condition, that will be loyal to their area, the province of B.C. and to Canada.

I note with interest the decision by the United Paper Workers International to become entirely Canadian. I hope that they're successful in that effort. Now, I don't say that every union should follow that course, but certainly it is a desirable course where it seems to be in the best interest of the employees. I think again that is a decision that has to be made union by union, not necessarily applied blanket, en masse, over every trade union.

In coming back to the jurisdictional dispute, because of the tremendous feelings around this conflict or the difference of philosophical viewpoint about exactly what a trade union should be like, obviously there are going to be some very heated jurisdictional disputes. There have been, including one in my riding, and there will probably be more, I dare say. Some of them are international unions raiding Canadian unions successfully, some of them are Canadian unions raiding international unions successfully, and this will be the pattern throughout the province for many months and many years to come.

Personally I'm not going to give advice to the men involved other than to say I would certainly encourage you to pick, according to the criteria that I've mentioned, the most desirable trade union as you view it. But that's their decision to make.

However, we should be concerned with the manner in which these jurisdictional disputes are settled. If we have a federal election or a provincial election this is a form of jurisdictional dispute between differing political entities. Apparently — at least recently — all the disputants in a political jurisdictional dispute, whether federal or provincial, seem to be satisfied with the machinery and the means of settling that dispute. You don't hear too much criticism of the methods or the means or the result of the settlement. When we have a provincial election we go through a process, when we have a federal election we go through a process, and when we arrive at the outcome the parties to the dispute are satisfied that the method used is a fair one and a reasonable one.

However, at this point in time there seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether the method we are presently using to settle jurisdictional disputes between rival trade unions is totally satisfactory. I want to just pose a number of questions and perhaps suggestions of what might be done.

In the recent attempt by CAIMAW to get a certification vote at Trail, Kimberley and Salmo, there was apparently a feeling on the part of the representatives of the CAIMAW Union that they did not receive justice, that there was not a fair procedure followed as far as they were concerned.

Obviously we can't criticize the Labour Relations Board members, nor do we really have sufficient evidence to do so other than what has been given to us second- or third-hand, and most of it is not substantiated in any documentary form. Also we cannot propose changes to the legislation, that's out

[ Page 2427 ]

of order in committee.

However, we can suggest, I think, changes that can be made under the authority given, under section 43 of the new B.C. Labour Code:

"The board may, in any case, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to Neither employees in an appropriate bargaining unit wish to have a particular trade-union represent them as their bargaining agent, order that a representation vote be taken, in accordance with the regulations, among the employees of the unit."

Now, I would interpret that section to mean that the Minister may make regulations which will then become part of and have the same force as the Act, and which will sort of regulate or help to regulate the process whereby jurisdictional disputes are settled by the Labour Relations Board. If I'm in error, then he can perhaps enlighten me on that point.

But there are certain questions that have been posed as a result of this CAIMAW situation which I would perhaps suggest or hint at a need for further regulation. One of then is the conditions under which new members may be added to a bargaining unit. Apparently, the allegation was made that 300 people were added to the bargaining unit who were not in the bargaining unit under the present contract, or under the contract that was in effect.

Now, I'm not certain whether this is so or not, or whether that was drown by the Labour Relations Board. However, I would be interested to know whether the regulations are sufficiently clear as to when and why or how such employees may be added to a bargaining unit. I would also ask whether this was done under section 42, if it were done:

"...the board shall determine whether the unit is appropriate for collective bargaining, and the board may, before certification, include additional employees in, or exclude employees from, the unit."

Apparently, as I would interpret the Act, the board ma.; add employees to a unit. I'm not certain whether this was done, or whether it is done, or can be done, in jurisdictional disputes. Again, I think perhaps some regulations might clear the air in terms of how and when this might be done, if in fact it's a problem. I may be mistaken in my assessment, but it has posed a serious question in the minds of some people — whether this was a proper practice, or whether it was a good practice.

The second suggestion is the business of access to records of the company. Apparently it's discretionary whether a company allows the union to view its records of employees and so on, so in a sense it appears to be guesswork on the part of a raiding union whether they've signed up 50 per cent of the workers or not. I don't think something as important as this should be guesswork. I think they should have a definite idea of how many are in the bargaining unit at a given time.

Obviously, this may change up to the moment that, you might say, the list is closed. But I think somehow the regulation should provide for a means as well as possible, as we do with the Provincial Elections Act, that the list is closed, that the size of the bargaining unit is closed. At that point the raiding union knows exactly how many workers there are in the bargaining unit and in what categories. Then they know whether they've signed up enough or not, and that time should be before the end of the period in which they can sign up members.

Now, again that may be a bad practice, but it would seem to me to be one that might clear the air in that regard. We do that in a provincial election where the list is closed and you know exactly how many people are entitled to vote, or how many are in a particular constituency association. So, perhaps regulations could be designed that would tighten up and make clear exactly what the size of the unit was, how many were in it and what categories — and that information available prior to the closing of the time when they can sign up members.

There are two procedures that happen. One is the procedure in which the raiding union signs up its members, is purported to sign its members. Then at a certain point the LRB makes a decision as to whether they have, in fact, signed up 50 per cent of the bargaining unit and are entitled to a vote. Now, I mention the fact that the size of the bargaining unit should be tightened up, but also I think it's a little fuzzy in terms of how they are to go about doing this. I think, again, perhaps some more regulations in that area might be desirable.

Then the second procedure is the actual vote, in the event the Labour Relations Board authorizes a vote. It appears from what I can see, from both jurisdictional disputes where international unions have done the raiding and where Canadian unions have done the raiding, or other unions have done the raiding, that there doesn't appear to be any real problem with the vote itself once it's authorized. They seem to be satisfied that those procedures are satisfactory. But there is some concern about the way in which the results are released. I think the Labour Relations Board are trying to do the best job they can in this matter, but the fact that in some cases the results may be released very soon — that is, in both cases, whether they are entitled to a vote and what the vote actually is. Maybe the Hon. Minister could correct me if I'm mistaken.

In other cases it appears to be done right away, so there is some variance of how this is done. Again, because of the impact that the result may have on other disputes that are going on at the same time, it would seem to me that some kinds of regulations could be designed to make more uniform the method

[ Page 2428 ]

by which decisions are arrived at.

For example, if the results are going to be announced just prior to another vote involving the same union, the same raiding union, or something of that nature, it would seem to me that again some thinking could be done about how that should be handled because obviously it can have an influence on the outcome of the second vote in another unit, the first vote that is.

I think it would be better if there were more uniformed regulations which everybody understood and agreed to as to when and how the results both of an application for certification and the actual vote were released and so on.

One final point. I was quoted on the CBC, after a meeting in Kitimat, as saying that I would walk across the floor of the House if the vote wasn't granted. I got a letter of apology from the CBC for that because that was a misquote. That was not what I said at all. I would certainly not do that.

Furthermore, I have a great deal of confidence in the men who are on the Labour Relations Board. My main concern is to see that procedures be improved. As far as the calibre of men is concerned, I think we have some extremely fine men on the Labour Relations Board, Now, as far as the Canadian representatives from the Canadian unions, that's a very difficult decision to make because they're still numerically not a very large group in the province. Certainly it would be desirable, from their point of view, to have a representative so he would be in a sense an insider and sort of keep track of things, and they would have more confidence. There is some desirability. On the other hand again, you might have to consider giving other special groups in the labour movement representation as well.

But I would hope that should the number of the Canadian unions increase numerically over the next year or two years, then someone from among their number might be appointed when the next vacancy comes up on the Labour Relations Board.

Finally, on one point on the conscience clause I would just like to take this opportunity to make a correction to the statement I made in the House last session, last spring. Last spring I informed the House that I was not in good order as far as being an Anglican minister because I was not legally a minister. However, I would like to now inform the House that I am now again a legal minister.

MR. CHABOT: Illegal?

MR. DENT: Legal. I was reinstitute in the priesthood of the Anglican Church in the Diocese of Cariboo last Easter Sunday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you join your union?

MR. DENT: So now I'm going to make a comment on the conscience clause. The point of saying that I'm a minister is that nobody, no minister or anyone else, is really qualified to give any word on the conscience clause because it's a matter of individual conscience for every Member of the House, including me. So, I'm going to simply offer what's in my conscience on this particular point.

I would feel that there are obviously two sides to this story. One is that Christians who decide to opt out on matters of conscience do owe something to the union for the services that they are providing, and certainly I would have no dispute with that personally. I would think that that's a reasonable thing.

However, the reason that individuals opt out on matters of conscience is clearly because as a matter of conscience they do not wish to be associated with a trade union. Therefore they may opt out of membership, but are required to pay their dues. Then, in effect, they are still connected to a trade union, which is contrary to their conscience.

I don't think there are that many involved, really. I think that there are a very small number of people involved. I would take the position now that I think we could very well afford to give them that extra gesture and allow them to opt out of having to pay their dues to the trade union which is certified in the area in which they may be employed.

I think that some other means can be found to get around this problem. I think that we have to recognize the whole conscience of that person, not merely half his conscience. It's only half a conscience clause, in a way. Now for many people it would meet their full support.

I'm concerned, really concerned, along with many others — there are people in my constituency who feel the same way, and members of our party — that one of the things we have to fear is the encroachment by every kind of big organization, whether it be big companies, big government, big unions, big churches, anything that is too big.

Now we need these things to provide us benefits. Certainly, as long as we have big companies we're going to need big unions; that's for sure — or we'll never have any power against the big companies. I wish every company was small, and then maybe the unions could be small too. But the fact is that all of these bodies are encroaching on the individual.

Where we fight for the individual conscience and the individual's right to disagree with everybody else, I think we're going to go a long way to preserving the freedom for everybody in this country. But if we don't fight for those individuals who wish to disagree, then maybe we'll all lose our freedom. I feel that we've got to be very strong in that point. That's a matter of conscience too.

[ Page 2429 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That was a very interesting close the Member for Skeena made to his speech, Mr. Chairman. He talked like a good Conservative. He talked about protection of the individual, and he talked about the rights of an individual to make his own choice. Phrases like freedom of choice and the right of the individual are just music in our ears over here, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted that at least one Member of the NDP government recognizes what we truly mean by conscience. If by conscience you cannot join a certain association, how you can split your conscience and still go on paying to support that association I don't know.

I'm just delighted that the Member for Skeena is at least one Member of the socialist government who has put this whole issue of conscience in some kind of logical context. When you seek to join some form of organization of individuals, it is certainly only fair and right that you should pay your contributions to support that association. But the corollary must surely be, Mr. Chairman, when you do not wish to join that organization, that you should not support it with your finances. I would just add to the Member for Skeena's comments by saying that....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, that's right. Of course I support the democratization of anything that helps the individual to preserve his freedom of choice and his rights in society. That's what this battle is all about. We sometimes lose sight of the fact that the essential aim of management and labour is to produce the best kind of society in which the individual can be employed, but at the same time allow that individual his rights to make his own choices and to opt in or out of some of these organizations. This is what we believe on this side of the House, not only in labour management but in freedom of choice in education and in respect for the law.

There are very few situations which concern the people of Canada more today than strikes. I don't care whether they are federal strikes, provincial strikes, municipal strikes, any kind of strikes; if you want to talk to the man on the street about one issue that really has them all concerned, it is unquestionably strikes.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, Roy, where did you come back from? You must have been sleeping all afternoon.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I opt out, so never mind my conscience.

But in fairness, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Labour, very shortly after the Minister took his position he spoke to the B.C. Federation of Labour. I would like to quote from The Daily Colonist. That's the paper that used to publish in this city, in case anybody's forgotten. Let me talk about that in a minute too. From November 8, 1972:

"The Minister of Labour, Mr. King, of the strike said, 'I decry the frequency with which this tool is used in British Columbia.' While there is a burning desire for industrial peace, he said he wasn't actually advocating the elimination of the strike, but just a move to minimize its use."

I think the Minister deserves the greatest support, certainly from this side of the House, in putting forward that very vital point of view to the Federation of Labour.

I feel that the record so far in this province is good, by and large, since the Minister took office. But why is it good, Mr. Chairman? Because we've actually implemented and practised what is so bitterly contested in debate, and that is binding arbitration. Oh, you can shake your head but what you've just done in the nurses' strike is to resort to binding arbitration.

You can cut it any way you like. But the fact is that a person is brought in, hopefully with the confidence of both sides, and before you finish the negotiation it is agreed by the parties that the decision brought by the arbitrators will be binding on both parties.

I haven't got Hansard in front of me for the date concerned, Mr. Chairman, but I can well remember sitting in this House on the date that the Minister mentioned that an arbitrator had been appointed in the nurses' problem for negotiations. He was telling the House that both sides had agreed to accept the recommendations of the arbitrator. Now if that isn't binding arbitration, I don't know what it is.

We can play with words. Maybe it's not compulsory to submit to arbitration in the first place, but having gone that next step of the way and agreed that both sides will accept the decision of the arbitrator, I call that binding arbitration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that good?

MR. WALLACE: And I'm saying that's good. Of course it's good if it avoids a strike and both sides are satisfied with the result. Of course it's good. Anything that avoids a strike short of anarchy is good. In mentioning anarchy Mr. Chairman, I think it's about time every legislator in this country — provincial, federal and otherwise — realizes that no matter how valid an argument may be, the minute Marchand or anybody else in this country allows

[ Page 2430 ]

people — citizens, organizations or groups — to break the laws of this country and get away with it, this country is in trouble. I don't claim for one minute that putting strikers in jail solves anything.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

But I say, Mr. Chairman, that whether it's strikers or citizens or politicians or anyone else, the minute one person in this country flagrantly breaks the law and is permitted to continue to break the law, the law is weakened.

I think it is despicable that this federal government goes the first step of calling for an injunction successfully and then, when the individual breaks the law in the face of the injunction, the federal Minister says: "Well, what can we do? It doesn't solve anything to put the person in jail." Of course it doesn't, but why take the injunction in the first place?

I just say that this country is getting sick and tired of strikes and threats of strikes and wildcat strikes which seriously affect the common good of the province and of the country.

The Minister, in introducing his remarks this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, said that the right to strike "is not sacrosanct." I'm delighted to hear him say that too, because in this particular party we don't necessarily agree that the right to strike is some right that is carved in stone over the centuries. We happen to think that you do not create second-class citizens when you take the right to strike away from certain sections.

I'm not about to recycle the speech I made on the Labour Code when we discussed it, because the Minister well knows our feelings. There are certain employees in society that we in this party just do not believe should have the right to strike. We are talking about people like nurses, like doctors, like people in the communications field. We can have virtually a handful of firefighters close down every airport in Canada.

I just say, Mr. Chairman: in our so-called enlightened age does it make sense that in a province of 2.5 million 200 people can tie up complete communication and transportation? I say no.

This party believes that there are certain occupations in society, certain professions.... If an individual is so concerned that in his work he must have the right to strike, then he also has to accept, for the good of society, that he cannot enter into these occupations or professions.

I feel that the example the Minister quoted today of the registered nurses shows that they are responsible people. They had a legitimate grievance. They went into the situation where they felt that if someone would sit down and arbitrate or act as some form of mutual referee, they would accept the decision of that person, even though they had a 92 or 93 per cent approval of a strike vote.

I just feel that the kind of leadership we're looking for is the kind that the Minister has already set. I just wish the Minister were the federal Minister of Labour when I look at the mess this whole country is in at the present time. The success which this Minister has had with industrial commissioners I think is outstanding, and I think he should be given credit for that. This bears out the headline I quoted already that there has to be more diplomacy and fewer strikes.

But this, Mr. Chairman, is certainly not encouraging on the federal scene, and we can't hold the Minister in any way responsible for that. The fact is that while we shout and scream about inflation, one of the largest contributing factors to inflation is excessive demands by employees in the grip of very vocal and militant trade union leaders. There is no hiding that fact.

We have the most recent statement the other day that plumbers have rejected an increase of $2.10 an hour. Now I ask you, Mr. Chairman, while we're all screaming about inflation and while each politician is wringing his hands and saying we can't do anything about inflation...we certainly can.

I think that this situation has reached a point where many, many citizens in this province and all across the country are desperately seeking strong leadership from federal and provincial leaders and politicians, who don't just stand back and wring their hands but who say, "Yes, indeed this contributes to inflation."

We often plead the cause of the senior citizens and the person on fixed income in this House. I just say to this House: what senior citizen can afford to call a plumber or a carpenter or an electrician to fix up a problem in their home? It starts off at $ 15 an hour or some such figure. And we all stand back and say, "Well, trade union members must have the right to negotiate for the best possible wage they can get."

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I'm just trying to say, Mr. Chairman, that we're not living in the world of 100 years ago where indeed,there was child labour and sweat shops, and the balance of power was unquestionably in favour of the employer. I don't think anyone looking back down through the years can deny that.

What I am saying today is that we have to wonder whether or not the balance of power has shifted to the point that the person who has no form of strong representation, as the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) was talking about.... You, Mr. Chairman, you get around pretty fast, I notice. That kind of person is very much in the grip of the inflation which follows from excessive wage demands.

[ Page 2431 ]

In these two areas — the whole area of excessive wage demands in the hands of very powerful unions and the danger that people will break the law and have the elected representatives of this country turn their face aside and overlook that breach of the law — that is step number one towards anarchy. If I park my car illegally and get a ticket, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what happens to me if I don't obey that edict to pay a fine? After disobeying it a few times I'd finish up in jail.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Three points on your driver's licence.

MR. WALLACE: I know, you get three demerit points, and the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Strachan) gets another $9 on my driver's certificate. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that this is the first serious step towards the breakdown of law. We've had a whole debate during the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's) estimates of the fact that the fabric of effective law and order in this country is in serious jeopardy. We've got a special unit set up to fight organized crime, and so on.

Now I don't see how the government can accept that urgent situation and try and do something about it when in the labour field — again, I agree, at the federal level — we have blatant disregard for the law, and the federal Ministers concerned say: "Well, what's the use of enforcing the law, it won't solve the,original problem?"

In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that one of the big bones of contention when we debated the Labour Code last year was that this Minister had, in effect, taken the courts right out of the labour hassle altogether. This was one point where he and I had an honest difference of opinion.

To return to the theme of the right of the individual, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it should be any Labour Relations Board which has the right finally to decide on the future of an employee or a union or an employer and not give that individual employee or employer the right to go to court, because I'm sure the Labour Relations Board is going to make mistakes. They're just as human as everybody else. I'm very concerned, and still am, and still hold the opinion that I held last year, that it is a very serious matter in the Labour Code that resort to the courts has been taken away.

I think that as far as the system to this point is concerned the Minister has demonstrated a tremendous capacity to have people accept some intermediary prior to taking strike action. I would say in the most strongest of terms that I hope this is the policy that he proposes to continue. But the overriding comment I hear in the labour relations field is still the problem of strikes — the right to strike — whether everybody should have the right to strike.

I just say that in terms of individuals employed by one or other level of government, the example we have in the federal field is extremely serious. And just last year we accorded that same right to strike to the provincial public service employees. I have not changed my mind, nor has this party changed it's policy that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Never change your mind?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, sure, I change my mind. I hope I can change it about you some day, Roy. (Laughter.)

But the fact is that this particular Labour Code will work as long as we have this particular philosophy by the present Minister of Labour. What I am not so sure about is the potential that could happen in future administrations where we would be, or might be, faced with a much greater resort to strikes than is presently occurring in the province.

One of the previous speakers today mentioned the tremendous number of contracts that are about to be negotiated this summer. I hope that those who are about to be involved in these negotiations will look at the kind of example set by the registered nurses of the province and take every avenue open to them, if there is a difference of opinion, and hopefully come up with this kind of solution which I think we must admit, however, is what this party has been asking for — and that is, binding arbitration.

There are some very experienced people in the labour field who have gone on record as stating that the move must be towards binding arbitration and away from the archaic and punitive approach of strikes, very often to the detriment of the community and of harm to many people who are completely innocent, particularly citizens who have no involvement directly in the strike — in other words, the involvement of innocent third parties.

In some of the interviews I've seen in these last few days on television these people take this action of involvement in wildcat strikes, such as the postal workers, and then have the gall to look in the television camera and say "Oh, we don't want to harm the old-age pensioners or the recipients of Mincome."

You just can't have it both ways. If you want the right to strike, and the value of the right to strike is to cause harm to innocent parties, that's the way it is. But don't come on television and give us this two-faced attitude that, "Oh, yes, we want the right to strike; but on the other hand we don't want to harm the third parties" — when it's perfectly well known that many people will suffer harm because of the interruption of postal services.

There are one or two points I would just like to touch upon, Mr. Chairman, and ask the Minister to

[ Page 2432 ]

comment upon. Particularly there is great concern in the colleges in this province regarding the announcement which was made as to how the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) were to co-operate in regard to curricula for the colleges — the apprenticeship programmes and so on.

I needn't read out the whole statement that was issued at the time. But basically the manpower development division was to identify the manpower training needs and to meet these needs by development of better programmes.

This point has been raised in the House many times: although we're told that t here's unemployment in the province, as recently as today I got a whole list of jobs that are going begging in Victoria. Right now in this city today there are 65 vacancies in the sales field; there are vacancies for 20 hairdressers, 11 upholsterers, 52 people in the cooking and restaurant trade, and so on right down the list.

One wonders why these jobs are going begging when we in our office required a replacement for clerical help, we phoned Manpower and were told that on that particular day they didn't have any names of anybody who was available. Finally a few days later we got one name and we had one person available for interview.

Mr. Chairman, I can't understand the situation where we're told there is X per cent of unemployment, yet when we need, for example, someone in the stenographic or secretarial field, you phone up Manpower in a city the size of Victoria and you're told that there's nobody available. One really has to wonder how the apparent contradiction is explained.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us not only in what way he's to co-operate with the Department of Education. But beyond that, the people in the colleges are showing some concern as to whether or not they should be unionized in the process of undergoing their education. This most recent decision of the Labour Relations Board I think, in passing — the Minister is smiling — the Labour Relations Board reversed itself. How a man reverses himself, I don't know.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the Labour Relations Board had stated that student nurses in Prince George would be regarded as employees and must, in other words, use the B.C. Hospital Employees' Union as bargaining agent. At a later date it is reported in The Vancouver Sun on April 18, 1974, that the decision was reversed.

This particular subject has caused a lot of concern to the colleges. I wonder if the Minister, perhaps, could just answer these two questions: the degree to which authority is going to be taken from the field of education to the Department of Labour in terms of training programmes, qualification and diploma, and so on. Also to what degree can we expect that any person who is still part of an educational system, whether it be in a college or a vocational school or elsewhere, will not be required to join a union until such time as the training programme is completed and the person takes on employment.

Another point that I'd just like to touch upon, Mr. Chairman, seems to be this question of representation votes and whether or not decisions can be taken without a representation vote.

Someone talked about Vanderhoof earlier on today, and I don't know if it's the same situation. I have had a lot of correspondence and phone calls from an individual who works for Bond Bros. at Vanderhoof. I'm sorry if I'm repeating something that's already been said today, but I'll be very brief.

The situation was that the IWA in the summer of 1973 sought to be recognized as bargaining agent. At that time some of the workers signed up and some of the other workers who opposed the idea submitted a petition opposing this. I have a copy of the petition — I'm not certain of the exact date of the petition — anyway the petition's here. I can file it if need be. The IWA apparently withdrew their request to be recognized as bargaining agent. Then in November the IWA again posted a notice at the place of work saying that they wanted to become the bargaining agent. Again — and I have a copy of the second petition — 67 of the 90 employees wrote to the Labour Relations Board and said they didn't want IWA to be the representative bargaining agent. But the reply which they received on December 5, 1973, was just a notice saying that certification had been granted.

Now, the Minister mentioned earlier on this afternoon ... Again, one can certainly quote the Labour Relations Board in its decision of April 17 — at least quoted in the Province newspaper of April 17, 1974 — whereby it states that it will accept a decision from the majority of workers who vote — not just a majority of those who are eligible to vote, but a majority of those who vote.

The point I'm trying to make....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) says, "Right," and I think that's right too. That's what we do at provincial election time. We only count the votes of people who take the trouble to go to the polls.

It might be interesting, Mr. Chairman, to try and find a system whereby we could count the votes of those who didn't go to the polls.

Anyway, the Labour Relations Board is clearly on record as favouring the fact that it counts only those who vote. The point is that in this Vanderhoof situation there was no vote, and on two occasions a

[ Page 2433 ]

majority of the workers have signed a petition saying that they don't want the IWA. Finally, on January 7 of this year, 63 of the 67 employees have written to the Labour Relations Board simply asking that a representative vote be held.

I wonder if the Minister could either take that as notice or reply. It's a little detailed, it's a specific company and I'm only repeating the information presented to me, but I would be interested to know if, in fact, it is possible for any union to become certified in this way, when in point of fact there is evidence shortly thereafter that a majority of the employees don't really want that bargaining agent.

Another point along the same direction, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to raise relates back to another section that we debated. I think we reached again an honest difference of opinion in the last debate of the Labour Code in relation to section 43(3):

"...where the board is satisfied to disclose the true wishes of the employee, the board may certify or refuse to certify the trade-union as the bargaining agent without directing that a representation vote be taken."

Here again we have a situation where there's tremendous power in the hands of the Labour Relations Board where it is satisfied that a representation vote is unlikely to disclose the true wishes of the employees. I never to this moment understood how somebody with divine insight or whatever kind of telepathy could decide that the vote would not likely show the true feelings of the employees. Now, I accept the premise that it may not show the true feelings any more than I sometimes wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the vote at the last provincial election really showed the true feelings of many people, other than despair at the government they had before this one.

At any rate, on that basis, if there was some action in this province where we had a board who could decide that the vote in 1972 was not really a true representation of the people, then I might be in favour of this.

Seriously, and without trying to be smart about it, I really am interested to know the real meaning of 43(3). More specifically, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could tell us if section 43(3) has, in fact, been used by the Labour Relations Board since the Act was passed last year, or by the Minister or any person appointed by him, for the purpose of granting certification to any trade union without the holding of a representation vote.

I think it would be important for the Minister if this is the case and 43(3) has been used...I Would like to know in how many cases it has been used and what trade union and what employers were involved, and in what, if any, cases did the Labour Relations Board or the Minister or any official responsible to the Minister receive any communications proposing the use of section 43(3).

I think it's important. If it hasn't been used at all then maybe our fears are not well grounded. On the other hand, if this is something that's being used with any kind of frequency, I think we would like to know about it and to find out how the situation has developed.

In somewhat the same vein I'd just like to quickly mention another communication regarding the employees of a company in Terrace who have been trying to gain certification for the Terrace District Union. It's my information that the workers have asked for a certification vote and this has not been granted. Again, the Minister may wish to correct me, but the letter I have received states that the investigating officer of the Labour Relations Board has recommended a vote. I am referring to the employees of a company called Little, Haugland & Kerr Ltd. I have a list of the signatures, dated February 21, 1974, seeking a certification vote. There may be reasons why it hasn't been given, but as MLAs we receive this kind of information.

I think it is very important, when we get to the point of debating the Minister's estimates, that we should do everything in our power to find out the specific reasons. They may well be good and valid reasons. All I know is that from the tone of the letters I often receive, employees in this province are unhappy about the rules pertaining to certification. They wish to have more access to the information which is used in determining whether or not people who voted were actually legally in that position to vote and the question of what the total number of staff was at the time of the vote. The Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) who is now occupying the chair so magnificently, has pointed out that maybe there should be a cutoff date. Then there would be no controversy later on as to the fact that certain people should or should not have been included.

The last point I'd like to raise is the question of the trade schools branch of the Department of Labour. I have been asked to inquire into the mechanism, if there is a mechanism whereby the fees allowed to be charged at trade schools have any predetermined formulas or if they are decided on an arbitrary basis. I think the Minister is aware of the particular school I am referring to, called Duffus College, which provides secretarial training and stenographic experience. I will be very brief and just say that there appears to be a very arbitrary way in which some trade schools charge certain fees and other trade schools charge more or less for exactly the same kind of service. The particular contrast which this individual has drawn to my attention is that the provincial government charges $8 a day to Manpower whereas this particular Duffus College is only allowed to charge $4 per day for very much the

[ Page 2434 ]

same kind of training. If these figures are correct, it seems very strange that the provincial government should expect to be remunerated from Manpower at a rate far above the rate which is allowed to private trade schools in the province.

It would appear the small training colleges are to be restricted or dictated to by the government as to what they can charge, yet the government itself is charging a much higher rate. The figure quoted is double that which is permitted Duffus College. Maybe the Minister would comment on that.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES
LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 109 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. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I will table two transfer agreements, one on the Veterans Hospital and one on the Shaughnessy Hospital, which were signed this morning at 11:30.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I file the annual report of the Corrections Branch of the Department of the Attorney-General for the year ended March 31, 1973.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

ERRATUM

Page 2030, column 2, lines 24-31 should read:

Minister what special features of the Chuzenji fish hatchery have caused this to be singled out for a special visit? That's the Chuzenji fish hatchery near Nikko — the one you sent your press release out on.

Can I ask the Minister then what the special features of the trout hatchery at Lake Chuzenji near Nikko are that have caused him to have a special