CONTENTS

Oral questions

Availability of BCR annual report. Mr. Bennett — 3969

Production details on railcar plant. Hon. Mr. Nunweiler answers — 3969

Time limit on welfare programme. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3969

Well drilling in Grand Forks area. Mr. Wallace — 3969

Dangers resulting from dynamite theft. Mr. Fraser — 3970

ICBC strike delaying school construction. Hon. Mrs. Dailly answers — 3970

Maple Ridge building-burning. Mr. Phillips — 3970

Oil refinery studies. Mr. Gardom — 3970

Illegal airline carrier service. Hon. Mr. Strachan answers — 3971

Columbia River treaty commission. Mr. Gibson — 3971

School board liability in libel and slander suits. Mr. Wallace — 3971

Replies to questions on IOK Poultry. Hon. Mr. Stupich answers — 3971

Meetings about Jericho Park. Mr. McGeer — 3972

Cancellation of rental housing council grant. Mr. Phillips — 3972

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 84). Second reading. Hon. Mr. King — 3973

School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act (Bill 73). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3993

Report and third reading — 3995

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 135). Third reading — 3995

Municipal Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 103). Committee stage.

On section 6. Mr. Curtis — 3995

On section 8. Mr. McClelland — 3997

On section 14. Mr. Curtis — 3998

On section 16. Mr. McClelland — 3999

Amendment to section 17. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3999

Amendment to section 18. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4000

Amendment to section 19. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4000

Amendment to section 29. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4000

Report stage — 4000

Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act (Bill 1 10). Committee stage.

On section 3. Mr. Chabot — 4001

Report and third reading — 4001

Resort Municipality of Whistler Act (Bill 130). Committee, report and third reading — 4001

British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural Gas Producers Act (Bill 129). Committee stage.

On section 2. Mr. Bennett — 4001

On section 29. Mr. Chabot — 4001

On section 30. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4002

Report and third reading — 4002

Royal Roads Military College Degrees Act (Bill 12). Committee, report and third reading — 4002

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 142). Committee stage.

On section 7. Ms. Brown — 4002

Appendix — 4005

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral questions.

AVAILABILITY OF BCR ANNUAL REPORT

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister Without Portfolio as a director of the B.C. Railway. As I'm sure he's aware, it's required that the 1974 financial report be printed and published by July 1, as required under the Audit Act of British Columbia. As we're finally getting the B.C. Rail to appear before public accounts tomorrow, I wonder if the Minister can tell me how we can get a copy of the 1974 financial report, which doesn't seem to be available.

HON. A.A. NUNWEILER (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I'll be in touch later on and try and determine an answer to that question.

PRODUCTION DETAILS ON
RAILCAR PLANT

HON. MR. NUNWEILER: I would like to answer a question that was raised yesterday with respect to the car-manufacturing plant that is in operation. It started to go into operation in the latter part of March. Up to this point, the 10th car has rolled off the assembly line and the plant is manufacturing approximately one car every two days. At this point it is on schedule and is expected to produce three to four cars per day later on this fall. There's a total of 130 employees employed at this time. The first order is for 400 chip cars, and the second order is expected to be 500 bulkhead flats.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary to both the question he answered from yesterday and today. Would the Minister when finding out about the 1974 report, because the printers have yet to receive instructions to print it, make it available to all the members of public accounts in time to have this information for tomorrow morning's 8:30 meeting?

Secondly, yesterday I asked the Minister the price per chip car. Could you give us that information?

HON. MR. NUNWEILER: On the cost of chip car production, we will develop an experience. It will be readily available after the first one or two orders. So it will take some months to develop that experience to any accuracy. There was an auditor's report filed with the annual report, as this House knows. But if there are any further details that you're looking for, I'll certainly do my best to check them out.

TIME LIMIT ON WELFARE PROGRAMME

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Human Resources, who's about to leave the room. Could you just sit down? Thank you.

Could I ask the Minister, now that he's back in the room, why a limit of six months has been placed on recipients of incentive payments under the welfare incentive programme?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): The six-month time limit has always been there. It is one that can be renewed, based on the recommendation of the social worker.

It is a programme which is intended to give people the work experience, and, hopefully, have some movement through the programme into some pre-training. What we have done is to reassert the fact that there always was a six-month limit and it could be renewed, based on the recommendations.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister for his explanation of the programme, and I agree with him it's well worthwhile. But can he just simply assure us there is absolutely no change in policy with respect to the welfare incentive programme and any applications for extending a time period past the six months?

HON. MR. LEVI: No. There's no change in policy. It really is an attempt to ensure that people who need to stay on can stay on, but to remind people that there should be some movement through the programme after six months. No, it's not a change in policy.

WELL DRILLING IN GRAND FORKS AREA

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like your guidance as to whether I ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources or the Minister of Agriculture about the drilling of wells near Grand Forks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wells?

MR. WALLACE: Water wells.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'll ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I gather there's some real concern by residents in the Grand Forks area that plans are going ahead to drill wells which might interfere with established domestic water wells. I wonder what discussions have been held with the

[ Page 3970 ]

residents. Could the Minister also tell us what studies have been carried out to determine the impact of the programme? I believe it's under the ARDA agreement which might really involve the Minister of Agriculture more intimately than the Minister of Lands.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): It's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) referred this matter to Water Resources, but it hasn't received my personal attention. I understand that it's testing, but beyond that I would have to take the question as notice.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the residents of the area have the assurance that at least once the studies are completed they will be given the right to express by vote their own feelings about whether or not they want the programme in their area? They've stated that there has not been an opportunity to express in a proper vote their own opinions.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would think that would normally be the case with respect to an ARDA programme, but the Minister of Agriculture is more qualified to comment on that. The people of that area have been advised on many occasions by the staff of the water resources branch that they should apply for licensing with respect to their own ground water supply, and most of them have not done so. I would again urge them to think in those terms.

DANGERS RESULTING FROM
DYNAMITE THEFT

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I have a further question to the Minister Without Portfolio who is a director of the British Columbia Railway.

In view of the fact that 200 lbs of high-powered dynamite has recently been stolen from a sawmill at Leo Creek on the B.C. Railway, what steps have been taken by the B.C. Railway to protect and guard the right-of-way and bridges of the railroad from being blown up? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NUNWEILER: Mr. Speaker, the situation is under control. I would point out that management is taking the precautionary steps. I am not in a position to permit me to make any further comment.

MR. FRASER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If they have taken steps, what type of steps have they taken?

HON. MR. NUNWEILER: I have no comment on that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. the House Leader has a statement.

ICBC STRIKE DELAYING
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) re: were some of the school construction starts being delayed because of the ICBC strike? The answer is no.

MAPLE RIDGE BUILDING-BURNING

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Highways. Was there any urgency or justification, or any reason whatsoever, why his department would burn down a house and a barn on private property prior to a purchase agreement or exploration proceedings being completed, as was the case on May 31 and June 1 of this year in the municipality of Maple Ridge? The exact address is 17933 Lougheed Highway.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, that's the first it's come to my attention. I'll check into it and let the Member know.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary. Would the Minister, when checking into this situation, also find out for me what the latest offer to these people has been? At the present time there has been no offer, no justification for this untimely burning of these buildings.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll check that out, but usually when you start looking into these things there are always two sides.

MR. PHILLIPS: There are four sides to the house.

MR. SPEAKER: I am wondering is the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey hovering or seeking the floor?

OIL REFINERY STUDIES

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Since the headlines indicate that the Premier is very strongly considering a $350 million oil refinery, I'd ask the Hon. Minister if he's aware of the existence of any income, expense projections, market surveys, environmental studies, cost estimates, or any specific information along that line, concerning the

[ Page 3971 ]

contemplated project?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum): No. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: Well, that explains it, I guess. Is the Hon. Minister suggesting that that's just another kite being flown by the Premier?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No comment.

MR. GARDOM: Supplemental to the Hon. Minister: it is reported in the paper that the manager of Imperial Oil contemplates that the government proposal could produce an annual loss to the province of $50 million a year. I would ask the Minister if this is within the normal and anticipated loss confines for this government?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows you can't inquire whether statements in a newspaper are true.

ILLEGAL AIRLINE CARRIER SERVICE

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked me a question regarding illegal operation of an airline carrier service from Vancouver airport. I took the question as notice and found out that the information was correct. There was an application before the Motor Carrier Commission for this company to operate, but they were operating illegally. I had the Motor Carrier superintendent phone Air Canada and instruct them to immediately get a legal carrier. They assured me they will.

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY COMMISSION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, for, I guess, about the fifth or sixth time of asking: is it still the intention of the government to appoint a commission into the Columbia River treaty, and if so, when will the terms of reference and the name of the commissioner or commissioners be released?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think those matters have been covered under previous questions.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that you cannot multiply with slight variations in similar questions.

MR. GIBSON: It's been four months.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't make a supplementary on what is obviously out of order, surely.

SCHOOL BOARD LIABILITY
IN LIBEL AND SLANDER SUITS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the Minister of Education who very kindly provided me with a written answer to an earlier question regarding the long litigation case which took place in Kamloops, and where a teacher was subsequently awarded $67,000 damages.

My question relates to the fact that the Minister stated that the board has the option to pay the legal expenses of parents who were involved in the suit. Since some of the parents have been found guilty of libel and slander, could the Minister tell the House if this is customary, that school boards have this authority to pay for the legal costs of parents involved in such libel and slander suits?

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, before any answers are given on that, surely you are not asking for a legal opinion of the Minister on this question?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the policy of the Department of Education as to whether it feels that school boards should have that degree, or if they do. I am not asking an opinion. Do they or do they not have the authority under the Public Schools Act to make that kind decision?

MR. SPEAKER: That speaks for itself in the statute, surely, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No, it doesn't, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You are asking someone to interpret a statute that you helped to pass.

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON IOK POULTRY

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have taken some questions as notice with respect to IOK Poultry. In Hansard 187, page 1 the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) asked a series of seven questions with respect to equipment that was purchased.

Were tenders called? Tenders were obtained from a number of companies.

What was the price paid? The equipment has been purchased from Canadian Bird Equipment Ltd. for $135,000, and Gordon Johnson Food Equipment Ltd. for $30,000.

When was equipment purchased? In the fall of 1974.

From whom was the equipment purchased? Canadian Bird Equipment Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, and Gordon Johnson Food Equipment Ltd., St.

[ Page 3972 ]

Thomas, Ontario.

Where is it stored? At manufacturer's plants at this time.

How long has it been stored? Since fall of 1974.

What is the monthly storage cost, if applicable? Canadian Bird, $250 per month; Gordon Johnson, no charge.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked questions about reports that might have been done on this question of an interior poultry plant. I am sorry it has taken so long to get them together, but I would like to table these if I may.

Leave granted.

MEETINGS ABOUT JERICHO PARK

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Has he scheduled a meeting with the City of Vancouver with regard to the provincial government's seven acres of Jericho Park that were committed many years ago by the provincial government to the City of Vancouver on a lease basis?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There has been no request from the mayor as far as I know, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, shame!

MR. McGEER: A supplementary. Is the Minister aware that it has been long-standing City of Vancouver policy that the park be created out of this seven acres of provincial government land? Could the Minister name the alderman who passed the motion that made it city council policy?

MR. SPEAKER: Surely the Hon. Member cannot ask a Minister of this House to be responsible for what take place in another forum in another jurisdiction.

MR. McGEER: He was the author, Mr. Speaker. I think it's most appropriate.

CANCELLATION OF
RENTAL HOUSING COUNCIL GRANT

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct my question to the Acting Attorney-General. On May 7, 1975, a letter from the rent review commission to the rental housing council of British Columbia stated that the commission had approved an application for a research grant in the amount of $7,000. This research grant has now been cancelled, after the rental housing council went out and hired four UBC students. These students are going to have to be laid off if the grant doesn't become a reality. As I say, the application was approved and a letter sent to the rental housing council. I would like to ask the Acting Attorney-General if he can advise me why this grant has now been cancelled.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Acting Attorney-General, I will take that up with the Acting Minister of Finance.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had no wish to take up the time of the question period, but now it's over. I would like to inquire from your Honour how it can be that a question which simply seeks information and has been asked several times, and the information has not been forthcoming, and is asked yet once again after a lapse of some days or weeks, can possibly be ruled out of order. I'd appreciate your citation....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: This House is about to recess, we assume, in a matter of a couple of days. One is seeking information for one last time on a question on which an answer has been refused for at least four months since this so-called commission was announced.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that we follow the rules as set out in May? In that regard, Beauchesne adopts the rules set out in May and it gives a very convenient list that guides this House and guides the Speaker in determining what questions are in order.

At page 147 of Beauchesne it sets out that a question, oral or written, must not multiply with slight variations a similar question on the same point or repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused.

Therefore it falls into that category. If the Minister has made a statement to the House, the statement must be accepted. The statement that he has made was, as I understand or recollect from previous questions on this same subject, that this would be dealt with in due course. That was the answer he gave and there's nothing that one can do that I can see, other than continuing to repeat a question which is out of order, under the rules.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, for clarification, are you suggesting to me that any Minister in this House can stand up and say he will give an answer in due course and that no Member of the opposition may thereafter ask him again that question? That to me, Your Honour, is completely....

MR. SPEAKER: No, I would point out to the

[ Page 3973 ]

Hon. Member that you can remind the Minister. I always regard the asking of the question again may be taken as a reminder by the Minister. But there's no absolute mandate requiring a Minister to answer any question, as you know. Therefore in parliamentary practice I don't refuse the question being asked again. But if the Member takes it that there's an absolute right, of course he would be in error.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that there's no absolute right in answer. My submission is that it should not be out of order if it is simply asked again in a....

MR. SPEAKER: It is, I am afraid, out of order. The point is that I have always permitted it on other occasions for the simple reason that the Minister may have forgotten about the matter.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, also on the point of order, I gather that if you deem it appropriate to remind a Minister that a question has been unanswered, you'll take that course.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't take the initiative, as you'll understand. What I do, though, is point out that constant repetition of some questions when it may be that the department in some cases is investigating a matter, is reviewing a matter, is finding out the information that you require and it may take some time: it follows from that that constant repetition would be out of order.

MR. GARDOM: Well, in the event, Mr. Speaker, it had slipped the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly's) mind, could you tell her that a question has been on the order paper for 379 days?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows, and I've asked him to give me a memorandum on this that might clarify the matter to me, that a question should not be asked on the order paper that is dealing with the subject matter of what may be a very important suit between two parties, one of whom is in this House, the other a member of the public, to which a court has been given the jurisdiction to deal with the question and not this House.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, once again I have with every respect to completely contradict your assessment of this point of....

MR. SPEAKER: I am waiting very anxiously for your memorandum.

MR. GARDOM: There is absolutely nothing before the court, Mr. Speaker, dealing with that...

MR. SPEAKER: I have no knowledge of that.

MR.GARDOM: ...and the sub judice rule does not apply in this case whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be so kind as to supply the Speaker with a memorandum setting out his views on the subject so I can investigate it more fully? But sitting here in a matter of one or two seconds and having to decide a matter of what is before the court is a very difficult matter to do. I would appreciate your help.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we're going into second reading first of Bill 84, Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, and then we'll proceed on the order paper with committees and adjourned debates on second readings, as in the order paper.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that the remarks I make relative to a number of technical amendments in the Labour Code be very concise and very clear, because the Labour Relations Board as the chief administrative agency for giving effect to this law certainly does on occasion refer to the debates that took place in this House in terms of guidance and intent and the philosophy of the law. So I think it's important that the statements be precise in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour Code has been in force for about a year and a half in the Province of British Columbia now, and we've had an opportunity to make some assessment of the provisions of the Labour Code. By and large these amendments are a result of our experience with the code to date.

The amendments respond to some problems that have arisen in the application of the code. They do not represent a shift in policy, but rather an extension of the basic theme is to regulate industrial relations by an administrative agency with curative powers rather than a judicial agency with punitive powers.

The most important changes in Bill 84 are the amendments to the remedial section, the remedial authority of the Labour Relations Board. The policy

[ Page 3974 ]

advanced is to provide a wider range of alternative remedies in the law in order that a labour dispute or problem can be resolved with a remedy tailored to meet the issue at hand.

For example, arbitration sections have been amended to equip arbitrators and the Labour Relations Board with greater discretion to remedy the diverse situations that arise during the term of the collective agreement. More flexibility has been infused into the arbitration process without diminishing the need of parties to know how to conduct their own affairs and resolve their own differences under their collective agreements.

To illustrate this concept, I draw to your attention section 97 of the amendments, which has been amended to expand the use of this remedial power. The existing provision gives the board three options where the problem of delay in arbitration of the collective agreement occurs. One is to make non-binding recommendations for settlement of the issue. Two, they are empowered to refer the dispute to a specific stage of the grievance procedure of the collective agreement and, three, the third option, they are permitted to request the Minister to appoint a special officer.

These important options under the new amendment will be available not only in cases where there is a delay, but in all cases where industrial unrest results from the dispute.

These amendments continue our policy of regulating industrial relations by an administrative institution composed of representatives of the two constituent groups, labour and management. This approach requires some amendments to clarify the institutional framework of the Labour Code.

When the code was introduced in the first instance in this House for second reading, I pointed out that the board is uniquely equipped, both in its flexible structure and by the expertise of the personnel on the board, to understand and sensibly regulate the dynamic collective bargaining process. It was for that reason that the code took the significant step, which was deemed unusual and far-reaching at that time, of vesting in the Labour Relations Board the comprehensive and embracing authority of regulating the laws pertaining to industrial relations rather than leaving those authorities with the court.

At the same time, and for similar reasons, the code placed important restrictions on the extent to which the court could become involved in labour relations matters. I want to give the House, Mr. Speaker, a concrete illustration of the advantage of the administrative solution over the judicial solution in industrial relations problems.

I draw this example from an actual case that occurred during the past year. In this instance an employee disobeyed a rule of management with which he disagreed during the term of the collective agreement. As a result, he was fired from the job. The union took the position that the management rule relating to overtime was unfair because it was a breach of the collective agreement. Management disagreed. Without seeking arbitration, the union went on a wildcat strike.

Under the old judicial approach to this kind of problem, an injunction ordering the strikers to cease their illegal activity was the only remedy. The court would have no authority to deal with the underlying grievance relating to the interpretation of the collective agreement.

However, under the Labour Code, in this actual case, the Labour Relations Board was able to give a cease and desist order against the illegal strike, but also to give an order resolving the matter of whether the individual fired was fired for just cause or not, and to further issue an order interpreting the overtime provision of the collective agreement.

So it wasn't a narrow judicial approach to the dispute. It was an approach which allowed the board not only to remedy the strictly legalistic question, but also to come to grips with the root causes of that manifestation.

This kind of comprehensive and interrelated treatment of labour relations problems has proved to be the strength of the Labour Code and it is one of the important innovations of the approach. Therefore it is imperative under the plan of the Labour Code that the Labour Relations Board have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with industrial disputes.

I am not suggesting that the courts are incapable of sound judgment on industrial relations matters — far from it. Rather, the exclusion of the courts is based on the need for a different institutional framework capable of dealing with a wide variety of problems that are all interrelated and, in dispensing remedies, sensitive to the dynamic nature of collective bargaining.

Let me illustrate the extension of the basic policy of the code that's inherent in the amendments before the House today. First I will deal with the amendments affecting the board and then those affecting the arbitrator's authority.

The new code, section 28 and section 8 of the bill, consolidates all of the board's present remedial authority. In other words, they are not restricted in the type of remedy they can apply to an individual case. The effect is that the board's immediate areas not limited by the type of complaint before it, quite simply. At present if an unfair labour practice complaint allows the board to act in one way, complaints alleging violations of other sections of the code allow the board to act in quite another way. These remedies are now consolidated and can be used on any complaint.

There are no artificial restrictions on the type of remedy the board can order. No party will be

[ Page 3975 ]

frustrated because it failed to present its complaint under the most appropriate and most advantageous section of the code. The board is to be given some new remedial authority. It can refuse an order in any case if it thinks it is just and equitable to do so. It can order compensation for any party injured as a result of a breach of the code, but it does not have the authority in relation to conduct regulated by part 5, which is the strikes and lockout section of the code — also the picketing provisions. This authority is reserved for the courts, which are more expert in calculating large losses, particularly business losses. Even there, however, the board must give its consent to the court proceedings in order to advance the purpose of solving problems, not punishing offenders.

Lastly, the board will be given a general authority to design appropriate remedies for each case. The remedies, of course, must be curative and not punitive, and they must also further the policies and objectives stated in the code. For the arbitration process the remedial authority of arbitrators is codified and arbitrators are given new powers. Arbitrators, we hope, will be able to exercise these new powers more in keeping with the philosophy of the code. The purpose is to make the arbitration a more desirable alternative than illegal work stoppages in responding to disputes.

Among the new powers given to arbitrators is the authority to overlook technicalities such as breaches of the time limits in the grievance procedure and to look beyond the narrow questions submitted to them by the grieving party. A narrowly drafted question or submission to an arbitrator will no longer prevent an arbitrator from resolving the real matter in dispute.

Another new amendment grants arbitrators the power to award compensation. An arbitral award telling a party he has been wrongly dealt with but not offering any relief other than sympathy for all or part of his loss is no substitute for direct job action in the eyes of a trade union. If arbitration is to be a method and a procedure for resolving rights disputes without resorting to work stoppages, the aggrieved party must be able to get just satisfaction from the arbitrator. The changes in the proposed section 98 are directed precisely toward that end.

Before the code was enacted, the courts were confronted with a frustrating dilemma. They were frequently called upon to rule on the legality or the illegality of a particular form of behaviour by one of the parties to a collective bargaining relationship without ever being able to deal with or resolve the underlying problems, the tensions and so on — the root causes that created the dispute in the first instance.

Let me give another example to illustrate the point, but let me say first that the roles of the parties in this example could just as easily be reversed. I am not pointing the finger at either party. In the example that I shall use, Mr. Speaker, an employer — I don't want to name the employer but his initials are "Sandman Inn" — consistently refused to hire workmen whom he knew were involved with a trade union. The employer is hiring construction tradesmen in this situation.

Of course, the nature of that industry makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for a union to organize by the traditional techniques, due to the short tenure of the job, due to the lack of any continuing relationship between the workers and the employer.

So in this case, one union recognizes that the employer is consistently discriminating against its members because they are union members, and it becomes increasingly frustrated by the employer's conduct.

Finally, the union puts up a picket line around the project and the construction comes to a halt. This situation is a classic illustration of the reason why the Labour Relations Board now has total jurisdiction over all aspects of labour disputes.

Before the code was enacted, as soon as an employer saw the pickets, he's have headed down the block to the courthouse and he'd have obtained an injunction, probably an ex parte injunction, and the courts would have had affidavits before them declaring that the union was not even certified, let alone in a legal strike position. The court would have had little choice legally except to grant the order restraining the picketing. That would be the legal question before them.

In the situation I'm talking about, the court would never even have had an opportunity to hear about the real underlying reasons for the union's behaviour. Even if the court did know the problem, it would have no authority to deal effectively with that problem. Circumstances like these and a host of others provided the rationale for the original decision to remove the courts from involvement with the regulation of industrial relations in this province.

After a year and a half of experience now, under the new code, the government is persuaded that the original policy decision was a wise one. In the proposed amendments to this bill, the government seeks to do two things basically. First, we wish to clarify the precise line that divides the board's jurisdiction from that of the courts, in dealing with matters that are now under the exclusive jurisdiction of the board.

Second, and consistent with the same basic policy, we wish to ensure that the board is the final decision-making authority in the area of industrial and arbitration law.

The first of these objectives will be achieved by a minor reorganization of the present sections 31 and 32 of the code. One of the few significant changes will be the addition of the proposed section 32(2).

[ Page 3976 ]

Late in the first year of its operations, the Labour Relations Board decide in the case of Canex Placer Ltd., Endako Mines Division, that it did not have the jurisdiction under the code to regulate industrial conflict that was in violation of criminal law.

Provincial quasi-criminal statutes are the common law regarding personal property damage. In those areas, the board said the authority of the court should remain inviolate. That was the intent of the code as first enacted and that is the thrust of the additional subsection 32(2) proposed in section 8 of the bill. It clarifies the court's jurisdiction to grant relief in cases where a strike, picketing or lockout is conducted in such a manner that it creates an immediate threat of injury to a person, or an actual obstruction or physical damage to property.

Other changes in the specific format of sections 31 and 32, I'll be able to discuss in more detail with the House in committee on the bill.

The intent in each of these cases is to ensure that the board has control over every aspect of labour disputes. Such control is necessary, in my view, if we are to achieve a fair resolution of those disputes.

There is one final point relating to the continuing jurisdiction of the courts. The present section 34(2) of the code excludes the courts from review of decisions made by the board within its jurisdiction under the code. One area over which the board is not, and should not be immune from judicial review is that of constitutional jurisdiction. Obviously the courts must remain supreme in that field. In this area, the jurisdiction of the courts is to interpret the British North America Act, and it must remain supreme.

To avoid any ambiguity on this point, the bill proposes in section 8 to qualify the present section 34(2) by adding words that will make it crystal clear that the board's decisions where they relate to the constitutional jurisdiction of the board are not immune from review.

The board's exclusive domain, as it was intended from the outset, will remain in the field of labour relations and the bill will make that point precisely.

A further objective of this bill, Mr. Speaker, as far as the board's authority is concerned, is to place in the hands of the board the power to act as the policy-making appeal tribunal of arbitration under collective agreement.

The bill does not — I repeat it does not — purport to usurp the vital function of arbitrators in the province as the primary agency for resolving disputes arising during the course of the collective agreement. Likewise the bill does not restrict the jurisdiction of the court of appeal to review arbitration decisions based on legal conclusions that are within the special competence of the court.

I'm referring to arbitral awards that decide points of general law, not related to labour relations or policy or arbitration procedures. Over such questions of general law the courts will retain their jurisdiction. Where issues involving labour relations policy or the interpretation of the code are decided by arbitrators, in this case, however, the board should have the power to ensure that sound and sensible decisions are fairly reached.

To achieve that goal the bill will make the Labour Relations Board the final appeal tribunal for arbitral decisions that are reached after an unfair hearing as in the case of an arbitrator having acting improperly or where such decisions are inconsistent with good labour relations policy. This change advances the basic policy established when the code was first enacted.

The board and arbitrators are given guides to the purposes for which they are able to exercise their authority. The board's guidelines are in section 8 of the bill — the new section 27(l) of the code. The legislative directive to the arbitrators is in section 22 of the bill, the next sections 90(22 and 23) of the code.

Again, protection of the public interest has been another important theme of the Labour Code and some new amendments are contained in the bill before the House which have been introduced in this bill to ensure that services vital to health and safety are not interrupted by strikes or lock-outs.

Section 73 of the code is amended to require upon Ministerial intervention the designation of life-supporting services provided by firefighter, police and hospital unions.

Some of the policy extensions in this bill are not institutional completely. These include repeal of the exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the jurisdiction of the code. This amendment is in keeping with the report of the justice and labour committee of the House and representations to the government by various parties over the past number of years.

Another is the prohibition. In section 6 of the bill against expulsion or suspension of an individual from a union for the sole reason of dual unionism.

This amendment furthers the intent of the code that an employee should be free to join a union and participate in its activities and that employees should be free to change their union representation. These and other similar amendments I will speak of in more detail when the House deals with the bill in a more exhaustive fashion in committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are one or two things I'd like to mention at this stage in second reading.

Interjection.

[ Page 3977 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, perhaps I did not hear. Was there a movement to adjourn from the Minister? I would be happy to proceed. I was a little confused. Somebody mentioned adjournment and I wasn't too sure whether the Minister was suggesting it or the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) was suggesting it. I have no wish to adjourn it.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the Minister that most of these details can be dealt with in committee but there are one or two points that I would like to comment upon at the present time.

First, I quite agree with bringing in agricultural workers under the provisions of the code. I think it's high time that agricultural workers were treated like other workers as far as that is possible, given in different nature of their employment. I think, however, that one of the first things that comes out of the Minister's statement to us today is the recognition of many of the problems that were discussed at the second reading of the Labour Code originally and in particular during the discussion last August during the firefighters' strike.

Section 73(7) which he talked about is a welcome admission of the problem of what the Minister has called "life-supporting services." It's something that we welcome. We find it difficult however, to understand why the principles of this were not properly understood by the Minister earlier on when these points were raised at the discussion of the Labour Code itself.

I think the Minister should recognize that the right to strike in life-supporting services — police, fire, ambulance crews, driver and other ambulance workers — is essentially illusory. You cannot allow people in positions such as that to strike, as we discovered last summer when the government moved so quickly to end a strike.

There are problems involved in this legislation which we will be discussing clause-by-clause, one of which is the invasion of privacy which seems to take place, particularly in section 3 which is section 4(2)(B) of the Act itself. There seems to be some problem in section 7, institutionalizing bad practice, as far as we can see — where people do not receive the right to review all evidence.

I appreciate the comments of the Minister with respect to strikes and slowdowns and similar activity. The fact is that slowdowns can be just as damaging as strikes. I think that this bill is getting along to recognizing that particular fact.

I was surprised that the Minister did not comment more on the success or otherwise of the bill itself. I thought when he brought his amendments to the original code that he would be indicating the number of days lost on strike, the areas of success, the areas of failure of the code, where he has been disappointed and where he has been very happy. We had a catalogue of amendments, but no overview of the success of the code in terms of the statistics by which we could readily measure this legislation against those previous.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is worth pointing out that in the first quarter of 1975, breakdowns in labour-management negotiations resulted in 50 disputes involving 12,518 employees and accounting for a net loss of more than a quarter-million man-days. That's in the first quarter of this year. These figures are substantially above the 1974 experience where in the first quarter 35 disputes took place, involving 11,266 workers and resulting in a loss of only 172,627 man-days. The most critical figure, I guess, is man-days lost. In the first quarter of 1974, 172,627 were lost; in 1975's first quarter, 255,348. I wonder whether the Minister, in closing the debate, would be a little more expansive, if you like, about the reason for this rather dramatic increase in the first quarter of this year.

Mr. Speaker, again in principle, one point I would like to mention is the continued erosion of the use of the courts. I recognize we are dealing with special problems. I recognize that total reliance upon courts has not been successful in the past when dealing with labour disputes. The Minister's examples that he gave us indicated definitely that this was the case; the courts were unable to take advantage of all the information that the Minister indicated they should be looking at in certain situations.

The principle of dividing up rights and privileges into a whole series of different boards and independent authorities, and not having one consistent system of law governing society, is one that we would like to look into very closely as we go through the clause-by-clause. Admittedly, the Minister has indicated that in certain circumstances it may be necessary. We can accept the fact that there will be cases where it is necessary. But as a general principle, this withdrawal from the court system, in this area as well as others, by this government is something that we oppose. We do feel that the court system applying to all citizens equally should be something that should be protected. We don't want to see this authority, that authority and yet another authority being set up, acting in a way in which they could totally ignore the normal law governing normal citizens, and where they ignore the normal systems governing other people.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned that the rights of the court of appeal are not restricted. I think that is one point I would like to debate with him in committee stage. It appears to me that the right of the court of appeal will be severely restricted and later on we will be discussing that matter.

Given that, I trust that we will be getting from the Minister some overall view of the success of the legislation itself. It is difficult to judge the

[ Page 3978 ]

amendments until we can judge where the problem areas have been. It is difficult to judge the problem areas unless the Minister is willing to be candid with us and indicate where his hopes and aspirations in this area have not been fulfilled.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I think that in detail, one would need to look at the bill very much more closely in committee reading. But in talking to principle in the bill, it is quite clear that the Minister outlined the primary purpose of the amendment — to make it very clear that the Labour Relations Board is the final authority on all labour-management disputes.

As I see it, the Minister has said that there are only two areas in which the courts are really involved, and that is where points of law can be challenged or where the constitutional aspects of the board's function can be challenged. I don't know if that is the correct interpretation, but I made some pretty careful notes as the Minister was speaking. He pointed out that the main function of the amendment is to clarify the precise line dividing the board from the courts. Secondly, to ensure that the board is the final decision-making authority.

Now this may be the 1975 approach, which is worthwhile. From his general comments I gather the Minister feels that progress to date goes suggest, from the examples he's quoted, that this is the direction in which we should go. I think time alone will tell to what degree that is a successful philosophy and policy.

Nevertheless, I'm sure the Minister realizes the very fundamental change of direction which is involved in taking these matters out of the courts. We may perhaps go into some of the details section-by-section later on, but it is my understanding that this code could still be challenged per se on constitutional grounds inasmuch as the board, in effect, appoints members with authority or jurisdiction that would be given to a supreme court judge by the federal government. Yet the Labour Relations Board appoints individuals who have that same kind of authority, who are not supreme court judges, and who are not recognized as such by the federal government. These matters, normally, could only be dealt with under the jurisdiction of a supreme court judge.

The last thing I am trying to set myself up as is any kind of an expert on a very tricky subject, but my advisers tell me this is a constitutional issue which exists in the Labour Code, that the kind of authority given to the members of the Labour Relations Board is the kind of authority which, under the BNA Act, is given only to supreme court judges appointed by the federal government. Therefore the jurisdiction which is being given to Labour Relations Board members by the Minister under this code could well be challenged as being unconstitutional. Now we may get into that in detail, or it may be that the Minister has a simple answer.

The other important principle in this bill is that section 32 gives the courts the right to award damages as a result of illegal strikes and lockouts. Again, according to the advice I have, it has been somewhat open to question as to whether the courts still retained the right to award damages for illegal strikes and lockouts. As the Minister has pointed out, again in the notes I made, the amendment makes it clear that unless the Labour Relations Board says that the court has this power, then in fact it does not have the power.

I wonder if the Minister can either confirm or correct this impression that I have gained from his comments today, that under the amendment to section 32, the courts only have the right to award damages for an illegal strike or lockout if the Labour Relations Board says they have that right. If that is the case, there again we have to express concern on this side of the House about this very extensive, exclusive jurisdiction which has been granted to the Labour Relations Board in the original code, and which is not only clarified, as the Minister points out, by defining the line, but in fact it seems there is precious little left at all to the courts in the whole area of matters covered by the Labour Code.

There are other sections of the bill that can probably be better dealt with later. But I think there is also confusion as to the route of appeal. The difficulty can arise where a person or a party appeals to the Labour Relations Board and then discovers the appeal should have been directed to the courts. The Labour Relations Board has the authority to decide whether the appeal can, in fact, then go to the courts. Again I would like the Minister's clarification on that — I forget the exact section. At any rate, it is the question of the appeal mechanisms and whether or not it is clearly explained in the new amendments the route which the appellant should follow — taking the appeal to the Labour Relations Board or to the courts, and running the risk, as I understand it, that if the appeal is lodged in the first instance in the wrong jurisdiction, this may preclude the possibility of future appeals.

There are many other points, as I say, Mr. Speaker. I think the fundamental point has been very well stated by the Minister, and that is the issue of the bill — whether or not in good faith, by trying to give such total power to the Labour Relations Board to the exclusion of the courts, we run the very serious risk of eroding the rights of individuals to take their problems to the courts in an established and traditional manner.

I don't think we should be pushing that step to the ultimate unless we are absolutely convinced that the previous route in the courts has been such a failure

[ Page 3979 ]

that the pendulum should swing right over to this degree, that access to the courts is such a very narrow part of the total spectrum of labour-management relations.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, the other Members have made it quite clear that the sections of the bill can best be dealt with in committee stage. No one has yet dealt with the bill in principle, which is really the proper thing we should be doing in second reading.

I intend during committee stage to spend some time talking about a variety of sections explaining my particular point of view on those sections. What I want to do this afternoon is try to put the bill into some sort of philosophical perspective dealing with what I think is the principle contained. Some Members would argue that, in fact, there is no principle, that rather this is only a series of amendments that do not have a connecting thread. In my reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a connecting thread through the majority of the amendments; it's a connecting thread that leads to a conclusion that I'm not particularly happy about.

All Members of the House are aware that when the original Bill 11 was introduced a year and a half ago now, or whatever it was, I had some serious reservations about the direction that that bill was leading us. I had some more serious reservations about several sections. I expressed that reservation directly on the floor of the House by voting against some sections.

Mr. Speaker, at the time, I was concerned that there was a potential that Bill 11, the Labour Code, was not in fact doing what it was said to be doing. One of the things that we campaigned on in the electoral campaign was to say that labour relations should be removed from the courts — that the court system cannot effectively, properly or fairly deal with labour relations. There is, in fact, very little disagreement about that. So what we did was to try to erect an alternative vehicle to avoid having the courts involved in labour relations. It was my fear then, Mr. Speaker, that the Labour Relations Board as it was structured could well become nothing more than another court and, in fact, we wouldn't have solved the problem.

I did have some hope that that wouldn't happen, that the labour board would be composed of people whose business it was on a day-to-day basis to engage themselves in labour and management responsibilities, particularly as they relate to collective bargaining and organizational efforts.

Unfortunately, the trend has been to not involve those kinds of people solely, but to add a component that I think is being very dangerous and I think leads us back to the old days of the court system. That is the legal component on the Labour Relations Board. I don't intend to get into a discussion of how many and whether or not those people, in fact are looking at labour relations problems from the point of view of the law as opposed to the point of view of day-to-day labour relations problems. It seems to me and it seems to people who have to work with the board every day that decisions are being made not on the basis of how you solve the problem on a day-to-day basis between the two parties, because those are the two parties that have to live with the solution, but rather on the basis of some legalistic solution.

To go back to my opening remarks, the thread that I see running through these amendments, Mr. Speaker, is the thread that suggests that those people on the Labour Relations Board, particularly the lawyers, do not have enough of the powers they think they need to properly, from their point of view, police labour-management relationships. I see in amendment after amendment in this proposed bill a strengthening of the position of the people who would argue that the legal decision, the legal precedent, the proper way of doing things is the important route, rather than what I see as the important route — that is, to arrive at a solution that both parties are satisfied with.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The marital analogy.... I know that the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has yet in this House in my experience to show any awareness of labour relations problems, so I expect some heckling from him. That's par for the course from the lawyers.

Mr. Speaker, it's a trite and old analogy to talk about marital relationships and how they relate directly to labour relationships. I think that everyone in this House and everyone in this province would agree that no third party should go into a marriage and tell one party or the other how to regulate their affairs. Nor would we expect, Mr. Speaker, some third party to go into a marriage to rectify some small problems that that marriage is having. That's the kind of direction that I see this bill going, particularly with these amendments.

We are, in this bill, giving arbitration boards and the Labour Relations Board the power to alter collective agreements that have been freely reached between parties. I think that is wrong; philosophically, I think that is a wrong direction to take. The basic premise that all of this is related upon seems to me to be the idea that labour and management are equal in this society and that what we need is a referee.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Members of the opposition will probably hoot and will certainly

[ Page 3980 ]

disagree when I say that in fact the relationship between capital and labour in this society in North America is very much like sending a flyweight up against a heavyweight. You don't have a referee in that kind of boxing match. Frankly, that's the kind of situation we have here. Despite all of the propaganda in the media, despite all of the speeches made by corporate representatives, despite all of the speeches made by Members of the three opposition parties, there is not an equality between labour and management.

In the first place, in this country only one-third of the people even belong to unions. In many of those cases they belong to small unions that have to deal with multinational corporations. There is no equality in this society. If we begin to deal with labour relations from the point of view of acting as a referee between two equal forces, then we've made the first mistake that leads us down the road to more mistakes. That's what I suggest is happening in this bill.

Now it seems to me that the way to get at labour relations is on an ad hoc basis. That's the position that our party took for years when we were in opposition. We argued against the mediation commission because we said you cannot have a third party that is sitting there ready to come in with both sides knowing it's ready to come in.

The philosophy that parallels that, Mr. Speaker, is the one relating to the resolution of disputes, whether those disputes are at the end of a contract or whether those disputes are during the lifetime of a contract. If a third party is there ready to solve the problem, often the solution is satisfactory to neither party, and often the solution when it's reached is reached with much resentment on the part of one side or the other. If industrial relations are to be harmonious, if that's the goal, then there needs to be when the resolution of the dispute is finished an acceptance and an understanding on the part of both parties that they have gone their best licks, they have got all there is to get from the other side and that's it, and they're going to have to live with it for a predetermined period of time.

But when you begin to put in a third party with increasing powers — and that's what this bill does to the Labour Relations Board — what will happen is that when resolutions are reached as the result of the interference from that board, then a dispute will longer, it will fester and it will make more difficult bargaining in the future.

MR. WALLACE: What's the alternative, Colin?

MR. GABELMANN: The alternative? I'm coming to that. I think I do have an alternative. When we have particularly difficult labour problems in this province, what do we do? We find a person who is highly respected by both sides — not to go in with any legislative mandate, not to go in with any predetermined rules set by the cabinet or the House or by the Premier or by the Labour Minister. We find the kind of person — and there are some in this province who can do it — who can go in and make sure that the two parties can bargain together. That kind of situation can relate to the straight contract bargaining, and it can relate to difficulties that arise during the lifetime of agreements. That's the solution: not to have someone imposed but to have someone there providing assistance.

Going back to the marital analogy, you don't have someone come into the marriage when you know that it's breaking down, as we know. We see marriages breaking down all around us. We don't suggest to the Minister or to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) for that matter, or to any other person in this society that when he sees a marriage breaking down he should shoot in a trouble-shooter. The only time a trouble-shooter will be effective is when those parties to that marriage are prepared to ask for and accept the advice and use that third person that they feel satisfied with.

Now I know it's trite and I know it's been said before and I feel that it gets repetitious in the House, but that analogy is accurate, it's appropriate and it should be thought about more by Members from all sides of this Legislature. I think what we've tried to do is to assume that the government can provide magic solutions to problems that are in fact very, very difficult. They're problems that don't lend themselves to solutions from outside parties.

My fear, Mr. Speaker — and I'll be brief because I hadn't meant to speak for more than 10 minutes, and I did want to speak more in committee stage — is that these amendments are strengthening the power of the Labour Relations Board. My fear is that they will lead to the situation where both parties — and I want to emphasize both parties, labour and management in this province, are going to be leery of the Labour Relations Board, are going to be avoiding it whenever possible, are not going to be seeking its assistance, because they're worried about what the Labour Relations Board can do to them.

The small unions will be worried about whether the Labour Relations Board can put them in with a bigger unit against their will, and that kind of distrust of the Labour Relations Board will spell the end, will spell the doom of that Labour Relations Board.

If the Members of this House really believe that the Labour Relations Board route as an alternative to the court system is the way to go, then you don't add to its powers the powers that I suspect are already too much. You don't add to those powers to the point where both parties no longer feel comfortable and no longer will want to seek the advice, or assistance, or help from that Labour Relations Board.

[ Page 3981 ]

I think that's all I want to say at this time, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I'd like to commence by paying a tribute to the words just spoken by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). I disagree with a good deal of what he said for reasons that I'll explain in a moment, but I think that because of the great experience that he has in the labour movement, and the sincerity with which he approaches this subject, that his words are to be treated with a great deal of respect.

I would first of all say a few things about the principle of the bill that he was discussing.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

As I see it, there are perhaps three principles I'd like to touch on briefly. The first is what you might call the dispute resolution mechanism; the second, the question of balance of power; and the third, the question of third party effect.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour was principally dealing with the dispute resolution mechanism and finding problems with the labour board because, in his view, it was acquiring too much of the trappings of a court, and the procedures of a court.

I would suggest to the Hon. Member that first of all it's not a court. Even if it were, there are all kinds of courts ranging from the Supreme Court to say, the family courts, the system of family courts that one would like to set up all over B.C., a kind of a personal and humane and compassionate sort of institution.

It would seem to me that the labour board can be what its personalities and its own internal processes make it. But surely due process is as important in the area of labour law as anywhere else. Due process is something that is a little hard to achieve if the approach is purely one of being ad hoc.

Without a certain body of precedent and without some consistency in decision-making principles in the field of labour disputes, it's difficult to have a guide to the future, and this perhaps is one of the areas whereby the analogy between labour relations and a marriage is not 100 per cent exact. Each individual marriage tends to be a thing unto itself, not necessarily looking to other marriages for precedents about the way disputes ought to be resolved. Labour law is unavoidably perhaps more fought out in the public amphitheatre. Much of it never becomes public, the matter of public knowledge in the field.

I agree with him 100 per cent with respect to the sanctity of freely arrived-at contracts and the power to vary those contracts worries me a great deal. More of that when the clause involved comes up.

When the Hon. Member suggested that the answer was what he called an ad hoc basis, I think that that's a fair description of that approach to things. But I just can't agree, because it seems to me that with any institution in society with power there must go a concomitant responsibility and a major labour dispute in the Province of British Columbia is something that affects many more lives than the breakdown of one marriage. The breakdown of one marriage is a tragic thing to the partners, and to the children, and to the friends and so on, but a major labour dispute affects far more lives, and with that kind of power, it seems to me inevitable that some kind of systemized public dispute-solving machinery is necessary.

With respect to what seems to me to be the second question of principle, that of balance of power between the protagonists in the labour field, this bill does no some direction to redress some of the inequities of balance of power. For example, agriculture and domestic workers.

It doesn't, in my view, go far enough in another area to talk about industries where the balance of power is essentially on the other side. Here again, I am perhaps in disagreement with the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, because I believe there are industries where in effect the trade unions tend to have the upper hand.

Let's look, for example, at the situation in the food industry. I've no intention of discussing the particular demands in the negotiations that are under way right now, but only the balance of power situation. In the food industry, the companies really have little alternative but to exceed to the demands made on them because, first of all, it doesn't cost them a great deal. They can pass on the amount of the settlements to the consuming public. People will continue to eat food — they must — and will continue to pay more or less the prices demanded.

On the other hand, they can't really afford a shutdown as much as many industries because profit margins are relatively thin. While people in this House will vary on the extent of the profit margins in the food industry as a percentage of sales, I think most would agree. There is not a great deal of absorption capacity there.

So we have a situation here where the balance of power is perhaps out of whack on the other side. Without going further into that situation, I would commend to the Minister the possibility as he is bringing in amendments to this bill, as presumably will be brought in year after year by this or whatever Minister might succeed him, that that subject of balance of power receive more attention.

The balance of power question is not only a static one, it is a dynamic one. We have in our society, and particularly in British Columbia, an importantly-changing balance of power. We have a

[ Page 3982 ]

situation where persons involved in the service sector of the economy and particularly government — if I may refer to government as an industry or as an employer — are tremendously gaining in importance.

Opposed to that, we have the traditional relationship in British Columbia where the goods-producing, and particularly the export goods-producing, the forestry and mining industries in our province, on a relative basis have less power.

So we see a situation where the industries and the unions in those industries that used to be able to get a greater claim on our society on a percentage basis are declining in relative power and others are going up. This is leading to an enormous amount of discontent and friction.

Again, without commenting further on the merits of it, one has only to look at the forest industry situation in British Columbia today which is a direct case example of this kind of changing balance of power and relationship of the service- and goods-producing industries in our society.

Again, I suggest that this Minister or his successor will in years to come have to bring in amendments which will find ways to smooth this changing importance of the industrial sectors. I wish I had some suggestions for him, Mr. Speaker. I confess to having none except to say that it is important that it be studied and done.

The final principle of this bill that I would discuss briefly is that of third party effects. This bill does make a laudable step forward in the restriction of third party effects as far as essential services are concerned. I think that is very important. I commend the Minister for his recognition of that principle.

I would extend on from there and suggest that again, in the future, and in other amendments, ways must be found to minimize third party effects of individual disputes.

Surely one of the classics in this province is one that this House had to be asked to solve by legislation. That was the elevator dispute wherein a relatively few companies and individuals in their own individual dispute tied up literally thousands of other working people and millions of dollars worth of construction in this province over a long period of time. The third party effects were far beyond the intrinsic merits of the dispute.

Too often, parties to the dispute, whether on one side or the other, will attempt to enlist as an unwilling ally on their side of the bargaining table, the public interest in one way or another in the sense of the public demanding that solutions be found and imposed by a third party, usually by the government.

The government will find its own task easier over the years if it is able to find ways and means of minimizing these third party effects. With those few comments in principle, Mr. Speaker, I hope to have more to contribute during the committee stage.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my remarks along a similar vein to my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). I have the same feelings about this legislation as he does. In fact, I almost feel like I am giving this speech over again. It takes me back to a couple of years ago when we had the Bill 11 debate on labour in this chamber. The same things I felt then I feel now in dealing with these amendments.

At the outset, however, I would like to comment on the statements made by the previous speaker. It appears from what he had to say that in fact the Liberal lawyers are supporting the legalistic system embodied in this bill.

I think this actually confirms that basically whether the Liberals are lawyers or not, it's a legalistic charge we keep getting from that Liberal group. It confirms my feeling that we are developing somewhat of a bureaucratic and legalistic system through these amendments as it pertains to the previous legislation we have already passed.

The previous speaker also talked about not going far enough with the balance of power with the other side where trade unions have the upper hand. In stating that he mentioned the forest industry which I find rather amusing. He mentioned the food industry as well but he also mentioned the forest industry and I found that rather interesting.

Interjection.

MR. STEVES: Okay, but you were suggesting though that the forest industry was a bit hard-pressed, I think.

Interjection.

MR. STEVES: Okay, well, that's where I disagree with you. He suggests then that it's a historically-centred industry which is relatively less powerful. I'm not sure whether he was referring to the forest industry being less powerful or the workers in the industry being less powerful, but I suggest to you that the forest industry is probably one of the most powerful industries that we have in the province along with the mining industry.

The forest industry at the present time....

Interjection.

MR. STEVES: Well, if you listen you'll hear why.

The forest industry at the present time is in the position of offering workers very limited increases strictly on cost-of-living allowances and so on, because the forest industry is an international type of industry.

The forest industry, like the mining industry, when it has arguments with workers, always has the

[ Page 3983 ]

option of closing down their operations in areas like British Columbia and exploiting the workers elsewhere in the world.

Quite often, countries like South America are exploited to the detriment of working people up in British Columbia and I can give you a specific example of the copper mines in South America, when prices get too high in B.C., and when the workers are put down like they were in Chile, they simply re-open operations down there and close the ones down here in British Columbia.

This is the kind of power that the big international corporations have that I think is probably some of the most powerful forces that are exerted by industry and in our province.

Now, with regard to the principle of the bill, I'm really pleased — in fact I'm extremely pleased to see the section regarding professionals, domestic and agriculture workers being included under the Labour Act.

Like the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour I fought long and hard to get that amendment put in and in fact that was one of the clauses that both of us voted against in the bill 11 debate because those workers were not covered by the labour legislation.

It grieves me very much then to find this very desirable amendment included with a large number of amendments that I find it very difficult to support in the rest of the bill.

When you look at the amendments very closely, that are embodied in this bill, you find that many of them are very, very simple. But when combined together in the context of the legislation which has already been adopted by this Legislature in the past, that we see basically that first-off I would suggest that the amendments are really unnecessary and secondly, that the amendments when added up and analyzed carefully show that there will be a considerable centralization of powers in the Labour Relations Board. They show increased compulsion on the part of the Labour Relations Board and they show, in my opinion, a drift towards the labour court system.

The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour has made some comments on that already. Basically we have already seen appointments to the Labour Board — lawyers. We see the Labour Board operating in a very legalistic manner and this legislation that we're being asked to vote upon today has a tendency to a system whereby we will have a third party operating similar to a court of justice, not entirely the same but similar to a court of justice, and the labour unions and management both presenting their cases with highly paid skillful lawyers.

I think this is something that some of us were hoping to avoid when initial legislation was brought in, but these amendments, to me, show a tendency of going in this direction.

We have just in this province gotten away from the court of justice system that Social Credit brought in. We've gotten away from Bill 33 and Bill 42 and all the anti-labour legislation....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STEVES: We've got away from ex parte injunctions, but it appears that we are now substituting a labour court instead.

It seems that the philosophy of the bill as already has been mentioned, is one that indicates that employers and management are on an equal footing and if the Labour Relations Board then would recognize that employers and management are on an equal footing, that they have equal stature.

I would like to suggest, as I mentioned in my initial remarks that this is not the case. In the case of the forest industry and in the case of mining industry and various other industries this is not the case. I suggest that this is a failure to take into account that actually the trade union movement is a movement for social justice and social change in the province and has been for some time. It's historically so.

Actually the objectives of the trade union movement have been very much part and parcel of the same objectives of our party — of the social democratic, the socialist movement in this Province — going back many, many years. I feel that this philosophy is trying to put them on an equal footing when actually the management, the industry, actually has a bigger shoe, is wrong and that actually by trying to do so we are giving the upper hand to the big international companies.

I'm not going to go into any detail on the actual clauses at this time. I am concerned, having negotiated on behalf of the teachers in my area for the clause outlining "work to rule as a form of strike." At the present time under the Act it is basically just a misdemeanor and you get your knuckles rapped if you use it, but it is not outlined as a strike. This puts the work-to-rule clause into the position of being illegal if it's carried out. I think this is wrong. When we discuss the legislation later on clause by clause, I think I can give some concrete examples of how work-to-rule has been used, certainly in the references that I have been dealing with.

I am also concerned about the clauses dealing with dual unionism. Combined with the Christian conscience clause and so on, I feel that this could be construed as a first step toward right-to-work laws. I'm very concerned about any drift that might go in that direction.

Finally, I would like to comment on the compulsory aspects of the bill pertaining to councils of industry in relationship, particularly, to the firemen, policemen and so on. Last summer we had a

[ Page 3984 ]

very unfortunate situation where the Legislature was called to deal with the firemen. I was very much disturbed about it at the time. I didn't vote against the bill. Actually, I didn't vote for it or against it; I absented myself from the chamber at that particular time. I received some criticism for doing so from people in my own party who said: "Either you've got to be for it or against it. If you don't stand up and be counted when you feel strongly about something, then you're doing the wrong thing." I accept that criticism for what I did at that time.

I would like to say that I am very disturbed with the way that was brought in and subsequent actions that took place after that. It was then that the firemen in my area, who had considerably better benefits than the firemen in Vancouver, initially lost those benefits, and had tremendous battles with the municipal labour relations bureau to get them. Finally the Labour Relations Board had to step in and basically impose a solution in regard to the benefits.

This is what the bill is calling for, further imposed solutions. I am (a) not very happy with the aspect of having compulsory certification of councils, the trade unions, in the first place, and (b) very unhappy at seeing collective agreements imposed upon those trade union councils once they have been set up.

Finally, I am a bit concerned that when such councils are set up, under the new amendments the Legislature will not debate them, but the powers could be turned over to the Labour Relations Board. I think we are then, in effect, handing over these powers of compulsion, powers to designate facilities, productions, services and so on to a board, rather than dealing with it as a Legislature. We're giving it to an outside power.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, for many, many years this party has fought against labour legislation brought in by the Socreds — very strong anti-labour legislation. I am not suggesting that this legislation in any way compares with the anti-labour legislation brought in by the previous government. However, I must say that I am concerned about the compulsion in the bill, and any tendencies towards anti-labour legislation that might be shown in these amendments.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to make a couple of observations, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps these remarks would be far more appropriate in committee, but I think the Hon. Minister somewhat overstated the diminution of the role of the court. Because I see that the board does have the discretion under section 30, I believe it is, to transport one its decisions or orders to the court, and ipso facto that would become a court order and enforceable as such. Those are the terms within section 30. Conceivably, violation of such court order, or failure to obey it, would give rise to the normal procedures of enforcement in the intrinsic powers of enforcement that the court has, such as an order for damages, contempt proceedings, injunctive proceedings and loss of liberty, perhaps, of the defaulting subject. So there is certainly quite an instrument of approach to the court there, although it certainly has to be noted that it is discretionary.

Secondly, I'm glad to hear that the Hon. Minister has stated with the greater degree of statutory particularity that the court retains its jurisdiction insofar as assessment of civil damages are concerned and, certainly, for criminal proceedings. Anything less would be preposterous.

I do not concur with the assessments presented to the House this afternoon by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) or the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). I think if their complete attitudes were accepted, it would be, without any question of a doubt, the most retrograde step to management-labour relations that this province has yet run into, and could run us right back into a situation of chaos. They essentially express a degree — or this is the interpretation I receive from their remarks — of contempt for the role or for the functions of a third party or a referee, and advocate in its place a system of complete ad hoc-ery. Well, I suppose if this was a Nirvana type of society in which we live, and man was completely and essentially and perpetually good, what they have proposed would work. Unfortunately man is not perfect. He's quite imperfect and he does have to have guidelines, and some guidelines are provided here.

It's also to be noted that neither of these two Members expressed in their remarks any concern or made any reference whatsoever to the primary third party, and that is the general public — the individual who is outside and beyond the realm of the two disputants, the individual who does not benefit at all from the successes that may result from labour stoppage on either side by the disputants, and the person who always can hurt from the failures of those particular parties. But we don't hear any expressions of concern from those two Members to the position of the third party. I think it's preposterous to continue to be of the philosophy and impression in British Columbia — in the world for that matter — that the third party has constantly to sit and take every knock and every brickbat that can possibly result from work stoppage.

It is interesting to note the amendments the Minister has incorporated in the bill wherein he has left unto himself, I take it, a discretion to request the Labour Relations Board to designate certain facilities that it would consider necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious danger to life, health or safety, and may order — may order — both sides,

[ Page 3985 ]

Mr. Speaker, to continue to provide and maintain in full measure those facilities, productions and services and not to restrict or limit them.

Well, the last Member who spoke felt that this was something that was denuding the Legislature of its historic powers, and it is not because it's not exclusive to it; it is complementary to it. I think this is a recognition by the cabinet of this government, if not the back bench of this government, that there is a greater need, as I have stated in many, many speeches — and I'm not going to belabour that point this afternoon — to ensure that in inessential services the privilege of work stoppage is something that is too expensive in contemporary society to put up with. When I'm talking about expense, I'm not talking necessarily about dollars and cents at all.

One item that continues to give me concern is the removal from the courts of their right to utilize the historic writs wherein they can cure defective procedures and wherein specifically they can bring in measures that would rectify improper hearings, unfair hearings and a denial of justice. Unfortunately I see that this is still incorporated or perhaps entrenched more fully than it was in your former bill. I find that somewhat disturbing, because I think if there is an impropriety in the procedure that constitutes a denial of natural justice, surely to goodness the concept should be the same for the labour movement, for the employers and the employees as for the rest of society, and the court should retain that very intrinsic and very strong measure of curative power which is one that has been won over the centuries and is one that certainly should not be lightly denied. I very much regret to say that I think that it is being somewhat lightly denied.

I would like to make many more remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is much more appropriate for me to make those during the committee stage.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): You know, it's interesting to see these amendments before us, because I think what it does prove to everyone both in and outside of this House is that there's no such thing as perfection in legislation, particularly when you're dealing with the relatively difficult area of labour and management problems. I think it's fair to say that the previous government had many problems they tried to solve by one means or another and that the present government has found that they don't have any panacea for complete labour and management harmonious relations in the Province of British Columbia.

This is what you might call patchwork legislation. It's introduced, I believe, Mr. Speaker, from what I can find and from what I can read, at the request of no one in either labour or management. Both sides seem to be of the impression that they weren't really consulted to any great degree before the legislation came in. I'm sure that because of that, and perhaps for that reason, we have a number of amendments on the order paper which will be discussed in committee stage.

You know, when the Minister first took office, I think he had great hopes for the new Labour Code for the Province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, he appointed three advisers to give him some advice and to hold hearings throughout the province to get advice from those people affected by management and labour disputes.

But the interesting thing is, Mr. Speaker, that those committee hearings were closed hearings, selected people invited to go to them in selected locations. Now is that really open government? I don't believe so. Is it the type of thing that you want to perpetuate? You are perpetuating that now in hearings before the inquiry commission into the labour construction industry in the Province of British Columbia.

I know it from an ad in today's paper. Your ad indicates a number of locations for hearings in Victoria, Kelowna, Kamloops, et cetera, and that parties will be allowed to present written briefs to the inquiry but that all the hearings will be closed.

I can't help but feel and wonder, when we are trying to develop a better understanding in this whole field of labour and management relations, why public hearings, so-called, should be closed hearings. It would seem to me that the way to enlighten people so that they begin to appreciate each other's viewpoint is to have these hearings open so that they can be fully aired, fully reported and that those who have an interest would have an opportunity to attend. I think that is something that is not in keeping with the promises of the NDP for open government.

It is apparent as we go along that even the amendments proposed will not bring about everything we desire in the way of labour peace in the province. I think that perhaps the Minister should consider, now that we have had some experience with the Labour Code, setting up a public inquiry commission into this whole field to solicit expressions of opinion from throughout the whole province, to generally inquire into all the laws that are presently in effect. We might find through that, and the amendments that would probably come after those hearings, that we would have a much better relationship and more harmonious relations in the Province of British Columbia.

One of the other Members referred to the third parties involved, and I think that is increasingly important, particularly today, because so much time and effort and direction is spent upon airing the problems of labour and management that quite often the public, who are the innocent third parties in disputes, are forgotten. Yet they are the people who are most affected.

[ Page 3986 ]

I am sure that if we don't find a way to not only involve them in the policy-making and the solutions of these problems, they are going to find a way — the public generally, that is — to make their thoughts known. They quite often are inconvenienced and for no justifiable reason that they can see.

I think the thing you should be looking at, Mr. Minister, if you want to enlighten the public and inform them, is a more open attitude in dealing with any of these problems. Let the public know what is going on. Let the public know both sides in these disputes.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments that are proposed are more properly debated, I believe, in the committee state because there are a number of different areas, some that we agree with. I think that having said that, I'll take my place and wait for the bill to come back to us in the committee stage, because there are a number of points and principles involved on which we really deserve a full explanation.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to take my place in this debate and talk a little bit about the principle of this bill. I want to do it by starting out by talking about the labour movement and about the trade union movement. As we all know, the trade union movement is a movement that grew out of working people coming together to work for better conditions for each other. It is a very old movement, and over the years certainly other movements have benefited from it. Certainly the women's movement has benefited. Certainly the black movement has benefited from some of the experiences that working people had to go through in terms of organizing themselves and forming themselves into what we now know as the trade union movement.

Despite that, over the years, it has never changed. It has continued to be a movement. It still is a movement which concerns itself, not just with its membership, but with everybody else who works.

It is concerned about organizing workers who are themselves not yet organized. Its record in this area is not very good; there are still only a third of the working people in this country who are organized. But it continues. It continues in its commitment to try to organize all of the people who work.

It has branched out and involved itself in things like the health of its workers. The trade union movement spearheaded the fight for looking into things like safety on the job, industrial diseases, these kinds of things. The trade union movement is concerned about its workers who retire when they are too old to work. They have gone into pension plans. They have gone into co-ops. They have gone into credit unions, housing, whatever.

Really, in terms of this government and other governments, what the trade union movement tries to do is talk on behalf of most of the people in this country because most of the people are working people.

I think that when we look at this bill in terms of its principles, we have to say to ourselves: to what extent does this bill address itself to the concerns and the needs of the trade unionists and of the labour movement in this province as articulated by its membership and by its leaders?

Certainly, there is no question but that in section 1, the bill does that very much. It was the labour movement through the NDP and through other people who said that the Labour Code is a code that should cover domestic and agricultural workers in the province. It doesn't make sense to have a Labour Code, which we think is a good code, which also has exclusions.

In this respect, speaking to the principle of the bill, this bill does that. It includes now for the first time agricultural workers. It includes domestic workers. It also brings in a number of other people, professional workers, or whatever. It also addresses itself in independent contractors who, as those of us who travelled on the labour and justice committee know, were exploiting very, very badly certainly a number of people who were forced to work through the contract system.

We have heard from the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) that this is a very powerful movement. I don't believe this. If they are a powerful movement, I am certainly not impressed by the number of things that they have been unable to do.

I am not impressed with the powerful movement which, for example, allowed those women at Sandringham to remain on strike for as long as they did before there was a settlement. It is a ludicrous myth that you people over there keep spreading, that the trade union movement is so powerful.

Would a powerful movement allow what happened to the workers at Dominion Motors, that strike which was never resolved? Would they have allowed that to go through? Would a powerful movement have allowed Seagrams to close down rather than negotiate with its workers?

It is not a powerful movement. It is strong in terms of its commitment to the working people in this country, but don't mistake that for power. It certainly is not a powerful movement and no legislation that is introduced should ever be introduced with the idea that it is in any way as strong as the corporate sector of industry or certainly any of the employers in this country, or in this province in particular.

What else do we hear the trade union movement saying to us? The trade union movement is saying to us that it is concerned about compulsion. It is

[ Page 3987 ]

concerned about being forced, using force to get it to do certain things; that it really does believe in the collective bargaining process; and that in fact, through certain sections of this bill — section 12, for example, on which I agree with everyone that it can be better discussed in committee stage — what we are doing is introducing an element of compulsion, that in fact what we are trying to do is give the Labour Relations Board a little bit more power than makes the trade union movement comfortable that in fact we are not just giving them additional options. We are introducing and strengthening that element of compulsion which they are concerned about.

What else do we hear the trade union movement saying? We hear them saying that they didn't like the definition of the word "strike." The amendment to the amendment hopefully will deal with that. That is good.

We also heard the labour movement saying that they were unhappy, for example, with some of the regulations dealing with picketing. There were a number of people, not just organized workers, there were a number of us as individuals too who were unhappy that something like the struggle that was going on by the grape workers could not be supported by us by having pickets thrown up around SuperValu saying "do not use this store" because they continue to undermine the struggles of these poor people, these grape workers who are trying to get some kind of reasonable representation.

I think that we have to respect and we have to listen very carefully, certainly, to what this movement is saying. In the same way that I never hesitate to stand up in this House and say that as far as it applies to women, we have to consult with the women when we made the decisions about them...They have to have massive input into any decisions about them. The women's movement needs that.

In the same way, we have to respect that this is what the labour movement is saying to us, that it needs to have massive input, that we have to respect its concerns, that it congratulates us, certainly, in those areas where its requests have been exceeded to, but it still continues to have some element of discomfort and to see that in some ways it is threatened.

It is threatened by some of the sections in this bill, and I've said before, certainly the one that has to do with the extended powers of the Labour Relations Board. I certainly support the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) in the position he took about the courts being replaced by another form of court. But more than anything else, I would like to say in speaking to the principle of this bill, let us listen to the labour movement, let us respect their wishes before making any final decisions about this piece of legislation. Thank you.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I have no doubt that the remarks by the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard receive loud applause about a week or 10 days from now when she places her name in nomination.

MS. BROWN: Unfair!

AN HON. MEMBER: Why isn't that fair?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thought it was a fair dress rehearsal of the remarks that the Member was going to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, she'd be better.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not impressed, however, by her suggestion that the trade union movement is without power. They don't seem to exhibit the lack of power that one would expect, certainly the lack of power which is to be found in some elements of our community. If you look at the post office strikes, the air-traffic controllers strikes, the problems we had in the Port of Vancouver over the past 12 or 18 months — it seems a little strange that someone would suggest that the movement is without power. However, I recognize that the Member's remarks were completely beside the principle of this amendment.

To some extent I join in supporting the comments made by the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). I took trouble to get a copy of the Minister's very carefully delivered remarks in opening second reading, and I am impressed by the care with which he enunciated the extended role and slightly modified policy that the government is giving to the Labour Relations Board.

He said one thing, however, in his opening remarks, speaking about the basic theme of the Labour Code, and if I may read, he says: "That theme is to regulate industrial relations by an administrative agency with curative powers rather than a judicial agency with punitive powers."

Yet as I look at Bill 84, I recognize that the Minister has gone almost all the way in changing what was clearly an administrative tribunal into a judicial one. Indeed, it's significant that the example the Minister gave, which he drew from an occurrence in the past year, makes it quite clear that what the board did in that case was to exercise a judicial function not only in putting a stop to a wildcat strike, but also by going so far, and very expeditiously, in dealing with the underlying grievance which gave rise to the wildcat strike by making an interpretation of what the collective agreement meant.

As he said in his remarks: "The Labour Relations Board gave a cease-and-desist order against the illegal

[ Page 3988 ]

strike." That's an injunction if I ever heard it. Then it went on to give an order — and that certainly is a judicial word — resolving the matter, and to further issue an order interpreting the overtime positions of the collective agreement. What we have here, in the Minister's one clear example, is a telescoping of those same functions which heretofore were discharged by the courts of this province.

The reason that I express some concern about these amendments and this new policy directive that the Minister has issued to the Labour Relations Board in the course of his remarks, is that the board, by being brought more closely into the field of the judiciary, is likely to suffer the same fate that the judiciary has suffered in respect of its attempts to resolve disputes between labour and management.

When the Labour Relations Board was first established I thought it was the clear opportunity for the government to create a prestigious body which would enjoy the respect of both management and labour. I must compliment the chairman of the board and its members for the way in which they have conducted themselves since the board began to work under the Labour Code. They have achieved a large measure of respect from both management and labour.

I believe they have achieved it because the members have committed themselves in a responsible way to the task that was presented to them. But they have functioned as an administrative board. And as we move that board closer and closer to a judicial tribunal, giving it more powers, as we are doing today — powers with respect to its own jurisdiction, powers with respect to the making of orders in a wider range of circumstances — we are, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to you and to the Minister, in danger of placing this board in the position where its orders will be contrary to the wishes of one or other of the parties to the industrial dispute, and therefore almost certainly bound to run into the kind of resistance that was found when the pure legalistic approach was taken to the resolution of these disputes.

I'm not suggesting that the Minister has gone all the way, but we are so close to it that I suggest to the Minister that there should be some withdrawing of the authority given to the board.

I think that the board has made remarkable progress. I think it should have been given a longer period of time in which to consolidate the support which is presently being given to it by parties on both sides of these disputes.

I think it also must be borne in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the board, and the support that it has received from the trade union movement, can look to some extent to the government for the relationship which it has been able to create. There's no question to anyone who watches the industrial scene that the trade union movement, by reason of their close relationship, even friendship, or at least sometimes fondness, for the NDP has been prepared to go along with this new experiment. I think that the board should have continued as before, rather than to test the extent to which the trade union movement is prepared to put up with an increasingly legalistic approach to the resolution of their problems.

I think it is indicative in some of the amendments which are on the order paper of the extent to which representations have been made by the trade union movement, and by management, to the Minister to withdraw from what was his first intent in Bill 84. That should be a clear warning to the Minister that he has almost gone as far as he can go without imperiling the future of the board, and as a consequence, the future of labour peace in this province.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I think for several months now, perhaps for all of this session, we have had the most rational and reasonable debate on what has in past years in this province been a very irrational and unreasonable subject.

We had the usual remarks from the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), and his usual statements that we have to forbid and bring laws in against strikes in essential services in this province. He's brought up the subject over and over again in this House, despite the fact that the point has been made to him over and over again in this House that in countries where strikes are forbidden, strikes still occur. But still he continues. He gets up and makes the same demand, as do some other Members, to forbid strikes in essential services, even though we're debating the principle of the amendments to the Labour Code, I suppose because he feels that amendment should be in there. It has never worked. It has never worked anywhere that it's been tried, and yet in his blind way, he keeps insisting that we have a ban on strikes in essential services, even though it is a problem to define what is essential service and what is not.

There have been several statements made that the labour board is taking more and more of the judicial function. I don't feel I'm qualified to comment on that. I don't know as yet whether it has too much power or too little power, because, frankly, I don't believe that the Labour Code in this province has yet been in effect long enough to show whether it has too little or too much power. Naturally, there will be some places where they have worked where one side or the other could complain that they had too much power. I'm speaking in general and in principle to the whole Labour Code we have in this province.

I would like to refer to a statement made about the ad hoc solution to problems. I think if this party had been in office 35 to 40 years ago, that approach would be justified — the problems in

[ Page 3989 ]

labour-management relations could be looked at separately, individually, judged on their own merits. But after 20 years of what we had under the previous government, the confrontations we had in this province, and the continual deterioration of labour-management relations, the strike situation that we had in the province, I think that we were at a situation where the ad hoe solution was beyond being used.

It would take far too long to get the relations between labour and management back into a position where that ' type of approach could be used. I believe it would be a better solution, but I think that the labour-management relations in this province after 20 years of the previous government and under previous Labour Ministers, was beyond the state where that could be used.

I remember when the Labour Code was introduced into this House and the present Labour Minister, in speaking in second reading of the bill, said that this is not cast in stone. It isn't engraved in marble, and that there will have to be amendments to it.

We are seeing some of the amendments that are being brought in today, and it is my understanding that some were at the request of the labour movement, some were at the request of management, and some were ones that the Minister felt necessary for the administration of the Labour Code in this province.

I don't think this is the last. session we are going to see amendments to this Labour Code. We used to see that sort of thing under the previous government. We remember the Acts they brought in, and when amendments were asked for to particular Acts by the labour movement or by the community, the only reaction we had was a new Labour Act that was even worse than the last one.

I can't remember exactly the numbers of the bills now, but I remember it cumulated in Bill 88, the famous one that died on the order paper. Although it died on the order paper it didn't mean it was going to go out of existence, and I fully believe that if that party had been re-elected, Bill 88 would have been brought into this House.

The Minister made it very, very clear — and in the time I've known him I believe him — that there isn't any kind of a law that is going to perfectly and totally regulate peace and tranquility in the labour-management relations in this province. It is beyond the ability of any government to legislate every situation in such a delicate tactical situation that occurs at times in labour-management relations.

I believe that there are some of the amendments that have been brought in that I could quarrel with. I would probably have written them a little differently myself, but since I am not drawing the money or the responsibility of the Minister of Labour I have to leave it to him.

By and large I agree with the amendments, and I fully believe that when the Minister closes the debate one of the statements he will make is, if they don't work, if some don't work, if they all don't work, or other sections of the Labour Code don't work, we'll be looking at changes or amendments brought into the House this fall.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour closes the debate.

HON. MR. KING: There have been fairly wide ranging comments on the second reading of this bill this afternoon. I'll try to respond to them in order of sequence as best I can, having made some notes of the various points the Members made in discussing the principle of the bill.

Responding first of all to the last speaker, the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge and say, yes, indeed, I am open to constant reconsideration of the Labour Code. Nothing remains the same, certainly not in the field of industrial relations. It changes constantly.

I said when the Labour Code was introduced, and I've said many, many times since, in a public way, on this floor and on many others, that I think it is imperative that the government remains sensitive to the day-to-day problems that occur in industrial relations. That means the problems of the two parties involved in labour relations, because it is very much an area where there are two parties of interest, that of management and that of labour.

I do think that in the main the new Labour Code has been working quite well. Certainly it is no blueprint. It is no panacea to obtaining the objectives of industrial peace with equity and fair play for the interests of the working people of this province, and the interests of management.

I don't know whether it is humanly possible to devise a system that is going to please and satisfy all the diverse interests in that whole arena. I doubt it. Certainly I do not now, and never did profess to maintain, to possess those kind of capabilities that would satisfy the various points of view, the various conflicting interests, even within the trade union movement.

Having said that, we are not charged with the responsibility here of trying to obtain industrial peace at any expense, not at all, but to try to find the highest degree of industrial peace which in my view is in the best interests of the totality of our society, including the security of employment for the working people, while at the same time remaining very, very sensitive to the legitimate rights of the parties, their rights to take strike action when necessary, when they feel that their interests haven't been obtainable

[ Page 3990 ]

through bargaining at the table, their rights to adequate, reasonable and expeditious grievance procedures to remedy problems on the job that are problematic and could erupt into work stoppages if unchecked.

So I remain very, very sensitive and very much available to the trade union movement in this province and to the management groups in terms of discussing with them and meeting with them to discuss problems that arise, in terms of arguing and disagreeing with them, too — I've certainly done my share of that. As with these amendments, I think that I have demonstrated a willingness to listen to valid points of view and to react to those valid points of view. So it's very true that the House may well anticipate further considerations of the Labour Code — indeed, even some of these amendments we're introducing and discussing today. If they're unworkable, if they're problematic, if they're inequitable, then certainly I have no interest and no commitment to maintaining a system that mitigates against the best interests of any individual of this province.

There is some misunderstanding. I have been intrigued by some of the comments of some of my colleagues, some of my knowledgeable colleagues and friends down in the backbench. I have been intrigued by some of the comments from the opposite side of the House. There has been the thread of something running through this whole debate which I find extremely intriguing and perplexing — that is, that in some way these terrible amendments are going to interfere with the rights of trade unions in collective bargaining. This terrible word "compulsion" is being injected into the collective bargaining process.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments have absolutely nothing to do with the collective bargaining process. These amendments are separate and apart and relate in no way to part 5 of the Labour Code, which is the section and the part that regulates the laws of strikes and picketing. Rather, these amendments relate to arbitration procedures and matters that are referred to the board by one of the parties.

The board is not unilaterally imposing something in a compulsory way on the parties. The board action must be first triggered by a complaint or an appeal by one of the parties. It happens every day. Despite the concern for the legalism of the board, usually when it occurs, both parties show up before that board with their little lawyers in tow to argue the case. So there is a need for some legalistic appreciation and expertise in terms of the board's ability to adjudicate those complex matters that come before us.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But let me say that apparently some Members are unaware of section 4(2) of the Labour Code, which was borrowed from the old Labour Relations Act passed under our predecessors — on the statute books of this province for as long as I can remember and on the statute books of virtually every other jurisdiction in this nation. That is the requirement under section 4(2) on limitation of activities of trade unions: "No trade union and no person acting on behalf of a trade union and no employee shall support, encourage, condone or engage in any activity that is intended to or does restrict or limit production of services." This is talking about the term of the collective agreement. Further, under I believe section 92 there is an additional provision, an arbitration provision. Again, this is borrowed from previous legislation and has been on the statute books since time immemorial, and is certainly the system that is adopted throughout most of North America. It is a provision that requires — section 93(l) — that:

"Every collective agreement shall contain a provision (a) governing the dismissal, discipline or suspension of an employee bound by the agreement and for final and conclusive settlement without work stoppage by arbitration or such other method as may be agreed to by the parties of all disputes between the persons bound by the agreement respecting its interpretation, application, operation or any alleged violation thereof, including any question as to whether the matter is arbitrary."

So what we're talking about in the amendments is simply a refining, an improvement of those methods of resolving those issues that arise during the course of a collective agreement in a manner that is expeditious, in a manner that is just and without work stoppage. Work stoppage has never been a legal remedy that was available to the trade union movement. Now it happens — it does happen. One of the reasons it happens is because the remedies — the grievance procedures or the arbitration procedures — are too unwieldy or too slow and the employee is left to grieve after the fact, after having some sanction imposed upon him by the employer, and frequently his fellow employees react and walk out in sympathy. But we have introduced in the Labour Code and we have introduced in some of these amendments limitations upon the employer's right to assess in a unilateral, arbitrary way sanctions against the employee.

In the case of a matter of a judgment, a questionable opinion on the safety of a health hazard that obtains in a certain industry, the employee is now free to determine to the best of his own judgment that this is an unsafe condition and refuse to perform the work, and the employer is prohibited from considering that to be a strike action. So there's protection extended there which never obtained before.

[ Page 3991 ]

But the important thing, and the point that I must stress and re-emphasize, is that there's no additional measure of compulsion involved in these amendments, and it certainly doesn't relate to the contract bargaining for contract renewal. It relates to those disputes that arise during the course of the collective agreement and which are arbitrary by law and always have been.

There's an attempt to refine and improve the arbitration process because in some cases we've found, much to the consternation and much to the regret and chagrin of the trade union involved, some of the language in their collective agreement was vague and ambiguous. As a consequence, the arbitrator was stuck with making a determination on that language as it existed, but it in no way pertained to the real issue in dispute. On the strictly legalistic language as it existed he was prohibited from getting to the root cause or considering what the intent of the collective agreement was, rather than strictly the legalistic wording. So these are the things we're seeking to improve and to refine.

The question of the powers to the board: well, Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways in terms of the law regulating industrial relations. Now most people accept that the courts are not a very appropriate agency for regulating group disputes.

I don't like to quote an old Conservative, but one of the most esteemed ones, Sir Winston Churchill, observed that the courts are a most appropriate agency for regulating disputes between individuals, but most highly inappropriate for regulating and adjudicating matters of party interest, and I think that's valid. It's valid today.

So we can't transfer from the courts the authority to regulate and to oversee the problems in industrial relations and then simply leave that authority in a vacuum, in an unregulated way. That's not very logical. Indeed it's not even possible in law, because unless that jurisdiction is transferred to some other agency, it reverts by default to the courts and would achieve nothing in terms of the philosophy of the code.

So we can't have it both ways. We cannot have an unregulated morass which, in my view, neither the trade union movement nor management nor the public would want in this province, because it would certainly lead to chaos. It would lead to an inability to respond to the problems which the parties themselves approach me to resolve for them. So we have to have some of these authorities.

Now the concern for the scope and the breadth of the powers that the board has is valid. It's valid in terms of the concern expressed by Members of this Legislature. It's valid in terms of the concern expressed by the trade union movement, because indeed it's new and it is a pretty all-pervasive power. But it's a new approach. It's a legalistic administrative approach, undoubtedly, and I reject that the philosophy and the intent is to develop a labour court. That is not the intent. Rather it's to try to have an agency which is representative of the parties involved, understands the interest and can react in a way which is sensitive to the problems and the possible cures, rather than a punitive sanction against certain kinds of conduct.

These powers are broad and I admit that. All I can say to the Members of this House is that the agency which must review and constantly monitor the performance of the board in terms of their proper usage of the powers, or in terms of any consideration of usurpation or of excess use of those powers, must be this precise agency here — the Legislature of British Columbia.

Those who advise ad hoc should be sensitive to that ability of this Legislature to constantly bring before this chamber abuses of power, whether it be incident to the Labour Relations Board or whether it be incident to any Crown agency or any agency responsible to the government of British Columbia.

That is something worth remembering, in my view.

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of points made. I am not going to respond to them all. I think the thread of what I have responded to ran through most of the presentations the Members made.

The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) made his contribution and I want to assure him that I don't see the Labour Code, or I don't see the amendments as being a be-all, an end-all, of labour legislation in this province. I certainly don't see it as being a blueprint for solving the many problems that exist.

I want to say and I want to acknowledge that neither this code, the legislation, nor the Labour Relations Board, nor the Minister of Labour will be to any degree successful in this province unless we have the cooperation, unless we have the goodwill of the parties, in a sincere way in terms of accepting the philosophy and the intent of what is being put forward here.

We must have that. We must have that from the trade union movement. We must have that from the employers' side or success can't be met. No question about it.

In light of the explanation I have given on the amendment, in light of the more detailed discussion we will undoubtedly have in committee stage, in light of my commitment to this House and to the parties of interest that I am prepared at any time to consult and to consider and to be sensitive to inequity that may be developed from legislative change, inequity that may be experienced in an inadvertent way, then this Legislature sits frequently and I remain available and I remain sensitive to the need to respond quickly, particularly in the field of industrial relations.

Certainly I give that undertaking, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3992 ]

With that in mind and with the goodwill of all Members of this House and more particularly and more importantly with the goodwill of those people whose cooperation we must have to make any system work, Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. KING: I would ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to refer the bill to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I have a refusal on the part of a Member. Would you make an appropriate motion then in view of the refusal for leave?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in that event I move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: It is possible to have it at the next sitting, but that again would require leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear another no, so it will be the next sitting after today. I heard another no from the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). I must still put the motion then on the basis of the next sitting after today.

Bill 84, Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we will now proceed to the other bills as they are laid out on the page. We will start with third reading of Bill 73, School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act. This was discharged and the bill recommitted, as the House is aware. The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) will be piloting this bill.

SCHOOL TAX REMOVAL
AND RESOURCE GRANT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, in regard to Bill 73, the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) had made a motion that the order for third reading of the bill be discharged and the bill be recommitted. Then the Hon. Premier adjourned the debate on that motion and at the same time, I understand, put an amendment on the order paper. So the question before the House is whether there is further debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, that motion being that Bill 73 be discharged and the bill recommitted.

If that is determined one way or the other, then the question would have to come up. If it is determined that it be recommitted, then the amendment proposed, I presume, by the Premier would have to be considered by the House in committee.

Therefore the House has to determine at this stage as to further debate on the motion by the Hon. Member, and if it is decided in favour of recommital then it would have to consider an amendment that has been put on the order paper by the Hon. Premier, or if it is decided in the negative, then we would proceed with third reading. Is that clear?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do wish to advise that the government is prepared to accept the motion of the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Not debate on the motion, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that if this motion passed, the bill will be recommitted only for the purpose of considering the specific section in respect of which an amendment is not standing on the order paper?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I believe that was the purpose of the recommital that was proposed to the House. Now when it goes to committee, I'd have to consider that question. I haven't given thought to it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in the inquiries that I made of the learned Clerk in connection with this procedure, it was my understanding that the motion to recommit would be for a specific purpose. I'll deal with it in the debate, but I wish to say that the amendment standing on the orders of the day, in my view, serves the purpose for which the bill was to be recommitted and the basis upon which I made my motion.

MR. SPEAKER: It does, you say, serve that purpose.

[ Page 3993 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That is my view. The Members of the House may differ with me.

MR. SPEAKER: There is one proposal that might be made in regard to this, should the House deem it desirable: there could be an amendment to the motion of the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound to add the words "for the purpose of considering the amendment proposed on page 16 of Votes and Proceedings."

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): A point of order with respect to the amendment as it has been printed today. I can understand that the Queen's Printer's people must be thoroughly fed up with all of us, but you will note that the amendment lapses into some questions which are obviously not related to what....

MR. SPEAKER: That is obviously a transplant that just will not take.

MR. CURTIS: Well, it's a very....

MR. SPEAKER: You know, it had better not. (Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: It is very interesting that this is the hexed bill of the session. Sooner or later the government may succeed in getting it right, but I think this is about the 15th attempt and it is curious that the Queen's Printer would also fall into the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that the usual course is that the motion is proposed in committee, as it should properly be stated, and not just from the order paper. You can make a motion in committee without it being on the order paper at all.

Does the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound have any suggestions on this question before we proceed?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just that the question be put, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

SCHOOL TAX REMOVAL
AND RESOURCE GRANT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 73; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. LORIMER: In the name of the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) I move the amendment on the order paper — subject to the deletion of some words printed here by my friend the Queen's Printer. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just to recap for the committee where we are, the bill as it was originally dealt with in committee would have resulted, in accordance with the interpretation placed upon it by the municipalities, in some circumstances where the school tax removal and resource grant, payable to persons 65 years of age and older, might have been less than would have been payable to persons who were under the age of 65 years.

The amendment makes it perfectly clear that in the course of determining the amount of such a grant, the figure of $200 is to be used, rather than the provincial home owner grant, and therefore tilt back to even-handedness as between those two age groups.

I would ask the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) if he could indicate to the committee the number of persons in the province who might be affected by this amendment; that is, those of 65 years of age and over who would now be able to enjoy their full school tax removal and resource grant. More importantly, could the Minister indicate in what manner it will be made known to such taxpayers that they may have the amount of their grant readjusted from what is presently shown on the tax notices that have gone out from the various municipalities and also from the surveyor of taxes here in Victoria?

Obviously many of the senior citizens have already paid their taxes and will have received the grant based upon the old formula. Some method will need to be devised whereby they can be alerted to their opportunity of having a recalculation made and some direct payment or refund as the case may be to make up the difference in the grant.

This will need to be widely publicized to ensure that no one misses this opportunity. I'm sure that the municipalities can all be alerted, perhaps in time to make some recalculations as taxes are paid from time to time. Certainly the surveyor of taxes will be able to handle that matter because his tax bills are payable at a later date. But for those who have already paid the tax I think that there'll have to be some notification given in the clearest possible way.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the amendment which hopefully will finally straighten out this incredible series of blunders on the part of the government, this you will recall Mr. Chairman is the child of Bill 26 which died earlier this year.

I simply can't summon the restraint that the Hon.

[ Page 3994 ]

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has exhibited today, and earlier, when he guided this government through the maze that it had created for itself in stumbling over the School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act.

I think, really, it's just been a shameful and amateurish performance on the part of the departments concerned and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) who presumably is still out of the country.

Municipalities have been confused and put to additional expense and considerable effort. I'm sure the Department of Municipal Affairs must have had calls from a variety of cities and districts, towns and villages. I'm sure the office of the surveyor of taxes has been deluged with calls. Surely the Department of Finance has also heard about this really incredible mess that has been going on since very early in this year.

The tax notices, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has observed, have gone out and there must be a number of Members in this House who have received very concerned telephone calls and letters from individuals in their own constituencies saying in effect "What is going on down there?"

I hope that the government has it straightened out and I hope that for as long as this government is in office it will attempt to learn from this wretched experience of error upon error, correction, backtracking, correction again and, hopefully, today finally getting the thing through. You've put a great many people to inconvenience and additional expense and totally unnecessary concern.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly support this amendment and I think that the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has performed a great service for the senior citizens of this province in bringing this matter up and guiding it through this House.

I would just ask the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs when he answers some of the questions posed to him earlier if he would give us some dollar estimate of the benefit which will be forthcoming to the senior citizens as the result of this change.

HON. MR. LORIMER: First of all I will certainly want to acknowledge the assistance granted by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound in bringing this matter to our attention. I would point out that last year, within the unorganized territories, there were under 800 people who took advantage of this particular provision in the province. So I would estimate there's probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000 people involved.

The instructions have gone out to the municipalities and to the Collector of Taxes, for further payments to make sure that the amounts have been received. For ones that have been paid to date, there will be refunds due. There will be advertising and so on connected with the advising of people who have paid; or notification if it can be done manually, through the amounts that have been paid up to date.

So there will be notice given out.

In answer to the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) all I can say is that the residents are very, very happy with this particular bill. They enjoy it quite well, thank you very much.

MR. GIBSON: I would just ask again, Mr. Chairman, the approximate dollar benefit.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I am told it should be less than $100,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a clarification on the number of people who may be affected, I understand the Minister to say "approximately 800" have already applied in the unorganized territory.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Last year there were 800.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So is the number of people expected to be 4,000 or is this 4,000 who have applied already who haven't got the full amount?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The total.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The total is 4,000? Perhaps the Minister could just clarify that.

HON. MR. LORIMER: What I said was that last year in the unorganized territories there were less than 800 that qualified. I'm estimating that it would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000 in the total province for this year that would qualify for this grant.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If that's the case, I seem to have a disproportionate number in my constituency, which, I guess, is to be expected. If there are only 4,000, I presume the Minister will be arranging for the department to send an individual letter to all those who have already applied, making sure that they have this money that they are entitled to under this new alteration brought to their attention. Because certainly I have received letters from very puzzled constituents.

I must say that I have not been in any position to settle their doubts up to now as to what the government's true intentions were. Up to very recently all I could say was the maximum they could possibly get was $30 out of the $50; that was something they were unwilling to believe. Now,

[ Page 3995 ]

apparently that is no longer the case.

I just hope the government will set up some decent system to make sure they are all properly informed. If there are not that many, an individual letter is quite a reasonable proposition. The government has vast amounts of money for advertising to people — perhaps it might go out with the Minister of Municipal Affairs' picture on it, like the letter that went out from his next-door neighbour there, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). Maybe the Premier would have his picture on it as well. I don't care whose picture is on it as long as the senior citizens who are affected have full information on what they're entitled to and how to get it.

At the present time, as their MLA I have not been able to advise those who have contacted me — I know there will be others who have not contacted me. I trust the Minister will make an extra special effort to get out information to them.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think I have already answered that — there will be advertising. There will be an effort on a manual basis to go through any that have been paid ahead of time, pluck them out and correct it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Those who are picked up by that manual process will be informed by letter?

HON. MR. LORIMER: By letter — personally.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, that's fine. That's what I wanted to hear.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 73, School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that it be read a third time now.

Leave granted.

Bill 73, School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, report on Bill 135.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 135 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 103.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 103; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MR. CURTIS: I appreciate that you are anxious to get home, Mr. Chairman, but section 6, as I understand it, deals with a subject which has been raised a number of times in the course of this session, and that is with regard to mill rate limitation. Am I correct? I look to the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: Mill rate limitations, which we have discussed a number of times. Questions have been put to the Minister earlier in the session to determine if a mill rate ceiling would be lifted or not. But here we see in this amendment before us that the authority to raise the ceiling on a one-by-one basis is going to be given to the Inspector of Municipalities. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think that that is a wrong move in this or in any other context where, in the municipal Act, a provincial government official is being given, as I read it, the authority to overrule a statute.

I hope when he rises to participate in discussion, that the Minister will tell us why the amendment simply did not increase the mill rate limitations of 50 mills, 40 mills, 30 mills as they now stand for various classes of municipalities. The same comment will be able to be made on another section of the bill.

I have nothing against the present Inspector of Municipalities, and I'm sure the Minister will appreciate that that is the case, but it seems entirely wrong to allow a senior, appointed official to deal with an individual municipality depending upon how he may feel — or she, at some time in the future — how that person may feel about the municipality in question or its council, or how it has behaved in the

[ Page 3996 ]

last few years, or indeed, since we're all human, how the Inspector of Municipalities may feel that particular day. The authority will rest with that individual and we are, in my view, contravening a very fundamental principle here in terms of giving one person the right to overrule a statute.

Again, it would have been far better, I feel — and I think there must be some support for this in municipalities — for the Minister to have recognized the fact that, with continuing inflation, the mill rate ceilings as they have existed for quite some time are no longer satisfactory. Municipalities are bumping the ceiling or, in some instances, have poked through the ceiling, whichever it may be — 50, 40, 30 mills. Why not simply amend the statute to raise that level? I look forward to the Minister's comments on this point.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, well, first of all I want to state that there's no question of the Inspector of Municipalities overruling the Act. The amendments to the Act direct, by the Legislature, the Inspector of Municipalities to have a certain function to perform on behalf of the Legislature. We're directing that person to make sure that that particular municipality has a need to have a mill rate over and above what had previously been stipulated as the maximums under the Act. The number, I understand, this year will be under 10. The pressures on ceilings are not as great as it may be anticipated. In some particular communities, there is a problem, but in numbers it's reasonably small. As I say, it is under 10 affected this year that would apply for a ceiling increase. But I do want to point out that more important subject, that there's certainly no suggestion that the Inspector of Municipalities overrules the Act.

MR. CURTIS: Well, I have to therefore read the section and ask the Minister where I'm mistaken. It says:

"Section 206(2) is amended by adding at the end 'unless a rate in excess of that limit is approved by the Inspector of Municipalities; but, for the year 1975, notwithstanding section 222, the approval of the Inspector of Municipalities may be granted after the adoption of the bylaw imposing the rates and, if so granted, it is retroactive to the extent necessary to give full force and effect to the bylaw.'"

That's the end of the section as I have it, and I also note that it again introduces an element of retroactivity which seems to be occurring with increasing frequency here. But, Mr. Minister, you are introducing the approval of the Inspector of Municipalities where that has not been required before, because the law previously...

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's different from what you said before.

MR. CURTIS: ...has said there are ceilings and, for these purposes, municipalities may not exceed those mill rate ceilings.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The statement made by the Hon. Member is different from the one he made the first time. The first time he stated that we were giving the power of the inspector to overrule the Legislature, which is quite untrue. What we are doing here is bringing an amendment setting up what the responsibilities of the inspector are to perform certain functions. It is quite true that that power was not here before. But to suggest that this is overruling the Legislature is what I am saying is not correct.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with the passage of this amendment, the inspector of municipalities will be able to say on his own to an applying municipality: "Yes, you may exceed the mill rate ceiling." Is that correct or incorrect?

HON. MR. LORIMER: That is correct, by direction of this Legislature when we pass this amendment.

MR. CURTIS: The Minister says that that is correct. But previously the statute said you could not exceed the mill rate ceiling.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Normally amendments change things from what they were before.

MR. CURTIS: All right. I think the Minister is playing games on this point. You are giving authority to an individual government official, the right to permit a municipality — you are giving the right to an individual in the provincial employ — to approve a mill-rate increase, whereas up to this point, until this becomes law, the municipality has not been able to increase the mill rate ceiling. Is that correct or incorrect?

That's correct. It must be, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I can't speak when I'm not standing.

MR. CURTIS: That hasn't stopped you previously.

I again emphasize that authority is being given to an individual in the employ of the province to exempt a municipality from limitations which have been imposed by statute.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No argument there. I agree exactly with what the Member has said in his last statement.

[ Page 3997 ]

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. McCLELLAND: I have some of the same concerns that the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) expressed earlier with regard to this section. This section, of course, allows the inspector of municipalities to exceed limitations again, but this time in the amount of the aggregate debt that a municipality may engage in.

I would just like to sound a warning to the Minister that we have to be careful where we go here. All of us have been reading lately about the problems that the City of New York finds itself in today. The major reason that that city is bankrupt today and facing the possibility of layoffs of thousands and thousands of its public servants is because over the past few years the successive administrations in charge of the City of New York allowed that city to get itself so badly in debt and to finance so many Cadillac services that.... Sure, I suppose there were good arguments for the city's need, but the city couldn't afford many of the things that it did. It allowed itself to get deeper and deeper and deeper into debt until one morning they woke up and found out that there was no way out.

I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that if we are not very careful with this kind of discretionary power given by the inspector of municipalities to individual municipalities, then we could find ourselves with municipalities faced with the same kind of situation that the City of New York finds itself in today — perhaps on a smaller scale, but just as serious nevertheless.

This section really worries me, allowing this kind of thing, particularly at this time of inflationary spiral to allow this kind of amendment to go through. Where do we draw the line and why aren't we showing the lead to the municipalities to at least express some modicum of fiscal restraint? Certainly with this kind of legislation we don't demand that the municipalities do that.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I am basically in some agreement with what has been said by both the Members in the official opposition. The basic problem is that there are a few municipalities who have reached their maximum borrowing power at the moment. Some, under the previous section, had their mill rate up to the maximum. The facts are that they are in need of further services. The local people are demanding things that they feel have to be provided. The question is, how do we overcome this problem? Do we raise the total blankets? Do we raise them up? Or do we say that if you can establish somehow that your need is valid and really requires some attention, then we can give you some assistance? But to do that, there has to be some person to say that the request is a valid request. The most neutral person I could think of was the inspector of municipalities.

I'm prepared to amend this at a later date if someone has a better suggestion as to how this can be done. Now you can do the other route...well, there are two things you can do: you can say there is no change, or the second thing, if you want to give some assistance or relief then you can say that we'll raise the total for all municipalities to a higher degree. It would seem to me that the problems you are referring to may be more exaggerated under that route than the other. But I'm quite prepared to reconsider it if at the next sitting someone comes in with a better idea of how this can be looked after.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would reiterate the comments that I made with respect to section 6, and the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has identified his concern for the same reasons.

I think it is improper for a single individual in the government employ, not elected, to be given the right through this amendment to decide whether the borrowing power of a given municipality shall or shall not be increased. Perhaps the Minister would indicate how he sees this working mechanically. Will the inspector refer individual requests under this section to the Minister for the Minister's opinion, or will the inspector operate on his own, unilaterally?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would anticipate that the inspector of municipalities would receive the information from the finance section of the Department of Municipal Affairs as to their total financial picture, not only for this year but also for previous years. I would expect that he would make recommendations to me that this individual case or the other individual case should receive special consideration for extension. I would not anticipate that he would do it on his own.

MR. WALLACE: Of course, I have much the same reaction. Why have laws to limit debt and then allow the law to be stretched for specific cases without spelling out the guidelines?

I listened to the Minister's original response to the Member for Langley, and I wonder if he could just give us some brief outline of those kinds of services which he feels would qualify the inspector to stretch the rules in a particular circumstance. In other words, I would assume that it would have to be for pretty basic services which the people in that municipality feel is justified. For example, where would it relate if they had no recreational facility and they want to match the money out of the community recreational facilities fund? If they came forward with that kind of proposal, that they were increasing their debt in order to take advantage of such a grant, could the

[ Page 3998 ]

Minister comment on that kind of general area as to what justification there would have to be to give them specific authority to increase their debt under this section?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think you'll find that the major request is for extension of sewer services, partially made necessary by the actions of the Pollution Control Board, to a degree. I wouldn't anticipate that recreation as such would be a valid enough reason for an extension.

MR. WALLACE: Following on that, Mr. Chairman, what other services does the Minister have in mind over and above, let us say, sewers? What about street lighting and sidewalks and this kind of thing? In other words, I'm just trying to determine how the inspector will evaluate the validity or otherwise of the kind of application you might receive.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'd say basically health and safety would be the criteria. Street lighting may be necessary in certain areas for....

MR. WALLACE: It would be pretty flexible, in other words.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I like the idea better that the Minister advanced — that perhaps in the next session we could come up with some better guidelines for this whole idea. Because what can happen, of course, is that all kinds of services can be requested in a municipality, and depending on the nature of the municipality you can grant some of them or not have them.

The Minister himself has complained about some of the over-servicing that does take place in some municipal subdivisions. What that does is drive up the cost of housing in the municipality. It drives up the cost of borrowing again. The guideline that health and safety will be the criteria by which we'll exceed these limits is fine, but the municipality may have come up to the line in advance of that and then now find themselves with a need to provide water services for fire safety, and not have the capability of borrowing any money.

I'm not suggesting that anybody step in and say anything to the municipalities, but I think it's time that municipalities and provincial government got together and set out some firm guidelines about how the servicing of the municipality on a broad general basis should be carried out. I'm really concerned that this borrowing is going to get out of hand.

Of course, the province at the moment isn't any great shining example, but the province should be, and it should be leading the way for the municipalities as well. It should be showing people: "Look, let's start living within our means, to some degree at least," and providing those services that are necessary, but not going overboard and getting the people of that community in debt to a large degree because of services that could be well done without. That's the only concern I have.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I accept the possibility that there could be abuses. I don't think that is likely to happen. I think in most cases mayors and aldermen are responsible people and I'm not going to see a great spending splurge in municipalities.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I think where the basic danger comes in is in the smaller communities that do not have the financial expertise, maybe, to handle large expenditures because they do not have the financing to pay for the type of help that is required. For that reason we have not put the total increase up, but have it with some kind of check. I'll certainly be quite prepared to discuss this matter with any of the Hon. Members as to changes at a later date.

Section 8 approved.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. CURTIS: That was a pretty good run, Mr. Chairman. I don't think you need to be too unhappy with that.

Section 14 has some of us puzzled as it sits here now. I wonder if it isn't an error in that it seems to assume that the assessor and the collector are the same person. Now this was the case provincially, and I emphasize the word "was", but the Minister will recognize that now, with the Assessment Authority, the assessor and the collector cannot be the same person. They have completely separate responsibilities, duties and assignments. The assessor simply places a value on the property following a formula established by the statute, but he doesn't set the taxes.

I have to question, therefore, the accuracy of the amendment. I don't argue with what the Minister and his department may be attempting to do, but I question its accuracy and its workability.

HON. MR. LORIMER: This is to allow the splitting of the tax on a subdivision from the total parcel into separate parcels. It was felt that the person most able to do this would be the assessor, to put a valuation on the separate sections. In this way, by splitting the total, the people who move in when the house is constructed and they are onto the

[ Page 3999 ]

property, would then qualify for the homeowner's grant immediately, rather than waiting for the following year to obtain the separate tax. That's basically it — mainly in condominiums.

MR. CURTIS: Did the Minister say mainly condominiums, in his last remark?

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's not correct.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, he says that is not correct. Well, I would just point out to the Minister that I believe he and his department are going to have very serious difficulty with this section when it becomes operative because, again, the assessor is given the responsibility for determining the value of the particular piece of property. He has no authority to apportion tax. It is late in the session, but I trust the Minister will see, that....

AN HON. MEMBER: We're just starting!

MR. CURTIS: Oh, we're just starting? Okay. Some of us are getting second wind looking forward to the estimates of the Minister of Transport and Communications. But if I may issue a polite warning to the Minister: there is trouble in this section; it is not going to work.

Section 14 approved.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask why this amendment is necessary. I recall municipal councils dealing with corner parcels of land, and varying the method by which assessment could be levied.

MR. CURTIS: Burnaby doesn't like it.

MR. McCLELLAND: It seemed to me that it was up to the municipality. It has always been. Could the Minister explain why this amendment is necessary?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The history of this is we've had requests from a number of municipalities dealing with this, one of the provisions of the....

MR. CURTIS: Name names.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Burnaby.

MR. CURTIS: Burnaby, yes. (Laughter.) The Burnaby amendment.

HON. MR. LORIMER: And I always say first things first. But there have been other municipalities. I think I can name at least one other.

AN HON. MEMBER: One other. One. One other.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: But they wanted the flexibility that is allowed in the Vancouver charter. And anything Burnaby wants I have to take close heed to.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that says it all and I didn't think I would hear that from the Minister. Burnaby hasn't liked the Act in this respect as it's stood for a number of years. I think we've known that and so what Burnaby wants everybody else gets. I don't think that is a very commendable attitude in this particular instance.

Vancouver doesn't have the problem. Burnaby doesn't like the way things are at the moment but a number of other municipalities, I think, are entirely satisfied with the way it has stood for quite some time. They understand it. They understand how to use it. And the department has been helpful when they've encountered particular problems. But Burnaby says change it, so it's changed for all. That's a heck of a way to run a department, with respect.

HON. MR. LORIMER: That of course is not true. There's nothing to say that any municipality has to change their bylaw. They can carry on exactly the way they're doing now, if they so wish. This allows flexibility, it allows municipalities to change if they want. If they don't want they don't have to. To suggest that everyone has to do what this amendment sets out is not correct. This amendment merely gives flexibility so that you can on different methods. And it's not forcing anybody to do anything.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): The point is that municipalities already can do it, and do it, and are very happy with the methods by which it's done. Now what's the point of passing legislation that isn't necessary?

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

[ Page 4000 ]

On section 18.

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

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the amendment, I have studied the bill and I've studied the amendment on the order paper. I wonder if the Minister — he hasn't dozed off again has he? No, no. I wonder if the Minister would tell us...? Part of this amendment is to strike out all the words after paragraph (f). Well now, I have the legislative statutes amended to December 13, 1974.

I can't find any words after (f). There are no words after (f). There are some statute references. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: Now, if I'm incorrect, then....

AN HON. MEMBER: What does your old lady say?

MR. CURTIS: Don't ever, ever say that. (Laughter.) Well, if the Minister will just tell us. What are the words after (f) which are being deleted by this amendment?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, there's 458 (G), subsection 2, 3, 4; section 458 (H), subsection 1 (A), 1, 2. Then section 458 (I). There's 458 (J). And it then keeps going on and on and on. There's 458 (K) and other subsections. There's 458 (L), 458 (M), 458 (N) (laughter). During your long hours of sleep or work I think you maybe fell asleep in the middle, did you?

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister reads very well but he was reading upper case letters and this is a lower case (f).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CURTIS: Deleting all the words after lower case (f).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CURTIS: And there isn't anything. There is nothing after section 458 (G) subsection 4, clause (f).

HON. MR. LORIMER: My adviser tells me, quote: "And upon application therefore supported by whatever material is required by bylaw under this division, an exemption plate may be issued for such a vehicle without charge if the vehicle is owned by the Crown or for a fee of $2 if the vehicle is not owned by the Crown."

That is deleted. It comes after (f) on page 3168 — the bottom two lines.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I won't take further time of the committee. I look forward to perhaps discussing this with the Clerks and with the Minister if he cares to come along. (Laughter.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

On section 19.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Sections 20 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 103, Municipal Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 110.

NATURAL GAS REVENUE SHARING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 110; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 inclusive approved.

[ Page 4001 ]

On section 3.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Columbia River, Mr. Chairman, that's correct — you're right at last. On section 3(c), Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could tell me just what is meant by "a water assistance programme." Is this going to be a similar kind of grant as has been given to Burns Lake regarding its assistance?

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: (c) is referring to a water system similar to the Sewage Act...

MR. CHABOT: Is that the same percentage?

HON. MR. LORIMER: ...paying 75 per cent of everything over 3 mills.

Sections 3 and 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 110, Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We'll continue with Municipal Affairs and back to Bill 129.

Committee on Bill 130, Mr. Speaker.

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER ACT

The House in committee on Bill 130; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 130, Resort Municipality of Whistler Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 129, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA PAYMENT TO CANADA
OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX
ON BEHALF OF
NATURAL GAS PRODUCERS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 129; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Just a short question to the Minister on whether or not there would be any requirement that any payment made by the Minister of Finance to the federal Minister would be conditional on the same amount of money, or a commitment thereof, be spent in British Columbia.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I'm a bit confused by the question. Do you mean a commitment that the Minister of National Revenue spend this money in B.C.?

MR. BENNETT: That that money would be spent in B.C., yes, that any moneys returned to him would be spent in B.C.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, there will be no such commitment.

MR. BENNETT: There is none?

Section 2 approved.

Sections 3 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

MR. CHABOT: Could the Minister inform us of how many additional employees will be required for the administration of this Act?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it is a bit difficult to say at this time. I think not too many, in that most of the administration of this Act will be done by the federal government, the Department of National Revenue. The only draw on the provincial government's personnel will be in recalculation from time to time as the federal legislation changes. It is

[ Page 4002 ]

unlikely that there will be any additional personnel. It may mean that some of our personnel may have to be seconded to this work from time to time.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In section 30 there is a retroactive provision saying that regulations may be retroactive before the period it was filed or published under the regulations Act. I wonder whether this is only to do with the retroactive provision of 32, which refers to going back to May 6, 1974, the date of the original federal proposals, or whether this indeed will be retroactive for things other than that period.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, certainly that would be the longest retroactivity that would have to be engaged in for any purpose, since that is the date when the federal tax law was changed and the date that was responsible for us bringing this legislation in.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are the regulations only for that period?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Usually not even for that period; but at the longest it would be that period, yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In other words, we can expect no use of this provision in the future where regulations may be made retroactively, for example, six months hence back to today? It wouldn't be used for that purpose?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That is right, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the Member's interpretation.

Section 30 approved.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 129, British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural Gas Producers Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 12.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Hear, hear! At last. Let's hear it for Jimmy.

ROYAL ROADS MILITARY
COLLEGE DEGREES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12, Royal Roads Military College Degree Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 142, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 142; Mr. Liden in the chair.

On section 7 — continued.

MS. BROWN: After that standing ovation I think I should probably just sit down and not say anything. (Laughter.) But I'm going to be very brief because I think this is a very good piece of legislation and I'm going to support it.

I just want to add, as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) said, this piece of legislation was brought into being when a weakness in the Landlord and Tenant Act became apparent, certainly as it applied to hotels and motels. Because of that reason, there is a designation in it as to who should be covered and who shouldn't be covered.

Okay, I recognize that this is a first step, and what I would like to suggest is that it only be an interim step, because as long as there is designation, with the best intentions in the world, some people are going to fall in between the cracks. It's not going to be possible to cover everyone else.

[ Page 4003 ]

So I would certainly like to support the statements of a number of people in this House, including the Member for Vancouver Centre who said that the amendment has to cover all premises that are being used as residences. It should not just confine itself to people depending upon their income, or whether they have or haven't got an income, and as to what kind of income this is.

It is true that there are a number of people who work but who make up that part of the population known as the working poor, and a number of them live in these kinds of accommodations too. They live in motels or they live in hotels.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

It is also true that there are a number of single-parent families headed either by a father or by a mother, with a group of children, who also use these kinds of accommodations. They're not collecting welfare. They're not collecting any pensions. They're not in any way covered by the designations in this bill.

Although I support the bill very strongly because of what it is trying to do, and I recognize that it is here strictly to meet a special need, I would very much like to urge the Minister to give it universality. In other words, it has to cover any kind of accommodation that is being used as residential premises.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want a clarification from the Minister, if he'd give one. There have been some different interpretations placed on this bill by some of the speakers. The Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) and others suggested that perhaps the bill does do what some of us have said it doesn't. I realize, first of all, that there has to be someone on social assistance or handicapped allowance involved first. But then it is every room in that particular home covered by the controls under the rentalsman Act? Is this the true interpretation of the bill?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): In section 2: "upon receiving a report under subsection (1), the rentalsman shall investigate the hotel or motel, and, if he is of the opinion that any room..." — any room. I am informed that that covers it exactly the way the Member just described it. Any room.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Well, Mr. Chairman, I spoke last night about the situation in Vancouver in all rental accommodation and discussed it with the Minister. I haven't heard him reply to my remarks. But here we have the Rent Review Commission, which functioned illegally for quite some time in this province.

We have them going around making commitments of a $7,000 grant to the renters' association in Vancouver to study the situation so they could come up with the recommendations and clean up this situation so they could tell the government. They had $7,000 — a commitment even specified as to breakdown in the cheques. Here the Rent Review Commission says: "No, we can't give you this money." Yet by the same token they did go ahead and gave $7,500 to the renters' group under Bruce Yorke, who were holding public hearings and who published pamphlets. Why? What is this, a lopsided deal? Are you really interested in solving the situation? What happened to this commitment?

Mr. Chairman, what happened to this commitment by the Rent Review Commission to give this grant of $7,000 to the renters' association? They even outlined the breakdown of the cheques, what happened? Yet the $7,500 which was committed to the renters' association was given. They're holding open hearings and carrying on with their side. Now how are we going to solve this problem? You're going to have to have some surveys — you're going to have some input. This is just chewing-gum legislation you've brought in, and it's not going to solve the problem, Mr. Chairman. As I said last night, it's not going to solve the problem.

You've got to have some studies. You're taking a particular situation, you've been forced by your backbenchers to move into this area, and you're not solving the problem. It's going to get worse.

Now are you going to allow the Rent Review Commission to do the studies as they wanted to do to try and come up with some recommendations to the government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye, aye!

MR. PHILLIPS: You can "aye" all you want to. You're not interested in solving the problem, particularly you, Mr. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), the man who is losing millions and millions of dollars for British Columbians today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member return to the section, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. But I'd like...

AN HON. MEMBER: We'd like to go home.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...somebody over there to answer my question. Why did the Rent Review Commission make a commitment on May 7?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): You've

[ Page 4004 ]

asked the question at 2 o'clock and you got a commitment that the Minister is taking it as notice.

MR. PHILLIPS: I got a facetious reply from the Minister. He as the Acting Attorney-General will ask the Acting Minister of Finance. When do I get an answer?

HON. MR. HALL: As soon as those two Members get together. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, by the time they get together the Acting Minister of Finance might be replaced by the Minister of Finance, and the Acting Attorney-General might be replaced by the Attorney-General and I'll never get an answer to my question and I want an answer to my question.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: This was a firm commitment of the Rent Review Commission on May 7. These people have gone out and hired students who want to do their work. I want an answer. I want to know why there was cancellation of the whole programme, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Well, we have this situation, Mr. Chairman, where the Rent Review Commission has to review this situation and they....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Where?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, would you like me to read it?

MR CHAIRMAN: I would like you to refer to this specific section.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you knew the Act, Mr. Chairman, if you'd done your homework, you could put your finger on it immediately. But I'll give you a clue — it's on page 142.

MR. BENNETT: That's not close enough.

MR. PHILLIPS: It says: "The commission, notwithstanding anything to the contrary of this Act, may lease an agreement or may by order fix rent" and so forth. They have to do a study on this so that they'll know.

But the Rent Review Commission is going to lose its credibility if it goes around doing things like this — making commitments to people, putting them out on the hook and then cancelling out. Does this government not stand by its word any more? We need some answers and we need them before we pass this legislation because we're getting into the same situation.

This chewing-gum, patch-up piece of legislation is not going to solve the problem. You know it's going to make it worse. It's going to make the accommodation shorter in supply. It's going to deteriorate in quality. You're maybe going to help, on a very temporary basis, some of those persons who are on limited incomes. Yes, you're going to help them from having rent increases. But it is not going to solve the problem the same as your rent control legislation and your rentalsman didn't solve the problem.

When your rentalsman goes off in another city and says we shouldn't have rent controls, I'd like to know what the answers are. We'd like to help you, Mr. Chairman. We'd like to help the government. I think the study commissioned by the Rent Review Commission to have both the landlords and tenants do their own studies and bring back recommendations to the government may have given us some answers.

But this chewing-gum legislation is not going to help solve the situation. I fear for the people who are going to be affected here because they might have stability in prices they're paying for rental accommodation today, but six months from now there will be nothing for them. Because if this legislation will allow to do what the Minister said it would, that means that any person, any motel or any hotel that might want to help out for an interim period some person on social assistance now would not do so because all of his rooms could come under the jurisdiction of the rent controls. So you're actually harming those people. You're harming them in an already short situation.

In the wintertime, in the slack season, a motel or hotel might possibly want to help some of these people on social welfare, rent out a room just for a particular period of time, maybe because it's a slow period for them and they're willing to have some cash-flow. Now those same operators will not allow them, not even to help them. So you're doing those people a disservice.

I think you had better give some consideration to this, because out in the outlying areas where the tourist traffic is not high in the winter-time, people are willing to rent their motel units out to people on social welfare on a temporary basis. But certainly, Mr. Chairman, they won't do it now. The motel operators in your constituency will not rent any of their rooms out to people on social assistance, on an interim period, because the Rent Review Commission could come in and take over control of all their rental accommodation.

There have been arguments here pro and con, but I

[ Page 4005 ]

think we have really got to give this some consideration. I'd like to have the Minister's comments on this.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to interfere with the passage of this legislation through this House, but to the extent of the question asked by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has entered into the debate — that is the question asked in oral question period — I would just like to say that, as Minister of Agriculture, I believe I have tried, with a pretty good record of success, to answer every question that was put to me.

As acting Attorney-General this afternoon, I did say that this would be taken up with the acting Minister of Finance in that person's capacity as acting chairman of Treasury Board. That's all the information I have on the subject at this time, except that I did give an undertaking that it would be taken up in Treasury.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can certainly appreciate the Minister of Agriculture's more serious attention to my very serious question rather than the sort of off-hand, flippant remark that he gave me during the question period, and I will accept it because I know the Minister is a man of his word.

Section 7 approved.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

APPENDIX

73 The Hon. David Barrett to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 73) intituled School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1, paragraph (a), line 4: By deleting "the grant under the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act" and substituting "$200".

4. If the answer to No. 3 is yes, what was the general nature of that activity?

5. What was the total cost of this trip incurred by the Government of the Province of British Columbia or any of its Crown corporations or agencies?

103 The Hon. J. G. Lorimer to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 103) intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1975, to amend as follows:

By deleting sections 17, 18, and 19 and substituting the following:

S. 458C.

    17. section 458C (2) is amended:

(a) By repealing paragraphs (c) and (d).
            (b) By striking out "licence-plates, and exemption-plates" in paragraphs (e) and (f) wherever it appears and substituting in each case "and licence-plates".

17A. Section 458E is repealed and the following is substituted:
"Licence required.

"458E. No vehicle, other than a vehicle exempt under section 458G (4), shall be operated on a highway in a participating municipality unless there is displayed upon the vehicle a valid and subsisting licence-plate issued in accordance with this Division for the vehicle."

S. 458F.

    17B. Section 458F (4) and (5) is repealed.

[ Page 4006 ]

APPENDIX

S. 458G.

    18. Section 458G (4) is amended:

(a) By striking out "payment of the fees prescribed in" and substituting "the provisions of".

(b) By striking out all the words after paragraph (f).

S. 458H.

    18A. Section 458H (1a) is amended by striking out "and all the fees collected for permits for exemption-plates issued".

    19. Section 458J is amended:

(a) By repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following:

"(1) The owner or operator of a vehicle, other than a vehicle exempt under section 458G (4), who operates or uses or causes such vehicle to be operated or used upon any highway in a participating municipality without holding and displaying a valid and subsisting licence-plate for such vehicle is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $50."

(b) By repealing subsection (2).

(c) In subsection (3), by striking out "or an exemption-plate" and "or exemption-plate" wherever they appear.

(d) By repealing subsection (4).

    Section 29, line 1: By deleting "17, 18, and 19" and substituting "17, 17A, 17B, 18, 18A, and 19".