[ Page 4131 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Surrey Dodge ICBC claims. Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4131

Mr. Cocke –– 4131

Routine proceedings

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1977. Hon. Mr. Mair.

Introduction and first reading –– 4132

Oral questions

Energy outlook hearings. Mr. Macdonald –– 4132

Rental assistance applications. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm answers –– 4133

Ability of PREP offices to handle income assistance recipients. Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm answers –– 4133

Seattle-Victoria jetfoil service. Mr. Wallace –– 4133

Payments to MacMillan Bloedel and Canadian Forest Products. Mr. Levi –– 4134

Cost-of-living increases for senior citizens. Ms. Brown –– 4134

Assistance to Railwest employees. Hon. Mr. Williams answers –– 4135

Presenting reports

Law Reform Commission report on tort liability of public bodies. Hon. Mr.

Williams –– 4135

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates.

On vote 203.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4136

Ms. Sanford –– 4136

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4139

Mr. Lea –– 4140

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4140

Mr. King –– 4140

Mr. Wallace –– 4144

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4147

Ms. Brown –– 4149

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4153

Mr. King –– 4155

Mr. Gibson –– 4157

Mrs. Wallace –– 4160

Appendix –– 4163

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

SURREY DODGE ICBC CLAIMS

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) brought to the House some information that was completely new to me with respect to Surrey Dodge. He stated that Surrey Dodge owed $2,500 to ICBC on another policy entirely - that is, an Autoplan fleet policy -at the time ICBC paid Surrey Dodge $1,850 in settlement of a general insurance claim. I said yesterday afternoon that I would check this information and report back to the House. This is my first opportunity to make such a report, since the information was not available to me by the time the House adjourned last night.

The member was correct, Mr. Speaker, in that ICBC files did show an account receivable from Surrey Dodge of $2,430.66 under the Autoplan fleet account of Surrey Dodge Ltd. at the time the claim was paid. Mr. Speaker, the NDP set up ICBC so that general insurance would operate independently of Autoplan. It had never been the policy to check on Autoplan funds owing before paying a claim under general insurance, providing the general insurance premium had been paid. Thus when the claims coverage committee authorized payment of the Surrey Dodge claim, payment was issued from the Surrey claim centre without cross-checking the Autoplan fleet policy. I have not been able to determine why this information was not obtained in the original report I tabled with this House. Whether the policy of not crossing general insurance and Autoplan accounts was correct will be reviewed by the board of directors at their next meeting.

The corporation has today obtained an opinion from Mr. E.T. Cantell, superintendent of insurance, that it would not have been legal for the corporation to deduct the Autoplan premiums due from the general insurance claims. I will table this letter with the House. Mr. Cantell indicates that it is his instant view that such a course of action would have violated section 19 (l) of the Insurance Act. The corporation would first have to have obtained a judgment against Surrey Dodge for Autoplan funds owing. Mr. Cantell states: "It is important to remember that any other course of action would jeopardize a policy holder entitled to payment of insurance money upon the happening of the event against which he has sought to protect himself by a contract of insurance."

As I explained to members during estimates, the complete files of Surrey Dodge will be made available to the public accounts committee along with any other documents the members wish to have for their next meeting on August 2,1977.

In view of section 12 of the Automobile Insurance Act, I'm not at liberty to table the files themselves with the House, since that would make them public documents. Nevertheless, all of the material will be available for complete scrutiny by the members. Any employee of the corporation will be present for questioning at the request of the committee.

The Surrey Dodge file is in the hands of the RCMP so that any criminal matter can be referred directly to them for investigation. The general manager assures me that all proper steps will be taken to recover any moneys owing to the corporation by Surrey Dodge.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand what the minister is saying. I'm very pleased that he is going to make all vouchers available. I just want to ask that all correspondence also be made available at the time - that is, any correspondence pertaining to the billings of Surrey Dodge. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that there was widespread knowledge of the amount owing.

My last statement, Mr. Speaker, is that what Mr. Cantell says is quite true; you would be contravening the Act unless you got a judgment. That is everybody's right to get a judgment and they should have had that judgment at the time they paid the claim. There is no reason why the claim should have been paid under those circumstances.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, visiting in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Yvonne Andrews. She is accompanied by a friend from Wellington, New Zealand, Sheila Dryden. I would like the House to make them welcome.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, visiting in the gallery today is Mrs. Emma Challen, who is the mother of my secretary. Mrs. Challen is a native-born Victorian and this is the first time she has been in the Legislature. With Mrs. Challen is her granddaughter, Laura Tischer, who is visiting Victoria for the first time from Calgary. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to give a very warm

[ Page 4132 ]

welcome to guests of my well-known and much admired secretary, Mrs. McCubbin, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Stirling and their sons Michael and David, who are from Kelowna, the constituency of the Premier.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, two constituents -from the municipality of Richmond are in the gallery today. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Alex Bulinger and Mr. Warren Heard.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, sitting in the Speaker's gallery today are David Radler and his wife, Rona. Accompanying them to Victoria are David's parents from Miami Beach, Florida, Herb and Dina Radler. They are visiting Victoria for the day only and I hope the House will join me in giving them a warm welcome.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I'd like to add my welcome to the Radlers in this House. I'd like to point out that Mr. Radler is doing a good public service on the British Columbia Development Corporation, a corporation established by this government and thoughtfully carried on by the present administration.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to see the Vancouver South contingent who were able to get here today. In the gallery are Mrs. Nora Bylander and Mrs. Ivy Bradbeer, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart I would inform the House of a very serious tragedy that occasioned in the province earlier this morning. I just learned about it before coming to the House. I received a telephone call from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and apparently seven crippled youngsters drowned in a flat-bottom boat at Lake Cowichan. I don't have specific particulars as yet but I do know that all members would wish me to express our deepest sorrow and prayers for all those involved and concerned.

Introduction of bills.

CREDIT UNIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Mair, Bill 80, Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1977, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

ENERGY OUTLOOK HEARINGS

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. The B.C. Energy Commission announced energy outlook hearings throughout the province of B.C. some time ago. My first question to the minister is whether these public hearings have indeed been postponed on the minister's instructions for a period that can't yet be determined, possibly put off until the middle of the fall or possibly next year. Was that your instruction?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy. It was considered by cabinet advisable to begin an inquiry, if in fact one is held, later in the fall or in the spring.

MR. MACDONALD: Since B.C. Hydro's electrical energy demand projections have been considerably higher than those of the B.C. Energy Commission, have there been representations from the chairman of B.C. Hydro to the government with respect to cancelling the energy outlook hearings of the Energy Commission?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no such representations.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, has there been a management survey consultant's report ordered for the B.C. Energy Commission, which has some 36 employees, including secretarial, and if so, who did the study and how much did it cost?

HON. MR. DAVIS: As I recall, Mr. Speaker, a very small study was commissioned. I'll get the particulars as to what firm carried that out. I do know it is completed and I do know that it was a minor study.

MR. MACDONALD: On another supplementary, I ask the minister whether the government, under his direction, is not simply undercutting the B.C. Energy Commission on the basis that all energy decisions in this province are going to be made in future by the chairman of B.C. Hydro as an energy czar for the province of B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The supplementary question is irregular. It's argumentative, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is an important point because I see the Energy Commission going down the drain under this government, and all

[ Page 4133 ]

the decisions coming from Robert Bonner.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister wants to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Regardless of whether you consider it an important point or not, it is an irregular question and is out of order.

RENTAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATIONS

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide answers to oral questions.

Firstly, they are all very brief except one, and I'll table it. The first is from the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) with respect to the applications sent out for people requesting assistance with respect to rentals. Our experience indicates that advance issuance too often results in loss of forms and, as a consequence, we delayed distribution of these forms until mid-June. The response to date has been quite extensive, but recognizing that some individuals might not be able to meet the July 15 deadline indicated on the forms, we have extended the application period to July 31. Therefore an eligible recipient who applies prior to July 31 will receive the appropriate rental overage benefit for the month of July. If the application is too late for computer processing, retroactive payment for July will be initiated in August. Anyone making application on or after August 1,1977, must comply with existing policy for qualification for rental overage benefits.

ABILITY OF PREP OFFICES TO

HANDLE INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

There was a question from the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. The member asked if any recipients of income assistance were being turned away from PREP, offices in Vancouver. A memorandum was issued by job finder Debbie De Marco, who works from the East Hastings Canada Manpower Office. The memorandum, which was issued only to three Vancouver Resources Board offices in the area, indicated that due to holidays a regular number of clients could not be handled.

However, subsequent to this unauthorized memorandum, a summer student with extensive interviewing experience was hired. Records for the office during this period indicate that, in fact, the volume of clients assisted increased and there was no reduction in services as was suggested by the hon. member.

In response to a question from the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , the hon. member filed the information suggesting that the provincial rehabilitation employment programme staff had referred to Mr. Greg Parker in Ladysmith to an employer who failed to provide the stated compensation for the work. The information received by the hon. member was in error. The applicant was referred by the office of the Community Employment Strategy in Nanaimo, which is a federally funded and operated programme.

The final question was from the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , and because it is rather lengthy I think perhaps there is one place on the order paper I should file the response to it.

SEATTLE-VICTORIA JETFOIL SERVICE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Energy and Transportation. Since traffic on the Princess Marguerite last month was down 18 per cent, and since the Washington State Ferries has announced its intention to initiate a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria, and since the Washington ferries director, Mr. Andreas, has stated that he has not yet contacted the British Columbia government, will the minister be taking any initiative to expedite an early meeting with representatives of the Washington State Ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are certainly interested in any plans that Washington State Ferries may have to serve Victoria, among other points, including those on the Puget Sound. I note, however, that the jetfoil proposal, if in fact it is taken up by Washington state, would not be operative for at least two years.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, when the minister and Mr. Gallagher, the general manager of B.C. Ferry Corporation, recently rejected a proposal by Boeing to initiate a joint jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle, did the minister at that time have any knowledge of plans by the Washington State Ferries to develop a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly never rejected the possibility of the Boeing Company or a combination of firms including the Boeing Company operating a jetfoil or jetfoils between Seattle and Victoria or other points in the United States and Victoria. All that I could have been quoted as saying is that B.C. Ferries is not immediately interested in buying a jetfoil or jetfoils.

MR. WALLACE: Since the Princess Marguerite provides transportation for a larger number of passengers at lesser cost than the jetfoil service, but

[ Page 4134 ]

takes twice as long, does the minister have any concern that a jetfoil service would further reduce the passenger utilization of the Princess Marguerite, with consequent economic and employment repercussions?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, it could reduce the traffic on the Marguerite somewhat. I think, however, jetfoil service and the Marguerite service are, to a large extent, complementary. I did say earlier that the jetfoil competition, if in fact it arises, is at least two years away.

PAYMENTS TO MACMILLAN

BLOEDEL AND CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Attorney-General. Last Thursday I asked the Attorney-General if he was prepared to.... I'm sure he's listening.

MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. Attorney-General.

MR. LEVI: Yes. Attention! Last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Attorney-General if he was prepared to initiate an inquiry into the matters concerning the unauthorized payments in respect to MacMillan Bloedel and Canadian Forest Products. Is the minister in a position to reply at the moment?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): No, I'm not. I'll take your question as notice.

MR. LEVI: Oh, because I wanted to add something, Mr. Speaker. In order to assist the minister....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I just interrupt you very briefly to say that if it's to add information, fine; but if it's a supplemental question to one on notice, it would be improper.

MR. LEVI: It's information, Mr. Speaker. Last week, during the question, the minister seemed to indicate that he had not received certain letters which I think would assist him.

There was a letter sent by Mr. Paddy Neale, a copy of which went to the Attorney-General on May 3, relating to this matter. I would ask him if he would like to get a copy of the letter sent in reply by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) in which he stated: "Since the instances of irregularities referred to are all Criminal Code matters and do not fall within the jurisdiction of my ministry, any comments which might be made by this government will have to come from the Attorney-General."

Does the Attorney-General have a copy of that letter?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. LEVI: I'll provide him with a copy then.

MR. BARRETT: Well, don't you guys get together?

SENIOR CITIZENS COLA INCREASE

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) for answering one of the questions which he took as notice ...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: ... and to ask whether he is ready to answer the question which I put to him on June 14 and again on July 5, about the cost-of-living increase which the federal government introduced on July 1 for senior citizens over the age of 65. 1 asked whether the Ministry of Human Resources was going to give a similar increase to people between the ages of 60 and 65. The minister took that as notice on June 14. I'm wondering if he is ready to answer that question now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall taking that as notice. As a matter of fact, I think I responded then, as I must now, that it is a matter of policy.

MS. BROWN: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister know that serial letter 544448 from his office, dated July 20, went out saying that the government was not going to give this cost-of-living increase to people between the ages of 60 and 65? Does the minister know what is going on in his department?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe you stated your question.

MS. BROWN: The minister doesn't know what Dianne Hartwick is doing in his office. The minister doesn't know what the PREP programme is doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please take her seat?

MS. BROWN: Does the minister know that the serial letter went out saying that. he was not going to be giving this?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[ Page 4135 ]

MS. BROWN: He wants to take over the Vancouver Resources Board and he doesn't know what is going on in his department.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you've asked your supplemental question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, these serial letters are sent out every quarter to inform the offices with regard to the cost-of-living increase which is granted federally and which is passed through. The hon. member has placed an interpretation on the letter that doesn't exist in the letter.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Do you have a supplementary, Norm? Mr. Speaker, I will defer to the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. LEVI: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. The minister indicated that he is not aware of the serial letter that goes out. But surely there has to be an approval by the minister of an expenditure of money. Did you not approve it?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I'm asking him; he's the minister now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know. Obviously the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, was not listening, and I will repeat again. I certainly was aware of the serial letter that goes out every quarter to advise the offices of the pass-through of the federal increase, the cost-of-living adjustment. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, as I stated, put an interpretation on the letter which doesn't exist.

MR. LEVI: Am I to take it, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is saying that all quarterly increases will be passed on without reference to his office? Is that what he is saying?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I didn't say that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member again is saying something which wasn't said previously. These quarterly increases are brought to the attention of the ministry and they are dealt with as they have been for the last several years in a similar manner.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy files answers to questions 13 and 73.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tables a letter.

Hon. Mr. Phillips files answer to question 75.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt files answers to questions raised during his estimates.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the report of the Law Reform Commission of B.C., Tort Liability of Public Bodies.

ASSISTANCE TO RAILWEST EMPLOYEES

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I didn't want to take the time in question period. I would like to have the opportunity to make a brief response to a question posed by the Leader of the Opposition.

With regard to Railwest, a question was asked of me by the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) originally, about assistance being afforded to the employees of that organization. Then the Leader of the Opposition inquired if I would file a copy of the agreement. I said that I understood the agreement had been signed in the last seven or 10 days. I find in one respect I was right and in another respect I was wrong because there are two agreements. The agreement in which the Ministry of Labour was involved with Canada Manpower was an agreement dated and signed June 22,1977. It was an agreement which resulted from a request on behalf of the union to Canada Manpower for certain assistance to be made available to employees who were considering relocating themselves at that time. That agreement is in my possession and it is being sent down to my office. I'll be happy to lay it on the table so that the Leader of the Opposition can review it.

The second agreement, which is the Canada Manpower Mobility Incentive Agreement, is an agreement between the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration and the company in which the Ministry of Labour was not a party. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we were not a party. I am finding out that information. At any rate, the information I have is that that agreement was signed July 21. A copy is not presently in my possession, but I have asked to have it made available. I will table that as well.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 203: minister's office, $131,284 -

continued.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Ministre de Travail, vote 203.

[ Page 4136 ]

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I would ask the Attorney-General to kindly consult his Larousse de poche for the correct pronunciation of "Minister of Labour" en.francais.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Last evening the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) addressed some remarks to the House. She posed one specific question and I will have the response to that directly. However, 'she made some other general comments and I would like to have the opportunity of responding very briefly to them.

In regard to the Vietnamese fund, the decision was a government decision. It was announced by the Premier, as it properly should be. It was not as a result of any pressure placed upon the Premier by me or indeed by any other minister, but it was one taken after careful consideration by the government. I do not believe there is any difference in the position taken by me and the hon. Provincial Secretary with regard to what the government's obligation was in regard to that fund.

The hon. member was kind enough to suggest that I was being trampled upon by other ministers of this government. I assure you that is not the case. Just as the hon. member does, I look forward to debating legislation which will be coming before this House without offending the rules, Mr. Chairman.

I would like, however, to correct some of the impressions which were left by the member when she was talking about the unemployment situation in this province. It is typical of some commentaries that attention is paid to the numbers game of percentages of unemployed. I think it is a negative approach and it overlooks completely the positive results with regard to employment which we are currently enjoying in British Columbia.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): What do you do when you are in opposition?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: She referred to statistics produced by the Ministry of Labour, as we do each month, and I am referring to the most recent issue of the labour force statistics, June, 1977. In dealing with employment growth, which I suggest is a more positive approach to this problem and one which indicates quite clearly the confidence that is being restored to this province under this government, I would quote from the report.

"Employment growth over the past 12 months remains strong. B.C.'s 4.3 per cent increase is well above the national average of 1.9 per cent, a margin that has been retained from the last month. Unemployment remains at its level of the previous year; but as can be seen from the statistics, national unemployment has risen way over 16 per cent. Ours is remaining static. These trends are common to the three western provinces, whose labour market performance has generally exceeded that of the nation as a whole.

"Total employment in the province was up 15,000 persons over May of this year, an increase of 1.4 per cent of the work force and an increase of 45,000 persons over one year ago.

MR. LEA: That's not good enough.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

"Employment totalled 1,000, 100 persons during the month of June. The total employment appeared to increase most significantly among men, up 13,000, and among younger workers, up 10,000.

"With regard to performance in various sectors of the economy, in the manufacturing sector employment showed an increase of 4,000 persons over the month of May, but over the previous year experienced the largest increase - 17,000 persons over June of 1976.

"In the service sector, the only significant increase during the month was a 7,000-person increase in transportation, communication and other utilities group. Compared to one year earlier, the clerical, sales, service and other primary occupations have all shown increases in the 11,000- to 13,000-persons range, while the number of persons employed in processing occupations has regretfully fallen by 8,000 persons."

Mr. Chairman, no one in this nation can be satisfied with these employment figures, but to suggest that the actions of this government have not been effective is to deny the statistics and to fail to relate the importance of those statistics to the results which are obtained throughout the rest of this country.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): To go back over the minister's first comments with respect to the decision on Vietnam, I indicated yesterday that I was pleased with the position the minister took, as was quoted in The Vancouver Sun article some months ago, and I indicated that in that same article the Provincial Secretary indicated that, no, the government did not have a responsibility to honour that commitment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: An obligation.

MS. SANFORD: An obligation, all right. An obligation, a responsibility - they're virtually the same as far as I can tell, Mr. Chairman. But it was during the discussion of the Premier's estimates that we

[ Page 4137 ]

raised this issue - the day that the front page story appeared which seemed to give conflicting statements by two ministers within that government. It was because the opposition on that day, during the estimates of the Premier, pushed and pushed to find out where the Premier stood. Did he feel the government had no obligation, or did he agree with the Minister of Labour, who said: "Yes, I do feel we have an obligation to honour the commitment that had been made by a previous parliament."?

That announcement was made that very afternoon during the discussion of the Premier's estimates and what I said yesterday, Mr. Chairman, still stands. It was because this minister was prepared to come out and support the concept that the Premier, in fact, was shamed, through questioning by the opposition at that time, into saying: "Yes, I do feel that this government has a responsibility." He was responding that afternoon to pressures from the opposition which stemmed from a news story at that time. But I'm pleased the decision was made and I'm pleased the minister took that stand at that time. I compliment him for it, but I just wanted to go on record as pointing out how the whole thing came about.

Mr. Chairman, the minister this afternoon - and I'm afraid that governments are inclined to do this -was trying to tell us that 8.3 per cent level of unemployment is indeed showing that British Columbia is in good shape, that the government is doing a fine job, and that that is acceptable. I pointed out yesterday, Mr. Chairman, how the lineups of unemployed, particularly among the young people, continue to grow to the extent where actual jostling and fighting for position in a line so that they can get a job in this province is taking place. That is unacceptable, Mr. Chairman. That situation can be thrown right back on the shoulders of the provincial government in terms of the actions that they have taken, particularly in their approach to economics during the past 18 or 19 months.

Mr. Chairman, it's a bleak winter for the people of this province. If we have levels of 8.3 per cent unemployment at this time, you can be assured, Mr. Chairman, that this winter the lineups are going to be even longer than they are now.

There is one thing that I would like to mention this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, with respect to other comments that the minister made. You know, I don't envy any Minister of Labour in any government across Canada, or the world for that matter, because it's one of the most sensitive jobs that any cabinet minister can undertake. In this province, Mr. Chairman, it's a far more difficult job than it is in many other jurisdictions, because in B.C. we've had a volatile labour-management relationship for years and years, and the minister is aware of that. The minister also knows how essential it is that the climate be right for that very sensitive procedure called collective bargaining to take place.

Now this minister, Mr. Chairman, we had assumed had a lot of stature within his government. He seemed to be on top of the situation. He seems to have control most of the time and we've noticed that he's been given some quite important positions within cabinet, such as chairing the committee that heard the appeals on the Revelstoke dam.

We notice that people within cabinet are very often going to that minister to confer with him, to get his opinions; they value his opinions. That is why we cannot understand and we cannot accept the fact that other ministers are treading on his direct jurisdiction at this time. They are pushing him around, Mr. Chairman, and he is remaining very silent on the whole issue.

We have the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) both moving in and saying that the Labour Code shall not apply. Here we have sitting there the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the administration of the Labour Code and who knows how important it is that the sensitive climate between labour and management be maintained out there. Yet he is being pushed around to this extent.

The minister said we can talk about bills that are on the order paper when they come up for discussion. But, Mr. Chairman, this is his direct jurisdiction that is being interfered with. I think the minister should have some comments at this stage about the Labour Code, one of the most important pieces of legislation in this whole province, being set aside on behalf of other ministers. I'm not going to dwell on it and I'm not going to talk about the legislation that is on the order paper.

If this minister is to be successful, he must show that he is strong and that he is not prepared to have other ministers enter into his jurisdiction and push him around and tramp all over him. I'm afraid that is what is happening, Mr. Chairman.

I have an example of another minister who is intruding into his jurisdiction and the Minister of Labour is not saying anything about it.

We had an announcement, some time ago, by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , concerning the Council of Public Sector Employers.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Finance - who's he?

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Finance made this announcement ...

MR. LEA: What does he look like?

MS. SANFORD: ... about a sector that is going to be set up of all of those who are employing people in the public sector.

[ Page 4138 ]

MR. LEA: He's a sheep in Wolfe's clothing.

MS. SANFORD: It is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, that in this morning's Vancouver Province we have the mayor of Vancouver saying that the provincial government, as announced by the Minister of Finance, is setting up a new provincial bureaucracy, which he is opposed to because he sees it as a possible threat to the autonomy of municipalities in labour relations matters. That's in today's Province.

Labour relations matters under this Council of Public Sector Employers announced by the Minister of Finance - where is the Minister of Labour on this? Why is he not speaking out and expressing his concern about the possible intrusion of this particular council into the jurisdiction of labour-management relations? He is very silent on it. I'm wondering if he has the clout in cabinet that we originally thought he had. I'm wondering if he is still sitting there, prepared to be pushed around by this minister, that minister and the other ministers.

This council, as announced by the Minister of Finance, is intruding into the jurisdiction of labour-management relations, according to the mayor of Vancouver. I haven't heard the minister say anything about this. Perhaps the minister has not even seen the coverage in the paper today about this. But I doubt that, Mr. Chairman. He probably knows about it.

I am wondering what has prompted the mayor, Jack Volrich, to make those comments in the paper today. Is it that the Minister of Labour does not have the clout in cabinet to ensure that there is no intrusion on his jurisdiction and that he has had to go to the mayor of Vancouver and say: "Please speak out on this. We need someone to speak out because labour-management relations are being interfered with again by yet another minister within that cabinet."? I wonder if that is how the whole thing came about.

In the same article, Mr. Al Keylock, who is the acting director of this council, says that the organization is purely voluntary, that there is no money set aside by the provincial government on this and that there are to be eight staff people. I don't know how they are going to be paid. That is also in direct contradiction to the working paper that was presented to the Minister of Finance, of all people, on this particular issue. The working paper suggests, under a section called "funding, " that the budget will probably have to be in the order of at least $250,000 and that there will be at least 50 people required to operate this Council of Public Sector Employers.

This is a council, Mr. Chairman, which the government is setting up - while the minister is sitting silently, not even taking an interest in it, so it seems - in order to hold down the wages of people who work in the public sector. That is what this council is all about. It will probably grow to a staff of about 50, as is recommended in their working paper on this issue.

It will probably cost $1.25 million in order to ensure that those people working in the public sector now will have their wages kept down once the anti-inflation programme is no longer in place. The minister has said that he is not keen to have an anti-inflation board as such set up in this province. He told us very clearly that it would be unworkable and disastrous. Yet here we have a Council of Public Sector Employers which is being set up by this government, announced by a minister other than the Minister of Labour, which is set up to keep down the wages of working people employed in the public sector.

. Mr. Chairman, the climate under which all industrial relations take place in this province is extremely important, and I am afraid that the climate can very easily be destroyed. The former minister worked very hard to establish that climate by bringing in the best possible labour legislation so that the whole collective bargaining process could take place without interference. He was able to establish the confidence of both the employers and employees in this province, which is an absolute essential ingredient if we are going to have labour peace. I am afraid that this minister through his colleagues and his adopted caucus is allowing that climate to be eroded and destroyed. It's happening. People out there are afraid. Just look at what has happened under the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . Look at the way in which the public employees there have been treated and what kind of morale they have at this stage because of the way they have been handled, because of the industrial relations carried out through that minister. Then we have the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) ; then we have the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) ; then the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) - all of them. Then we have the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) laying off those people on the ferries and again causing a very low morale within the employees on the ferry fleet. It's happening time and time again.

The people out there, the public, are now wondering what kind of clout this Minister of Labour has in this province. Why isn't he speaking out? Why isn't he protecting the rights of workers under the Labour Code? Why is he allowing these other ministers to intrude upon his jurisdiction in that way? Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's good enough for the Minister of Labour to simply say: "Oh, we'll discuss that on whatever bills are on the order paper." I hope the minister is prepared to get up and give us some indication that he still has some strength and clout in

[ Page 4139 ]

that cabinet.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member for Comox suggested that she didn't envy any Minister of Labour. Well, I think she should. This is a challenging responsibility and one which I enjoy very much. It gives me the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to work with such distinguished officials of the ministry as Deputy Minister James Matkin, who is seated behind me on the floor, and beside him, Assistant Deputy Minister Frank Rhodes, who is responsible for the total administration of the ministry. I hope that Associate Deputy Minister Azad of the manpower division will be able to be here later in the afternoon.

Yes, the member for Comox is correct that industrial relations is a very volatile relationship, and I respect very much the advances that were made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) when he occupied this portfolio in dampening some of the strong feelings that those relationships had developed. Many of the programmes which he had under consideration or had initiated have been brought to fruition and improved upon under my ministry.

In addition, we have also embarked upon programmes which are specifically designed to calm the climate which is so necessary for proper industrial relations practices to be carried out. That will be the policy of this ministry, and nothing which I will do as minister will change that direction. In the fullness of time we will realize industrial peace and harmony for the better advantage of the economy of this province for all people - workers and employers alike - only if we are able to achieve that kind of relationship.

I would like to remind the member for Comox, if she could care to take it into account, that there is developing in this province a new relationship between employers and employees as represented by their trade unions such as we would not have seen half a dozen years ago.

I had the pleasure, with my deputy minister, of attending a meeting of the Skeena Manpower Development Committee in Terrace a few weeks ago. This is an organization that was started with a small nucleus of employers' representatives and employees' representatives to see whether they couldn't come together around the same table and develop an area of communication which previously had not been existing in that part of this province. They were quite frank to admit that at the first meeting the tension was pretty high. After successive meetings, they found that it was possible to communicate one with the other; that there was a recognition of similar problems; but more importantly, that there was a recognition of the importance of resolving those problems other than through the means of industrial dispute. Great advances have been made. Many more advances must be made. But at least there is the ready willingness on the part of both sides - if you want two sides - in that area.

The member talks about the council of public sector employers. I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the initiation and subsequent activities of the council of public sector employers are on a voluntary basis, and they will not carry out any responsibilities which are contrary to the laws of this province. Indeed, that is not their function any more than in the private sector organizations of employers, or organizations of trade unions, who join together for the purpose of mutual benefit are allowed to function outside the laws of this province, contrary to the Code, or in the case of the public sector, as far as the government service is concerned, contrary to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. That is fundamental to the formation of the council.

I haven't seen the remarks of His Worship, the Mayor of Vancouver, but if he believes that the council is in any way an interference with the responsibility of the mayor and his council in labour relations matters, then I hasten to assure him that is not the case. Not only is it not the case, but if any move were made in that direction it would not be permitted by the Minister of Labour, nor indeed by the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Chairman, the member shouldn't be surprised by the formation of a Council of Public Sector Employers, because there is already in existence a similar grouping of public sector trade unions. As a matter of fact, I understand that the public sector trade unions have indicated a willingness to sit down with the council of employers in order that there may be a clear understanding of what their respective roles will be in the public sector.

So, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the hon. member that she need have no fears about what this council may do. It is a place for the exchange of information and not one which will have any role in collective bargaining or the resolution of industrial disputes.

Lastly, I would like to say that the member insists that the Ministry of Labour is somehow or other the keystone or the cornerstone of the entire government and that every decision of every ministry somehow or other impinges upon the Ministry of Labour. That is not true, and the member knows it.

MS. SANFORD: I didn't say it either.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With regard to decisions which are made - and they are government decisions - all cabinet ministers are involved in the making of those decisions. They are not made as a result of trampling over anyone or pushing anyone aside. That may have been the case with some cabinet ministers in the days of the NDP government, but it certainly is not the way in which this government functions.

Specifically, last evening the member asked me

[ Page 4140 ]

how many young persons were registered with the youth referral service operated by the Ministry of Labour. The answer to that is, as of this date, the total number registered is 32,351. Those young persons may be referred to either Phase I or Phase 2 of the employment programme. To date, 15,900 such young persons have been referred and have found employment.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us how many more students are likely to be employed. He says they have 15,900 now and 32,000 applicants. How many more are likely to be hired with the money that was made available? We must recall that initially the government put in $15 million here and then added another $7.5 million because the situation in this province is so bad.

The other points I would like to make, going back to the Council of Public Sector Employers, is that the least the government can do with respect to setting up this employers' council is to consult with the people involved.

In this same article that was brought to my attention this morning, in the Vancouver Province, we have His Worship Mayor Jack Volrich saying: "We expected to be consulted, and find it regrettable that the provincial government chose to ignore the municipalities in setting up this bureaucracy." They have not even been consulted. No wonder they are concerned about intrusion into labour-management relations as far as the GVRD and the municipalities are concerned. What goes on?

The minister tries to indicate to us that these are decisions that are being made, and that it's a voluntary thing and they are having a lot of work being done in terms of research and involving people and finding out, and yet we have the mayor of the largest city in British Columbia saying: "I wish we were consulted." I hope that the provincial government takes note of the fact that Mayor VoIrich is unhappy about this situation and that he would like to be involved and consulted. Again we find this government steaming ahead, without consulting the people that are going to be affected by the decisions that it's undertaking.

MR. LEA: I suppose the Minister of Labour's job is somewhat like that of a fireman: there's only one time that a real test can be applied, which is when there's a fire or when there's a problem that really calls upon the skills of a good Labour minister. I hope that when that occasion arises this minister will stand the test. I know that he's gone around, as the firemen do, filling bottles during the course of time between fires, but we haven't really had a fire yet. But the time will come - I'm sure we all hope it doesn't -when that does happen, and I just hope this minister can take that kind of heat.

There's one area that I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions on, and that's the summer employment programme. I'd like to first of all ask the minister whether within the last month he's had a report, internal or otherwise, in his desk on that programme, and whether there's anything in that report that would indicate that not all is well administratively, that maybe money has gone to employers where it should have gone to other employers, or whether there is maybe'25 per cent overspending or underspending. But first of all let's just deal and see whether the minister has a report on his desk that he may have had done that he's read within the last month that would indicate that not all is well. Before I go on with any further questions I'd just like to ask the minister whether I'm even close. Has there been any report in his desk that would indicate that not all is well administratively with that programme?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, first of all, maybe the Minister of Labour is like a fireman, and all firemen are tested when there's a fire, but like all good fire departments I think that the best work is done when there are no fires, and they actively carry on work of prevention and education'to ensure that that test is never reached, because the consequences of the supreme test can be pretty severe.

With regard to the youth employment programme, I have not had a report. We operate as part of the youth employment programme an assessment group, as we did last year. The report was critical of some aspects of the programme which was run during 1976, and as a result we made changes. I can't tell if the report this year will be critical, because it hasn't been completed, but, like all of these programmes, we're looking for criticism and for competent assessment so it can be approved. I have no report down on my desk but I know the assessment group is functioning.

MR. LEA: Has the report that was done on the programme for last year been made public?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. LEA: Will it be? Could it be tabled in the House during your estimates, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No. It's an internal report with regard to administrative matters only. It deals with the functioning of personnel in the Ministry of Labour and with personnel in other ministries, and it's not one which I will table.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, I've been listening very closely to the minister, and certainly I want to associate myself

[ Page 4141 ]

with his remarks regarding the excellence of the staff in the Ministry of Labour, not only in senior positions, but certainly it is my experience that personnel in the entire department were extremely competent and extremely enthusiastic about the jobs that they were doing. I'm glad to hear that that is still the case.

My colleague, the member for Comox, has discussed with the minister the whole rather intangible area of an adequate climate in which healthy industrial relations can function in the province, and the minister has commented on it too, Mr. Chairman. Certainly it's my strong belief that there has to be an attitude created within which industrial relations can function with some spirit of security in terms of the rights of the people involved - both trade unions and employers groups. In my view, that certainly is a key prerequisite to making any advances in what the minister indicates is his goal of bringing about a situation where there is relative industrial peace. I don't think the utopian goal of complete industrial peace will ever be attained but certainly there is a great deal of improvement to be striven for.

I was interested, Mr. Chairman, in the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , if I can depart for just a moment to set an example for the Minister of Labour in terms of how important it is for ministers of the Crown, no matter which portfolio they preside over, to not only be the custodians of the jurisdiction designated to them, but to indicate very demonstrably to their client groups, as it were, that they are prepared to protect the integrity and the jurisdiction of the portfolio which they have been appointed to administer. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Forests was very concerned about budworms eating up the forests. He was prepared to mount a major attack on those budworms and to poison them. His cabinet colleagues were more concerned about the environment and they shot the minister down. But did that stop the Minister of Forests? No way. He's out there waging verbal warfare on the budworms, determined not to rest until he sees their complete demise.

Mr. Chairman, what we have with respect to the Minister of Labour are incessant attacks upon the rights of working people, as expressed through their trade union organization, by various of his cabinet colleagues, without one utterance from the Minister of Labour to indicate that he will stand against unwarranted and questionable legal incursions into his jurisdiction; that he will be in reality the defender of the rights of working people and management organizations as well. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it might help just to read some significant sections of the Labour Code which the Minister of Labour has just finished stating he will defend the integrity of. He indicated that if the charges of His Worship the mayor of Vancouver are true, then the full weight of the minister's office and the Labour Relations Board in terms of protecting the spirit and the concept of the Labour Code law would be brought into play.

Section 2 of the Labour Code confers certain rights upon people. That is the very essence of the law governing industrial relations in this province. Section 2 says: "Every employee is free to be a member of a trade union and to participate in its lawful activities." That is a basic foundation. Similar rights are given to employer groups. Every employer is free to be a member of an employers' organization and to participate in its lawful activities. There are certain key sections of the law surrounding industrial relations, giving basic rights as the foundation of industrial relations in the province. Section 27 of the Labour Code deals with the objectives and the underlying philosophy of the law which the Minister of Labour administers. I think that it would be appropriate to read part of that at least, Mr. Chairman. It says, in giving powers to the board to actually be the administrative apparatus of effecting the Labour Code law:

"The board may exercise the powers and shall perform the duties conferred or imposed upon it under this Act in accordance with the following purposes and objects:

" a) promoting effective industrial relations in the interests of achieving and maintaining good working conditions and the well-being of the public.

"b) encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of employees.

"c) promoting conditions favourable to the orderly and constructive settlement of disputes between employers and employees and between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representative of employees.

"d) securing and maintaining industrial peace and furthering harmonious relations between employers and employees."

I want to ask the Minister of Labour how he squares those objectives; how he squares his responsibility to defend those principles that are law in the province of British Columbia against the abolition of certified trade unions, against the abolition of successor rights to certain trade unions in the province in direct contravention of the rights given to them in the Labour Code of British Columbia. How does he square that? And how does he explain his silence on these matters?

It's true that in most cases his colleagues in the executive council are the offenders. But, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Labour will stand silent for his colleagues running over the principles and rights of the law that he is sworn to uphold, can trade unions and management groups in the province have

[ Page 4142 ]

any confidence that the minister will grant them the full measure of the law against incursions from anyone else, whether it be a private organization, employer or trade union? The minister has remained silent; he has allowed the law that he administers to be thrown out the window, denying statutory rights to the workers that are conveyed on them in the Labour Code of British Columbia. He has allowed the function of the Labour Relations Board, which is a creature of his government responsible for applying the law under the Labour Code of British Columbia, to be circumvented. He has allowed their integrity to be insulted and he remains silent. Yet he stands up in the House and pays lip service to the objectives of the code.

You can't have it both ways, I suggest, Mr. Chairman. The minister either has to have the intestinal fortitude to stand against unforgivable incursions into the law - contempt for the law that he is sworn to administer - by his political colleagues as well as anyone in the private sector, because it's wrong. It's certainly ill-advised and unnecessary. I suggest that it is going to run counter to his stated objectives of bringing any stability, any harmony and any confidence in the climate for industrial relations in this province. Unquestionably so. The trade union movement is in a state of panic today.

Certainly they are in a state of panic, when you see ads taken out in the daily papers in the city of Vancouver expressing tremendous fears. Perhaps somewhat hysterical. But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that those hysterical fears of the trade union movement could be assuaged greatly if that minister would stand in defence of the integrity of the law which he is sworn to uphold. He has completely forsaken the responsibility that he has to protect the rights of working people in the province.

I want to remind him of section 2 of the code again. What does it say? It's a basic start and prerequisite for all of the law contained in the Labour Code. It says: "Every employee is free to be a member of a trade union and to participate in its lawful activities." And yet here's the Minister of Labour - and he should be the Minister of Labour, for the rights of all working people to freely bargain collectively - standing anemically silent, Mr. Chairman. He allows those rights conveyed in the code to be completely wiped out. I don't know how he can even look at himself in the mirror in the morning, much less call himself the Minister of Labour. It's a very, very anemic performance.

One of my colleagues asks: is this man going to be strong enough to stand in the face of real tests when it comes to volatile industrial relations in this province? My God, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) had more commitment to the budworms than this minister has to the working people of the province of British Columbia.

He had the gumption and the gall to get up and disagree with his cabinet and colleagues. He wanted to kill the budworms because they threatened the forests he was sworn to protect and husband.

Here we have a Minister of Labour who, with the law contained in the code that he administers that grants certain basic, fundamental rights to trade union people and to working people in this province, sits there with his head in his hand and allows the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to take legislative initiatives which simply thumb their noses at this law and wipe out all of the hard-fought rights of working people for years, I think he's a disgrace, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know; perhaps it's ignorance. Perhaps the reason he lacks any commitment to working people has something to do with his own life experience. I don't know. That's one thing. We are all hung up by our backgrounds to some extent. But I find it unforgivable when the minister displays a shocking ignorance of the law that he is designated to apply and uphold. He's a lawyer, Mr. Chairman. He is well trained. He is certainly a legislator of long standing; he has been in this House for many years. He has had great political experience in a variety of parties, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps that's what makes it easy for him to forget the rights of working people.

What was most unforgivable to me was when the Premier, the Provincial Secretary, the Attorney-General, and old.... Not Leather-lungs but the minister of industrial development - what's his name?

MR. BARRETT: He can't recall.

MR. KING: They all attacked the rights of working people to function in their freely chosen trade union. The Premier's line was: "Well, in the case of a labour dispute, workers should not be allowed to go out and get another job." That was his contribution. Not a very well-educated analysis by any means.

MR. BARRETT: Then the companies should stop making a profit.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's what your party supports, isn't it?

MR. KING: We've got to start cutting back on the hours. We've got to start cutting back on the collective agreements and start working people longer hours. There was the Liberal defender of private contracts suggesting that we should interfere with those private collective-agreement contracts and start requiring working people to give up what they have won through collective bargaining - the right to work

[ Page 4143 ]

shorter hours.

It wasn't just the workers' decision; that was a joint agreement entered into between their employer and the employees. Did the Minister of Labour stand up and say: "Keep your cotton-picking nose out of my department. I'm here to protect the rights of working people."? No, he didn't.

MR. BARRETT: No way.

MR. KING: In fact, he added some fuel to the fire, Mr. Chairman. He said in a statement that the trade unions were going to have to be more responsible in revealing the financial accounts of trade unions in the province. He said it should be subject to greater public scrutiny, or some such statement. He was thinking about legislative action to make financial accounting by trade unions more public and more accessible to the public.

Mr. Chairman, he was apparently completely ignorant of section 143 of the Labour Code he administers. I'm going to read it to him. I think the deputy was away at the time and probably no one was able to bring it to the minister's attention. Perhaps if they did, he has subsequently forgotten. I want to read it to him, Mr. Chairman, so he will understand that if only the Bar association was required to account publicly like trade unions and employers organizations, perhaps there wouldn't be the public criticisms of those ivy league institutions that there is today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I think the member is aware of the fact that the administrative action of the ministry is open to debate, but necessity for legislation or matters involving legislation are not properly debated. As long as the member is only going to make a passing reference it could be permitted, but to make a general debate out of it would not be proper.

MR. KING: Thank you for your assistance and tolerance, Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly not discussing any legislative initiatives that should take place; I'm simply reminding the minister of the parameters of his administrative responsibility. In order to carry out that responsibility effectively he should know the law that he is sworn to administer. Section 143 has this to say:

"Every trade union and every employers organization shall make available free of charge to each of its members before the first day of June in each year a copy of the audited financial statement of its affairs to the end of the last fiscal year, signed by its president and treasurer or corresponding principal officers. The financial statement shall contain information in sufficient detail to disclose accurately the financial condition and operations of the trade union or employers organization for its preceding fiscal year." On it goes.

The obligation to fully reveal to members of the organization and to the Labour Relations Board is already inherent in the law which the minister advises. Yet he's out on the hustings, apparently interested in not letting the reactionary statements and admonitions of the Premier and the Provincial Secretary and other members of that disparate lot over there outstrip him. He was apparently interested in enflaming the . climate a little bit himself by advocating more stringent regulations of free employees organizations, blissfully unaware that the law already required that the full financial accounting be undertaken. If that is a sampling of his approach to creating a better industrial relations climate in the province of British Columbia, then I must say, Mr. Chairman, I fear for the future.

It is interesting that in this regard that right in the magazine, The Provincial, published by the B.C. Government Employees Union - many of them work for the minister in his own department - is the BCGEU general fund statement of revenue and expenses for the year ended March 31,1976. It is there for the world to see. I wonder what the minister meant when he intimated that there might be some legislative initiative to get into the internal workings of trade unions more than is now the case. It is either ignorance or some other motive which has not yet been revealed.

But I am genuinely concerned. If I have been somewhat harsh with the minister, I suggest that it is not nearly as harsh as the treatment that working people in this province have received at the hands of that government thus far. In terms of the operation of the department and his handling of disputes are concerned, I have no criticism to this point or very little - at least for the current year. But I want to say that everything hinges on confidence that the climate and the structure of industrial relations is going to be preserved. If there is to be any confidence, then that minister has to learn and has to recognize that he is the one on the seat; he is the one with the responsibility for either defending the rights and obligations of employers and working people or he is not worth the title of Minister of Labour in this province. There is great fear and great concern out there in the public at the moment. Who next are going to lose their rights? Who next is going to be arbitrarily certified by a stroke of the legislative pen? Who next is going to be denied successor status, the right to pick up union certification should the employers change? What about the employers organizations? Is the employers' council safe? I am sure that Bill Hamilton is extremely concerned about the motives of this minister. I know that the FIR,

[ Page 4144 ]

that large agency that bargains for the forest industry, is frightfully concerned about what the minister has in mind for them. I don't know whether he has any decertification plans in mind there or not, but I say this: the trade union movement is quite correct when they say that once the precedent of stripping away rights that have been hard won and accepted both by employers and trade unions is established, then no one else - no organization - is safe. I think it is absolutely incumbent upon the minister to get up and make a clear statement in terms of what he proposes to do to protect the integrity of the laws that he has the obligation to administer.

MR. WALLACE: This debate on the estimates of the minister, I think, is one of the more important ones that we will hold this session. Although it started off on a rather humourous note, Mr. Chairman, my secretary was given a message last night that after the House Leader completed the debate on Education he went into Labour. I found that very interesting, considering his genetic inheritance. At any rate, this isn't an afternoon when there are enough members in the House to appreciate my attempts at humour, obviously. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I notice you're smiling. Perhaps it is not a good debate in which to make a sexist joke because I want to talk about human rights, and it's that kind of smart-aleck remark I have just made that gets me into trouble.

I appreciated the minister's introductory remarks last night because it gave the members of the opposition some brief outline of the work of the various branches of the minister's responsibilities. I happen to differ a little bit from the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) because I believe that this minister is doing a good job as Minister of Labour. But, as in any summing-up on a minister's performance, I have to admit that there are areas where I have reservations.

It seems to me we have a measure of labour peace in our province at the present time, which in some respects, I believe, is the result of wage and price control, Mr. Chairman. I also fear that it may well be the lull before the storm in the face of decontrol, which the federal government seems determined to implement. That's why I have personally tried to follow the intentions of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) very carefully in question period and at other times, because I'm not sure that this government is prepared to deal, either in the area of employment and labour-management relations, with the very potential risk that exists if the decontrol period is not well managed. That might be a euphemistic way to talk about decontrols when what we really mean is that we will be back to square one, where everybody will be trying to get a bigger share of the pie than they deserve in the absence of legislation to control the situation.

I would agree, in part, with the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) that the philosophy of this government in the area of labour management is causing concern. One cannot but understand why unions in British Columbia are fearful in the face of recent legislation introduced by this government. The Social Credit convention left the impression that it was only the clout and the prestige of this minister, together with the Premier, that pushed back some extremist points of view within the party ranks at that convention. The labour debate at the Social Credit convention, and the legislation which is yet to be debated in this House, must inevitably leave the trade union movement apprehensive. I choose the word "apprehensive" as the most accurate feeling that I get from the various statements made by union representatives and comments from the media.

I know that this minister has a very sensitive perception of the fact that balance in management-labour relations is the crucial factor to be achieved, whether he's the minister or whether this government, or any other government, is in power. Unfortunately, certain trends in this government leave the impression that to date this government is anti-union, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that there appear to be strong anti-union elements within the ranks of the Social Credit government -elements which the minister is having a hard fight to control. This is for the simple reason that the minister's own personal convictions about how labour-management problems should be handled are much more moderate and middle-of-the-road than those which have been expressed by other members of that government.

I welcome the minister's assurance to the member for Comox this afternoon on re-commencing debate on his estimates that any fears that he would favour anti-union legislation need not give us concern; that he, in fact, does acknowledge the great importance of balance.

Mr. Chairman, to be more specific I would also like to say that there is apprehension by the employers in this province as well. I want to quickly touch on one or two reasons and examples of why employers are also apprehensive. It relates, in some measure, to the function of the Labour Relations Board which is essentially set up to replace the courts. This is a fundamental thrust of the Labour Code which was debated at great length when it was first introduced and when this minister sat on this side of the House.

I want to illustrate the kind of situation which gives employers great concern, and I would cite the Adanac Lumber Co. in Burnaby. I'll be very brief. The minister may wish to go into more detail. There were 33 employees....

[ Page 4145 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: There were 36.

MR. WALLACE: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) interjects that the figure is 36. I'm talking about the principle here; let's not nail me down to numbers. Out of the 36 employees, approximately I I who were truckers and yardmen wished to be unionized. They succeeded in becoming unionized and subsequently passed a strike vote by six to five out of the I I employees. The long and the short of that was that there was a strike because of the wishes of six people employed at that particular company, and yet there are 36 employees, of whom 25 were not in a union and didn't want to be in a union. There was a strike and all the unpleasantness. In fact, a certain amount of vandalism- took place. The point I am making is that I strongly support the right of employees to seek to be represented by a union. I have never opposed that and I happen to think that unions have contributed a great deal to the continuing improvements in our standard of living and to battling for and attaining many of the rights that, in my view, workers have every reason to seek.

But the other side of the coin has to be regarded equally strongly. If majority rule is, as it should be, such a fundamental thing in our democratic system -and it is in this House and it is in all levels of government - then is it right that six individuals working in a plant where there are 36 employees should be able to bring upon that particular place of employment this kind of hardship when the reasons for the action of the six and the hardship imposed does not coincide with the feelings and the wishes of the other 25? That seems to me like a very strange example of democracy in action at the local level.

In this case there was great trouble. I don't want to go into great details on this particular issue but I think it symbolizes the principle I am trying to raise. There was some crossing of the picket lines and there was some real hardship. For example, one of the six who had initially voted to strike returned to work after spending some time on the picket line. I respect this man whose name is Mr. Basiuk - I hope I have pronounced that properly. He said he returned because it no longer made sense to stay out when the majority of the employees were obviously opposed to a strike. And that makes great common sense. But the next paragraph should strike fear into all our hearts.

The result of this decision, he said, was that the top of his convertible was ripped, the tires slashed, the transmission fluid poured on the vinyl interior and sugar dumped into his gas tank. We can all understand people being thwarted in their wishes and we can all understand the heated aspects of this kind of relationship where within the law those six workers were exercising their rights to vote in favour of a strike and to go on strike. But here again we have the real danger of a vocal and militant minority imposing difficulty and real hardship on a significant majority, in this case six out of 36.

The second kind of situation that employers must be very apprehensive about relates again more to general principles than any one specific case. It relates to the way in which the Labour Relations Board is not obliged in its proceedings to record in writing the testimony given by witnesses under oath. This practice quite clearly makes it impossible for anyone to review statements made by either the witnesses or the members of the panel. In this particular case I am referring to the Haven Hill Retirement Centre in Penticton where verbal evidence was given before the board that the reason for employees being dismissed was that they hadn't shown up for work. Now I don't know whether the work week is getting so short, Mr. Chairman, that it's hard to keep track of how many days people should show up, but at any rate the cause as articulated by the employer was that the employees had not turned up for work and they were dismissed.

At the hearing before the Labour Relations Board, the chairman of the panel made a verbal statement which included the fact that those employees had not reported for work. But in the written decision which actually ordered reinstatement of four employees with back pay, no reference whatever was made to the verbal comment from earlier on which recognized that the dismissed employees had failed to show up for work.

This kind of situation, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, does not promote the kind of balance and the stability and the confidence of either unions or employers. The unions are not happy. In fact, they are apprehensive at the trends which appear to be developing in this government for the reasons I have mentioned. Employers feel that when they witness examples, such as the one or two I have mentioned, they run real risks of not getting what to them appears to be justice.

It brings us back to this fundamental thrust of the Labour Code, that the only appeal to a Labour Relations Board decision is appeal through another panel of the same authority. I know that the minister, as a lawyer who is extremely knowledgeable in the basic concept of the judicial system that there should always be appeals, must, I would conjecture, sometimes wonder if there is adequate protection in the Labour Code for individuals such as the matron of the Haven Hill Retirement Home who, at my last inquiry, was willing to go go jail rather than be treated in the unfair and unjust manner in which she considers she was treated. And that particular lady apparently sought to find out about appeal mechanisms and the panel chairman, Jack Moore, was asked - and this press report I am quoting is the Penticton Herald, December 16 of last year:

[ Page 4146 ]

"Panel chairman, Jack Moore, when asked whether an appeal was possible, said that the decision can be appealed through the Labour Relations Board and a new panel would be asked to reconsider the case."

Here again, Mr. Chairman, talking in basic principles, I think it's unlikely that the public or, indeed, employers, would have much confidence in a system that when the authority decides that in a case where the workers have to be re-employed.... Does the employer expect to get very much different treatment from another panel of the same authority? And if, let us say, another panel held a hearing and contradicted the decision of the first panel, surely we're all aware of the lack of credibility that this would bring to the Labour Relations Board.

In other words, I am saying that we must begin to look at appeal mechanisms and we must ask the minister to review the methods by which the Labour Relations Board presently carries out its duties - in good faith, I am sure. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any wilful intention by the Labour Relations Board to do other than what they consider best. But none of us gets it right all the time and the members of the Labour Relations Board are not infallible either. It brings back to mind again this basic concept I have mentioned so many times in this House. It's not just a question of having a process and saying that justice has been dispensed; it has to be seen to be dispensed.

Now I just want to move on very quickly, Mr. Chairman, to the area of human rights because I happen to think that this province has very good legislation dealing in the area of human rights. But I'm also concerned that there never has been a time when government at all levels has had so much to do with the conditions around the life of the individual. There is an ever-growing risk in our society that human individual freedoms and rights can be eroded and distorted. I think that we need to be extremely vigilant. I also would like to ask his response as to whether or not the existing human rights branch and the various officers dealing with complaints have sufficient authority on a wide enough scope in their terms of reference. I just want quickly to suggest that there are areas where the human rights legislation does not, in fact, have wide enough terms of reference.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

In cases where the human rights branch investigates a complaint and refers the matter to the minister, it is still optional for the minister to determine whether a board of inquiry should be held. I want to make my opinion clear. I don't necessarily believe all cases that have been referred to him in the past were accompanied by a request for a board of inquiry. I'm not suggesting that at all. But what I am saying is that it would seem to me that where the officers within the human rights branch reach the conclusion that a board of inquiry should be held and recommend the same to the minister, I think it would serve the system greatly if it was automatic that the minister set up a board of inquiry.

I understand that in 1976, 26 cases were sent to the minister from the branch and 10 of those resulted in a board of inquiry being held. The biggest area of complaints, I understand from the statistics, relates to sex discrimination in employment. In 1975-76 there were 167 such cases out of a total of 575.

That brings me to the next point, Mr. Chairman, and that is that there are only nine human rights officers in the whole province. What happens in practice when human rights complaints are first registered or brought to the branch's attention is that half of these complaints are investigated by industrial relations officers who primarily are employed in other branches of the ministry, such as the labour standards branch. It is the feeling of people in this field to whom I have spoken that the industrial relations officers are not primarily employed for this purpose of going into the complaints based on the human rights legislation. They are not as attuned and as aware of that field. They have their more immediate duties to fulfil - the duties for which they were employed in the first place. It is the feeling -and it was expressed quite recently in a letter to the local press - that in fact a lesser level of priority is given to the complaint when it is investigated by an industrial relations officer rather than a human rights officer.

My statistics, as I understand them, Mr. Chairman, are that 55 per cent of the complaints since 1976 were handled by IROs. I wonder if the minister would care to say whether there is the prospect that we can bring in more human rights officers to deal with that specific responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate knowing how many minutes I have left. Could I find that out?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have five minutes, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you. I mentioned a moment ago that the question of sex discrimination against women seeking jobs and obtaining equal payment for doing similar, or substantially similar, work done by men seems to be the area that creates the majority of the problems. I think the minister would take encouragement from the Abbotsford case where three women who were acting as clerks were found to be doing substantially the same work as guard-dispatchers and the decision in that case was that they should receive the same rate of pay. I think that is a big step forward.

[ Page 4147 ]

1 couldn't agree more with the minister that the human rights branch is a vehicle for education in this field and mediation more than any kind of adversarial authority. It seems to me that we still have this tendency to stereotype men and women in their jobs, although, Mr. Chairman, I might say I was fascinated to hear about the female bouncer who got bounced. I'm referring to the case in Ontario quoted in the newspapers today where this young lady, who I think is quite tall and quite hefty, was employed as a bouncer in a club. She has just recently been relieved of her employment and is contesting the fact that she has lost her job because she is a female rather than the fact that she failed to prove she could be an efficient bouncer. It's cases of this nature which show that women want to be given the equal opportunity to demonstrate whether they can or can't do a job, and that if they are given the opportunity and do the job which involves similar responsibilities and similar risks, then they should be paid in a way equal to men.

Mr. Chairman, my time is running out and rather than fracture my speech, if that's the term, I would prefer to sit down at this point and return to human rights a little later.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I have some brief responses to some of the questions raised by the member for Oak Bay. I'll go in reverse order, if I may. On the question of human rights, the member suggests with regard to the appointment of boards of inquiry that it should be automatic if the staff of the human rights branch recommends a board of inquiry. If that is the case, Mr. Member, I'm sure you would agree that you don't need the minister at all. We would just pass the whole decision as to whether there should be a board of inquiry to the branch. We could eliminate the minister's responsibility entirely.

It has been suggested that the decision should be made with regard to boards of inquiry by some person other than the minister because the minister will be influenced by political considerations or considerations other than those which should be the case in the human rights areas. The question is: if the minister doesn't do it, who do you find who does do it? Do you give it to some other person or group of persons, who, in turn, are appointed by the minister or by order-in-council?

So when a question is asked - "Did you choose those because of their particular bias?" - it's a difficult problem. I want to assure the member that it's not one that's being ignored. Other jurisdictions use other techniques.

While it is not our intention to open the Human Rights Code this year for amendment, I hope that in 1978 it will be. We are concerned not only with some administrative problems associated with the code but also with some different approaches which are emerging in the subject of human rights as a result of experience in other jurisdictions. For example, a study has just been concluded in the province of Ontario after some considerable time, and officials of the ministry are embarking now upon a careful examination of the proposals of the report called Living Together, the new federal legislation, and other initiatives which are taken elsewhere.

We can't ignore the subject of human rights. It is becoming more and more prominent in wider and wider ranges of activity. The United Nations has, of course, been involved in this subject for many years and the subject of human rights is a matter of current importance in the discussions between the President of the United States and leaders of the USSR - a very, very serious matter of international relations. I just don't think we can allow ourselves to ignore it.

On the question of boards of inquiry, however, I think the use of the boards of inquiry should be kept in proper perspective. The member quoted some statistics in 1976: 26 cases were referred and I I were appointed. In fact, that's not the distinction that's made. You have to recognize, Mr. Member, if you look at the code very carefully, that a complaint file is never closed. There's no mechanism whereby a decision is made to close a file unless there has been resolution of the complaint. It's always open. This may be a drawback.

The figure you mentioned was 26. There were 26 cases that year for which no settlement had been reached. They may have recommended for or against an inquiry; no settlement had been reached. Of those, I I went to boards of inquiry. Some of those cases, indeed, are still under investigation.

As I said last night, the essential approach of the branch and of the code is mediative. It's not a penal statute, although there is the right under the statute to proceed by way of fine for breaches of the provisions of the code. That is not the direction in which the branch prefers to go, and we're having greater success that way.

Now with regard to the use of industrial relations officers, yes, they are used. We have 11 professional positions in the human rights branch. In fact, there are 12 persons involved because, on the recommendation of the Vancouver Status of Women, I think, three years ago, there was a suggestion that some positions should be made available for persons who could take only part-time work. As a result, one of the 11 positions was split into two half-day positions because it would give us one extra person and because it also affords the opportunity for qualified people who can't for various reasons work a full day. They work half a day, so we have 12 people. They are concentrated in those areas of the province where a majority of the complaints arise.

The total number of cases presently before the branch is 354. That's about 30 cases per worker. That may seem to be high, but it certainly compares

[ Page 4148 ]

favourably with the caseloads of many social workers. It certainly compares most favorably with the number of cases of people who are skilled investigators in the mediation service.

Now the industrial relations officers are used in the human rights field principally in the outlying areas where the number of complaints which could arise would not really justify maintaining a human rights officer full-time in one of the outlying areas of the province. We do have some who cover significant areas, but principally they're located in the major centres. The industrial relations officers assist.

Now they are trained, skilled investigators, and principally the work is investigative in nature. In difficult cases, the human rights officers or senior members of the branch work with the industrial relations officers in the course of investigation and in the assessments which are made.

Yes, I would like to have more members in the branch. My budget request so indicates. But with the restrictions that Treasury Board imposes upon the establishment of this ministry - in fact, all ministries - we have continued the hiring level restrictions that were enforced by the previous government. At the moment, I'm not able to increase that staff. I look forward to the day when I will be able to do so.

You mentioned the subject of equal pay for work of equal value. That was a decision of a board of inquiry. It was the first case that had come before a board and it would appear that, in that instance, a decision was reached which was quite a proper one. We were pleased to have that precedent to use because, hopefully, it will enable settlements to take place in other cases without having to go to a board of inquiry, which is time-consuming and expensive. On that subject we believe that equal pay for work of equal value is a better proposition than that which is contained in the federal legislation, but I suppose that yet remains to be seen.

You have raised questions with regard to industrial relations matters. You talked about appeals. Yes, the code provides for appeals from one panel to another panel of the board or to the full board. However, there are appeals by way of review by the court, and there have been a number of them. Recently, and I suppose most significantly, by way of certiorari, there has been an appeal taken in the matter involving the union and B.C. Hydro with regard to pensions and so on. This is still before the courts and I don't want to discuss it. But in fact there are cases where appeals have gone to the court through the matter of review, which is an appropriate step with regard to an administrative tribunal. There are, within the area of appeals within the board, the opportunities for a second look at the decision. Indeed, many important cases resulted in a distinct variation.

The hon. member raised the question of recording evidence under oath. I was not aware of that specifically. I think that it is a shortcoming in the board's procedures and I am quite happy to refer that matter to the chairman of the board and ask him the basis upon which such procedures are followed. I think it is most unmodern, particularly when you are taking evidence under oath to which you may have to refer with some care. There should be the opportunity for a verbatim transcript to be available when it is required. It's done here; it's done in our committees; it's done in the courts. While I don't wish to take any action which will make the Labour Relations Board appear to be more of a court than is presently the case, I think the institution of this procedure won't bring that about.

You raised the question of the situation at Adanac Lumber where six employees casting a vote were able to affect the rights of 25 other employees. This is always a difficult problem in labour disputes. I am not sure how I can satisfy the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and at the same time satisfy the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . He would see no difficulty in it at all.

The appropriateness of the unit is always the difficulty. In the case of Adanac it is very clear - six employees affecting 25 - but you can apply the same relationship in other areas. We had a significant example last year in 1976 with the continued strikes on B.C. Rail where relatively small units of employees in the total work-force, even though the rest of the work-force was organized, were able to impede those other employees from carrying on their duties and getting paid.

This is a matter of ongoing concern with regard to industrial relations, and the Labour Code of British Columbia has made a very significant advance in that respect. That's this question of the formation of councils of unions. Of course, there is one presently under consideration with regard to B.C. Rail which will prevent the fragmentation of that work-force and therefore the ability of a small group to interfere inappropriately with the rights of others. We had a similar situation at Simon Fraser University when a segment of their work-force, by a very narrow vote, went in favour of a strike and put some 700 people out of work. This is a problem which we are continuing to review and the council approach at the moment appears to be the best direction.

The Minister of Labour has under the Labour Code, section 57, considerable authority in this regard, but the decision and the final analysis is made by the Labour Relations Board. It has been the practice of the ministry to encourage such processes at the request of the trade unionists who are involved. In the final analysis, joining together in a council requires the members of that council to function together and function very well. If they enter into the process at the beginning voluntarily, then the possibility of it coming out with success at the end is

[ Page 4149 ]

more likely.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) made one of his good speeches. I must say that he reads very well; he read the Code very well. I want to assure him that I listened most carefully and it's my recollection that his reading was accurate. He speaks with a well-known hyperbole. Like some very skilful lawyers, if he has a weak case, he shouts. That was the position that he was putting before this committee this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. He was castigating the minister in a personal way, referring to my background, of which he has no knowledge whatsoever. If he had, I don't think he would have made the remark. If he hadn't done any more investigation than that into the matter, then I can't give much credence to what he has to say. He suggested that I was idly standing by while the law was being destroyed. He is saying that the government was having contempt for the law.

MR. KING: That's right.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there's been no legislation passed in this House; there's been no action by any ministry of the government which has contempt for the law, unless, of course, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan would suggest that the legislation which he introduced and piloted through this House and which he had the occasion to amend from time to time because it was inappropriate is somehow or other chiselled in stone, never to be changed again. If it is, that's a new privilege that the government had that I didn't recognize, but I'm sure the member didn't really mean that.

As the former Minister of Labour, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, well knows, industrial relations is one of the most dynamic fields in social endeavour that we have before us for consideration, and the laws and the processes which are used to address those dynamic situations must constantly be under review and reconsideration. For him to suggest that somehow or other because any particular government brings any particular law and it's passed through this Legislature it's never to be changed, is entirely new to the parliamentary process that we have in this country.

I have to conclude that the member wasn't really very serious in what he was saying, except perhaps when he suggested that the trade union movement was in a state of panic. Mr. Chairman, if the trade union movement is in a state of panic in this province, it is because of incautious remarks such as those which were made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. I trust that he will not let it be said outside this chamber, or even let his words be heard outside this chamber, that he would suggest any activities which would cause the trade union movement to panic. I recall how they panicked when he was the minister on a number of occasions, but we were able to calm that situation and restore a sense of balance in this province.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like to support some of the statements made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, specifically as they apply to the 1,400 employees of the Vancouver Resources Board. I'm not going to discuss legislation which is before the House, but certainly those 1,400 workers would appreciate hearing some statement from the Minister of Labour as to the collective agreements which they are presently involved in and as to the sanctity of those agreements. I certainly agree that it seems the Minister of Labour has allowed the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and certainly the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to intrude on his territory. He is not coming to the defence of the people whose fate, quite frankly, is in his hands. So if he wants some statement to be made outside of this House, certainly the 1,400 people in Vancouver who work for the Vancouver Resources Board would like him to make a statement outside of this House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that requires legislation that is now before this House.

MS. BROWN: This statement requires legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm sorry - Bill 65.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not discussing Bill 65. I'm discussing the Minister of Labour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering who is looking after the rights of working people in this province, quite frankly. Does the Minister of Labour protect people, for example, who seek employment at Woodward's?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MS. BROWN: Has he seen the kind of questionnaire that people who went -to apply for employment at the Richmond branch of Woodward's stores have to deal with? This has nothing to do with Bill 65. This is referred to as a short form medical questionnaire, Mr. Chairman, which asks 61 of the most intimate medical questions about a person's life that it is possible to ask. I wouldn't dare read any of them into the records, quite frankly. I'm shy about this kind of thing, Mr. Chairman. Questions about piles and hemorrhoids and blood in your urine and this kind of thing. I wouldn't think of reading into

[ Page 4150 ]

the record, and it really gets worse.

Now who do people turn to who apply to Woodward's for a job and get this short form questionnaire to fill out which goes into things like: "If any member of your immediate family is deceased, briefly outline the person, the age at death, the cause of death, the year of death, the length and duration of illness preceding the death."? And then it says "expand." I had no idea that the people who work in Woodward's stores were in such excellent health. They had nobody who had died. I mean, what happens if somebody in your family dies? Does Woodward's stores refuse to hire anybody whose family has a person who has died at any age or from any cause whatever?

Who sees these forms, anyway? What kind of assurance of privacy do these employees have? Why the family history? Should this form be filled out by a doctor or shouldn't it, if it is needed for insurance purposes? Why is it going to the personnel department? Who vets these forms? Is it a professional, a medical person or a lay person? Does the Minister of Labour know or care at all? Does the Labour Relations Act cover this?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Provincial Secretary.

MS. BROWN: The Provincial Secretary covers this, does she?

Mr. Chairman, it goes on and it says: "As a candidate for employment at Woodward's you will participate in a rigorous screening programme." That is true. It says it may take up to six hours in total, which is fine. Then it talks about the preliminary screening and then the first indepth screening and then the medical screening, then the aptitude screening, then the second indepth screening. It says finally: "You understand that we can make no guarantees or offer of employment, " after you have gone through all of this information. "Your receipt of this notice has improved the odds, however, in your favour, but opportunities are restricted. To you personally, good luck and much patience. Sincerely yours, N.R. Smith, project manager."

What I am specifically asking the minister is: who sees these forms? What is done with this information? What assurance is there that after you have spilled your guts and answered 61 really intimate personal medical questions, half of which I don't even know about myself, quite frankly.... I couldn't get a job at Woodward's because I wouldn't be able to answer half of these questions about my past and my present and if I've had St. Vitus's Dance. I didn't think people still had St. Vitus's Dance. So what happens if I have St. Vitus's Dance? Does than mean I can't work at Woodward's stores?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): You'd have to go work at Arthur Murray's.

MS. BROWN: I like the Minister of Health's statement that if I had St. Vitus's Dance I would have to go and work for Arthur Murray's. But quite seriously, I would very much like some kind of reassurance from the Minister of Labour about these forms and some information as to whether people who are refused employment as a result of this medical form have some recourse. Does Woodward's have to hire people who are handicapped, or are they exempt from the kind of legislation that covers other people who are encouraged to hire people? Also could you give me some information about the business of the family history, all of which works into the human rights thing? I don't know whether the minister sees this as part of the responsibility of his human rights department or not, or whether it is covered by the Labour Relations Act, but I would certainly like some answers to that.

There was a letter in the Colonist dated July 15 about the shortage of human rights officers. By coincidence on the same day I received a clipping from the Northern Times which said:

"Northwest British Columbia has just lost its only human rights officer. This means that residents of the huge area from the Yukon border south to Ocean Falls and between the Charlottes and Fraser Lake will now have to go through Victoria if they want to lodge a complaint based on the B.C. Human Rights Code."

I don't know whether this is accurate or not, Mr. Chairman, so I'm really raising the question with the hope that the minister will be able to tell me that it is inaccurate and that in fact Bill Parkinson, the only human rights officer for the northwestern section of British Columbia, has not been relieved of his job.

It goes on to say, to make matters worse, that the northeast part of the province hasn't got a human rights officer either. Now who is taking care of the kind of complaints that people in the north have? They won't be getting one until the fall. Prince George headquarters for the northeast has been without a human rights officer since May of 1976.

As this letter in the Colonist of July 15 pointed out, Jack Kehoe, a member of the board of directors of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, in discussion on CBC radio, said that problems were being caused by a critical shortage of human rights officers who administer the Code in British Columbia.

The minister did mention that he had 11 and a half officers, but obviously that is not enough. It certainly, doesn't cover the needs of the people in the north. Maybe he'd be able to give us some more information about that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it really doesn't matter where you look anytime you start to talk about the

[ Page 4151 ]

impossibility of equal pay for equal work and why it is that women always end up at the bottom of the pay scale. The answer invariably comes in that it is because of the lack of training, that many of the jobs that are better paying jobs are just not open to women because they haven't got the skills and they are not trained for it.

Realizing this, women have started to try to get into the apprenticeship programme. I don't know anything on earth that are as hard to crack as the apprenticeship programmes in this province. I have been talking about this for years and years. I know the minister is going to get up and say, "Well, it was that way with the previous administration and the administration before that, " and on and on and on it goes. I accept that this battle to get into the apprenticeship programme didn't begin with the appointment of this minister to the Labour portfolio. But he now has the ability to put an end to this, and very little is being done.

My informants assure me that under the Haney apprenticeship programme there are 12 women in each course - which is just a drop in the bucket, quite frankly, for the Haney programme. These are two-month courses that give experience in carpentry, which is great, skill trades, painting, et cetera, and it gives them an opportunity to demonstrate their skill in these areas. But after the women graduate out of this course, I've also been told, the department has not been able to place any of them in any jobs in any of the regular apprenticeship programmes. I'm talking about the women in Haney. Once they get out of the two-month course at Haney, in trying to get them into their regular apprenticeship programme there just hasn't been any success.

I'm wondering whether the Ministry of Labour is doing an evaluation of this programme, and if we're going to find some really aggressive and vigorous acts on the part of that department in terms of getting more and more women into these apprenticeship programmes. There are 678 females out of a total of - get this Mr. Chairman - 13,178 apprentices. Now if you take out of that 678 figure all the women who are apprenticing to be hairdressers, barbers and dental assistants, you have less than 0.07 per cent of women in other programmes. It's really bad. It really is bad.

Quite frankly, I don't think that in putting these figures together you should include the women who are in the jobs such as hairdressing, barbering and dental assistant, which is where women have been all along anyway. Really, when we talk about training and getting into skilled trades in terms of increasing their salaries, what we are talking about is getting into plumbing, getting into the electrical trade, into some of the skilled trades like painting, carpentry, bartending - where the real money is - not into dental assistants or hairdressing.

The department is responsible for this. The department can go out, Mr. Chairman, and introduce its own affirmative action programme in the area of apprenticeship training and really embark on an aggressive, vigorous programme for getting more and more women into the skilled trades.

Manpower is doing its little token job, Mr. Chairman, of leaving one position open in a number of these programmes, leaving one slot open for women in each of its apprenticeship programmes. That's not good enough. They're doing their little token thing. But, really, it's the provincial government that we look to for some real action in this area, not Manpower, not the federal government. They have no understanding of it.

The Minister of Labour did, if one had the time to go back and read some of his old speeches when he sat on this side of the House. He was one of the people who always spoke in support of women's rights to enter into all kinds of fields. Right? I remember those speeches, not verbatim, but I remember that he was one of the people who always said that women should be given an opportunity, if they had the ability and the skills, to move into these fields where the real money is being made. I anticipated, and I'm going to continue to anticipate until he proves otherwise, that he is going to be the key that cracks the apprenticeship programme [illegible]. I'm really going to lay that trip on him because it still is too tough. Out of 13,000, 678 is just not good enough. I hope my figures are wrong, but I got them from his department. I'm not going to stake my life on it, but those were the figures I got.

Along the same line, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring up again with the minister the whole business of labour legislation covering domestics and farm workers. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is not here or he would immediately inform the House that this is a recycled speech. Indeed, it is a speech I've been making since 1972. I've been introducing private member's bills into the House since 1973 asking that domestics and farm workers be covered by the labour legislation in this province. They have to be covered by things like the Payment of Wages Act, the Minimum Wage Act, holiday legislation, and these kinds of things. That is the only way these people are ever going to have any kind of job security and make any kind of decent wages. Over and over again we are told it would be hard to enforce; you can't cover domestic workers because most of them are transient and they don't work Very long in a job, or one thing or another. I would suggest that maybe we could look at it in the same way we look at fishermen and apply the same kinds of rules. I understand that any fisherman who sells his catch to be resold or for public consumption is considered to be an employee and therefore is covered by a lot of this piece of legislation. Maybe the same thing can be done for domestic workers.

[ Page 4152 ]

I personally cannot buy the argument that people do not like the inspectors coming into their house to check whether it's safe or not. That makes the home safer for all of us. We are always being told that one of the most unsafe places in the world to be is your home, especially in the kitchen. I think it runs second only to your bathroom. In fact, more people die violently, and otherwise, in their homes than die anywhere else. So the argument that nobody is going to like to have their houses checked out in terms of it being a safe place to work is not a valid argument. I just don't accept this. Certainly in terms of payment of wages and vacation pay and seeing that these people make at least a minimum wage, I think that if not all the labour legislation then at least those basic ones should be covered. They should be covered by Workers' Compensation too. There are all kinds of studies that show us that one of the most unsafe places in the world to work is on a farm, yet people who work on farms are not covered by the Workers' Compensation legislation.

I want to bring to the minister's attention, which I'm sure he has seen, this legal resource book for farm and domestic workers which is published by the Labour Advocacy and Research Association. They got some of their funding from the Attorney-General's ministry - the Legal Services Commission gave them some of their funding.

Has the minister seen this?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MS. BROWN: I'd be very happy to share my copy with the minister, Mr. Chairman, but in fact it's very inexpensive and I think it would help if his ministry got a couple of copies of it so that at least his deputy would get a chance to read it sometime. It covers all of the legislation from which they are excluded and some of the rights they do have and some of the ones which they don't. I am going to reintroduce my private member's bill covering domestics and farm workers by labour legislation. I don't really want to do that. The reason I haven't done it until now is because I'm hoping the minister is going to introduce legislation, or some kind of amendment to the Labour Code, to say that it now covers domestics and farm workers.

One other point I have, Mr. Chairman, is the Maternity Protection Act. It is, without question, the worst Maternity Protection Act in North America. It really is terrible if one does a comparison of it with the Canada Labour Code, or the labour codes of Nova Scotia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Ontario, you name it. I shouldn't say North America because I don't want to bring the United States into it. I really haven't done a comparison with Mississippi, or Georgia, or Texas, or any of those states, but this is certainly true as far as Canada is concerned. It's an old piece of legislation. It goes back to 1966, and it has been amended a couple of times. Basically it is the same Act as in 1966. It is quite possible the minister will say that pregnancy hasn't changed since 1966 and if it was good enough in 1966, it's probably good enough in 1977.

But it wasn't good enough in 1966 and there are a number of the other provinces which have demonstrated by their amendments to their Acts that ours is really quite far behind and it's not good. Let me tell you an interesting thing it does. What the Act says, Mr. Chairman, is that no employer is allowed to fire a person because they're pregnant six weeks before they deliver. In other words, you can fire her any time up until six weeks before she's due to give birth; but once she's into that final six weeks, you can't fire her. I don't understand this. Pregnancy is not a six-week affair; it never was. No, it takes a little bit longer than that, even in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has no wish to interrupt you, but if you're suggesting matters involving legislation it is not permissible under this debate.

MS. BROWN: This is not legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're speaking of a bill, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: The Maternity Protection Act of 1966 is an old thing which has been in this province since 1966.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I fully understand that, hon. member. Matters involving legislation or requiring legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, only the general responsibilities of the Minister of Labour. Please continue.

MS. BROWN: Okay, the general responsibility of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Chairman, is to first of all recognize that pregnancy takes longer than six weeks. It's not possible to have it done and over with in six weeks.

MR. LEA: What about the Socreds?

MS. BROWN: I don't know what your experience in this field has been, Mr. Chairman. Mine has been that it can't be done in six weeks. So I am suggesting to the Minister of Labour....

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you tried?

MS. BROWN: I have tried.

He should take into account really that a person who becomes pregnant should somehow be

[ Page 4153 ]

protected, not necessarily by legislation but by whatever way he sees fit. A person who becomes pregnant should be protected from arbitrary dismissal strictly on the grounds that they are pregnant. That is the first thing.

The other thing that I would like the minister to take into account, Mr. Chairman, is that when a person leaves the labour market as a result of giving birth to a child, that person should be able to return at least to the same job she had before - I was about to say he or she, but I guess it's just she isn't it? - or at least to a job at a similar level of wage. In other words, she should not be penalized in terms of her wages, in terms of promotion or any of these things, simply because she has been out of the labour market for 17 weeks or whatever as a result of her pregnancy.

The other thing I am suggesting to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Chairman, through you, is that even 12 weeks is still not good enough. In fact, what most of the other provinces have is a 16- to 17-week maximum that a woman is allowed to be away in terms of either before or after the pregnancy. Probably he should look at this or maybe there shouldn't be an arbitrary time at all because, in fact, some women are quite willing to return to work within days after they've had normal births and other women would like to stay out of the labour market for eight weeks or nine weeks, as the case may be. The Unemployment Insurance Commission permits up to about 15 weeks of benefits. But give or take, I would like to see British Columbia look at it in a more flexible way. In other words, the law ... I mustn't say the law. In other words, the Minister could arrange it in such a way that women who want to return immediately to the labour market can do so, but the women who want to stay away from work a bit longer should be able to do so - maybe up to eight weeks at most.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, everybody gets a six-week checkup after they've had a child. The baby gets a six-week checkup and so does the mother. It's usually at the point of that six-week checkup that the mother will discuss with her doctor whether she's ready to return to work or whatever. So six weeks is a bit too soon; I think eight minimum, and it could probably be longer than that.

The other thing I'd suggest is that a woman shouldn't be forced to stop working an arbitrary number of weeks before her child is due, Mr. Chairman, simply because - and I'm not discussing legislation now - it's been arranged in such a way that she has to stop working six weeks before the delivery. In fact, some women, as long as they're physically fit and willing to work right up until three weeks or four weeks - whatever - should be permitted to do so.

So what I'm really suggesting to the Minister of Labour is a lot more flexibility in terms of whatever arrangements are made around the whole business of women working and women becoming pregnant and leaving the labour market to have children. So if I can run through these very quickly -and I'm not discussing legislation - there should be a guarantee of at least 17 weeks leave in all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you explain to the Chair how that could be accomplished without legislation?

MS. BROWN: If I were the Minister of Labour I would try and work it out some way, but I'm not the Minister of Labour so I really haven't thought about it. What I am suggesting to the Minister of Labour is that if he can do it without legislation, he should take these things into account.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think we can accept that, hon. member. The Chair has no wish to interrupt you, but if it involves legislation it is clearly out of order in this debate.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to make a couple of general statements about pregnancy and working. I hope the Minister of Labour is listening. I don't want to repeat what I said about 17 weeks but I do want to say that there should be some kind of guarantee that when a person leaves the labour market to have a child, that is not considered a break in service for purposes of seniority, benefits, pensions, entitlements or any such thing. This has nothing to do with legislation. This is just a discussion between you and I and the Minister of Labour.

I think that there should be enough flexibility involved that the mother who wants to work right up until a couple of weeks before her child is born should be allowed to do so. The mother who wants to have up to eight weeks after her child is born should be allowed to do so.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one single word about legislation, and that is that the Maternity Protection Act of 1966 of British Columbia is a terrible piece of legislation. It has got to be amended.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Of course we should have done it. But we didn't. so now you've got a chance. Are you going to be as bad as we were?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I know that you are interested in these matters and therefore I would be happy to discuss a few of the questions raised by the first member for Burrard. The Chairman

[ Page 4154 ]

is very interested in what these responses will be, even if no one else is.

The Woodward's questionnaire does not fall within the ambit of any of the labour legislation, but the whole question of questionnaires and employment application forms is under consideration by the human rights branch.

Difficulties have arisen in one of our industries -there's no need to identify it - about various questions that were being posed when people were , applying for employment. There was no intention on the part of the industry to breach the law but some of the questions were offensive. As a result of discussions between human rights branch and representatives of that industry, they have now developed sort of a model questionnaire form. That is, I think, part of the value of the work that's done by the human rights branch. There was no complaint. Somebody found the questions offensive and so the branch sat down with these people and worked out a better set of questions which weren't offensive and yet got all the information that the prospective employer required. So on that particular matter, if the member would like to refer it to my office, I'll see that it is sent forward to the director of the branch.

The number of human rights officers I've referred to in response to the member for Oak Bay, but you had a specific question about areas being left uncovered. The human rights officer who was located in Terrace was relocated in Kamloops so that there would be a better coverage of the total area. The area which is vacated is served from Prince George. Now when the need arises, we have no hesitation in sending human rights officers. If there was suddenly a surge of complaints in the area, we would send somebody from Victoria or Vancouver to go up for whatever period of time to assist in any of the offices in the Ministry of Labour. If the industrial relations officers were too busy, that's what they would do.

The member dealt at some length with the matter of the apprenticeship programme. And she is correct when she refers to earlier remarks of mine in this chamber about the opportunities for women to engage in occupations which heretofore have not been considered women's occupations. The apprenticeship programme at Haney to which she referred is a pilot project. I haven't had a complete report but I'll have one very shortly on the functioning of that programme. We're learning a lot from it.

We've got an awfully long way to go with regard to women apprenticing in those skilled trades heretofore deemed to be the preserve of men: electrical, plumbing, the whole list of them. The Haney project is providing some of the answers. Indeed, some of the instructors who are involved in apprenticeship training were reluctant to engage in the instruction of women in some of these trades and it's been a learning process for them too. They are finding that some of the attitudes which they held in this respect are wrong and they have been changed.

One of the difficulties that we faced, or that we recognized, in the programme very shortly after it commenced was that while there is the desire on the part of women to engage in some of these heretofore closed occupations, they didn't really know what would be involved or required of them in this way. In our society, as it has been, girls played with dolls and boys played with tools and bicycles and they fixed them and repaired them and they became accustomed to using tools, paint brushes, saws, hammers and the like. That has heretofore not been possible for girls, so women who want to go into these programmes have no idea of what it's like, what strength is required, what hand-eye co-ordination is required, and so on. Therefore, what they did when starting this programme was to give them certain simple tasks to do - saw a board, paint a board, bend a piece of metal, and so on - and the women very quickly became proficient and began to realize what it was like. There was no fear of the tools. From then on, they got into the apprenticeship programme.

You say there are only 12 people in the programme at the moment. That is a bit distressing to us because we find that part of that is a lack of response from women. Now that could be our fault as well. That is, we are not promoting the programme enough or advertising it; we aren't going out and recruiting people into the programme. It also may, however, be the result of other attitudes in society. The government does not make the apprenticeship programme function. They aren't apprenticed to us; they are apprenticed to employers and sometimes to trade unions. One of the major responsibilities of the apprenticeship branch of this ministry is to ensure that employers and trade unions do, in fact, take on the fullest number of apprentices that are possible in the work that has to be done. At the same time, we will have to encourage employers and trade unions who apprentice people to begin to take women in as well so there won't be that sort of rejection, because who ever thinks of a woman being a carpenter? I suppose the answer to that question is: who ever thought she wouldn't be a carpenter? That has to be changed.

So growing out of this Haney programme, as I perceive it developing, will be a greater promotion of the programme itself to encourage more women to come into it and experience the skills that are required. Some of them will say, "I'm sorry, I don't want to do this, " and that's fine. That's proper. Also, however, we will have to work more with the principals who engage apprentices to ensure that they make the opportunities available to women. This will also, I think, be encouraged by joint programmes of

[ Page 4155 ]

the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour. There will be legislation on that. We think we will be able to start much earlier as a result of these programmes in the schools so that when the girls come out they will already have gone through that preliminary skill experience. That's what we hope to do.

Labour standards - if this session goes on long enough, Mr. Chairman, I hope we may have legislation on the floor of this House which will deal with many of the matters raised by the member.

MR. GIBSON: How long do we have to wait, Allan?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: A lot of work has been done on the labour standards code, Mr. Chairman. I have to say to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr' King) that this work was started under his ministry and has been continued under this ministry. He is going to see the fruits....

MR. KING: I hope I recognize it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You may not recognize it because of the improvements that have been made since you were minister, Mr. Member. Nonetheless, the seed was planted and it is going to come forward. It will deal with many of the problems raised by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) with regard to farm labour workers.

Domestics and farm labour workers, of course, are already in the Labour Code insofar as organization is concerned. The labour standards code will deal principally with those areas which are not covered by union agreements and so on. Those people will have a better break than has ever been the case. We'll take many of these statutes to which you have referred. They are being modernized and the regulations are being made simpler, we hope. The administration of a whole series of statutes in this area will be modernized, and certainly maternity protection has already been looked at. We know the problems, How soon one should take the leave depends upon mostly medical reasons; that has been covered. How soon you can come back has been covered in our examination, again because of medical reasons. Whether the leave should be extended because of some unforeseen difficulty has also been taken into account and I think that....

MS. BROWN: And not being penalized - no penalty in terms of pensions.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No. That's the purpose of the maternity protection leave. What's the point of having leave if you come back in the position where your rights are prejudiced? That's the purpose of the whole matter.

There will be a greater choice for the prospective mother, depending upon a variety of circumstances. We often think only of maternity protection necessary for a normal birth. There are lots of other occasions that arise. We hope that the work that is being done by staff of the ministry - very hard work in this area - will make a major advance. If we're behind now, I think we will be ahead of the other jurisdictions in Canada.

MS. BROWN: I just have one question, Mr. Chairman, that I forgot to raise. It has to do with the minister's responsibility for elevators. I think he knows what I'm going to ask him about because I had a meeting with the fire chief in Vancouver, Chief Koenig, about this and at that time I wrote the minister a letter asking him what he was going to do with the report. I promised the chief I would bring it up under his estimates. If the minister would like to give me a response in terms of fires in elevators and what he is doing about it, I could pass that on to the chief. I would appreciate it.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond fairly briefly to the minister in terms of the answers he gave to my earlier dissertation. He said I read very well and I want to thank him for that; I acknowledge that.

He became very sensitive though about his background, Mr. Chairman. I certainly cast no disparaging remark about the minister's background. I simply reflected on it as I did on my own. If the minister finds that offensive, Mr. Chairman, then that can only be the basis for further reflection, be that as it may.

The point that the minister did not seem to understand, and I wish to go over it once again lightly for him, is that he said that the Labour Code should be subject to amendment and it was not etched in stone. I certainly agree with that. I think that any statute is subject to amendment and change by this Legislative Assembly. I'm persuaded that that's the case but I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that under this administration there are many thousands of people out there in British Columbia, particularly in the work places, who wish that that were not the case at the moment. Nevertheless, it is. The point is that it is customary for legislative amendments to be brought to this House in an up-front way by the minister holding responsibility and jurisdiction for the legislative framework in that area. It is not at all customary for attacks to be made on the jurisdiction of one minister from other directions. It is also a legislative precedent, a fundamental aspect of good legislation, that rights conferred under any statute should not be retroactively removed by new statute. That is the case, Mr. Chairman, in a variety of ways

[ Page 4156 ]

under this minister's administration.

The other point that the minister apparently doesn't recognize - and I'm surprised, being that the minister is trained in law - is it is fundamentally wrong, objectionable and, in my view, absolutely odious, that the law should be selective at all in terms of its coverage and application.

When we see small groups carved out to be discriminated against in terms of removing the benefit of statutory law from them and the minister responsible for the administration of that framework, that statute, sits idly by and pretends ignorance, that would be perhaps forgiveable for someone like myself from a railroad background. But from a lawyer? He should know better. What are you pointing at me for, Mr. Chairman? I get nervous when people point at me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm trying to interrupt you. The matter under discussion by the member now appears to be involving legislation and is out of order in Committee of Supply.

MR. KING: I'm not discussing any specific legislation, Mr. Chairman. I am discussing the abrogation of rights that that minister is sworn to uphold and to protect on behalf of working people of this province. He is not doing that. He has allowed, both through legislative intervention and through other ways, by inflammatory statements, the erosion of confidence in the whole legal structure in which industrial relations function in this province. Then he comes in pretending ignorance and says: "Don't you believe in amendment?" Of course I do. But let that minister have the gumption to bring in any amendments that he feels are justified, to the law or to his regulations or to his administrative policy, and put them before this House for debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: That is his obligation. To allow his colleagues to come in through the back door and erode and undermine the rights of people that he is the minister responsible for protecting and representing, to me is scandalous.and unforgivable. Then he shrugs it off by saying: "Well, this is simply amendment."

I said earlier that anyone who pursues that attitude holds a questionable right to be called Minister of Labour. I would say that anyone who fails to understand the significance of depriving small, select groups from the benefits of law under his ministry - benefits which every other worker in the province is entitled to - is scandalously ignorant. I think the minister realizes the distinction; I think he knows better. I think he has an obligation to come to grips with that precise problem and tell the House what his attitude is.

In many ways, Mr. Chairman, I feel sorry for the minister. I honestly believe that that minister, in good conscience, is trying to do a job. I believe that he's had intense pressure from some of his colleagues. Mr. Chairman, you know better than I do - and I wouldn't ask you what goes on in caucus or anything - but we know about the public statements that have been made by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and others. That all tends to compromise the confidence in the security and stability of the labour climate in this province, and it puts intense pressure on the Minister of Labour. I know he doesn't want to be seen as publicly fighting with his colleagues, I know that many of these fights go on in his caucus and his cabinet meetings, and I know that he must be fighting for his preservation, for his own image in terms of keeping some reasonable balance within labour law in this province.

I feel some sympathy for him. I can really picture what must go on in some of those meetings. I've heard many of the statements that some of the Social Credit backbenchers come out with, some of the outlandish recommendations they make in terms of delivering all power unto the employer at the expense of working people. So I know that the minister has tremendous pressure on him.

Nevertheless, unless he is strong enough to withstand that pressure, to withstand the ill-advised initiatives that his colleagues are urging upon him, then I'm afraid he is going to face a very, very stormy climate in terms of the industrial relations field in the province of British Columbia.

The minister indicated that members in the House should not inflame the climate. I certainly subscribe to that; I don't think I have. In fact, on a number of occasions I've offered to co-operate with the minister in terms of advising in my humble way on some problems that were current in the province. But neither can you turn your back and close your eyes to the legitimate concerns of the trade union movement out there. When the British Columbia Federation of Labour prints ads in the major newspapers likening the current philosophy of this government to the early '30s in Nazi Germany, then that's pretty strong stuff. I don't want to debate whether or not that particular analysis is correct, but the minister and his colleagues have to recognize that there's great concern out there. People don't write and hold those kind of views for nothing. They're genuinely concerned. I would think the minister would be interested in trying to dampen that panicky feeling that is out there.

Certainly I have not been involved in any of those discussions in the city of Vancouver, so it's not good

[ Page 4157 ]

enough to blame members on this side for having anything to do with it. The minister has a problem. I suspect that lie has been forced into an unenviable position by reactionary urgings of some of his confreres. I certainly don't envy him his position. I don't think he finds it too palatable either. But he should just stand up as his friend, Mr. Chips, did - I mean the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) -and say: "This is not my view, and I, as Minister of Labour, believe in equality of rights for all working people and all employers groups in the province. I'm not going to stand idly by and see small pockets of them be discriminated against retroactively by forfeiting rights that all the rest of the people in British Columbia enjoy." That's the issue.

Amendment that applies equally to all people -by all means I welcome that. And that's what this chamber is for: to debate it. At the moment the Social Credit Party happens to have the majority in the House, and they have the right to have their way in terms of the final disposition of policy matters. Fair enough. But at least the opposition has a chance to debate, to try to point out to government what the shortcomings are and where improvements might be made. That's what it's all about. It's an up-front exercise that people understand.

But I want to assure the minister, Mr. Chairman, that no one in this province understands the law that is applicable to everyone, only to have it eroded, not by the minister responsible but by his colleagues, with a stroke of the legislative pen. It's intrusion of the worst kind and I want to say, Mr. Chairman, it's intrusion that I would not have tolerated when I was Minister of Labour from any of my colleagues. I certainly would not. I would have put my seat and a job in cabinet on the line before I would have allowed any colleague of mine to come in, intrude into the area which I held responsibility for and start stripping away the rights of employers and employees in this province.

That's what the issue is. I think the minister should recognize that point. I think he should take responsibility for his own department and I think he should demonstrate clearly once and for all who is running the show in industrial relations in this province. Is it he? Or is it the Premier, who, with an iron-heel approach is just treading down everything that the minister believes is fair and equitable in the province? I feel sorry for him but I would certainly respect him more as a legislator and as a human being if he would stand up in this Legislature and say I am not going to tolerate the destruction of the credibility of my administration and the law that I have the obligation to administer.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): In taking my place in this debate on the Labour estimates for the first time this year, I want to begin by paying tribute to all who are concerned with labour relations in British Columbia in the year 1977. 1 refer, among others, to the present minister and to his staff and I think I should in fairness refer to the previous minister, too, because it is under the thrust of the enlightened legislation called the Labour Code of British Columbia that much of this has come about. Apart from that, you can have the best institutions in the world but you still need the people to make them work.

I think we have a climate of common sense in labour relations in British Columbia this year that we have not seen for some time. You see it in the B.C. Fed and other unions and you see it, I think, as well in the Employers Council of British Columbia. On both sides, in public but particularly in private, I think that one is seeing a willingness to leave dogmatic positions that were a part of the history of this province and particularly of the late '60s and the early '70s, and a willingness to say that to a certain extent we have to work together. We may be enemies but we know that we have more in common than we have in difference. I think that is a very great advance. Perhaps it wasn't brought about by any great change in philosophy. Perhaps it was just brought about by the situation that we all find ourselves in in British Columbia. Nevertheless, the fact is that it has happened and I congratulate all who are involved with that.

It has happened, Mr. Chairman, because in an economic sense we are in trouble in British Columbia. We're overpriced in the world; we're losing markets. The sad fact of the matter is that in the years to come we're all going to have to work harder to maintain what we have, for smaller increases and in spite of a lower dollar, which means that the income that we do achieve earns us less or purchases us less in this world. And we have to put more into investment, and that's just a fact of life in British Columbia. Because of these things, the minister's portfolio has become a major economic portfolio in this government.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the committee that labour relations in the province of British Columbia for the next few years at least must be concerned to a considerable extent with a social issue, which I will get into in a moment. But in economic terms, they must be concerned with efficiency. The labour relations of our province must be such that when inefficiency is found and it can be improved, that improvement will be facilitated. There must be fairness when there is technological change or when there is other change that leads to greater efficiency. It must be cushioned. The people who are affected must be treated fairly. But the principle that must be achieved is that fairness is secured by means of cash or other forms of compensation, rather than by continuing inefficiency - what is sometimes called featherbedding - or jurisdictional disputes of one kind

[ Page 4158 ]

or another.

British Columbia in 1977 can not afford significant areas of inefficiency in our economy from whatever cause. When those causes relate to institutional questions or labour relations, they may be more intractable than when causes relate to the absence of a particular machine or something that can be cured by capital investment. Nevertheless, it's just as important, not only to the income of all British Columbians but to the social services that this Legislature would like to provide to British Columbians in need.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk largely about the unorganized workers in British Columbia. Those workers are as assuredly the minister's responsibility as the organized, although the organized have a higher profile, which is natural, because they have greater power in our society, even though the organized in number are under 45 per cent of the work force and the unorganized are in excess of 55 per cent. The unorganized, in my view, are not now and have not for many years been getting their fair share out of the economy. I think this has to be one of the top items on the minister's agenda.

I think that we are going to see over the next few years one of the second great shifts in income distribution in Canadian history. What I would call the first fundamental shift, which is by now pretty well achieved, was a recognition that there is an entitlement to income and support as a matter of right to certain non-working sectors of our society, be they the aged or the sick or the handicapped and so on. This was a real revolution. It was extremely costly but it was done in response to the conscience of the nation and it was paid for out of growing productivity.

What I call the second fundamental shift in income distribution will take place in the working sector. For example, I think we are going to see a supplementation of the incomes of the working poor, few of whom are in organized labour. If the committee thinks that this is a good idea - certainly I do - we have to realize that it is going to come out of the current share of the pie of those who are more advantaged in our society. I think, in short, we are going to see a compression in the difference between what people earn in our society. The Premier of Manitoba has made a particular suggestion in that regard: that no one should earn more than two and a half times that earned by the lowest-paid person. I don't know if that's the right way to approach it, but when I see that Robert Bonner's, pension out of M and B after five or six years there....

AN HON. MEMBER: Three.

MR. GIBSON: No, a few more than that, Mr. Member, but maybe five. When his pension is four times as much as the average IWA worker, there's something wrong. Of course, when Mr. Timmis and Mr. Currie were given extraordinary increases in a disastrous year for MacMillan and Bloedel, these kinds of things have a very bad symbolic effect upon labour relations in our society. This is behind a lot of the talk at the bargaining table. This is getting a little bit away from what I wanted to talk about - the, unorganized sector.

I think we have to understand that there is going to be a gradual change in paying people more for the effort they have to put into work and more for the fact that the work is disagreeable, if it is, and less for jobs that are secure and less for jobs that are enjoyable. Performance always has to be a basic criterion, but I think that these other factors will be becoming increasingly important. Incidentally, I think that a similar shift in this income distribution is going to take place on the capital side, with higher rates of return to what I would call active capital -new productive facilities, for example - and much lower rates of return for what I would call inactive capital such as money invested in raw land or holding operations which have no creative aspect to them or money invested in basically secure propositions. I think both of these shifts relate to a fundamental sense of equity by working people in our society that what you get out of this world should be closely related to what you put into it and not so drastically affected, as at present, by the action of wealth, be that wealth in terms of money, talent or education.

Our progressive income tax has been one way of grappling with this kind of needed redistribution, but it does it very inefficiently and at a high cost to incentive and motivation. Is there a need for this what I call the second fundamental redistribution -largely to unorganized workers?

I want to quote to some extent from a publication of the National Council of Welfare entitled "Jobs and Poverty" in June, 1977. These figures are drawn from all across Canada and will not be entirely related to British Columbia, but I think that the relationships will apply in British Columbia. I quote here: "An Ontario study found that unionized manufacturing workers earned between 10 per cent and 17 per cent more than non-unionized employees in the same industries." That's an interesting statistic just to start with. The unionized industries are typically the higher wage industries, but even there the non-union portion earned significantly less. At the moment we are just talking about wages and not about benefits. When we move on to benefits here is another quote:

"Larger unionized firms in Canada spend close to 28 per cent of their payroll budgets on such non-wage compensation. According to a recent study of manufacturing industries in Ontario unionized firms contribute almost twice as much money to pensions, sickness and

[ Page 4159 ]

welfare plans as non-unionized companies."

So you see the spread there. Now what's the relationship to organization?

"Very few of the working poor belong to trade unions or enjoy the advantages and protection provided under collective agreement with their employers. Collective agreements cover only 4 per cent of the employees in laundries, I per cent in shoe factories and leather tanneries, and 3 per cent in restaurants, to give but a few examples."

The study then goes on to ask why this should be and points out why:

"In the first place, the costs in time, money and effort required to bring employees in the marginal labour market into the fold of organized labour are considerable. If the working poor were to be organized, someone would have to bear these costs, and it would more than likely have to be union members through their dues."

The report goes on to mention the difficulty of organizing in sectors that are characterized, for example, by small firms - firms which often don't have a lengthy continuity and other impediments of , this kind. It comes to a conclusion at this point:

"Improved working conditions, better fringe benefits throughout their working years and a more secure retirement will not come to the working poor through unions as it has for workers in the normal labour market. Instead, there must be government action."

Mr. Chairman, I concur with that conclusion. I would suspect that the minister, with the concern that he's expressed to this House for labour standards, is thinking in that direction as well.

"But labour standards laws are not all that is required. Existing labour standards laws, however, are far from sufficient safeguards for the rights of the working poor. Certain groups of workers in the marginal labour market, notably farm workers and domestics, are still excluded from full protection in virtually all provinces, "

though I would note in passing that British Columbia has had one organizational job done in the agricultural sector in the Peace River area.

"In most jurisdictions, handicapped workers can be paid at rates below the minimum wage." That's a bit of a cruel dilemma too, because employers in a sense can only afford to pay as much as productivity will allow. So I'm not saying these are easy questions. I'm just quoting the report at the moment.

"Though employers must give notice of dismissal or provide compensating pay, unorganized workers have practically no legal protection from arbitrary firing, a gap which particularly hurts older workers since they often face the greatest difficulty finding another job."

I simply can't stress that one enough, Mr. Chairman. The fact that you're getting paid much less is bad enough, but the fact that you might lose your job any day and the fact that you have no protection from the most arbitrary actions of your employer is not a thing that accentuates what they're calling today "the quality of life in the work place."

The report goes on, and I commend it to all hon. members, to describe some of the barriers to better functioning in the marketplace. They describe the fact that there were two distinct labour marketplaces. One is what they call the marginal; the other is the secure. There are barriers between the two such as credentialism, the requirement that you have to have a high level of education to get into certain industries, apprenticeships and entry conditions in certain trade unions. There are many barriers between these two labour markets, so they don't work together - the one to even out the other. In fact, the marginal workers, the working poor in Canada, do not really have an opportunity to get into the lucrative labour market. And that again is why government action is required.

It's not going to be cheap. I'll just make one more quote from this report:

"Many of the jobs performed by the working poor are essential to the functioning of our economy. All of us need and benefit from the goods and services they produce." I want to underline this. "The non-poor majority of Canadians enjoy, in effect, a continuing subsidy from the working poor, a subsidy which stems from the underpayment of their labour."

So if the working poor are underpaid, and they are to be treated more equitably, where is it to come from? The most improper thing that anyone could do is assume that this problem could be solved by people who are living better in this nation not making their contribution to that. It cannot be. I started out by saying that we in British Columbia are in difficult shape, and we cannot as a society afford for the time being to pay ourselves more. Therefore, if we are to treat the working poor in a more equitable way, through changes in government standards or whatever, we are simply going to have to pay the upper half of the society, let us say, less, or at least much slower increments. And that is a message that must sink into the head not only of every member of this chamber but of those in management, of those in relatively comfortable white collar jobs, the higher status, the teachers, the professionals, and of the more affluent labour unions. That's where it's going to have to come from if this matter of social conscience is to be implemented.

So I want to make at least one positive suggestion to the minister as to how he can go some distance in

[ Page 4160 ]

this direction. I know the Chairman will not wish me to dwell at any length on legislation but I do think the minister has to consider ways and means to secure by law many of the basic benefits for the unorganized sector that collective bargaining has secured for the organized. I know at once that this will not receive unanimous endorsation from the labour movement, because in a sense it will make their job more difficult in organizing. That's a balance that has to be made.

I suggest that in the areas that are inherently unorganizable the state has to come to the protection of the worker in means more sophisticated than the traditional means of the minimum wage and maximum hours of work. As a specific step in this direction, I would ask the minister to give immediate consideration to implementation of part 8 of the Labour Code of British Columbia, which is to say the labour ombudsman section of the bill. I have read it carefully. It would appear to me that this is a step that can be taken in a positive direction and without any great concern that it would upset existing relationships because the labour ombudsman, of course, has very few powers. His powers are those of publicity, of investigation, of advice. But the labour ombudsman is the most important potential institution in the Labour Code, as I see it, to work on behalf of the unorganized. He or she would have duties, of course, with respect to the organized as well. I don't mean to say it should be an exclusive concentration.

Here could be an official who would have a mandate to be concerned for all workers of the province, and particularly those in need. In the end, that will be revealed to be particularly the unorganized. The investigations, the appeals that would be made under this section to this individual would, in due course, build up a sufficient body of case law, so to speak, and of public sensitivity to the problems in this area of the working poor and the unorganized that the government would rapidly achieve a sufficient body of experience to proceed with more concrete legislative measures in this area. That, Mr. Chairman, is all I have to say on this subject at the moment. I will be up on other matters later on but I know there are other members who wish to speak now.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a series of several somewhat unrelated items that I wish to speak to the minister about. Just in beginning, I would like to reiterate some of the remarks that have been made earlier in this debate relative to the unemployment situation in this province.

I have a clipping from the Sun of July 13 of this year containing the most recent release from Stats Can giving the unemployment figures. We found that British Columbia again had taken a dip in the number of employed people in the province and our unemployed people had increased. It's rather interesting to note in the provincial breakdowns that we are the fourth highest unemployed province in the country. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec have a higher percentage of unemployment that does B.C. Prince Edward Island, where they previously had in May 9.6 per cent, has dropped to 7 per cent. That's a lower figure than we have here in British Columbia, which is a much richer province, Mr. Chairman, with a great deal more potential. Now I recognize that in part this perhaps reflects the summer tourist in Prince Edward Island, but we in British Columbia, and particularly on Vancouver Island, have that same tourism. It is unfortunate to see that we are slipping in British Columbia; that we're losing our place in the Canadian economy.

Another interesting breakdown is the breakdown given by industry, where we find that in construction, for example, at the time of the year when the weather is most suitable for those kinds of projects to be going forward, we are actually 12.2 per cent unemployed in June as compared to 10.3 per cent for the preceding month. By sex, we find that the male unemployed in June was 50,000, an increase of 2,000 from May; and the female unemployed in June was 43,000, an increase of 3,000 from the May figure.

Once again, this reflects the disadvantage that summer students find, and female summer students find, in obtaining jobs during their summer break. It puts a very grave barrier in the way of young women and young men - but even more so young women -in trying to earn, through those brief summer months, an amount of money that will see them through the coming year. By age, Mr. Chairman, we have no increase in the age group between 45 and 64. And the greatest increase, of some 5,000, is in that young group of 15 to 19. The statistics speak loudly and clearly, Mr. Chairman, that there is a very grave problem here in British Columbia and it relates very particularly to, the young people in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I came across a very interesting article the other day in Harper's Magazine. It is written by an American writer. It's entitled: "The Spectre of Full Employment." The writer's name is Robert Lekachman. It reads in part:

"The relationship between unemployment and the rate of change in money wage-rates in the United Kingdom appeared to demonstrate that as unemployment rose, wages increased less and less rapidly. Nothing at all was said about prices, price inflation or the manner in which rising wages might or might not be translated into a commensurate increase in the cost of living. Nevertheless, the findings were rapidly extended in statements like this typical textbook pronouncement: 'Low rates of unemployment tend to be associated with high

[ Page 4161 ]

rates of inflation and, conversely, price stability or low rates of inflation tend to be associated with high rates of unemployment.' "

Another quote from this article reads: "When people are scared about losing their jobs they work harder and gripe less. In more dignified language, absenteeism declines and productivity ascends."

This was a quote from an old-time survey back in 1862 to 1957. This was the attitude that was being displayed at that point in time. The fact is that there is a tendency among employers to believe that unemployment is beneficial to them in that it gives them more pressure in trying to find people to come and work for less money or to put in more and more time at the job. I guess it's the old law of supply and demand. But there is a real danger that there is not a desire on the part of employers to see full employment in Canada. I think that governments must take some steps in this direction.

This writer says:

"A genuine commitment to sustain full employment demands a good deal more than temporary tax cuts or a brief loosening of the purse strings. We will move toward a coherent, high-employment economy at the same time as it becomes politically feasible to diminish the power of great wealth and reduce inequalities of income and wealth."

It's those inequalities of income that I want to talk about briefly, Mr. Chairman. I came across another statistic which tells me that of every Canadian dollar bill - it's graphically illustrated - the top 20 per cent get 44 cents out of that dollar; the next 20 per cent get 24 cents; the middle 20 per cent get 18 cents; the next 20 per cent get 10 cents; and the bottom 20 per cent get only four cents. This follows along the line of argument that was raised by the former speaker, the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , that there is a vast inequality in our distribution of income. That relates to the unorganized and to the unskilled worker.

I would like to quote briefly from a report prepared by Canada Manpower in the Cowichan Valley in April of this year. It was rather interesting. When the report first came down it was headlined: "Politically Sensitive Report Will Have To Be Drafted Again." The person who was responsible for the report came out with some rather interesting figures. While the figures were not changed, he was instructed to redraft the report. It says:

"A study on the severity of the unemployment situation for those under 25 years of age in the Cowichan Valley, which was supposed to be released in January, is being redrafted because it is a politically sensitive document."

The author of the original report, Manpower specialist projects consultant, told the reporter:

"The committee made up of community representatives is rewriting the 37 pages of results gathered over a four-month period. My language in the original draft tended to be quite brutal. If Tommy Douglas got hold of it and read it in the House of Commons it could have been quite embarrassing."

Well, I don't know. Tommy Douglas didn't get hold of it, but it did come to my attention in the redrafted form. Some of the points that are raised in this report are very interesting. The thing that the original pointed out and which is not so specifically pointed out in this report - but it's there if you read between the lines - is that 65 per cent of the young people under 25 in the Cowichan Valley were unemployed - 65 per cent. A tremendous number, Mr. Chairman.

They conducted this survey by going into the various high schools. We must remember that in those graduating classes are the people who are coming out onto the labour market. They found some rather interesting things.

I think the minister would agree that those students are part of the pre-employment phase of his responsibilities as Minister of Labour. I think he would agree that if a student is not given the proper tools, work experience, counselling, career planning or an understanding of the labour market, he is not so likely to be successful in his search for work or in his continuing as a productive member of the labour group.

The report indicated - and I certainly agree with it - that the achievement of a grade 12 diploma is important, but education includes a lot more than that. We are going to have to have training in specific fields. We're going to have to have orientation and familiarity with the demands of the labour market, both at the local and outside. This of course relates to the apprentice training programme and the whole field of having the potential employees match the potential jobs.

In order to do that, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to know, and those young people have to know, what it is they are preparing to do. In the survey that the Canada Manpower committee took, they found in Lake Cowichan, for example, 60 per cent of the senior secondary students have no idea what they will be doing 10 years from now. They found that 25 per cent of them had no idea what they would be doing on leaving school. There's something wrong with the programme, either with the programme or with the availability of jobs, Mr. Chairman.

Some 51 per cent of those Lake Cowichan students had made no attempt to seek information on career planning and 23 per cent of the ones who had sought some assistance felt it was irrelevant. Some 90 per cent had never been to the Canada Manpower Centre, probably because it's an isolated community and it's well removed from the Canada Manpower

[ Page 4162 ]

Centre.

There's an alternate school at Lake Cowichan, and in that school all those students are going to enter the work force. But 57 per cent of them have made no career preparation and of the ones who did try to make some career preparations, 66 per cent found that the help they got was not applicable.

We move on to the Cowichan Secondary School, which is right in the heart of Duncan, and we find there that 54 per cent of those students had no knowledge of what they were proposing to do when they left school. A great many of those students -some 91 per cent of them....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: No, sorry - 58 per cent of the grade 12 students in Cowichan had been in to the Canada Manpower Centre. The reason is probably that it's right next door to the high school. But in that particular instance, too, was where the greatest majority of them felt they got no assistance from Canada Manpower.

Chemainus was a little different story. There were more young people in Chemainus who had some idea and/or who had done some thinking about what they were going to do when they came into the labour market. But again, the statistics were not too startling.

There was one group of 70 per cent - people who were working, and we are talking about people under 25 - who indicated they would change jobs. But this is an interesting point, Mr. Minister. Only 19 per cent would change jobs for better pay. Eighty-one per cent would change for a career. And the 30 per cent who wouldn't change all agreed that they enjoyed what they were doing as a career. Now that's an important point, Mr. Minister. Those young people were interested in the job that they were doing or they were upset because they were not doing the kind of job they were doing and that was important to them, even more important than the dollars involved. I think that's a very important point.

A final statistic that I would like to quote at this point in time is that 26 per cent of the labour force in the Cowichan Valley is under 25. Yet there are only 15 per cent of the jobs in the Cowichan Valley held by people under 25. So we find that 26 per cent of the labour force is competing for 15 per cent of the jobs. Of course, that is why we are getting this very terrific statistic of 65 per cent unemployed.

It should be noted that the majority of those under 25 surveyed who are employed are skilled trades people. This is a bit of a shocking statistic about young people. I think probably the Cowichan Valley is no exception to the average area throughout British Columbia.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Williams tables a document.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. Before I take the motion for adjournment, hon. members, there is a matter of privilege which was raised by the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) , who is not in his place at the moment. Will tomorrow be okay?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Page 4163 ]

APPENDIX

13 Mrs. Dailly asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following question:

What was the total number of employees in Government employment as at December 31,1976?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"The total number as at December 31,1976, was 39,139."

73 Mrs. Dailly asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry the following questions:

1. Is any superannuation being paid in addition to the $8,164.80 ex gratia payment under Order in Council 3729,1976, to the former British Columbia Railway Vice-president, J. S. Broadbent?

2. If the answer to No. I is yes, what is the annual amount of the superannuation?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"l. Yes.

"2. The Canada Pension Plan has a specific provision in which it is statutorily provided that all information with respect to any individual contributor or beneficiary is privileged, and provincially, it is our policy that the amount of superannuation paid is regarded as being of a personal nature not for disclosure."

75 Mr. Lauk asked the Hon. the Minister of Economic Development the following questions:

1. Is any pension being paid in addition to the $8,164.80 ex gratia payment under Order in Council 3729,1976, to J. S. Broadbent for his period of service with the British Columbia Railway and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what is the annual amount of this pension?

The Hon. D. M. Phillips replied as follows:

"l. Please refer to the answer to question 73.

"2. Please refer to the answer to question 73."

104 Ms. Sanford asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

1. Did the Ministry host a conference on unemployment in Campbell River on May 12,1977?

2. If the answer to question I is yes, (a) what was the total cost of the conference; (b) what was the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed in Campbell River in May and the corresponding figure for the latest date available; (c) was the conference attended by Dianne Hartwick, Executive Assistant to the Provincial Secretary, and (or) Jack Kelly, Research Assistant to the Social Credit Caucus?

3. If the answer to question 2 (c) is yes, were any expenses to Ms. Hartwick or Mr. Kelly paid out of Human Resources Ministry funds?

4. If the answer to question 3 is yes, under what vote and with what authority?

[ Page 4164 ]

APPENDIX

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"l. No, the Ministry did not host a conference on unemployment in Campbell River. It did host a conference May 11, 12, and the morning of May 13, for the purpose of training job finders, dealing with administrative and procedural matters affecting the job finding program (PREP) and identifying potential opportunities to assist income assistance recipients to obtain employment.

"2. (a) The total cost of the conference pertaining to meals and lodging was $2,067.45. In addition, there were travel costs of the various participants, but this sum is not readily available.

" (b) The Canada Manpower Corporation and the Unemployment Insurance Commission are the only sources of information pertaining to the numbers of unemployed in Campbell River in May, June, and July. Statistics Canada has no figures available for the requested time period. The Ministry of Human Resources is in no position to research Canada Manpower and Unemployment Insurance Commission records nor does it have authority to release such information if it did have access to such records.

" (c) Yes, Dianne Hartwick and Jack Kelly attended the conference.

"3. No expenses were paid from Ministry of Human Resources funds for either Ms. Hartwick or Mr. Kelly.

"4. Not applicable."