CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates.

On vote 120. Mr. Chabot — 2863

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit debate in Committee of Supply for this evening's sitting.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 120: Minister's office, $94,135 — continued.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks here related to the TV news tonight on channel 2. I was rather shocked and flabbergasted that I would see this kind of government action in which the ICBC has suggested to clients in the Province of British Columbia that if they experienced any distrust and any financial hardship, they should phone a particular number and they would be looked after by ICBC. I want to know whether the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) supports and condones these kinds of strike-breaking tactics by ICBC. It's always been my opinion that a strike or a lockout has been a battle of economic sanctions. It appears to me now that through the Minister or through his representatives in ICBC you're about to harass the dispute that exists between the employer and the representatives of the employees — the OTEU and ICBC. I never thought I'd see the day when the government which is so closely married to the B.C. Federation of Labour would support these kinds of strike-breaking tactics which were portrayed, which were promoted, on CBC channel 2 tonight.

What is the government trying to do, Mr. Chairman? They're trying to destroy the only tool the labour unions have to fight against an arbitrary employers such as ICBC. This is a serious matter. Is the Minister going to tolerate the kind of strike-breaking tactics that I saw on television tonight?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. CHABOT: Yes, shame on the government! Shame on the government!

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That is the most hypocritical statement I've heard from that Member.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): That has got to be the height of hypocrisy coming from you and your scandalous record of labour in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Well, that's the nonsense we get from that lying Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: You've never told the truth in your life!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River withdraw that remark, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let him say whatever he wants.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Premier, first, to withdraw the implication that the Member was guilty of hypocrisy and, secondly, that the Hon. Member for Columbia River withdraw the imputation of lying.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word "hypocrisy."

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the words that the Premier has lied to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister of Labour continue before we have any further interjections? Step into the breach quickly.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the Member for Columbia River, who was a former Minister of Labour in this province, that there's no way that I conduct the affairs of the Department of Labour in accordance with television interviews — in this case a television interview that I'm not familiar with. I conduct the Department of Labour on pretty firm principles, which are largely accepted by both management and labour in this province. I think that the improved record of labour-management relations in the last two and a half years is a pretty firm encouragement to conducting the department in that way.

Now when it comes to the question of intervening in a dispute, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that was one of the problems with the former administration. They became involved in a partisan position, on one side or the other. But that position seems to have changed with the changes from one

[ Page 2864 ]

side of the House to the other. When they were on the government side, Mr. Chairman, they enacted legislation which was clearly partisan on management side — clearly partisan. And that was an adjudication and a judgment not only of the trade union movement but of very eminent members of the judiciary in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against them?

HON. MR. KING: And here tonight we have the spectacle, Mr. Chairman, of the former Minister of Labour suggesting that I make a judgment against a management firm involved in a labour dispute.

AN HON. MEMBER: Government firm.

HON. MR. KING: That is not my style, Mr. Chairman. That is not my style, and I think it's improper for a politician to call upon the government to make that kind of judgment. I think it's an indication of the kind of shallow understanding the Member for Columbia River has of industrial relations because I'm here to offer any assistance to both parties to that dispute, and they have the full aids of all the Department of Labour 'devices at their disposal.

MR. CHABOT: In a pig's eye!

HON. MR. KING: In terms of making a judgment regarding strike-breaking, I find that peculiar. This afternoon the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) stood in his place and accused me of a conflict of interests because I was involved on the board of directors of B.C. Railway when they became involved in a labour dispute.

This evening his colleague, the Member for Columbia River, stands up and suggests that I should become involved to manipulate the position that management is taking with ICBC in their dispute.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There was a two-hour interval.

HON. MR. KING: I would suggest that the Social Credit Members try and get it together, try to be consistent, but try to understand that it's improper for a Minister of Labour, who is basically a referee, an impartial arbitrator of industrial relations in this province, to take a position favouring one side or the other. Certainly I would not presume to do anything of that nature.

MR. CHABOT: I appreciate very much the words of the Minister — that he's a referee and that he plays an impartial role regarding the conflict that exists between management and labour in this province. The Minister talked about some of the legislation that existed on the books prior to his assumption of the position of Minister of Labour. I don't know if the Minister recognizes the fact that the legislation was there to protect the public interest prior to his coming to office. We have seen the dismal record of his position regarding public interest in previous disputes since he's been Minister of Labour. I want to tell you that it's always been our position, as a government and as an opposition, to take a strong position in the public interest, and we will continue to do so.

I want to know if this action taken by ICBC — be it by the direction of that Minister who's just leaving the chamber right now, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), or by Mr. Bortnick, the general manager of ICBC — is taking away from those workers, the representatives of the workers, the OTEU, the economic sanctions they have to resolve a reasonable collective agreement. What action will the Minister take if he finds there has been interference by ICBC?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, you know, this is really incredible. That Member, as I indicated earlier, was Minister of Labour in this province, and it's absolutely incredible that he displays such a complete lack of understanding of the basis for dealing with labour disputes in this province.

There's a management firm that administers ICBC in the way that the former government employed management to administer and run the affairs of B.C. Hydro, the Ferry Authority and various other Crown agencies. He appears to be, on the one hand, indicating that there should be in some way political interference with the business administration of that corporation.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, no. You're twisting.

HON. MR. KING: If he is asking me to intervene, he fails to understand that there's a procedure for dealing with unfair labour practices in this province.

MR. CHABOT: Even against a government agency?

HON. MR. KING: If, indeed, there is an unfair labour practice, the employees have recourse through the Labour Relations Board. The Labour Relations Board is, indeed, an impartial agency, and if the Member only understood that, perhaps the record would have been better in the past. There's no way that I intend to make any judgment regarding the conduct of management or labour. If they run afoul of the law, if they fail to comply, then there are

[ Page 2865 ]

penalties and there are remedies available to the opposite party through the Labour Relations Board. The Member should know that.

In terms of the dismal record — you know, I'm quite willing to accept the Member's judgment. That's his opinion; he's entitled to it. But I'm going to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I place a great deal more credence in the opinion of such fairly substantial and respected newspapers in this nation as the Financial Post, which is certainly no friend of the New Democratic Party. They have a full-blown headline regarding the record of the Department of Labour in British Columbia last year. It's entitled: "Labour Code Cools Down Strikes".

"Last year British Columbia bucked the national trend in labour relations. The time lost in strikes and lockouts soared in Canada, while British Columbia lost a substantial $1.5 million man days. That was a good 25 per cent lower than the loss two years earlier during the previous heavy round of bargaining."

Now that's statistics. You can say what you want politically, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and those are statistics that, while they don't indicate that we have all the answers, certainly do indicate an improvement, an encouraging trend. I would think that the Social Credit Party would welcome that, rather than trying to involve political debate in a labour dispute that is presently underway in this province. That will add nothing to a climate that is conducive to settling that dispute.

MR. CHABOT: Strike-breaking tactics by that government over there.

HON. MR. KING: If it is strike-breaking tactics, Mr. Chairman, the trade union certainly has a remedy at their disposal.

But I'm going to suggest to the House that a man who developed a mediation commission, presided over by a judge from the North West Territories who had no background of understanding of industrial relations, and held that as a club over the heads of the workers in this province to provide a solution to deny the right to strike and give to that former Social Credit cabinet the right to impose arbitrary adjudication of that judge, is hardly the base from which the Member can get up and sincerely make an accusation of someone attempting to break legitimate strikes in this province. That's a pretty shoddy performance, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the twinkle in that Member's eye when he gets up, because he has great difficulty keeping a straight face. I understand that. At least he has a sense of humour, because he can hardly be serious in making those kind of charges. Being a former railway employee like myself ... it's a good bunkhouse story, but I think perhaps he should let it lie.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Earlier in this session, not too long ago, we saw the introduction of a bill by the Minister of Labour, Bill 85. While I can't reflect on that bill until it is debated in the House, I suggest to you that we took your position in good faith, Mr. Minister, when you, in introducing that bill to this House, suggested that you were concerned about both labour and management — not one side or the other — both labour and management in the education programme that would be introduced into this province.

Now if you are sincere in the remarks you made when you introduced that bill, I suggest that you demonstrate that sincerity in the debate on your estimates this evening.

I feel that there is a problem which must be resolved. It is not a problem of labour, or a specific problem of management, but it is time that both labour and management in this province came to the conclusion that to pursue their goals and their objectives down paths that are 180 degrees apart is not doing anything for the economy of the Province of British Columbia or for the people who are involved who do not happen to be involved as 'an employee or an employer.

I believe, and I think history will prove it, that the solution to some of these problems is a meeting around the table on at least a basis of a determination to solve problems. I think it is time in British Columbia that we began to take recognition of the fact that many people are involved indirectly in any labour-management problem, and they become the people who are the losers — not labour, not management. As the Minister knows very well, in many labour-management problems eventually the union or labour side comes up with a solution to their problem, they present it, it may be too great for management to accept, but somewhere along the line there is a salve. But what happens? In 99 per cent of the cases the wage increase awarded is added on to the cost of the product. You know it, Mr. Minister, and I know it. Let me tell you something else: the public knows it as well.

Now you are not here to represent labour or management, and I'm not here as an MLA to represent labour or management. We're here to try to effect laws that will result in a compromise of the extreme positions that have been held by both labour and management, and somehow effectively get them together to resolve their differences.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Okay, laugh it up and make fun of it, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke).

[ Page 2866 ]

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): You're the one that's funny.

MR. SMITH: But if that doesn't happen, then the whole Province of British Columbia is the loser — not you as Minister of Labour in the immediate future, not myself as a Member of the opposition, not the labour union which is involved in negotiations or the management side, but the whole Province of British Columbia. We've seen it happen in other countries, including Great Britain, who have almost deprived themselves.... Well, they have. They've deprived themselves of a position they once held in the world economy. As a matter of fact, they've slipped so far back that unless they get up and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, there's nothing left for the British Isles, which is an exporting country.

I hope that in this province, where we have a tremendous number of unions and union agreements, we'll have sense enough in the years ahead of us and in the months ahead of us to realize that there's nothing to be gained by a continual confrontation between labour and management. I've accepted what you've outlined in Bill 85, and I think our party has, even though you haven't spelled it out directly in the bill. But you said on the floor of this House that you hoped both labour and management will cooperate in establishing that programme.

I am one of the people who is of the firm belief that people have a choice which is theirs and theirs alone. They have the choice to become involved in a labour union and join that union if they so desire, and they have a choice to be employed as an individual without becoming involved in a labour union if that's their desire. Regardless of that, they have a vote somewhere along the line, and the majority of the employees will decide that issue. So that's not your issue or mine; that's one that the particular situation will resolve itself.

I do believe that if we do not resolve in an effective manner the problems that are involved today in labour management relationships, then the whole economy and every person who lives in British Columbia will be the losers in the long run. I have been told by people who do not represent management but are in the labour force that because of automation or semi-automation their jobs become very boring today. They do not see anything in the process that they can grab on to and say: "This is what I did to help produce a certain product." You know that as well as I do. Perhaps there is an answer to that — that we make these people who are employees part of the process, allow them to buy into the action or the operation. After all, many companies have introduced this sort of thing to the benefit of both labour and management.

I don't like to say this in a manner which you would take as an insult, but I suggest that you are very pro-labour in your background, in your training and in your work. Perhaps that is what it should be if you are to occupy the position of Minister of Labour in an NDP government. But I do not think that you or any of the rest of your colleagues can forget the other side of the picture.

If you do that, what you are really asking for is a collapse in the industrial economy of the Province of British Columbia. I believe that you are aware of that. Otherwise we would never have Bill 85 before us. But I do believe that we are moving into a new era in the Province of British Columbia, one which is not a continual, head-on confrontation between labour and management. We have seen this probably graphically illustrated by three unions which have been fighting tooth-and-nail for many, many years and who have suddenly decided that that is not the way to go, that perhaps they should get together and discuss the mutual problems they share, and at least come out of that with a common understanding of each other's problems. I believe that is the way we have to go in the Province of British Columbia today, because if we do not do that, labour will say to government: "You have failed in the job before you." Management will give up, and they will say to government: "You were continually on the side of labour to the point where our business was decimated and went downhill to the point where we could not operate any longer."

As long as we have basic products to sell, we have to look at other areas of the world besides our own province. I am concerned, Mr. Minister, because I believe we are moving into that area. I think you are aware of it. I hope your colleagues are aware of it. If they are not and the policies are all one way, pro one side rather than the other, it is a sorry day in the future for British Columbia.

We have even got one of your own Crown corporations, Can-Cel, who today say they are in trouble and are going to have to lay off a lot of employees because of the situation in the export of lumber and chips and pulp.

So let us not fool ourselves in this province. We have got a problem and the problem involves 50 per cent of the economy of this province. I would hope that we can solve that problem. So let us not suggest that any one political party has all the answers of it. It is not there, as far as I am concerned, because today, why you have a pay cheque, and tomorrow, when you have not a pay cheque, you are going to look at it very closely as an individual.

I would hope we can forget some of our personal biases and prejudices and get on with the job of building an industrial economy, which our province is based on at the present time, for the benefit of all British Columbians, not one side or the other.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Member for a thoughtful contribution to

[ Page 2867 ]

the debate. I am a bit perplexed, a bit confused. I am not quite sure where I stand. I am accused by this colleague for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) of being an anti-labour strike-breaker. I am accused by the Member for North Peace of being pro-labour and jeopardizing the interests of management. I really don't think either one of them means it. I think perhaps that is a bit of a political excess.

Interjections.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Get it together! Get it together!

HON. MR. KING: I want to assure the Members that I do my best to be even-handed and I accept and I agree with the comments that last speaker made. Certainly there has to be an attempt to try to mitigate and to reduce the amount of conflict in the province. I agree with him also that no political party has a blueprint to achieve that. There is no blueprint even in academic terms for solving labour-management conflict. It will continue to occur to some degree.

I think the overriding concern to this House and to this province is to try to minimize the kind of conflict we have had over the past number of years to the extent where it becomes the rare occasion rather than the usual manner of reconciling differences between labour and management. We want to reduce the incidence of strike action and lockout action so that it is the rare occasion rather than the usual occurrence. I think that is everyone's objective.

There is no precise way to accomplish that. There is certainly no way to accomplish it as an absolute, because certain rights in society do impose inconvenience. Certain rights, when exercised to their utmost, are disruptive to the community at large, and certainly the strike and lockout rights — and they are rights — are disruptive when they are exercised also. That's the price that society has to pay for freedoms and that is true in a variety of other social customs as well.

I think that is fairly well accepted. Certainly it is a convention of the United Nations, the international labour organization; pretty well every nation in the western world accepts that premise. But what we seek to do is to introduce aides and assistants from government which should try to act impartially, which would provide alternatives to the parties, alternatives that might not result in work stoppages, interruptions of essential services, and so on.

This proposition of impartiality.... Certainly I have a background in the trade union movement. I make no apologies for that; I'm quite proud of the fact. I hope the Member would not infer that it is an impossibility for a trade union member to act in a judicial fashion in terms of public responsibility, while at the same time accepting and even encouraging more and more business people to get involved in politics. I see no reason to suggest or accept that a person involved in a business enterprise can act any more judicially and impartially than a trade union representative or a working man. To accept that proposition would display a disdain for working people in this province, and I am sure the Member would not want to infer that. I'm sure he would not.

The point is that one is judged by their clients, and in my position I have clients in the business field and I have clients on the labour side. I'm going to suggest that if either of those parties felt that I was not impartial, that I was biased and prejudiced, then I think my credibility would be impaired to the extent that I could not do an effective job.

But I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to say that I have an excellent relationship with industry in this province. I've had excellent cooperation, as I have in general terms from the trade union movement. There are exceptions on both sides. That's what I strive for, and I think that's what is expected by the people involved in industrial relations.

To suggest that I am continually on the side of labour simply because I come from a trade union background to me displays a bit of a prejudice which I hope the Member did not infer.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't even say it

HON. MR. KING; Yes, he said I was pro-labour. He said he could infer from my background that I was pro-labour. He said he would not want management — these are his precise words — to believe that I was continually on the side of labour.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Let's get it down to producers and non-producers.

HON. MR. KING: Well, if we got it down to producers and non-producers, perhaps, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you would not have a place in this House.

We are talking about industrial relations, and I think we should try reasonably to keep the debate on the vote pertaining to the office of the Minister of Labour.

I have tried to answer in a reasonable way the reasonable comments which the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) put forward. I agree with him in general terms of what should be the goals of the Department of Labour. They should be common goals regardless of what political party happens to hold office. The only difference that obtains, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

[ Page 2868 ]

HON. MR. KING: I hope the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), who I understand is the new labour critic, can contain the Leader of the Opposition so he and I might hold an intelligent exchange.

I demand that we have the same objectives. The difference is in terms of devices to obtain those objectives. We are trying many new things in the Province of British Columbia. Some are working fine; others need improvement. But the real test, the real measure of success comes from the acceptability of these approaches to labour and management, not from the politicians. That's why I suggest that it is patently improper, as was suggested earlier by one Member, that we become involved in a debate on a particular labour dispute in this House. That contributes nothing to easing the conflict; it contributes nothing to easing the hostility and the emotion. It is certainly not a basis to make a fair appraisal and judgment on the issues surrounding the dispute. That's an adjudicative matter. So I hope we can keep the debate on that plane, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SMITH: On a couple of further points, I attempted to keep the debate on the plane that the Minister suggested in a couple of instances in his reply that we should keep it on. I'm afraid that's impossible because, first of all, he attacks the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for saying what he said, which he has a perfect right to do in this House.

He attacks the Leader of the Opposition as being a non-producer. I presume that's what his remarks inferred. Tell me, Mr. Minister of Labour, how many people have you employed consistently over the last 20 years in the Province of British Columbia? Over the last 10? Over the last five? How many people have been on your payroll as your employees?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you trying to make him out as an exploiter of labour?

MR. SMITH: You know, I won't even listen to that remark because the Member who just interjected that isn't worth recognition.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): We'll meet you in the Stampede Cafe and talk about it.

MR. SMITH: I'll tell you this: it's people in the small business class who are not the people who employ hundreds of employees that are the basis of the economy of this province — including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), his family, and people like him who have employed people.

I happened to work in the hardware business myself at one time. That's where I got my start many years ago. As a matter of fact, a long, long time ago — in 1946, as a matter of fact. I was pleased with that job because from that job I rose to an assistant manager, then to a manager in a very large chain, and then went on into another business on my own. I have no reason to feel regretful about that situation. I was given an opportunity by a business owned by people who didn't even know the name of the Leader of the Opposition. They gave me an opportunity to go to work on a legitimate basis. I'll tell you what: they decided that if I had it and I could go ahead, I would be promoted. Now there's nothing wrong with that in the business world, Mr. Minister.

The suggestion of producers and non-producers, I think, is one that you could consider because in society, today we have both classes. The producers, as a rule, are the people who are the recipients of better positions in the labour force. They work their way up because they've shown some initiative, and they go from one stage to the other. Eventually they end up, I suppose, in the management area, and there they're castigated because they worked like hell from the time that they first went into the labour force.

You know, it's amazing to see the Minister laugh at that, because that's what happens. An individual in the forest industry, in the logging industry, or whatever — a lowly clerk who starts out as a delivery boy in the store, works his way up to become the manager, then the superintendent, and 25 years down the line you find out that he's in charge of a chain. Now, is there something wrong with that? Is there something wrong with the fellow who starts on the green chain in the lumber industry and works his way up through the system, continually putting himself into a position of a higher wage? Then he becomes a shift foreman, then he becomes a boss of the crew — is there something wrong with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. SMITH: Oh, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't see anything wrong with a person with ambition who decides that he wants to get out and do a little better for himself and his family than someone else who wants to sit back and do nothing or, at least, the minimum possible.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) knows that full well. Leo, you came up through the hard school and you know that when you work hard there are certain promotions involved. Sometimes they take a little longer than others. I believe that most of us realize that. I think that we have to at least refer to that occasionally.

There's one other thing that I don't agree with — the statements by one of your Members, your Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) who suggested at your convention, I believe, Mr. Minister, that in labour-management problems or in a situation where he decides individually that Super-Valu should close down, that

[ Page 2869 ]

is what should happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who, Gabelmann?

MR. SMITH: That's right. The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour. "If I had my way, I would close down Super-Valu, if I so decide." If I so decide. Is that the democratic process?

Let's reverse it, Mr. Minister. You are the Minister of Labour. If you so decide ... I just wanted to wait until we had the interference in front of us here removed.

If you so decide something should happen....

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: I don't think so, and I hope not.

Without getting political — and if you want to pursue that course, we can do it — I believe that there is a better answer. I tried to point that out in my initial remarks, but, Mr. Minister, if you keep shooting arrows over at the Members of the opposition, believe me, we will get into a discussion that may take us a full week or better to decide. Whatever time it takes, we will take because I believe there is an important principle here, and the important principle is this: if you and the Members of your party do not realize, and every Member of this Legislature does not realize the problems we are involved in in British Columbia in this next year, then neither have you any right to be Minister of Labour, nor has your party any right to be government. And the people who do not point this out to you have no right to replace you because it is there now, this year. We had better make up our minds that decisions that are made in the next six months will dictate for many, many years in advance of that. What will happen to the economy of British Columbia?

I don't think you are derelict in your duty, and I don't think we are either. We may disagree to a certain extent on the means to approach the problem, but for goodness' sake, let us remember that the economy of British Columbia is very fragile in that it can be destroyed by the wrong decisions by government.

HON. MR. KING: I want to assure the Member for North Peace River that I was not casting any aspersions upon the productive capacity of the Leader of the Opposition's family business.

MR. BENNETT: Or any other, I hope.

HON. MR. KING: I am sure that his family has been very productive. I was simply responding to his good-natured gibes across the House. I hope the Member doesn't become overly sensitive about that repartee.

I am just a bit intrigued by your equation of productive capacity. I am sure you didn't mean to imply what I heard. Certainly, those who are in business are not the only people who are productive. There are all kinds of productive contributions to this nation and to our economy. Some of them are hardware; others are more aesthetic. Even the political process, I think, at times becomes somewhat productive when certain Members rise in their places.

But I was intrigued by the kinds of analogies that the Member drew regarding productivity. He referred to non-producers: we have to be concerned about non-producers as opposed to producers. Gee whiz, you know, that sounds like Ayn Rand's writings to me. I don't know whether or not you ever read Atlas Shrugged, but she espouses a certain philosophy, with which I would not want to associate myself in a philosophical or political way, where some kind of arbitrary decision is made on those who are productive in society, and the rest are left to a questionable fate.

MR. SMITH: It proves itself.

HON. MR. KING: I would like to think that every human being has a contribution to make, some greater than others.

MR. SMITH: It proves itself. There is no arbitrary decision to be made by anybody.

HON. MR. KING: Then he talks about the lowly clerks. Those girls down there in the Hansard box.... I don't think there is anything lowly about them. I think they are every bit as good as anyone in the opposition. And I think the Law Clerks who sit there at that desk and advise the Chairman of the House — I don't consider them lowly. Not a bit. Their stature is as great as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) or the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) or mine or any else's. I have the greatest respect for human beings, no matter what contribution they may be able to make to our economy and to our society.

I don't really want to get into a system of industrial relations or political structure that attempted to set those kind of judgments on the people of this province. I know very well that the Member didn't mean to infer that. I'll accept his sincerity in terms of trying to produce labour peace in this province. That's our objective; we have common goals. With some goodwill, a speedy debate and a speedy passage of these estimates, we'll achieve that goal.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I have a few remarks that I'd like to address to the Minister. He's in a very good mood this

[ Page 2870 ]

evening. He's got his best judicial attitude displayed to the committee. He talks about management and labour as being his clients. It's great. He's Mr. Wonderful. He's a big man in the cabinet and he's a big man in the House. He really is Mr. Wonderful. He's above all of these problems that arise in labour-management because he has very carefully got his department structured in such a way that never does he have to soil his hands with the problems that arise in labour and management.

MR. WALLACE: He's King.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right; he's the King until it gets to a situation where it's so impossible that he's got to bring in special legislation to solve the problem. He won't use a mediation commission. Oh, no. We would never force a settlement on anybody by a mediation commission. We would only use the extreme power of the Legislature. Do you suppose that His Lordship the King would use Bill 61 to solve these problems? He wouldn't do that because that would be beneath him to exercise those extreme powers.

MR. BENNETT: He'll use it on the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) when he closes down his Super-Valus.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, we'll deal with the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour in a moment, and his attitude with the Minister. It seems to me that the point raised by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) was somehow or other missed by the Minister. The Minister's taking his hands off position to labour-management disputes when the government is involved in a direct conflict of interest. His own government.

Now here's a Minister who has already been involved in one conflict-of-interest situation regarding labour matters in a Crown corporation of which he was a director and an officer. They finally had to yank him out of that position. It seems to me that the Minister misconstrues his role if he somehow or other thinks that he's sitting over there in the cabinet, the judge of problems that may come across his desk. He's a Minister of the Crown. When the Crown, involved through its Crown corporations, gets in the position of breaches of labour practice, it seems to me that one Minister of the Crown has a direct responsibility to tell the other Minister of the Crown when to head in. It we can't have a good example in labour-management matters shown by Crown corporations, then how do we ever expect that the rest of enterprise is going to be guided in any other way?

The Minister should clearly recognize that the Member for Columbia River is not asking him to step in and interfere in a proper labour dispute, but he certainly is suggesting that he should tell one of his fellow Ministers to stop strikebreaking activities in a Crown corporation of which he is the president.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This is ICBC. If you're having trouble getting the work out of ICBC, here's a phone number to phone. Not only that, the Minister stood up very proudly in the House — I think it was yesterday — and read a whole list of services you can now get from the motor vehicle branch.

How does the B.C. Government Employees Union square that off with their comrades in the labour movement who are fighting on picket lines in front of ICBC? How does the Minister of the Crown, president of this Crown corporation, and his fellow Minister, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), square off with that?

It seems to me that it just isn't good enough for the Minister of Labour to get up on his high horse and take the haughty attitude with Members of this committee on this kind of a problem. When the government involves itself in commercial enterprises, the government has got to show leadership in a way that they will expect other corporations in this province to deal with similar matters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that he should relate his remarks to the specific responsibilities of the Minister.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That's what he's doing. Right on.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. I hate to have to remind you, Mr. Chairman, but the Minister of Labour has something to do with labour relations in this province.

I suppose that the Minister is trying to establish a role for himself in view of the very sound rejection that he got at the NDP convention just recently.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The new Minister of Labour from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) is breathing hot on his neck.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): You were there, eh?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I wasn't there, Mr. Member for Dewdney, I wasn't at that convention. But, you know, there were some other very

[ Page 2871 ]

interesting people who weren't there either. It's interesting who else wasn't there either. Let me see ... who was there from the B.C. Federation of Labour?

MR. WALLACE: Was the president there?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I don't think the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour was there.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Were the secretaries there?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I don't think the secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour was there either. These were people who were the very close allies of the NDP. I remember when the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) used to be Leader of the Opposition. He sat there, and on the days when they used to debate the Labour Minister's estimates up in the gallery there would be the representatives of the B.C. Federation of Labour; they would be four or five strong. They would be leaning over and listening to what the Minister of Transport and Communications had to say when he lashed into the Labour Minister in the old days. But somehow or other they.... I guess they didn't get an invitation to the convention.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was away from the Liberal convention?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I wasn't at the Liberal convention either. Oh, I get the picture: the B.C. Federation of Labour is now independent of the NDP. (Laughter.) Well, I'm glad the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) pointed that out to me. I set a very good example, that's right.

I think it's a step forward of the B.C. Federation of Labour to be independent of the NDP. I really think it is.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): You're really strong on independence these days.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You might have to come over and join us, Bob — that's right. Lorne Nystrom's not going to win. When that battle is fought, they're going to start counting off who was supporting the favourite son or favourite daughter. But that's your problem.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just relax — I've got a couple more things to say.

I think that the Minister of Labour has got to adopt a different attitude with respect to his responsibilities as Minister. No longer can he take the haughty, austere position like: "Don't worry me with the problems; the Labour Relations Board will look after all the problems. If they won't look after all the problems, then free collective bargaining will do the job between labour and management. No interference from the Minister of Labour. But somehow or other if it really gets tough, really tough, then I'll assemble the Legislature and they'll pull my chestnuts out of the fire." — as they did in the case of the firemen's strike, when the conduct of the Minister left a very great deal to be desired, a very great deal to be desired in the negotiations which led up to this Legislature being assembled on that particular little problem.

The Minister has given his story. I hope that one day the trade union movement gives their side of the contretemps that led up to that particular situation.

Interjections.

MR, L.A. WILLIAMS: I'll send you over a note so that you'll know what it means.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has got to do better than he has tonight before he is entitled to this vote. He's got to respond to the challenge that was laid out to him by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). What are you going to do when you have the situation of the Crown corporation headed by that Minister in conflict with the trade union movement of this province? Are you going to sit back and do nothing? You don't dare, because the next thing that will be happening is that senior members of industry will be refusing to play any role in matters when they could participate.

If you're not going to play a role in the resolution of this difficulty, Mr. Minister of Labour, then I think that you should seriously consider removing yourself from the executive council. Then you won't be involved in these conflicts. They got you out of the conflict with B.C. Rail by taking you off the board; maybe we can get you out of this conflict by taking you off the executive council.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I am properly chastened by the eminent Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who admonished me for not having dirty hands and dirty fingernails. I can tell by his suit, his demeanour and his well-kempt, manicured hands that he's an authority on dirty fingernails and dirty hands. I can see that. I'm sorry,

[ Page 2872 ]

Mr. Chairman, that he does not appreciate my style. I apologize for that. Nevertheless it's something I've lived with now for about 44 years and I guess I have to suffer through it.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're paranoid!

HON. MR. KING: But what's more important, really are the issues he raises. He talks about my responsibility in involving myself, indeed imposing myself, into a dispute between ICBC and the trade union on the premise that they apparently have done something illegal.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, that's not what I said.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) apparently objected to a statement which I have before me. That statement reads:

"ICBC interim procedures by which emergency service will be provided to motorists during the current strike by members of the Office and Technical Employees Union.

" ICBC says motorists suffering severe financial hardship caused by death, injury or loss of a car should call this number — 665-2800."

That is the basis, apparently, by which the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) suggest I should intervene, by some strange gyrations and calculations find ICBC guilty of unfair labour practices, admonish my colleague, the chairman of the board, and completely supersede the authority and the jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board which has the jurisdiction to adjudicate and rule on any breach of industrial relations law in this province. I don't quite understand it. I can understand it from the Member for Columbia River, but I have more difficulty from that independent Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. He's a lawyer, and I would ask him whether he suggests that judges of the court should go out and prejudge the guilt....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You're not a judge. Get that through your head.

HON. MR. KING: It's not too dissimilar. I am there to be impartial; I am there to provide services and aid to both parties. If I, on the basis of press releases, on the basis of TV broadcasts, make an arbitrary judgment on one of the parties' guilt, then I think Members on the opposition side would be the first ones to criticize me for that too.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

He says that I was yanked out of the railway. Well, that's his prerogative to think that. I don't know whether that's any more of a stigma than having drifted out of the political party that I happen to belong to.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Shunted. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: At least I've been consistent in my support for the beliefs, for the philosophies and for the political party I have stood for all these years. So if he wants to make judgments on my conduct, I'm quite prepared to match those with his any day, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest that the people of the province will place their judgment on the conduct and the commitment of people who, for whatever reason, jump from party to party and from philosophy to philosophy in this province. So that's the kind of personal commentary that's really not relevant to this vote anyway.

I do say that it is strange and absurd that Members of the opposition, particularly lawyers, ask me to place judgment on the conduct of trade unions or on the conduct of management. My role is to provide a framework of legislation by which both parties must live and abide. If they breach those laws, then there is a mechanism, there is a vehicle for trying them, hearing the evidence, trying them, making a judgment and providing a remedy through the courts. The politician's role is not to become the enforcer; rather it is to become the lawmaker. I think the Member knows that better than I do. So that is the issue, Mr. Chairman.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This is not a correction, Mr. Chairman, although I suppose that it perhaps is. It is quite clear that the Minister failed to comprehend the point I made.

What we have across the floor is not 15 or 16 separate governments, all functioning independent one of the other. We have the Minister of Labour, together with his colleagues, forming the executive council of the Province of British Columbia, therefore they must act in concert and deal with the problems of government. They have chosen the ownership, management and direction of ICBC as one of the functions of government. As a consequence, the Minister of Labour should use his efforts in the executive council to make sure that the conduct of ICBC is exemplary.

HON. MR. KING: But not prejudge them.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Not prejudge them. Well, if a strike is not a matter of economic warfare between labour and management.... You have read the

[ Page 2873 ]

announcement by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) saying: "We will continue to do our job with regard to the motoring public, regardless of the strike." That defuses the action of the union, and you should have said to that Minister of Transport and Communications: "ICBC has been shut down by the strike and will continue to be shut down. We won't take any steps to the contrary." That's your responsibility, not as Minister of Labour, but as a Minister of the Crown.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few remarks. I'm appalled, really, by some of the remarks made by the Minister of Labour. I'm always appalled by what he has to say.

The Minister fails to recognize the fact that what we are discussing is a government Crown agency, and that they have a responsibility to set an example of non-interference between management and labour.

We've been given a clear indication on the basis of a report given to the Minister of Labour by the Minister of Transport and Communications, via John Mika. You've been told specifically what was stated on television tonight, and you have a responsibility to set an example of non-interference. And you have set an example of interfering in the economic sanctions which a union can utilize to resolve a labour dispute. You have got to recognize that.

You can't always say that there are means and devices and structures by which people can appeal any unfair labour practice or anything like that, because there's a clear example given to you tonight of strike-breaking tactics utilized by a government agency. Utter interference! Utter interference in the rights of the OTEU and its representatives to gain a reasonable labour settlement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

MR. CHABOT: You know, it's not good enough for the Minister to get up and make his facetious remarks that one Member has a fancy suit, and the other Member has a twinkle in his eye and he can't be serious and the only place this might be able to be utilized is in the railway bunkhouse. Well, I've seen railway bunkhouses too, you know.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: You know, Mr. Minister, you can laugh all you want, but this is serious matter. You can't laugh it off because you have clear evidence that your government, or government agency administered president.... The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is president of that great corporation, ICBC, that great money-losing corporation that lost $34 million of taxpayers' money last year. Now we see the interference by the Minister in this and, you know, you've got a responsibility to tell us: will you, as Minister of Labour — who is supposed to be the great impartial arbitrator of disputes, never leaning one side or the other — condone the action of ICBC in utilizing strike-breaking tactics in this particular instance?

You have a responsibility. I don't know, I could develop quite a dialogue and quite a discussion with the Minister with some of the remarks which he has stated. The Minister talks about the Financial Post talking about the record of labour disruption in British Columbia during the year 1974. Well, everyone knows that what was written there was on the basis of a press release from that Minister of Labour — a press release in which he virtually suggested, Mr. Chairman, that he was proud of the record of the Department of Labour regarding man-days lost last year.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) apparently is proud. Unfortunately I don't have the number of man-days lost in British Columbia, but I'll venture a guess somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1.5 million last year. That's nothing to be proud of. I have to suggest to you that it was more than in the previous large bargaining year of 1972. But I tell you, Mr. Minister, your first quarter of 1975 leaves nothing to be desired. I recall very vividly the statements you have made in this House regarding how you were going to resolve all the problems that existed between management and labour; that unless you could improve the record of the previous Minister of Labour you would resign — resign. Now, Mr. Minister, you know we're heading into a difficult labour-management year in British Columbia this year, and you've got to be temperate in your statements. You've got to be cautious in what you say, because you'll find yourself in a very serious difficulty with those facetious and irresponsible statements you make from time to time.

Now the Minister has a habit of castigating the vehicle which the previous government utilized to resolve labour-management disputes in the case of public interest and the long duration of a dispute, be it through a lockout or through a strike. Now I want to suggest to the Minister.... The Minister left the impression that that vehicle was utilized on numerous occasions. It was very infrequently used and the Minister, if he wants to tell the truth and tell the truth for once, will admit that it was very rarely used, and only used in the case of extreme emergency after an extremely long tie-up in the labour dispute of great economic consequences to the province, or one of sheer public interest in the province.

Now I'd like the Minister to tell me whether he

[ Page 2874 ]

condones and supports the action of ICBC in interfering in the right of the OTEU and its representatives to gain the kind of collective agreement which they believe they're entitled to.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): It's well known, I think, in this House and in the province that Members of our party have a wide variety of views on a lot of issues. It's also pretty widely known that we have differences of opinion concerning how to approach labour relations. It's no secret that I've had disagreements with the Minister on many occasions. But one of the things that we manage to do in our party, Mr. Chairman, is to be consistent. If we say something regarding our own personal philosophy, or it we have any activity that we carry out as Ministers or as individuals, we manage somehow to maintain that consistency from year to year.

I find it pretty astounding to have the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) stand up and talk about the Minister's responsibility to practice a policy of non-interference in a labour dispute when we have the record of the previous government and their massive interference in every labour dispute they could get their hands on.

MR. CHABOT: How many times did I interfere? How many times?

MR. GABELMANN: The establishment of the mediation commission was enough.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it is also pretty hard for me to take to listen the Member for Columbia River talk about "the rights of the OTEU." Never in any of the years or months that that Member was Minister of Labour did he ever give any indication that he was concerned whatsoever by any of the labour rights. His policies and his practices were to defend the rights of management, which is government represented. I think he did a fairly good job at that. To hear him talk about the rights of the OTEU is pretty hard to take. I certainly didn't intend to get up tonight to talk about this, but I felt that it was pretty bad stuff. I couldn't believe it.

I think that Members, political representatives, members of political parties, people who want to represent the public in the Legislature should have or should attempt to have some consistency in their policies. I think it is important that Members who take one position when they are government take the same position when they are in opposition and vice-versa.

MR. CHABOT: Don't give me that.

MR. GABELMANN: I make no secret about the fact that I disagree with a number of the policies of the Minister. I am going to be consistent about that, and I am sure the Minister is going to be consistent about his views. We respect each other's views in those matters. We manage to co-exist very well. That co-existence basically derives from the fact that we each are consistent and we each firmly believe the kinds of policies that we advocate.

I just want to take a couple of minutes tonight, Mr. Chairman, to talk about a couple of areas in which I have some disagreement in terms of the current practice of the Department of Labour. They are not serious disagreements because by and large the practices of the Department of Labour have been commendable. The time lost from strikes in British Columbia last year definitely was less than in any similar kind of bargaining year under Social Credit. The practices of the mediation services that we provide and the officers that are provided by the department have been able, I think, to resolve many disputes that under the former government would have led to strikes. They didn't lead to strikes because of the excellent work that the department was able to do.

I think the fact that there may have been 1.4 million person-days lost last year should be seen in the context of how many days are lost every year from sickness and from accidents. The days lost from strikes or lockouts in no way compares to the time lost from sickness and from accident. Those days are far more costly to the economy than all of the days that are lost in labour disputes.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Not directly; that is so. I think that the emphasis that people place on days lost from strikes or lockouts should be placed in context. The context really is how many days are lost for other reasons. Not many days are lost, in fact, to strikes and lockouts. Most labour disputes are settled amicably. The former Minister of Labour knows that as well as I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it true? Is it true?

MR. CHABOT: It is true.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, there were one or two things that the former Minister of Labour used to say that were right, and that was one of them.

My comments at the NDP convention a few weeks ago have been the subject of some discussion in the House tonight and also the subject for discussion on page 4 of The Province a few days ago. I think I would like to, if possible, outline my views on the question of organizational and informational

[ Page 2875 ]

picketing so that I can attempt calmly and rationally to put my views on the record so that it is understood both by Members in the House and by representatives of the press gallery.

I believe that the current legislation administered by the Minister is too restrictive for workers in the construction industry. I believe that the legislation has been very successful in terms of industrial work situations. It is possible now to organize in a way that was never possible before in industrial situations.

But construction workers are in a different situation altogether. They don't have the ability to go on a two- or three-month campaign, signing up members who happen to work at one place, because often they are only working there for a week or two or just a few weeks and they are off to another job site. The only way to organize workers on those construction projects is the day or two at the beginning of the work project. The only way to really do that is to have an informational picket line on that job site so that it gives the organizers some kind of ability to get the message across to those workers who are not organized. The Minister has set up a commission headed by Jim Kinnaird to look into ways and means of making it fairer for construction workers in terms of organizing. I am pretty confident in my own mind that the only alternative that the commission is going to be able to come up with is the question of informational picketing. I really believe that no other alternatives exist but for one.

The other alternative that might exist is compulsory unionization. But I don't believe that this province or this Legislature or, for that matter, myself really want to see the situation that we have compulsory unionism. That's the only alternative, I believe, to informational picketing to solve the problems we have on the job sites, as is so perfectly demonstrated by the Gaglardi dispute with the building trades unions.

Believe this or not, Mr. Chairman: there was more freedom for informational picketing under the old government than there is under ours, because the Labour Relations Act of those days was silent on the question and the courts were able to interpret the information in a way that allowed more informational picketing than now exists. So I think that on that part of the picketing question I've explained my position.

On the question of informational picketing as it relates to disputes such as the farm workers' dispute relating to grapes, lettuce and other products in California as that dispute affects us here in British Columbia, my comments at the NDP convention were much more extensive than quoted in the press, although I won't deny that the press quoted me accurately. They did. I believe that I wouldn't use those same words again, because I don't believe them to be wise. All of us at times get carried away, as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) knows. In the heat of a convention sometimes when you're on to an emotional debate, and you start listening to yourself more than you do anything else, you sometimes tend to get carried away. I got carried away and the words I used were not wise, nor are they what I believe.

I do believe that people who want to assist workers who are organizing should have the right to go on an informational picket line in front of an outlet that is distributing the goods coming from a strike-bound situation.

It's not very often that the labour movement declares a product "hot," because they know that if they use that weapon indiscriminately it will become meaningless. The labour movement is very selective and very careful before it determines that a product is going to be named "hot." It did that in the question of California grapes because the struggle of the farm workers in California was seen to be one that was just and valid and one in which we could provide some assistance, particularly since Canadian consumers were purchasing a large quantity of the grapes being picked by non-union workers in California.

I believe that I should have the right — this is what I was trying to say at the NDP convention — to stand up in front of a Super-Valu or a Safeway or a Stong's or any one of those stores and ask people not to stop at that store because that store is selling a product that is hot, a product that is being produced in a strike-bound plant or, in the case of the grapes, in a strike-bound industry. I believe that workers have very little economic power in this society. They don't have the power that management has in the boardrooms. They don't have the power to name new prices for their labour as management does for their goods. Management at any time, for any reason and under any circumstances can arbitrarily without any reference to anyone, including the government and anyone else, assign a new price or a new value to their goods. Workers don't have that right. In that sense, workers are not equal in the economic situation.

Therefore some other weapons are required. I really believe — I believe this sincerely and I believe this honestly — that workers must have the right to inform the public that there is a dispute going on, and they should be able to say to the public: "Please do not purchase the following goods." Or even more: "Please do not shop at the following stores because these stores are practising a policy of selling strike-bound goods." That's my position.

I don't believe that I personally should be able to go and walk on a picket line and say: "I want to shut down Super-Valu." I believe in that case that Super-Valu should be able to continue to operate. But I would try my best, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that no one walked into that Super-Valu store, that no one bought goods if that Super-Valu was

[ Page 2876 ]

practising a policy of selling, as I say, strike-bound goods. That's the position I was trying to outline at the convention.

MR. CHABOT: Are you against the Teamsters?

MR. GABELMANN: I regret very much that my comments at the convention were as ill-advised in that particular context as they were. It hasn't done me any good; I'm trying to set the record straight now.

Nevertheless, my position is different than that of the government. I make that clear. The Minister has devised legislation. I hope he will reconsider it. I hope over the next few years we'll get a chance to revise that legislation so that, in fact, I will have the legal right to walk up and down in front of a Super-Valu store saying to people: "Please don't buy these grapes, because they are produced by non-union labour." I don't have that right now, Mr. Chairman, and I want that right.

The only other matter I wanted to raise in this discussion of the Minister's estimates is the question of the Labour Relations Board. Again, I have some minor disagreements with the Minister.

I agree with the general policy of moving labour relations out of the courts. One of the prime reasons for moving labour relations out of the courts was to get it out of the legalistic framework.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't need your help, Jim, thanks.

One of the problems with labour relations in past years is that disputes have often been seen to have legalistic solutions, and that has been very much emphasized by the fact that disputes ended up in the courts all the time. We quite properly moved labour relations outside the court system and into a new Labour Relations Board.

My quarrel is not with the basic direction of the policy but with one particular example of its implementation. I believe that having three out of the top six officers of the Labour Relations Board trained in law, even though one of them was a professor and not a practising lawyer, provides an atmosphere of legalistic solutions. I don't believe that labour relations is a legal art; I believe it's a social art. For that reason I would like to see people who understand the processes sitting on the Labour Relations Board. I honestly don't believe that lawyers can have that perspective; and if they can have the perspective, they aren't seen to have the perspective. That again is the important matter there. I would just hope that in the future we would be able to go away from that trend to have a legalistic Labour Relations Board.

I agree with the Minister when he says that the decisions of the board need to be carefully written in language that won't allow there to be some appeal to the courts. I believe the way to do that is to have trained legal advice working for the Board, not acting as commissioners on the board. I think that's the proper procedure to make sure that problem doesn't arise.

As I say, I think the conduct of the Minister in the last two and a half years has been excellent. I believe honestly — in the same sense that I have some minor disagreements with him — that he has been the best Minister of Labour not only that this province has ever seen but this country has ever seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MR. GABELMANN: The Member says nonsense, but the record's there. He has managed, I think, to provide an atmosphere in this province of....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, we won't pause to laugh at that. I think he's managed to create an atmosphere in this province of trust from both management and from labour of his department, and that's the essential first element in conducting rational and sane labour relations.

The problem in the past, of course, is that at least one side didn't have much confidence in the Minister or the Ministry. That's been changed now. I want to at this time offer my sincere congratulations for the excellent job that the Minister has done for the last two and a half years.

MR. WALLACE: I've listened very carefully since about 8:30, and I'm rather surprised by two particular comments of the speaker who just took his place, the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). I'm absolutely shaken by his statement that workers have no economic power — "very little" was the phrase he used. Very little economic power. I don't know where he's bee these last 10 or 15 years in this province, but the economic power of the worker has certainly not only created strikes of numerous types by numerous sections of the work force but has certainly wrought some very considerable effects and hardship on third parties, namely the public.

Whether or not the Member who just took his seat thinks that simply because an employer can change the price of a product, that the employee cannot change the price of his labour overnight and that that denotes very little economic power.... I would just have to differ very strongly on that point. I don't think that the....

[ Page 2877 ]

HON. MR. KING: They are my estimates, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you and he obviously disagree, and there's no better point for an opposition Member to zero in on than a split in the government.

Seriously, it seems to me that economic power has so many ramifications and so many consequences. I really feel that that is a gross exaggeration of the facts the way in which the Member described them.

He also touched upon informational picketing. I notice in section 84 of the Labour Code that there's certainly no restriction on providing information by any other means other than the picketing device. Section 84 makes it very plain that a trade union or other person may at any time and in any manner that does not constitute picketing, as the word is defined in the Act, "communicate information to any person or publicly express sympathy or support for any person," et cetera, et cetera.

So while I'm not in any way trying to get the Minister off the hook on this one, I think it's only fair to say that section 84 of the code allows any trade union member to spread information in any way other than by picketing. As far as I'm concerned in our party, that's as far as it should go in giving the authority and the mechanism for union members to spread information about products that are hot. When I sit down, I would hope the Minister will answer why he is so opposed to informational picketing. I don't for a moment disrespect the right of the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) to disagree with the Minister of Labour, but I would like to know why the Minister is so clearly concerned that informational picketing would be very disruptive, or the degree to which he considers it would be disruptive. I would also like him to state very clearly that it is government policy to oppose informational picketing, even though there were many voices in his own party at convention that seemed to favour it.

The Minister talked earlier on tonight about alternatives to the problems facing labour-management relations, particularly when there is a difference of opinion. Again, the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour talked about consistency. I wonder if the Minister thinks this government is being consistent in always opposing compulsory arbitration when that, in effect, is what we have with the teaching profession in this province. We needn't get off on a battle of semantics because we had this battle on education in committee a few weeks ago, where the government very cleverly, at the last minute, deleted the word "compulsory" from the report because it wouldn't have looked very good in the official report that came into this House to say that teachers have compulsory arbitration. But they do. They negotiate, they mediate, and then there is a deadline. I can't remember — is it November 15?

Then there is arbitration which is binding. The Minister shakes his head.

HON. MR. KING: Not my department!

MR. WALLACE: I know it isn't your department, but I am talking about principles and consistency, Mr. Minister, and it is your government, whether it is your department specifically or whether it is government policy. We are talking about a principle which involves compulsion in the area of collective bargaining.

Any time I have spoken in this House and said that I believe that many people in our society would welcome more attempts to have deadlines in negotiation beyond which there would be binding arbitration, the Minister has taken great exception and said that that will not work. Well, it seems to work for the teaching profession. I don't see why we should consider that other sectors of the work force are so different.

Granted, they are not all the same by any means. But when the teachers can't negotiate an agreement with the school board beyond a certain date, the process of arbitration sets in and that arbitration is binding. The teachers and the school trustees have no choice as to whether it is binding or not. Whatever is handed down by the arbitration board is the settlement.

The Minister interjected a moment ago that that is not his department. It may not be, but, as the Minister well knows, we've got legislation on the floor at this session which gives the Minister the job of appointing the arbitrator. I am not saying that is wrong. I am saying that the principle applies that as far as the teachers are concerned this government believes in a policy of binding arbitration. I don't see how we can interpret that part of the government policy any differently.

Although it's been mentioned earlier tonight, I also was somewhat surprised to find that driver's licences and certificates will continue to be issued because I always understood that the whole strength of the strike weapon has changed in recent years. It used to be that the employee was simply trying to bring economic pressure upon the employer, basically. But now there is so often a third party involved, the public at large, that the strike weapon has more significance because the employee can embarrass the public or put the public to considerable hardship. If that is the case, and I think it is.... It certainly is the case in the recent strike we had in Victoria with the CUPE workers whose action resulted in the loss of education for several weeks for many children in this area. I am sure that if it was just a question of the teachers trying to exert economic pressure on the school trustees, the strike could go on for 10 years if the children weren't the innocent

[ Page 2878 ]

victims in the middle.

So I must say that I was surprised when I read that the government is continuing to provide driver's licences, renewal of licences and driver's certificates when I would have imagined that this was very much the strength of the ICBC strikers, to inconvenience the public.

I understand there is a moratorium on anyone being found driving without the appropriate insurance. I'm not even sure how legal the suspension of that law can be. Does the government have the constitutional right, because of a labour problem, to suspend the application of a law? It is an interesting question. I don't know who issued this moratorium, which Minister, or what validity that moratorium has, but I am certainly going to be fascinated to study the first test case in court when somebody gets killed by the driver of a vehicle that is not insured. Has the government figured that one out? I think there will be some terrible legal tangles, when, as almost inevitably will happen, someone in this province is either going to be injured or, worse still, perhaps killed in an accident by a driver who doesn't have legal insurance and who is still driving without that coverage because of this so-called moratorium.

It seems to me that the consistency of the government in this respect in espousing the sacrosanct nature of collective bargaining and the fact that no one must act to break a strike in unfair methods, this seems to be a pretty good example that the government itself is indulging in in the case of the ICBC strike. The Minister said earlier on tonight that the most important function he can fulfil is one of neutrality. I accept that. But certainly the Minister, as he well knows, has admitted in this House that there have been times when he has leaned on parties — that was the phrase he used — and it seems to me that that particular admission of involvement in trying to coerce or persuade one or other party to a dispute to settle in practice is not what the Minister was describing in theory earlier on tonight.

Before, we leave that point, I do hope, without transgressing on the bill, that the Minister will consider that his stated concept of neutrality and recognition that labour-management problems are exactly that — a 50-50 situation where both sides have to be balanced to the greatest possible degree and that all his activity has to be is equality towards both sides — I hope he will amend that bill which, as I said yesterday, doesn't contain the word "employer" or the word "management."

The other area that I would just like to touch upon, Mr. Chairman, relates to the Minister's stated concern about the rejection of settlements by union membership. He's quoted last month as saying that the rejection of settlements negotiated by union leaders but rejected by the membership is a growing problem, and I'd just like to ask the Minister one or two questions.

First of all, is the Minister contemplating a more rigid situation whereby, during negotiations, there shall be mandatory intervals at which the negotiations should be communicated to the membership with or without a vote? This, again, was part of the impression the public received during the recent CUPE strike here in Victoria — that many of the members of the union first of all were not kept well informed about what was going on in the negotiations, and there was great delay in submitting the proposals to the membership.

I'm wondering if the Minister has any suggestions as to how this problem is to be tackled. And I wonder if he's even considered the possibility that perhaps if the leaders come to a majority decision that the offer is acceptable, whether it should always be absolutely necessary for all the membership to ratify a decision which is acceptable to the leaders.

I know it's become standard practice that the total membership vote for or against the settlement arrived at or suggested by the leaders, but as the Minister pointed out in this statement.... I don't know, he made the statement early in April. He also said that trade union leaders should put their own jobs on the line if they have what they consider a satisfactory settlement which they can't sell to the membership. I'm wondering if we can anticipate change in the legislation to implement some of these ideas. Or is the Minister just trying to sound a warning that it's a problem but he has no proposals as to the solution?

The last comment I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, was on the question that I think the Minister is sympathetic to, and that is the right of workers who are blind to have a greater freedom of choice in the whole question of whether or not they can become organized, and the degree to which they are now totally dependent on CNIB in terms of seeking jobs and conditions of employment. I don't have the press clipping relating to the subject, but I believe that the Minister is sympathetic to the situation of blind workers. I would like to know to what degree we can anticipate early changes to the existing legislation.

I presume all MLAs have had correspondence from the.... I forget the gentleman's name who acts on behalf of an association for the blind. But this seems to be an area of neglect in labour legislation and, perhaps just by default, nothing has been done to change the legislation which has existed for a long time.

Is the Minister close to bringing in amendments in regard to the blind workers?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), we can expect some amendment to the Blind Workers' Compensation Act at the current session. I do expect

[ Page 2879 ]

that we will see some amendment to that Act.

The question of trying to impose time limitations on bargaining has been tried in a variety of areas. But really, I hold the view that there is very little one can do to legislatively require bargaining in good faith. If one or the other party chooses to delay, there is no problem in finding adequate excuses to do so. We are studying a variety of options, and, as the Member probably knows, there are some options in terms of exercising the strike weapon rather than arbitration as it affects those areas most crucial to the public interest: police, firemen and hospital workers. There are some options there.

The teachers, of course, come under the Public Schools Act, which is in no way under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour. While one may question the policy of the government on that point, it is my understanding that the teachers and the school boards have requested that system. That is their choice, but it is certainly unique in terms of industrial relations. I doubt that one would find many other groups in our milieu who would be prepared to accept compulsory arbitration as a method of settling....

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: Why don't you try it? It works for the teachers.

HON. MR. KING: As a matter of fact, Mr. Member, we do try it in almost every dispute, but in a voluntary way. You see, whenever a protracted strike is in effect that is of concern to the community or to the people involved, I, as a normal practice, offer third parties to them: an industrial inquiry commission or an industrial arbitrator. If they accept an industrial inquiry commission, which in law is non-binding, I, as a matter of appointing an industrial inquiry commission, ask both parties if they will voluntarily accept it as binding. And there is a vast difference between compulsory binding arbitration and voluntary binding arbitration.

Compulsory arbitration hangs there as a club to be used at all times, where quite frequently I have appointed industrial inquiry commissions with the voluntary agreement of both parties to accept the adjudications as binding. So that's a normal course. But it is one that protects, preserves and maintains the rights of both parties. That often occurs, and we try that frequently as a device. But it is as an internal device, not something that is held up as a high-profile subject of controversy to the industrial relations world. Quite frankly, I think that is preferable.

There are a number of other things we study. But in my view unless you have some basic agreement and some receptivity by the parties, then you are not very well advised to try many experimentations on them. You will be repudiated before you get it off the ground. But we do try those things.

I would like to say to my colleague, the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), that I agree with him. We certainly do have certain disagreements regarding approaches to the picketing area particularly. But I can't help but draw to his attention the illustration that he uses of the imported grapes to Super-Valu and his desire to have the right to informational picketing in those circumstances.

The irony is, of course, that the Teamsters, who represent the grape workers, achieved that right to representation through the very device that the Member is advocating — organizational, informational picketing rights. It would be a bit of an irony to them to set up the same obstacle to recognizing their right to sell them in the store.

MR. WALLACE: Why are you so opposed to it?

HON. MR. KING: I'm opposed to it on the basis that there can be no effective control. You see, in reality there is no difference between picketing per se in a legal strike, information picketing or organizational picketing. My contention is that the consequences are the same. The consequences are that no workers cross the picket lines, and it imposes a shutdown of the plant. So no matter what you call it, organizational or informational is a misnomer in my view because the consequences are that workers don't cross picket lines. That means on any grievance that a worker, a group of workers or some dissident from up the street happens to have, were they given the right to picket in an informational or a organizational way, there would be absolutely no security of operation for any industry in this province. That would detract from the security not only of industry but of the workers as well. I doubt that it is in the best interests of the workers.

I recognize and agree with the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour that we do have a special and unique problem in the construction industry. I'm not in agreement with him, though, that it's impossible to find other devices to come to grips with those special problems. That's what I hope to do through the appointment of Jim Kinnaird in the construction industry. He's a capable person, acceptable to both parties. I hope we can experiment — perhaps not. If I can find no other reasonable, practicable, acceptable answer, it may well be that I'll have to have a hard look at organizational picketing. I hope not because I'm afraid of the disruptiveness of it. That's my reaction.

The point I'd like to get across to the opposition Members on the ICBC thing is that you can't have it both ways. You can't hammer the government for interfering with management rights as it pertains to the railway, and question us about interference with

[ Page 2880 ]

management to the extent that some resign and so on, and condemn us for that, and then at the same time ask us to intervene and control management's response to a labour dispute. They may or they may not be acting fairly — I really don't know. But I would say this: certainly if they have done anything illegal or immoral, then they should be judged by the board responsible for that corporation. If they've done anything illegal, which I only know that they have — in fact, I doubt that they have — I would certainly have a strong message for my colleagues on that board. But I don't think it's my responsibility to prejudge the action of that management group. If they are, in fact, violating the law, the workers have a remedy available to them.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, could I first of all inquire of you if this is the proper vote to ask questions about the Workers Compensation Board?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I would ask the Hon. Minister to respond, but I would think that it would be.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the particular question I have here relates to a policy statement on industrial noise, as issued by the board on December 16. At that time the board noted that:

"Plans are being developed at the board for the implementation of the new section 40(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act. This provides that: 'the board may, in such a manner as it may determine, vary the rates of assessment as between different employers, or levy supplementary assessments according to the estimated exposure of workers to industrial noise. It may do so whether or not hearing protection is worn.' "

The simple question I have for the Minister is whether that section is nearing implementation and if any kinds of safeguards have been found to the very wide and seemingly arbitrary powers of the board to issue assessments without any appeal or hindrance, apparently on a completely arbitrary basis.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, section 40(a) is very close to being proclaimed and initiated. The main problem, in terms of the delay this far, has been working up the administrative procedures, the techniques and the expertise to give application to that section regulating levels of noise.

The powers that the board has with respect to levying penalty assessment or varying assessments according to the risk level is quite consistent with similar powers that pertain to penalty levies in any other section of industry, should that industry fail to comply with standards and regulations set by the board, or should statistics prove an exceedingly high accident rate in a particular industry, Then frequently and historically there have been penalty assessments and variations of assessments.

Similarly, those industries that have an excellent safety record, with adequate first-aid provisions and so on, benefit from improved ratings. So that's quite consistent. I think that the board is more concerned with an educational role in terms of trying to assist industry and workers in methods to combat and reduce noise, rather than they are in assessing any penalties or sanctions against the parties. They play more of an educational and persuasive role than a punitive one in most cases.

MR. GIBSON: Just a brief follow-up, Mr. Chairman. Could I ask the Minister if the implementation and administrative practices here are being worked out by the board in consultation with industry?

HON. MR. KING: The board has made a habit of discussing proposed changes in regulations and so on with industry and labour, yes.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, we've had a rather interesting discussion this evening. There are a few more remarks that I feel compelled to make at this time, which otherwise I may not have made in this debate. But when we hear the comments of the Minister of Labour, and the innuendo, to a certain extent, and the insinuations that have been involved in the remarks of the Minister concerning the Members of the opposition, I think it's incumbent upon us to retaliate with a few remarks.

I've tried this evening to keep the debate on a level of what was good in the long run as we see it for the Province of British Columbia. But the Minister couldn't resist taking potshots at the opposition and harked back to something that is long past — that is, previous administration and all the rest of it.

We would like to remind the Minister that it is 1975. We are in a continually changing situation with respect to labour-management relations. Everything that has been done for the last 20 years, and the legislation that has been introduced, has not always been to the degree that management would accept it or labour would accept it. But I think in the long run this has been beneficial to both management and labour. There has been a progressive situation involved.

Now I think that it is only proper that I draw to the Minister's attention a few of the things that I myself am not responsible for. I am not voicing my own opinion. But I think it is proper that I draw to the Minister's attention the opinion of many people who are involved today in labour-management relations. I think it is fair that I should draw to the Minister's attention that many people feel, and I

[ Page 2881 ]

think with perhaps some justification, perhaps not, that they would like to see the matter challenged in court. They feel that the Public Works Fair Employment Act discriminates against a certain sector of people in the Province of British Columbia. They feel it is a discrimination against the Canadian Bill of Rights as far as people are concerned.

They say that the Province of British Columbia never asked them or consulted them when they collected taxes for whatever the purpose might be. But they certainly discriminated against certain people in this province when the NDP chose to bring in what they called the Public Works Fair Employment Act. I think the Minister should look at that in respect to those people who feel that they are discriminated against. There is a discrimination there inasmuch as they are not allowed to work for the government on certain projects. But the government never has suggested to them that there should be a reduction in their taxes because they choose to be independent operators or work outside of the confines of a union agreement.

If it is fair to collect taxes from everybody right across the board, is it not fair that those same people should be entitled to bid and to work for the government as long as they are competitive, as long as they produce and as long as they can do a good job? These people feel that they are being discriminated against in respect to that particular piece of legislation. I think that the Minister of Labour should look very closely at that.

I suggest to the Minister also that perhaps it is the responsibility of government to analyse the constitutions of all of the labour unions in the Province of British Columbia to see if some of the provisions of those constitutions do not in fact impinge upon the provisions of the BNA Act or the Bill of Rights. I have had many learned people suggest to me that there are certain provisions within some of the constitutions and articles of unions which do impinge upon the BNA Act and the Bill of Rights. If that is so, I think it is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour to investigate that particular problem and, without getting into a big hassle with either union or anyone else, suggest to them that there are certain things within their constitution that are really unconstitutional and that they should be removed for the benefit of both their members and the people at large.

I have suggested to the Minister that there is a growing concern among people who are actually the third parties involved. They are removed directly from labour-management confrontations. But they feel that strikes are really only a method of bringing economic pressures against employers. Eventually the strike will be settled and they are the helpless victims who are caught in between.

I'd like to suggest to the Minister also that there's a growing concern in the Province of British Columbia among many people that the labour unions who hold themselves out as representatives of labour should not feel that they are above the laws that govern all of us. In that respect, they should abide by the same rules and regulations as everyone else. Just because they're strong in numbers does not give them any preferential place before the law.

Yet we have seen in the past on a number of occasions that one of the requirements of removing a picket line or settling a labour dispute was the withdrawal by management or people affected of a petition to sue or bring those people into court. You've seen it, Mr. Minister, and so have I. I can quote to you a specific example. I don't really need to do that because I'm sure you're aware of many of them, where one of the conditions of settlement was that management or people who were affected by the strikes verbally agreed to withdraw an impending court action as a price for settlement of a strike. Is that fair? Is that the price that we have to pay for industrial peace in the Province of British Columbia? I should hope not, because it certainly exemplifies that might is right and not necessarily the laws of the land. I think the Minister is well aware of what I'm speaking about because there are many situations that have resulted in this sort of thing.

I think that we should, perhaps now, after we have had some experience in the Labour Code of the Province of British Columbia, analyse it, at least again, and ask concerned people what they think about it. What are its strengths and what are its weaknesses? There are both strengths and weaknesses in the Labour Code of this province. Perhaps there are sections that should be rewritten. I suggest to the Minister that there are sections that should be rewritten in the legislation to redress those sections and the legislation that we presently have on our books so they become more evenly balanced between labour and management.

There is a concern in the minds of many people about the power of bureaucratically appointed boards. They feel these powers should not be absolute and that the decisions of such boards should be open to challenge in the courts on the basis of common justice. Yet we have set certain legislation above and beyond the recall of the courts, or above and beyond redress in the courts of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just caution the Hon. Member that he is beginning to stray into a discussion of legislation rather than the Minister's administrative responsibilities.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, their are a number of things that have been related to me by people, and I'm sure the Minister would appreciate the fact that I'm bringing to his attention these suggestions.

[ Page 2882 ]

I'd like to say to the Minister also that these were not suggestions that have been made to my by people on the management side of the ledger. These are suggestions made to me by the rank-and-file people who belong to labour union movements, who have set down in a non-political discussion about what they see. They agree with many things that have happened, but they also disagree.

One of the problems, Mr. Minister, that they're concerned about is that they can sit down quite often in a non-political manner with people who are not directly involved with their union and discuss what they think is good and what they think is bad about some of the practices today. When they try to do that same thing in a union meeting, they are sometimes chastised. They feel that it could result in either their expulsion or, at least, in a position that would jeopardize their jobs, and I think it unfortunate that we have that situation in B.C.

So I've tried to bring to the attention of the Minister some of the problems that are expressed by people who are members of labour unions. There is a great desire on the part of the average person who carries a union card today that everyone should be treated equally before the law and that labour unions are as much responsible before the law as anyone else. And they feel, individually at least, that this expression and this suggestion should be made to the government today.

Certainly, in the situation with respect to women in the labour force, I think we're making some improvement. We're removing some of the discriminations that were there in the past. I think that's a good thing. Some of those discriminations were the result of social customs, really, more than anything else.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Oh, no. You know, Mr. Minister, that's not true. That's not true. That's not true and you know it. Most of the problems involved were a result of social customs more than anything else of the past. And I agree that we had to have somebody prod us collectively a little bit to remove those things, because they have been there and people were not paid equal pay for equal work. But certainly in that respect there is an improvement today.

I would like to know just what the Minister feels with respect to the points I have raised — the matter of the perhaps unconstitutional clauses in some of the constitutions.

HON. MR. KING: Okay, I've got it.

MR. SMITH: You've got some of these points, down? Thank you, Mr. Minister. Now I'll sit down and listen to your reply.

HON. MR. KING: Thank you. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the Member's concern about the violations of the BNA Act and the human rights laws. But I want to assure him that within the Labour Code of British Columbia, as well as in the Human Rights Code, there are protections for trade union members to ensure that no trade union constitution, nor indeed the constitution of any other social organization, can in any way abridge the human rights of individuals in this province.

There's a duty of fair representation contained within the Labour Code which is basic and assures that no worker shall have his rights denied through lack of representation or through a prohibitive clause that in any way conflicts with human rights as laid down in the code. So I just want to assure the Member of that.

The other points he's made are well taken, and I assure him they will be considered.

MR. SMITH: The Minister seems to treat very lightly some of the things that have been raised this evening in this debate. But let me tell him this: a lighthearted manner in dealing with some of the problems I've tried to raise to the Minister tonight is not going to solve them. We do have problems of harassment by both management and labour. If the Minister would like me to bring to his attention a number of cases of harassment by labour, I am quite prepared to take up the time of the committee to do that.

But I don't think that really solves the problem, Mr. Minister. I think that what will eventually solve the problem is labour legislation that considers the fact that there is a problem there. I have recently received correspondence from a non-union contractor in northern British Columbia who bid for a job which he was entitled to bid for. He's provided employment, Mr. Minister, for a number of people in that part of the province for the last 15 years on a steady basis, 12 months a year. He made work for his employees, his permanent staff, when there was no work available, and he's paid them good salaries. He's bid upon government contracts that he was entitled to bid on, and he was successful in a couple of situations. Yet he's had nothing but harassment from the unions this year in setting up information pickets against him.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: It will, if we get some situations from the Minister and some answers. I'm telling you the problem of a man who has provided employment opportunities for a great number of people over a long period of time who has bid successfully for a couple of school contracts. He's answered every piece of correspondence from everybody, including your

[ Page 2883 ]

department and from the Labour Relations Board. He's filed copies of his wage rates and everything else. Yet he is being harassed. Why? Because his employees decided and have chosen not to join a union.

He keeps a permanent staff with him all year round, His employees have said a number of times that they are not really interested in belonging to the union. He's provided these people with a salary equivalent to what they could earn with a union, and do you know what he was accused of? He was accused of increasing their salaries as a bribe!

Is that what we want to become involved in? He was accused by the union of increasing their salaries as a bribe this year. The union, the IWA accused him of this. Why? I don't know. But it only makes common sense that between January of 1975 and the present time, many people have received salary increases; and he increased his own employees' salaries accordingly. Now he is accused of bribing the employees so that they wouldn't belong to a union. That's pretty low in my opinion for the union to resort to those kind of tactics and put up information pickets to deprive this fellow of employing people who have of their own free will decided....

HON. MR. KING: Can I ask the Member to give me details of that case so that I can have the department look at it? If he would care to give me the details of the case, I will have a look at it.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Minister, the details are before your department, before the Labour Relations Board. They filed everything with them. They have asked for in inquiry.

HON. MR. KING: But I don't receive those details from the board. If the Member would like to give me the name so that I can check and get a review and see what is going on....

MR. SMITH: I think there was harassment involved.

MR. CHABOT: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Excuse me, I was under the impression that you were prepared to let some of the votes go through tonight. Was I incorrect?

MR. CHABOT: It is late. The Minister has been quite obnoxious tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Vote 120 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.