[ Page 2461 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Energy Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 18). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2461

Islands Trust Act (Bill 112). Hon. Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 2461

Oral questions

Dunhill Development personnel. Mr. Bennett — 2461

Water pollution in Similkameen Valley. Mr. McGeer — 2461

Meeting with Block Bros. and possible amendments to Bill 75. Mr. Wallace — 2462

Possible cost of production guarantees for apple growers. Mr. Curtis — 2463

Credit arrangements with milk producers. Mr. McClelland — 2464

Identification of persons conducting courts survey. Mr. Gardom — 2464

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates

On vote 130.

Mr. Chabot — 2464

Hon. Mr. King — 2465

Mr. Chabot — 2467

Mr. Wallace — 2467

Hon. Mr. King — 2467

Mr. Wallace — 2467

Hon. Mr. King — 2469

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2469

Hon. Mr. King — 2470

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2470

Mr. Chabot — 2470

Hon. Mr. King — 2471

Mr. Wallace — 2471

Hon. Mr. King — 2471

Mr. Gardom — 2471

Hon. Mr. King — 2471

Mr. Gardom — 2472

Hon. Mr. King — 2472

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2472

On vote 132.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2472

Hon. Mr. King — 2473

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2473

Hon. Mr. King — 2474

Mr. Wallace — 2474

Hon. Mr. King — 2474

Mr. Wallace — 2475

Hon. Mr. King — 2475

Mr. Gardom — 2475

Hon. Mr. King — 2475

On vote 133.

Mr. Gardom — 2476

Hon. Mr. King — 2478

Mr. Gardom — 2479

Hon. Mr. King — 2479

Mr. Gardom — 2479

Hon. Mr. King — 2479

Mr. Gardom — 2480

Mr. Wallace — 2480

Hon. Mr. King — 2481

Mr. Phillips — 2481

On vote 134.

Mr. Chabot — 2482

Hon. Mr. King — 2482

Mr.Chabot — 2483

Hon. Mr. King — 2483

Mr. McClelland — 2483

Hon. Mr. King — 2484

Mr. McClelland — 2484

On vote 136.

Mr. Chabot — 2484

Hon. Mr. King — 2484

Mr. Chabot — 2484

Hon. Mr. King — 2485

Mr. Chabot — 2485

Hon. Mr. King — 2485

Administration of Justice Act (Bill 2). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 5.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2485

Amendment to section 10.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2485

Report stage — 2485

Administration Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 3).

Committee, report and third reading — 2485

Occupiers' Liability Act (Bill 4). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 8.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2486

Report stage — 2486

Frustrated Contracts Act (Bill 5).

Committee, report and third reading — 2486

Crown Proceedings Act (Bill 6). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 2486

On section 3.

Mr. Smith — 2486

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2486

Amendment to section 6.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2487

On section 9.

Mr. Gibson — 2487

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2487

Amendment to section 13.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2487

On section 14.

Mr. McGeer — 2487

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2487

Mr. McGeer — 2487

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2488

Mr. Gardom — 2488

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2488

Mr. Smith — 2489

Mr. McGeer — 2489

On section 15.

Mr. McGeer — 2489

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2490

Mr. McGeer — 2490

Mr. Gardom — 2491

Mr. Smith — 2491

Amendment to section 15.

Mr. Gardom — 2491

Division on amendment to section 15 — 2491

Amendment to section 17.

Mr. McGeer — 2492

Division on amendment to section 17 — 2492

Report stage — 2492

Coroners Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 43).

Committee, report and third reading — 2493

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 44). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2493

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2493

Mr. Gibson — 2493

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2493

Mr. Gardom — 2493

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2493

Mr. Gibson — 2493

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2494

Mr. Gardom — 2494

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2494

Mr. Gardom — 2494

On section 2.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2495

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2495

Mr. Curtis — 2495

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2495

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2495

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2496

Mr. Curtis — 2496

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2496

On section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 2496

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2496

Mr. Gibson — 2496

Report and third reading — 2496

Professional Corporations Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 45).

Committee, report and third reading — 2496

APPENDIX — 2498

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1974.

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that in the gallery today we have Mrs. Mercy Armitage from Hartford, Cheshire, England, with her sister, Mrs. Jessie Armitage from Vancouver. Both the Mrs. Armitage are very conversant with the mother of parliaments in England and I'm sure the Members will not only give them a warm welcome, but also be on their best behaviour.

Introduction of bills.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ISLANDS TRUST ACT

Hon. Mr. Lorimer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor; a bill intituled Islands Trust Act.

Bill 112 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

DUNHILL DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing: I see by the Province that the Dunhill Development Corporation on April 25 is advertising for a construction coordinator, a very important job as it points out. I was wondering, in view of the Minister's statement when he bought Dunhill, and further in this House, that really the main asset was a team of experts to put together housing and to solve problems in this province, whether this ad indicates that the expertise that we paid….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is argumentative in the extreme. Obviously argumentative.

MR. BENNETT: Oh, all I'm trying to ask is if in fact people who were part of that expertise are not working out and whether this is to replace some of the people who were, in the Minister's words, the experts that he bought as the main asset of this corporation.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I believe I'm aware of one person who has left the corporation at this time. Other than that — is that the question you're asking? Are you asking about that bit of advertisement?

MR. BENNETT: Well, as supplemental, I'm asking for an elaboration on whether we're having difficulty with the team of experts which we bought, and whether this is from some of them either leaving the company voluntarily or not working out.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, we have had no difficulty from personnel.

WATER POLLUTION IN
SIMILKAMEEN VALLEY

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Minister of Agriculture. What emergency steps is the Minister taking to protect the cattle in the Similkameen Valley against pollution of the water supplies in that area?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of what the current dangers are. Why is the Member expecting the water to be unsuitable for cattle consumption?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister is aware that cattle are dying in the Princeton area as a result of pollution of the water supplies and that measures are needed to first of all track down the source of pollution, and secondly to protect the drinking water for cattle and presumably for humans as well.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it's one thing to say that cattle are dying because the water is polluted, and that is the reason. Some people often assume that's the case when it isn't necessarily so. It is being investigated and I'll have further reports when we have the results of that investigation.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Has the Minister or any of his department heads been in touch with the Pollution Control Branch to determine if, indeed, this water has been polluted or not?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Minister hasn't been in touch with the Pollution Control Branch. Reports are

[ Page 2462 ]

coming into my department. Whether or not these will be conveyed from my department to the Pollution Control, or direct from the area to Pollution Control, or both, I'm just not aware at this time. I'll take it as notice and give you the answer later.

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary, on the same subject. Would the Minister when he takes that as notice determine who has been doing the bi-monthly samples of the water out of the tailing pond? Has it been the Pollution Control Branch or has it been the mining company and what have been the results of these samples? Would you determine that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I may determine it; whether or not I make it public is another question. I'd have to take that under advisement.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): There's a far more important question in here than cattle, and that is the infection of the people in the families in that area. I'm wondering whether the Minister has, in consultation with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) made sure that someone from Public Health gets into that area and finds out exactly what's going on — whether or not there is an even more immediate danger to the families who own those farms.

HON. MR. STUPICH: To date there is no such evidence, but it is being investigated and certainly we're in constant communication on matters of public health.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Health perhaps comment on that because I think it's a pretty important problem. Is Public Health aware of it and are they in there looking at the problem?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is asking another Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, the same problem, another Minister.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, naturally, the Health Branch is watching everything that goes on in the area. Normally it's the Health Branch that finds these problems. As I understand it, there isn't a danger to human life. That's, as I say, as I understand it, but it's certainly being looked at.

MR. McGEER: It's suggested that the problem is an organic alcohol used by this copper smelter, copper concentrator. I'd like to ask the Acting Minister of pollution control, if there is one, what steps the Pollution Control Branch is taking now to limit the use of that toxic material.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think it's customary to ask any other Minister's subject. If the Minister is absent from the House that's a matter of….

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, look. There are cattle dying and there's some question raised about the safety of humans. Someone should be in charge of pollution control in this province when an outbreak has taken place.

MR. PHILLIPS: Has the Minister of Health dispatched any specialists from Victoria into that area to determine the cause of these rashes that are breaking out on the families of these farmers?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that as notice. It's a departmental matter.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a matter for this House.

MEETING WITH BLOCK BROS. AND
POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO BILL 75

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I've almost forgotten what I was going to ask. To the Minister of Housing: with regard to a meeting reported to have taken place on Monday with Henry Block of Block Bros., could the Minister tell the House to what degree possible amendments to Bill 75 were involved in that meeting?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't recall that Bill 75 was mentioned. It certainly wasn't the most important topic of discussion — just wide-range discussion.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister planning to have further meetings with this particular private company and with other private companies? And is there any coordinated plan to work the private sector into the housing programme?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I've had other meetings with Mr. Block and with many of the heads of various development companies and real estate companies. But as I have said before, we will be making public very soon a builders' proposal scheme to the private sector to encourage construction of rental housing.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question on the same subject, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

[ Page 2463 ]

Housing. Are you inviting other private real estate corporations to your office to discuss this, or is it just Block Bros.?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I've had discussions with several different persons, either in my office or their office: Jack Pool of Daon Developments, Jim Houston of Community Builders; I suppose I could go on.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, is it a fact that Mr. Henry Block and other developers in British Columbia have informed the Minister that unless the legislation is changed, there will be a drastic drop in the amount of rental accommodation being built in British Columbia this year and in future years?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't recall Mr. Block saying that.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister for Housing, in light of the present conversation, make available to the House the date when he first had contact with Mr. Henry Block about these projects?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I'll answer that question.

Mr. Henry Block asked me if he could have an appointment. And as people ask for appointments we schedule them, and if we can see people, we do see them. That's how the meeting originated and I was able to set some time aside.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I was not discussing, I believe it was, Monday's meeting. I was asking the Hon. Minister of Housing when he first or anyone in his department first entered into dialogue with Mr. Henry Block and his company in regard to any type of public or government involvement in public housing — the date?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I can't remember every conversation that I've had with Mr. Block. I've met with him on several occasions. I don't know if I met with him the first time I met with the urban development institute. He may or may not have been there, and things may or may not have been said. So it's very difficult. But I would say I've met with him on about four or maybe five occasions.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, surely the Hon. Minister keeps a calendar of his activities during his working hours and an appointment book regarding his meetings. I submit that this is very important to the House, and I believe the Minister realizes that it is.

Interjections

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't keep tapes as some politicians have done in other jurisdictions.

POSSIBLE COST OF PRODUCTION
GUARANTEES FOR APPLE GROWERS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, this is to the Minister of Agriculture on the subject of the Farm Income Assurance Act. Is the Minister prepared to indicate that under this legislation there is still a commitment on the part of the government to negotiate with commodity groups — particularly apple growers, for the purposes of this question — on the basis of cost of production?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations with the B.C. Fruit Growers Association — the apple branch — have not resumed as of this date; is that correct?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's right.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary. Could the Minister indicate when such negotiations are likely to resume? Is any attempt being made by him or his department to reopen the negotiations? If that isn't the case, what is the hold-up?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I've indicated previously to the House, and certainly outside as well, that the priority thing in the department now is regulations under the Agricultural Credit Act. These are taking longer than I anticipated. We are having more meetings with the banks, negotiating with them, than I had expected. I thought the programme would be on line by this time.

There is still some question as to how far we will be able to go without the legislation that is currently before the House. We just can't even guess as to when that will be finally dealt with by the House. But as soon as the regulations are prepared, then the staff members involved in that programme will be able to concentrate on the fruit programme. Within days of finishing the agriculture credit regulations, which I hope will be this week, they will have a presentation ready so that we will be able to enter into further discussions with representatives of the fruit industry. Let's say sometime next week.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you. A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister not agree that time is of the essence with this particular commodity group

[ Page 2464 ]

inasmuch as they are moving into the more active part of the operating year and are making purchases of various pieces of equipment and fertilizers and so on, and are also making arrangements with banks?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, and of course the arrangements with the banks will also be involved with the Agriculture Credit Act, and that will help them there.

It is rather urgent, although whether it takes a few more days or a week longer than it might, or even several weeks, the trees are growing and things are happening there and the fruit is being produced. That won't stop.

I think the growers generally accept the fact that we did mean it, that we will resume negotiations and that there will be some kind of programme, even if it's not the final programme. So I believe there is some confidence. But it's necessary to go further with it and re — establish confidence among the growers themselves. I think that's the important thing.

CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS
WITH MILK PRODUCERS

MR. McCLELLAND: To the Minister of Agriculture. Is it true that the milk producers were told, when you addressed them recently, that the credit Act was ready to go and the regulations were at the bankers?

The second question: have you set an interest rate yet? Will you be able to tell the farmers what interest rate they will be paying for these loans?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, to both questions, Mr. Speaker. We have done a lot of discussion and we have met with the banks several times — myself and sometimes staff members. But there was another meeting today, for example. As a matter of fact, it's going on right at this moment. So it's still being discussed. I can't say what the interest rate will be because that, too, is part of the discussion with the banks.

IDENTIFICATION OF PERSONS
CONDUCTING COURTS SURVEY

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Attorney-General. Yesterday he indicated that there's been a survey of court facilities in response to a question dealing with the new building at Main and Cordova. I would ask the Attorney-General who is performing this survey of court facilities.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the justice development committee of my department with the assistance of some consultants.

MR. GARDOM: A supplemental. Is the Attorney-General prepared to name the consultants?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't; that bell just went.

MR. GARDOM: Saved by the bell. You'll do it tomorrow then, I hope.

MR. SPEAKER: That gives you something for tomorrow.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

(continued)

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, as we adjourned last night I posed some questions to the Minister for which we haven't received replies. I'd hoped that the break we had would give him an opportunity to do the research on the role of the director of arbitration — as to what kind of a meaningful role he plays in the general administration of the labour laws and labour standards of British Columbia. I was wondering if the Minister could tell us that.

One other thing: as the Minister finalized the debate on this particular vote last night, just prior to adjournment, he left the impression that the three individuals — the chairman and the two members of the mediation commission — were probably the most overpaid people attached to government in the past. I want to certainly tell the Minister — and I'm sure he is very well aware as well — that there are a lot of people that are presently attached to this government that are receiving very lucrative salaries. There are people on….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that we're on vote 130. We are required by standing orders to be strictly relevant to the vote; therefore, he should confine his remarks to those items which are contained in the vote.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about salaries of individuals within the general administration and labour standards, and making comparisons. I would hope the privilege is not going to be denied the Member for Columbia River to discuss salaries. Last night, you will recall very well, you allowed a lot of latitude….

[ Page 2465 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member relates his remarks to the items contained here, he may proceed.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I'm talking about the salaries that are spelled out in this particular vote, and I'm making comparisons with some of the commissions which the government has established where people are receiving $150 a day plus expenses. People on other commissions are receiving $300 a day plus expenses. If you look at 300 working days a year, that's $90,000.

So it's most unfair of the Minister, when we were questioning him last night, to start castigating the three Members who played a very meaningful role in heading up a most unpopular commission, the Mediation Services Commission, at $42,000 and $40,000 respectively. It is most distressing as well to see the way they were dismissed on television by the Premier.

One other question regarding Vote 130. I see there is a dramatic increase in the cost of printing, publication, and advertising. It's moved from $3,900 last year to $400,000. That's a pretty drastic increase in expenditure on advertising and I'm wondering what kind of advertising the Department of Labour proposes to undertake this year that requires almost half-a-million dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Menehan and Dunsky needs it.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, Dunsky's being looked after very well in other advertising programmes of the government, in particular in Icky-Bicky — ICBC. They've done very well there and I'm wondering whether each and every department is going to reward Dunsky for his services in helping to elect this government in August of 1972. It'll be the last time.

We also have a new vote — the board of inquiry allowances and expenses, $120,000. That's a pretty lucrative allowance — a new allowance — which has been set up by the government. The Minister led us to believe yesterday, when debating the industrial inquiries and his more frequent usage of this particular vehicle to bring about labour peace, that it appeared to be an incredible success story.

Well, just yesterday the president of the Forest Industrial Relations and the president of the Pulp and Paper Industrial Relations Bureau was most critical of the kind of results brought about by the industrial inquiry which you appointed to look into the dispute in the forest industry. We find now, because of the actions of the adviser whom you had appointed in this industrial inquiry, that there are now shutdowns, slowdowns and work-to-rule programmes in pulp mills in various parts of the province.

The president of Pulp and Paper Industrial Relations was most unkind in his remarks regarding your appointee to this industrial inquiry board. He had this to say:

"'Job action has been taking place for almost a week at these and several other mills by maintenance tradesmen called mechanics who are reportedly dissatisfied at not receiving a between-contract pay adjustment similar to woodmill tradesmen of the International Woodworkers of America.'

"Lanskail said the industry asked Hall in that inquiry to look into a realistic way of relating the wage rates of maintenance tradesmen in the pulp and wood sector, but added: 'Dr. Hall failed completely to address himself to the matter and because of this failure we have the problems in the pulp industry today.' He said: 'It was a cop-out on his part.'"

That's pretty strong language from a man who heads up the negotiating team on the management side to say that your appointee to the industrial inquiry commission was a cop-out. He went on to say:

"'The concern of the pulp mechanics seems to be that the present IWA bargaining with the industry would place the wood tradesmen ahead of them for good. We blame Dr. Hall for not facing up to the problem. We are now hoping the workers will see the fairness of the advance raise and job action will disappear.' Lanskail said the overriding problem is still to find some way to establish a fair relationship between the IWA and pulp tradesmen.'"

I am wondering if this kind of conflict slow-down, work-to-rule is going to continue. What kind of action is the Minister going to take? Or is he going to sit back until things explode? I think you have a responsibility, because you set up the inquiry which caused the problem. I think the Minister should tell us what kind of action he will take. He took the action in setting up the inquiry. Are you going to take action now to resolve the problems created by industrial inquiry?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): The Member for Columbia River asked a number of questions regarding increases in the budget for general administration in the department. Particularly he wonders what function the director of arbitration is playing and how I justify his salary.

One of the greatest gaps in the Department of Labour that I found upon assuming this office, and one of the greatest deficiencies that was drawn to my attention, both by industry and labour, was the lack of qualified arbitrators in the province to fill the very many roles that were required by the parties to collective bargaining. The department felt that we simply had to do something positive to fill that gap, not only to secure arbitrators who would be prepared

[ Page 2466 ]

to act when they are requested of the department by industry and labour, but to do something positive in terms of helping to educate and prepare people who can act in the role of arbitrators, so consequently we had to have someone in the department take responsibility for this function. I might point out that British Columbia was one of the only provinces which failed to offer any cohesive arbitration service.

At the same time under the new Labour Code all arbitrations are required to be filed with the Department of Labour so that we have a record for the information of unions and management groups and for the department in terms of research on trends in arbitration hearings and so on, so there's that additional function which requires a good deal of expenditure in terms of creating an arbitration library, as it were.

The cost of doing this is quite modest in British Columbia when we contrast it with the giant bureaucracies which provinces such as Ontario have in terms of this whole arbitration service.

It's very vital in my view and I would think the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) would agree that this is a very vital and important service in the Department of Labour. We need more qualified people to come to grips with all those complex problems and I would think the Member would support the increased budget to accomplish that.

The other question he asked was with respect to the increased budget for advertising and printing generally. Part of that increase is related to the new arbitration service — the library and the record of arbitrations and so on. That also covers the Human Rights Branch. I think all Members of the House would agree that it's absolutely essential to play an educational role in the rights of citizens under the new Human Rights Act as statutes of this kind are of very little use unless citizens of the province are familiar with and understand the benefits and the provisions that are enacted for their protection. So it's necessary to develop brochures and to decentralize throughout the province so that not only the people in the metropolitan areas but minority groups — native Indians and so on in every corner of the province — have equal access and equal protection under the Human Rights Code. Part of the budget goes to providing that type of service.

The Labour Code is a brand new and very, very central, crucial document to industrial peace in the province. We have taken the position of sending officials of my department out to explain the concept of the new Labour Code to the people who must function under it. I don't think it's good enough to write this kind of legislation and then sit back and just expect people to understand it without getting out and doing some work in terms of explaining not only what the legal requirements are, but what the philosophy and concept of the code is, in terms of what we're trying to achieve. This is central in my view to the acceptance of any new legislation in terms of industrial relations.

When it comes to Dr. Hall, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) has indicated and quoted from a statement made by Don Lanskail, the chairman of the FIR and the Pulp Bureau criticizing Dr. Hall for an arbitration award he came down with, and asked what I intend to do about it. In the first place it's apparent, once again regretfully — I'm becoming to feel rather badly for the Member for Columbia River — that he just doesn't do his homework. I never appointed Dr. Hall. His association with the pulp dispute was solely a voluntary one between the industry and the union. I made no such appointment. So really I don't feel too responsible if one of the parties, which voluntarily accepted….

MR. CHABOT: You suggested Hall; you know it.

HON. MR. KING: The parties voluntarily accepted Dr. Hall and, you know, one or the other may not be completely happy with his report. Nevertheless, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a solution under arbitration and then hope that you have all your own way.

Now Dr. Hall is one of the eminent people in industrial relations in the province. He has been involved in a great number of arbitrations, and I think his record is one that is certainly admired by all sections of the people involved in industrial relations. I have no hesitation in saying that Dr. Hall has rendered a great service to the province.

The question of the relationship between the pulp sector and the IWA, the forest sector, is one which is embodied in the collective agreement. So if there's a problem — and there has been, granted — that problem is the result of a collective agreement which was voluntarily signed by the industry as well as the union. In my view, both must bear the basic responsibility for solving their own problems. I don't believe in the heavy hand in intervention.

MR. CHABOT: The big stick.

HON. MR. KING: I believe the parties as far as possible should be allowed to work out their own problems.

MR. CHABOT: Lay the wood to them.

HON. MR. KING: In most cases they have measured up to that responsibility. Now if they don't and if they fail to recognize the public interest, then we'll consider other devices — a more persuasive approach; let's put it that way. (Laughter.) So I think that answers the Member's question.

[ Page 2467 ]

MR. CHABOT: There are going to be a lot of brochures printed, I see, by the Department of Labour: $400,000 as compared to $3,900 the year before. I'm most gratified really that it won't be political propaganda through advertising; it'll be strictly brochures. I'd like to thank the Minister for telling us that there won't be any advertising from his department — strictly brochures.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd like a little guidance. I presume that this vote allows for discussion of the Workmen's Compensation Board administration. I find no mention of the Workmen's Compensation Board in the estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the proper place for that discussion would be under vote 129, which has already gone through.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we're all trying to get through the estimates intelligently and in good spirit. There's no way that we can discuss this Minister's estimates without discussing workmen's compensation. Now if I'd talked for an hour-and-a-half yesterday, there would have been complaints about long-winded speeches. I purposely avoided it so that I could discuss it under administration. I would suggest that somehow, somewhere in the succeeding votes we must be able to discuss the Workmen's Compensation Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask if it's agreeable with the House that he discuss workmen's compensation under vote 130.

HON. MR. KING: On a point of order. I think it should be pointed out to Members of the House that the workmen's compensation administration is in no way responsible to my department. The only responsibility lies in legislative control, much the same as B.C. Hydro or the railway.

The Workmen's Compensation Board once a year files its annual report with the House in the same way that the other two Crown agencies do that I referred to. Now I have no authority to intervene in the budget of the Workmen's Compensation Board, It's funded solely by private capital. I think the only possible area for consideration of that tribunal would be under the Minister's vote in terms of legislative responsibility. I'm not sure that the estimates are the proper place to consider legislative change to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, I would refer to the standing orders that we must keep our comment directly relevant to items contained in each vote.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, it seems analogous to me. The Minister's explanation resembles the Premier's responsibility when we talk about the B.C. Railway. We've always been allowed to discuss this kind of subject in that way under the Minister of Finance's estimates. It's my impression that while the Minister directly has no financial control over the Workmen's Compensation Board, surely in the legislative responsibility there has to be one Minister of this government responsible for the function of the Workmen's Compensation Board. It is so intimately involved with labour matters in general in the province that I think we seem to be splitting hairs in suggesting that this can only be debated under the Minister's vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that it is the responsibility of the Chair to enforce the rules as they are given to us in the standing orders. The proper place to have brought that matter up would have been under vote 129. We have now moved on to vote 130. Therefore, the responsibility of the Chair is to enforce the rules as they apply to vote 130.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if I may just comment, I have no desire to pass lightly over the workmen's compensation area. But there is a notice of motion for the introduction of legislation on workmen's compensation amendments. I would suggest that that would afford an appropriate time to discuss, generally, workmen's compensation legislative considerations. But since this is consideration of estimates and since I'm not responsible for a budget as far as the WCB is concerned, I would think that your ruling is proper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would rule that your comments must be relevant to the items contained in vote 130, as required by standing orders.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that makes it a little more difficult, I must admit. I notice that there are two items there to do with the compensation consultant and compensation counsellor, to the tune of some $35,000.

The tragedy of this to the government in not letting me speak, Mr. Chairman, is that I've got all kinds of good things to say about the compensation board. Last night I was saying all kinds of bad things and I got all kinds of leeway to say them. Now, when I'm trying to hand out a few bouquets, I can't get at it.

But perhaps the Minister could let me talk about the financial responsibility of paying for these compensation consultants and counsellors, and try and give the House some information as to how that relates or in what way it relates to the reorganization of the whole matter of claims adjudication. Because,

[ Page 2468 ]

of course, in a compensation matter it is very important, if the injured workman feels that he's not being fairly dealt with, that there's great scope for help from consultants and counsellors. The reorganization which has taken place presumably involves these two particular positions.

I'm talking particularly of the kind of information that was provided in an excellent news bulletin by the compensation board for the months of March and April, where it very clearly reorganizes the very important function of claims adjudication and, in fact, abolishes three of the departments. You know, Mr. Chairman, we should always be very happy when we hear about government agencies that are abolishing departments. It seems such an unusual and rare, but very desirable, change of direction in an era of bureaucracy.

What's happened here is the claims department, the claims advisory service and the rehabilitation services department will be abolished as of March 29, and the new department will simply have three divisions, A, B, and C, dealing with the whole question of claims adjudication.

I think this is the best kind of coordination and drawing together under one roof of these kinds of services. I know that the degree to which women can receive advice and counsel and can feel that their difference of opinion with the board is being listened to is very vital — and preventing the claim going on and on and probably going to the last level of medical review panel and all that goes along with that, which is final and binding.

I feel that if there was more consultation and advice available to the workman — along the way, as it were, in the course of the claim — this might not only give the workman a better deal or a greater sense of justice; it would in fact cut out a lot of the bureaucracy. I think that the new chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board is just doing a fantastic job in several areas, and in particular in his ability to cut red tape and get down to the bones of the matter. In many cases, in my limited experience, he has brought about very fair solutions and recommendations on cases which have been lingering for some time — up to five years.

I'd like to say that a case I raised in this House four years ago has been resolved in what I think was a very fair and satisfactory manner. But perhaps if this compensation counsellor and this compensation consultant had been available and functioning under vote 130, I'm sure that some of these cases would not involve the long and tedious processes and the hardship to the patient and the inevitable degree of hostility which builds up sometimes between the patient and the board.

The other point that I wanted to raise — which is a little more difficult to raise under the two lines on vote 130 — is the hope that in the reorganization and in recognizing the importance of these kind of people, we could hopefully look at this whole phrase "pre-existing disease" in a new light.

Without going into a long exposition on that, Mr. Chairman, because you are looking very pensive, I think this is an area where some neutral person or some person who has an essential function in a consultative or a counselling nature should always be available to make sure that when claims are being considered that the purely radiological evidence of some aging process or some degenerative process is not given undue attention in light of the real problem which is the injury to the workman.

Time and time again the workman certainly gets the impression that he is not getting a fair deal because some routine investigation shows the existence, say at age 50, of some degree of….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that there will be a bill introduced shortly with amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act. And it may very well be that that area is covered. Also, I regretfully….

MR. WALLACE: Oh, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Also, regretfully I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the particular items in the estimates. I think you are wandering away.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I know the Conservative Party is very well informed, is, in fact, endowed with many talents, but one of them is not telepathy. And I can't tell what the intentions of the Minister are because he has given notice of amendments to a bill. With the greatest respect for the Chair, if you are ruling me out of order on that basis, I simply have to challenge your ruling. There is no way I can…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. WALLACE: …anticipate what the Minister will one day bring into this House as....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am not ruling the Hon. Member out of order on those grounds. I would rule him out of order if he continues this line of debate without relating his remarks to the particular items before us in the estimates. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the items in the estimates. I was merely trying to be helpful. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just have a few more comments anyway. They mainly relate to the fact that the compensation consultant and the

[ Page 2469 ]

counsellor, I would assume and hope, are to be given greater emphasis in the reorganized department because some of the problems I am trying to bring to the House — albeit in a somewhat circumlocutory way — are related, magnified and go on and on and on.

If there were more people in a consultative and a counselling capacity early in the claim process, we would in fact, perhaps, obviate a great deal of the problems that go on and on with cases that are either unresolved, or where the unfortunate patient doesn't accept the decision of the board, or feels that there has not been enough done either to inform him of his rights under the Act, or to make him knowledgeable about some of the facilities and forms of advice that are available to him.

I wonder if the Minister could give us some idea on these two items in Bill 130 — compensation consultant and compensation counsellor — why, in fact, they are in this bill and if, in fact, the Minister's administrative responsibility is not directly to the board since the board acts on its own and within its own administrative structure. Maybe the word "compensation" is misleading in this vote. At any rate, within the limitations of the wisdom of the Chair, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to make that point. I would be interested in the Minister's response.

HON. MR. KING: After that tortuous and circuitous route, I will try and traverse the same path, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say that I do appreciate the Member for Oak Bay's concern with Workmen's Compensation matters. Indeed, for the record, I would just like to observe that he has been a considerable degree of help to my office in considering this whole area, and I appreciate his co-operation. In the past I haven't hesitated to call on him for his advice. I know it is a genuine concern.

The particular vote of the Workmen's Compensation consultant and the counsellor comes under the Department of Labour vote for a specific reason: to maintain the independence of the worker's advocate — his independence from the board — and so his responsibility and the wages come under the Department of Labour vote which secures and maintains that independence from the board.

In other words, the worker seeking assistance in terms of determining whether or not he may have an appeal, in terms of determining whether or not he has correctly assessed his case or whether the Claims Department has, he should have access to an advocate who is separate from the board and is not part of the initial and original decision that was made. So, that is the reason for it. This was developed under the previous administration, and it is simply a continuation.

We lost the previous Workmen's Compensation consultant — he resigned last year to pursue his practice in law again — and there was a period of time when we just had the counsellor working by himself until we could attract a qualified person to act as the consultant.

They have received additional office staff because their workload was very, very heavy. So, we are simply continuing a structure that has prevailed for some time.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to say to the Member for Oak Bay that the bill that will be introduced, hopefully, very shortly, deals with amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act and covers quite a wide variety of interests. I am sure it will provide the latitude for the Member to really get into the kind of discussion he would like to on some of the other things.

I appreciate his comments regarding the changed administrative structures within the board. Although I am in no way responsible for them, I certainly am pleased and excited about some of the new trends taking shape within the board.

I hope that that deals with the questions which the Member raised.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions on page N-97, at the beginning of the vote — about 15 lines down we have the Director of the Women's Bureau, the Assistant Director of the Women's Bureau and the Consultant to the Women's Bureau. And I asked questions on this under the Minister's vote.

My rough calculations indicate that we are actually going to be spending less money in the coming year on these, presumably, ladies — maybe they are men who work in that department, I am not sure — but we will be giving less money to these four people than previously for their operations and for their work. Certainly, two of them go up in pay, the other two apparently go down.

I raised this yesterday, Mr. Chairman, because I was concerned that we are not doing very much when it comes to encouraging equality of opportunity for the female sex. The Minister came back and said that it really didn't matter because this is going to be taken care of — in the Civil Service at least — by collective bargaining, and it would be tough, of course, if the union adopted male chauvinist attitudes. It wasn't the government's basic responsibility because they were going to act as the employer, and they weren't going to get involved in such things as equal pay and opportunity for women — that was a subject for negotiation at the bargaining table. I think that is the wrong approach — I said so yesterday and I won't repeat it.

I do feel that in this area we seem to be getting a downgrading, an obvious financial downgrading if you take into account inflation, a very substantial financial downgrading of the work being done by the

[ Page 2470 ]

Women's Bureau. I would like to know why. I would like to know why the government which came in on the promise of a women's Ministry — something forgotten by their Members since they preached this on the hustings back in '72….

I would like to know why it is a very, very small area which is devoted to assisting women in getting equal opportunity, both in terms of pay and in opportunity for employment, so that perhaps women can have a little bit of assistance in getting around the sort of chauvinistic advertising from the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Hall's) department, which I brought to this House's attention some time ago.

It seems to be downgraded once more and I am worried because, first of all, it is contradictory to the government party's policy — it doesn't appear to be contradictory to the government's policy. It's contradictory to my understanding of what, indeed, the policies of all the parties of the House are. I would like to know why we have in those three lines of this particular vote 130 this reduction in the amount of money from $46,452 to $44,358.

It is great to have policy statements by the NDP, and great to have policy statements which go to the public as policy of the party. But when the government gets in and starts downgrading even the little that has been done in previous years with respect to assisting women and the operation of the Women's Bureau, I think it's very poor indeed. I wonder if there is some explanation for it.

HON. MR. KING: I perhaps misunderstood the Member's question last evening. I took it to relate to the public service in the government. My comment that collective bargaining would perhaps solve many of the anomalies and discrepancies that had existed over the years was in no way a cop-out. The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) should understand that, under the new Labour Code, trade unions are also prevented from negotiating discriminatory rates. That is a new and first protection which in my view has been long overdue in terms of protection to women.

The other point the Member raised regarding the budget and the staff for the Women's Bureau is obviously a bit misleading. There has been a reorganization of the department. As you know, the Manpower Training Branch has taken responsibility for this whole area of job placement and training and so on. What we have now are the same people involved but, rather than an isolated group as an offshoot of the department as they were formerly, they now have attached to them apprenticeship counsellors from the apprenticeship branch who assist the Women's Bureau in ensuring women's content is ensured in employment opportunities.

Additionally, the branch works with the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration to monitor job opportunities for females within the province. There's no dissipation of the funding and the resources, both financial and physical, in terms of that important section of the branch. I give the Member that assurance.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the fact that apprenticeship counsellors will be helping the Women's Bureau civil servants, be they male or female, but that's something which may well be very much in the future. I think it's a good idea; I'm not denying that. If you can get more girls in apprenticeship programmes I think things will improve; I'm all in favour of that. But that, if I can go back to my first point, is something that may show results well on in the future; it's not going to show results in anything less than 5 years, maybe 10, 15 or 20 before the girls who go through those apprenticeship programmes actually get out and start hitting the positions within their trades and, of course, within the union structure which they should be getting and they're not getting at the present time.

I agree that it's good to have apprenticeship counsellors working with the Women's Bureau, but your assurances, Mr. Minister, simply do not seem to go far enough. I was under the impression that an NDP government would provide special incentives to ensure equal work for women at equal rates of pay. I don't really see anything very much coming out of a Women's Bureau which, candidly, is being diluted — with all due respect to your suggestion that they're going to move into other areas as well — and which, in actual fact, as a bureau is going to be reduced in importance in pay.

I know it's easy to put forward legislation as we have done, but when the Provincial Secretary's department, the Queen's Printer, starts advertising discriminatory rates of pay and then, in answer to my queries on this, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) gets up and says, "Well, it's for different jobs." — which indicated clearly that there was going to be job discrimination between males and females — I just don't think we've gone very far at all.

I would urge the Minister to have a good look at this. Perhaps he hasn't taken much interest in it up to now and perhaps this came into the estimates in a routine way and he hasn't picked it up. I hope this time next year I will have a little different type of estimate to look at in this regard. I really don't think we're doing a thing to get around the problems of discrimination, both in pay and in terms of opportunities.

MR. CHABOT: Just a brief question. I see we have an allocation for a labour ombudsman: $39,000. There's also an allocation of expenses of $90,000. That's even more allowances than the Premier of British Columbia gets; $90,000 is slightly more than

[ Page 2471 ]

the Premier. There is no indication or any provision for office facilities or additional staff or anything like that; it specifically spells his allowances out in the estimates. I was wondering how he's going to find it possible to spend $90,000 allowance during the forthcoming year.

Also, there has been a large increase in the travelling expense under this vote from $65,000 to $134,800. I am wondering if this is where some of the travelling expenses of the Labour Relations Board comes from, or is it just because of the increased staff in this particular vote? Is that why there is an increase in the expenses? If the expenses in travelling allowances for the members of the Labour Relations Board aren't here, where are they concealed?

HON. MR. KING: The expenses for the Labour Relations Board are under the board's vote. I'm not sure what the number of that is off hand but it's further along. The expenses associated with the ombudsman are related to not only paying the salary and the travel expenses of an ombudsman when we appoint one — and I would point out that that section of the Labour Code is not as yet proclaimed — but the expenses will involve setting up an office, securing the staff which he would require to conduct investigative work, and office and clerical help and so on.

I think all Members can appreciate that an ombudsman, to play the kind of role which is necessary, would require absolute independence from any agency of government to ensure that his investigations and his conclusions were based on the facts in an impartial way rather than related to any subservient position to a government department. Part of it would be a one-time expenditure in terms of setting up his office and securing his staff.

MR. WALLACE: Somewhat along the same lines, I was just puzzled a little bit by the tremendous figure that's included for code 013: printing and publications and advertising, $400,000.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I see; I beg your pardon.

MR. CHABOT: Brochures. No advertising; strictly brochures.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I gather this question has been asked already, Mr. Chairman. I was out of the House, I gather. Could the Minister tell me, in a word, how it's gone from $3,900 to $400,000?

HON. MR. KING: I did point out earlier that that involves the establishment of an arbitration director and the branch of the department. In my view this was an area that had been neglected for many years. We had no machinery for ensuring that there were competent arbitrators to act when required throughout the province. We feel we have to have a reserve of arbitrators whom we as a government might call on or that the parties to a dispute might call upon. I think that we have a further obligation to involve ourselves in the training and preparation of people to fill that role.

In addition to that there is the human rights code. The advertising for that branch is under this particular vote you refer to. As you can appreciate, that involves a tremendous educational role, as does the new Labour Code. We have put out brochures. The Deputy and the Associate Deputy Ministers have travelled around the province explaining to labour and management groups what the intent and the conceptual background of the Labour Code is and what we are trying to achieve. I think this is a necessary function which would have helped in the past had we done more of it.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Hon. Minister raised a very interesting point there when he was talking about the need for the training of arbitration personnel in the province. Could you furnish us with some particulars of what you are envisaging along that line?

HON. MR. KING: I think there's a real vacuum in terms of education in this province for all aspects of industrial relations. The department is considering at the moment a variety of educational programmes that hopefully will facilitate a more sophisticated and a little more responsible approach to industrial relations. Many of these areas are the kind of proficiencies which were only acquired in the past through experience — getting involved in an active way in disputes. We're hopeful we might, through a series of seminars conducted under the auspices of the department, bring in lecturers and run the kind of seminars that would help to develop the kind of skills necessary.

While I'm on my feet in this respect, I might mention that I anticipate further expenditures within the department for this kind of educational role on the labour side also.

I have said on many occasions that it's rather negative for the government to grant by legislation tremendous economic power to trade union people in terms of the ability to call a strike and tie up an important section of the economy when we fail to provide any system of education and preparation for these people to assume that office. Simply by the fact of winning a local union election many people find themselves in a position where they hold this power in the hand of tying up a very, very important industry. I have found through my own experience

[ Page 2472 ]

that in a number of situations the poor working person who aspires to that position and reaches it is not very well equipped to carry that kind of burden of responsibility.

In my view, I think that we have to give more attention and more resources to developing some detailed knowledge, some preparation — perhaps courses in economics, perhaps courses in trade union administration and sociology, those kinds of sciences — so that people in whom we vest this power are at least qualified and equipped to exercise that power in a responsible way.

We too often, in my view, sit back and decry irresponsibility when we do absolutely nothing to ensure that working people of this province, particularly, have access to the kind of skills that they need. So I make no apology for the increases in the budget, in terms of developing skilled arbitrators, better negotiators and all the variety of aids that we need to make collective bargaining more functional in this province.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has enunciated extremely responsible suggestions here. But are these all in the formative stage? I gather he was thinking on his feet, and I commend him for what he said, but are there any programmes? Do you have any programmes to support the matters which you just mentioned?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, we're formulating programmes at the moment. As you can appreciate, I think we've done a great deal within the 18 months we've been in office in terms of the legislative change and all the administrative functional changes that were required to accommodate that legislative change. But quite frankly, yes, we do have many of these programmes underway in terms of the initial preparation. It will be some time before we get them all off the ground, but this is the direction we're going.

MR. GARDOM: I understand, then, from the Hon. Minister that none of the suggestions he's raised today as yet are really in programme form.

HON. MR. KING: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to congratulate the Minister on the last few words, probably the most significant statement that he's made, or indeed has been made, in this debate so far on his estimates. We congratulate him from this party, as has been done by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, because we think that's an excellent suggestion. We were very impressed by that.

But I ask this question, which perhaps can be also pondered on by the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. Dailly): why is it that in the estimates we have education programmes and policies dealing with such things as sociology and economics for trade union leaders under code 013, which is printing and publications and advertising?

It passes belief that these estimates we get can be so misleading in the titles applied to them. I know that this is not the Minister's fault. I don't think he's trying deliberately to conceal, but we have no end of difficulty in the opposition and as Members of the Legislative Assembly in properly discussing and analyzing Ministerial estimates when the estimates…and $400,000 comes up and it's totally misleadingly labelled.

You should be sued by the Minister of Consumer Services (Ms. Young) for false advertising. It's ludicrous that we have to probe with questions on every line to try and really find out what's there, when the title of the actual amount of money is just false.

We found that that came under the laundry, the laundry estimate,It happened with the Attorney-General's estimates on the question of clothing. He didn't even know whether the clothing estimates were for guards or prisoners. Eventually he found the clothing for prisoners. I see he's borrowed one of the jackets from one of the prisoners. (Laughter.) for the correctional services. New clothing came under laundry.

Now we have education programmes coming under printing and publications. I trust that the Deputy Premier is taking a close note of what I'm saying, because the way these estimates are, it just makes a farce of the debates. It takes us much longer than it would otherwise take if we didn't have to keep on questioning to try and find out what's really there.

Vote 130 approved.

Vote 131: Factories Branch, $621,604 — approved.

On vote 132: Apprenticeship and Industrial Training Branch, $9,601,114.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I come forward with great expectation that the Minister under 007, which is advertising and publicity — not James Bond — which goes from $1,500 to $25,000…Perhaps in his little magic grab-bag he'll come up with something new and exciting, because probably that's been mislabeled too. It is a real chunk of money, a tremendous increase — a many thousand per cent increase — which perhaps covers some other exciting and interesting new programmes.

That's one question. I wonder whether he would indicate whether or not code 007 does give us something more than it says on the surface, because

[ Page 2473 ]

in actual fact it's advertising and publicity; the last one which we found so interesting was publications, printing and advertising. It sounds sort of similar. The increase is of a similar enormous increase in magnitude. Perhaps there's something hidden there that he could enlighten us on.

The second point I'd like to question under vote 132 is a question raised yesterday by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer): that is the private or independent vocational school. We have many schools of this nature. Most of them are business colleges teaching shorthand, typing, bookkeeping procedures, things of that nature. We've all seen the schools. Some of us such as myself have attended them, and we've learned to type or whatever else.

I think that the point raised yesterday was not touched upon at all by the Minister in his reply, but the fact is — and I'm quoting November, 1973 figures — the New Westminster Business College is allowed to charge $52.50 per month for roughly the same training that the Duffus College Limited charges $70 a month for and Pitman can charge $85 for and McKay Tech and Dave Gordon Systems can charge $130 for.

The provincial vocational schools charge the federal Manpower department anywhere from $120 to $150 per month for virtually exactly the same training that is provided by the New Westminster Business College at one-half to one-third of the amount.

Now I know that the reply could come back quite simply: "Well, all these colleges find their own level; they charge what they wish." But that's not the case. They're all resisted by the government to a 5 per cent increase only. Therefore, any college which has a slow starting base winds up with a continuing low tuition fee. Those that start with a high tuition fee wind up with a continuing high tuition fee.

Now this iniquitous system was developed under the former administration and I just fail to see why the present government continues it, because 5 per cent is way out of line with inflation. You gave every civil servant 10 per cent or more. It has no relevance whatsoever to the costs of providing the education. It's an arbitrary figure set at an absurd level, so the whole thing makes no sense at all.

I just cannot see why the Department of Labour continues this practice, and I can't see why they will refuse certification to these trade schools if the 5 per cent figure is not adhered to, because there are, as I said, enormous discrepancies. Some fees are virtually a third of other fees. Yet those that are well down are perhaps trying to buy new equipment, new typewriters, new calculating machines; they're quite unable to do so with their present structure of fees.

I wonder whether the Minister would indicate whether he will either alter, retain or abandon this present 5 per cent limitation and 5 per cent maximum increase in tuition fees. I realize that the government doesn't wish to support independent schools — we went through that before with the Minister of Education — but here is where a clumsy and short-sighted policy is damaging institutions which are providing very necessary skills and necessary skills which help our young people, in particular, who want to get into the work force relatively quickly.

Perhaps the Minister would like to gladden my heart with a statement that he's going to abandon the 5 per cent, because unless he does the present chaotic situation will simply continue, and the tremendous variation in quality of education will also continue.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member might have gladdened his own heart had he looked into it a little more closely. The 5 per cent was abandoned last year and a 10 per cent increase rate granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What date?

HON. MR. KING: I believe it was just before the registration in October of last year. Now, The Duffus School of Business that was brought up yesterday — however you wish to pronounce it — the duffers over there referred to it, anyway…They requested an increase in their fees last year. They were allowed to increase the fees up to 10 per cent. They got in on this increase in the percentage. Previously, of course — you're quite correct — the limit was 5 per cent.

These courses are designed to respond to needs in industry and in the work force. It's essential that the department be assured, as the licensing agency for these trade schools, that the content of those courses will truly meet the needs of industry — the skills which industry requires. So there is a committee which meets and assesses the curriculum and the training material which these schools propose to use. At the same time, this committee can consider the rates that are proposed to charge and if there are unusual costs, they can grant changes in the rates, but it's essential, I believe.

I think the Member would agree that unless the content of the courses and the prices charged to students were regulated in some way, it would open up the possibility of all kinds of gouging and in some cases ' questionable training in terms of meeting industry's needs. So this is as it has been for some time, fully supported by industry and by the trade union movement in the province, and I think it's a good structure.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to thank the Minister. I mentioned that I was dealing with the very end of October, November, and the situation then. I

[ Page 2474 ]

appreciate the fact that apparently very shortly after, despite the discouraging letters that the Minister signed on April 19, '73, and July 6, '73, there was a change. It does show that he does change his mind and I'm delighted to see it.

I quite agree, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there needs to be perhaps some control, and there's no suggestion from this side that that industry-union-government committee does not continue to look at future needs. I think it's very essential. But would he perhaps indicate how the limit is now off? The percentage limit was obviously just ludicrous. Is it now a question that each rate application must go before the Minister's department or before a board? How are rate increases now permitted? I personally feel that the public educational system, which provides the same courses, is a very good check on the amount that these private institutions do charge. But perhaps he would indicate to us how the new system is working.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Member didn't seem to understand that it's not a new system. This has been the procedure for some time and I as a politician do not grant these provisions without an agency to advise me. I simply proceed by the recommendations I receive from the trade school administration.

In the case of the Duffus School, the committee met. They appreciated the cost involved in developing this school, and they decided to allow him to charge $1.25 per unit hour of instruction in general commercial courses. So depending on the circumstances involved, this committee, which is trained and experienced in dealing with this kind of thing, makes the recommendation to me, which I usually concur with.

MR. WALLACE: I'd just like to refer again briefly to the whole question of apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship and the joint announcement that was made on December 17 by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). Just to quote from that announcement for a moment: "The Minister of Labour shall have the function…he'll have to meet the identified manpower needs by taking prime responsibility for the development of pre-apprenticeship, apprenticeship" and several other classes of programmes. I know there's some apprehension, particularly by the community colleges in the province, that this is essentially an educational function which should remain under Education and should not be diverted or diluted or in any way passed over to the responsibility of the Department of Labour.

Maybe this is just a philosophical difference which is being expressed rather than a practical one, and if that's the case we can discuss it on that basis. But we have heard in previous debates that there was real value — and I certainly believe there is — that as part of training the student should at least receive part of the training in the work situation. I understand both from the Minister of Education herself and from other people in the field that I've talked to that this is a very worthwhile trend and we can anticipate amendments to the Public Schools Act like some of the amendments to the Workmen Compensation Act to make it more feasible for students to participate in a work situation while they're still essentially students.

I'm sure the Minister well knows that there was great concern, particularly in the Prince George area, where student nurses were to be regarded as employees of the hospital rather than to be students simply in training, on the basis that as part of their training they were in fact providing a service to the hospital, which should be paid at a certain rate. I think this is a very important area. Maybe we're moving in the right direction, and maybe we're not.

All I can tell from reading the public reaction at the colleges, and from people like Mr. Galt Wilson, a good Conservative who was recently displaced as president of the B.C. Colleges Association, and I wouldn't imply for a moment that that was anything but the wheel of fortune, Mr. Chairman…At any rate, this does seem to raise the issue very clearly in the minds of educators as to whether or not the tendency to ask the Minister of Labour and his department to take this degree of responsibility and involvement for the content of training programmes away from the Department of Education. I'm sure there are good reasons for the Ministers to issue this joint announcement, but I wonder if the Minister could perhaps give us some clarification on the motivation behind this.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member really asks two distinct questions. As far as the role of the Department of Labour and the related role of the Department of Education is concerned in training programmes, I see no conflict whatsoever, or no really basic change in the relationship which has existed over the years. On the joint apprenticeship committees, there has been liaison between the Department of Labour and the Department of Education in terms of developing curricula and choosing instructors to conduct apprenticeship training courses and so on.

I think it's unquestionably the responsibility of the Manpower Development Branch of the Department of Labour to identify the areas of skill shortages and areas of projected skill needs. This is a service which is relative to collective bargaining in industry. Therefore, it's a responsibility of the manpower strategy in the province. I think it's clearly

[ Page 2475 ]

the responsibility to identify the areas of need and to then go to the colleges through the Department of Education and co-operate with them in terms of obtaining the facilities for the training, developing the curriculum and finding the appropriate instructors. In other words, they are responding and providing a service to the Department of Labour to fulfil the needs that we identify in just manpower.

That's roughly the relationship which has existed over the years. I think what really created the controversy, and quite frankly a degree of paranoia in some quarters, was this whole question of the licensed practical nurses being designated by the Labour Relations Board as employees within the meaning of the Act, which meant that they were part of the bargaining unit of the Hospital Employees Union. Now that is a decision that is made in law by a quasi-judicial agency. I have no comment to make on the decisions which the board comes down with.

Based on that, of course, the trade union and the hospital association negotiated a collective agreement, in which was contained a training programme for licensed practical nurses. Now, the colleges seem to wrongly assume this was a political decision; rather it was a legal decision which the trade union and the hospital association responded to. Our manpower branch, our Apprenticeship and Industrial Training Branch, is there to assist in the development of all apprenticeship training courses.

Of course, subsequent to that, the newly designed Labour Relations Board has overturned that decision. I understand there is an appeal pending. So really I'm not at liberty to comment any further on that problem of the licensed practical nurses.

Whatever the board decides, we're bound by in law. It's as simple as that. It's not a political decision to intrude in a relationship that existed. It's a legal right, initially, which was established by the union and which has now been reversed by the board, so pending any appeals, I'm not at liberty to comment further.

MR. WALLACE: While I realize that the Labour Relations Board decisions are not to be commented upon by the Minister, assuming that nothing changed in the present context and the appeal fails and the situation remains as it is, does the Minister and his department have any policy regarding remuneration for Licensed Practical Nurses in the course of their training, where they're providing a service, whether or not they are remunerated through the budget of the specific hospital providing part of their training?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, as the Member probably knows, prior to this government taking over, there was a stipend provided to licensed practical nursing students by the Department of Health. The former Minister of Health, the former

Hon. Ralph Loffmark, chopped off that stipend, so, in effect, the student practical nurses were in the hospitals as students, or whatever, for no recompense. That is why, presumably, the union sought to have them designated as employees, because they felt that during the course of their practicum in the hospitals they were, indeed, performing work.

If the final decision of the Labour Relations Board is that they are not employees within the meaning of the Act, there is absolutely no provision under my department to recognize them as employees and enforce the minimum wage or anything of that nature. They would not be workers, hence they would not be entitled to any recompense unless the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) wanted to consider some special provision.

MR. GARDOM: A quick word to the Minister dealing with the licensing of auto mechanics, Mr. Chairman. It seems that over the years in B.C. the mechanics have always called for it, and the public wish them to be licensed. At one point I even introduced a private Member's bill, and I hope that didn't prove to be the kiss of death.

Lloyd Kinneard, who is the representative of those people with the skills which I'm talking of, has always advocated that it can be attended to by regulation under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act.

There are no end of arguments for the licensing of automobile mechanics — to increase the standards, prevent abuse and so forth and so on. Yet I gather that it has still not happened in B.C. It has occasioned in other areas. What is the argument against it here or do you favour their being licensed?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on this question I recognize the efforts of Lloyd Kinneard over the years. I have held many meeting with him and, I think, provided him with every available forum to make his case.

The department in Vancouver did conduct a hearing at which time all interested parties were heard and there's by no means an unanimous opinion on compulsory certification in the automobile industry. The recommendation which I received as a result of those public hearings and the representations made was that we should not grant compulsory certification. I think the Member asked why….

MR. GARDOM: No, no. I asked when.

HON. MR. KING: Oh, when. Last year. I forget the exact month, but last year.

MR. GARDOM: Do you know the general results of the hearing?

[ Page 2476 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member wait to be recognized so we can get his mike on?

HON. MR. KING: The general results were, for my purposes at least, a recommendation that compulsory certification not be granted, but it was based on a variety of considerations. I think a genuine concern that there were insufficient licensed mechanics in the province to accommodate the full provision of mechanics for every area of the province, with the possibility of grave shortages of licensed personnel in various parts of the province and the danger of setting up certain monopoly situations in a variety of areas too.

Vote 132 approved.

On vote 133: labour research and planning branch, $355,194.

MR. GARDOM: I would like to make some observations concerning this vote, Mr. Chairman, and also ask the Hon. Minister a number of questions. In my view, this is, or should be, one of the most significant votes in his department. Quite frankly, I'm sorry that the allowance is not considerably higher than the amount we see. I'm also sorry to not as yet determine from the Minister his full and total concept of the labour research and planning in the Province of British Columbia.

In my view one of the most significant functions of government should be research into the areas of strikes and lockouts and the hardships resulting therefrom, and principally from the point of view of the general public because public attitudes to strikes and lockouts have changed over the years but unfortunately the processes have not.

From time immemorial, up and through the industrial evolution, everything appeared to be slanted in favour of management. If management acted to the disadvantage of labour or to the disadvantage of the general public, that was perhaps too bad because for each of them pretty well their only recourse was to the law of supply and demand. But that law of supply and demand performed in former time areas of our civilization only in the local sense and not in the country sense as it does now by virtue of the communications explosion if nothing else. The results of the unlawful disruptions formerly affected a far lesser number of people than they do now.

There's no question that the fight by labour for fair return where a fair return was denied was a very difficult one but I say that labour, backed by public opinion and accompanied by the rewards and products resulting from technological change, did overcome and labour has received, as has the bulk of society, good return and better goods and better services from the combined efforts of labour, of management and also from an effective use of capital.

On the whole we've seen that there was general benefit to labour, to management and certainly to the public weal, plus increased revenues via taxation to all governments for their social programmes. So, all in all, the trend was good and everyone was benefiting, but are they benefiting today? I seriously question that.

I say that judging by the very high and terribly apparent degree of public discontent, indeed well founded public discontent, the answer is no, loud and clear. We find industrial turmoil growing year by year. We find the public interest is being callously disregarded and I think the general public are fed up to their eyeballs with being continuously stomped on.

Now, the views I'm expressing may not win many political friends or influence many political people, but I would say that all governments are failing to appreciate that the general public have had a bellyful of the expense, the hardship and the inconvenience that is being continuously thrust upon them by virtue of always being the seemingly powerless and voiceless odd man out — always bearing so much of the uncalled for brunt resulting from labour-management disputes.

As I started off on these remarks, I talked about the ever increasing complexity and interdependency of society and, by virtue of that, no longer are there just two partners in an industrial management-labour situation. It used to be management and labour; no longer. Today there are three: management, labour, and the general public — certainly in the industry-wide situations and certainly in the public sector.

If in those situations management and labour refuse to get along and they illegally strike or they're illegally locked out or they fail to bargain in good faith and they don't consult, confrontation results, illegal stoppages result, and who suffers? — the general public.

I would say this to the Hon. Minister, if the public is damaged by illegal acts as a result of the illegality of management or the illegality of labour or the illegality of both of them, should not the public themselves be entitled to some kind of redress? This is what the general public in this country is starting to clamour for. I think what is needed is some kind of protections and remedies for public damage.

Now, no government has effectively researched whether there is a need for these kind of remedies that I'm talking about, or to what those remedies may be. I would request the Hon. Minister direct this branch covered by this vote to undertake that task. For one thing is very, very apparent and certain: the general public are cheesed-off. A few janitors or maintenance engineers, call them what you will,

[ Page 2477 ]

closing schools. A few air-traffic controllers and firemen shutting off air transportation. A few postal clerks stopping the mail. Where is it going to end?

Are there going to be no public remedies and no public rights? Damages that result to innocent, law-abiding third partners from the illegal acts of one or the other of the partners, or both of them, should be recoverable. I suggest it's a denial of natural justice to the third partner, if he's only to be a third partner, to take all of the brickbats. Should not essential services be better defined, and more widely defined, to include public ferries, electricity, telephone service, education? Has not the right to strike or lockout, by virtue of the tremendous interdependencies of society today — has that not become, as opposed to a right, a privilege?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: And should not public opinion be solicited for their…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member standing order 61, part 2: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

MR. GARDOM: Well, it's strictly relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask him to confine his remarks to the vote that we're now debating.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much for your guidance, which I indeed appreciate. They're strictly relevant because I'm asking the Hon. Minister….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This whole matter was canvassed yesterday.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, would you mind reading the vote? It says "labour research and planning," and I'm asking to put some labour research and planning into these points.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that he may mention these things, but he must refer them to….

MR. GARDOM: You want me to report it every time I make a statement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. He is not to recanvass arguments which have been canvassed previously in vote 129.

MR. GARDOM: Should it not be a function of the labour research and planning branch to inquire and solicit from the general public their opinions, request their representation, as to whether or not a right to strike or a right to lockout has in this day and age become a privilege as posed to a right? Should not the validity of class actions be investigated by the labour research and planning branch under vote 133 to enable plaintiffs to sue governments or corporations or unions, not only on their own behalf but on behalf of the community at large, for damages resulting from illegal interruption?

Should not this labour research and planning branch determine the viability or otherwise of having an independent industrial relations research service outside of this vote, financed one-third by government, one-third by labour and one-third by the management — all the three parts contributing — and have as its job to fact-find, and make public information that would be objective and neutral and independent and provide some kind of proper economic survey and impartial statistics so the public would better know in any kind of an industrial dispute what the score actually was as opposed to having continually to face a bunch of wildly conflicting statistics — and certainly subjectively oriented statistics — as management and labour gyrate around the bargaining table?

Should not, under this vote 133, labour research and planning, the Minister be directing the people involved here to determine as to whether or not there would be any viability to the suggestion of having a uniform contract date, with a specific obligation for all parties to start negotiating at least six months before expiry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that I think he's stretching the credibility of the House by trespassing into areas which have already been canvassed under the Minister's vote. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks strictly to the matter of the amounts contained in this vote and to the specific duties of the persons who are listed here, and not to any matters which they may decide to bring up at a later time.

MR. GARDOM: One never trespasses in the springtime, Mr. Chairman. Never, never, never, never.

I'm having a great deal of difficulty finishing, and I assure you I've only got about three or four points more, if you'll bear with me, Mr. Chairman.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Never mind the rules; go ahead.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, we're getting a lot of chit-chat from the Minister of Communications.

[ Page 2478 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member continue and bear in mind the ruling of the Chair?

MR. GARDOM: Well, it's a bit difficult with that caterwauling across the floor. He's a very disturbing Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: Would you bring him to order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member continue, bearing in mind the directions of the Chair?

MR. GARDOM: I'd be delighted to do that. In any event, I would request the Hon. Minister if he would not see fit to request this labour research and planning branch to determine the viability or otherwise of having a uniform imposed contract date to prevent the leapfrogging of statistics one upon the other. Because what we've got to do is to produce a healthy economic climate and better stability for all of the people of B.C. and less in the apples-and-oranges argument that they've had to face continuously.

Would not this labour research and planning branch be well spending its time if it investigated into whether or not there should be an imposition of a public levy or a public tax upon those who would be responsible for unlawful lockouts or unlawful strikes so those particular wrongdoers could face a little more than personal shortfall? Then we'd find that the governmental or public revenues would at least keep pace, and at least keep up to date.

I think, in closing, I would commend the Minister also to request this research and planning branch to look at the labour-management programme, the labour-management system in B.C., from a far wider point of view than it has ever done — I say from an eight-prong point of view: cost, prices, productivity, markets, standard of living, wages, profits and public interest. The public are the people who are continuously being clobbered, and they're very, very tired of that indeed.

I do feel that there's an opportunity under this particular vote for the Minister to step forward, as he indicated he was going to do earlier today — as I stated when I got up a little earlier on — in one of the best statements that we've heard from a Minister of Labour since I've been a Member of this House…in his attitudes to better training for people both in labour and in management and in the processes of arbitration. But I would like to see him demonstrating the same kind of innovative suggestions, the same kind of innovative ideas, as he did on that other topic to this one. And I would ask the Hon. Minister to please answer these questions, which I'm sure he will do if you give him a chance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All of the matters which the Hon. Member brought up should have been brought up under vote 129 yesterday when he was absent.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely, if I may say so, on your part, impertinent. This is labour research and planning. What I'm talking about is labour research and planning. If the Chair wishes to become editorial, it's not acting properly in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well made. The Chairman should stay in order, and I would request that the Hon. Member stay in order as well.

HON. MR. KING: I hope the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey didn't have a rough trip over. I wish he had been here yesterday.

MR. GARDOM: I had the flu.

HON. MR. KING: The Member questions the budget for the research branch and notes that there is not a significant increase in the budget for that branch. Really, it's a bit deceptive again in that last year the labour research branch was included with the apprenticeship training branch. It's been separated this year and budgeted for separately. So there is a considerable and a significant increase. In fact, the staff in the research end has doubled from 12 to 24 people, I would agree with much of the need that the Member has identified for investigating new concepts in industrial relations — perhaps for different reasons than the Member espoused. Nevertheless, I do think research is crucial to developing new and better methods of resolving labour disputes and offering services to the parties. Indeed, I think management and labour generally would say that they have found a better service available to them in terms of research assistance from the Department of Labour, not only in terms of the publications that are put out, but in terms of specific projects if they should require assistance from the department.

The Second Member for Point Grey made much of the need to look at the public interest and minimize the right of workers to strike, and he suggested that this might be the subject of a great deal of research. Perhaps I could suggest that he study the Woods task force report of a few years ago that was commissioned by the federal Liberal government. He would find 16 volumes which completely disagreed with and repudiated the concepts which the Second Member for Point Grey puts forth. So in that whole area that he mentions, while it is of grave concern and

[ Page 2479 ]

I agree with him, we constantly have to look for improvements. I would suggest that the attitudes and the concepts which he suggests should surround the research has indeed been researched very, very carefully over the past. As I mentioned, the Woods task force report dealt very comprehensively with these questions the Member put forward, and the results of that research were certainly not conducive to looking down that road any further.

But generally I agree with the Member. There's a great need. We intend to beef up this service. We intend to be as innovative as possible in developing a wide-ranging research policy in this province, and the Member's attitude is well taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, if he has a further matter.

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. GARDOM: Well, I haven't started yet. How can I continue before I start?

Would the Hon. Minister inform me what programmes are being undertaken by this labour research and planning branch at the present time and, secondly, whether or not their results are made public?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that varies a great deal. I think the Member can appreciate that some of these projects are for specific purposes in peculiar circumstances. Labour relations being a very sensitive area I'm not at liberty to reveal all the projects we have underway. These might compromise the success. They might be viewed as a threat to normal patterns by some of the parties involved. We're proceeding as rapidly as possible in an attempt to gain the co-operation of parties and so on to look at different avenues.

I wouldn't care to discuss them publicly or reveal them to the House. They're not perhaps major things that should be highly emphasized; rather they're innovative approaches that are internal and we hope to make some headway, at which time I would be glad to discuss them.

MR. GARDOM: Is there a responsibility on the Hon. Minister in his annual report to present a complete report of the activities of this research and planning branch and what it's done? Otherwise, it really just becomes an instrument of government to determine whether or not the research is effective, ineffective or will be utilized, and the general public are deprived of the results and the opinions that might emanate from this expensive procedure.

HON. MR. KING: Well, the Member raises one question and then switches back to another. The research branch has quite a number of basic functions which are contained in the annual report. The basic service is the analysis of collective agreements, which is a very valuable service to the parties to collective bargaining — wage analysis, emerging and different trends in contract negotiations, pensions and that type of thing; the whole question of job evaluations — how we handle that; the question of new technology — technological effect on work forces, and the whole variety of functions which the research branch normally conducts and makes available, not only to the parties but the public also if they are interested.

When the Member talks about innovative things, I agree that we have to do more of this. But I don't think you really get at those kinds of issues by highlighting and publicizing some grand venture which will probably minimize the chances of success by putting pressures on the parties involved to the extent that they might not be able to co-operate as fully as they would have otherwise.

What I'm suggesting is that we intend to use the branch in a low-profile way to try to set up better relationships in a given industry where it's a relationship between a union and an employer — perhaps to be able to be prepared to innovate and stray even from the hard terms of the collective agreement of a little bit more if they have that kind of confidential access to sophisticated research.

I don't think we should seek to jeopardize that kind of low-profile co-operation by highlighting it publicly — at this point anyway.

MR. GARDOM: Does not the Hon. Minister think that it would be very much in the public interest, since this seems to be the statistic branch? Am I correct in that?

HON. MR. KING: Statistic branch.

MR. GARDOM: All right, it's certainly more than statistics, but it's also the statistic branch. When we get into these newspaper advertisement campaigns, which are almost warfare campaigns between management and labour, and you have these wildly conflicting statistics, would it not be in the public interest on the third page to have this independent body that I suggested — or if you like, under this particular branch — publish what they consider to be the relevant criteria?

HON. MR. KING: Well, I would certainly consider that if both parties agreed. Otherwise, as my hon. legal friend on the opposite side appreciates, it would place the Department of Labour squarely in conflict with claims, whether they're political or valid, made

[ Page 2480 ]

by certain of the parties. I don't think that the Department of Labour should become involved in an adversary role with management or labour. That would, I think, be the inevitable result if contradictory reports were issued by our department.

MR. GARDOM: Well, it obviously might be contradictory to each side, Mr. Minister. But if you have a statistic that is black and is wrong, and you have a statistic that is white and is allegedly correct, and the correct one is grey, right in the middle, I think it would be a proper government function to inform the general public of that.

MR. WALLACE: That suggestion might finish up red, white and blue. But seriously, Mr. Chairman, I just have a little apprehension that the research department doesn't seem to follow the definition of what research is all about. Research is to find newer ways and better ways.

While we're agreed that there must be statistical collection of data, I hope the research department isn't just a bunch of more clerks, or more bureaucrats going around simply collating facts, figures and statistics which really do very little to tell us the motivation behind people which leads to labour-management problems. Surely research is to find out in this field, as it is, say, in medicine, things we don't already know and to probe and carry out experiments.

It was to me a little disturbing that the Minister said that some of the research going on relates to somewhat peculiar circumstances. My interpretation of that is that he's dealing with minority situations or problems which are not the general run-of-the-mill problems. I may be wrong; the Minister is shaking his head. "More peculiar circumstances" was the phrase he used.

Now the problem in labour management is tedious and repetitive like a lot of our speeches. It seems to be the same problems arising time and time again, regardless of taking any cognizance of the changing society in which we live. Some of the points which the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) mentioned…. I don't propose to recycle them.

Nevertheless, I think the people of this province and the people of Canada are desperately seeking research in the hope that things are going on in this labour-management field which we don't understand and which, with more intensive study and research, we might begin at least to understand in part. It's the completely senseless nature of many of the problems, or the degree to which the dispute goes beyond reasonable bounds — and then a whole lot of innocent people suffer.

I'm sure that the research should surely be based on finding new methods or even new attitudes or new approaches to the problem, even if a year from now you come and tell us that your new attitudes didn't work at all. At least I'd be happier knowing that at least every year or every two years there is some new, definitive programme of research carried out. I just, with respect, Mr. Chairman, feel that we've not had a specific enough answer by the Minister as to what this department actually does, and the nature of the programmes.

Now the Minister says that in some instances it would be against the public interest, or against the interest of parties, to know what kind of research is being carried out. Surely there must be some of the programming. We're doubling the staff from 12 to 24 — and I think that's good. But I'd like to know in some kind of detail what level and what specific kind of functions are these new 12 staff or the whole 24 staff going to be doing.

For example, Mr. Chairman, there's one item, 035, described as a shared research programme, which goes up from $25,000 to $100,000. Surely the House is entitled to some kind of — not a complete breakdown perhaps — but some kind of specific detail as to what we mean by a shared research programme, and why it is to be four times the cost this year compared to last year.

We also have this fact again of printing and publications. It seems to be an item along with travelling expenses. Travelling expenses are doubled. Right through this Minister's series of votes there are these items, and yet we don't get enough specific explanation of the actual programmes which this department is to be embarking upon. I think the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey raised many valid points, and I don't want to repeat them, but could — the Minister now tell us a little more specifically what this department's doing?

The Members do not seem to be familiar with the basic research which this branch conducts throughout the year. Each month the research bulletin comes out; it is quite a voluminous document. I'll read the table of contents so the Members may be better apprised of the kind of functional work that the research branch does on a constant basis.

Requests for research bulletin readers.

British Columbia labour force review.

Analysis of union membership.

Labour disputes in British Columbia (the number of disputes and the area or sector of the industry they are in).

The consumer price index.

Wages under collective bargaining in Canada.

Major collective agreements expiring in this current month — March, 1974.

Report of the Mediation Services Branch.

Arbitration awards.

Contract settlements in British Columbia.

[ Page 2481 ]

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

HON. MR. KING: This is the kind of basic information which I think you can appreciate, with our work force and our degree of unionization, contains a great deal of statistical information that is very valuable not only in terms of collective bargaining but in terms of organization of the work force, in terms of making all parties familiar with new trends in bargaining, and so on.

This is a very, very important and basic type of information that is made available in the province. We have had quite a reorganization of the department. Perhaps Members can appreciate that the old Labour Relations Board is now in Vancouver; we need additional research to complement their needs. Certainly, this kind of thing has put more weight and responsibility on our research officers, so they have a broadened area in terms of the kind of information they are getting out — board decisions, this kind of thing.

I would just like to comment a bit further that both the manpower and industrial relations branch of the department require a great deal of research. I think Members on occasion tend to identify and isolate this whole conflict area of industrial relations rather than viewing in totality the whole sphere. Surely we can't have harmony in the labour force unless we pay attention to adequate training, adequate mobility and adequate replacement of people displaced by new technology. This whole scope is essential if we are to give the working people of this province a feeling of greater security and perhaps less reason for conflict and animosity when they go to the bargaining table.

As you know, the manpower development branch is concerned with setting up a cohesive strategy of manpower of this province. I mentioned that earlier in my remarks. This involves hard research. I think when we start offering this kind of effective service to the workers, we are going to have workers who are more content, more secure. These are the kind of psychological aspects that affect the attitude of trade unions and their membership when they go to the bargaining table.

It is a very broad spectrum of interests. But I don't want the Members to get hung up on this comment I made, which was a bit of an off-the-cuff comment, about special projects. I did not mean "peculiar" in the sense of being some unusual occurrence; I meant a situation that is peculiar to a certain industry — a dispute. It may be a common kind of dispute but it is peculiar to one industry. If that industry agrees, "Look, we need help," and the facilities of our collective bargaining structure are not adequate to resolve this difference, then does it not make sense to say to those parties we will send in a research officer, we will send in a mediator, whatever is required — any service from the Department of Labour that might help them to find a better way? My suggestion to the opposition Members is that if I should feel obliged to identify and reveal every one of those situations to the House immediately, I could possibly jeopardize the chance of any real co-operation taking place.

So I just mention that in passing. That is the kind of service I think all members would agree with. Surely that should be our function: to deal with specific disputes and try to dampen them down so that we reduce the incidence of work stoppages and conflicts in the economy of British Columbia.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like to ask the Minister how far afield his studies and research are going to find another method of settling strikes in the public sector? I am talking about strikes which have been talked about before this afternoon where the general well-being of the public is affected.

There are jurisdictions in this world of ours where there are relatively no labour problems at all. I would like to know how far a field the Minister's research is going. People of this province and the people of Canada are sick and tired of strikes which affect them, where a very few people can disrupt the entire economy and well-being of the general, ordinary person on the street. I think if this government is going to make progress in the field of labour, their research must go further a field.

I would like to know just how much research is being done in other jurisdictions.

HON. MR. KING: A great deal of research is going on. I would point out that a new approach essentially has been taken; all Members of this House voted for that new approach last year. Let's give it a chance to work. We are certainly getting involved in the broadest kind of research conceivable.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly took the attitude that this new approach by the Minister should work and I was quite prepared to sit back and hope that it would work. But then yesterday afternoon I must say I was very, very disappointed when I found out that the same government which was going to take this new approach was bringing in strikebreaking tactics in this province. That is exactly what they were when the Provincial Secretary made his announcement that the government was finding another way of having cheques delivered. This in essence cut the feet right out from under the mail delivery people in this province. I don't think that if you are going to take that attitude it is a new approach at all.

To laugh and scoff and say that wasn't a strikebreaking tactic is utterly stupid. It certainly was. If this is going to be your attitude, you are not going to

[ Page 2482 ]

make any progress. If this is the type of thinking you have, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

If you are honest and sincere, you would go and look at other jurisdictions where there are relatively few problems within the field of labour. But I think that the action this government has taken is utterly not acceptable. Just because it happened to be a federal labour union that was involved…. I realize that people on welfare, Mincome, insurance cheques, et cetera, have to be delivered. But that points back to the complete idiocy of strikes in the first place in the public sector where they affect all of these people. There has to be another way.

You say that you don't believe in compulsory arbitration. Yet the school teachers of this province have accepted it for years and I don't think they are so badly off.

What countries are you researching in? What jurisdictions and how many people have you sent out to do studies on this? What is going on?

Vote 133 approved.

On vote 134: Labour Relations Board, $706,000.

MR. CHABOT: This is a vote in which we vote the money to get the new Labour Code of British Columbia functioning under the Labour Relations Board. It is a drastic increase from $140,000 to $706,000 — six times as much money. I hope we have six times as much success as well.

Now, looking at the specifics of this vote, I find the chairman gets a salary of $39,000, the vice chairman gets $38,000, and two other vice chairmen get $33,000. Then lumped in under $373,000, again one of those omnibus votes. It says, "board members, senior and clerical staff, including temporary assistance." That probably covers a multitude of things which don't appear on the surface. I would imagine the other seven members of the board will be paid under that vote of $373,000. 1 was wondering just generally what the salary range is for the seven members.

I look at the vote on office furniture and equipment and find there is $5,000 allocated. I find it is the smallest vote in these various estimates you have for office furniture and equipment with exception of the office of the Minister. They are establishing new offices, I understand, for the new Labour Relations Board.

With 10 members plus staff that is certainly going to cost more than $5,000, I would think, for office equipment — $5,000 wouldn't even buy the desk for the Minister of Human Resources. What do you expect to buy for the kind of offices you're setting up for the Labour Relations Board with $5,000? Where is that money coming from that you're going to equip these new offices with? Is it coming out of that $373,000 which appears to be clerical staff, including temporary assistance, as well as some of the salaries of the board members? What else comes out of that $373,000, I wonder?

We see the salaries here of the Labour Relations Board members. We see they have $50,000 travelling expenses up from $9,600. Beyond the realm of travelling expenses, there must be fringe benefits attached to their salaries. I posed this question yesterday without receiving a reply from the Minister and I thought I'd wait for the appropriate vote. I'm a patient man and I waited for the appropriate vote. It seems we're now on that vote. I'll ask the Minister if he could give me some idea as to what kind of fringe benefits. We know there's a $39,000-a-year salary for the chairman; we know he and the other board members have $50,000 to travel. But there must be some fringe benefits attached to the position and, if so, what are these fringe benefits?

HON. MR. KING: They are the normal benefits customary in that kind of a contractual relationship with the government.

The queries the Member makes regarding the low furniture provision for the new building that houses the Labour Relation Board is understandable. The building was developed and furnished by the Public Works department as a government office so that we simply had to acquire what additional furniture was necessary for the Department of Labour's needs. Generally, it was furnished and equipped.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Burnaby and Kingsway. No, I beg your pardon, that's the West 8th Avenue facility rather than the Burnaby one. So that results in the low amount for the furniture supply.

The question of the travelling expenses. The board now sits in panels and may travel as panels to adjudicate applications and so on throughout the province. This means the board is not firmly entrenched in the Vancouver or Victoria area, with the subsequent cost accruing to trade unions and management groups to always travel to that major centre. The board panels may travel to various Interior centres: Golden, Cranbrook, Invermere even, and give service to the working people up in that area of the province.

MR. CHABOT: The Public Works department looks after the building. I'm wondering, is that a public building or is that a leased building?

HON. MR. KING: I believe it's a leased building, Mr. Member. I'm not certain of that at the moment.

[ Page 2483 ]

MR. CHABOT: Well, I guess it would be unfair for me to ask you what the lease rate is because it's not your department.

HON. MR. KING: It might be fair but I couldn't tell you.

MR. CHABOT: You say the fringe benefits attached to the five-year contract you have with the heads of the Labour Relations Board are normal benefits with government, normal type of benefits. What are these normal type of benefits? Do these people have a chauffeur-driven car? Do they have a government vehicle? Do they have a leased vehicle? What kind of normal situation are you talking about? What is their condition? Do they have the automobiles provided to them?

If they have these things, where do they come from? Do they come out of this $373,000 which talks about senior and clerical staff and temporary assistance? There must be some vote from which these fringe benefits come. Could you give me some idea as to what the fringe benefits really constitute? You say normal. What kind of dollars are we talking about regarding the fringe benefits of these people we have under contract for five-year terms? What kind of dollars per year do these fringe benefits cost the taxpayers of British Columbia?

HON. MR. KING: It's not a greatly significant amount. There are some leased cars involved. I want to assure the Member that there are no chauffeur-driven automobiles or there are no shares in the company arrangement for the people. But there are normal leased vehicles for, I believe, three of the members of the board, the chairman to the vice-chairman. Presumably there will be another one for the fourth vice-chairman who is off at the moment recuperating.

MR. CHABOT: Do you have some idea as to what the costs of these leased vehicles are to this vote and where it appears in this vote? Does it come under that $373,000?

HON. MR. KING: No, it comes out of the $50,000 travelling expenses. I believe the vehicles cost on the lease basis in the neighbourhood $105 a month.

MR. CHABOT: Each vehicle?

HON. MR. KING: Yes.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'm just a little concerned about a question raised a couple of times in the House about secrecy with regard to the Labour Relations Board. I had a complaint the other day from some people in the Grand Forks area. Perhaps I could pass along that complaint to the Minister at this time and he could tell me whether or not he considers an investigation with regard to the secrecy of the board should be carried out or at least some new regulations laid down.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Mr., Chairman, I understand that this problem occurred at a company called Davidoff Logging in Grand Forks. Sixteen employees of the company voted for certification. It was a close vote; it was narrowly voted to certify. It wasn't a supervised vote incidentally. But later on, because of some irregularities, I'm told, in the vote and the consequences surrounding the vote, three of those members sent letters to the Labour Relations Board telling them that they had changed their minds, they would like to have another vote, and they weren't given all of the information they felt was necessary in that vote. Incidentally, those three votes would have made a difference in whether or not the company was certified.

Subsequent to that, the certification was okayed. At the next meeting of the union local in that area, the information I'm given is that those letters which were sent to the Labour Relations Board were read aloud to the members at that local union meeting and used to embarrass those three dissidents into signing up with the union.

The question I'd like to ask is how did the local union ever get a hold of those letters which were sent to the Labour Relations Board? What right did they have to have them? Is there some serious leakage within the board with regard to this kind of thing? It seems it's about the third or fourth time we've heard of some kind of leak with regard to the Labour Relations Board. Is the Minister aware of it and what is he going to do about it?

HON. MR. KING: I pointed out yesterday that I am not prepared to conduct a political assessment of decisions made by the Labour Relations Board. This House voted unanimously last year to endorse the Labour Code, and the concept of the Labour Relations Board contained in that statute was one of complete independence from this House and from my office. I think it would be quite wrong to investigate adjudications which the board makes, unless a Member has some hard evidence of impropriety.

I don't know what the circumstances are in that application because I don't monitor them. I do receive the reasons for the decisions given by the board, which you or any Member of this House can undoubtedly obtain from the board too. You may have the full reasons for the board's decision. I think that would be helpful to you.

[ Page 2484 ]

But let me say in a general way that when an application is before the board and any party makes a submission to the board affecting that application, whether it's in support of or in opposition to, then certainly the applicant union should be apprised of that representation. Surely they have a right to be party to any evidence which is filed in opposition to their application. I think that's a common tenet of law, certainly. They should have the opportunity to face and hear any charges against them.

If that were the case, it would be quite understandable that the local union people were apprised and had in their possession perhaps copies of documents filed at a hearing. I don't know whether that was the case in that specific incident you mention or not, but under those circumstances it would be quite normal.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not asking the Minister to interfere or intervene with any deliberations of the board or any conclusions by the board. It has nothing to do with that. I'm not really interested in what the conclusion was of the board and what the result was of those conclusions. Either they were certified or they weren't. That's a decision that the board made and I wouldn't expect the Minister to enter into that kind of a decision. All I'm saying is that the Minister can't slide and slip around saying that he doesn't have jurisdiction or responsibility if there is some kind of inequity going on, because then the Minister has a moral responsibility and duty to step in and find out whether there are inequities and whether or not there are discriminations.

I don't know either for sure whether those three letters were part of a submission or whether they were sent later, but the information I have at this point is that they were sent to the Labour Relations Board after the certification vote was already granted. If that's the case, I'm in the same position as you are in that regard. But if that was the case, then the local union had no business having those letters and certainly the local union had no right to read those letters out at a public union meeting.

All I'm saying is that if there are indications of leaks and indications of things that should be kept secret are not being kept secret by the Labour Relations Board, the Minister does have that responsibility to step in. He must do it or he isn't doing his job. It's as simple as that.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I accept that, and I suggested that if any Member of this House, as I suggested yesterday, has evidence of impropriety or preferential treatment to any party by that board, he please come forward with the evidence, but I am not prepared on the basis of hearsay or hypothesis to cast any aspersions or question the integrity of the Labour Relations Board. If any Member has any evidence please come forward and present it to me.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know the kind of evidence the Minister wants. Do you want us to prepare a supreme court case with seven lawyers on each side to come and present it to you? If a Member has a problem and someone comes to him with a problem, if a constituent comes to an MLA with a problem, there may not be any hard evidence. What we asked the Minister to do was find out if there is any evidence. It's his responsibility to check into it, Mr. Chairman. You don't have to go and gather evidence.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's their policy.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's the policy of the Minister but it isn't necessary. It shouldn't be necessary and the Minister should step in and look into it if there is some question even.

Vote 134 approved.

Vote 135: mediation services, $295,234 — approved.

On vote 136: motor vehicles and accessories, $69,000.

MR. CHABOT: There is a substantial increase from $22,000 to $69,000 for government vehicles. I was wondering how many vehicles the department intends to purchase this year, the approximate cost of these vehicles, what brand they'll be and what kind of options they'll have.

HON. MR. KING: They're 240 Z Datsuns! Hang on a second, Mr. Member. I haven't got that information available. I'll see if I can locate it for a future question.

These are all purchased automobiles. There are no rentals involved in this vote. Again the inspectors under the Elevators Branch, the Factories Branch and the industrial relations officers have all increased and all of these people require vehicles, as the Member well knows, to conduct their investigations of the plants and office facilities around the province and hence give better service to the working people. I think there were 10 new automobiles provided and five replacement ones.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if you could give me an idea what the procedure is in the securing of these vehicles. Are they put out to competition? Are they purchased through the Purchasing Commission? Do any of these have radio telephones in them, within your department? If so, how many?

[ Page 2485 ]

HON. MR. KING: They are obtained through the Purchasing Commission. There are no radio telephones. In fact, there is only one automobile radio that I'm familiar with and that's in the car which was owned formerly by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Do you have a radio in yours?

HON. MR. KING: It was transferred to a new replacement automobile which I have in my possession.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the Minister would care to tell us whether there is a radio in the Minister's private government vehicle?

HON. MR. KING: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: Oho!

HON. MR. KING: As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, it was transferred from the automobile that was probably utilized by the Member for Columbia River.

Vote 136 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I would like to have the House welcome a group of senior citizens who are here under the guidance of Mrs. Voden from Penticton and Mrs. Helene Scott who is a leader of their orchestra. They're not a rock band. They call themselves the Tune Agers and I would appreciate having the House welcome them here on this occasion.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I move the amendment standing in my name on page 19 of the orders of the day. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to section 10. (See appendix.)

Amendment to section 10 approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Administration of Justice Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Administration Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 4, Mr.

[ Page 2486 ]

Speaker.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper (See appendix).

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Section 9 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 4, Occupiers' Liability Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 5; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5, Frustrated Contracts Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like my remarks during second reading to apply, mutatis mutandis, to committee.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): There are a number of subsections in section 3 I would like to comment briefly on. It would seem that under section 3(c) the people who might wish to take advantage of an action against the Crown can only sue for misfeasance, not for malfeasance, as I interpret it, because of the fact that it relates to the same provisions as are applicable under the Municipal Act.

I would like the Attorney-General to explain why that should be part of this section of the Act if he does intend that the average person can sue the Crown when they feel they have been aggrieved.

There seems to me to be a discrimination in this section against the small person or the little guy whom the Attorney-General has always claimed he wishes to protect. As I read this, it would seem the Crown is more concerned with the well-being of big business and companies in the province than they are with the small man who might wish to lodge a suit against the Crown regardless of how well justified it is.

I believe before we rush through the sections of this bill we would appreciate some comment from the Attorney-General with respect to section 3 of this Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't really appreciate the distinction between nonfeasance and malfeasance or misfeasance in this section. It seems to me that it is not the distinction that would affect any plaintiff proceeding with an action under the Act.

This section 3 is pretty well the same as under the model Act, if the Hon. Member has looked at the report of the Law Reform Commission. It's pretty well the same as the model Act across Canada. There are certain exclusions in there, but those exclusions are because those statutes provide their own remedy by way of appeal. In this respect we followed the model Act which has been adopted by the conference on uniformity of legislation across Canada.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

[ Page 2487 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment standing in my name on orders of the day which I now move. (See appendix).

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Just a question to the Attorney-General with respect to section 9(3). Do I understand that this provides that the determination is at the complete discretion of the court and that the court would have access to all of the relevant documentation in making that determination?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member is quite right. This is a matter of some public consequence: to what extent should government open up its books? There has been a long history in the legal cases on that, starting with the great CamelL-Liard case, I think it was. The Minister could swear an affidavit saying, "This is security information, classified," and that was the thing the judge had to abide by.

We have said let the judge go behind that, ipse dixit, and make the decision himself. If it's relevant to the party engaged in the lawsuit, and it is not injurious to national security or something of that kind, then the Crown hasn't really got a claim of privilege and the evidence will be let in.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Ipse dixit — he's no longer a Member of this House. (Laughter.)

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

HON. MR. MACDONALD:, I move the amendment in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

On section 14.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I wonder if the Attorney-General could explain to us just what right the Crown plans to take advantage of in this particular Act and why section 14 is necessary at all.

It seems to me that if section 14 stands, the government is going to indulge in dirty tricks to prevent people who are suing the Crown from having their day in court. Otherwise, why wouldn't the government want to play it straight and not plan to hide behind any provisions of the Legislature which might be hanging around from that dreadful, repressive, former government which wouldn't bring in this kind of Act?

Now you're going to say there's really sunshine here, but you're going to keep all those skeletons in the closet and bring them out and rattle them in front of people if they plan to bring a legitimate suit against the government. Why do we need section 14?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I reply to that well-known penologist. Did I say it right?

MR. McGEER: I bet you borrowed a dictionary from the library today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: May I say that this again, I think, is a standard clause. For example, if there is a statute of limitations barring an action unless it is commenced in a certain period of time, then the Crown tends to use that as a defence just as an ordinary individual can use a statute of limitations as a defence.

The Hon. Member is quite right. This government has done a great deal in terms of cleaning up the legal abyss to which this province sank during the 20 years previous to its inception of power. There are still anomalies, but in statute after statute we have cleared those things up.

Workmen's Compensation Board, for example: under this, someone trying to sue would still be governed by that statute, which provides that the thing should be settled by the appeal tribunals within that statute and not in the courts. Really, that's what it says, and that's welcomed by both employer and employee. We don't change that kind of thing under this Act.

It's that kind of thing we're getting at. If the Act does have its own code of procedure, then that has to be followed by someone seeking relief. This Act does not presume to repeal all those other Acts that may exist. People have to proceed through the codes such as they are. Where they are working an injustice to the citizen, this government will see that that injustice and those bars are removed.

MR. McGEER: That's a pretty stirring speech by the Attorney-General. But if that's really the case, I repeat: why do you need this section? Wouldn't it be implied in any event if you appeared in court and tried to bring a case against the Crown under some Act?

[ Page 2488 ]

It seems the government is going to unusual lengths to protect itself, not to provide a just opportunity to aggrieved citizens. I think the Attorney-General is trying to slip this section by.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, he said that it's a standard section, but really does this appear in statutes that are on the books of other provinces? Can you vouch for that? Is this the recommended procedure of the Law Reform Commission?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Member will watch this section 1'll read from the uniformity of legislation commissioners as recommended for all of Canada.

"This Act shall not prejudice the right of the Crown to take advantage of the provisions of any Act of the Legislature in proceedings against the Crown. Any Act of the Legislature that could, if the proceedings were between persons, be relied upon by the defendant as a defence in the proceedings, whether in whole or in part or otherwise, may, subject to any express provisions to the contrary, be so relied upon by the Crown."

So it's a standard kind of thing. I think our draftsmen may have improved upon this because we hope to be and are the best, we hope, in legislation in Canada. But that's the spirit and intent, and it's standard in this Act.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Attorney-General might also, when he is making that observation, inform the House under which specific statutes this government has precluded the right to a citizen to sue.

Now, if memory serves, in the land Act you can't sue; in the petroleum Act you don't have the right to sue.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Energy Act.

MR. GARDOM: Energy Act, I'm sorry; you don't have the right to sue there. The Labour Code — there's no right for an individual having suit against the Crown under the Labour Code. So all of the legislation that you have brought in beforehand has restricted the right of the citizen to take proceedings against the Crown.

This is a very, very limited right-to-sue-the-Crown Act — no question of a doubt about that. If you don't propose to bring in legislation restricting the right of the citizen to have similar actions against his government as his government can have against him, that's one thing. But when you go ahead and you introduce restrictive legislation and then make this thing subject to it, that's a very different thing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being out of order…because we begin to get into a debate on other statutes. But I think my friend has been listening to some of the radio programmes.

MR. GARDOM: No.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would like to answer that in terms of the three Acts he brought up.

First was the land Act.

MR. GARDOM: It's in the statutes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. It's the Land Commission Act. It provides exactly the same right of recourse to the courts as has always prevailed in terms of zoning.

MR. GARDOM: That's one thing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Okay, so I suggest the Hon. Member is wrong in that. The appeal to the courts is there in that Act…

MR. GARDOM: There's only one instance….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …notwithstanding what the Hon. Member may hear on the radio.

The Energy Act has the same appeal procedures to the court that all the public utility legislation throughout North America has. That is not for the courts to make the decision — you know, fixing a price or something like that, which the courts don't want to do and never have done. But in terms of the fairness of the procedure and so forth, it's there. If anything, this government has in many cases opened up the right of appeal in ways…. They have.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. And there is a lot of misleading information on that kind of a subject.

MR. GARDOM: What happened to the prerogative writ?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The prerogative writ still exists, but we have a study which has just been received from the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia which doesn't make substantial recommendations of change but which does suggest that simpler procedures for these writs…. But they exist and they can be used, such as by originating summons.

Interjection.

[ Page 2489 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We have not restricted any avenues of appeal to the courts that were hitherto available. In some cases we've opened up appeal procedures, such as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, where the Minister of Labour has provided a new avenue of appeal — and many other ways. This is an open government which, contrary to what has been said on some radio programmes, has opened up new rights for people that have been unknown and were definitely unknown through those long ice-age years of Social Credit.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, regardless of what the Hon. Attorney-General has just said, there is no question in our minds that this clause is there for one purpose and one purpose only: that is, as an escape clause for the government.

They say they wish to give the people the right to sue the Crown. But then they turn right around and by section 14 very definitely curtail and limit that right. It's not fair to leave with the people of this province the impression that the Attorney-General has indeed let sunshine into the province and given the people the right for all time to sue the Crown, when by section 14 he severely restricts the right to sue the Crown and provides the Crown with an escape clause that they can exercise against the person who may wish to launch a lawsuit against the province.

It's been very carefully side-stepped every time this bill was discussed, including when we discussed it in second reading, by the Attorney-General.

I brought the point up on the floor of the House….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Do you realize that it applies all over Canada?

MR. SMITH: It is there and it has been said by other Members speaking in this particular clause that if you in fact wish to give the people the right to sue the Crown, then delete section 14.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, under the old Social Credit regime there were dark, musty curtains all around the operations of government and its Crown agencies. We're not letting the sun shine in. All this is doing is just parting those curtains a tiny little bit so that we can take a peek.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: That's right. And the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is absolutely correct in his assertion that there are repressive laws lying all over the place in British Columbia. It was a pattern over 20 years.

We have got rid of the oppressive influence; there's no question about that. But the same people are writing the Acts. There is that similar reflex instinct. Now I realize that in this particular section they copied a particular section right out of the book that the Attorney-General uses for copying out of — a copy book. People used to be marked down instead of marked up for copying. At least, I think that's the way it is in the school system of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's Mash.

MR. McGEER: But what has to be realized is that, in including a section such as 14, the Attorney-General, if he were really sincere, would admit it was unnecessary and undesirable. I venture to guess, Mr. Chairman, that if the Attorney-General were sitting on the opposition side, he wouldn't be applauding the government for bringing in a section like this. No sir, he'd be standing up and asking for the sunshine to be allowed to shine in, if he were on the opposition side.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but I'm not.

MR. McGEER: But he's not, no.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I've got more sense than that.

MR. McGEER: He's got behind those dark, musty curtains…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I've got more sense.

MR. McGEER: …and he doesn't want to let the sun shine in. He's afraid of what might strike. He's afraid of what the sunbeams might strike in behind those musty old curtains.

But, Mr. Chairman, over on this side we agree with the former great human rights advocate that used to be, from Vancouver East — that wasn't a Minister of the Crown but a champion of human rights — and the things he stood for in those good old days.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Oh, he's easy to leave out of this one. We appeal to the Attorney-General to make this a real Crown Procedures Act and remove this dirty little device that goes with section 14.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think we may have a division in one of the subsequent sections here.

But with this particular section, pending proceedings, in reading it one would imagine that

[ Page 2490 ]

every advantage that's ever been granted before will be improved by this particular Act — whatever advantages any poor citizen in British Columbia might have ever had in attempting to take on the government.

I would like to ask about all those people that had been aggrieved by this NDP government that didn't get a chance to sue the Crown. Are they going to be given an opportunity under this section? In other words, can the Attorney-General guarantee that a man like Steve Turbis, that the Attorney-General himself unjustly dismissed and would have a legitimate suit against the Crown…. Will he be able to sue the Crown now? Even though the instance where he was aggrieved occurred under the Attorne-General, but some time before the coming into force of this Act, will he be able to sue?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, as with all legislation until the new legislation comes into force, it's passed by the Legislature and is proclaimed. We have no intention of holding up proclamation. Then the old law applies. We don't believe in retroactive legislation.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed in this, because when it comes to someone who is a friend of the government, or someone whom it would be politically embarrassing for the government to dismiss, like the ICBC executive…. How much? — $50,000-odd; Bremer, $28,000; Ronny, he got six month's pay — $14,000 or something like that. But when it comes to a hardworking civil servant like Steve Turbis, who the Attorney-General unjustly sacked with one month's pay and would have a good cause against the Crown, well, there's no way that that man can have similar treatment.

I think he's entitled to similar treatment. If you're going to buy off commissioners and ICBC executives and even former party flacks for Social Credit, surely a civil servant who has worked hard and faithfully for the government deserves similar opportunities, doesn't he? Why shouldn't he have similar treatment? The only way he's going to get that…. He's not going to get it by any voluntary action of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General took a special trip down to San Francisco to fire him. Why shouldn't he have equal treatment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He resigned.

MR. McGEER: He resigned? You walked down and canned him on the spot, Mr. Attorney-General. You didn't even know that the Travel Industry building and the Industrial Development building were the same, You'd made up your mind before you ever went down there that this man should be fired. His only crime was to have taken Newton Stacey's

[ Page 2491 ]

place in San Francisco House. All you people over there had always felt that the only reason that San Francisco House was opened was to make a place for Newton Stacey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member relate his remarks to section 15, please?

MR. McGEER: Sure. Well, I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether people who have been aggrieved by this government are going to have an opportunity to sue the Crown. Would you consider making it retroactive until the day you took office? I don't see why you should have to suffer the penalties of that former repressive regime. But why shouldn't you face up to the responsibilities of your own government and give everybody that you have aggrieved an opportunity to sue the Crown? — because they haven't all been paid off.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Name names.

MR. McGEER: Well, I suggest…Steve Turbis is one, but there have been others. Lyle Wicks I think deserved a fair hearing. Well, you fired him right away, but you paid Ron Worley six months. What's fair about that? What's fair about giving John Bremer I don't know how many thousand at the taxpayers' expense — or that executive for ICBC? Why should they get more than any civil servant? There's no formula. There's been no justice at all in what you've done. There have been no standards, and this is a way of correcting those injustices. What's out of order about that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I just ask the Hon. Member to keep to the point of section 15.

MR. McGEER: Why? This is it exactly. "Subject to subsection (1), this Act does not apply to a cause of action that existed on the day before the date" — whatever date that is — "this Act comes into force." So what happens to a man who was aggrieved like Steve Turbis was?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, he resigned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're not here to consider….

MR. McGEER: There's no reason to protect yourself with this officious provision. You can be fully responsible for all of your actions from the day you took office. If you've got nothing to fear, if you've been completely fair to everybody, if you've dispensed equal treatment, if the ICBC executive really deserved $50,000, or whatever it's costing the taxpayers, and if John Bremer deserved whatever thousands he's costing the taxpayer, if Ron Worley really deserved six months pay…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member….

MR. McGEER: …then you've got nothing to fear from any action from individuals who didn't get those kinds of treatment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member keep to the point of whether this should be done or not, and not get into the merits of other cases?

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm merely suggesting people that might bring action if they were given the opportunity of doing so, because the only reason the government puts this kind of a section 1n is because it's afraid of such actions. It must feel that given an opportunity there will be people who will sue the NDP government for their actions after they took office, and it could be embarrassing. In other words, the NDP may feel that they've got a few skeletons in the closet — things they've done that they're ashamed of.

I think that if there's going to be an Act that purports to let the sunshine in, it should be one that really does let the sunshine in. The Attorney-General patted himself so hard on the back I thought he was going to break his arm earlier in this debate. But if there's nothing to fear, then a simple adjustment to section 15, equal justice for all — and we'd be able to congratulate the government on a job really well done.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's what we're afraid of.

MR. GARDOM: Since August 30, 1972, Mr. Chairman, the government has had full rights against any of its citizens in the courts of this province, and since that period of time there have not been similar rights for the citizens. This is what the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is asking. There's no question of a doubt that the only fair thing to do here, the only correct thing to do here, is to make this subsection applicable on the day this government came into power.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear, regardless of what the Attorney-General might have said, that section 15 does eliminate the rights of certain people to proceed against the Crown. I think that probably we could, without embarrassing anybody, refer to two people who were civil servants in the service of the Province of British Columbia: a Mr. Wicks and a Mr. McKinnon.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Mr. Wicks' case is before the courts — and Mr. McKinnon's as far as I know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of order is well taken. These matters are before the courts. They can be referred to but should not be discussed.

MR. SMITH: Could I ask the Attorney-General then if this bill will in any way impair or interfere with the rights of Mr. Wicks or Mr. McKinnon and prevent them from proceeding with their suit against the Crown?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No effect one way or the other.

MR. SMITH: Another thing that was pointed out by the Attorney-General is that they were very averse to retroactive legislation. But he brought a bill into the House today, Mr. Chairman, an amendment to the Energy Act which specifically points out that the regulations will be retroactive a period of six months.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was a different bill, a different speech.

MR. SMITH: It was a different speech on a different bill, okay, but it's certainly there, Mr. Attorney-General, if you bother to read the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're very flippant, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. SMITH: One other bill that was introduced into the House today and which we cannot discuss, really, and I'm not going to discuss it, is the Islands Trust Act, and if there was ever a bill that interfered with the rights of the individual, it certainly has that power in that bill. What about these people? Are you going to protect their rights so that they can proceed against the Crown?

MR. GARDOM: To bring this matter effectively to a head, Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment to section 15(2) by deleting in line 2 of subsection (2) all the words after the word "before" and adding these words: "the 15th day of September, 1972." So section 15(2) with the proposed amendment would now read: "Subject to subsection (1), this Act does not apply to a cause of action that existed on the day before the 15th day of September, 1972."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

[ Page 2492 ]

NAYS — 25

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

On section 17.

MR. McGEER: I move the following amendment to section 17: to delete section 17 in its entirety and substitute the following: "This Act comes into force on royal assent."

Mr. Chairman, we've just had the government tell us that they are not prepared to take responsibility for their actions from the day they first took office. It begins to tear the whole cloth off the moral sanctity of the New Democratic Party government.

This particular section says that even now they are not prepared to bring the Crown Proceedings Act into force; they are going to leave it to some day that's convenient. They'll bring it in after the last bit of dirt has been swept under the carpet. If you've got nothing to hide, if you're going to be fair, bring the Act in now.

What are you afraid of over there? What sins have you committed that we don't know about today? We know some of the things you've done and we know you're not prepared to take any responsibility for those actions, but what's going on right now? What kinds of actions might be pending against the government that make it impossible for you to give assent to this bill as soon as the Lieutenant-Governor pays his next visit to the Legislature? That's what we want to know about. There is something fishy going on over there.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: It's a fine bill, yes. The question is when you are going to proclaim it.

What other contractors might be suing the government? What other individuals are you going to sack? What's going on here that makes you want to hedge about bringing this through? Why didn't you just bring the bill before the Legislature when you really intended to pass it, instead of handing it to us as though you were going to do something and try and take the credit for a bunch of window dressing?

I think section 17 is shocking. That's why we brought forward an honest amendment that will let the sun shine in.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 25

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would ask that you report this vote to the Speaker and ask that the names of those voting one way or the other be inscribed in the records of the House. (Laughter.)

Section 17 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, Crown Proceedings Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 2493 ]

CORONORS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 43, Coroners Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 44, Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, just one brief question. I wonder if the Attorney-General would indicate, with respect to the amendments of subsection 9, the extent to which the provision of court reporters will be made universal throughout our court system in the Province of British Columbia and if he could indicate whether or not the facilities are available to provide this service now?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That is one of the services we are looking at in terms of its expansion. The court reporter who took down stenographic notes in shorthand is becoming a thing of the past and a new breed is coming. They are still valuable people but it's increasingly done by recording machinery. I think with the training of people — and we know we have to train more to monitor the new equipment — we should be able to extend these services on a scale that hasn't been the case heretofore. At the same time I would think there is lots of work for those who are still the stenographic shorthand reporters who have carried the load under the older system for so many years.

MR. GIBSON: section 1, if I understand this properly, includes a number of amendments, including subsection 3. of section 10 of the Provincial Court Act. I wonder if I could ask the Attorney-General why, for the purpose of subsection 2, he may acquire more property or facilities than is necessary for the purposes of this section. What is the reason for this additional power going beyond the specific needs?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We've had good negotiations with the municipalities, but it may be that, just assuming the existing court facilities are not sufficient in a given situation or there could be a dispute, the court process must go on. So there are some powers in here and there are in the Administration of Justice Act which was passed earlier whereby, if necessary, in an interim period, we might have to run the facility and acquire something that wasn't there heretofore. It might be something that didn't exist heretofore. I think that's all this means.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to ask a question again under this rather long section 1. The power is there for the Attorney-General to purchase lands or buildings or personal property for the purposes stipulated. He is also given the power to "otherwise acquire," which I assume would include the rather vicious power of expropriation we still have in this province.

Yet there is not any provision in here whereby the Attorney-General has to enter into, say, an arbitration proceeding, save and except dealing with a rental situation. But you have given yourself carte blanche powers here to almost command a municipality. You have the power to enter and take possession of the lands as you pretty well deem fit. Yet there's not anything stipulated within this section for fair remuneration or compensation for the party that has its lands or buildings taken away from it. Why is that not there?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, if we have to resort to — which I don't expect we will — expropriation in order to carry on that court function in a given area, the words "otherwise acquire"…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …would not be the operative statutory force that would enable us to do that. We would have to go to the Department of Public Works or some other statute of government and ask that that building be acquired — probably the Department of Public Works under their statutes. Arbitration would fix the price.

MR. GARDOM: You wouldn't propose to move under this section then?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. GARDOM: Good.

MR. GIBSON: Another question for the Attorney-General, under this long section 1, the section which would become 1O(B)(2), the Provincial Court Act, provides that when employees are transferred from the municipality to the province, the municipality may lawfully terminate that contract of employment on the date of the coming into force of this section. The previous section provided that that

[ Page 2494 ]

particular employee should become a public servant under the Public Service Act.

I would ask the Attorney-General what guarantees that public servant may have. I understand that subsection 3 says provisions may be made, but what guarantees does that existing municipal employee have that his new contract of employment under the Public Service Act will not be of less value to him than was the case under his contract with the city. We had, I believe, a case of exactly that kind with respect to the City of Vancouver and the takeover of the Human Resources section of that municipal administration.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The first section provides that the municipal people become provincial. The second section provides that if somebody says, "No, I want to stay with the city regardless of what's happening all around me," he could be terminated. I don't expect there will be such a case, but we need that power if somebody says, "I'm still going to be the municipal court clerk of Matsqui," even though there's no such job there and he's got tenure. I suppose he would be terminated.

We've made it plain publicly that nobody shall lose a job or a status, money-wise or fringe-wise. We've sat down with the trade unions concerned, which are CUPE and the Vancouver inside workers; those are the main ones. We've worked out an agreement with them about their integration and their moving into the new union, which would be the public service employees. So we not only have the protections here but we've negotiated with them and we've made public statements that people are not going to lose as a result of this transfer. As a matter of fact, many will gain.

MR. GIBSON: Will the Attorney-General assure us, then, that this extends to each and every municipal employee covered by this section?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: Again, among the very wide powers the Attorney-General has taken unto himself within this bill is the power for the Attorney-General to determine to the exclusion of a municipality as to where, when, how and in what form provincial buildings will be utilized for court purposes.

Do you propose to go to these municipalities and request their consent? And if you do not receive their consent, do you propose to barge ahead or do you propose to adopt other methods?

We ran into a great deal of difficulty with the former administration. You well recall the proposed new building to the south of the courthouse. It seems to me that this amendment here is giving you a tremendous amount of power that you were wishing unto yourself to make an individual election as to whether the court facilities in the City of Vancouver are going to be where they were contemplated to be or whether they are going to move up near St. Paul's Hospital. Surely to goodness that decision must not only be in consultation with the citizens of Vancouver or with the citizens of any municipality concerned but also should certainly be according to their agreement and consent.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll only say I appreciate what the Member is saying. We have the ultimate responsibility but we're talking. We've had teams out and practically everything has been done by consent. I can't say that will continue forever because we may have a dispute sometime and then we would have to assume our responsibility and make a decision.

But in the course of this thing, we sat down initially with UBCM (Union of British Columbia Municipalities) and worked out the general lines and got their general approval to the procedures we were adopting., We still have, I think, that general approval, although I don't like to put words in anybody else's mouth. I think Marks would agree with that of UBCM.

So we would have maximum consultation. But ultimately, in order to provide good court facilities, we may have to make the decision that isn't in accordance with the wishes of a local council. I don't expect that because we're going well, and we're going well in the City of Vancouver with the council. I'm not saying with every group in there or every individual in there, but with the council. Whatever decision is made, I think you'll find there will be a very wide consensus behind it.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, there's not any provision in here for citizen representation or citizen point of view. If the planning authority in the City of Vancouver makes a decision the citizens have an opportunity to appear to make their position heard, and again to appear in front of city council. You don't give that right to the citizens in this province to come before you under the very strict provisions that you've granted yourself within this bill. You deny them that right. You essentially can put a structure into their locality — where you wish to put it, how you wish to put it and when you wish to put it. A citizens' vote technically under this amendment is precluded. The citizens' point of view is even precluded. There's not even a right for a hearing. There should be.

Section 1 — approved.

On section 2.

[ Page 2495 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I know the Attorney-General is aware of the major problem which confronts the police and the court facilities in this province in dealing with juveniles who are away from home and in conflict with the law. It's a particularly serious problem during the summer months when many more juveniles are transient in our country than is otherwise the case.

I wonder if the Attorney-General could indicate the extent to which his department has made any survey of the facilities which are required and the scope of the programme which he will be responsible to undertake in order to fill his obligations under this amended section. I know that in, the greater Victoria area there is a facility which is serving adequately; Vancouver's facilities are, I would submit, very inadequate. In other municipalities, the consequences of inadequate facilities for juveniles create very serious problems for administration of justice. I would hope that the Attorney-General would be moving very quickly to fulfil his responsibility and I would like to know what kind of examination has been made.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On this point, which is a very serious one, we are moving as quickly as we can. The Department of Human Resources, of course, has its protection of children facilities, but we're taking over very inadequate facilities. Even in the City of Vancouver we've had the detention facilities at Yale and Penticton and Vancouver East and they're pretty bad. There's a dedicated work force there, people who like to work with children, or they wouldn't be there. They wouldn't stand the place.

In a facility like that we find children who have not committed a crime — they're runaways. In the past there's been nothing for the police to do but to dump them there. So this is perhaps one of the greatest challenges to government, and it's a difficult challenge because you have to find the alternative facilities. They have to be small, sometimes they have to have a custodial aspect, but you've got to have a neighbourhood approval or put them into an industrial zone. We're looking very hard in finding those new small facilities because we don't like that kind of detention home we've got in Vancouver. We know most of the children should not be there.

One of our biggest things is to, as I say, send our teams out, find maybe a society — and this is the best thing that can be done and we're succeeding fairly well in this — Re the activators group in Prince George. We give them a contract; they're funded; they run the home. We might have a couple of people there to help monitor the situation but basically it's voluntary society that looks after them — in this case young people.

So we make contracts with public groups who are willing to assume some of this responsibility and appeal to them to do so and we're having some success. We also search for areas and facilities that might be quite suitable. That's a continuing search and a difficult one because of the difficulty of finding a place that is suitable and a neighbourhood that will accept that kind of facility.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Attorney-General would expand just slightly on what is meant here by "temporary housing" in section 2(1). It seems to be very much open to wide interpretation.

Also, in the same general section, there is the question of the juveniles who are away from home. We've discussed briefly the fact that many juveniles are away from home and in conflict with the law, but would the Attorney-General not admit that a very large number are also still at home and are in difficulty with their parents and the parents are not capable of handling them? Is that not more limiting than the Hon. Attorney-General would want in this particular case?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I think the use of the word "temporary" is to distinguish it from the correction system as such. We don't want them thrown into those places unless they have to be, even though they are in conflict with the law. This is the initial stage of giving them a place to roost and get on their feet, if possible, without them being charged and incarcerated in a correctional facility.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, is the phrase "who are away from home" not in the Attorney-General's opinion more limiting than he would wish?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll look at this.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General in response to the Member for Saanich just said that this section is not designed to be part of the correction system, but merely for a temporary care for transient youngsters. The Attorney-General said they were looking, but has any study been made as to the scope of the problem — as to how many beds or how many rooms are needed in the lower mainland or any section of British Columbia to fulfil this need? I assume the authorities have some statistics based upon the last few years' experience. How enormous is the problem?

I think that his suggestion that societies be encouraged in communities to take on this responsibility is a good one because it has a two-fold purpose. First of all it fills the need, and secondly it often overcomes a lot of local community resistance that there may be if they are, in fact, administered by a community organized society. If they get some idea of the scope of the problem, perhaps something more

[ Page 2496 ]

could be done.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking without notes, but we're doing research in this field — the Justice Development Committee. I would think that in the terms of young people who are in conflict with the law and also dangerous, some of them — compulsive runaways who will revert to some kind of crime, whether breaking and entering or assault or rape or drugs or something of that kind — the numbers are remarkably low in the province. Maybe 80 young people are dangerous. There are others in conflict with the law who need a much lesser kind of facility, probably not even custodial or secure, but they need that facility or they will join the dangerous group. How to number that other bunch I don't know, because it's a matter of degree where you draw the line. I can't answer with precise figures at this time except to say it definitely is a subject matter of research and concern.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would hope the Attorney-General could elaborate just a little bit more. He sort of nodded his head from his seat and said "We'll take a look at that" when I raised the question of children who are still at home. Again I ask if this is not more limiting than the Attorney-General and his advisers would want.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A child who's in the home and is being extracted from that home because it's a bad environment would be up before the court to be made a ward of the court under the Protection of Children Act. That child can be taken out of the home. But really that's under the Protection of Children Act and it's not specifically referred to here. It's a matter of direct concern to the unified family court people. I don't think we're going to be limited by these words as such, because there is other legislation.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. GIBSON: An inquiry of the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman. section 28(3) currently reads: "No judge shall either directly or indirectly engage in any" and so on "except he may perform the duties of a public officer under Her Majesty in right of the province as designated by the Attorney-General." It seems to me that the Attorney-General already has all the control he needs there in section 28(3) of the Provincial Court Act. I'd ask him why these additional words are required to be put in.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I understand. In the provincial court we have the general rule that you shall not receive extra remuneration. We hope to improve the salaries because it should be a full-time job. These words, I understand, are to cover special commissions and work of that kind. We have, for example, some of the judges working actively in terms of this justice development programme. If there is to be additional remuneration, as there could be in some cases, I would think it would have to be approved as set out in that section.

MR. GIBSON: I don't like to belabour the point, Mr. Chairman, but it does say here in the existing Act: "except that a judge may perform the duties of a public office under Her Majesty in right of the province as designated by the Attorney-General." So the right to perform the duties is certainly there. Is the matter of compensation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 44, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

[ Page 2497 ]

The House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 45, Professional Corporations Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SMITH: Could the Deputy House Leader give us an indication of the order of business tomorrow?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Tomorrow we will be starting with the estimates of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). Following that, we will go into the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer).

MR. CHABOT: Tomorrow evening?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: And interspersed perhaps some bills in committee.

MR. SMITH: On that particular point it would be helpful, when we are going into committee or second reading on bills, if we had an indication of whose bills we would be taking. This afternoon I stepped out of the chamber for a few moments; I was only gone about five minutes. The amendments I had to Bill 2 which were standing in my name on the order paper were missed because I was simply not here to move them at that time. I regret the fact that I was not able to….

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We'll keep you informed of the order of business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think there is any order here at the moment to rise on a point of.

MR. CHABOT: Tomorrow is private Member's day I believe and we've had 10 minutes of private Member's day….

AN HON. MEMBER: Every day is private Member's day, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: I just want to give my view of private Member's business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every day is private Member's day.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We always give anything you ask due consideration. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

[ Page 2498 ]

APPENDIX

The following amendments are referred to on page 2485:

The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 2) intituled Administration of Justice Act, to amend as follows:

By inserting, after section 5, the following as section 5A:

"Saving.

"5A. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, this Act, or any regulation made under this Act, does not affect the general supervision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court over the Judges of the Supreme Court and County Courts under the Supreme Court Act and the County Courts Act, or the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice of British Columbia under the Court of Appeal Act."

Section 10: By adding after subsection (2), the following as subsection (3):

"(3) On the coming into force of section 9, it shall be deemed to have come into force on the thirty-first day of March, 1974, and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it full force and effect on and after that date."

The following amendment is referred to on page 2486:

The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 4) intituled Occupiers' Liability Act, to amend as follows:

Section 8, subsection (2), line 4: By adding, at the end, the words

", or to an industrial road as defined in the Industrial Transportation Act."

The following amendments are referred to on page 2487:

The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 6) intituled Crown Proceedings Act, to amend as follows:

Section 6, line 2: By striking out the words "execution or".

Section 6, marginal note: By striking out the words "execution or".

Section 13, subsection (1), line 1: By inserting after the word "Crown," the words "and proceedings in which the Crown is a party, ".