[ Page 2435 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates On vote 129.

Hon. Mr. King — 2435

Mr. Chabot — 2436

Hon. Mr. King — 2438

Mr. Gibson — 2440

Hon. Mr. King — 2444

Mr. Gibson — 2445

Mr. McGeer — 2445

Mr. Wallace — 2450

Hon. Mr. King — 2452

Mr. Dent — 2453

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2455

Hon. Mr. King — 2456

Mr. McClelland — 2457

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2458

Hon. Mr. King — 2459

On vote 130.

Mr. Chabot — 2459

Hon. Mr. King — 2459

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

(continued)

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

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I was going to respond to the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), but he doesn't seem to be here at the moment.

The Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) did ask a number of questions and I might just comment on them. The suggestion that the Minister of Labour might make regulations by which the board would be guided in their adjudications on certification applications is one which I would not suggest would be a good move in terms of maintaining the impartiality of the Labour Relations Board.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, under the Labour Code the board has the authority to set their own administrative policy, and that administrative policy as it is developed, based on the experience of the board, will be published in the first instance and it will be available and understood by the parties making applications to the board.

I would point out further that a number of questions have arisen as to whether or not the board is proceeding in an impartial way. Some questions were raised on applications that are now before the board. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is really improper to comment on applications that are before the board. The board is governed by an investigation by the representations of the parties if a hearing is called and on all the combined evidence in the situation.

I don't think that it's the purpose of this Legislature or Members of it to intervene in the independent adjudication by a quasi-judicial agency of questions of evidence. I think that if there is any evidence, as I indicated earlier, of improper conduct or of the board exceeding their jurisdiction or authority, questions of that nature should certainly be brought before the House.

But it does nothing really to improve and strengthen the ability of the Labour Relations Board to deal with these very, very complex questions when the House is debating the very evidence which the board is considering and upon which they make their decisions.

As an example, I can draw to the attention of the House one particular situation, It's been suggested — it's been at least inferred — that there is a campaign to discriminate against Canadian trade unions. I have rejected that completely. It's just not so. But let me point out to you, in light of the particular cases that have been raised by certain Members of the House, a situation where the Canadian Pulp Workers Union applied, I believe it was at Ladysmith and I think it was CAIMAW that applied at Western Canada Steel.

In those cases the board, of course, had to determine who was properly in the unit — what employees should be included in that unit. They were both raid situations. The Canadian Pulp Workers Union was raiding the IWA. The CAIMAW union was raiding the steel workers union, I believe. In both those cases the Labour Relations Board used exactly the same criteria.

They set the condition that part — time workers would be included in the unit, which is the same principle they used in the Cominco application at Trail. Now one application was won by the Canadian union, and they never questioned the inclusion of these part — time workers when they won their application and replaced the existing international union.

In the other case they lost, and they immediately conducted a political attack on the Labour Relations Board for including the part-time workers.

But the point is, Mr. Chairman, that the application is even-handed, and it applies equally to any trade union. I would suggest that Members who are interested should pursue the reasons that the board writes for their decisions. I think that it would help all Members of the House to perhaps be a little better informed of just what the issues are and just how the board functions.

Now the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) suggests that the people should have a vote. But he, being a former Minister of Labour, should understand that certain criteria have to be met before a vote is granted. A vote is not called to accommodate minority wishes. But if the members of any union can indicate that they have a majority of workers who wish to change trade unions, then they are entitled to a vote if it is a jurisdictional situation.

Now one of the questions that was raised — I think it was about little Coghlan or Carlisle, or something like that, up in the northern part of the province....

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Kerr.

HON. MR. KING: Kerr, is it?

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: It's still before the Labour

[ Page 2436 ]

Relations Board, and I think it would be improper for me to comment on that at this time.

I would like to make an additional point, particularly in light of the comments that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) made. He seemed to feel that I should be held accountable for decisions of the Labour Relations Board. Now we in this House can't have it two ways either. If we are serious about wanting to grant independence to the Labour Relations Board so that their adjudications and their handling of applications that come before them are free from political interference, then I think that we have to grant them the right to make those decisions without expecting the Minister of Labour to be answerable for the evidence and for the criteria for their decision in each application that comes before them.

As I indicated earlier, if it's a question of some impropriety, if it's a question of improper conduct, then, of course, they are responsible to this House and I think it's valid that Members should question and draw anything of that nature to the attention of the House.

But, quite frankly, in this whole question of trade alien certifications, the circumstances vary so much that it's difficult for Members to get the whole picture from a press report or something of that nature. There are exhaustive investigations undertaken by members of the Department of Labour at the behest of the Labour Relations Board. There are hearings field where the parties make representation. It's only after the most exhaustive investigation that a decision is arrived at.

The Member for Oak Bay questioned the situation where a group of workers, after the application had been made — and who appeared to be a majority — indicated that they did not wish to join the union. But the question is: when was the application made? By how many employees did the employer increase his staff in an effort, perhaps, to thwart support for the union?

This frequently happens where employers increase their staff substantially in an effort to change the context of the bargaining unit of the workers who have applied initially for certification. The point that should be remembered — the significant point in time — is the date that the application is filed. What were the wishes of the workers on that date? That usually represents the normal work force.

Were it not so, employers would be free to manipulate their work force in a fashion which would perhaps defeat certification votes, after which a layoff would take place and a return to the normal work force. These kinds of devices are involved.

As I say, there are many different circumstances peculiar to different applications that it ill behoves Members, in my view, to start condemning the Labour Relations Board before all the facts are on the table. If we respect their independence, I don't think it's for this House to review decisions that the Labour Relations Board has made based on the evidence before them.

I just wanted to make those points, Mr. Chairman, before the House votes on the office of the Minister of Labour.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a few words, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering where all the Conservatives and Liberals are tonight.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): They knew you were going to speak.

MR. CHABOT: Their absence is conspicuous. I imagine they probably caught the float plane with the other absent cabinet Ministers tonight and it's most unusual — not unusual but it's most unbecoming, really — to see those two minor parties absent from this Legislative Assembly tonight when we're discussing this very critical issue of labour management in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (SOUTH PEACE RIVER): None of them are here.

MR. CHABOT: That's right — they're all absent.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not one single one.

MR. CHABOT: I want to say, Mr. Chairman, how happy I am that you've been refrocked into the Anglican Church, because I was really worried about the situation when you had been defrocked and I'm happy to hear that you made the announcement a little earlier about being refrocked. But I was a little disturbed, Mr. Chairman, to see you put your ballet slippers on a little earlier in the day and walk down the middle of the fence, and make sure that you didn't tip either side. Really what disturbed me most of all was that as you were walking that fence you were singing all the way. You were singing and saying absolutely nothing.

You did say one thing which really distressed me, and that was that there is, in your riding, interference by employers in union activities. I thought that was a very serious accusation you had made. You also said, Mr. Chairman, that some of the unions in your constituency are employer-dominated and employer-controlled.

If that is the situation, then I think you have a responsibility as a Member of this House to expose those employer-dominated unions which exist in your riding. I think you have to realize that it's illegal for a union to exist in British Columbia that is employer-influenced and employer-controlled.

[ Page 2437 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Amen.

MR. CHABOT: In other words, not only have you made a serious charge against unions and employers, but you have slurred the Labour Relations Board. When they certify a union they have a responsibility to ensure that that group which they are certifying is not employer-dominated or employer-controlled. If it is as you state it is, you have a serious responsibility to expose these unions which in essence are not true unions. You made a very serious attack against the Labour Relations Board because you have suggested that the Labour Relations Board has certified an employer-dominated union. That's a serious charge because the Labour Relations Board has no right to certify these type of unions. You should name names.

You talked very briefly — you waffled very seriously as well — on the question of Canadian unionism in British Columbia. You failed to take a position as to whether you support Canadian unions or not, whether you support the right of workers in this province to belong to the union of their choice. You never made a clear distinction in that respect. In other words, what you did, Mr. Chairman, was toe the government line and that government line is strong support for the Yankee — dominated unions in this province.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Aw, come on!

MR. CHABOT: You stated as well, Mr. Chairman that you were misquoted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regarding your position on Canadian unionism, and you extracted from them an apology, which you should, if you were misquoted. I don't doubt for a moment after listening to you a little earlier today — the way you walked that fence — that you were misquoted, because you couldn't possibly take a position if you wanted to.

I'll tell you why you won't take a position, because it brings back to mind what took place in the constituency of Atlin a few years ago when that Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) made an attack against the B.C. Federation of Labour and their discriminatory policies against the employment of Indians in this province. You know what happened to the Member for Atlin. He was denied political funds by the B.C. Federation of Labour. You know full well, Mr. Chairman, why you won't take a position — you're frightened you'll get the same kind of treatment, that they'll dry up the political funds in your constituency.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Are you denying, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke),that the Member for Atlin, who is not here tonight, was denied the opportunity of getting political funds from that political arm of the NDP — the B.C. Federation of Labour? That Member stood in his place in this House and stated very clearly and emphatically that he'd been dried up of any political funds from the B.C. Federation of Labour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the Minister's responsibilities, please?

MR. CHABOT: I'm talking about labour, and I'm talking about political funds from certain labour groups in this province. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that I haven't made you a little touchy by what I've had to say, because I was dealing with the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) and what might happen to the Member for Skeena if he expressed his true feelings, which he's frightened to do. He'd rather walk that fence in his ballet slippers.

Mr. Chairman, a little earlier in the day the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) raised the question of the registrar of the Labour Relations Board and suggested that that position should be occupied by a civil servant and not by a representative from the trade union movement. I support the point that he made. I don't agree with the position and the rebuttal made by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) regarding this appointment. He suggested that his position is really basically that of a civil servant, which is not true at all, because you have to realize that his position was created by an order-in-council. It wasn't that of being appointed through the Civil Service Commission of British Columbia through the various competitions. He was appointed by order-in-council.

How can you suggest that his position is that of a civil servant? He's under a contract through your order-in-council. Don't try to lead people to believe that his position is that of impartiality because it isn't. He's not a civil servant and you know it. He's an order-in-council appointment similar to many of the other order-in-council appointments you've made, which in most instances are nothing but political hacks.

We listened also a little earlier in the question period to a statement made by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) dealing with the efforts being made by the government in an attempt to ensure that people who receive certain funds from the government are not inconvenienced by the postal workers' strike. Very noble indeed. But I want to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that these are strike-breaking tactics....

HON. MR. COCKE: Aw, you're crazy, You're out of your mind.

[ Page 2438 ]

MR. CHABOT: You have taken away from those workers the kind of economic sanctions that they can bring........

HON. MR. COCKE: We're using another service.

MR. CHABOT: Sure, it's another service. I agree with you. But you're destroying the effectiveness of those workers to bring economic sanctions against their employer, and you know it.

You've taken away from those workers a weapon which they rightfully have to negotiate a collective agreement with the employers. You say that you believe in collective bargaining. Is this true collective bargaining when the government takes sanctions against workers? Is the reason why you took these sanctions because they happen to be in the federal jurisdiction? Strikebreaking tactics by that government — that is what that amounts to.

We listened to the Minister talk about the various appointees to the Labour Relations Board and the contract they have suggested that they have a five-year contract. I am wondering if the Minister will tell me some of the type of fringe benefits that exist in those contracts — whether they are normal, abnormal, extravagant, or not. They certainly have security of employment for five years at a stipulated salary. But what are the fringe benefits in those contracts?

We also listened to the Minister talk about the length-of-arm situation between his department and the Labour Relations Board. I wonder how long that arm is. I wonder whether there really is an arm's length agreement between the Labour Relations Board and the Department of Labour, or whether there is interference on the part of the Minister in some instances, on the part of his Deputy Minister in other instances.

It is a very serious thing because people out there who are involved in the labour world feel that there is some kind of interference on the part of the Department of Labour with the Labour Relations Board. And I think you have a responsibility to tell us what kind of relationship does exist between the Labour Relations Board and the Department of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: You never felt that way when you were in.

MR. CHABOT: You must convince those people who are involved in collective bargaining in British Columbia, the employers and the trade unions in this province, that the situation between your department and the Labour Relations Board is at arm's length.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is back in the House now, and I did comment on some of the points that he raised earlier. However, I do want to briefly comment on the speech the Member made, particularly as it refers to his advocacy of the compulsory arbitration route for settling disputes in the Province of British Columbia.

The Member for Oak Bay started out commenting on the relative success of industrial inquiry commissions that have been appointed in the province. Then he went on to question the difference between a trade union voluntarily accepting as binding the recommendation of an industrial commission and compulsory arbitration. He questioned the difference; he said it was a question of semantics. I am surprised at that because the Member for Oak Bay, who I think is very sincere in his beliefs, previously had indicated his concern for minority rights and the rights of the individual.

But I have to question if a Member cannot discern between something that is compulsory and something that is voluntary — that, in effect, he doesn't recognize the difference between freedom and slavery. I question how he can, on one hand, assert his grave concern for the rights of minorities and individuals, and on the other hand fail to recognize the difference between an arbitration arrangement that is accepted as binding in a voluntary way by the parties, and one which is imposed upon them in an arbitrary, compulsory way.

Now, there is a vast difference. I recognize and I accept that the Member has a different viewpoint than the government in that regard — and that's fine — but I would also remind that Member that the Federal Minister of Labour, the Hon. John Munro, has made an excellent case, I thought, for the right to strike as a full measure of the collective bargaining right. He pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that in the country of Australia, where they function under a compulsory arbitration system, they have a higher incidence of illegal strikes than we have in this country of legal strikes. Certainly, that implies to me, and I think to most thinking people, that if people are aggrieved, they are going to strike. I don't think we should put anyone in a position where they have to violate the law to deal with a legitimate grievance or a legitimate point of view, be it in labour or be it in any other segment of our society. I think that would be a most dangerous principle.

The other question is on the compulsory arbitration trip. I am surprised that Members of this House advocate that route because most employers don't. Most employers would be very, very much afraid....

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): More of the people would — who are you listening to?

HON. MR. KING: Perhaps some of the people

[ Page 2439 ]

who are not too well informed would, but I suggest this to the Member: if we can't accept the concept of freedom and rights, that which is laid down as a convention of the International Labour Organization and ratified by pretty near every free nation in the western world, then I think it would be a black and very regrettable mark on Canada's development as a free society.

I am surprised that Members are so far back in the 20th century that they advocate that kind of outdated response to what is basically a human relations problem.

MR. WALLACE: I'm surprised at you. Listen to the people and see what they think.

HON. MR. KING: I think the people spoke at the last election. I think they will have a chance to speak again in the next election.

MR. PHILLIPS: Call one tomorrow and see what they say.

MR. CHABOT: Down the tube.

HON. MR. KING: The other point is: surely no one would advocate that we should restrict the right of working people to sell their labour, and at the same time leave management and industry generally free to sell their commodity in an unrestricted way. I don't think we can single out one sector of the economy of this country and ask them to carry the load for the inflationary spiral or for any other consideration. Certainly if working men are going to be restricted and be compelled to sell their labour under a certain scale in a legislative way, then I think the same restriction should extend to interest rates, to rentals, to the prices of groceries on the shelves and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's it, tie them all up.

HON. MR, KING: I'm surprised that anyone would advocate that kind of thing in what is essentially an open-market economy in B.C.

The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) made a few comments — the hiring of the registrar of the Labour Relations Board was questioned. The point is that the board does its own hiring. That's true that the members are confirmed by order-in-council, but the board is, indeed, independent and does their own hiring. For the Member for Columbia River to question the independence of the board is a bit curious. He functioned under a system for quite a period of time where his Deputy Minister was chairman of the board — 18 months. He was an interchangeable Deputy Minister. He was not only chairman of the Labour Relations Board, he was chairman of the Board of Industrial Relations and the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I am not criticizing that Deputy Minister one bit — I think that he gave very valuable service to this province. But the point is, if we are questioning independence, surely one would be moved to question the independency of an agency that is controlled by a chairman who is directly responsible to the Minister's office. Now, that is not the case in today's organization. We have a board which is truly independent, not only in the selection of the people involved, but in the structure also. I have absolutely no authority to hold that board accountable for the administrative decisions they make.

MR. FRASER: They are made by the public.

HON. MR. KING: That's right. And if we don't like....

MR. FRASER: The taxpayers of this province pay them.

HON. MR. KING: That's quite correct, Mr. Chairman. But the Members over there can't seem to discern between independence, in terms of administration, and legislative responsibility. Now if we find that procedures are unjust or they are improper or that members of that board are not conducting themselves properly, of course the Legislature has control. Certainly we can change the structure.

But if we are going to set up an agency and call it independent and then attempt in here in a political way to monitor every decision and review every decision they make, then it's a complete farce in terms of independence. I don't think the Members would want that type of thing.

MR. CHABOT: There is so much interference. There is so much interference the board gets matkinitis.

HON. MR. KING: Well, I think someone up there in the Columbia River riding around Golden has taken an eye-dropper and brainwashed that Member. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: He has matkinitis.

HON. MR. KING: Well, I tell you, if we have matkinitis it's a much healthier disease than what the former administration was afflicted with, and I welcome that, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to comment before I sit down that the members of the department — we've brought in

[ Page 2440 ]

certain new members — the Deputy, two Associate Deputy Ministers of Labour are doing a fantastic job, as is the whole department, and I'm very, very proud of them. I feel that they've made a significant contribution already to better understanding in the industrial relations world in B.C. and to better consultation with both labour and management. I certainly welcome that and it's in no small measure due to the dedicated activities of the Deputy and the Associate Deputy Ministers of Labour. Thanks very much.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you lonely over there?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Lone Ranger.

MR. GIBSON: When the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) started to speak, just at the beginning of the evening, he wondered where all the Liberals and Conservatives were.

MR. CHABOT: Right.

MR. GIBSON: I'll tell you where we were, Mr. Chairman; we were huddled around the loudspeakers in our office, just like when you used to listen to Charlie McCarthy and Edgar Bergen. Do you remember? When the Hon. Member for Columbia River stood up to speak we said: "That's Charlie McCarthy. We'd better come in and listen to him."

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Yes, but they can see the laugh signs; we can't.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: That's right. Just watch your back after this.

MR. GIBSON: To hear those kinds of words from a representative of a government that lived by divide and rule in this province for many, many years...

MRS. JORDAN: Now, now, don't call daddy.

MR. GIBSON: ...dividing and ruling, dividing the labour movement from other parts of this province, that was a strange thing to hear.

Interjection.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Quit fighting. Quit fighting. Only one can be the official opposition; now quit that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member continue his speech?

MR. GIBSON: The former government, Mr. Chairman, has to be one of the basic reasons for the continuing labour difficulties in British Columbia over the last generation.

MR. FRASER: Let's hear a little of the federal policies right now. Let's hear about the federal Liberals right now.

MR. GIBSON: And then, Mr. Member for Cariboo, the Hon. Member for Columbia River launched into an attack of the Chairman...

MRS. JORDAN: Where are the fair freight rates for B.C.?

MR. GIBSON: ...who had given a speech — the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent). It was an attack that I thought was very unjust. He said that the Member walked the fence. He didn't walk the fence, Mr. Chairman. He gave his views when he spoke. I hope some of the other Members of the government will give their views and speak.

MR. FRASER: Tell us about Trudeau's labour policy. We want to hear it. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You are dealing with vote 129.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the Hon. Member for Skeena on one point.

HON. MR. LEA: Should we come back later?

MR. GIBSON: You're very welcome. We're having a secret meeting, Mr. Minister. That's how they go.

The Hon. Member for Skeena wondered if ordinary persons who were not members of unions had the right to speak in these estimates. I very strongly believe they do.

During the time when the LeDain commission was holding hearings across the country they were challenged in Winnipeg by a person in the audience who said: "Wait right have you people to be handing down judgments about the use of drugs? Which of you people has ever taken drugs?" So one of the LeDain commissioners turned to the other and said: "Thank God we weren't entering into a commission on suicide." You can't always have experience in what you're talking about.

I think especially that we have the right to speak on international unions.

[ Page 2441 ]

MR. FRASER: Talk about the airports and the post office.

MR. GIBSON: I'll get to the airports and post office a little bit later, Mr. Member for Cariboo.

MRS. JORDAN: Don't talk about it. Do something about it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Phone your ex-boss.

MR. GIBSON: Don't call us. We'll call you.

But you don't have to be a land speculator to talk about foreign land ownership and I don't think you have to be a member of an international union to talk about international unionists.

I think it's especially appropriate for any Member of this House to talk about the estimates of this department, because something like 36 per cent of the work force of this province is unionized, rather than the 42 per cent mentioned by the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). This means that 15 per cent of the citizens in this province are unionized and the balance are not. So I think the balance have some right to comment on that.

To start with the bouquets: the Labour Research Bulletin, which is published by the Minister's department, Mr. Chairman, is a superb document. I compliment him on that. I wish that every department had a detailed, interesting informative publication of this kind on a regular basis.

I compliment him and his department on the work they are doing towards furthering the apprenticeship programmes in British Columbia. I have a quote here from a recent newspaper story.

"Because employers sometimes insist that people get experience elsewhere first, the Department of Labour devised the pre-apprenticeship training programme. At all colleges and vocational schools except Douglas College and Vancouver Vocational Institute five to six months training in many trades is offered: bricklaying, cooking, carpentry, heavy-duty mechanics, et cetera. Tuition to these courses is free. The students receive a subsistence allowance and return transportation if necessary."

These apprenticeship programmes it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, are very essential, not only to our young people but to our well-being in the Province of British Columbia. The Minister mentioned a general field of manpower prediction they were getting into — manpower supply and demand. I'd be grateful if when he speaks later on he might mention how the apprenticeship programme fits into these problems of resolving manpower supply, and whether he sees any particular serious skills on the horizon in the future in any of the various industries of British Columbia and in any of the various regions of British Columbia.

I compliment him as well on the increasing use of the Industrial Inquiry Commissions, financial assistance for arbitrators and training for mediators. These are all excellent programmes and it's obvious the Minister is applying himself to his department with a great deal of concern and sympathy.

Now the second section of my remarks is not compliments but rather concerns. I'd like to ask the Minister if he could inform the House as to his view of the status of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union and to what extent it is federal, to what extent it is provincial, and how the situation in British Columbia differs from the situation in Newfoundland, where the province there has taken jurisdiction of the fishing unions.

I'd ask him if he could give this House a status report on the going forward of joint bargaining in the construction industry. I appreciate that he can't make a general report on that bargaining. It's at a very delicate stage right now — in some ways an Alice in Wonderland stage, when $2.30 interim raises are being turned down out of hand.

But according to an excellent article by a usually reliable writer in The Province at the end of March, one of the serious problems is trepidation among the building trade unions about banding together at this point for negotiation on the theory that in the longer run they might be glued together by the Labour Relations Board because of its present association and not knowing at this point in time whether they are prepared to be that closely tied together in the future.

I would ask the Minister to comment specifically on a matter which he mentioned as one of the things that happens in the cut and thrust of union raiding, and that's the United Steelworkers' release on the morning of the Noranda certification vote on, I think it was, Annacis Island.

He referred to this as one of the normal things that was done — the premature revelation, if indeed it was a revelation or merely a guess, that Steel had managed to hang on in the certification procedure at Trail. Would he call this a fair labour practice? He said it was a normal kind of thing, would he call it a fair thing? Is that the kind of thing that perhaps should be enjoined by regulation or by the board?

Much of the debate so far has been in terms of organized labour. I would ask the Minister if he could spell out in a little more detail than he has — he has spoken of industrial relations officers enforcing minimum wage rates, safety practices and so on — if he could spell out in a little more detail what the government is doing for unorganized labour in this province, which if anything that 60 per cent–plus of the labour force, unorganized labour, needs more attention from the Minister's department than does organized labour. Organized labour is pretty big and tough and can look after itself if it's got reasonable ground riles. Unorganized labour has greater difficulty.

I would ask the Minister if he has any general forecast for 1974, because some of the forecasts for

[ Page 2442 ]

1974 that we have been getting in the newspapers have been exceedingly gloomy. We have reports that over 400 major contracts are to expire, covering over 185,000 employees, equivalent to 50 per cent of the union membership in the province and up to 18.5 per cent of the labour force as a whole.

Does the Minister have any forecast about this year? Will it be, as an editorial in The Province the last day of 1973 called it, British Columbia's critical year, and in which the president of the Employers' Council of British Columbia is quoted as saying:

"If short-term gains are demanded by labour to meet the unusually high expectancies generated by the past economic situation, those being high wage settlements, an exceptionally good profit year and the ever rising cost of living, the probability of widespread labour conflict in B.C. is unquestionably greater than ever before."

If that is indeed the case, Mr. Chairman, if it is indeed unquestionably greater than ever before, then it's very great indeed.

I would like to know what advance measures the Minister's department is taking to reduce what this editorial refers to as a probability.

I'd ask him also if he has in his mind any proper figure, any guideline figure, for settlements in the present state of economic affairs. One of the duties of any government, provincial as well as federal, is to try and have some kind of a handle on inflation and at the same time to be fair to all of the people within its boundaries.

Does the Minister have in his mind any figure that he would set forward as a guidepost for settlements as this critical bargaining year evolves? — bearing in mind that the early settlements are going to set trends. This will apply particularly to the construction settlements. They're going to exert strong pressures on the public sector, and in turn settlements on the public section will reflect back into the private sector because the private sector always says, "Well, that has to be at least the minimum. If it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for us." So, the government is bound to set floors in that kind of settlement figure. And bearing in mind that this magical settlement figure, whatever it should be, has to reflect the equity of the working people, the very rapid advance of the cost of living.

Suppose the cost of living is going up 10 per cent. In order to maintain your take-home pay, even after indexing, because indexing of the income tax system lags a year or so, you're going to have to have another 2.5 per cent on top of that. Then probably you want to have some share of the national productivity. These are the figures that are being tossed across the bargaining table, Mr. Minister. Are they proper in terms of equity?

Finally, how do they fit in with British Columbia's position in international markets? We are in a seller's market for now but that market seems to be going downhill a bit. We had discouraging words yesterday from the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) about the probability of our lumber sales in Japan. It's conceivable that many of our prosperous international markets in '73 could be in difficulty in '74.

How should all of these things be tied together? Does the Minister have any advice for the people, both labour and management, and for his own mediators as they sit together around the bargaining table?

On a separate but related subject, does the Minister have any policy thoughts on COLA, the cost of living adjustment, as a feature to be built increasingly into contracts? Is this the proper way for unions and management to deal with inflation, particularly in times of very rapid inflation such as we have now, without, by the necessity of guessing in advance, making settlements that either are far too inflationary or, on the other hand, not sufficient for the labour force to keep up with inflation? Would the Minister make a statement either for or against the general concept of COLA as contracts are being looked at this year?

Those are all concerns; now I have to state a few differences I have with the Minister and with some of the things he has mentioned earlier tonight. I have to disagree with the Minister and agree with the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that there are some disputes, which are what I would call public interest disputes, where there do exist areas where there is or should be no right to strike.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. GIBSON: For example in the police force; as for example in the medical business; as for example, the ferry services where they are such that they are unique suppliers of transport to an area. Any things that cause such great human suffering.... Firemen, the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) just mentioned. Anything else where a strike will cause human suffering of immense disproportion to the number of people on strike.

Without any great hope of changing the Minister's mind, he stated his views very precisely, but I would suggest it's my view that in those areas if a person says, "I'm going to work in that area, then unhappily I give up that very basic right, that right to strike — but it is a condition of employment." I don't think those areas have to be very broad, but I would suggest to the Minister that down the line if his government doesn't decide to grasp that nettle and circumscribe some of those areas, they're going to find themselves,

[ Page 2443 ]

no matter how magical the management of the Minister, in labour disputes.

HON. MR. KING: Firemen at the airports right now don't have the right to strike, yet they are out on strike. Tell us about that.

MR. GIBSON: That's right. that's right. That's another example of bad labour relations (Laughter), is it not? If everybody goes into it knowing what the deal is how the adjustments are made, then they have to come out and agree with the settlement.

So, that is a basic difference and I suggest to the Minister that the government's going to be in trouble down the road if they're in long enough for that to happen.

The next basic difference is the conscience clause. Here's where I point out to the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), if he were in his seat now, that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) did, indeed, not walk on the fence but came down very clearly in favour of a full conscience clause, and I support him in that.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I think that's right for the Hon. Member for Skeena, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings).

Another basic difference with the Minister relates to foreign-dominated unions. I don't recall at the moment with whom the dialogue was, but he suggested in answer to an earlier proposal that international unions, Canadian branches, have all the tools in their hands that are required to become purely Canadian unions rather than Canadian branches of international unions if they wish. And he cited as an example the Paperworkers. But I, would suggest to the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Paperworkers did this as a result of a decision made in the United States.

It was a decision made in the United States that gave the Canadian section of the Paperworkers the right to hold a vote to decide whether they could become independent. It was an enlightened decision. I agree with it; I support it. But that's not the point. It was a foreign decision; it was not a Canadian decision. Therefore I say that the Canadian section of international unions don't have in their own hands the tools to make these breakaways in peaceable ways.

The Minister shakes his head and I hope he'll stand up and clarify why that's not the case. But I might recall to him that on March 5 or 6 the Vancouver and District Labour Council called on the CLC to urge all its international union affiliates to determine whether their Canadian members wished to remain within an international structure. That's a quote from The Vancouver Sun of March 6. The council delegates were welcoming the Paperworker's move.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, why the Minister won't stand up and endorse that concept; it seems to me such a clearly sound one. Now, he may wish to put caveats on it — the concept, Mr. Minister, that unions in Canada should be Canadian unions, free of control from abroad, with the union dues staying in Canada with the executive competency here in Canada, the competence to make executive decisions and make them stick and not have them overruled by anyone else. I'd ask the Minister if that isn't the concept that he can endorse, that all Canadian unions should be moving to as quickly as possible. If he wants to put caveats on it, if he wants to say that in certain huge industrial endeavours, such as perhaps automobiles, where the unions are dealing with huge multi-national companies that spread-eagle both sides of the border and have plants in Canada and plants in the United States — if he wants to put those kinds of caveats on it, fine, but I'd like to hear him endorse the basic principle.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest a basic difference in the political relationship of the trade union movement and a political party which happens to be the government. I suggest that those groups have two such different constituencies that neither can properly serve their masters when they are in an alliance, and I'm going to give a specific example.

But just to outline the different constituencies for a minute, I want to come back to the fact that the government represents all British Columbians, and organized labour represents around 15 per cent of British Columbians, not of the workforce, Mr. Minister, of British Columbians in total. So, naturally there are bound to come times when the interests of the people as a whole, as represented by the government, will be different than the interests of the international unions representing that particular segment of organized labour. And when that time comes, a government that's a captive of the unions is going to be very badly torn and their decisions might not always be wise and might not always be in the public interest.

On the other hand, the unions, particularly when they're dealing with that government as an employer, are going to have difficulty in fighting for their men and women, and people they represent, as hard as they should if they weren't dealing with the government that they had to call their political friends.

I want to raise a very specific example and I'd like the Minister to give a specific answer to this. This relates to Trail; it relates to Bill 31, and it relates to the Steelworkers' union. I suggest, without discussing the bill for a moment, Mr. Chairman, that Bill 31 is bad for the miners. So, in this case who does the United Steelworkers represent when they come out in

[ Page 2444 ]

favour of this bill?

The question I want to ask the Minister very directly is: was there any pact or deal or understanding or talks or discussion of any kind between the government and the United Steelworkers? Trading, on the one hand, the support of the government for the United Steelworkers and certification in Trail — the continued certification in Trail — but on the other hand the support of the Steelworkers for the bill.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I think that is an improper innuendo. It's a particularly poisonous and scurrilous, irresponsible innuendo which I demand that Member withdraw immediately.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it's a very simple, direct question that the Minister can clear up by a straight yes or no answer.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the answer certainly is no. I think the kind of mind that would generate that particular kind of suggestion belongs, perhaps, in Ottawa rather than Victoria because we don't deal in that fashion in this capital. I regret that a Member would make such a suggestion in this House.

The Member did ask some questions that I think are perhaps a little more worthy of comment. He raised the question of United Fishermen and Allied Workers' jurisdiction. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the jurisdiction over the fishing industry has been the subject of litigation on two occasions, I believe. One decision has been handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada just last month, which supports the jurisdiction of the federal government in all of the off-coast waters.

The only provincial jurisdiction in the industry is on the shore facilities, the canneries and so on.

Apparently there is an application before the federal Labour Relations Board by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers, and as a result of that application, an additional question has been framed to the Supreme Court of Canada, I believe, to further clarify the extent of the industrial relations jurisdiction in the federal fisheries. And this hinges on a very complex legal point regarding the discernment, perhaps, of an employee-employer relationship.

On the one hand you have employees who are at sea but employed by an employer on the shore who is under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government takes the position that unless there is a discernable employee-employer relationship within the federal jurisdiction then they will not extend bargaining rights, so we have a variety of situations in the fishing industry — a variety of employee-employer relationships. Some employers are on the boats, some are on the shore; others are on packers — and a variety of very complex relationships.

However, the jurisdiction unquestionably lies with the federal government. It's true that Nova Scotia has arbitrarily asserted jurisdiction, but only apparently because there has been no challenge to that. In other words, if a voluntary exercise exists then it is allowed to continue.

Indeed, we do have that kind of situation in British Columbia where mutual agreement exists in another industry. But in the fishing case in British Columbia, in the first instance, the federal government objects, so we haven't permission, and they've affirmed that right, that jurisdiction, both to me in response to a telegram and in the court action that I've just referred to. So, we're without authority to grant bargaining rights or to bring the fishermen of this province under the Labour Code in an arbitrary way.

The Member talked about statements made by a union prior to the Labour Relations Board decision. I would point out that if the Labour Relations Board decides to formulate a policy that will regulate that, they're free to do so, but that's not a question under my responsibilities, really. I would point out that it's not dissimilar. The alleged situation that took place where the steelworkers claimed a win, is really no different than a provincial election where the leader of the Liberal Party is claiming a victory shortly before the people go to the polls. There's no kind of control over that. I'm not suggesting the effect is necessarily the same, but the freedom to do that is the same. It's pretty hard to regulate that kind of thing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Well, that's an irresponsible statement by an irresponsible Member, so I'll ignore it.

The suggestion that I should from my office put forward a suggested percentage wage increase is one which I reject. I have faith in the collective bargaining system and I have no intention of attempting in a public, political way to interfere with the free collective bargaining machinery. I trust that responsible management and responsible trade unions will come to agreements that are fair to both parties and are not unduly inflationary or disruptive to the economy.

Similarly, the Member asked me to comment on the cost of living clauses that are becoming more prevalent in collective agreements. Again, I don't think that I should in a political way, from my office, give the stamp of approval to something that emerges from the bargaining system.

I have no objections to it. If it were something that was disruptive or damaging then naturally I would think I have some obligations. But in the

[ Page 2445 ]

normal course of events if it's mutually acceptable to the parties and it seems to be working well, why I think it's a bona fide bargain able issue and I have no issue to take with that.

Legislate Canadian unions. The Member suggests that we should provide that all Canadian workers have to belong to a Canadian trade union and can't pay their dues out of the country. Well, when I made the suggestion previously that the workers of this province have the wherewithal within the framework of their own union to take action similar to the UPIU I wasn't only referring to that; I was referring to the fact that they do have the right to change their union if they're not happy with the existing bargaining agent, whether it's an international or any other.

I think what's more important here is that to understand the trade union movement in this province one has to have some historical perspective on the emergence of the trade union. Had it not been for a tremendous impact from the American side of the border, indeed it is doubtful whether we would be the unionized nation that we are today. We would not be nearly so far advanced because the working people needed the support of the larger groups in the United States both financially and morally to succeed, and that has been the emerging pattern in the development of trade unions.

To suggest that we should come along and arbitrarily change that pattern is a proposition that I just can't accept. It denotes some divine right by government and some higher knowledge of what is best for the workers of this province. I have confidence that the workers can discern and decide what is best for their own circumstances without government legislating that they should be in this kind of organization or some other.

I want to ask that Member a question, Mr. Chairman. Would he suggest that we take similar action against companies, that we outlaw all American investment in Canada and completely require that every company be composed of Canadian owners and boards of directors? If it were not so, he would be advocating a system which would impose one set of regulations upon the working people of the province but leaving their employer free to be the worst kind of international conglomerate. That strikes me as a most injudicious approach to the problems of labour relations. That's my attitude. He's asked for answers; I've tried to give them.

To get back to his final question, it did indeed provoke me. Perhaps I shouldn't have gotten so provoked but I view that kind of question as a complete suggestion that I am dishonest and corrupt and naturally that provokes me. That's the suggestion that I would consider such a relationship; that's an outright suggestion of dishonesty and corruption and I just resent that. I think the Members of this House should be above that kind of suggestion. I recognize that the member is a new Member and, by golly, the day that you have evidence against any Member of the House to suggest such things you get up and fight for it, by all means. But to infer that kind of thing without a shred of evidence is irresponsible and the worst form of irresponsibility in my view, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister asked me one specific question on foreign ownership which I'll get to in a moment. The Minister took the understanding that I was suggesting that there was any corruption in his behaviour in this regard. I was not — I was asking him if he had any knowledge of any understanding or deal between the government and the union with respect to these circumstances. That was simply a question. The Minister answered it with a flat no. The Minister should know that this is by no means an idea which came to me out of the blue, It's rather current around the province and I would have thought the Minister should be glad of an opportunity to comment on it.

On the other matter, Mr. Chairman, the Minister asked me about the suggestion about primary Canadianization of unions, having Canadians as members, and whether I would reflect their philosophy with respect to foreign ownership of Canadian industry. I dare say that these are not the estimates to go into that in any depth but I'm certainly well on record with respect to total Canadian ownership of Canadian land. With respect to other investments I believe that it should reflect the usefulness that that investment brings to Canada. I invited the Minister at the same time to place any caveats he might wish on the continued usefulness of American jurisdiction over Canadian workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about insurance?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I certainly support what the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has had to say about this matter in Trail. The Minister can stand up and waffle around all he likes. That's what he's been doing today. But what he should have done and what the Labour Relations Board should have done is to order a vote to see whether those people up there wanted a Canadian union or wanted to continue being exploited by an American union. It's that simple.

You can stand up and say the Labour Relations Board is completely independent, you can stand up and say there were no leaks, you can stand up and say that the Minister and the government are in bed with the American labour movement, but the facts simply dictate otherwise. If your government was completely clean on this matter and if the Labour Relations Board were completely clean there would have been an honest vote ordered, and then we'd all know

[ Page 2446 ]

where the issue stood. As it is, you've avoided it. Sure, you've avoided it. It's all very well for the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), an American union man himself, to say "smear." Order a democratic vote, then we'll know where the matter stands.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Point of order. I don't mind the Member smearing, as he does all the time, but I wish he'd get his facts straight. He and his colleague for years and years and years have done me the honour of suggesting that I've been connected with the trade union movement. As a matter of fact I haven't. I've not been a member of an American trade union, a Canadian trade union or any other trade union.

MR. FRASER: Are you against unions?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, next he's going to say that he is not in favour of the international union movement.

HON. MR. HALL: No, I'm not. Just get your facts straight and do your homework.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that some of the Members of the government ought to do their homework and know we are the people of British Columbia (I'm talking about the workers of British Columbia) stand on this issue. They're not in support of your government or your stand. These people want genuine independence in their labour movement and they are entitled to it.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) stood up a while ago and said it was the free and democratic right of the workers of British Columbia to choose the union of their choice. No problem at all. If they wanted a Canadian union they could go ahead and vote for a Canadian union. Mr. Chairman, let me remind you that if a working man wishes to have a day's work in British Columbia he must belong to the union that is certified for that job.

Let me read to you from the constitution of the United Steel Workers, who are presently certified. They won't be forever, Mr. Chairman — sooner or later democracy will tell. For the moment they are. Article 12(c) outlines grounds for discipline:

"Instituting or urging or advocating that a member of any local union institute action outside the union against the international union, local union, or any of their officers, without first exhausting all remedies through the forms of appeal of the international union."

Subsection (d):

"Advocating or attempting to bring about the withdrawal from the international union of any local union or any member or group of members."

See what that constitution says, Mr. Chairman. If you are a member of the United Steel Workers, which you have to be to work for Cominco, you're subject to discipline. That means losing your job, for advocating that a member....

HON. MR. KING: That's just not true.

MR. McGEER: Well, it's right in the constitution. I have a copy of it.

Let me read from the constitution of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers on discipline. Article 12(b):

"Any member of the international union found guilty of violating any provision of this constitution or decision of the International Executive Board or of this local union shall be subject to discipline after notice of and opportunity for hearing on charges as provided in this article."

It's the same kind of thing that resulted in a trial of Canadian workers, working for a Canadian company at Kitimat, in the United States of America, where the crime was of advocating that Canadian workers working for a Canadian company should be members of a Canadian union. They were tried and, Mr. Chairman, they were found guilty in Washington, D.C., under a Social Credit government in British Columbia. Didn't want to leave that part out. (Laughter.)

The Teamsters, Mr. Chairman. May I read from the constitution of the Teamsters?

MR. PHILLIPS: You've heard Hal Banks.

MR. McGEER: I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that Minister of Labour was right about the dreadful things that Liberal government did with Hal Banks. They don't deserve support, and after all the things they've done to the west I wouldn't be supporting that Liberal government if I were a Liberal Member in Ottawa. I can tell you this: if I were an NDP Member from the west I'd be attacking my leader for supporting them, pensions or no pensions. I don't think a pension is worth that kind of sell-out.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What party do you belong to?

MR. McGEER: I belong to the provincial Liberal Party, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) should know that. I've been a member of the provincial Liberal Party here for a dozen years.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What part of the Liberal party?

[ Page 2447 ]

MR. McGEER: I think we've taken a perfectly consistent position. I've always supported the Canadian labour union movement and will always support it. We're not ashamed of it. We're not in bed with the American unions. We don't get political support from them at election time. No, we don't. Not a dollar's worth.

May I read from the constitution of the Teamsters, Mr. Chairman? I think you'll be interested in this one. This is article 19, section 7, page 123 of their constitution.

MR. PHILLIPS: You'd better watch your back. Watch your back.

MR. McGEER: Registered with the Labour Relations Board, it's a union certified for any number of contracts by the provincial government. This is what their constitution says.

MR. PHILLIPS: Look behind you.

MR. McGEER: Section 6 — "grounds for charges against members, officers and subordinate bodies

"The basis for charges against members, officers, elected business agents, local unions, joint councils or other subordinate bodies for which he or it shall stand trial, shall consist of, but not be limited to, the following:"

Subsection 4 — "succession or fostering the same." If Senator Lawson were to advocate Canadian unions he'd be subjected to a trial by the International Teamsters for violating the constitution, article 19, subsection 4.

MR. FRASER: Could they kick him out of the Senate, too?

MR. McGEER: If this Senator for British Columbia, the international vice-president of the Teamsters, were to advocate that Canadian truckers belong to a Canadian union, he'd stand trial in the United States for fostering secession. Now, Mr. Chairman, that constitution is filed with the provincial government, with the Minister of Labour. He can go ahead and talk about how Canadian union members are free to support Canadian unions. Mr. Chairman, how free is Senator Lawson? How free is any individual union member who advocates membership in a Canadian union movement? He could be tried in Washington for that crime and Canadian workers in the past have been found guilty of that crime.

Now, Mr. Chairman, something better is required of a Minister of Labour in British Columbia and a Minister of Labour for Canada. If we're going to break loose from the yoke of American unionism it's going to take some gutsy legislation.

MR. PHILLIPS: And that's no yoke! (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: It's no yoke, unless it's an American one. Here's a folder put out by....

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's talk about the AMA in Saskatchewan in the '60s.

MR. McGEER: Disgraceful! He said the AMA in Saskatchewan in the '60s. Absolutely disgraceful! And more power to a crusading Tommy Douglas who was Premier of the province. Would that he were leader of the NDP in Canada today, and I could tell you they wouldn't be in bed with the Liberals. (Laughter.)

Here's a folder put out by the Council of Canadian Unions. "Canada needs a Canadian labour movement," it says. I agree with them. They give a table here:

"Money down the drain. The following profit figures are taken from official reports issued by the Government of Canada. The law requires that all unions report once a year to the federal government upon all receipts and expenditures. These reports show the following net profit to the U.S.A....

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I can tell you that if there were a similar leaflet put out about American corporations, I'd certainly be prepared to read it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Read it.

MR. McGEER: But I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that when David Lewis, the national leader of the NDP, talks about "the corporate rip-off" you never heard him once complain about this.

MR. FRASER: He's a phony!

MR. McGEER: We don't hear about the rip-off of the workers sending their union dues down to the United States. Net profit to the USA in 1962 was $9.5 million; '63, $12.3 million; '64, $11.2 million; '65, $8 million; '66, $9.6 million; '67, $17.3 million; '68, $11.9 million; '69, $9.8 million. From '62 to '69, seven years, it totalled $89,900,000. That's right out of the worker's pockets, taken off his hourly wages. Where did it go? Well, it went across the border — bye, bye. That's the kind of thing we're trying to fight. That's why we advocate some changes to the laws in British Columbia, You see the pattern, Mr. Chairman? The constitution forbids any talk of secession from these American unions. That's pretty evident. You only have to read the constitution and any of you can

[ Page 2448 ]

obtain a copy from the Minister. You only have to read the Labour Relations Act to know that in order to get a job to work in any industrial site in British Columbia, you've got to belong to one of these unions. Over 80 per cent of Canadian workers are forced by Canadian laws to do so. That's strike 2. Strike 3 is when they have their hourly pay deducted and sent across the border in millions of dollars per year.

Mr. Chairman, that's a rip-off. It's a rip-off of the Canadian worker. It's a far greater rip-off than anything David Lewis has talked about regarding Canadian corporations paying taxes to the Canadian government. This is the Canadian union man paying tithes to the American labour movement. I'd be the first to compliment the Minister on any moves that he might make to try and ameliorate the situation. Not one single thing has been done since that Minister took office.

I would have hoped, when some of the Members of the opposition questioned the Minister today, that he would have given some indication that the government was at least thinking about correcting some of these wrongs. But instead, what we've had, Mr. Chairman, is a stirring defence of all the things that the American labour movement has done for the Canadian worker in Canada.

I'll summarize my position, Mr. Chairman: Humbug!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is that your position?

MR. McGEER: As far as the American labour movement is concerned, yes. Humbug!

I think the people who are going to do something for the Canadian workers are the Canadian unions, and they deserve an even break.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to mention one other item that rather disturbs me. It's a minor matter, but I feel it should be raised. That's with regard to....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: All these people that are in the debt of the American labour movement — and I include the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) as one — their defence is: "You don't know what you're talking about." It's always what they say. "You don't know what you're talking about."

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): That's not what I said. I asked you where you were in 1937. You weren't even born then.

MR. McGEER: I was in 1937. Well, that's the kind of....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's part of the history.

MR. McGEER: That's the kind of forward-looking argument that we get from the Minister of Transport. I think you're still back in 1937, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: We're thinking about 1977 and you're thinking about 1937. That's the problem.

MR. FRASER: Where were you? Still going to school.

MR. McGEER: It's unfortunate that you're a Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You don't know what you're talking about; that's obvious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: That's what all you American union guys always say when somebody begins to question the premises under which your policies are formed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've dealt with more Canadian unions than you've ever dealt with. Rambling incoherence.

MR. McGEER: We wouldn't...rambling incoherence!

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Put that to music. It would be a hit, probably.

MR. FRASER: You're nothing but a wood pusher anyway.

MR. McGEER: The Minister is becoming more compelling in his arguments all the time, Mr. Chairman, with his brilliant interjections.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that you are 30 years behind the times. I'm being generous. I'm being generous.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Be fair. Be fair.

MR. CHABOT: Forty years in 1937.

MR. McGEER: You're just not aware...

[ Page 2449 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm aware.

MR. McGEER: ...of what the Canadian working man wants today. Or if you are aware...

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Humbug!

MR. McGEER: ...you're not prepared to admit it even to yourself. You're a Minister and you could prove the truth of your statement. What needs to be done, I think, is really pretty obvious. You and the Minister of Labour and the others in your cabinet are going to have lots of chances. You can start right now with just a democratic vote.

If the people in Trail followed the policies of the Minister of Labour's brother, who is a United Steel Workers representative, I'd be the first one to say: "Fine. That's the way it should be; they've freely chosen it." But when the Minister and his Labour Relations Board avoid an honest democratic vote, we kind of get suspicious. We think that people up there really want a Canadian union and that the government, the Labour Relations Board and the United Steel Workers are doing everything they can to hang on to the status quo.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of the things that the Department of Labour does; and this to me is a small thing, but it's an example of how bureaucracy can run wild. The Department of Labour administers something called the Trade Schools Regulation Administrative Office. What these bureaucrats do is to regulate how much private schools that give commercial education can charge in the way of tuition fees. Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Minister that this is just absolutely ridiculous.

First of all, the Department of Labour has no darned business at all being in the field of education.

Secondly, the Department of Labour has no business at all interfering with private schools.

Thirdly, it has no business at all in saying what tuition fees for education should be.

We've had pretty firm policies stated by the Premier and by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) in that they wanted nothing at all to do with the private school system in British Columbia. I happen to disagree with that policy. I think these schools should have support from the government.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: But I think that the.... No, no, that wasn't their policy under Bennett.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, we're dealing with the estimates of the Department of Labour, vote 129.

MR. McGEER: Did you know, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of Labour does monkey in this business ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've been listening to what you're saying but you're dealing with something separate, and I wish you'd get back to this vote.

MR. McGEER: Well, what I'm saying is that the Department of Labour ought to get the devil out of it. If people don't want to attend a particular school that teaches them typing and shorthand, they don't have to attend. They can go to one of our public schools operated by the Minister of Education, or they could go to another private school. If the tuition fees charged by one of these private schools is too high, then the students can go to another private school. But what in heaven's name is the Department of Labour doing messing in all of this?

I have here a letter from Mr. John Melville, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, writing to the Duffus College of 522 West Pender, saying:

"I wish to advise you" — this is dated February 22, 1973 — "that the Hon. Minister of Labour has approved the increase in tuition fees from $60 per month to $70 per month for your school. If at any time you believe this department could be of service to you in this connection, please notify me and your request will receive every consideration."

Well, Mr. Chairman, if the people that go to the Duffus College don't have any taste for that particular college, they can go somewhere else. There are lots of choices.

But, Mr. Chairman, what is the Minister of Labour doing in regulating the tuition fees of the Duffus College? It is a place that teaches typewriting and commercial courses. The man who runs the Duffus College says quite correctly: "We are not really at liberty to set unreasonable rates. If we did, no one would come." Absolutely correct.

Here is a letter from the Minister of Labour himself, July 6, 1973, to this particular college:

"This will acknowledge your letter of April 27, 1973, in regard to the Trade-schools Regulation Act and the guidelines regarding tuition fees for private trade schools. As I have mentioned to you in a previous letter these matters are to be reviewed, and you will realize that there are priorities in the areas of labour legislation which must be considered."

He stressed the economic need to abandon the current administrative policy.

"However, I must advise you that a number of the operated and private trade schools have expressed an opinion on the established guidelines regarding tuition fees and not all are opposed to them. I again thank you for your interest in this matter."

The Minister of Labour is really a master of waffle. He showed it this afternoon in this matter of Canadian unions but he demonstrates it again in this

[ Page 2450 ]

area of Department of Labour control of tuition fees in commercial colleges. An operator writes to him, quite properly, saying, "Why can't I charge the fees I need to charge in order to do a good job?" The Minister replies, "I'm too busy doing other things. Anyway, the other operators don't agree with you. Thank you for writing." In other words the Minister opts out of the problem; the bureaucrats continue with their insanity.

I wish the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) would grasp this; one of the cabinet Ministers ought to be listening since the Minister of Labour has departed once more. The Department of Labour has no business in the educational policies of British Columbia. None. The government itself, through the Premier and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), has said the government should have nothing to do with the independent schools in British Columbia. Okay, we accept you at your word.

I say to the Minister, in heaven's name, stop this bureaucratic idiocy and get the devil out of regulating fees for commercial colleges in British Columbia.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'm also a little sorry the Minister of Labour has left his seat temporarily.

He made some comments earlier this evening which suggested compulsory arbitration and binding arbitration and any other kind of arbitration was not understood by this side of the House. He took a rather holier-than-thou position: "Tut, tut, tut. We mustn't compel anybody to do anything. This would be a restriction of the freedom of the individual."

I guess the Minister missed the point I was trying to make before supper time. I'm very glad he's coming back in the House because I would just like to continue our little discussion, Mr. Minister. The point I was trying to make before supper is that there is a difference between freedom and licence. No one individual in this society, for his own unlimited, selfish motives, has any right to penalize thousands and thousands of innocent individuals. The freedom of the individual, as I see it, is his freedom to preserve those rights established by tradition, but not at the expense of thousands and thousands of others and only at the consideration of a very small minority. The democratic system is based on justice and fair play for all groups, however small in minority or however large in majority.

For the Minister to suggest it is somehow unholy to suggest that maybe there are some times in society when a group of individuals has to have some of their desires restricted because of the good of the greater majority, then I suggest that this does, indeed, lead to anarchy and a great deal of suffering of innocent people.

Regardless of that, the Minister made great play tonight on how terrible it would be to have any element of compulsion. Oh dear, compulsory arbitration sounded like some immoral or dirty act that in no way would be acceptable. As I go around this province, many, many people are saying to me — and I'm sure to every other politician — that the day is fast approaching in our society when the right to strike, which in the eyes and ears of many people is somewhat sacred, might have to be re-evaluated. I think it was Foster Dulles who talked about a painful re-evaluation, or some such phrase was used by one of the American....

HON. MR. COCKE: Good heavens! Foster Dulles, of all people.

MR. WALLACE: Can you not remember him, Mr. Minister of Health? "An agonizing reappraisal," that was the phrase. You didn't think I was that old, did you?

Anyway, the phrase was "agonizing reappraisal." Maybe society has to take an agonizing reappraisal of the right to strike. There was a time in society when the employee had little or no alternative as a hope of gaining social justice and justice in the marketplace other than by striking. We live in a rather sophisticated and supposedly enlightened society in 1974 where men and women have a much more realistic outlook on the world in which they live and the marketplace in which they operate. The strike weapon is so archaic and wrong that we must start taking a look at alternatives to strikes.

One of these alternatives, in my view and the view of many people, is the greater use of arbitration. I agree with the Minister that, if arbitration is to be used, it is much better that we should have a voluntary agreement by the two parties not only to arbitration but to the fact that the decision of the arbitrator will be binding on both parties. If arbitration with binding effect is not acceptable, whether we like it or not I think we then have to look at the possibility of compulsory arbitration if it is to avoid a strike where many innocent people are to be harmed.

The Minister can puff and pant and puff out his chest and talk about, my goodness, how bad compulsory anything is! But there is an interesting statement in Hansard which the Minister of Labour made on March 8, 1974:

I don't think there would be any criticism whatsoever if I used my office to prevail, to cajole or even to lean on the parties to take a more responsible position so that a settlement might be consummated and a strike averted.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I plead guilty to doing that. I certainly have laid the wood to many groups and to trade unions to have them take a More responsible position, a more conciliatory position, to resolve their differences.

[ Page 2451 ]

Now, isn't that a measure of compulsion? Is that any better or worse or less than asking the parties to get to an arbitrator and do what the arbitrator suggests? Or have we a Minister who sets himself up as an arbitrator and in the privacy of his office lays the wood to the parties? It's a delightful expression. I'm sure the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is exercised to realize that there might even be corporal punishment meted out in the office of the Minister of Labour.

The Minister suggested there was a great difference between binding arbitration and compulsory arbitration. Indeed there is. The failure of one or the acceptance of one should be followed by the other. But I think the Minister has just been a little "holier than thou" tonight to suggest that compulsion is such a bad thing in labour-management problems when he, in his own words on March 8, shows he has no compunction whatever, in the privacy of his own office, to get the parties together, bang their heads together and lay the wood to them, as he says. Yet, he turns around and suggests maybe there is something not quite right about having compulsory arbitration with an appointed arbitrator. I just say one is no different from the other.

I have another quote from the Minister here which I think further sustains my argument. We have The Province newspaper of March 22 this year with the headline: King Intervenes Again (sounds like Zorro strikes again) in Alberni Strike.

"Labour Minister Bill King has summoned the Pulp and Paper Industrial Relations Bureau and the United Paperworkers International Union to Victoria following another walkout in Port Alberni. King met the union last Monday after the 1,200 workers of the MacMillan Bloedel pulp mill walked out in support of a steam plant employee's dispute over wage revision."

And listen to this paragraph, Mr. Chairman. Are you listening, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. WALLACE:

"At that meeting, King ordered the men back to work and had the company drop injunctions and writs against 57 union' members."

Is that not some kind of measure of compulsion? Then it goes on and talks about some of the other details. Members of the office and technical workers union walked out in sympathy and the paperworkers set up an information picket at the mill.

"King, in a telegram to the bureau, said the purpose of today's meeting was to get the men back to work and to set up a programme of expediting job evaluation at the mill.

"King said if the two groups can't settle their differences, he will submit the dispute to binding arbitration."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The King can do no wrong.

MR. WALLACE: The King can do no wrong; the King has the choice.

But the trouble with the Attorney-General's interjection is that here in the House tonight the King is suggesting there is something wrong with a measure of compulsion, a measure of authority, a measure of imposition of decision. Yet we look in Hansard on March 8 and he is laying the wood to certain people. On March 22, he's telling the strikers in Alberni that if the two groups can't settle their difference, he will submit the dispute to binding arbitration.

I actually agree and support the concept. But somewhere along the line the Minister should do just that thing. When the parties fail to take a reasonable approach and come to some middle ground, I happen to believe the Minister should take some authoritative action and order binding arbitration.

The Minister today has suggested that is wrong and, earlier on tonight when I was in my office, through the loud speaker I heard him taking a very sensitive approach to "interference," which was the word he used. He stated there is something wrong with the very kind of actions which the March 8 quotation shows he has taken. I don't happen to think there's anything wrong with the Minister of Labour getting the parties together and trying to exert some degree of his official authority to get them together and avert a strike. This is exactly what he says in the House on March 8.

I plead guilty to doing that. I certainly have laid the wood to many groups and to trade unions to have them take a more responsible position, a more conciliatory position, to resolve their differences.

Then, in an earlier paragraph, he says:

...I used my office to prevail, to cajole or even to lean on the parties to take a more responsible position so that a settlement might be consummated and a strike averted.

I agree entirely with the Minister, but we have to have consistency in the Minister's statements. In one voice he is saying, "Compulsory arbitration, tut, tut, tut." But on the other hand he is admitting that he carries out a form of compulsory arbitration right there in his own office.

I think the Minister is on the right track; he realizes it's very important to avert strikes. Very often in the course of strikes it isn't just a striker who suffers harm; it's many innocent people. Because strikes are becoming such a serious problem provincially and nationally, I think we have to take another look at the former attitude that the right to

[ Page 2452 ]

strike was some kind of vital element in our society without which employees simply could not exist.

One of the alternative ways to look at the situation is through the whole process of arbitration. I don't think it is all that important whether the Minister is the arbitrator or whether, in privacy, he lays the wood to them and gets them together and we avert a strike. I hope we're turning away from the rather deeply ingrained conviction that every man-jack in this country must have the right to strike.

The right to strike in many ways, in my view, is completely immoral. It certainly is in my field as a medical man. There is no way any medical person rendering help to people in medical need can possibly, morally, legally or any other way have the right to strike. It is simply wrong.

It's a matter of degree. I'm not suggesting I'm the one who can spell out where that degree ends and strikes can be carried on without penalizing innocent people. All I'm saying is that the pendulum has swung and it has swung too far. The right to strike and the degree to which it is exercised in our modern society is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The alternatives exist. I feel the Minister has in the past exercised the wisdom of bringing people together either in his office or through an arbitrator; he has persuaded them to accept the findings of the arbitrator. So let's not get holier than thou and say, "Oh, my goodness, we mustn't have compulsory arbitration." I predict in the years ahead it will become an integral part of the management-labour situation in this province and all across North America.

Here in the debate tonight the Minister has given us two different versions of his attitude to authority and compulsion. I think the record shows very clearly that while the Minister, like the rest of us, would like to see everything settled on a voluntary basis, when the chips are down, the record shows this Minister can lay the wood to anybody. Sometimes successfully. Let's get the record straight that that kind of compulsion has been used in this province. I don't criticize it; I only say it's the kind of alternative to strikes which must be explored to the full.

The Minister is obviously itching to make some more remarks. At least he's itching. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: We've got Roy back in the House and awake, Mr. Chairman. He's my conscience you must remember.

MR. PHILLIPS: I hope he doesn't sit on your shoulder. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: I won't send the Minister a bill until I've made the diagnosis. Right now there's some doubt about it.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter that can't be treated lightly. The whole question of strikes is one of the most serious problems our society faces. The tendency to walk off the job or to hold wildcat strikes I believe is on the increase. It may not right now be on the increase in this province, but in those jurisdictions under federal control it certainly is.

We presently have this country tied up and disordered by two illegal strikes: the airports of this province and in the postal system. I can't think of two areas in our communities that are more important than communication and transportation. I'm not blaming this Minister at all in this issue; but I am saying we have an example in our society where responsible, elected Ministers of the Crown are turning a blind eye to the fact that the law is being disobeyed in illegal strikes. I'm just saying that society must grapple with this whole problem of strikes. Whether they're justified, legal or illegal, they're harmful to society as a whole. One of the alternatives has to be compulsory arbitration.

I just hope the Minister will make some comment on his particular attitude in the years that lie ahead as to whether or not some of the informal compulsory arbitration that he admits to carrying out in his office might become government policy.

HON. MR. KING: I appreciate the Member for Oak Bay's comments. His concern about my need for a prescription of my scratching is valid. I wonder after a stinging attack like that if he has anything to prescribe for flea bites.

In any even, I think the Member is confused. He fails to discern between the right to strike as it effects the collective bargaining process — in other words, contract negotiations and contract renewals — and the situation which prevails during the currency of a collective agreement when there is a work stoppage due to a breakdown in grievance procedures and so on.

In those cases, as it was in the Alberni situation, there is no legal right to strike. Indeed, compulsory arbitration in those cases has been the order of the day in this province ever since I can recall.

What you are failing to do is discern between disputes that occur during the currency of the collective agreement and disputes and strikes which ensue as the result of attempts through the normal collective bargaining procedure to renew contracts.

MR. WALLACE: Is that such a big difference?

HON. MR. KING: There is quite a difference. On the one hand, when an agreement is signed, there is a mechanism called the grievance procedure for dealing with disputes that arise during the course of that agreement. It's a bona fide contract, and the concept is that both parties to that contract have an

[ Page 2453 ]

obligation to live with it and to resolve interpretations, grievances and so on that arise in a prescribed fashion contained in the collective agreement and also, finally, to resolve disputes by binding arbitration.

How I treat disputes and work stoppages that occur which are in violation of collective agreements is quite different than how I view normal collective bargaining which is contract renewal — the right of the working people of this province to bargain collectively. In my view, that implies the full right to strike, to decide what price is fair and just to sell their commodity, that is, their labour.

If the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) wishes to advocate compulsory arbitration, well and good. I just happen to disagree. I've pointed out to the Member that this is not a new device to come to grips with social problems; not only labour problems but other ones too. I suggest that history and the record show that compulsion is not an adequate device for resolving the relationships between people. It certainly hasn't proved to be an effective device for regulating the relationship between the working people and their employer.

I mentioned that in Australia, where compulsory arbitration is the order of the day, they have a higher incidence of illegal work stoppages than we have of legal work stoppages here in Canada. The federal Minister of Labour made that point very well.

I don't think one should view compulsory arbitration as a panacea. I point out further that if working people feel aggrieved, whether it is legally possible for them to withdraw their labour or not, they will withdraw it if they feel aggrieved. I don't think that Member for Oak Bay, who is a fair-minded little man, should be afraid of coming to my office simply because he has heard I lay the whip to people. He's welcome to come up there.

I This is no panacea for settling those kinds of differences. I just feel he should view the historical record, and he'll find that's not a very useful way or, in my view, a very desirable way. I think we both agree that voluntary agreement is what we should all strive for.

The Member has acknowledged that we have departed on a new course in terms of industrial relations in this province and, quite frankly, up to this point I don't think the record is all that bad. It's going to take some time to determine whether or not our approach to industrial relations is going to do an adequate job.

The Member was quite right in recalling the speech I made at the B.C. Federation of Labour. I decry the fact that strikes have become the customary method of not only resolving collective bargaining disputes but also of resolving the disputes that occur during the life of the contract. There's a whole variety of factors that are responsible for this breakdown, in my view:

(1) An ineffective grievance procedure over the years.

(2) The reluctance of many employer groups to actually engage in a good grievance procedure and to indulge in all kinds of delaying tactics which build up frustrations of workers and result in wildcat strikes.

(3) By far the most important in my view has been unduly restrictive legislation directed against working people in this province over the years.

We've charted a new course. Sure, fair enough, some people may disagree with me on that. But we've taken a new approach and I think it's reasonable and fair to give us an opportunity to see how we make out with it.

Perhaps if this approach is not effective and the public is not satisfied that we are bringing the collective bargaining process to a workable situation, then they will have the opportunity to make that abundantly clear. But you don't embark on a new course and at the same time hang on to all the old clichés and hang-ups that existed for the last 20 years.

I agree there are cases where I will have to intervene and I thoroughly intend to. I thoroughly intend, as I indicated at an earlier debate, to lean on parties to be responsible. That's a good deal different than, in a legislative way, taking from working people the right to strike as an effective method of negotiating. That's an assumption before bargaining occurs that these people are not responsible enough to carry that kind of an economic weapon in their arsenal and use it responsibly. I don't care to make that assessment on any of the working people in this province.

I have indicated earlier today that the nurses have once again demonstrated that they are cognizant of their responsibility to the sick people of this province. Most people who hold crucial positions in the work force of this province are responsible and cognizant of their responsibilities.

Let's recognize that to go on strike is generally no picnic for working people. I think they are genuinely groping for a better, more effective and a more just method of resolving disputes. That's what we are trying to develop.

I don't consider that there is any inconsistency in the approach we are taking to it. I hope the Member understands the position a little better now. There are two different situations.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Now that the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is back, I'll respond to a couple of the comments he made.

First of all, I was neither defrocked or unfrocked or deflowered, or anything else (Laughter). I was put into a position where I had to make a decision, because I was teaching school after I was defeated in the by-election of 1966, to remain in the Cariboo and

[ Page 2454 ]

continue teaching. To do that, because it was against the law at that time for a priest or a minister to teach, I decided that in favour of staying in the Cariboo during that period in my life I should voluntarily relinquish holy orders. It's sort of a state of suspended animation; you are still ordained but you are voluntarily not practising your ministry. What I did on Easter Sunday was to decide that I would voluntarily pick it up again. I wasn't defrocked.

However, in regard to his point that I said there are company-dominated unions in my part of the country and that I should produce evidence or not, say, anything, I have chosen to produce some evidence.

This is from the summary of activities of the Department of Labour, week ending August 17, 1973, page 5. This is in the section entitled "Application for certification rejected."

"Little, Haughland & Kerr Ltd., 5630 Highway 16, West Terrace, P.O. Box 280, and Terrace and District Forestry Employees Union (commonly know as the TDFEU).

"The board held a hearing for the purpose of receiving representations from all interested parties upon an application from the Terrace and District Forestry Employees Union to be certified for employees in the following unit: employees at and from the mill and pole yard at 5630 Highway 16, West Terrace, except for office and supervisory staff.

"The employer and the Terrace and District Forestry Employees Union in the International Woodworkers of America, Local 1-71, were all represented by counsel at this hearing.

After hearing and considering representations of all persons concerned, and permitting examination and cross examination of witnesses under oath, and after considering all relevant material filed with the board, the Labour Relations Board rejected the application for certification pursuant to section 12(8) of the Act by the Terrace and District Forestry Employees Union for a unit of employees of the above-mentioned employer because the formation, administration, management or policy of the organization or association of employees is, in the opinion of the board, dominated or influenced by the employer."

That's what I was referring to when I made that remark. The union is certified at Skeena Forest Products, and there is presently an attempt being made by the IWA to raid that particular place to apply for a certification vote. However, since it's in process, it's not appropriate to comment on what's taking place there at the present time.

However, it is a coincidence that probably has nothing to do with the application for certification by the IWA that 20 students who are employed at that place who just joined the IWA the other day got fired. Now, I suppose that's purely a coincidence but I think it should be mentioned. I would hope that the TDFEU, which is the bargaining agent there, would fight for these particular employees who were fired.

The last point I want to make is that it would appear that I was walking the fence. I'm not in a position at the moment to belong to a trade union. Maybe I will be. But what I was trying to point out or insist upon was the fact that every person who decides they want to belong to a trade union should have the right and the opportunity to choose the trade union of his choice. That is the point that I was making.

When I was suggesting changes that might be made — which the Minister commented on — to the regulations my concern was that the procedures be improved to ensure that a small union would have an equal chance against a very large union. There would be an opportunity for a small group of employees to band together and form their own union and succeed in getting certification. Of course, that has happened recently in a number of instances. But the main concern is to ensure that they will have a fair crack at it. And that's not walking on the fence. That's asking for justice for every employee in the Province of British Columbia to have the right to the union of his choice. That's a clear principle.

MR. CHABOT: Tell the Minister to stop discriminating against Canadian unions.

MR. DENT: Finally there was a certification application in Kitimat. The United Steel Workers had been the bargaining agent there. There was a raid by a new union called CASAW and they were successful. In that case the employees decided in their judgment that this would be a better union to represent them. Certainly I respect them, and to some extent I agree with them, given the circumstances.

However, that may change. It may well be that their zeal may run out after awhile and maybe the circumstances will change around the other way. But the point is that the employees made a decision to pick a union of their choice. I think it's a good union and I think they're doing a good job on behalf of their employees.

On the other hand at Pohle Lumber the other day the bargaining agent had been the Christian Labour Association of Canada. The IWA conducted a raid and were successful. The employees there in their judgment decided that the IWA would do a better job to represent them.

Now, the point is clear that the employee should have the right to pick the union that is free and democratic, that will fight for his cause and that, in his judgment, is the best one for him. I would hope

[ Page 2455 ]

that. the Hon. Members in the Liberal Party are not suggesting that that right be taken away from the employees to pick the unions that they want to have.

There was a suggestion made that legislation should be put in that would deny employees the right to pick an international union if that's what they wanted. I for one would never support a measure like that. The workers on the job must have the right to pick the union that will fight for them, whether it's a Canadian union or an international union.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few words about a matter which falls under this Minister's jurisdiction, namely human rights.

We have a problem which I raised during the debate last year in the Public Service Act with the Provincial Secretary, namely the fact that we do at the present time with our provincial civil service practise discrimination based upon place of origin and length of stay in Canada. We discriminate against the immigrant who comes in. We are quite willing when we find them useful to take advantage of the education that has been provided mainly by taxpayers in other countries for their private means. We are quite willing to take advantage of their skills. But we discriminate directly in a large segment of employment in the Province of British Columbia, namely the public sector.

I'd like to know what the Minister's plans are to deal with this, because I was thoroughly unsatisfied with the words of the Provincial Secretary that if that's discrimination, so be it. That's what it's going to be.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

I was dissatisfied because of the government's inconsistency. They put in general rules which apply to people and I'll give you the example of Fredrick Thompson, an American citizen who worked for I think two hours at the Liquor Control Board store in Vancouver, I think it was. He was bounced out without even being paid for those two hours, I understand, when they discovered he was an immigrant. Yet when it comes to government assistance, when it comes to people to head up research units, apparently order-in-council appointments are quite different.

There's a double standard being practised by the government itself. On the one hand you have the regular law for the ordinary civil servant. On the other you have a totally different one for the people who have this special ear with the government, a special relationship with the government, and are hired under these order-in-council appointments.

I'd like to know whether these loopholes in civil rights legislation in the province are being dealt with by the Minister, or by the people who work for him, in particular Mrs. Ruff, the human rights commissioner. I wonder whether he would indicate to us what steps he is taking along these lines to have this matter dealt with successfully.

Perhaps at the same time, because I did feel that his answers to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) were not satisfactory, he would indicate what steps are being taken to give women a fair break in employment in the Province of British Columbia. It is great to have resolutions passed dealing with women getting an equal opportunity to take jobs, hold them and be paid the same amount.

It wasn't so long ago in this House that I raised a case of ads being put in for the Queen's Printer which distinctly specified that starting salaries for men and women would be quite different, and that the salary after training would be quite different, with women substantially below that of men. I was horrified when the government's excuse was that it was for different jobs. In other words, in addition to such discrimination based on sex in terms of the amount of money you can earn there were job reservation categories similar to those in South Africa, except in this case it wasn't race, it was sex that determined who could take which job. I would like to know what steps he's taking along that line, what he can report to the Legislature at this time for the last year in terms of definite progress in making sure that women get a fair break at employment in the Province of British Columbia.

He might say a word or two perhaps, Mr. Chairman, as this comes under his jurisdiction, about women's rights generally. I know we don't have a Ministry of women's rights even though it was promised; perhaps it's time we did. We are delighted that there are two women in the cabinet, but it was more than 50 years ago that British Columbia led the British Commonwealth in having the first female Minister of a cabinet in the entire British Empire at that time. We haven't exactly progressed in the last 50 years; we've gone from one to two. It's not that I am suggesting that there should be cabinet changes based entirely on the question of sex, but it does appear to me that we really haven't gone very far over the last half century and perhaps we haven't gone very far in the last year either. No doubt the Minister can say a few things about that when he gets up to answer my comments.

Another thing, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment upon at this time is the tremendous insistence upon the right of free contract between union and employer or employer organizations. There's a great deal to be said in favour of the Minister's view there. I think he's outlined it rightly, but the trouble is that it's quite inconsistent with section 7 of the Labour Code. When we voted on it I raised these issues at that time and I put amendments to suggest that the

[ Page 2456 ]

special powers that are given to a special officer who can come in, ignore the existing labour contract between management and labour and rush in making other suggestions, were wrong in principle. If the government intended to put it in they should at least limit it in terms of time that these special recommendations would be valid for.

The government refused the amendment, I think unwisely, and we are faced with the situation now where just about everything the Minister has just said on the question of this free collective bargaining and no interference during the period of a subsisting and existing contract is totally contradictory to what he said when we discussed section 7 of the new Labour Code.

Perhaps he might try and indicate how he is going to resolve this contradiction. It's difficult for us to accept that his views are correct when dealing with one piece of legislation he bases himself on certain principles while when dealing with the administration of his department he turns and takes a totally contradictory view.

So I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether we could have a few comments from the Minister on this. There is no question that at the present time in the Province of British Columbia we are practising discrimination on a very major scale with respect to the new immigrants. We are practising indeed, within the civil service as well, discrimination based on sex., Finally, the Minister's remarks regarding existing contracts between labour and management seem totally different from those he expressed previously.

One further point, if I could, just so I deal with all these things at the same time. I'd like, Mr. Chairman, to hear the Minister's views again in terms of civil liberties and human rights. I'd like to hear his views about what steps he is taking with his colleague who is now in the chamber reading the newspaper, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), to make sure of the legal rights of those immigrants who came to British Columbia at the time when Mincome legislation was on the books which permitted them to take Mincome as soon as they arrived in British Columbia. Yet the Minister went on to realize very tardily some of the things we had referred to earlier, some of the problems I had foreseen when I discussed this thing with him in this House.

What he did was retroactively wipe out the rights that these people had to Mincome, a right granted by this Legislature by way of legislation. There are not great numbers of people involved — the Minister of Human Resources can inform the Minister or, indeed, might speak in this debate on this point. But their rights were infringed. The privilege or right which we extended by legislation in this Legislature was wiped out by a Minister who decided to delay from December right through until April in the consideration of such cases, then retroactively and as far as I can see without legislative authority decided on his own say so to deny them the opportunity of taking advantage of a programme which we in this Legislature had passed which would, indeed, have given them Mincome from the date of their arrival.

I'm not saying that his policy is wrong, Mr. Chairman, I hope this is understood. We are not discussing the policy of the Minister of Human Resources. We pointed out his policies were wrong to begin with. We pointed out that he was going to create hardships. We pointed out that he would probably have to make changes later on. What I am suggesting, however, is that because of his mistakes, a large number of people wind up in a very invidious position and it's up, I think, to Ms. Ruff, the Human Rights Commission in other words, to take up their case because they have a legal case.

They have a right to receive something to which they were fully entitled according to legislation we passed in this House and which, indeed, they should be given, in my view. We can take it away by way of legislation; we can change it in the future, but if we set up a system which encourages people, elderly people, to come to British Columbia, we should not blame them if they take advantages of what was obviously careless legislation which the Minister refused to change and improve even though he got lots of excellent ideas from this side of the House.

These people have been put in the position where their rights have been infringed, and I wonder what the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the administration of human rights in the province, would like to say to indicate what he has done to make sure that his colleague has the government, the people, the general Treasury pay for this oversight of his rather than have these unfortunate elderly citizens, who are being so badly abused by the Minister, being forced to pay themselves rather than have the general Treasury pay. Perhaps the Minister could comment on those four points.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the question of citizenship as a condition of employment with the government, which the Member raises, is one which we are studying. I am not sure that I agree with that Member's assessment of the situation, but I'm certainly prepared to give consideration to that question and it's one we'll be discussing.

The question of women in the employment of the provincial government is naturally a question that is going to be a problem for some period of time. The Human Rights Act is a new one and a much more stringent one than was the case heretofore. In addition to that, I think Members should recognize that collective bargaining rights have now been extended to the public service sector. Hopefully, many of the disparities in terms of pay scales and in terms of advancement opportunities for females will

[ Page 2457 ]

be negotiated as a matter of collective bargaining and the people will have the opportunity to set their own standards in that way.

I might add that there is a committee on which the Human Rights Branch is represented studying many of the problems that have obtained in the public service. Hopefully, they are coming to grips with many of the problems of employment opportunities and opportunities for advancement for females and other groups who may have been discriminated against in the government service.

I'm satisfied that things are progressing fairly well in that way. As I indicated, you cannot make progress in terms of human rights without putting the spotlight on current situations that do exist. And you cannot then resolve them all in a retroactive way. A progression of time is necessary, a progression of different attitudes, until some degree of equality can be obtained for all people in this province. But that's certainly the direction we're moving in and the reports I have are very favourable in terms of the human rights function.

I would draw to the Member's attention, Mr. Chairman, that if there are specific cases, then they should be brought to the attention of the director of the Human Rights Branch. I certainly don't make it a point of my function to refer cases to the Human Rights Branch unless they are brought to my attention, and naturally I transfer it to that agency.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I just have a question I'd like to ask the Minister, a problem I'd like him to look into for me — I'm sure he's familiar with it.

It has to do with a gentleman named Ben Goban who. Is a former carpenter. He's just about 70 years of age and this gentleman has been attempting for a number of years to get somebody to look into his case to see if he can get his carpenter's pension. He was a contributor to the carpenters union pension for 23 years, a member of the carpenters union for 23 years, a member of the New Westminster Local 1251 and he retired in 1971. Because of a slight technicality he has been denied his pension.

Apparently there was a rule passed in 1969 by the local union that an employee had to work and contribute for 350 hours in every year. Even though this man worked 800 hours that year, because of that technicality he was still denied. He had even contributed his share of pension contributions. I understand the union has adjudicated some of these cases, Mr. Chairman, but has for some reason refused to adjudicate in this one.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: The man, Mr. Goban....

HON. MR. COCKE: What has his MLA done for him?

MR. McCLELLAND: Dennis Cocke is his name. (Laughter.) Mr. Chairman, Mr. Goban was forced into picketing. A man almost 70 years of age had to get out and picket his own union office during which time he encountered a lot of other cases like his own — cases of serious discrimination regarding pension rights.

The man wrote to the man who is now Health Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke) because he was the MLA for New Westminster at the time. He wrote to the Premier of the province and he wrote to the Labour Minister. But he is being refused any kind of help whatsoever. He has written the Federation of Labour but nobody wants to help him, so a 70 year old man had to get out with a picket sign on his back and stand in front of his union office. He now says he's coming over to Victoria with his pickets, and some of them are classics. So, we will probably see him over here unless somebody helps him out of his dilemma. The Minister says he won't intervene. I don't think that's good enough because if there is some question about union pensions not being allocated correctly, then it is the responsibility of the Minister to make sure that those pension funds are being looked after carefully and allocated correctly.

The Premier of the province wrote him a letter which said simply, I'm sorry I can't help you. The man wrote back to the Premier and I'd like just to quote a couple of lines from his letter, Mr. Chairman:

"I was truly shocked and disappointed by your answer to my letter. The Dave Barrett I knew when he was a Member of the opposition was a kind man who was always ready to help people who were not treated with justice, but you have changed. Your pretension that my case is outside the jurisdiction of your government is absurd and you choose, like Dennis Cocke, to let it ride.

"Your close association with those American unions does not allow you to interfere with their dirty work."

That's about the size of it as well. He goes on:

"But, Mr. Barrett, now you are riding high. To you apparently a few old timers who have long supported your party, that they are cheated out of their pensions is not important. So, I wish you luck, you may need it in the near future." (Laughter.)

"Sincerely, Ben Goban."

Mr. Chairman, my attention was drawn as well to an article in an American paper, I believe, which said that millions of U.S. workers are being gypped out of their pension by the fine print in their retirement plans.

I'm not suggesting that anybody's being gypped

[ Page 2458 ]

out of pensions in British Columbia. But if there's even a possibility that people who have paid and contributed into pension plans for many, many years are being withheld from those benefits, that those benefits are being withheld from those people, then it's the duty of the Minister of Labour to make sure he gets an investigation going and finds out whether or not in fact people are being either cheated out of or by some other method having their pension benefits withheld. It's his duty. It's not fair that a man of almost 70 years of age has to get out and picket for his rights, and have the Minister of Labour tell him that those rights are non-existent.

I'd like the Minister to indicate that he might at least look into this question a little more deeply than it's been looked into so far and find out whether or not there's some kind of a loophole in pension retirement plan fine print that is allowing this kind of thing to happen.

One other item I'd like to ask the Minister about has regard to human rights, and it is probably mixed up with Human Resources as well. I understand that Human Resources pays welfare to people who are living in a common law situation, but only to the male. If a female, who happens to be sharing some kind of accommodation with a single male, applies for welfare benefits, she is told that she can't have that. Only the male is allowed to make that application and he has to sign for her benefits like she was some kind of a minor, a moron or something like that. I understand the reason for it, if that's the case, it's to protect, I suppose, the common law wife, and that's admirable. But in the kind of instance that's been brought to my attention, it really is discrimination against females.

You know, two females or two men could share accommodation and both of them could get the benefits, but when it's a male and a female sharing the accommodation, then the female is put into a subservient position. I think your Human Rights Commission. would like to know about that and probably that should be looked into as well.

I have some other comments, Mr. Chairman, but I'll bring them up under specific votes at a later time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to ask the Minister whether he is going to....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is a certain amount of discrimination going on here, I'm glad we're on the subject.

I'd like to ask the Minister whether he's going to leave it entirely up to collective bargaining and the unions to deal with discrimination in the civil service, because that's what it appeared to be from his remarks to me. Pay scales and advancement, he said,
would be left to union negotiation, union-management negotiation. I feel that's wrong. I feel there's plenty that could be done by the government if we pass legislation which is an attempt to deal with this. To say, "Well, even though we pass legislation, we're going to leave the whole thing up to union and management," is, I think, quite wrong because what's the point of the legislation?

The other thing he didn't comment upon was the Mincome problem. Here is a civil liberties problem, a human rights problem — entitlement. These people came to British Columbia, now I don't think they should have come — I think we should have had better legislation in the first place. But they came here on the basis of existing legislation which was inadequate. They came here fully expecting to obtain certain entitlements, Mincome, and they didn't get it.

Now it's not a question of the law being changed, it's not a question of anything except Ministerial decision being made to ignore the law in these cases. It's quite wrong, I feel. Certainly, these problems were pointed out to the Minister before. He chose to do nothing about it at that time. Then some hundreds of people, I understand, are in this position and they are denied rights which legislation would give them.

Surely, the Minister responsible for human rights should be getting after the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and giving him a pretty hard time on this. This is a discriminatory provision which is quite unjust and there's no reason for it at all except, of course, for the Minister to try and avoid the criticism that would come because of his inadequate understanding of his own legislation in the first instance.

The third point not mentioned by the Minister of Labour was the question of order-in-council appointments and the fact that there's a totally different approach in the case of order-in-council appointments of non-Canadians by this government, a totally different approach from that carried out by the civil service under the public service act.

I'd like to know what steps are being taken in this very obvious case of discriminatory treatment to have this matter at least dealt with, at least considered, and hopefully rectified. When the government on the one hand preaches in its legislation and the Provincial Secretary states in debate that there will be discrimination in favour of Canadians, then the government turns around with order-in-council appointments and does quite the reverse, we feel that the lack of consistency indicates that some people with a preferred position, a preferred relationship to the government, are getting a discriminatory position in favour of their applications while those who have the misfortune of not being order-in-council appointments, not knowing government Ministers or Members, are getting the short end of the stick.

[ Page 2459 ]

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question of Mincome, I have no intention of taking the responsibility of progressing cases of discrimination that may allegedly exist in this province. I've simply provided mechanisms under the Human Rights Act for people to take to the commission complaints of that kind. If the Second Member for Victoria wishes to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on behalf of any constituent or individual, he's quite free to do so and test it. But I'm not aware of any breach of the Human Rights Act that exists in that respect.

I don't view it as my function as a politician to get involved in the administrative function of agencies set up under the auspices of my department. So, that question is to me a bit of an absurdity. Quite frankly, if people have complaints on that basis, they're free to file them with the Human Rights Branch and seek an investigation and an adjudication on it. That's all I have to say on that question.

Vote 129 approved.

On vote 130: general administration and labour standards, $2,732,386.

MR. CHABOT: Unfortunately, I don't have my own estimate book here, but a couple of points came to mind, having to do with the compensation consultant who has had a drastic salary decrease of $3,320. I'm wondering why there is this tremendous decrease in salary in this position when we see the other positions have been upgraded substantially, when we see the Deputy Minister moving from $26,000 to $39,000 — a 50 per cent increase. Yet, we see one other employee, an official of the department, having a substantial salary decrease.

Also, the new position of director of arbitration — I'm wondering if the Minister could tell us just what the job function is. Could he give an outline as to what his responsibilities are and what kind of meaningful role he plays in the administration of the Department of Labour?

HON. MR. KING: With regard to the workmen's compensation consultant, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Columbia River is aware, I think, that the person who had occupied that position for some period of time resigned to go back into private law practice. We have just now appointed a new young lawyer to that position. Of course, he lacks the experience and association with the department, so it was felt that he should not start out at the equivalent salary to the individual who had occupied that position for some years, and progress both in experience and in pay scale to a higher position of responsibility.

MR. CHABOT: You didn't tell me just what kind of role is being played by the director of arbitration. You did suggest that the reason for starting the new compensation consultant at a substantially lower rate was because of lack of experience.

You have a similar situation in the position of Deputy Minister of Labour. You have a new Deputy Minister of Labour and yet you started him on a higher scale of $39,000 a year from $26,000. You've given him a very substantial increase in pay: 50 per cent over one year. It's inflationary; it's not in keeping with the kind of increases I'm sure you will be allowing the public service sector once your collective bargaining negotiations have been fulfilled.

So where is the consistency? Where is the consistency in your application of wage schedules, as you previously outlined, because of the lack of experience? Certainly, you've got an Associate Deputy Minister here who had moved from $22,320 to $33,000. They're all inexperienced. Why? Certainly they're inexperienced in their position, just like the compensation consultant was inexperienced. So how do they justify this massive increase in salary over one year?

HON. MR. KING: No problem at all in justifying it, Mr. Chairman. I think the record of this department justifies the upgrading of the positions in it.

The previous workmen's compensation consultant had been a judge of the provincial court, I believe, at the time of his appointment. He was a man of considerable stature, experience and in a position where he could not obviously be expected to resign the provincial court and take a position with the government unless he was compensated in an attractive way. That's certainly the case with the Deputy Minister of Labour and the Associate Deputies. They are people who were acknowledged in their fields as very capable. They were doing very well in terms of economic recompense, and I certainly don't expect to attract the kind of capable people which we need in the government unless we are prepared to pay a commensurate salary.

I find it curious that the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) finds the salary levels too high.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. KING: You sat on the mediation commission for $42,000. I certainly feel the function of the Deputy is much more important.

MR. CHABOT: I want you to be consistent.

HON. MR. KING: I am consistent, Mr. Chairman. I have placed the salary of the Deputy Minister of Labour, the chairman of the Labour Relations Board and the chairman of the Workmen's Compensation

[ Page 2460 ]

Board all at the same level because I think they're fairly equivalent responsibilities. They're running big agencies; agencies from which Members of the opposition demand good service and good attention. And we intend to provide it.

We've eliminated discrepancies that existed; we've eliminated the tremendous gap which existed between the poor Deputy Minister under that former Minister of Labour and the chairman of the mediation commission who enjoyed a very, very handsome salary in a very, very beautiful office. That kind of disparity is eliminated.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.