[ Page 4735 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act (Bill 168).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 4735

Mr. Smith — 4737

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4743

Mr. Wallace — 4746

Mr. Phillips — 4748

Hon. Mr. King — 4748

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill 165).

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 4751

Amendment to section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 4752

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4752

Division on amendment to section 1 — 4752

On section 1.

Mr. Chabot — 4752

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4752

Mr. Phillips — 4752

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4752

On section 2.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4753

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4753

Mr. Phillips — 4753

Mr. Lewis — 4754

Mr. McGeer — 4754

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4754

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4755

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4755

Mr. Phillips — 4756

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4757

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4757

APPENDIX — 4759

The House met at 8 p.m.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery tonight someone who is very well known from White Rock. That person is well known to every Member of this Legislature because she's also the hostess at Government House. I would ask the Members to welcome Mrs. Ebermann and her guests to the House tonight.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly: (Minister of Education): Public bills and orders. The second reading of Bill 168.

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
LABOUR DISPUTES ACT

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am overwhelmed by the recognition from the opposition side of the House.

Bill 168, the Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act, is a rather innocuous little bill which has been introduced to prevent a further disruption to the construction industry in the Province of British Columbia.

I think all Members of the House are familiar with the lingering dispute which has taken place over the past two years in the elevator construction industry, a dispute which has alternately tied up and restricted production in the elevator portion of the construction industry during the course of that two years.

This dispute basically hinges on a problem that, in my own view, has been created basically as a result of a national pattern of bargaining which has been the history for that particular industry.

The elevator constructors have customarily bargained for their wage negotiations and their contract renewal on a national basis; indeed, to some extent on an international basis. As a result, it has been very, very difficult to design the ultimate contract that was found acceptable at the national level to the peculiar circumstances of British Columbia. As a consequence, this dispute has lingered on and been the subject of a good deal of disruption to the industry.

Members will probably recall that after a nation-wide strike by the elevator constructors union, a number of arbitrations were structured and set up — one in Ontario and one in the Province of Alberta — to come to grips with an appropriate settlement for Canada. At that time the strike was underway in British Columbia.

I had a series of meetings both with the union and the industry representatives at which time we tried to find a mechanism for agreement which would solve the dispute in British Columbia and hopefully utilize one of the agencies that was studying the dispute either in Ontario or Alberta.

As a result of those discussions, the industry and the union agreed to abide by the Ontario arbitration award when it was handed down. In recognition of the union's commitment to abide by that award, the management group in the Province of British Columbia withdrew certain suits that were pending against the union. The union conversely gave an undertaking to restore the industry to normal by providing for a full complement of manpower. So we had a basis for temporary resolution of the dispute.

Unfortunately, it was recognized by both parties that the Ontario arbitration could not satisfactorily resolve all of the issues that might exist in B.C. Obviously there would be local issues and provincial issues which were peculiar to this province and would not be dealt with adequately in the Ontario arbitration award.

Nevertheless, both parties gave an undertaking to abide by the Ontario award as the basis for a settlement in British Columbia with an agreement and an undertaking that they would apply it in British Columbia if it were suitably amended to British Columbia's circumstances.

Eventually that Ontario arbitration award was handed down. At that time I met with the parties, after they had held some preliminary discussions, with a view to determining whether or not they could on a voluntary, negotiated basis, tailor the Ontario arbitration to their own circumstances and reach voluntary agreement. This was found to be impossible after a series of meetings between them, and again the continuation of the industry was jeopardized.

I called them to the office and proposed a mechanism for adjusting the Ontario arbitration to B.C.'s needs which would, in effect, be a collective agreement with the parties. That mechanism, Mr. Speaker, was an industrial inquiry commission which I appointed. The terms of reference were discussed with both the union and the industry in my office and I received no objection from either party as to the terms of reference of that industrial inquiry commission.

Incidentally, the industrial inquiry commission was a three-man group which was representative of the construction industry and, as a consequence, knowledgeable of some of the technical problems that were in dispute.

Finally, the industrial inquiry commission handed down their award. It was at that point that the union agreed to abide by that award, basically the Ontario arbitration amended by B.C.'s own industrial inquiry commission, At that point the companies indicated that they were not prepared to accept this contract proposal

[ Page 4736 ]

and notified me accordingly.

I have a letter from the companies dated July 4, 1973, containing their commitment to abide by the Ontario arbitration. And I think it would be well to read this into the record of the House. The letter is addressed to me and it states:

"Re: the International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 82. Otis Elevator Company Limited; Armor Elevator, Canada, Limited; Westinghouse Canada Limited; Dover Corporation, Canada, Limited; and Montgomery Elevator Company Limited.

"This will confirm the agreement of our clients to extend to their employees in British Columbia the results of the Ontario arbitration award conducted pursuant to the Elevator Construction Union Disputes Act, 1973, Ontario. That award would be suitably amended to operate as a collective agreement in British Columbia.

"We trust this undertaking will be helpful to you.

Signed,

Yours very truly,

Russel Du Moulin

per Bebe Trevino."

He was the solicitor for the company.

Despite this undertaking and despite the fact that they had not objected in any way to the industrial inquiry commission which had been appointed to suitably amend the Ontario arbitration to British Columbia's needs, they saw fit to refuse to honour this commitment and have so notified me.

Subsequent to this development, the union, of course, who had in this case lived up to their commitment, re-issued strike notice which again called the industry into jeopardy. I received a number of telegrams requesting action, some of which I would like to read into the record, Mr. Speaker. One is from C.J. Connaghan, Construction Labour Relations Association of B.C., and addressed to me:

THE MEMBERS OF THIS ASSOCIATION VIEW WITH ALARM RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ELEVATOR SECTOR OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WHEREIN STRIKE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED BY THE ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS UNION ON THE ELEVATOR COMPANIES. THIS DISPUTE WHICH IS NOW MORE THAN TWO YEARS IN DURATION HAS ALREADY CAUSED ECONOMIC HARDSHIP FOR B.C. CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS GREAT INCONVENIENCE FOR MANY B.C. RESIDENTS. A FURTHER STRIKE AT THIS TIME WOULD MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY YOUR DEPARTMENT TO DATE TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE AS WELL AS INFLICTING FURTHER UNNECESSARY ECONOMIC HARDSHIP ON ALL SEGMENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOUR OFFICE TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO AVOID A FURTHER WORK STOPPAGE 1N THE ELEVATOR SECTOR OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.

That's dated October 28, 1974.

I received another telegram from Mr. M. Degelder, vice-president and general manager of Stevenson Construction Company Limited, which reads:

RE: ELEVATOR DISPUTE

WE WISH TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR WE WOULD BE GREATLY AFFECTED BY A STRIKE ESPECIALLY IN OUR UNITED KINGDOM BUILDING. A $4 MILLION PROJECT IN VANCOUVER. THE ELEVATOR WORK IS APPROXIMATELY 95 PER CENT COMPLETE AND THE UNCOMPLETED PORTION IS STRICTLY LABOUR. SO FAR ON THIS PROJECT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THREE SHUTDOWNS ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR DISPUTES, AND OTHER PICKET LINES AROUND THIS PROJECT WOULD BE DISASTROUS, AFFECTING A LARGE NUMBER OF TRADES, THE COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE RELATED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS PRESENTLY IN PROGRESS, AND ANOTHER FINANCIAL LOSS FOR ALL COMPANIES INVOLVED. A GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION TO AVOID THIS STRIKE WOULD BE HIGHLY DESIRABLE, ESPECIALLY AS THE MAIN ITEM IN DISPUTE SEEMS TO RELATE TO MAINTENANCE, NOT EVEN TO NEW CONSTRUCTION."

I received a number of telegrams of this nature indicating the concern and the despair of the construction industry in British Columbia. In view of the commitments which both parties had made to me, in view of the tentative settlement which had prevented the continuation of the dispute and the picketing, I felt duty-bound, Mr. Speaker, to hold the parties to their written commitments. That is the reason this bill is before the Legislature today.

I should mention that beyond these factors it's not quite good enough for international companies, who make their decisions in New York or some other United States city, to make British Columbia the battleground….

Interjections.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): What about international unions? What kind of talk is that?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any trade union in the Province of British Columbia which does not have a local bargaining committee authorized to meet and consummate an agreement, not one.

[ Page 4737 ]

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: The fact of the matter is that in this case, Mr. Speaker, the bargaining committee for the industry acted in a very prima donna fashion in terms of even deigning to meet with the union, or indeed with government, when we were interested in bringing the parties together. When it accommodated their interests, they would deign to fly out from Toronto to meet on this important work stoppage 1n British Columbia. I am not prepared to live with that kind of tail-wagging-the-dog situation as far as the interests of this province are concerned. This is one of the basic….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Members save some of their speeches for later?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I think that the opposition is liable to be stuck for words, but I'll be listening with great interest to the comments they have to make on this situation. I know that some of them have commented on this very situation in the past and advocated that I take precisely this kind of action to prevent forces from without the province — indeed from without the nation — controlling the affairs and the destiny of British Columbia's industry and British Columbia's citizens.

So that's the background against which this bill is introduced, Mr. Speaker. I think that it's a bill that is designed to bring long-term peace and long-term security to the construction industry, because now we can be assured that bargaining will take place in a unified way and will take place within the confines of this province, in this province's interest.

So I'll look forward to the comments from the opposition, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be responding in due course.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I will follow the pattern that has developed in the matter of debates on bills and indicate to you that I am the designated speaker for the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker: The chosen one.

Mr. Smith: In that capacity, I presume that you'll waive the 40-minute time limit, if that's necessary — or the lady on Hansard will do that for you.

I listened with interest to the remarks of the Hon. Minister of Labour in introducing this bill for second reading. Really, there is only one thing, Mr. Minister, that you and I agree upon, through you, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the elevator strike has been a long and frustrating one.

Your interpretation, though, of the events that led up to the decision and the awards handed down and the manner in which they came about, and the interpretation I have, are quite different. I think that it would be well if I took a little time this evening to put on the record some of these differences, because I believe that either the Minister has a very selective memory of certain events that have taken place over a period of two years or he doesn't wish to remember the arguments and the genuine concern expressed by both sides of the industry.

He seems to be a little reluctant to remember what was said on behalf of the companies involved in this particular labour dispute, but very, very well remembers anything that was said to him by the union.

I think it's a matter of record, Mr. Speaker, that the elevator strike has been a nagging and frustrating situation in this province — probably more so in the lower mainland than anywhere else in the Province of British Columbia. It's a fact that it has seriously slowed down a great deal of construction. It's a matter of record that in some cases it has prevented new buildings from opening. That one small segment of the construction industry has certainly interfered in the public interest, particularly at a time when new construction is badly needed in this province.

From the public interest point of view, it should have been settled a long time ago — settled, done with, disposed of, to the benefit, I think, of all concerned, to the benefit of the elevator companies who are involved in an impasse with the unions, to the benefit of the unions representing the people who work in that very select area of construction and to the benefit of the public at large.

I might observe, Mr. Minister, that as I have read the reports and followed through what happened in the press releases that you have issued from your office, and the releases from the news media in the province during the time this dispute has been before us, that while the elevators may not have moved too often or too frequently, or the new installations may not have taken place, you certainly have had your ups and downs in this particular argument.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Which button do you press?

Mr. Smith: This bill raises a much larger issue than the specific settlement of this particular dispute, and I want to speak about that this evening. It raises the issue of your whole approach, as government, to labour relations. In short, what is really the labour relations policy of the NDP government?

Interjection.

[ Page 4738 ]

Mr. Smith: What is it? You know, we've heard for years and years, I suppose, about the great job the NDP would do in labour relations if elected. Why? — because they understood the problems. We heard and have heard consistently repeated criticisms of the former government's approach to labour relations. As a matter of fact, one of the key planks in the NDP campaign was that they would bring a whole new approach to labour relations, that they would toss out the old system and bring in a new system.

Well, you did bring in changes in the labour laws in this province, and I think that we are now in a position to judge just how effective these changes have been, because we now can look at them in retrospect. It's true, you brought in a new labour code for this province and waxed eloquent and long, both you and your colleagues, on what a great success it would be.

If that is true, then why, Mr. Speaker, have we witnessed as many labour stoppages in the province as we have in the last 18 months? Why? Two of the disputes which have had to come to the floor of this House could be settled by a bill such as the one we're debating this evening. We had the B.C. Ferries strike, and the Minister admitted that in that particular situation he had a gun held to his head.

I think it's quite in order to review some of the situations that have led up to the introduction of this bill this evening.

So we had the B.C. Ferry strike and the Minister admitted that a gun was held to his head, so he had to come up with a solution which really was not the solution that he would have liked.

We have the B.C. Railway problem and this has been referred to the Labour Relations Board.

This afternoon we debated a bill concerning the teachers and the trustee situation in the Province of British Columbia. I think that particular bill was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction and really premature legislation at this time.

Twice we have had labour problems settled by this Legislative Assembly.

The firefighters went out on strike and we had to come back to a special sitting of the Legislature to solve that dispute. Now the elevator strike which you are asking us to solve with this bill this evening.

What is the approach of the government in these particular situations where public interest is involved? It's an approach of compulsion, Mr. Speaker, because we had a special session of the Legislature to compel the firefighters to return to work. I don't believe the Minister would deny that. Was that not compulsory?

In the case of the elevator strike…a bill before us this evening compelling the companies to accept as binding the findings and the award of the B.C. Industrial inquiry commission. Is that not correct? Isn't that what we're debating this evening?

While we are discussing compulsion, I want to refresh the memories of some of the Members in this House, particularly those in the NDP, concerning some of their remarks in past debates about compulsion and the type of legislation that we're being asked to vote upon this evening.

I'm not going to go through all of the remarks and the statements made by Members of the Legislature in a session which we held from October 17 to 27 in 1972. At that time the government took great pleasure in disposing of the Mediation Act and the commission. Certainly it's well recorded in several hundred pages of Hansard, and I'm not going to go back over all the arguments that were presented at that time by Members of the NDP.

But I am going to refer to a more recent debate, a debate that took place when the labour Act was introduced into the Province of British Columbia, and recall to the memory of some people who may have forgotten, or those who would conveniently like to forget, some of their remarks during that particular debate.

I'd like to start by quoting from Hansard, September 13 to October 19, pages 1 to 808, and quoting from page 400 of Hansard. The Minister, in speaking on this particular debate was very proud of his new Labour Code, said:

The new labour code has streamlined and improved the structure and machinery of the Labour Relations Board. The new board will, I predict, be better equipped to assist those engaged in collective bargaining to achieve harmonious relations and will, ultimately, benefit all of the citizens of this province.

I've given an outline, Mr. Speaker, of the central agency that will hold responsibility for making this new labour code work. I think it's necessary at the same time to say that attitudes towards this new legislation are going to be all-important in the degree of success which is realized from our new approach.

Well, Mr. Minister, you've tried the new approach. You had great faith in what you would be able to accomplish by introducing into this House the new Labour Code, but you don't have the courage of your convictions, because what you have done, in fact, is when you were pushed into a corner in some dispute you left the ultimate decision for the settlement of that dispute in the hands of this Legislative Assembly.

You appointed a commission of 55 people to mediate the problem, not a commission of three. It was a cop-out from the responsibility that you said you were prepared to undertake as Minister of Labour.

I'd now like to refer to the remarks of one of the other Hon. Members. The Member's remarks are well recorded in this particular copy of Hansard, on page 457. The Member is the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) — quite an expert in the field of labour relations, we understand. This particular Member has said in speaking in debate

[ Page 4739 ]

on the Labour Code in British Columbia:

I campaigned against compulsory arbitration. I subscribed to the eight-point programme that the NDP campaigned on in last year's election. I cannot accept the provision that in any way allows for compulsory arbitration, even though in this case that compulsory arbitration appears to be in favour of the trade union movement. If I am to be consistent in my opposition to compulsion, I can't be in favour of compulsion when it benefits trade unions. Mr. Speaker, that kind of consistency is important to me.

If it is important to that Member, we'll watch with interest how he votes, if he votes, on the passage of this particular bill through this legislative session.

The same Member, a little later on in the same speech said:

… arbitration has been made for years, it has been made eloquently by the New Democratic Party, and I stand by those statements made both by my party and by myself in years gone by. I intend, Mr. Speaker, to continue to oppose compulsory arbitration in whatever form, even when it appears to be to the benefit of the working people.

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

Mr. Smith: The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour said that. He doesn't seem to be in his place this evening, a time when I would have thought that a man so interested in the labour movement in the Province of British Columbia would have made sure that he was in the House when a debate on this type of a motion took place.

It will be interesting to see how other Members who have spoken on compulsion vote on this particular bill.

It will be interesting to see how the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) votes, because certainly he was a very strong advocate of the rights of labour and the fact that no compulsion could be involved.

Mrs. Jordan: Until he got a $40,000-a-year job.

Mr. Smith: And there's the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) who said: "I do not think that compulsion should be considered. It's contrary to my own philosophy…

Mrs. Jordan: No!

Mr. Smith: …and also to the policy of the NDP."

Mrs. Jordan: No!

Mr. Smith: No compulsion, Mr. Minister, by your cabinet colleagues and Members of your own backbench. No compulsion.

Mrs. Jordan: Stand up and speak.

MR. SMITH: A little later on, on page 517, the Minister says this:

There is no way that I or my government would recommend compulsory arbitration as a broad device replacing free collective bargaining as a method of regulating the affairs between workers and their employers.

Mrs. Jordan: Read that again.

Mr. Smith:

There is no way that I or my government would recommend compulsory arbitration as a broad device replacing free collective bargaining as a method of regulating the affairs between workers and their employers.

Mrs. Jordan: Was that Mrs. Dailly or Mr. King?

Mr. Smith: That's the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) speaking in a debate.

Mr. Phillips: That's the serious one.

Mr. Smith: Tell me, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, is compulsion only a one-way process? If it's unfair to the union, then compulsion can be considered; but if it's unfair to management, then what course of action do you follow?

I suggest that as Minister of Labour you have a duty to be an unbiased and neutral referee in some of these particular problems that come before you, to be neither pro-labour nor pro-management, but try to resolve the problem in a fair and equitable manner to both sides. After all, isn't that what we're striving for in labour relations in the Province of British Columbia?

The Minister, in opening up second reading of this particular bill, referred to some of the events which have taken place prior to the introduction of this bill. And I think some of the discussion that did take place should be read into the record.

Mr. Phillips: Thirteen out of 38.

Mr. Smith: I was interested to see that the Minister referred to a letter written to the Minister by a particular law firm representing the elevator companies of British Columbia. I'll get to that a little later on.

But prior to that, I'd like to just summarize some of the correspondence and discussion that took place between the Department of Labour and the union

[ Page 4740 ]

and the elevator companies involved. I'd like to start back in May of 1973. I think it's a matter of record that the things that I am about to say are statements which have been made by the Minister or press releases concerning them.

May, 1973: "A new Labour Minister…. You were comparatively new in May of 1973, having taken office the previous fall. You were, I think, conscientiously trying to do a good job in the department that has its problems.

"A new Labour Minister issued a public statement leading many to believe that the serious hindrance to the B.C. construction industry was close to resolution."

He probably felt at that time that settlement was not too far off.

Hon. Mr. King: Who's the author — Dan Campbell?

Mr. Smith: No, Dan Campbell had nothing to do with this. If you bother to read some of the press releases going back to May of 1973, you'll find the exact words I use were quoted from press releases from press conferences that you had held or corridor conversations taking place with the press.

In June of 1973, a month later:

"The industry informed the Minister of Labour that the inflexible position of the union was hurting more workers that the union alleged to be protecting."

To express it another way: because of the union's position there were more direct jobless than directly employed, There was genuine concern on the part of the companies at that particular time.

Later in June of 1973, representatives of the five elevator companies involved in the dispute met with the Minister and the Deputy. At this meeting, the industry was asked to accept the results of the Ontario arbitration decision. They were asked to accept this, as the Minister will admit, at a time when no one really knew what terms would be laid down or what rates would be awarded by the Ontario arbitration decision.

It was a tough decision for either labour or management to make at that time, but industry was concerned about the strike. As a matter of fact, they were so desirous of a settlement that they agreed to accept a decision. This was confirmed by letter to the Minister on July 4, 1973. The Minister has already read that letter into the record — I have a copy of it — so I'll not read it into the record a second time.

But the interesting part, Mr. Speaker, is that from the time the industry indicated their desire to come to an agreement and settle this dispute until October of the same year, nothing happened. When the Minister was questioned on the floor of this House in the fall session, he assured the Legislature that he had obtained a commitment from both industry and the union that both sides would accept the result of the Ontario award.

As I recall, this was put to the Minister in a question period during that fall session and he replied by saying he had reason to believe that they were close to some sort of a settlement and that the industry and the unions would accept the results of the Ontario award.

Well, the Ontario award came down. But it's also a matter of record that that award was challenged by the union in Ontario. Subsequent to that challenge, the Ontario Department of Labour appointed a new arbitration board with the same chairman to see if they could resolve the problem.

Meanwhile, in the Province of British Columbia, the elevator situation escalated — it wasn't a strike at that time — and more problems became prevalent. It wasn't until February 28 of 1974 that we really found out what was happening with respect to that particular problem in the Province of Ontario. At that time, Ontario announced a new award. As soon as a copy of that award was available, the elevator companies sent a copy to the Minister.

It's probably interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that for this consideration the industry received a one-paragraph letter of acknowledgement from the Minister of Labour but no further comment about the award in the Province of Ontario or about the position of either the elevator companies or the union with respect to a prior commitment that both had made to the Minister.

And we still had the same problems within the elevator construction business in the province.

The elevator industry, disturbed by lack of response from letters written to the International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 82, wrote to the Minister through their solicitor as follows. While I'm not going to read the whole letter, I think it's important to read into the record some of the comments of the elevator companies at that time. The letter is dated April 30, 1974, and it's to the Hon. William S. King, Minister of Labour, re elevator companies' collective agreement in British Columbia:

"As you know, on April 10 and April 18, 1974, we have written to the International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 82, asking that the collective agreement resulting from the Ontario arbitration be executed by the union as it was by the company representatives.

"We have received no response whatsoever to our two letters.

"Our clients are of the view that you obtained a commitment from both sides that the results of the Ontario arbitration would, in its substance, become the collective agreement for British Columbia. You stated at the time

[ Page 4741 ]

that, if necessary, special legislation might be required to insist upon compliance with the results of the Ontario arbitration.

"Our clients are of the further opinion that their commitment to you has been fulfilled in every respect. The trade union, however, has not only failed to comply with its commitment but has done so publicly. The Vancouver Sun of March 8, 1974, under the headline: 'B.C. Installers Could Renege stated that the union appeared likely to renege on their commitment to you of last May, and quoted Mr. Neil as saying that there was no way the union was going to abide by any of it.

"We must ask that you advise us of the position which you intend to take and when you intend to take it as the present situation of uncertainty cannot be allowed to continue. We would therefore appreciate receiving your views as to the implementation of the commitment given to you by both sides at your earliest convenience."

Written by a law firm on behalf of the elevator companies involved in this dispute.

It's also a matter of record that this letter was acknowledged May 27, 1974, and the Minister at that time indicated that he had met with the union to discuss the arbitration award from Ontario and the union indicated that they would not execute the award as a collective agreement.

The question we must ask then is this, Mr. Minister: why did the Minister allow the union to opt out on a commitment made to him previously? The evidence certainly verifies that both the elevator companies and the union had previously agreed to accept the Ontario award as the basis for a contract in the Province of British Columbia.

Certainly the letter to the Hon. Minister written on June 7 on behalf of the companies restated their justifiable concern. I'd like to quote briefly from that letter.

The letter goes into some of the background and detail of the discussions that have taken place in previous months concerning this particular dispute. It says:

"To underline our concern may we review the history of this problem? You will recall that the custom in the elevator industry has been to negotiate an agreement applicable across Canada, with regional differences being accounted for within the confines of the collective agreement itself.

"The last such agreement was entered into on May 1, 1967 and terminated on April 30, 1972. The negotiations for renewal had begun in eastern Canada on March 30, 1972, and a strike began in British Columbia on or about September 8, 1972.

"It will also be recalled that the negotiations took place entirely in eastern Canada and that at no time was Local 82 ever represented directly in those negotiations."

Then they go on to talk about how in November, 1972, the elevator strike was declared illegal by Justice Ruttan, and the fact that a case was brought by one of the companies to try to get these people back to work.

I think it is interesting to read one of the paragraphs in this letter, because it certainly places the position of the elevator companies in sharp focus. It says in this paragraph:

"Our clients at first resisted an agreement to commit themselves to voluntarily accept the results in Ontario.

"The basis of their objection was that they had not agreed to voluntary arbitration in Ontario, and they would not therefore agree voluntarily to submit to arbitration in British Columbia.

"The persuasion exercised by you, your office, and by your respective Deputy Ministers was later successful in that our clients agreed to the discontinuance of the actions against their employees."

Agreed not to proceed with the contemplated citation for contempt, and agreed without qualification and unequivocally to be bound by the results of the Ontario award, committing themselves to make that award a legal agreement for British Columbia. They go on to say:

"The Ontario arbitration board handed down its decision February 28, 1974."

Then they say:

"We did not receive any reply from Local 82 nor any person representing the Local. We wrote again to Local 82 on April 18, 1974, and upon still not receiving any response, wrote to you on April 30.

And they conclude the letter, after reviewing the events which took place prior to June 7, 1974, by saying:

"All of the local managers of our clients have noticed an increasing frustration on the part of their employees, and in particular, their more senior and experienced employees. This appears to arise from the fact that the men themselves do not know what is happening.

"Our clients have noticed an increase in the number of their valuable employees discussing the possibility of leaving the elevator industry.

"We are advised that at one time the employees of our clients considered the elevator industry a very pleasant place to work, but in view of the difficulties which have arisen and the frustrations which they find arising from the manner in which they are required to

[ Page 4742 ]

perform their work, they are considering planning a different form of employment.

"Given the foregoing perspective and context, we are concerned that the union appears to be ready to instruct its members to defy the law and now, in effect, to defy the government.

"Certainly your office was responsible for the momentum of the return to work, and also for obtaining a commitment from both sides that would allow a new collective agreement to be formed between the parties in British Columbia without a further disruption occurring.

"It now appears that the union considers that it can publicly renege on its commitment to you with some impunity, and we draw to your attention copies of press clippings of March 8 and March 13, among the clippings enclosed.

"It is our position that our clients have complied in every respect with the commitments given to you. We now ask that you require Local 80 to comply with its commitment to you, and through you, to our clients."

Then it is interesting to note what happened, Mr. Minister. It is a matter of record that after a few more meetings, which apparently were unsuccessful, a decision was made by the Minister to appoint a three-man industrial inquiry commission which, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister's own words did not include within their terms of reference the power to make the results binding.

You did say at that time that both the companies and the union had committed themselves to follow the Ontario decision, and further, that commitment was something you expected to be followed-up on.

Yet you, Mr. Minister, failed to follow through on your commitment by appointing the B.C. Industrial Inquiry Commission and assigning them terms of reference which went well beyond the parameters of the Ontario award, particularly in the issue of standby pay. Particularly in that issue — an issue which I would like to suggest to the Minister will be one which will come back to haunt him in his term of office.

Mr. Minister, by including this matter in the terms of reference of the inquiry commission, you opened the door for similar requests by the unions representing other employees in other corporations, including every Crown corporation in this province, including B.C. Hydro and B.C. Railway.

According to the elevator companies, they certainly want that matter clarified because under the inquiry commission formula it would be possible for an elevator mechanic to receive as much as $19,000 a year, over and above his regular wages, for work he was never required to do.

Is this the type of situation you want to inject into the construction industry generally in the Province of British Columbia? I think the Minister must realize that he has certainly opened the door to those types of settlements being asked by other unions in the province.

I'd like to quote from the report of the inquiry commission:

"The employer agrees to reimburse each employee when he is on standby at the applicable rate of pay, being three hours of time- and-one-half for each weeknight, six hours at time-and-one-half for Saturday, and six hours at double time for Sunday, and all statutory holidays shall be considered the same as Sunday. "

Is it not then a matter of fact that anyone who is considered to be on standby will receive substantial extra pay, regardless of whether they were ever called out or not?

Is it not a fact that by including that in the terms of reference of the industrial inquiry commission you certainly exceeded to a great extent the terms of the award handed down by Ontario?

It is not much wonder that the unions, at this particular point in time, jumped to accept the non-binding recommendations made by the three-man inquiry commission. Why would they refuse? Certainly it was probably as much, if not more than they had any reason to expect. But it was not until a three-man industrial inquiry commission had been appointed by yourself, whose terms of reference exceeded to a great extent the terms of reference and the awards handed down in the Province of Ontario, that the union representing these employees agreed to accept, even though they had previously committed themselves to the findings and the award handed down by the Arbitration Board of the Province of Ontario.

I note that there's an amendment, which we'll debate later, on page 22 of the order paper; section 5 is amended. I'll be interested to see what the Minister has to say concerning that particular amendment, because it does provide for clarification where a dispute is involved. This is one particular point that I think you have a responsibility to clarify as quickly as possible, both for the people who are employees and members of the union and the companies by whom they are employed.

Mr. Minister, in our opinion, you have a responsibility to remain the impartial referee in the field of labour-management relations. You have a responsibility to see that both sides, having once made a commitment, live up to that commitment. You have a responsibility as Minister, once these people have negotiated and made commitments to you in good faith and you to them, that you live up

[ Page 4743 ]

to your commitments as Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker, in view of that, are we to believe that after being without a contract for two-and-one-half years, the decision by the union to serve strike notice just one week before the opening of this small session was not orchestrated? How did they know when the fall session was going to open? Or perhaps, Mr. Minister, you're the innocent victim of a union, whose head office is in Kentucky, with a crystal ball which can foretell intended B.C. legislation before this House is given notice of such legislation. To that one question, as to many others, the public deserves an answer, Mr. Minister.

We in the official opposition do not dispute that you try hard as the Minister of Labour, that you work hard, that you get an "E" for effort; but then so does everyone else in the field of labour relations and every other Minister that has represented that department in this province. They've all tried hard, worked hard. They all received an "E" for effort. But the report card for you must be based upon the results you obtain.

Your party promised the millennium in labour relations. It was to be a great new climate, a whole new approach, a real understanding. You really knew the problems of labour and you would find the solutions to them. And what have you brought forth? No new climate; not the promised change but a climate which has produced the fireman's strike, which had to be settled by a special session of this Legislature; a climate that produced the ferry strike, which you say was settled because they held a gun to your head; a B.C. Railway strike; the elevator strike, which you ask to be settled now by this House; a possibility of another ferry strike; a strike by the agents representing ICBC.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): And landlords; everybody strikes.

Mr. Smith: In other words, your policy of labour relations has brought nothing but confusion and frustration in this province. To add to that we have debated a bill this afternoon which has enhanced the confusion and frustration which exist between school trustees and teachers.

What of the climate and your handling of the elevator strike? Well, if I could quote from The Vancouver Sun and the words of one of their journalists, an independent writer: "It's Appalling." Mr. Wasserman, it was, in an article of November 2. He had this to say:

"The issues in this protracted hassle, with its succession of strikes, lockouts and slowdowns, are relatively unimportant, but what has been really appalling has been the inability of the government — I'd like to repeat that:
"What has been really appalling has been the inability of the government, the construction industry, the trade unions and assorted other participants to come to terms with a dispute that has played a major role in creating a shortage of mortgage money for houses, among other things."

Is that not a fact, Mr. Minister? The great plans of the NDP when they were in opposition and the great boasts to be all things to all people have finally had to be resolved by the 55 people who sit in this House.

Mr. Speaker, this government is now doing exactly what they used to complain about the previous government doing. All of us remember Bill 33, the mediation commission Act, and how you campaigned against it very bitterly, and what pride you took as the new Minister of Labour in abolishing it as your first piece of business. So what have you done in the two cases we've now seen of a dispute affecting the public interest? It's simple: you set up a new mediation commission, only this one had 55 Members and not three.

This House, Mr. Speaker, must not become a super labour relations board as well as a Legislature. This province and the public interest needs an independent agency or forum within which labour and management can settle the type of dispute which in two cases have ended up on the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this government should be frank. If their new system of labour relations is in fact one of a 55-member mediation commission doing the work that three were appointed to do previously, then be honest and tell us so. If in fact the former system was not as bad as you tried to paint it, be frank and admit it. If you say there is a better solution, tell us what it is, or go out and find it.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I thank the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) for his careful and extensive recitation of the facts which have led up to this debate. I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it will greatly shorten the remarks which I would have been making otherwise.

I disagree with the Member for North Peace when he suggests that what the Minister is doing with this legislation is to turn this Legislature into a 55-man mediation commission, because no mediation commission ever devised or designed by anyone would face a problem having as great consequences as this particular problem does with the sketchy facts made available to us by the Minister of Labour in his remarks opening this debate.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when I consider that for the second time in three months this House has been called upon to use its authority to resolve a labour dispute, and when I recollect the brief statement made by the Minister of Labour in the

[ Page 4744 ]

previous case, I am most distressed at the use of the House for this particular purpose.

Following the meeting in August, when we sent the four firefighter unions all into one organization and back to work, I had reason to wonder why the Minister was perhaps nor more candid with the House than he was in his remarks outlining the reasons for that meeting and for the action that he then proposed. I can only come to the conclusion regretfully, following the remarks that he made in the opening of this debate, that somehow or other the Minister, when facing this House with this serious responsibility, is less than willing to give to the House the clearest statement of facts which have led to this decision and the decision of the government to take this extraordinary course of action.

I would have expected, Mr. Speaker, that rather than leaving it to Members of the opposition to place on the record the series of events leading to this debate tonight, the Minister, in advance of the debate or at least at the time the debate commenced, would have made available to every Member of this House such a clear, factual statement.

I too have read the correspondence referred to by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and I'm regretfully compelled to the conclusion that the Minister was being less than honest with this House when he opened this debate.

He talked about the conditions of the Ontario arbitration award and the fact that it had to be translated into British Columbia circumstances. He didn't tell us in what way the Ontario arbitration award was not acceptable to British Columbia circumstances.

He said that he had appointed an industrial inquiry commission and that the terms of reference of that commission were agreed to by both the union and the management. But he didn't tell us what the terms of reference of that industrial inquiry commission were.

Why? Why did he neglect to tell us that one of the basic conditions, one of the basic terms of reference of the industrial inquiry commission was that its findings would be non-binding? Could it have been that the reason both the union and management were in agreement with the terms of reference of that commission were because one of the basic terms was that its findings would not be binding? It could easily be, yet we don't know whether or not that was a significant factor in the minds of either the union or management in accepting those terms of reference. But the Minister found it convenient not to give us that information.

The Minister did not in any way indicate how the agreement produced by the industrial inquiry commission following its investigation, this non-binding agreement that it produced, was different from the agreement which came fm the Ontario arbitration proceedings. However, the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) indicated what was different. What was different, Mr. Speaker, was that in the Ontario arbitration award, while standby provisions were included in that agreement, the standby provisions in the Ontario agreement, as well as the standby provisions in the agreement negotiated separately with the union by the Armor Company, did not make provision which would have the consequence of providing an employee with the possibility of receiving $19,000 a year without doing any work. That's not in the Ontario award, although the whole question of standby was considered by the Ontario arbitration board as well as by the negotiations between the union and the Armor Company. Indeed, there was specific reference to that matter in the minority award of the Ontario arbitration board. We weren't told that by the Minister.

I hope that when he closes the debate, he can tell us why the provision of this windfall wage provision for the employees of the elevator companies in British Columbia makes that so different from what should apply to the employees of those elevator companies in the Province of Ontario and elsewhere in Canada.

What is it about the conditions in British Columbia that makes that windfall wage possibility applicable specifically to B.C.? How is that a proper evolution from the Ontario arbitration award? How could the industrial inquiry commission in British Columbia suddenly have seized upon this one fact as necessary in order to translate the Ontario award into a British Columbia agreement? How could it be?

I'm sure that no one suggested to the industrial inquiry commission in British Columbia that it might be helpful if they sweetened the agreement somehow or other so that it was acceptable to the union. I'm certain that didn't happen. But the very fact that the Minister in opening the debate failed to advise this House of that significant distinction might make some people wonder, and, so wondering, come to the conclusion that perhaps the industrial inquiry commissions which are appointed in this province are not all that free from interference.

That's the position the Minister places not only on us but also on his industrial inquiry commission, the members of the Labour Relations Board. That's the situation the Minister creates.

Now, I expect when the Minister closes, he's going to stand up and rant and rail about the Member for — he won't remember which constituency it is — it's West Vancouver–Howe Sound. Aren't you making a note? You'll lose your temper as you have before and criticize me on a personal basis for the remarks I'm making here tonight. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that that Minister has not been candid with this House when asking us to exercise this supreme authority to send men back to work and to

[ Page 4745 ]

force employers into organizations so that they can conclude collective bargaining in this province.

The Minister spoke to the British Columbia Federation of Labour just a few days ago in which he restated his party's fundamental position that they stood for free collective bargaining. Free collective bargaining. I assume that means the processes of bargaining by organizations which have the authority of their members freely conducted without interference. That's his position. That's the position of his party and of his government. It was commented upon by one of the papers that it sounded almost like it was an election speech that he was giving. Within only a few days after making that speech, we were debating legislation which is just the very reverse of what he was saying to the B.C. Federation of Labour.

I wonder almost if the Minister has not seized upon this opportunity of evening up what he did to the firefighters last August. It's like a referee who makes different judgment calls in order to keep the game even. Compensating calls.

But the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that what we are having with this legislation is worse than that terrible Bill 33. At least in Bill 33, with that terrible mediation commission, the parties knew in advance whether or not the deliberations that went on before the mediation commission were to be binding or not. But we've got a new technique now. What we do is reach outside of this province and take a binding award from some other jurisdiction, in this case Ontario, and say to the parties: "Now, fellows, we think you could take this agreement. and get together. We'll just make a few changes that will make it acceptable for British Columbia conditions." And there are some. Obviously in the agreement you have to change the names of the parties and we have to change the word "Ontario" to "British Columbia" where it appears. You have to make certain provisions to our Labour Code for technological change and matters of that nature.

And when you are having difficulty in getting them to accept an agreement on that basis, you say: "Well, I'll tell you how we'll work it out, fellows. We'll appoint an industrial inquiry commission to assist you in bringing an agreement out of this foreign compulsory award. But just so there's no problem, this industrial inquiry commission won't be binding on you."

And when you've gone through that process, then you suddenly say to the parties: "Well, we've gone all this way, fellows, and it's very important for the Province of British Columbia. So I'll just call the Legislature together and we'll bring legislation in which makes it binding on the union and on the employers."

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that this activity on the part of the government, this technique, will lead to the greatest disruption of labour-management relations that we will see in this province for many years to come.

Indeed, what we have done after bringing in the Labour Code establishing this Labour Relations Board filled with qualified people with great authority to ensure that the processes between labour and management are carried on properly, efficiently and harmoniously, is to bring about a situation where the government at the same time says to management on the one side sometimes and labour on the other: "You can circumvent the LRB. Just use political pressure. Hang out. Don't enter into any settlements. When it gets really tough, I'll take it into the Legislature and I'll put forward a bill that will solve the problem."

Political pressures. That's where labour and management relations are headed to in this province because of this second instance of the use of this authority by this government and by that Minister.

If he had clearly outlined to us tonight the precise need for this legislation, if he had indicated that he had used his good offices week after week after week in a vain attempt to bring management and the union together, and that he was being frustrated by irresponsible actions by one party or the other, such that this whole industry was in jeopardy and that there was indeed no other solution than to come to this Legislature, then the situation would be different. But the Minister has not drawn that picture for us tonight. Indeed, it's interesting when you consider the material available to us. If the Minister has other material I wish he would bring it forward, because we only have to use in this debate that material which our research facilities makes available to us.

It's interesting that in response to the opportunity presented to translate the Ontario award into an agreement, management moved, produced an agreement, submitted it to the Minister and to the union, and said, "This, we think, is good enough." And they were advised by the Minister on May 22 that the union had indicated to him that it would not at that time execute the collective agreement drawn from the award.

The Minister then said to management's representatives, "They — the union — held out the hope of some pending development in the next two weeks which may effect the entire matter." What pending development — a little pressure on the government? Is that the pending development that was being held out as a reason for not signing the award? Certainly the Minister has not explained to this House what knowledge he had on May 22 as to what hopes the union had for some other method of resolving this difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the consequences of continuing disputes in the elevator industry have in

[ Page 4746 ]

the past threatened construction projects in this province of a value in excess of $200 million and that the failure to resolve the differences, whatever they may be between union and management, continues to hold the possibility of that threat. We know that this union was not certified as a bargaining authority in this province until just a few months ago, and now it has a right to legally strike, which it did not have before. And the Minister comes forward at this time with this method of resolving the dispute and hopefully bringing peace and some stability to the construction industry — with which no one in this House, I'm sure disagrees — an industry which this year has already gone through a long and costly strike.

Mr. Speaker, my objection to this legislation is not because of that factor. My objection is because of the abuse of this process, abuse of the supreme authority that this House has to resolve these difficulties. I suggest that if the Minister had indicated to the parties that there having been an arbitration award to resolve the matter in the Province of Ontario — and, mind you, there was legislation before the arbitration proceedings and the parties knew that it was binding.

If the Minister had followed the same course in British Columbia and said to these parties, "Look, the experience that you have had in the Province of Ontario had lead them to the conclusion that they have to resolve their differences by binding arbitration, and we think what they have done in Ontario has brought some stability to the industry. I will appoint an industrial inquiry commission to sit down with both of the parties in British Columbia and they will work out with you the proper translation of that award into British Columbia terms," and had told them at that time that if they did not abide by the judgment of the industrial inquiry commission, he would have no alternative but to use the power that government has, then there would be some reason in this legislation. The parties would have known that they were approaching that final stage when either they got together and resolved their differences with the assistance of the commission, or they were going to face the actions that this House can work upon them. If that had been the case, then we are properly here debating this tonight. But it was not.

I suggest that the parties, be they union or management, were misled in the translation of the Ontario award into British Columbia terms. They were misled by the use of the industrial inquiry commission, and that doesn't justify the initiation of action in this House.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): This bill, Mr. Speaker, once again points out the mockery of one of the basic positions of this government: that it so believes in collective bargaining, and is so opposed to compulsion, that it will always allow free collective bargaining to take place.

It's a government that repeatedly preaches the right to strike in all sectors of the economy, and in debates in this House, both on the Labour Code and particularly in resisting amendments which this side of the House put forward on the Labour Code, resisted the concept that in certain aspects of industry, and the service industry in particular, the public interest far supersedes the interest of any group wanting the right to strike. Yet, despite that very rigid, repeatedly avowed position by the NDP, we've already had one incident in this House where we were all called into special session to put the lower mainland firefighters back to work. Here again, we have that same party, with he same avowed concept of industrial relations, now deciding that the elevator workers should be compelled to accept a settlement. In this case, of course, it is the employers who have been resisting imposition by government of a settlement.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I don't think it's for us as MLAs to debate the elements of the dispute — the question of whether the issue of standby pay, or any other issue, is the central part of the problem. To me, at least, the central issue is the public interest and the way in which it should be protected. On this side of the House, and certainly in this party, we have never had any hesitation in outlining our position, and outlining it now, that in some sectors of industry — and it's certainly the service industry — the right to strike should be seriously reviewed and possible withdrawn.

This government appears to want to have the best of both worlds: they want union support on all possible occasions by repeatedly making speeches in this House and out of the House making it clear that one of the basic planks in their labour policy is the right to strike, and yet here already we're on the second episode where they really don't have the right to strike. This is episode number two, and I wonder if episode number three is going to be the ferry officers. I just hear on the television newsreel tonight that the ferry officers are now, by a 90 per cent majority, free to serve strike notice and tie up transportation between Vancouver Island and the mainland on Monday.

I'd like to ask another question. With the firefighters we came into special session to impose a settlement; with the elevator problem it happens that we were to have a fall session anyway. I suppose, in some respects, it may be fortuitous and suitable to this government that if the ferry workers do go on strike at the weekend that we'll be able, without a special session of this Legislature, to use the current session to put them back to work.

It just seems to me that the….

[ Page 4747 ]

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's been the same session since January 30.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, don't start splitting hairs, for goodness' sake. The Minister of Transportation, Mr. Speaker, with gun-to-head, starts splitting hairs in the most pickayune way.

All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, whether it's a continuation of the spring session or a fall session or whatever it is, is the fact that this government says one thing in labour relations and does another, and it wants to have the best of both worlds. It wants union support in large numbers by professing that it upholds the right to strike; yet, as I say, here we are already under the new Labour Code with a second imposition of an agreement. And, who knows, within a few days or a week we'll be imposing a settlement on the ferry workers and putting them back to work.

The irony for me is that I have to support this bill, because I don't believe in the unmitigated and uncontrolled right to strike of all workers in all segments of society. I've said many times in this House, and I'll say it again — and I can't ever see any change in my position — that the right to strike is a brutal and archaic attitude to the human community. There are certain services, certain types of employment in our modern society which are so wrapped up with dedication to the public good that if an individual wishes to be employed in such a sector of society, then part and parcel of that employment is the giving up of the right to strike.

We needn't recall, Mr. Speaker, the figures, for example, that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) quoted of hundreds of millions of dollars of construction industry tied up, and the particularly serious aspect of that when it comes to the construction of further rental accommodation, which we debated just a week or two ago in this House.

Unquestionably the continuation to any further substantial period of time of an elevator constructors' strike would be unacceptable because of the public good. But I think it would be wrong on our part not to emphasize in this debate that time and time again it would appear as though this government, for all its pious criticism of Bill 33 and the odious aspects of compulsion, nevertheless recognizes what the opposition parties have said many times: that there is a role for compulsion in the field of industrial relations and that it is not a black-and-white situation. Either you believe in the right to strike and take whatever the consequences are or you oppose the right to strike, and thereby impose unfair limitations on the capacity for certain groups in society to negotiate a fair return for their labour.

I think that in this particular case there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the U.S. companies are using us as guinea pigs, that technological change is involved and that they are using Canada as a battleground for future battles which, on a much larger scale, will take place in the United States. Certainly I'm opposed to that. I'm not certain how absolutely convincing the evidence is that that is the case, but by the advice I sought in the labour field, I'm told that this in fact is part and parcel of the reason for the present dispute in Canada.

Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that even that is the central issue as far as the B.C. Legislature is concerned. It is the fact that we are here to impose an agreement when two parties have gone through various levels of negotiation and industrial inquiry commission. The decision is being imposed, although one party to the agreement disputes the fairness and the conclusions reached, albeit unanimously, by the industrial inquiry commission. That is the central point: that this government has repeatedly said that it is opposed to that kind of compulsory imposition of decisions when one or other party is not agreeable to the particular decision.

I just think it is rather sad that we can probably look forward to more and more situations of the same kind. I'm interested to speculate, for example, in the field of public education, where we've patched up the situation this afternoon perhaps until next year, perhaps no further than next year. I wonder, for example, if the teaching profession chooses to go the full route of collective bargaining and unionization under the Labour Code, whether perhaps not too far down the road we'll be meeting here, either in the current session or by special session, to put the teachers back to work.

I just think that the whole basis of this debate has to revolve around the unreality of the position of this government and its attitude towards strikes or withdrawal of services. This bill I will support, because I see the need to avoid the disruption and the real hardship and economic suffering that would occur in this province if the workers did choose to go on strike simply because the employers have refused to accept a settlement.

I'm not well versed as to what the Ontario settlement was. Again, I say that I don't think that is altogether the most important aspect of this debate tonight. We are debating the principle of Bill 168, and the principle of that bill is government imposition of a settlement when one of the two parties is opposed to the conditions of that settlement. That is in direct contravention of all that this government stands for — this government with its repeated avowal of support for free collective bargaining and the absence of compulsion which, after all, is its most bitter reason for opposing Bill 33, the mediation commission Act.

I just think that it is rather regrettable that for a second time within a few months we have the

[ Page 4748 ]

government having to contradict itself by its actions, compared to its position as stated in debate, and the very likely possibility that within a few more days we will be here debating legislation to put the ferry officers back to work.

Whatever the details of this dispute might be, and what ever the justification for us all being concerned as residents and citizens of British Columbia, I think the saddest aspect of the bill is the fact that by bringing it in the Minister is again basically contradicting a very fundamental and oft-repeated policy of this government in relation to the industrial relations field.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I have just a few words to say in this debate before it passes. I notice that the Minister of Labour is hanging his head in shame tonight at having to bring this bill before this Legislature, because he appeared most recently before the B.C. Federation of Labour and he was talking about principles.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister of Labour doesn't put his principles in his vest pocket. One time he has them in his suitcoat pocket, another in his back pocket and another in his pants pocket. They change, depending upon what will best suit the political expediency of this government. The whole principle of this bill is one of political expediency, and the Minister of Labour has fallen into the trap, followed by so many of his fellow Ministers, of turning whichever way he feels will best suit the politics of the day.

I recall, Mr. Speaker, very well when the new labour bill was going through this Legislature and the Minister expounded all the great benefits to the labour unions and, indeed, to management in this province. Since that time and since that cure-all bill passed through these walls, we have had more labour problems in the Province of British Columbia than this province has ever known before.

I also recall, Mr. Speaker, when we passed the Public Works Fair Employment Act forcing any contractor who had business with the government to have a union shop. Just recently, Mr. Speaker, his own Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) awarded contracts to build housing in this province to non-union contractors.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Because those contractors were hired by the government — and I'm referring to a contract to build 150 townhouses on Champlain Heights in Vancouver awarded to Community Builder Limited, a non-unionized firm — after avowing while that legislation was going through this House that nobody would work for the provincial government without having a closed shop.

Another contract for a 116-unit apartment block for the British Columbia Railway was awarded to the infamous Dunhill Development Corporation, and Dunhill Development Corporation does not have a union shop. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister of Labour has fallen into the same pitfalls that his fellow cabinet Ministers have fallen by putting his principles on the shelf when it involves his own political expediency.

And I say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislative move before this Legislature tonight, although it may be very necessary, still proves to me that this Minister of Labour has fallen by the wayside and has fallen into the pitfalls in blundering — the same blunders that we've seen in this last week-and-a-half in this fall session of the Legislature — to do patch up work.

As the previous speaker said, we'll be back here again; we'll be back here to force other contracts on other labour unions and management. We'll be back here to force the ferry workers back; we'll be back here to force the British Columbia Railway back to work; and probably next year we'll be back here to force conciliation or compulsory arbitration between the teachers and the trustees.

And that's why I say this evening, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister of Labour is hanging his head in shame, and well he should.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Minister of Labour closes the debate.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate I would like to try to answer some of the comments that were made by opposition Members, starting in reverse order. I think that would be a reasonable attachment of importance to the comments that were made.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) suggested that the bill before the House amounts to political expediency. He forecasts more labour problems and suggests that we have witnessed more labour problems since the introduction of the Labour Code than at any other point in the history of the province.

Well, that's a subjective kind of statement and a subjective kind of opinion, one which I would be willing to put to the judgment of the working people and, indeed, the industrial relations people of this province. And, of course, that will eventually come.

So the opinions of the Member for South Peace on that kind of judgment are not particularly too significant in my view.

As far as housing contracts are concerned that have been awarded under a bill, which is not under debate in this session, Mr. Speaker, the Member's information is incorrect as usual. I understand it was not the government that let the contracts he referred to but rather a local agency, To get to the more important and the more relevant comments that were made, the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), who has

[ Page 4749 ]

unfortunately departed for the moment, made some observations that I would like to respond to.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): He's in caucus.

Hon. Mr. King: Yes, he's holding a caucus meeting. I wonder which one of the Socred people he's holding it with? There seems to be somewhat of a propensity to move from the left to the right, doesn't there?

He suggested, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was an attempt to gain union support….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) wanted to speak on the bill, I wish his party had left him as labour critic. But for some reason they chose to juggle that task around and now he seems to get his jollies from sniping from some obscure bench.

However, if I may proceed, Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised at the Conservative leader's comments because….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: Yes, I am, because he went on to complain about the fact that the Legislature had been called together last fall to impose a settlement on the….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. King: I beg your pardon?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. King: I'm not surprised at any attitude that I encounter in this House, Mr. Speaker. Some of them are a little hard to understand but I'm certainly not surprised at them.

But let me continue. He suggested that I'm less than evenhanded in introducing the imposition of binding settlements and at the same time he complained about a settlement on the firefighters' union, which is a contradiction of his own allegation. I find it somewhat unusual.

He said that the irony is that he will have to support the bill, and he objects to using the Legislature as an agency for introducing a binding settlement. But his alternative, as I understand it, is to write legislation which imposes binding arbitration as a matter of course on all disputes. He does not seem to recognize or admit that that solution is one which certainly mitigates in favour of the employer and weakens the equivalent stand of the working people in terms of their bargaining posture.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that rather than write legislation which imposes an economic hardship at the bargaining table on all of the working people of this province, this Legislature should be prepared to meet from time to time to deal with disputes on the basis of their merits. And I see nothing contradictory about that posture which this government has taken. That has been our position for as long as I can recall.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) was a bit more interesting. Quite frankly, I had difficulty following him; he did quite a chicken-dance in terms of what his approach was going to be to the bill before the House.

He suggested that I was less than honest in providing the background material on this dispute. I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I did not really feel it was prudent or necessary to spend my time dealing with this amount of background material on one dispute. Certainly, if the Members of the House want a full recitation of all of the many meetings and all of the voluminous correspondence that changed hands relative to this particular dispute, I could go through it. In my view it would be wasteful to the time of the House.

The problem appears to be that Members have trouble understanding the issue. The issue is not what is in the recommendation of the industrial inquiry commission; the issue is not the contents of the Ontario arbitration award. The parties chose to accept those conditions for a settlement. It was their choice that they accept the Ontario arbitration, suitably amended. It was their terminology, not mine.

The industrial inquiry commission and the terms of reference were acceptable to the parties. Once that decision comes down it's not good enough for the parties to then retreat from the commitment that they gave as a condition for restoring the industry to normalcy.

So Members just don't seem to understand that there's a difference between the normal collective bargaining process and where the parties give an undertaking to abide by an award. If that is the basis of procuring a settlement, then I have an obligation to ensure that those commitments are indeed kept by both parties.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: Now, the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound was concerned that I have not made the terms of reference available to the House on….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: You know, Mr. Speaker, if the Members across the way would do a little more listening and a little less shouting, they'd probably

[ Page 4750 ]

learn a good deal more. They can't seem to grasp the significance of rational presentation so they yelp like a bunch of…. Well, I won't say what.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to provide the House with the terms of reference….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: I think they are helpless, Mr. Speaker.

The terms of reference for the commission were:

(1) To make recommendations for the terms and conditions of a collective agreement between the parties in the Province of British Columbia, based upon the decision of the arbitration award in Ontario, dated February 28, 1974.

(2) To include recommendations with regard to such local issues as were not considered by the Ontario arbitration award referred to above.

(3) To include recommendations as are required by law of the Province of British Columbia for collective agreement in this province.

I am satisfied that the industrial inquiry commission complied with those terms of reference which were agreed to by both parties, and I must insist that they now honour that commitment.

The people on the other side, particularly the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) had some rather nasty remarks to make about possibly what my motives were. All I can say in response is that I'm prepared to let my motives stand the test of public adjudication in this province, and he's free to draw whatever conclusions he may wish to do.

But the thing that really rather amused and perplexed me about the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was his concern about using this Legislature as an agency for imposing compulsory arbitration. That seemed to be something that he found altogether unpalatable.

I find that somewhat unusual because I find that in the Journals of this House for April 1, 1968, that Member's colleague, the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), introduced an amendment to section 18 of Bill 33 that was being debated on that day. The amendment was that subsection 1 of section 18 be amended by striking out all of the words after the word "cease" in the seventh line and substitute the following:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may refer the dispute to the commission and with the assent of the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia, may order that the decision of the commission with respect to the dispute is final and binding upon the parties, except to the extent that the parties agree to vary the same."

Which means in effect that the Legislature of this province would be the normal and usual regular agency for determining whether a dispute would go to arbitration. In light of that amendment which his party moved and which he voted for, I find it a bit unusual that he now feels this bill before the House in any way besmirches or calls to question the integrity of the Legislature. But it's a study again in conflict and contradiction as far as the Liberal Party is concerned.

Now, to get to the first speaker, the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). Quite frankly, I was so confused by his presentation that I find it very, very difficult to respond to it in any way. I wonder why they keep changing labour spokesmen over in that party. I don't know whether it's getting any better or not. I don't think so, I think perhaps you should start the reverse order again, because….

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): The Premier was saying that he should do the same thing. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. King: I was again criticized for using compulsion, then the Member suggested that we should introduce compulsion as a normal legislative device, that we should submit all of these people to compulsory arbitration in a legislative way rather than dealing with the situation as it arises and, in a sense, directing the responsibility for these kinds of disputes where it belongs, whether it be the union or whether it be the management, rather than presuming that it will always be the responsibility of the union and therefore carte blanche removing from them their right to strike on any occasion. I do not accept that position.

The interesting thing though, Mr. Speaker, is that he seemed to think it was somewhat of a sin that I bring this bill before the Legislature. He talked about the award and suggested that perhaps the award went beyond the needs of this province. Well, as a matter of policy, I never comment on the awards that are introduced by third parties.

I think everyone can recall the Hon. John Munro's reaction when the third-party report was produced in the grain handlers' dispute, and the result of his comments. His endorsing himself and associating himself with that award was simply that the parties refused to bargain and sat back and waited for the parliament of Canada to deal with it as a matter of course. It eliminated the ground for any negotiation.

But the interesting thing with respect to the Social Credit Party is again the contradiction of their position. It was just last year, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), who was formerly the Minister of Labour and formerly the labour critic for that remnant of a party, made these

[ Page 4751 ]

comments in the debate on the Labour Code. On March 15 and 16, the Member for Columbia River said on page 1386 of Hansard:

… national agreements do interfere with the settlement of labour disputes in this province…. I think the law should be changed so that they (national agreement signers) must comply with the existing laws of B.C…. What I'm talking about is ad hoc national agreements of multi-national corporations that sign collective agreements…. I think that it's in the interests of British Columbians, of British Columbia workers and British Columbia investment to consider the abolition of these national agreements.

That's what the Member said. Then he went on, Mr. Speaker:

I think that you should really make these multi-national corporations…. abide by the same conditions and regulations and face the same type of problems in the field of collective bargaining that other contractors in British Columbia do.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I agree that that was indeed eloquent, and perhaps that's why he was removed as the labour critic for that party and replaced by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith).

Oh, what a study in conflict; what a study in contradiction. I think, really, to be charitable that the Members over there are just incapable of understanding the distinction between collective bargaining and the problems that exist in the elevator industry.

Basically, the bill not only settles the dispute, but because the union is now certified in the province, because those multi-national cartels are now part of the B.C. construction industry for the purpose of collective bargaining, it ensures that good-faith collective bargaining will take place in this province, and that we will not be manipulated by exterior forces in the future.

I complied precisely with the request of the Member for Columbia River, and I want to see him stand up and support this bill tonight, Mr. Speaker.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 168, Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 165, Mr. Speaker.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING
(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 165; Mr. Liden in the chair.

On section 1.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'm a little out of breath because I just sprinted down the hall, but section I has a definition in it for which purpose I wish that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) was here, because natural product is defined as follows:

"Natural product means any product of agriculture or of the forest — of the forest — sea, lake or river, and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from such product in British Columbia."

In other words, Mr. Chairman, this section could bring the entire forest industry of this province under the purview of this marketing legislation. Not even in combination with the bill we had introduced today, it could be a backdoor route with a complete control and/or takeover of the forest industry by this government.

I realize full well that this definition was lifted almost unchanged from the previous Natural Products Marketing Act of 1948. That doesn't constitute a defence to leaving this definition the same way in the hands of this government because, unfortunately, this government is one which is quite capable of taking over the forest industry through the backdoor.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Do you mean the Minister of Agriculture is going to take over the forest industry?

Mr. Gibson: Gee, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether it would be the Minister of Agriculture, I think it would more likely be the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), and that's why I wish he was here — but he's not.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Anybody you want to designate?

Mr. Gibson: You know, Mr. Premier, you can designate any Minister you wish for purposes of this Act.

Now, when I raised this point briefly during the in-principle debate, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) said: "Oh, no, that's not our intention." I invited him to stand up and say officially, on the part of the government, that they didn't intend to use this bill against the forest industry, but there it is in black

[ Page 4752 ]

and white, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: Would you wish such a thing on anyone, Mr. Premier? (Laughter.)

So, Mr. Chairman, I think the only proper thing to do here is to move an amendment, which I shall do, to section 1, line 14, to delete the word "forest" to forestall this possible backdoor takeover of the forest industry without any further recourse to this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman: Have you got a copy of that amendment to send up here?

Mr. Gibson: I have, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: We've got more paper now, cutting down more trees. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman: The amendment is in order.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one correction to the remarks of the previous speaker. When he said this definition was lifted almost unaltered, or almost entirely from the previous legislation, he should have left out the word "almost" because it is lifted right to the very last comma. The government sees no need to change the definition that has stood the province in good stead since 1948. We will not accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment, as you've heard, is to delete the word "forest" from line 14.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 27

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, the Minister, of course, wasn't very explicit on the necessity of having the inclusion of this word in the definition in the interpretation section of the Act. It's unfortunate that he wasn't willing to elaborate further for the necessity of its inclusion.

I am wondering why it's necessary as well to have the word "sea" included, because I know that the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is quite concerned about the sea. He's talked about agriculture; he talks about aquaculture — he talks about a great variety of cultures, I'm sure. But why is it necessary to have this particular…. Is it not good enough to say that it was in the former Act. Okay, the Minister is going to answer, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: One of the 10 marketing boards currently operating in the province is an Oyster Marketing Board. So it's under this Act that you provide for marketing boards for products of the sea.

Mr. Phillips: Would the Minister give us an explanation as to why forestry is in there? I realize that it was in the previous Act. However, under the previous Act it had to be local initiative.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I believe this question has been dealt with by vote.

Mr. Chairman: It dealt with the amendment of the forestry.

An Hon. Member: That was for the deletion of it.

Mr. Phillips: That was for the deletion of it. I still certainly have the right to an explanation from you. I realize full well that there is no way that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is ever going to let you take over the forest industry. He's just brought in his own bill to do that. But I wonder why you want it left in this particular marketing bill. Is it just because it was in the previous bill and you've just written it in? What is the reason for having forest products in this bill?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, as I said before we had the vote on the amendment to delete

[ Page 4753 ]

the word "forest", we saw no reason to change the definition, and we have left it completely unaltered.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's not an answer at all, Mr. Chairman. Under the previous legislation the government could not force schemes or force plans or force marketing agencies on the people, but under this bill they can. Why is it necessary to have this in here?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in section 2 that can force anybody to do anything.

Section I approved.

On section 2.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver — Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that the Minister, when we were debating this bill at second reading, might have more clearly indicated the extent to which marketing boards in the province would have turned their attention to marketing.

Heretofore, while they've been called marketing boards, it is quite clear that the scope of their responsibilities and their activities has been almost exclusively directed towards the producing of the product. They really are not marketing boards at all but producing boards. So we're going ahead with section 2 with almost the same words that were in the previous Act.

I think it would be important if the Minister would indicate what the attitude of the government will be in regard to making these boards truly marketing boards, so that they are concerned not so much with the production or even the transportation of the products, but the way in which the products will be marketed, promoted, so that there will be every encouragement for the use of British Columbia-grown products in this province and elsewhere.

We only have one regulated product in this province which receives this kind of treatment. When I say one product, that's one class of products, and that's the tree fruits. They have been eminently successful through their organization in promoting the use ' conception of British Columbia-grown natural products.

I recall that in 1970, when the agricultural committee dealt with some aspects of marketing boards in this province as the individual marketing boards came before the committee, questions were asked of them as to the extent to which the marketing board directed its attention to the promotion of British Columbia products. Almost to a one except, as I say, for the tree fruit industry, they had scant funds in their budget for the promotion of the product. I think this has been a sad position on the part of marketing boards and one which needs to be corrected. I would be interested in hearing what the Minister has to say on this aspect, because it is so clearly spelled out in the first part of section 2.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, it is not the complete story to say that only the tree fruits gets involved in promotion. For example, the dairy committee has a regular levy that they assess against all milk producers in the province that is used to promote the consumption of milk. You may recall, Mr. Chairman, having seen last summer, and I think the summer before as well, one example of that in the form of place mats that advertised B.C. milk and encouraged people to consume B.C. milk.

The mushroom board has spent quite a bit of money promoting B.C. mushrooms. The Broiler Marketing Board has travelled far afield, one trip last year to Japan, to try to encourage the consumption of B.C. broilers.

I think that all of the boards spend some money on this. In addition, the Member, I am sure, is aware from discussion of estimates last year and the year before that in the department's budget there is an amount allocated for pushing B.C. grown produce — $250,000.

All of the boards do contribute as well to programmes that are perhaps managed by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture or the Joint Council of Marketing Boards, depending on circumstances. They do promotional work at the PNE regularly, jointly, to promote the consumption of B.C. produce, and they do, on occasion, jointly finance trips abroad to try to increase the sales of B.C. farm produce.

Mr. Phillips: I'm afraid of section 2(3), where it says: "Any scheme may relate to the whole of the province or to any area within the province, and may relate to one or more natural products or to any grade or class thereon."

Now this is fine, and it was in the old Act. However, we have a different situation now, Mr. Chairman. Suppose that Pan-Pacific Poultry, which the government has an interest in the Kootenay area…. Suppose, for instance, that they want to force undue competition on some other marketing area of the province where the government doesn't have a financial interest in the processing of that particular product. They can force a scheme on that section of the province which will force it down and allow that section of the province where the government has a financial interest to take over the majority of the market.

The same could be said for wood products, although the Minister says he isn't going to have anything to do with wood products.

[ Page 4754 ]

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I didn't say that.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, all right. Then we have the situation….

An Hon. Member: That Minister won't let you.

Mr. Phillips: Then we have the situation in the Kootenays where the government is going to own or have a major share in the processing of wood products. And you have another situation in the northwest area of the province where the government is going to have a financial interest in a company or companies processing wood products.

You can, in essence, protect that area by putting a scheme not in there but in the other areas, where those same products are being processed by companies owned individually or privately, and force them out of business. This particular aspect of this bill frightens me, because we have seen in the past just exactly what unfair advantages government-owned-and-controlled industries have over the private sector.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, they can give them low stumpage rates, and they can steal ships from one of their subsidiaries. But let's get back to the marketing of farm products.

This would be an in for this government to force areas where there are no schemes, where everything is going fine…. But if that is a threat under the individual enterprise basis, if this particular section of the province happens to be a threat in the marketing of their products against the government owned-and-controlled area of the province, the government can force on that particular section of the province a marketing scheme which would curtail the production to the point where there is a shortage of that product, and the end result will be that the government's own controlled marketing segment will show a great profit.

I think that this is a very unfair clause due to the fact that the government can now force…. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on how he intends to be democratic in the enforcement of this particular section.

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Well, Mr. Chairman, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) just amazes me with the statements he makes.

When he was a Member of the past government he supported the Broiler Marketing Board, he supported the Egg Marketing Board which said that there shall be no production of broilers in the Peace River of this province. It said that there will be no egg production in the Peace River of this province. Yet he supported that concept throughout the years that he served.

Before I was ever elected to this House, I wrote letters to the then Members of the Social Credit government' pointing out these inequities in the system. And did they support their areas? No, they did not.

I would say that this legislation will do something to assure all parts of the province that they will have a right to farm.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): I want to ask a question of the Minister, and I don't know whether it's best asked under this section or under sections 4 or 5.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: You'd rather postpone it. You might as well face it right now.

I want to know, Mr. Chairman, to what extent this particular bill is apt to conflict with federal legislation and federal marketing boards.

I 'd like to know if there was consultation in the draughting of this bill, and whether there is some attempt at uniformity of legislation across Canada. We've got these producer boards limiting production in a number of commodities now, and we find that the federal government is having to establish companion boards to try and govern the whole thing across Canada.

Obviously the jurisdiction and the interests of boards are very soon going to come in to major conflict — greater conflict than we have so far experienced with egg marketing. Obviously co-ordination is going to be required.

My question is: does this legislation conflict with federal legislation? If not, has there been consultation that uniformity of legislation exists across Canada?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I think the Member well knows that he should have asked this question under section 1 rather than under 2 or 4 or 5. In section 1 there is reference to federal legislation. One of the purposes in bringing this legislation before you in the form that it is, is to make sure that it does coincide with federal legislation, and provide for and allow for the fullest cooperation between provincial and federal legislation on the subject of marketing.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Are you continuing your same point?

Mr. Chairman: You're all on section 2.

[ Page 4755 ]

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, if the Member wanted to continue his dialogue with the Minister, I would yield.

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, section 2 provides for the initiation of schemes which will lead to the appointment of marketing boards. Subsection 4 provides a method by which Members of a board may be chosen — a method by which they may be chosen — either by appointment or by election, or partly one and partly the other. So much for the method.

However, the section seems to have neglected what I consider to be one of the most significant aspects of a composition of marketing boards — that is, what it takes to qualify a person to be a member of such a board. We have heard, certainly, from Members of the government party, and I think the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) in particular has seen fit to criticize the composition of some of the boards in this province, and to suggest that by reason of the composition of boards in the past, that undue control has been exercised by the marketing board over what should be its legitimate function in the best interests of producers throughout the province.

There is, however, as well as a problem for the producer segment, a growing awareness that there is a problem for another interested group, namely the consumers of this province. For too long they have been unrepresented and therefore their point of view has not been considered when dealing with the policy decisions taken by marketing boards in the administration of the regulated product under their jurisdiction.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I propose an amendment to section 2 by adding a subsection (5).

I must say to the committee that this amendment was presented to the Clerks' table before the adjournment, but due to a problem beyond the Clerks' control it did not appear in the orders which are before you this evening. However, I have given a copy to the Minister.

I propose that subsection (5) should be added in the following words:

"All Members of a marketing board or a commission shall be persons who have been principally resident in British Columbia for at least two years prior to their appointment or their election.

And at least one-third of the members of a marketing board or commission shall be persons who have no pecuniary interest, directly or indirectly, in the production or the marketing of the regulated product administered by such board or commission."

I so move that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in speaking to that amendment: there is no question that in the proper administration and regulation of the marketing of natural products in this province that it is important that people who are engaged in the industry should be represented on such a board.

They bring to the board and to the solution of problems presented to the board, direct personal experience in the problems which confront any particular segment of our producing industry — whether it's eggs, broilers, or turkeys or whatever the case may be. Those people are properly members. Some might suggest that they even should be in the minority on such a board. I don't go that far, but I leave it to the people who design the scheme to determine whether or not they should be in the minority.

But I think there should be a significant membership on such a board of people who have no direct pecuniary interest, and no indirect interest either by reason of their membership in associations or their ownership of shares in a company, or whatever the case may be.

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I said pecuniary interest, and that's what the amendment proposes.

This would therefore ensure that on every marketing board there be consumers, people who have an interest other than directly associated with the production, transportation, storage, or marketing of the natural product, so that when matters come before marketing boards for consideration there can be a fair airing of all concerns in making those decisions.

It will also provide something that has been lacking in the past — an opportunity for people without any direct interests, the consumer segment for one, to recognize in advance the direction that any particular marketing board might be going in the discharge of its responsibilities, and if necessary, to alert the government, the superboard, the provincial board, and the general public, if need be, through the medium of the press, of those issues coming before the board which are being dealt with other than in the best public interest. It will also prevent improper criticism of boards by those who might oppose them, based upon the suggestion that their decisions are made other than in the public interest.

One of the problems we face is that with the use of marketing boards there is a lot of ill-considered and ill-advised criticism of proper actions that they take on behalf of their responsibility. By opening these boards up, by ensuring that there is sufficient membership on them, people who can look in and support the public interest, we can assure that such unjust criticism does not continue.

[ Page 4756 ]

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), from his position as a producer, has seen reason to criticize the operation of the board. It shouldn't be left to one member of a producer group to raise that objection. If objections are proper, then other people should be in a position to support objections such as we have heard from the Member for Shuswap.

We shouldn't hear complaints about the operation of marketing boards from those people who want to get into the scheme but for some reason or another are kept out. Maybe the criticisms they level against the boards are justified. But there's one way of making sure that this is not the case, and that is by having a broad membership.

Therefore this amendment gives to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in establishing any of these schemes, the right to appoint as members or to see that members are elected — up to 100 per cent of the board if they wish — but certainly one-third of the members of any marketing board must be those who have no pecuniary interest at stake. I think that that would serve to meet the needs of the community, serve to improve the functioning of the boards and serve the processing, storing, transportation segment as well.

I know that there's an amendment on another section from the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) dealing with membership on the provincial board, and that's all very well. But I think that it is extremely important that at the first level, the operative level of marketing board functions, namely the boards themselves, there should be this membership opportunity.

Mr. Chairman: We're dealing with the amendment moved by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

Mr. Phillips: Well I'll certainly stand to support the amendment. It's basically the same intent that this party is getting at in their amendment to section 3, only in a little different way. But I must say, Mr. Chairman, in supporting the amendment, that I was actually aghast to hear the Member Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) stand up and challenge me and say that he had written me about certain things. Really, Mr. Chairman, he was misleading the House, because that Member for Shuswap never did write me a letter. Never. Never. Never.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: I want it made perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman, that he never wrote me any letter.

Mr. Chairman: Order! I recognize the Member for Shuswap on a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: What I said was that I wrote the then Members for the Peace River areas.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: I didn't name him, but he probably has a guilty conscience because he has to support that legislation prior to that.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Let's get the record perfectly straight. I have a great deal of respect for that Member for Shuswap, but if I were in his shoes tonight I would leave this chamber when it comes to voting on this legislative measure here. Why? I know the Member and I have a great deal of respect for him.

Mr. Chairman: I'd like to remind the Member that you're dealing with the amendment presented by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, and the basis of the amendment is so that people who have pecuniary interests on this board can't serve on it.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Well, that's the intent of it.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Well, what is the intent of it?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Giving legal advice while you're standing there? That's a conflict of interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't give free advice.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, the Premier should ask the Member for Shuswap to abstain from voting on this legislation.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You don't know what the amendment is.

Mr. Phillips: I know what the amendment is, all right. You don't know what the amendment is because you've just come in the House from packing your bags and getting ready to go to chin…. to go to China. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Standing order 18.

[ Page 4757 ]

Mr. Phillips: Standing order 18.

An Hon. Member: Standing order 18. He has no right to vote.

Mr. Phillips: The thing that bothers me about this, Mr. Chairman, is that the Member for Shuswap has had a great deal to say about this piece of legislation.

He has consistently fought for this legislation when he personally stands to gain from it from his own operation. As I said, I have a great deal of respect for that Member, but I don't want him standing in this House making accusations against me that are false.

We'll support the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate receiving a copy of the amendment. Actually, it's two amendments rather than one. With the second part of it, I did say during the course of second reading of this legislation that if government is going to give the sort of power to marketing boards…. Some people think marketing boards have much more power than they do indeed have. But if government is going to give that kind of power to marketing boards, the government has some responsibility to make sure that there are some checks and balances, There are two ways of achieving this.

One way would be to have the sort of appeal system that we have designed and have included in this legislation — that is, to provide for a provincial marketing board that would act as an appeal board.

The other would be to give the consumer some representation on the commodity marketing boards themselves.

Now if we adopted the latter course, we would then have no one who would be in a position to present the case for the producers.

The marketing boards right now are organizations of producer groups, and the marketing boards speak for those producer groups. In the sort of situations we envisage the marketing boards would be presenting the case for that particular marketing group, or group of producers, to the provincial marketing board.

Now if the consumers were to have the sort of minority representation as is proposed here on the individual marketing boards, we would have the situation as we have right now on the Food Advisory Council, which was set up intended to be representative — and it is indeed representative of the whole community. Yet the consumer association representatives, who are a minority on that group out of the total, feel that, although they are there in more numbers than one, they are still a minority. They are unable to persuade the whole group whenever they want to make a certain move in a certain direction.

Here we would have a situation when a board representing the producers of a certain commodity would find that they were dealing on their own board with people who really didn't know anything about that particular commodity and the problems involved in marketing that commodity. They have to deal with them, and if there were going to be an appeal of any kind, they would' find that part of their own board would perhaps, on some occasions, be opposing the appeal itself.

So I can't accept that part of the amendment. With respect to the first part that all members of a marketing board shall have been persons who have been principally resident in B.C. for at least two years prior to their appointment or election, I can't imagine the situation where a group of producers would elect someone to the board, or the government would appoint someone to this kind of a producers organization, to a board representing producers like that who didn't fit those qualifications. There is no need to include….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, we could fill the legislation with all kinds of stuff that would not be objectionable. But what's the point of putting it in there unless you're afraid that those people, or you, might be in office and that there's some need for this kind of safeguard.

We will not accept the amendment.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the Minister saw fit to say those fateful words, "We will not accept the amendment," because what he has said in his remarks about the composition of the commodity boards indicates that their whole attitude is to be completely destructive of the superboard.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. L.A. Williams: He doesn't want to have anybody on the marketing boards who might at the first instance put forward the position of the consumer, even though they were in the minority. Yet, somehow or other, he expects that if the producer board acts contrary to the best interests of the general public, some consumer then has to go to the trouble of an appeal to a board which somehow or other will have people on it who don't understand the problems in the marketing board itself.

It seems to me that the opportunity is being missed by the government by having consumers on marketing boards so that the consumer interest can be educated and informed at the very first instance; then you won't have appeals unnecessarily going to

[ Page 4758 ]

the superboard.

As a lawyer it has always been my attempt, in the conduct of my practice, to advise my clients so that they don't get into court. But what the Minister is saying is: "Let's not have anybody on the producer board who can keep them out of trouble. Let them get into trouble, but we'll set up an appeal provision so that they can have their day."

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: That's right. The medical field also applies. He doesn't believe in preventive medicine. Let everybody get sick and then go to the hospital and get cured.

So let's have the producer boards carry on as they have in the past — and as the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has criticized in the past — let them carry on as they have in the past, and then somehow or other give the consumer or anybody else in the province who is affected by their activities the right to appeal to a superboard composed of people who don't understand anything about the producer segment's problem.

Obviously, the problem the Minister has is that which was stated in second reading: instead of doing something new, something exciting, something progressive, and something in the '70s, he is still living back in 1948.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee further reports that on section 1 there was a division and asks leave to have it recorded in the Journals.

Leave granted.

Mr. Bennett: I understand that some of the government Members will be leaving tomorrow for China. We have made light of it but we would like to take this opportunity to wish them, on behalf of the opposition, a good and safe trip — to the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and the First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes).

One last question to the Premier before he goes with our good wishes: we've heard a lot about designated speakers in this House, and as we have three pieces of legislation still before the House to be carried by those Ministries, has the Premier designated Ministers to take them through, and could he advise the House who they are?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: First of all, let me say how much I appreciate the expression of good wishes from the official Leader of the Opposition.

I might say that this afternoon we learned from the Canadian embassy that, as representatives of the people of British Columbia, we have been asked to some areas of northern China that have not been opened to visitors before. We feel very honoured about that.

The House Leader has the information of the designated cabinet Ministers who will pilot the bills through committee. The only concern that I have is that perhaps they will do a better job than those of us to whom the bills belong.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: He may never get back. They may put him in the cabinet over there.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.

[ Page 4759 ]

APPENDIX

197 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Attorney-General the following question:

With respect to the office of "Rentalsman" what, if any, has been the total cost incurred to October 31, 1974?

The Hon. A. B. Macdonald replied as follows:

"$280,514."

228 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Attorney-General the following questions:

With respect to the preparation of legislation —

1. Has the Government considered the B.C., Bar Association president's proposal for a nonpolitical legislative drafting proposal?

2. Will the proposal be implemented?

The Hon. A. B. Macdonald replied as follows:

"1 and 2. The president of the B.C. Section, Canadian Bar Association, Peter A. Manson, in a recent speech, suggested that the legal profession take the initiative to encourage labour and industry to join with Government and the Bar in establishing a foundation for legislative drafting. The foundation would be nonpolitical and would be encouraged to play a role similar to the Canadian Tax Foundation, that is, to assess the quality of legislation, suggest improvement in drafting technique, and encourage research and education in legislative drafting. The matter has been discussed with Mr. Manson, who has been told that we would cooperate with the Bar in every respect in connection with this proposal. Whether the proposal is implemented will depend entirely upon the initiatives taken by the Bar. That must be so if it is to be nonpolitical."

229 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Attorney-General the following questions:

With respect to the Crown Proceedings Act —

1. How many proceedings have been launched against the Provincial Government or its agencies since the proclamation of the Act on August 1, 1974?

2. How many such proceedings are active or pending in some form?

The Hon. A. B. Macdonald replied as follows:

"1. Six (in addition to 41 foreclosure actions which were not the result of the enactment of the Crown Proceedings Act).

"2. All are pending."

230 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Attorney-General the following questions:

With respect to correctional programmes —

1. Has the Department established a budget for a programme of funding halfway homes run mainly by private agencies for ex-convicts and persons currently under sentence?

2. If the answer to No. I is yes, then (a) what dollar amount has been budgeted, (b) at what date will the programme become operational, and (c) how many persons is it intended to serve?

The Hon. A. B. Macdonald replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) $929,706, (b) operational, and (c) intended to serve as many correctional clients as possible."

[ Page 4760 ]

213 Mr. McClelland asked the Hon. the Minister of Health the following questions:

1. What is the total expenditure to date for ambulance service in British Columbia by the Government?

2. Has the Government purchased any new or used ambulance vehicles?

3. If the answer to No. 2 is yes, how many vehicles have been purchased and what was the cost of each?

The Hon. D. G. Cocke replied as follows:

"1. $2,180,835.44 to October 31, 1974.

"2. Yes.

"3. One used Cotner-Bevington, $11,340 f.o.b. Vancouver; one used Miller Meteor, $11,340 f.o.b. Vancouver; one used Dodge Van, $11,711 f.o.b. Vancouver; three new Strathroy Suburban at $15,995, $47,985 f.o.b. Vancouver; two new Strathroy 61 inch at $17,395, $34,790 f.o.b. Vancouver; three new Care-O-Van at $19,624, $58,872 f.o.b. Vancouver; three new Modulance at $15,465, $46,395 f.o.b. factory; three new E & E 61 inch at $11,500, $34,500 f.o.b. factory; two new Amliner 65 inch at $13,400, $26,800 f.o.b. factory; 19 vehicles at a total cost of $283,733."

214 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

With respect to the Real Property Tax Deferment Act, 1974: How many applications have been received under this Act to the latest date available?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1,401 as at November 6, 1974."

218 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Health the following questions:

With respect to the Royal Commission on Pesticides —

1. When is the Commission expected to submit its final report?

2. Has the Commission submitted any interim recommendations?

3. If the answer to No. 2 is yes, what measures have been taken to implement these recommendations?

The Hon. D. G. Cocke replied as follows:

"l. January 15, 1975.

"2. Yes,

"3. Control of aerial spray against adult mosquitoes."

219 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture the following questions:

With respect to the activities of the Land Commission —

1. At the most recent date for which information is available, how many regional district agricultural reserve plans have yet to be (a) received and (b) approved by the Commission?

2. At the same date, how many such plans had neither been (a) received or (b) approved by the Commission?

The Hon. D. D. Stupich replied as follows:

"l. (a) one and (b) eight.

"2. (a) one and (b) eight."

[ Page 4761 ]

220 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture the following questions:

With respect to the purchase by the Provincial Government of shares of firms in industries related to agriculture since September 1972 —

1. In how many firms have some or all of the shares been purchased and what are their names?

2. Over how many of the firms mentioned in the answer to No. I does the Government exercise control by virtue of share ownership?

3. What is the total dollar amount expended on share purchases?

The Hon. D. D. Stupich replied as follows:

"l. As of October 1, 1974, three firms under the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act: (a) Pan-Ready Poultry Limited, (b) South Peace Dehy Limited, and (c) Swan Valley Foods Limited.

"2. None.

"3. $178,437."

221 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture the following questions:

With respect to food price levels in British Columbia —

1. Has the Minister ordered an investigation of Provincial prices to be conducted?

2. If the answer to No. I is yes, then (a) is this investigation currently under way, (b) what persons are conducting the investigation, (c) what is the estimated total cost of the investigation, (d) when will the report of the investigation be received, (e) will the report be made public, and (f) will the investigators be empowered to examine the influence of marketing board practices on food prices?

The Hon. D. D. Stupich replied as follows:

"1. No.

"2. Not applicable."

227 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Consumer Services the following questions:

With respect to Provincial long-term service contract policy —

1. When will the final report of the probe into long-term service contracts be submitted (a) to the Minister and (b) to the Members of the Legislative Assembly?

2. Has the Minister been informed of any of the findings or recommendations of (a) the probe mentioned in No. 1 or (b) the investigation into the closure of seven Lower Mainland health spas?

3. If the answer to any part of No. 2 is yes, then what consequent (a) legal or (b) legislative action is planned?

The Hon. Phyllis F. Young replied as follows:

"l. The probe into long-term service contracts was struck pursuant to section 5 of the Trade Practices Act by the Director of Trade Practices. It is expected that it will be received by the Department not later than the end of this calendar year.

"2. (a) No and (b) no, investigation continuing in conjunction with R.C.M.P.

"3. Not applicable."

[ Page 4762 ]

231 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Consumer Services the following questions:

With respect to media investigation —

1. Has (a) the Department or (b) the Minister received Ian McLeod's report on the standards applied by British Columbia media in accepting advertising?

2. If the answer to No. 1is yes, then (a) will the report be made public, (b) what was the cost of the report, and (c) are any policy measures being contemplated as a result of the report?

The Hon. Phyllis F. Young replied as follows:

"1. No.

"2. Not applicable."

233 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Consumer Services the following questions:

With respect to used-car purchasing advice —

1. Does the Government intend to operate any facsimile of the B.C.A.A. mobile car inspection service?

2. Does the Government intend to provide any financial or technical support to the B.C.A.A. service?

The Hon. Phyllis F. Young replied as follows:

"l and 2. No."