[ Page 5381 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Mortgage foreclosures. Mr. Levi –– 5381

Ministerial statements on ICBC. Mr. Cocke –– 5382

Northeast coal development. Mr. Gibson –– 5382

Involvement of Consumer and Corporate Affairs ministry in Thauberger case.

Mr. Wallace –– 5383

Proposed urban transit authority Act. Mr. Barber –– 5383

Tabling of housing committee transcripts. Mr. Skelly –– 5383

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 89) Second reading

On the amendment.

Ms. Brown –– 5384

Mrs. Wallace –– 5388

Mr. Barrett –– 5390

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5392

Division on the amendment –– 5394

Mr. Levi –– 5394

Mr. Gibson –– 5398

Mr. Wallace –– 5401

Mr. Cocke –– 5404

Mr. Barrett I –– 5406

Mr. Mussallem –– 5408

Mr. Nicolson –– 5410

Mr. Barber –– 5412

Presenting reports

Superintendent of insurance, 65th annual report. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5412

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed this afternoon, I would like to draw to the attention of the members of the Legislative Assembly that today we are very fortunate to be a host province for some 53 delegates from 22 different Commonwealth countries. Canada is the host nation this year for the 23rd Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference and a number of the delegates will visit British Columbia for the next three days. As you all know, you've received information concerning their visitation. They will be here today and have an opportunity to meet with us this evening. They are, apparently arriving just about now. For your information, I think it would be well if I give you an indication of the number of countries which will be represented. The 53 delegates with their spouses who are visiting British Columbia are from Australia, Bermuda, Botswana, Falkland Islands, France, Gibraltar, Granada, Guernsey, India, Jersey, Lesotho, Malaysia, Montserrat, New Zealand, St. Helena, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom and Zambia.

AN HON. MEMBER: And one from Scotland.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that part of the Commonwealth, hon. member?

The delegates are arriving and I'm sure they're all looking forward to meeting with the members of the Legislative Assembly at a time later today and this evening.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, in our gallery today I see a number of trade unionists, among them, from New Westminster - that marvelous gem of B.C. - Marge Storm, from New Westminster IWA. I also understand that Tom Baker from the carpenters of New Westminster is here.

Oral questions.

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): A question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in respect to mortgage foreclosures, Mr. Speaker. I'm not asking the minister if he's ready to report on the moratorium question, but I just want to, if I might, use this as a preamble. About 10 days ago I visited the registry office in New Westminster, which is the largest registry office in the province, I understand, in order to get some comparative figures, over the past three years, of the state of mortgage foreclosures. I would like to inform the minister, Mr. Chairman, for the months of June, July and August, in 1975, '76, and '77, the increase over '76, and '77, is 30 per cent. The increase in foreclosures for July '77, over '76, is 100 per cent, and in August the increase '76/'77 is 120 per cent. My question to the minister is has he initiated a survey through the various court registry offices and the mortgage companies in respect to the problem of mortgage foreclosures in the province?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member is yes. On Friday afternoon I received a report from my ministry which I fortunately have with me today in answer to the previous question. I think that the member would agree that precise information is difficult to obtain. However, what we have in the first six months of this year, compared to last year, is 229 foreclosures this year as compared to 145 last year. Now I don't deny that the member's figures may be right, but we have two different periods that we are comparing. I am advised that CHMC is not responsible for 160 of these as the member suggested. Although 160 may be CHMC-insured loans, they're not responsible, in fact, for bringing the foreclosure actions. It would have been somebody else who had brought them. In any event, those are the figures I have, Mr. Member. In dealing with the question of a moratorium, I'm advised by my ministry that the constitutional problems imposed by such a suggestion outweigh any value that might be given to perusing it further.

MR. LEVI: In respect to the figures, I was down at the registry office myself, met with the staff, and was informed that over the last six months there's been a dramatic increase.

I personally went through the registry book that is used for the chamber's hearing. I was instructed by the staff I would have to do this. And the figures that they gave me are very accurate, as are the subsequent figures that a second person picked up, in terms of going back to 1975-76. 1 would point out, Mr. Speaker, that there is a dramatic problem here and that the minister should have more exact figures on this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we get to the supplementary question please, hon member?

MR. LEVI: Has the minister been in touch with CMHC about the particular figures that he mentioned? Because, in my question, I said that there were 95 so far and there would likely be 160 by the end of the year. That was my earlier question. Has he been discussing this with CMHC?

[ Page 5382 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: First of all, let me say that checking out the registries is a difficult way to obtain this information, because you would have to check out each registry all over the province. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) would be better able to tell you how many land registry offices and how many court registries there are. But in order to get an accurate figure, that's what you would have to do.

Insofar as whether or not CMHC was checked, Mr. Member, I'll have to check, because my staff got this information for me and didn't indicate the source of it.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ON ICBC

MR. COCKE: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Education. The minister voted against the bill to set up ICBC, Mr. Speaker. During the last election campaign, he campaigned on a promise to return to private auto insurance - with the insurance companies paying campaign funds for his party. Last Friday, he said: "I've always believed in socialized auto insurance." (Laughter.) "After the election, private insurance dealers came to me and wanted ICBC dismantled. I finally had to give up on them; they were so dumb."

Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: has the minister mailed a copy of the statement to the Insurance Bureau of Canada?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): No, Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure the member for New Westminster has. (Laughter.)

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. He was speaking on Friday to the B.C. Chamber of Commerce about northeast coal development, which is the government's great public relations programme He said: "We don't really need another major development right now, particularly in the northeastern comer of the province, and it isn't as urgent to develop these coal reserves." My question, Mr. Speaker: does the minister consider that the unemployment problem in British Columbia has been resolved to his satisfaction?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, then, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the minister what has happened in the last year to those promised 2,000 or so jobs by 1980 or 1981 that the government was going to base on northeast coal?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) made a brief reference to the subject, and I think an adequate one, a few days ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know, since it was the minister who made the statement and not the Minister of Mines-: are the studies that are depressing him studies to do with costs - specifically transportation costs?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Mines said, and as I repeated in my comments to the chamber of commerce symposium on Friday, it is essentially markets that have been the main determinant of the rate of development.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Would the minister inform the House exactly when they were informed by Japanese interests that the northeastern coal would not be part of their marketing project? Was it in November, when the Minister of Economic Affairs (Hon. Mr. Phillips) went to Japan?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any message, communique, or whatever, from the Japanese government to the effect that northeast coal is not required. It's a matter of when, not whether, it will be required.

MR. LEA: That's exactly what I was asking. We're not talking about 20 years down the road. We're talking about the current plans that were announced about a year ago by the Social Credit government, and in the last election. When did you first officially find out, as a government, from Japanese interests that the deal wouldn't be going ahead?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The Japanese steel industry -not the Japanese government, but the Japanese steel industry - has not said that northeast coal will not be required. The Japanese steel industry is still studying its requirements. It's interested in coal from a number of sources, including British Columbia, and is still very interested in B.C. sources.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): If the Japanese steel industry did not inform the government, and the Japanese government did not inform this government, could the minister tell the House how he discovered that they did not need our northeast coal? Was it Ouija board or... ?

[ Page 5383 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I have yet to make that discovery.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary, if the government has not finally made that discovery, then why did the minister make the statement he did in Vancouver at the economic symposium of the chamber of commerce?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I was asked at the symposium if a statement made the previous day by John Southworth to the effect that he had information from a civil servant in Victoria that the coal requirement for the northeast was phased down to a lesser amount than 10 million tons a year was correct or not. I said that the Japanese requirements had levelled off and would be increasing again in the future. To determine when that increase would take place was a matter for further study.

INVOLVEMENT OF CONSUMER AND

CORPORATE AFFAIRS MINISTRY

IN THAUBERGER CASE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A report appeared in The Vancouver Sun over the weekend that Mr. William Thauberger won a suit in a small claims court in respect of a rusting Mazda station wagon Oter failing to receive help or satisfaction from various groups, including the minister's ministry, Can I ask the minister why his ministry did not pursue this case in court when the matter was brought to his attention, particularly since the ministry has legal staff for this very purpose?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll take that question as notice.

PROPOSED URBAN TRANSIT

AUTHORITY ACT

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In the throne speech this year, delivered, I believe, on January 17, the government made a promise to introduce an urban transit authority Act to relieve some of the capital and operating problems suffered by municipalities in British Columbia which presently participate in urban transit programmes. It's now nine months later and there's still no bill. My question to the minister is: is he prepared today to commit his government to introduce that bill before the convention of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, scheduled to start in about 10 days' time, in order that they might have a chance to discuss it while in convention?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked a similar question, although not related specifically to the Union of B.C. Municipalities' conference next week. That question was asked last week regarding plans for urban transit in British Columbia. I indicated then, and I indicate again today to the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , that this whole question of transit is under review by the government and legislation will be introduced in due course.

I would also point out that the throne speech was January 13, not 17.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

TABLING OF HOUSING COMMITTEE

TRANSCRIPTS

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Now that the minister has his dates clear, I've been asking the minister since, I believe, February 23 if he would table the transcripts of the Bawlf committee report. Is the minister willing to table that transcript during this session or within the next few days? If not, why not?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the statement made earlier still stands. I think we have yet to hear from one or two individuals with respect to releasing their transcript, and I'm hopeful that the material can be tabled at the earliest possible time.

MR. SKELLY: This is material that was prepared by Hansard staff, servants of the Legislature, for a committee that reported to give background to a bill that was discussed in this House. It's material that should have been before the House, Mr. Speaker, a long time ago. The House really has a right to this bill, and nobody has a right to deny the House this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member state a supplemental question if he has one?

MR. SKELLY: I'm asking the minister who is denying the members of this Legislature the right to view those transcripts of the Bawlf committee.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the imputation that someone is denying the members of this assembly rests with that member, not with me as minister. I've indicated that the transcripts will be tabled as soon as possible. The member understands that.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Will the minister name those one

[ Page 5384 ]

or two individuals or local governments who are not giving permission for the members of this House to see those transcripts?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, that's a reasonable question at some point down the line. In the event that we felt that individuals or local governments were deliberately withholding approval, then they would be identified at the time that the transcripts were tabled. At this point, it's only presumption to suggest that the names are being withheld.

MR. SKELLY: We'll get on the phone for you.

MR. BARRETT: It's been months.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Apparently the Leader of the Opposition doesn't want to ask questions on his feet, but just from his seat, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SKELLY: We want the information; let's have the information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the transcripts will be made available, as they should be to this assembly, at the earliest possible time,

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 89.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

On the amendment.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): On Friday, when the debate was adjourned, I was trying to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the people who would suffer the most as a result of his amendments were the unorganized workers in the province, the people who were trying to be organized. Very briefly, I would like to continue in the same vein and give the minister some information, most of which, incidentally, I got from his own department, because I am going to refer to Labour Research Bulletin 75 and 76, and his own study on the profile of low-wage workers in British Columbia, which was issued in March, 1977. This contains all of the information which the minister needs in order to see the folly of the amendments at this time.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. I

I'm dealing almost specifically, Mr. Speaker, with women in the labour force. We find, of course, when we look at the statistics, that the majority of the people, or 60 per cent of the unorganized workers in British Columbia, are women. It's not a coincidence, of course, that they also are the majority of the people in the lowest end of the wage scale at the same time.

Now the history of women in the labour force historically has shown that when the economy is ticking over nicely and we need a lot of labour, women are encouraged to get into the labour force, whether it's during times of war or times when we need a lot of workers. That's when everything is done to encourage women to get into labour force. There is legislation introduced which encourages child-care work, child-care facilities and other things, But once the economy starts to go down and there are periods of high unemployment, then we find that women are discouraged from being in the labour force and the whole business starts of how to get them out of the labour force and back into the home.

I want to quote from an article done by Margaret Bengston on this very issue in which she says that the history of women in the industrialized sector of the economy has depended simply on the labour needs of that sector because women function as a massive reserve army of labour. When labour is scarce, then women form an important part of the force. Then when there is less demand for labour, they become a surplus labour force and are expected to return to the home. It goes on to say that neither government nor employers nor anyone take the work done by women very seriously.

Now in March of 1977, the statistics are that there were 944,000 Canadians out of work. Of this number, 7.4 per cent of that work force were male and 10.5 per cent were female. When we look at the B.C. statistics, again which come from the Ministry of Labour, we find that it goes much higher than that. I gave those on Friday so I don't want to repeat myself on that issue. Again it was 60 per cent of the labour force. But I don't want to go into those details again.

We also find that the minister's colleague on the federal scene, the Hon. Bud Cullen, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in the budget debate of April 4, tells us, in talking about unemployment, that the basic problem continues to be the influx of young people and women into the labour market. He says our labour force grows faster than the number of job opportunities the economy is generating. That is one of the fundamental reasons why unemployment has grown and why we have an abnormally high unemployment rate this winter.

How do we deal with that? How do we find this government dealing with that? It deals with it in a

[ Page 5385 ]

number of ways. Probably the first indication we had of this, Mr. Speaker, was with the cutback in day-care subsidies and day-care facilities for the women in this province. Of course, we know that most of the women who work and are in the labour force.... I'm sorry, were you trying to say something to me?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like the member to call to mind that we are on an amendment to the motion, and the amendment has to do with reasons for hoisting the bill for six months.

MS. BROWN: That's what I'm trying to give you. I'm trying to give you the reasons why the bill should be hoisted for six months.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The purpose of the amendment is to discuss reasons why the bill should be hoisted for six months, and debate such as that debate which the member is now carrying should perhaps better be carried during second reading of the bill. I would like the member to keep this in mind.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I would like to disagree with you. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the reasons why the bill should be hoisted for six months. I am giving the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) information which he needs so that he may see the necessity for hoisting the bill for six months. I know what is needed under this amendment; I'm quite aware of the amendment that we're debating, Mr. Speaker. I would like to proceed with it, if it is okay with you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you may disagree, but this debate will be in order.

MS. BROWN: The debate is in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: The first indication we had, Mr. Speaker, of what happens when we have periods of high unemployment Was a cutback in social services, Certainly the cutback in day-care which was introduced by this government is one of the indications of that. One of the other things we found is the way in which a community and society in general deals with this. Surely the kind of things we're finding on TV now, where Safeway is pushing the reading of romance novels for women and saying that they should escape into these romance novels, is another way.

The third way of dealing with this, of course, is to introduce the kind of labour legislation this minister has introduced which makes the organizing of unorganized workers more difficult than previously. By introducing the sections he has, he makes it more difficult for the most difficult segment of the community to organize themselves, So we find that in fact the percentage of workers who are organized remains that way; we find that groups, even the ones who come under federal or provincial jurisdiction who need every assistance that is possible so they can organize the majority of the people in the lowest segment of the economy, are going to have difficulty doing so and their task is going to be made much more difficult as a result of the carrying out of this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the minister knows just what his amendments are going to do. In asking him to hoist his amendments for six months so that he can take another look at them, I want to give him these figures. In fact, as a result of the number of women in the unorganized sector being as high as it is, what we have is a reflection in the widening of the gap in terms of their average income.

The figures, for example, of average earnings for 1971 for men were $8,513 a year, and for women, $4,755. We find that in 1975 the gap widened and the average earnings for men were $10,770, and for women it went down to $4,710. This was a direct result of the fact that most of the people in the bottom segment of the employment stream were unorganized workers. In fact, they did not have the protection of the trade union movement to negotiate for them and to work for the kind of collective bargaining agreement that would protect them in terms of their salary, as well as in terms of their working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Robert Laxer, in a statement on Canadian unions, said that women in Canada constitute a cheap labour force that is more than twice as large as that of the post-1945 immigrant labour force. According to the 1974 estimates, women in Ontario alone lost $3 billion annually in potential wage and salary income due to the male-female wage gap. The figure for the whole country was close to $7 billion, representing, of course, a major gain to the friends of the Minister of Labour - namely the corporations.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Order, Mr. Speaker!

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, maybe, if the member sitting in the back bench would use this opportunity to try and learn something, he would benefit more from what I'm saying, rather than sitting there and repeating "order" over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, what this legislation does is slam shut the door to the one option that these people in the very bottom of the wage-earning field and the very bottom of the labour force have in terms of organizing. It is only through collective agreement

[ Page 5386 ]

that grievances, work conditions, salary conditions and the kinds of things that are necessary to close this gap in the income-earning segment of society can be dealt with.

In fact, the amendments do a number of things. For one, by excluding management and supervisors from the bargaining unit, it makes it very difficult in terms of labour disputes. I want to use as an example, Mr. Speaker, Tasco, which is an answering service that I used at one time but I am not using presently because they are locked in a labour dispute. Of the Tasco labour force, 99.9 per cent are women. Management is all men, with the exception of one woman, who is an accountant.

During the period when those 99.9 per cent of the employees who were women tried to organize, one woman was fired due to union activity, one woman was laid off and one woman was demoted as a result of a job classification. This was under the original Labour Code that was not amended. This is not under the new amendments that the minister is trying to introduce. That's how difficult it was, even then. The employers would phone the various branches and ask the employees if they had joined the union. If they said yes, they were asked to give reasons why they had joined the union.

The employers offered increased wages to some of the workers. They hinted that there would be closures and layoffs and that, in fact, unionization would drive them out of business. In other words, what they did, Mr. Speaker, was use this opportunity to intimidate the worker.

Now what the amendment will do, if it is introduced, is exclude supervisors from the bargaining unit. This will mean that the supervisors will be able to operate as scab workers during the strike. In fact, supervisors are workers like everyone else. There is nothing very special or different about them. All that the amendment is ensuring is that in the event of a labour dispute, right there on the job, the employers have their scab workers. It is not necessary for them to contravene the Act by bringing in scab workers from elsewhere.

This, of course, will jeopardize and weaken the bargaining unit and the whole business of divide and rule, which results in conquering, is set into force. Unorganized workers are the most vulnerable segment of our society. Insecurity, especially with the high unemployment, is the name of the game for them. They are very reluctant to take the kinds of risks necessary even to lose the very rotten jobs they presently have.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment would do - and why it should be hoisted for six months - is that it would make it easier for counter anti-union education to take place at the work place. Women are continually being intimidated by their bosses. The employers are given all kinds of latitude to carry on their public relations jobs on the job. But, in fact, workers already know what management thinks about them; they don't need these public relations messages because they have it in very concrete forms demonstrated to them through the low wages, the lack of benefits, the poor working conditions, the absence of grievance procedures. The workers know exactly what the management thinks about them, and they don't need any additional PR.

By withholding the names and addresses from people on the job when they are trying to organize, this makes it almost impossible for the organization process to take place. Withholding this information ensures that the people who are at the bottom of the wage scale and the work force are entrenched there.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the large women work ghettos, such as banks and department stores, we find a whole separation, isolation, alienation, divide-and-conquer system working. We find in the department stores that the women who work in the interior lighting section have nothing to do with the women who work in the bargain basement. With split shifts, staggered lunch hours, coffee breaks, part-time work which goes up to 40 hours a week, it's simple and very easy for the employers to continue to exploit them, as well as the immigrant labour which they are now putting into the work force and exploiting because of their different linguistic backgrounds. Workers are unable to come together and organize and demand better working conditions as it is now. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is going to make it even more difficult.

Office workers and department store workers are the largest single sector of unorganized labour, and this predominantly is where you find the women. Again, I'm getting all of these statistics from the Ministry of Labour, the minister's own department. I'm giving him information that he shouldn't need. If he would take the time to read the information coming out of his department, he would know just how destructive these amendments are going to be in terms of women in the labour force.

Mr. Speaker, women have always been accused of lacking ambition and not wanting to get along in the world. They've always been accused of trying to see marriage as a way of escaping from toil and keeping out of the labour market. Well, we are beginning to find that more and more people, as a result of inflation, are being forced into the labour market. The minister's own statistics are there to demonstrate this fact, yet we find that he is introducing anti-organizing legislation - because this is what it is. This is not an attack on organized labour; this is an attack on people who want- to organize, He is introducing anti-organizing legislation to ensure that people who are presently at the bottom of the wage scale, the people who are presently unorganized, the ones who are defenceless and vulnerable remain that

[ Page 5387 ]

way and are entrenched that way.

Mr. Speaker, you can look at any of the unions you want to where women are in the majority, whether it is AUCE - this deals with the universities - whether it is SORWUC - which I know is under federal jurisdiction - even some of the CUPE locals, and you will find that this fact holds true.

What do we find? We find, Mr. Speaker, two things happening: one is that the economy suffers as a result of this shortsightedness. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women had a study done - in 1971, 1 think. At that time it showed that the withdrawal of women or the exclusion of women from the Canadian labour force, Mr. Speaker, resulted in Canadian production being reduced by 22 per cent of the gross national product. It really is very shortsighted in the final analysis, this cutting off of social services to women who want to work, this destruction of the right of people to organize as a result of this kind of legislation, hand in hand with all of the social pressures that say: "Come and read your romances and stay home and escape from it all."

I The other result of this, Mr. Speaker, is the poverty. In fact we are told that 63 per cent of the people in this province who are living below the poverty line are workers; these are not people on welfare. Sixty-three per cent of the people in the province who are living below the poverty line are working. Again those figures come from the Ministry of Labour, which shows how many people are being paid less than the minimum wage or the minimum wage. In fact, those figures do not make those people live above the poverty line. I'm using the poverty estimates of January, 1976, which is $3,485 for a single person and $5,808 for a couple. Again, Mr. Speaker, we find from the minister's own department that 37.5 per cent of these people are married and 52 per cent are single. Of the single group, 80 per cent of these are women.

So if for no other reason for the bill to be hoisted, the minister needs to take the six months necessary to read the material coming out of his own department. I cannot believe that in fact he would introduce legislation with malice aforethought that would be as destructive as this piece of legislation is going to be to that segment of the labour force which is unorganized. It is unorganized, trying to organize. As a result of this kind of legislation, that is going to be made impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give you a couple of other statistics. One is that, of course, the people who will suffer most as a result of this are the children. What we have is a government that will put millions of dollars into building containment centres to deal with juvenile delinquents, and would introduce legislation that will ensure that the single parents who are raising these children will remain poor and not be able to give them the kind of services that they need to ensure that they don't end up in the containment centres they are building. They're very short-sighted, Mr. Speaker. That is reason enough why this bill should be hoisted for six months for the minister to take a global look at what he is doing, because in response to pressures from particular interest groups, he is failing to take into account the long-term results of the action. It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that people don't want to hear about it. They don't want to be reminded that kids are dropping out of school because their teeth are bad, because their concentration is poor, because their health is rotten, and because they can't get decent jobs. They don't want to be reminded that they are dying slowly, day by day. They don't want to be reminded. Nobody does.

The whole thing is that labour unions are the ones who are screaming. They are the ones who start out working on behalf of the poor and the underpaid worker. Their job is going to be made difficult and almost impossible as a result of these amendments which the minister is introducing at this time.

Mr. Speaker, a final quote. In this country, your economic status is all that determines what you are, what you shall become, and what you shall do. Nothing else, not your abilities. It determines how you are born. It can determine whether or not you are born healthy or sick. It can determine whether you stay in school, or whether you have to go on welfare. In other words, Canada is a country entirely geared to financial considerations and not to human ones. What this legislation does is to prove that this is a fact. That's what this legislation does. It entrenches the disparities which presently exist in our society.

We were under the impression that this minister would be willing to consider the total package, to recognize the importance of the lowest segment of the work force organizing itself to get a better deal, knowing the statistics coming out of his ministry about the single heads of families. How many of those heads of families are female? The kind of income that those women are earning is a result of being in the organized segment of the labour force. He could be introducing legislation that would be making it easier for unorganized workers to organize. Instead, he has done the direct opposite.

In The Province on Friday, the minister said one of the things that he hadn't done was read the legislation carefully. He took responsibility for an error which he made in terms of the 55 to the 50 per cent. He needs more time. The Province editorial today questioned whether that really was an error or not. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to give the minister the benefit of the doubt and say instead that I believe that he has not read the legislation. I believe he has not given this matter due consideration. I know for a fact that he could not possibly have read the study coming out of his ministry on the profile of

[ Page 5388 ]

low-wage workers in British Columbia. It is not possible that he could have read the recommendations and results of that study, and introduced legislation and amendments to the Labour Code that would worsen the existing situation. Because, in fact, that is what it's going to do.

We are looking at a government that made promises, promises when it was running for election, Mr. Speaker. It said it was going to do everything for everybody: universal Pharmacare, rent control was not going to be lifted, and what do we find ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the amendment, please.

MS. BROWN: ... the first thing that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) does is to cut off ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ... the subsidies ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. BROWN: ... for day care. . . .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the amendment, please, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: This is the amendment. I tied it in with the fact that most of the people who use the day care are unorganized workers, people who are going to be affected by the amendments that the minister is now introducing. That was the first nail in the coffin, the Minister of Human Resources.

The Minister of Labour has now introduced further legislation. That misogynist government, that anti-female government, that anti-worker government, that anti-children government has done nothing but introduce destructive legislation, legislation that's designed to hurt the people who are most vulnerable. They take from the poor so that they can give to the rich. They take from the have-nots so that they can give to the haves. They sit there and chew their cud while they are doing it, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the amendment, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: This is the amendment. I am appealing to the Minister of Labour to be the exception to the rule over there. He has the information. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) doesn't have the information. I know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: He doesn't know anything.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is now wilfully abusing the rules of the House,

MS. BROWN: No, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call your attention to the fact that we are on the amendment. Please keep your debate in order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am using all of the arguments that I can muster to get the attention of the Minister of Labour to assure him of the importance of hoisting this piece of legislation for six months. In doing that, I am bringing to his attention that he is in clear and imminent danger of becoming as irresponsible as the Minister of Human Resources unless he does so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! I remind the hon. member for the final time to keep the debate in order.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: No widows are after me, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right, no widows. And he is out of order, too, Mr. Speaker.

But I am saying to the Minister of Labour that he has an opportunity at this time to hoist this piece of legislation until he has had a chance to read some of the information coming out of his department that will demonstrate to him the destructiveness of this particular piece of legislation. I hope he will avail himself of this opportunity by voting in support of this amendment.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): On Friday, when we were discussing this motion to hoist, I think it was the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) who quoted from Alice in Wonderland. A quote has occurred to me, not so literary perhaps, but nonetheless appropriate. I'm sure that the minister will remember with me the radio show that used to come on at 9 o'clock every night, back a few years ago, with Amos and Andy. There was a very famous quote that came out of that show, as I say, not as literate as Lewis Carroll: "Is you is or is you ain't?" Mr. Minister, that's the question that I would like to pose today: "Is you is or is you ain't?"

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): It makes about as much sense as all of

[ Page 5389 ]

your other questions.

MR. BARRETT: Is he a Liberal or is he a Socred?

MRS. WALLACE: On Friday, we had a bill before the House. Some people had some amendments. I wasn't one of the lucky ones. I see those amendments are in my orders of the day today, but I'm wondering what amendments we're going to have tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. I don't think this minister has made up his mind just what he wants to do with this piece of legislation.

I'm surprised to find this minister in such a state of disarray, in fact. He's not the minister that I would expect to find in this position. We find him for two days defending a bill and then we find him being quoted in the press as saying that it's all a mistake, that there are errors in the bill, that he hadn't read the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this suggests to me that this is not this minister's bill, and I believe that to be true. I believe this is not this minister's bill. I suggest this bill has been thrust upon this minister during some stormy, early-morning cabinet meetings and some stormy or late-night cabinet meetings, thrust upon him against his will. This bill does not smack of that Minister of Labour. Instead, Mr. Speaker, it smacks of a different group within that cabinet. It smacks perhaps of the Premier of this province. That's where I think this bill originated, Mr. Speaker.

It takes me back to a year or more ago when we had another labour bill presented to this House, the infamous Bill 22. The Minister of Labour won that debate, Mr. Speaker. That too was the Premier's bill, but the minister won that debate. That bill died on the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I read the motion to you?

MRS. WALLACE: The motion is to hoist. I'm suggesting that this bill should be hoisted because of the lack of preparation that has gone into it, and the lack of conviction, actually, on the part of that minister in support of this bill. I'm suggesting that last year's bill was a parallel example of what happened. I'm surprised that this minister, having lost his battle in cabinet, did not get up and move that the bill be discharged rather than supporting in a rather half-hearted manner the tone of the bill.

This is a bill that contradicts our whole concept of equality within this province. Before the last election, and even since the election, Mr. Speaker, we had a Premier telling us that he believed in a guaranteed annual income; this bill is going to negate that very trend. I don't believe that the minister really wants that to happen; I think it's lip service only.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has been enjoying a very enviable position up to now. He's been basking in the sun, as it were, of very calm and favourable labour relations within this province. I would suggest further, Mr. Speaker, that those conditions are a direct result -more than any one thing - of the Labour Code of British Columbia, which was introduced by the former Minister of Labour. He's been basking in the sun; he's been taking the credit for those relations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he's starting to tinker with the bill. He had this infamous legislation thrust upon him, which would be detrimental to those people - as has been pointed out very ably by the first member for Vancouver Burrard (Ms. Brown) - who are most in need of the right to organize. That's what this bill is doing; that's the direction this bill is taking. Having recognized that that is the wrong direction and is going to upset the delicate balance that has been achieved in the Labour Code - a balance that has won the respect and the understanding of both management and employee - tinkering with this bill now is going to upset that balance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I interrupt the member again? Please direct your debate towards the motion itself, which is a motion to hoist the bill for six months. The debate that you are following is clearly that debate which would be more in order on second reading.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will attempt to relate it to the question to hoist. In my opinion, it does directly relate to the question to hoist, because I'm suggesting that there is a change of mind and a change of opinion, as has been shown by the amendments that were brought in and by the changes in the statements of that minister. I'm suggesting that there is a conflict of opinion within that cabinet.

I'm suggesting that this minister should take a good, long look at the direction this bill is taking us, with or without amendments; with or without more amendments; with or without deletions and additions. I'm suggesting that this minister should take a good, long look at this bill, and to do that he needs time, Mr. Speaker. Time is what a motion to hoist would provide. He needs time; I would suggest that he now has opportunity, Mr., Speaker.

I would suggest that he goes back to his cabinet colleagues to again discuss the subject matter of this bill. Perhaps he can persuade them that it is a bad piece of legislation. Perhaps he can persuade them that it will upset the balance that we now have in the Labour Code. Perhaps he can persuade them that it is aimed not at "big labour, " Mr. Speaker, but rather at those who would attempt to help those people who do not have the advantage of a union. It is aimed at the organization. It's anti-organizational.

[ Page 5390 ]

It makes it much more difficult for any group of unorganized workers to achieve accreditation. That's what this bill is aimed at, Mr. Speaker. It's a bad bill. I would urge the minister, when he closes the debate, Mr. Speaker, to take a second look and to move that the bill be discharged. I would urge him, prior to that, to support the hoist on this bill.

MR. BARRETT: Perhaps the government would care to give an indication as to whether or not they will support this motion and shorten the debate as it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. BARRETT: I'm glad the backbenchers are speaking for the government.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'm happy to see you back. I understand that by tradition, this motion that we're debating briefly is an opportunity for the minister or the government to save face on a current issue before the House. Because it is an opportunity for the government to save face, it is strictly confined to arguments as to why the government should hoist the bill and consequently save face, with a minimum of embarrassment. There is ample evidence that this government has need to save face on this particular piece of legislation.

I cannot recall a time when we have debated legislation in the House that was introduced, attacked in the newspapers by those people whom it would affect most, vigorously defended by the minister who introduced it, and then, within 72 hours, have the minister tell all and sundry, after the attacks, after his defence, that it was all a mistake. Then in actual fact, during a portion of the opening debate on second reading, he hand-delivered amendments to this House to correct the error. This was in the middle of the beginning of the debate on second reading, only a matter of days after the legislation was introduced. I don't recall a sequence of events like that. If it was inconsequential legislation, then we could consider this almost a Gilbert and Sullivan, with the minister playing both roles.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): You never corrected your mistakes.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the voters from Omineca have a chance quickly to correct their mistakes,

What I'm trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister has been highly embarrassed and, as a consequence of the embarrassment, we find a unique situation where not more than two, three or four, at the most, cabinet ministers have sat beside him since Friday, when this bill was called. At the most, in terms of count, the attendance by government members in this House has ranged as high as 18 out of 34 down to the current 12.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that it is the government that should be here defending the legislation. It is the cabinet that should be showing solidarity behind that minister, and there has not been one single backbencher or cabinet minister speak on this legislation, or even attend in great numbers to the House. They're all embarrassed.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now you just sit still. I'm glad to see you here. You're a beautiful fellow, but sit still. You'll ruin the image just by opening your mouth.

Mr. Chairman, now we discuss image. The fact is that minister did indeed establish, within a short time, an image of being somewhat different from the group that he joined. It is true that he has enjoyed in the media, in the public's mind, and in the sector that he deals with in the public and labour, a separate and distinct image from Social Credit - certainly the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who is a hardline right-winger; certainly from some of the backbenchers, who are just hardline, period; and certainly from some of his cabinet colleagues - since he himself is a member of a trade union. Yes, a trade union - lawyers.

Now when it comes to lawyers organizing, friends, they don't have a chance to organize. They're told either they shape up to the bar or they ship out. Where is the freedom of choice in that? There's no 45 per cent, 35 per cent, 55 per cent; it's 100 per cent built in - lawyers' union. I have never once heard a lawyer in this House, regardless of what party, stand up and say that the graduating law class should have a right to vote as to whether or not they're going in a union. Don't kid yourself. There's a separate standard for his own profession. But that noble profession has always given itself the added distinction of being something separate when they come into politics -they like to look at the law. Now beside the lawyers, there are also the doctors. They have control of their own union. Ministers do not have the benefit of a trade union movement. If any group is under organized, in my opinion, it is the clerical group, Mr. Speaker, and I'll speak to you about that later.

The fact is that this minister has been left alone. It was a calculated move to present. an image as being separate from the Social Credit. There was a desire to leave within the public the impression that even though he had changed political party, even though he had gone from the Liberal Party to Social Credit, he was still of the Liberal stuff and the Liberal philosophy, and he would be a leavening force in the cabinet rabidly anti-union, and he maintained that image, Mr. Speaker. He maintained it by keeping his

[ Page 5391 ]

mouth shut. You know, one of the best ways of creating a positive image in that kind of government is just to keep your mouth shut. You are bound to win out in the long run with that catalogue of stumbling, bumbling ministers. He kept his mouth shut for 18 months and he started to look good. Silence wore on him well. There were even the rumblings going around that he would be the successor for leadership; that he enjoyed the support of the moderates - all three of them - in that group.

Then he brings in his first piece of legislation. It's hysterically anti-democratic. At what crisis it is aimed we still do not know. What national emergency this legislation is designed to evaporate we still have no inkling of. What crisis there faces us in this strife-torn land that needs this legislation at this moment we're still not apprised of, but we're given a demonstration that the minister, indeed, has some identity. He's going to bring in a bill just so he can get his name on the order paper this session. Everybody else has done it. He calls a press conference. The alert members of the press gallery ask him about the 55 per cent. He defends it vigorously in a press conference. Then, Mr. Speaker, what do we find? To his embarrassment, he admits 24 hours later that his own arguments at the press conference convinced him that he was wrong and he made a mistake. To catalogue this comedy of errors we have the minister being quoted in the paper as saying: "Really the trouble was that I didn't read the bill." Then he wants us to debate the bill with no guarantee that we have at this moment that he has read the bill. My good friend the Liberal leader on his way down to his office pauses and takes a view across that chasm to the windows of the committee rooms that are filled every night by bureaucrats, sycophants, doughnut-hole punchers, flack, hacks, and PR men. They have got staff coming out of their ears going over the dots on the i's and the crosses on the t's in the legislation. They sit there from 7 o'clock in the morning till 11: 3 Oat night ...

MR. GIBSON: That's the trouble - they can't see straight at night.

MR. BARRETT: ... and what are they reading in there? Playboy? What is it that they're examining so closely hour after hour when we're told that this is a workaholic government? Crossword puzzles? "I haven't read the bill!" Within a matter of hours this minister took his image and shot it down the tube with deliberate purpose, saying, "Look, gang, I tell you, I want to be just the same as the rest of them, just as dumb as the rest of them, " and he's proven it. Is that really what this was all about? To come into this House and deal with this legislation and say that "I didn't read it, and if I had read it I would have known it was all a mistake?" Or "it was all a mistake after I discovered that I didn't read, it

The Vancouver Province, a rabid right-wing newspaper if there ever was one, on the editorial page - not the poor yellow running dogs of the lackey press - the poor workers at that paper were forced to see in their own pages an editorial saying today that they didn't believe the minister. Oh, a shock! That right-wing newspaper suggests in an editorial today that the minister might have been fibbing. I think they should be called to the bar and explain how they, a right-wing newspaper, have the nerve to say that the minister might have been fibbing. I can expect that from an irresponsible member of the opposition, like the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) or the member f o r North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) .

MR. GIBSON: Order!

MR. BARRETT: But, Mr. Speaker, for the Vancouver Province to suggest that the minister was fibbing is enough for me to renew my subscription.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why they did it.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. My good friend said he should have kept his mouth shut and looked like a fool instead of opening his mouth and removing all doubt. In an incredible matter of days we have seen this minister admit that he never read the bill. Then when he did read it, it was a mistake. Or, excuse me, he didn't read it but it was a mistake and he knew that without reading it, or that he was defending it at a press conference, and now he brings in amendments. He doesn't know what's going on, Mr. Speaker.

To this moment we still have not had one specific reason for the rush. Why the rush? Is there a conspiracy out there among working women to get into a trade union movement within the next few hours and overturn their bosses? Is there a hidden RCMP report cataloguing unmarried mothers meeting and plotting to overtake their employers through organizing in a trade union movement? Have we seen a shred of evidence that on the edge of this legislation hangs a Marxist revolution led by the rabble who are no longer organizing? Stuff and nonsense!

Mr. Speaker, one can only surmise that this legislation is designed for one thing and for one thing only, the minister's own image. He hasn't brought in a bill this year and it's his turn. It's his turn so this is what they thrust in his hand. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker: if the minister has not read this legislation and it was all a mistake, has he fired anybody for making this mistake? Has he reprimanded anybody for making this mistake?

Interjection.

[ Page 5392 ]

MR. BARRETT: He's practically fired himself -that's correct. But I'm talking about somebody else. Who wrote it? Who was it who dreamed up the 55 per cent that he says was a mistake? Surely to goodness they must have got a signal somewhere down there. The kind of bureaucrats they hire don't show any self-initiative, Mr. Speaker. They reflect what the minister wants. Which one was it down there that dreamed up the 55 per cent that you had no knowledge of, and you say was all a mistake?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, I don't believe that. I believe that perhaps The Province might be right. The Province newspaper and editorial might be right. The safest way out is for the minister to back off and say that he hasn't read it, and it might be all a mistake. Why don't you back off all the way, Mr. Minister? Save some shred of that plastic image. Save some belief in the ordinary working people out there who believe that a Minister of Labour has in his heart the interests of working people. Save some semblance of your own philosophical trail to come to where you are, by withdrawing the bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with an ordinary Social Crediter. In dealing with an ordinary Social Crediter you deal with them in simple terms. They join the party, they serve the party and they get to the back bench, and that's it. We're talking about people who jump from other parties. They jump because they have principles. When they jump those principles become pliable enough to make it to the cabinet and bring in legislation. Then once they come in with their pliable principles, they bring in pliable legislation. They say: "Well, if there is a little heat, it was all a mistake - what are you pushing it for?" Why? Is it ego?

There is nothing going on out there, Mr. Minister, that demands that this go through immediately. There is nothing going on in the community at this time of labour peace that demands this legislation. What's the purpose? What's the reason? What do you hope to accomplish with this bill? What problem is it that you are trying to solve?

There are two kinds of legislation, one corrective and another preventive. To my knowledge, I have not had one single complaint from chambers of commerce, from businessmen, from the industrial establishment about the sections that you are amending. What are you doing it for? Save some face, take a little momentary embarrassment and hoist the bill. The media will forget it in 48 hours, and you can recover with some plastic welding and be okay six months from now. Why invite confrontation? You even got Len Guy, the secretary of labour, saying nice things about you. He never said them about me. He's saying nice things about you. That's a level of harmony we haven't seen around here even when the NDP was in office. No one ever came up and kissed Bill King on the cheek. What are you blowing it all for? What do you hope to gain? If I may say to you these words, Mr. Speaker - I ask the press to put their pens down, and Hansard to stop taking this down - what are you getting out of it politically? You are wishing on yourself a disaster. There is no political purpose for this. You're walking into a buzz saw. You're immobilizing the trade union movement at a time when reason is having its course in adjusting decisions being made through the rank and file up to their leadership. When you could have reason and calm in dealing with the current economic situation that we are faced with in this country, you give yourselves a wide-open door to raise confrontation that you say you don't want. The Premier before you, when he left town, said he didn't want it either. Maybe they want confrontation. I don't know, but for the life of me, Mr. Speaker, there has not been one sensible, reasonable, rational reason for this legislation.

When the minister himself says within 72 hours after bringing in the legislation and defending it that it was all a mistake, the gracious thing would be to hoist and now is a good time. There are only three cabinet colleagues and four backbenchers. You hoist it and we won't tell them a word about it -they won't be back for a while anyway. What are you looking for trouble for? We don't need trouble in this province, Mr. Speaker, and if that minister pursues the bill he is deliberately asking for labour trouble.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): On the amendment, if I may. I want to take my place in this debate to respond to some of the matters which have been properly placed in this debate. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) made no impression upon me, Mr. Speaker, and it is not my intention to support this motion to hoist. I thought that the member of the House who directed the most cogent arguments on the particular subject was the first member for Vancouver-Burrard, who spoke about the plight of the unorganized worker in this province and quoted extensively from material which has been produced by the Ministry of Labour, in particular, on the situation which is facing women in the labour force in British Columbia. She quoted statistics, and the only one danger with statistics is that they change from time to time and from month to month. She quoted statistics showing that the particular problem facing women in the month of March, which she chose, was desperate.

I can only say to the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) that if she had looked at the statistics for the month of July, she would have found that the situation now is significantly improved over what it was a year ago.

[ Page 5393 ]

But, you know, what the first member for Vancouver-Burrard failed to recognize - and I think she did so with that failure at some peril - was that her criticism was not of this government, or indeed of this legislation, but in fact a failure on the part of the trade union, movement to discharge its responsibility to the unorganized workers in the province.

Because we are making a change with regard to organizing standards in this province, you would suddenly think that all organizing activity is going to come to a halt. The situation described by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard is not the result of this legislation. It's a result of the legislation which existed under the Code from the time it was first introduced by the former government. If the trade union movement has failed in its organizing activities with respect to women in the work place or those who are at the lower end of the pay scales, then it is not the result of this amendment that has brought that about.

I think the first member for Vancouver-Burrard was unduly harsh in her criticism of the trade union movement and its failures with respect to organizing activities. As a matter of fact, when we get down to debate on the bill, and the members, having enjoyed my discomforts here for the past few days, begin to address the problems that this amendment addresses ' I think they will recognize that it is intended to provide better standards for the trade union movement so they can better assist the unorganized workers once they do become organized. In fact it will make it quite clear that the mandate that the trade union movement holds for those members whom they represent is in fact a solid mandate and not one to be criticized idly as has been the case in the past. The legislation is designed to do just that.

As was pointed out a few moments ago, editorials and comments in the newspapers have been written about the impact of this legislation, as if somehow or other the responsibility to achieve a 45 per cent membership, if we're making application for certification, was some sort of horrendous obstacle. But you know, under the law today one must achieve that and more to achieve organization and to become certified as the bargaining agent for workers in this province. One does not hear this expressed in these debates.

And when it is a question of determining whether or not the rights and the equality of individuals are to be supported, there are people in this province who believe that working other than in a trade union is superior. Now the responsibility of the trade union movement is to convince them otherwise. But surely until that conviction has been won, then there must be an equality of rights, which is best expressed by the secret vote. All we're doing in this legislation is to ensure that that opportunity is extended to the workers in British Columbia whom the trade union movement has been unsuccessful in convincing, by 55 per cent only, that the trade union movement is the method in which to go. So we afford them the opportunity to vote, If there is opportunity to vote....

The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) laughs about this. I know he may never face another vote because he won't get the nomination in his constituency. But all the years that you've been in this House, you've been prepared to be judged according to that standard ...

MR. MACDONALD: It does make organization harder, you know.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: ... that is being placed before the House in this bill. It doesn't make organizing any more difficult, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: Read it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I read it very carefully.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I read it very carefully. It doesn't make it more difficult at all. As a matter of fact....

MR. BARRETT: Does it make it any easier? No. What's the purpose then? What's the purpose of it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It doesn't make it any easier, either. No, of course it doesn't. It makes certain, as I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the trade union mandate to represent those employees who are in the certified bargaining unit will be beyond question.

Now if this seems to be too stringent a test, perhaps we could look at what is done in other jurisdictions, where there's a vote every time. A decision is made in that way. But it is assumed that the trade union movement in the province of British Columbia, being successful in its organizing activities and having achieved a membership of 55 per cent, is therefore entitled to be certified and certified automatically. Only when it falls short of that is it required to go to the test of a representation vote, unless in the course of the organizing activity actions take place which, when brought to the attention of the Labour Relations Board, convince them that still a representation vote should take place.

These problems will not go away, and there has been nothing placed before this House in the course of the debate on this amendment to suggest that it should be delayed. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) hasn't read the bill. If he has, then he has read it without

[ Page 5394 ]

understanding. I would hope that he would take the opportunity of discussing it with people who are aware of what takes place. Again I say, Mr. Speaker, that I will not support this motion.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 17

NAYS - 27

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

MR. LEVI: In listening to the minister make some comments just prior to the vote, he didn't seem to stress too much what was really happening here. What he was saying was that somehow they wanted to make everything fair. He said that previously the Labour Code was not fair and they wanted to make it much fairer - then things would be a lot better.

What's happening today, if we look at the statistics and if we listen to what the minister and the government have said all through the last year, is the balance has been maintained in terms of labour relations in the province to such an extent that there has been a significant reduction in the amount of days lost through strikes, and generally there is the kind of atmosphere that was envisioned back in 1973 when the bill was first introduced.

It was generally admitted by everybody, Mr. Speaker, that what the Code was going to do was make it easier for unions to organize. That was the import of what we were doing, not only that it should be easy to organize but also that you should seek to achieve the kind of balance that's necessary in order to maintain labour peace,

I'm reminded, when I listen to the minister talk about the problems in terms of the existing Labour Code, of when I was the president of a union local. We started, right off the bat, to form a union, first of all. And then, when we formed the union, we attempted to get a collective agreement, It was not a friendly atmosphere. The whole thing was a straight adversarial system, and one of the first things that we ran into was interference. We ran into interference from the employer, who was importuning various people who were involved in the union itself, suggesting to them that we really didn't need to have a union in this kind of operation and what we really needed to have was a kind of understanding, and everything would be okay. Now we were fairly green in those days. I'm talking about 17 or 18 years ago, when we operated under a very difficult piece of legislation. But there was a possibility, because of this interference, that we could make an application to the Labour Relations Board and say: "Look, something unfair is going on here. The employer is interfering with our efforts, not only to organize, but also to get a collective agreement."

One of the things that the minister has done, in order to, as he says, maintain the balance, is remove the possibility that anything can be done, by people who are seeking to bargain collectively or even to organize, to put aside this interference. Way back, the employers were asking for this. They've asked for it in briefs. They said: "We want to be able to do the kind of interfering . . ." or electioneering, if you like.

I'd just like to quote from an article by George Dobic, who is the labour reporter for The Vancouver Sun, when he was writing on February 16,1977, Mr. Speaker. I want to quote him here because he deals with the very piece that I'm talking about at the moment. He says: "It was admitted, from the very beginning, that the Labour Code introduced in 1973 was designed to make it easier for unions to organize. Now all of a sudden, employers are alleging the Code is biased and they want more rights for themselves. They want to be able to speak directly to their employees and try to dissuade them from joining a union when a union organizer is talking to them."

Now I don't know whether the minister had an opportunity last night to see the TV programme where a young woman, who has been responsible for organizing for some who are working in the banking industry, talks specifically about the bank where she worked; they attempted to organize. That was over a year ago when they organized that bank. Then there was a judgment that was handed down at the federal level which made it possible for organization to take place in banks. That was a year after they started to organize.

She pointed out very specifically last night, Mr. Speaker, that over a period of years - because of the very high turnover in banks because of the low pay -the bank itself set out to screen very specifically the kind of employees whom they were taking on and very much saying to them about the old issue of the unionization that's being attempted in this bank.

[ Page 5395 ]

Now that's the kind of interference that's presently precluded in the Code. You cannot importune people; you can't electioneer on behalf of the employer. But you will be able to when this legislation is passed; you'll be able to do all the electioneering you like, You'll be able to take the employees into the office and talk to them about the possibilities of advancement or the lack of possibilities for advancement.

I notice that the minister shakes his head, Mr. Speaker. Well, it may be a long time since the minister was in the work force, and I don't doubt that he was. But my gosh, when you get into a situation where you have a large number of young people, particularly those people who are presently unorganized and they are going to be electioneered by employers about the desirability of having or not having a union, you are leaving it wide open for that kind of situation, a very dangerous situation. What it's doing, really, is seeking to prevent the opportunity for people to do something that's perfectly legal under the law. But what is more important, it was something that was fought for for almost 100 years.

It boggles the mind, Mr. Speaker, for me to understand how it is that the minister, who has had relative labour peace in the 18 months that he's been the minister, can come in and simply tip the scales, because down the road he must see the kind of chaos that he's going to create. We are not in a situation in terms of employment in this province that if people are going to have a hard time to organize under the new sections of this bill, somehow they'll just pick up and say: "Well, it's too tough; we're going to go and work somewhere else." There's nowhere else to work. People are going to stay where they are and they're going to fight and they're going to become militant and there are going to be some real confrontations. It's not the issue for the minister or anybody else to say that the unfinished work of the labour movement is to want to organize the unorganized; we know that. That's been the constant battle in the labour movement - to see that enough time is devoted to organizing the unorganized.

So the minister has listened very carefully to what the employers have asked for, and he seems to be taking each point of the brief that they submitted to him. Then he's come in and he's amended the Act. Now that doesn't augur well for labour peace at all.

We heard the argument during the debate as to whether the minister read the bill. It is very difficult for ministers to make mistakes in terms of bills if they're paying attention to what they are doing. I would presume that the minister read the bill. He signed the final copy before it went to the printers; then he had a press conference. I presume that's what he did.

That's what I did when I was a minister. You have a bill; you deal with it; you go over it; you have some changes. But the last act that a minister does in terms of pushing legislation through is to sign the final copy so that it can be printed. The presumption is that when you sign it, you know what you've signed.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: He says no. He says no, that's not what they do. I don't know how you guys operate. But that's the normal, logical way to operate if you're dealing with legislation. It's incumbent on a minister to understand every clause of a piece of legislation like this. So I would presume that if he followed the proper practice, he would have signed the legislation and understood what it was that he did. Somebody suggested - and they may very well be right - that at the last minute he was told: "That's got to be changed." And the change is the form which we first received in it.

We know that the minister has taken a terrible battering in terms of his credibility. That's bad. That doesn't augur well for the whole business of labour peace in this province, if we have a minister who appeared to be strong and knew what he was doing, who now appears to be so weak that the cabinet can walk all over him. That's dangerous for labour peace in this province. That's a dangerous situation. The minister should understand this - his whole credibility is tied up in the way this bill was presented. It's unfortunate from the point of view of labour peace. His career? That's his own problem. He made all sorts of commitments about his career two years ago, but that is his problem.

He is the minister responsible for the administration of the Labour Code, and to see that a balance and labour peace is maintained. He had some success at that over the past 18 months, except that we find in the final analysis, after our opportunities to discuss with the labour movement what took place, that he didn't consult with them. He wants to seek a balance and improve the balance. He doesn't talk to the labour movement, but presumably closets himself with the employers, because the kind of legislation he's brought in is exactly what the employers want.

If the minister thinks for one minute that the kind of climate that exists in this province in certain sectors of the employers' community - that they want to see a perpetuation of a healthy trade union movement - he knows as well as I do that there are people who are significantly powerful who feel that there should not be the kind of collective bargaining that goes on in this province that there is today. That's the important thing about the fight that we have to make about this bill.

We boast in this province of a high standard of living. It's still unfortunate that we're not able to get

[ Page 5396 ]

that kind of standard of living to every individual in the province, but we have tended to have led this country in terms of collective bargaining and how you make gains. That's one of the things that the trade union movement in this province can be proud of. But what we see here in terms of this legislation is the employers and the government saying: "As far as we're concerned, you're not going to go any further. Things are going to be much tougher for you in the future, "

The issue to make about whether it's 55 or it's 51 or 52 per cent isn't the basic argument. It's really the philosophy behind it. They're either in favour of the collective bargaining process or they're not in favour of it. It's my suggestion that they are not in favour of the kind of balance that exists today. They've come in and they've shifted the scales in the favour of the employer.

It's remarkable that after all this time of testing it - and they know as well as we do that you don't bring in a piece of legislation and expect it to work after one year or two years - after almost four years since this Act was brought in in the fall session of 1973 when it was debated.... The people have been able to look at it and the process has been worked out. The Labour Relations Board, which is the finest of its kind in the country, has been able to do its work and we've achieved the kind of climate. It has been a delicate process.

It's also been a very hard process, with hard-fought battles even when the legislation was passed. Nobody knows better than the previous government how tough it was in dealing with that in trying to make the legislation work. But we knew eventually that it would work, given the time, given the agreement and the understanding by employers and by employees, but particularly by the government. Their role was not to interfere with that balance. There are certain times when the situation comes about. This minister has been reasonably circumspect about this. Now he's come in like a bull in a china shop and completely upset the whole balance.

I'm trying to think what it would be like when I tried with a group of other people 17 years ago when we started a union. It took us two and a half years to get a collective agreement. The president of our union was fired by the employers that we were working with and we had to go back to the Labour Relations Board. There were hearings and he got reinstated. It was kind of the open warfare of the 1930s that used to exist in the trade union movement. But we were eventually successful.

But the kind of amendments that exist in this legislation are going to take us back to 1960 and 1961 where you are going to get that kind of confrontation, where you are going to get employers who are going to lean on people, where you're going to get the professional people hired who know how to break unions. That's the kind of thing, the kind of climate we're developing here.

We have to ask ourselves why. Why does he want to do this? He hasn't yet explained to this House why it has been necessary for him to do what he's doing. In the last 18 months, things have worked well, and they were working well before the 18 months. Four years the legislation has been in. So why?

The only answer that we can give is that this is the IOU that has to go to the employers. When this minister was first appointed, we had vicious attacks on the trade union movement; we had vicious attacks on the Workers' Compensation Board. That was their opportunity. They've been waiting for it for years. Then finally things settled down. Some of the credit is due to the minister. There was a calming influence, and everything was quiet.

Here we are in the midst of the highest unemployment in the history of this province, the highest inflation rate that's starting to build again towards 12 per cent, and right in the middle of this he throws in an ingredient that is highly explosive. He turns to the trade union movement and says: "It's going to be one heck of a lot tougher for you to organize."

But who are they organizing? It's been pointed out here that they're organizing the unorganized who are mainly made up of low-income people. Why at this stage should it be made more difficult to make it possible for the people who are on the lower end of the wage scale to organize? Why is it that particular group? It's that particular group because they're more vulnerable. They're much more vulnerable. The major industrial unions have been organized; the craft unions are organized; all we have is the unorganized, low-paid people. So all of a sudden they've made a decision that they're going to lean on them. So they lean on the weakest group in terms of their abilities to become organized. He puts these kinds of restrictions in their way. That has to be because of the kind of groups that stand behind that government in terms of their support - people like the Employers Council, which first initiated the discussions around these kinds of amendments.

It's interesting that Dobie did three articles. He talks about the second one, in the headline: "The B.C. Employers Should Face the Facts." Certainly they should face the fact that collective bargaining is one of the facts of day-to-day living in this province, that people want as much opportunity to bargain in terms of what piece of the pie they get as do the multinational corporations and the large businesses. That's also achieving a kind of balance.

Again that balance is now off balance because he's brought in the amendments. Somehow he's trying to suggest to us that it will be a calming influence - that the calmness will prevail, Well, the calmness is not going to prevail - because today we are dealing with

[ Page 5397 ]

a group of people in the community who are not prepared to be sat on any longer.

One of the most vocal groups, in terms of the unorganized, right now is made up of a large percentage of women, and they are no longer prepared to be sat on. So you're going to get the confrontation, you're going to get the demands, and you're going to constantly get the cry that you are in favour of the employers. Now what is that going to do to the rest of the labour movement? After all, you're tackling the weakest ones; what are you going to do when things get really rough? Are you going to attack the big ones as well? They've already served notice on you. You may very well have created the kind of focal point that the trade union movement has needed over the last 10 months to really around and to radicalize people in terms of the real nature of the government that you represent.

You are anti-union and you are anti-low-income people. That's what this legislation says. That has given the trade union movement a focal point on which to start taking some action. It's time that the trade union started to look beyond just their work in terms of collective bargaining and what they need for themselves. It's time also to look to what other people need in our society, and you've given them the weapon. It's here. Yes, you have, Mr. Minister. You've given them a weapon with which they will radicalize people around the issue that you are an unfair government; that you are vicious when it comes to low-income people and people who make low incomes and are not on welfare. you have forged the instrument and you're going to create a lot of unrest in this province. Why? Simply because you're going to deliver the goods to the employers.

You know, I looked before I came up. I was interested to know what the minister's views were when the first Labour Code was introduced. I was surprised to note that the minister really had nothing to say. In fact, he didn't speak in second reading of the original bill in 1973. He had something to say in terms of the amendments, but on the basic principle of the bill he had nothing to say. At that time, he allowed the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to voice his well-known reactionary attitudes towards collective bargaining in what he said about the Labour Code. So what that Minister of Education said in 1973, this Minister of Labour is now putting into practice.

It's really a great tragedy. It's a great tragedy in the. province that this kind of thing should happen because all across Canada, in parts of the United States, and in some places overseas, they have been watching the success of the continuing development of the Labour Code application in this province. For the last 18 months, they've had an opportunity to see the way it can work, but he doesn't want it to work. He's messing about with it. We don't suggest that it was a perfect instrument, but one of the judgments that you make about whether the legislation was successful is how much labour peace you have. We've had a great deal. We've had a great deal of co-operation in terms of the labour movement, partly because of this bill. This has been the main instrument of the kind of peace we have had, and now you've spoiled it and you haven't told us why.

You have some frittering idea that somehow it's got to be made more equal. It's equal enough. What you have made more equal is the possibility of people who have never been organized to become organized. That's one of the great tragedies, because you're rolling us back not four or five years; you're rolling us back over 70 years, to the time when we first had the legislation in this province. So I can only judge in terms of myself. Over the past two or three days I've thought quite a bit about when I was in the trade union movement and we were trying to organize and the kind of difficulties we had. Then I saw what kind of a Labour Code we had and I used to say to people that now it's much better. Now there is an opportunity for people to sit down at a table and feel there is an equality where they can discuss these kind of things, but it's not going to happen as a result of this kind of legislation. What this does is create fear and suspicion.

You know, Dobie says in his article, and he's talking about the employers: "They want the kind of law that is in effect in Ontario where the employer is allowed to electioneer among his employees, short of trying to intimidate and coerce them." It's by Dobie. Dobie knows what he's talking about. He's been a labour reporter for a long time. But he says it - that's what the employers wanted. "They want the kind of law that is in effect in Ontario where the employer is

e allowed to electioneer among his employees, short of trying to, intimidate or coerce them." That's what you have created. That's what you've given to the employers - the Ontario law. The employers now can do the things Dobie says they can do, He goes on to say: "It is not a fair law because it fails to recognize that the employer has had a direct association with his employees and has had his chances to treat them in a manner which would make it unnecessary for them to bother about a union."

That's the whole nature of the trade union movement. That's the whole nature of the kind of standard of living that we have in this province. It was not forthcoming from the employers. It had to be taken from them, You had to scratch and you had to fight to get it. That was the kind of atmosphere in which the trade union movement was born. And after 70 years in this province, we got to the stage where we had a Labour Code where there was a degree of reasonableness about that whole process. A lot of bitterness was evident over the years, right up until the time of the Labour Code and for some time after,

[ Page 5398 ]

until it started to work and the real feeling about the Code was understood. Then we're back here - right here again - on the issue of confrontation.

Mr. Speaker, if this is what it means to pay a political debt to the people who supported you, then it's a shame. It's a very black shame in terms of that kind of obligation, where you've got to pay it back. It is too high a price. It's particularly a high price for people who have never had the complete opportunity, in terms of their employment, to get the kind of remuneration that they're entitled to, in terms of the skills they have to offer. That's the great tragedy.

When we came in as government, we had to do something about the minimum wage. And we heard all of those arguments about how it was going to destroy businesses and ruin the free enterprise system. What we were saying was, as Dobie says in the article, that you don't have that kind of confrontation if there is some kind of understanding - in terms of the employer - of what the employee needs and what the employee does. That's all gone by the board now.

We've had an example, as I cited before, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the banking industry. That woman told the specific story about what kind of problems this legislation will lead to. That whole process in that bank is going to have to start all over again, in terms of certification of the union. You don't have to be a genius to understand that in terms of that particular area, these people are so low paid it's almost embarrassing for anybody not to do something about it. But the banks are apparently not embarrassed. Fortunately, the minister doesn't have that responsibility. It's under the federal Labour Code.

But the point is, he's got to learn from that kind of process, because we had a live example of this told to us yesterday. Those are the kinds of things that are going to happen. He should tell us: what kinds of problems does he foresee? Maybe he doesn't see any problems. What about changing the conditions during the certification period? My gosh, there were enough fights over that. That's not going to happen, he says. Well, it's not going to happen.

The whole climate of suspicion that's now being created, and the suspicion as a result of the way that minister handled this bill when he brought it into the House.... He's in a bad way. His credibility has been ripped to shreds. Yet the whole climate and direction of the whole labour movement and the whole labour scene is in his hands. Because his credibility is now completely ripped to shreds, we're in for some very serious problems. It cannot be understood by any reasonable person why it is that he has done it.

It's my feeling, Mr. Speaker, that he has not been in control of this bill since he was in cabinet. He has been told what to do. It's because of the Employers' Council, and the businessmen's association that sends us all of those beautiful statements about the right to work. As far as I'm concerned, this is the thin end of the wedge in terms of right to work in this province.

The first thing you do is you start dismantling the accessibility to organization. That's the start of it here. We've got it in other legislation, which we'll be talking about. But the whole climate is one of the right to work and the right to be in a union or not to be in a union. That's a decision that individuals make; that's not a decision that governments make. You don't create laws to make it possible to have those kinds of decisions; those are individual decisions. That's what they call freedom, and that's hard won.

We don't need a minister who is discredited coming here and messing about and tinkering with a Labour Code that's been successful, because a year from now the problems will be so bad we'll have to amend it again. You have created a climate of distrust in this province, one that's been articulated by your friends and supporters in the press. I don't know how these people are able to do the things they do in terms of their editorials. They are also able to point out the dangers. Four or five days of absolute, simpleton madness by that minister has started to wreck the whole labour climate in this province. It's a shameful performance, not only by the minister, but by the government.

Of course we know how much he's supported on this. We can see today - the treasury benches are full and the Premier is here to defend him. He defended one minister once in this House. If any minister needs defending in this House right now, it's that Minister of Labour. Who's going to defend him? Nobody! And that's the great tragedy - there is no confidence over there. We've got to get those backbenchers to get up and support that minister. And who's going to do it?

MR. WALLACE: The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) is going to do that.

MR. LEVI: Oh yes, he's going to do it. He's getting his notes from him. Yes, he's going to do it.

MR. KAHL: You should get your notes ready.

MR. LEVI: I don't need my notes. I spent too many years in the trade union movement. That's why I'm speaking today. I can see, based on my experience, that this is going to create incredible hardships on people. And who is it done for? It's done for the employers' group. That's who it is done for. He's delivering a promise. It's a great tragedy and it's a shameful one.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has one of the toughest jobs in the government. I have to say that the reason I'm

[ Page 5399 ]

opposing this bill is because I fear he's made it tougher as a result of this particular legislation, in spite of some good features which I'm going to mention later on. He has hurt his own reputation in the way that the changes in the legislation were made, as The Province editorial so well illustrates this morning.

He has seriously impaired the climate of trust between himself and his department and the labour movement in British Columbia that's been built up, I'm sure, with a great deal of painstaking effort over the past 20 months or so. I fear that he is injuring the cause of the unorganized and the powerless in the province of British Columbia.

The key to this bill, I think, has to be balance, and I don't find the balance here. I think, in part, that shows up in the consultation that led up to the bill, the pre-consultation prior to the introduction of the bill in the House. We have knowledge that many employers' groups have made submissions to the minister. We have the testimony of the B.C. Fed that they were not specifically consulted with respect to these particular measures, and that in itself is a clear demonstration of lack of balance.

The bill itself lacks balance, and I don't mean there necessarily has to be an exact balance between the legislative edge that's given to the employers or the union side of the table in each bill. You can't have that. That has to be a long-term objective of the Code. Each bill may be somewhat out of balance but each section of the Code that is dealt with in the legislation should itself be brought into a better spirit of balance when that's lacking. That does not happen here, as I'll detail in a bit.

The minister has not given the House nor do I believe he can find any justification as to why he thought he had to bring in this kind of legislation at this time. Things have been going well. I would be glad - I would also be surprised - if in closing debate on second reading he could point to one feature in this bill which justified the kind of trouble that he has created for his own relationship with the labour movement in this province, let alone the political trouble that he's created for his government.

It has unquestionably made it more difficult to organize. There are sections in this bill that, in the one section, strengthen the employer's rights with respect to opposing organization and weakening the union's rights. Yes, there are, Mr. Minister; I'll tell you what they are. Let's look at the various principles in the bill, going through it.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, it has a number of underlying motivations, I might say.

Looking at the first major move, it is an extension of the definition of.... I was going to say definition of "employee, " but it's a restriction of a definition of "employee" and an extension of the definition of who's on the managerial team. That doesn't really bother me. I think that particular amendment moves towards redressing balance. We'll see how it works out, but that's my tentative opinion.

He has introduced the Rand formula as a matter of right in first-contract situations in British Columbia, and I think that's a good move.

He has given - to management the right to communicate with their employees during the organization period - or anytime, as the minister says, but particularly during the organization period, which is a sensitive time.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Minister, you're striking out the clause that prohibited that during the organization period. That made it difficult.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Whether that right was there before or not is perhaps a legal question, but it's certainly specifically conferred by this bill.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Some argue on both sides of the case on that, Mr. Member, I don't know. In any event, it is certainly strengthened and clarified by that provision in this bill. Perhaps I differ with my hon. friend here; I don't disagree with that provision either. The right of the employer to communicate, as long as it is not communication which amounts to an unfair labour practice, which is still defined and retained in other parts of the bill, I think is fine.

But then the next thing we find is that the bill, immediately after giving that ability to the employer to communicate, takes away from the organizing group some of their rights to communicate. One of the amendments to the Labour Code - I think it was a couple of years ago - have the right to the organizing union to acquire the names and the addresses and the telephone numbers of the members of the bargaining unit they were attempting to organize.

Mr. Speaker, I opposed that amendment at that time. I think I still would were it done in the exact terms, because the part about it that bothers me is the telephone numbers. I do believe that the organizing entity can't do their job properly unless they have what you might call a voters' list. It would be like any member in this House trying to fight an election against the incumbent, and the incumbent has a list of the electors in his district and the challenger doesn't.

[ Page 5400 ]

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's not a fair kind of contest. It relates even to such practical things as the size of the bargaining unit. Without that kind of a list, which the minister is now removing the requirement to provide, you can't even know the size of the bargaining unit, except by a nose count, and you might miss some people. When you get to these very delicate majorities, if you have 50 per cent plus one and it turns out that the unit is comprised of 105 people instead of 95 people, that makes a difference.

The elementary criterion of the provision of a voters' list seems to me so obvious. It's obvious not just to myself, who is a layman in these matters, but the Supreme Court of the United States has considered this in a constitutional sense. They've come to the conclusion that yes, this voters' list, as you might call it - the names of those people in the bargaining unit - has to be provided. I think it is wrong that it is being removed by this particular piece of legislation.

You have to have a balancing provision. I remember during the debates concerning the provision of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of employers of the bargaining unit, there was much talk from the opposition side of the House of the fear of harassment and besetting of employees at home by the organizing entity. That, I agree, is something that in an undue fashion should not happen and that is why I say the numbers shouldn't be provided. There is nothing either in this legislation or anywhere else to prevent the employer from exercising exactly the same kind of undue influence at home. What's fair for one side has to be fair for the other. This section to me is one of the most important changing of balances in the organizing section.

It has made it easier for the employer to resist being organized through the right of communication, and I agree with that. But it has made it more difficult for the organizing entity to get about their job by the removal of certain information which will expedite their right of communication, and I disapprove of that rather strongly.

Perhaps, in the long run, if I read the philosophy of the government correctly, the most important section of the bill may be section 5, which highlights more than has been the case in the past the concept of public interest, of third-party interest in labour-management relations. I think that is a good concept to be highlighting. The principle, I think, of the Labour Code, insofar as the public interest is concerned, should always be to insulate the public from disputes as much as is possible and, where possible, not allow the public to be used as pawns for the bringing of pressure to bear on one side or another. In fact, in the end this use of the public as pawns for bringing pressure is injurious to public sympathy for the labour movement in the long run, in my opinion.

Where it's not possible to insulate the public from the effects of the labour management dispute, then inevitably the Labour Relations Board must take the public interest into account. That's what this section says. Both management and labour must realize, and will realize more and more, that sometimes public rights and the maintenance thereof will require some restriction of private rights - for example, in terms of essential services. This is more and more being codified into our laws in British Columbia.

I approve, as well, of the possibility of a longer than 72-hour notice in certain strike or lock-out situations relating to perishable property or to process industries - let's say aluminium or something like that - where an unscheduled shut-down can lead to untold property damage and in some cases endanger the jobs of the employees affected and always endanger the economy of Canada in terms of unnecessarily raising our costs. So that's a good thing, and it is also an example of why the law must not only be on the statute books but must be seen by the employees to be fair. Any kind of 72-hour or 96-hour, or whatever it may be, strike or lock-out notice requirement is not effective if anybody wants to go on a wildcat, that's for sure. It's a reminder to all of the public that our Labour Code has to be seen to be fair to the employees. You can make a given strike illegal but you can't stop a given wildcat.

I get a little worried about the amount of mail I get from time to time saying: "Why don't you in that Legislature just outlaw strikes entirely?" People have to understand that just won't work. Labour law has to be a codification of agreed rules of order, not of imposing the iron hand of government, because it's not going to work in the labour law area.

Well, Mr. Speaker, a majority of the changes I've discussed so far are basically good, with the exception of that organizing clause. I wonder why the minister wants to ruin it with that organizing clause, and then one other organizing clause, which relates to the 45 per cent threshold of the right to obtain a certification vote. At the moment, it's 35 per cent. If you go into the LRB with your 35 per cent of workers signed up on the cards, you're entitled to a vote.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They're the ones who failed, Gordon.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, they may be the ones who failed, but it's an entitlement. If they're the ones who failed, then what difference does it make?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not good enough.

[ Page 5401 ]

MR. GIBSON: Why not just allow it? If the trade union thinks the vote is going to fail, they're not going to ask for it. But there are cases when employees can be intimidated and, through fear, will not sign cards when, on a secret ballot, they would vote. Those cases may be rare, but it's an unnecessary raising of that threshold level - from 35 to 45 per cent. I think it's a fairly important feature in changing the lack of balance, and therefore I oppose that strongly as well.

The combination of that higher hurdle and the lack of a voters' list problem is what brings me to the conclusion that there is a lack of balance and that I will oppose this legislation. I do this because of what it does to the unorganized workers, who are the people this particular bill is really hitting. It's not so much hitting the labour movement. It's hitting the unorganized, the more than 55 per cent of British Columbians who aren't represented.

The hon. first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) quoted earlier on today from a British Columbia study on the condition of workers who are not organized. During the minister's estimates, I quoted from an Ontario study, which showed that in manufacturing, unionized workers earned between 10 and 17 per cent more than non-unionized workers. That's before taking into account fringe benefits-, fringe benefits in the manufacturing sector run to about 28 per cent in the organized sector, and to less than half of that in the unorganized sector. So even in that particular area of manufacturing, there is a great distinction. But when you get on to other areas of the economy, manufacturing has few of the so-called "working poor." Quoting again from that study:

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

"Very few of the 'working poor' belong to trade unions - it's a fact of life - 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; 1 per cent in shoe factories and leather tanneries; 3 per cent in restaurants, to give but a few examples."

One of the most powerful phrases in that study was a citation of how all of the rest of us benefit from the underpayment of the working poor - largely the unorganized - in this country. I'm going to quote again:

"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. 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."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a situation which we all know exists, and it's a situation which every reform-minded person in this province and in this country ought to continually be addressing themselves to doing something about. Some of this has to be done by government; I don't question that at all. Some of these industries and some of the job sites are very small units, inherently unorganizable. Some of it has to be done by labour standards legislation, by a labour ombudsman and so on.

But a great deal of it can be done by the trade union movement through organization. That is one of the ways in which some kind of equality is going to be brought between these two - solitudes almost -the working poor and the relatively affluent working people in this country. There is a clear line of demarcation and the trade unions, while by no means the whole answer, still have a job to do in bridging that gap. Things that shift the balance too much in making it more difficult for the trade unions to do that, I think, are working against the public interest.

I've said to the minister that I support the legitimate rights of the employer in seeking to convince his employees that they do not need to be unionized. That includes such things as the right to communicate; I support that part, but I cannot support the withdrawing from the trade union movement of such elementary organizing tools as the right to have a list of the people in the bargaining unit. For those very basic reasons ... while there is much good in this bill, it lacks the balance I think it ought to have and I'm going to vote against it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I regret that we are dealing with this bill in such haste, inasmuch as it was only given first reading six days ago. Whatever the merits or demerits of the bill, there has been a very strenuous public reaction which in itself signifies the potential ramifications of this bill if we proceed with it as it is.

Perhaps next to unemployment, industrial relations is the next most crucial issue in British Columbia. That is not news to anybody. That is the kind of statement that's being made by all parties in this House at different times. The record of industrial unrest which persisted in this province not too many years ago is something that none of us should want to do the least thing to encourage to return.

If we listen to all the commentators, such as Mr. Dobie and Mr. Ford, who have written in the media about the present bill, one thread of consensus which comes through relates to the danger of any substantial shift of advantage to either side, whether it be management or labour. Many of the speakers have talked about the crucial nature of balance between the forces, and I don't wish to abuse the time of the House by repeating the fundamental importance of trying to maintain a balance of power.

[ Page 5402 ]

It seems in a labour relations field, Mr. Speaker, to be very similar to the balance of terror that we talk about between the atomic powers of the world. As long as one of the atomic armed nations doesn't become just a little more powerful in range or number of - missiles or whatever, then we're all relatively safe. I think it's a very good analogy albeit in a sphere where the human race could extinguish itself when we're talking about atomic warfare. In a much more localized sphere in British Columbia in relation to labour management problems, I see it as the same kind of challenge to government to try and maintain - I wouldn't use the phrase balance of terror - a balance of power within this particular are n a.

As far as the unions are concerned, their greatest and most sensitive area of participation is in the field of organizing. We don't have to emphasize how fundamental that is to the well-being and effective functioning of trade unions, not only to maintain the position they hold in the labour market, but to attempt to organize those employees who require the kind of strength which trade unions bring and enable them to get a better deal. I don't mean that in the sense that they should be entitled to some kind of better deal regardless. I'm just saying that the vehicle of trade unionism over many decades has been established as the likeliest way in which workers can present their point of view in an articulate and usually a more effective way in regard to the ultimate collective agreement.

These are two of the basic reasons that any change in the Labour Code should be approached in the most sensitive and conscientious manner. I'm not saying that this hasn't been done by this minister. What I am saying is that the fundamental principle which is causing so much concern in British Columbia today concerns a limitation in the organizational function of unions. If I were a union member I would be just as concerned as they have expressed themselves to be, in the light of the most important amendment to the Labour Code.

I think the minister is being strictly and technically correct when he says that to increase the number of members in good standing who must seek a representation vote from 35 to 45 per cent, will strengthen the mandate. But is it fair to make that increase? That's the question. The minister nods. Well, I don't think it is. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, any one of us sitting in this House has a stronger mandate if we got 52 per cent of the vote, or 57 per cent, or 65 per cent, whether it be in Oak Bay or Howe Sound or anywhere else. , Literally, the minister is correct. Obviously, if you get a high percentage of workers seeking to be certified, then you have a stronger mandate. That doesn't in any way suggest that it's fair to demand that strength of mandate before they can even ask for a representation vote. That, in my view, is the nub of the argument in this section. We talk about the strength of a mandate. The minister used the word in a statement to a reporter as reported in the Sun September 7, that he was concerned about marginal situations where there appeared to be a marginal majority of employees seeking to be certified by a trade union.

There are a lot of us.... I shouldn't say a lot of us because I happen to have more than 50 per cent of the vote in Oak Bay, but there are 20 MLAs out of the 55 sitting in this House with less than 50 per cent of the vote. I grant you, Mr. Speaker, that where you have three or four contestants, it's a little different than having just two contestants, and I'll recognize that. But how marginal is marginal? Is it 1 per cent or 5 per cent or 10 per cent?

When you consider the response which this bill is bound to engender in the trade union movement, they can very readily be disturbed by the argument that apparently this minister thinks it's all right for people to represent 30,000 or 40,000 voters with perhaps a great deal less than 50 per cent of the vote but it's a little different when it comes to certifying trade unions. I say that double standard is not likely to create the kind of balance and harmony which is absolutely crucial to labour peace in this province.

Let me say that the minister is correct in the literal interpretation of the phrase "strength of mandate." Obviously if you need 45 per cent rather than 35 per cent before you can seek a representation vote you've got more people involved seeking a mandate. But I say that is not necessarily fair. In having this minister bring this proposal to the House, one has to ask a question first of all: why was that increase suggested and why was it asked at this time?

I've looked back at the figures from Statistics Canada and from the B.C. Federation of Labour. Between 1971, when 42.6 per cent of the labour force was organized, to 1976, when it was 44.9 per cent, I can't really see that there is any dramatic increase in organizational activity in British Columbia to suggest that there is some undue advantage now existing in favour of unions and in the capacity and ease with which non-organized workers can become organized. So we have to ask: why has the minister suggested that it should go to 45 per cent and why is it being done at this time? If we are to make organizing more difficult, I would just agree with the many speakers who have already said that the group of workers you're hitting hardest is the very group who tend to be on the lowest end of the economic scale with the lowest hourly wage rates and with the greatest need to try and increase their capacity to negotiate to get better wages and to enhance whatever fringe benefits they're receiving. So I do have to ask a question: why was it done at this time?

Relating again to the report in The Vancouver Sun of September 7, the minister is reported to have said

[ Page 5403 ]

there have been many criticisms of the law as it now stands. And I would like to know: where did these criticisms originate? Did they specifically relate to the suggestion that the 35 per cent lower level of those seeking a certification vote was too low?

The minister referred to other jurisdictions in his comments earlier on this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. And I just want to read to the House from the labour relations legislation in Ontario, page 1219. Section 7 (2): "if the board is satisfied that not less than 35 per cent and not more than 65 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit are members of the trade union, the board shall, and, if the board is satisfied that more than 65 per cent of such employees are members of the trade union, the board may direct that a representation vote be taken."

The lower limit in the Ontario legislation is 35 per cent. Now I think the minister is going to jump up and say that at the upper level, the Ontario government still suggests that a representation vote be held. That may be unfair. When more than 65 per cent wish to be unionized, one would question any need for a representation vote.

But what we're talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the lower level of interested employees at which they can seek a certification vote. The figure in Ontario is 35 per cent, and that's Tory Ontario. That's Bill Davis' minority government in Ontario. So we can't really say that we're comparing the B.C. situation with some socialist regime who might be more sympathetic to having the lowest possible percentage required before you can get a representation vote.

the minister is quoted as saying he's had from many directions, I would like to know who the, - main forces were who were criticizing the present legislation, particularly when, as everyone has st d. ta e , there has been a substantial measure of peace in the labour relations arena in recent months. And this despite the kind of apprehension that was expressed on this side of the House when the Labour Code was introduced - namely, that the courts were all but entirely removed from the legislation and great power was given to the Labour Relations Board. I can remember the present minister expressing some of these concerns at that time.

So why run the risk of disturbing that situation at the present time, unless there is some other reason that the minister still has not chosen to tell the House? But this kind of amendment, to make organizing more demanding, at the same time as the government has other pieces of legislation before the House which are distinctly anti-union....

You can't say to a group: "You're not even going to be given the choice to become unionized, " and expect that to be interpreted as anything else but anti-union. It's just so blatant and obvious, you would have to sit with blinkers on not to understand why the union movement in British Columbia is upset by this amendment in particular, set alongside some of the actions of other ministers in this government and other pieces of legislation that were brought before the House. And I will not break the rules of the House to talk about these other pieces of legislation, but they're public knowledge. Their thrust and their intent is clear as a sunny day. I'm just saying that this amendment in this bill, plus these other pieces of legislation, have to add up to a clear image that the government is anti-union in its general philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to take up a great deal of time on this debate. I think in fairness, though, I do want to support the minister in some of the positive recommendations in the bill. I think that too little credit has been given to the government for introducing sections like section 27 which states clearly the fact that there are three parties involved in any dispute - the third party being the public. There has to be a much greater awareness and recognition of the legitimate rights of the public as well as the legitimate rights of employers and employees. The government deserves credit for that.

I also disagree somewhat with the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) who has just spoken, about the question of making it mandatory, as is presently the legislation, to provide the telephone numbers of all the employees in the unit to organizers.

I know we could debate this at great length, but I happen to think that represents an unnecessary invasion of privacy, whether it's to do with unions or management or Eaton's stores or anywhere else. I don't believe that it is a great obstacle to organizing if in fact the union organizer does not have access to the telephone numbers of all the employees. I think it's another trend to the Big Brother approach, particularly the invasion of privacy which comes from being phoned at a time or on an issue or under circumstances where that's the last thing in the world you want to be talking about.

I believe that names and addresses should readily be provided, and, in that matter, provide necessary assistance to organizing efforts. But I am very much in favour of deleting the provision in the legislation that telephone numbers be provided. I looked up the debate we had on the Labour Code in 1975 on June 26, and at that time, in fact, as the minister probably recalls, I introduced an amendment to the bill to delete the part which made the provision of telephone calls necessary. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted, but I still feel as strongly today as I did then. The telephone is a very personal and direct and unique kind of communication. For persons to be phoned at home under a whole variety of possible circumstances is just an invasion of privacy which I don't feel is justified.

Unfortunately, I think by deleting the part that also deals with the provision of names and addresses,

[ Page 5404 ]

that perhaps goes too far and again appears to make it more difficult for the organizing forces to communicate. The reason I say that is that if somebody writes to me, I can ignore the letter and I don't have to answer it. But if I'm lying snoozing in bed in the early morning or late at night and somebody phones me, that's a miserable, unwarranted invasion of my privacy. If they stuff a letter in my letter box, and I read it and want to ignore it, that's a much easier situation than being telephoned. Maybe it's a matter of degree, but the point is " that balance between the rights of the individual and the legitimate rights of the union to organize are pretty sensitive. I'm just expressing my personal point of view. I think the bill in this particular point is good except that perhaps it goes too far.

The other element in the bill which I'm prepared to support is the right of the employer to communicate with employees, providing, as has been said many times, that there is some reasonable assurance that any unfair practices that the employer might indulge in under these circumstances will be subject to scrutiny and control.

So, Mr. Speaker, I've looked at the bill and there are many good things in the bill. Unfortunately the one element in the bill which in my view does indeed create a real threat to the balance that seems to be quite reasonably existing between labour and management is being upset.

If we have a reasonable degree of labour peace in our province at this time, why rock the boat? That would be my simple question. Again, unless the minister can show us something we're not aware of as to the dimension of problems and the number and intensity of requests that he's had to make this kind of amendment, one can only assume that it has come from a strong employer group. Certainly, by this amendment, it makes it more difficult to organize.

I would say that organization is such a crucial element in the total picture of industrial relations that anything which substantially alters the conditions surrounding organizing should surely have a need demonstrated for these changes. It would seem to me that the need at this time has not been shown. Since the bill has been tabled, we now see the tremendous confrontation at a time when things appear to have been reasonably smooth.

Therefore, since the minister has shown no willingness to hoist the bill, since the need for this kind of change in my view has not been demonstrated, and since by persisting with this change we appear to be headed for a great deal of trouble in the field of industrial relations, despite my approval for some sections of the bill, my overall conclusion would be to oppose the bill.

MR. COCKE: I must say that the member for Oak Bay is somewhat more generous, I think, than I would be. The parts of the bill that he agrees with I'll certainly discuss, and I fail to share his agreement.

But first I'd just like to discuss the reason for placing the bill before us. Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked in this House: why has the bill been placed before us at the present time? We see industrial peace, generally speaking. We see labour peace, generally speaking. We see labour under a rather heavy, oppressive hand from Ottawa, under the AIB, which is not even-handed at all. Ottawa has provided the Anti-Inflation Board, which looks after keeping wages down but does not keep prices down. Under those circumstances, they are faced with further repressive legislation from their friend, the now Minister of Labour, in this new coalition.

Why did he put this forward? I can only give you one reason. Every other minister of the Crown has had a hand in dismantling something that was done by the previous government. Every other minister to date has had a hand in dismantling resource boards, ambulance services, or whatever. They have all had a hand in dismantling specific programmes. This minister was left out in the cold. He hadn't done anything negative. He hadn't done anything toward dismantling something that the previous government had put forward. He had a particular responsibility, and his responsibility was to the king: King Bennett, who is now in merry old Europe, traipsing around at our expense.

Mr. Speaker, that was his responsibility to King Bennett, and that is precisely what he has done. When the king left, he left word that this bill had to go through the House, period. "Get it through before I get back - 1. don't want any of that egg on my face." That's where the order came from - the Premier and his partner, the other member for Point Grey, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who has exhibited, as expected, his normal anti-labour stance in everything that he has done since he has taken office.

What do we see before us, Mr. Speaker, and how could we possibly vote for this legislation? We see more exclusions. We see more people being taken out of the bargaining unit or the potential bargaining unit. We see the right of the employer to campaign against organization and actively campaign to coerce the employees and warn them,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . He says he thinks it's okay for the employer to make these factual statements. I want to tell you a factual statement. You can say that trade unions die younger than the normal population.

MR. WALLACE: So do doctors.

MR. COCKE: So do masons, because they are

[ Page 5405 ]

largely males that are organized. They don't go on to explain that, but males are largely organized and females are largely unorganized. Females live longer. That is a factual statement. That's the very kind of factual statement that an employer can use. I know many employers are fair-minded. Not all that many are, but some are fair-minded and certainly wouldn't use it. But I can tell you so many that would just love to sit down and work ways around this, and this minister has provided them with a piece of legislation so full of holes that it looks like a sieve. It's very unfortunate because what he has done, in tinkering with a good piece of labour legislation, has been to certainly wreck it with respect to organization.

Mr. Speaker, the employer can campaign. He can manipulate wages and he can manipulate working conditions - all of those things he could not have done under the old Labour Code. Now with this new amendment, he can. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that no one in his right mind can agree again. I know that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) hasn't had any experience in this area. He was organized in that great trade union - one of the strongest in the world - the College of Physicians and Surgeons. And I won't say the Medical Association, but the College of Physicians and Surgeons where it's a required membership, an absolute closed shop.

Mr. Speaker, that member says don't provide the list. Don't provide the phone numbers. It's okay by him. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not being even-handed; that's not giving access. Let the light shine in - that's what we're talking about. We talk about freedom -that government was elected using the seagull (that has turned into a sparrow) as their slogan, as their insignia, showing that they were the freedom lovers. Freedom? This is the kind of freedom that we've been served on a gold platter ever since they've been government - the freedom for them to rule.

Let's get on with it, they say. Why do they want to get on with it? I'll tell you why. This is aimed at one group and one group only - it's the service industry in this province. It's the service industry that will benefit; it's the service industry that's unorganized. It is the small groups of potentially organized people whom they don't want to see organized. Why don't they? Well, car dealers don't want to see their shops organized. The small-business people who run mortuaries don't want to see their shops organized ... and any of these small service industries.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: How about paint? How about "Color Your Province"? Mr. Speaker, this legislation colours your province badly.

Then he really tightens up. This business of 30 to 45 - that suits the service industry beautifully, because at the same time, while the union is trying to organize, trying to get their 45 per cent now, the employer has the opportunity to do what he likes in terms of providing these factual statements.

That minister stood in this House a while ago and he said this will not reduce the opportunity to organize. He doesn't know what he's talking about, Mr. Speaker. He hasn't a clue or he's not being candid - one or the other. That's all there is to it, Mr. Speaker. You can't have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, he's made it tough. I can think in terms of the department stores. Oh, how they love this business of service industry protection, and they're sure going to love it in the future. Do you know what a difficulty it's been in the past to try to organize them? Lots of women, wives of people who are now working to earn a little pin money: they don't really particularly care. But there are lots of women who are working - for their children, for their survival of their little families - in department stores 19 and 20 hours a week, because they're not organized. That's whom they want to stop organizing. That's whom this repressive government wants to keep enslaved in our society. Mr. Speaker, how can anybody support any concept of this miserable piece of legislation introduced in the very last hours of this Legislature? They feel, hopefully, that it's the last hours.

Mr. Speaker, it can be described as nothing less than tremendously ruthless. At least the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) had the guts to put his legislation forward some time ago. It sat there for all to view, for many months. And he read it. And he says he's not going to change it -poor devil.

However, this minister brought in a sloppy, coercive, repressive piece of legislation. He dumped it in here a few days ago and says, let's get on with it, because he has to get on with it before the king comes back.

MR. BARRETT: Then he can call him Bill, if he's nice.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

Mr. Speaker, another piece of vagueness in this legislation is that whole question of extending the 72 hours for an indefinite period. Who's to decide whether it's perishable goods, life, health or property involved. Good heavens. He's got a broad enough category there; it could mean almost anything. But it's a little bit appealing to some, Mr. Speaker. No one, but no one, if they are thoughtful just for a second, can really support with any enthusiasm at all - even a Socred; even a coalition member - this piece of proposed legislation,

The reason they cannot is because they're creating chaos, and everyone in this House knows it. If you

[ Page 5406 ]

don't know it now, my friends, I'm sorry for you because you've been led down the garden path by a First Minister who has run away to Europe, and a Minister of Labour who has taken his orders. I can't support this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to second reading. I have a great deal more to say in committee as to the specifics of the bill, but there are a number of things that I think have to be said for the record on the philosophy related to second reading.

For the minister to stand in this House and truthfully believe that this is somehow going to help in organization is nonsense. If you really believe that, then you do not have a grasp at all of the struggle of organizing workers, especially in a small operation that is a separate bargaining unit. There's nothing in this bill that helps people get organized. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it appears to be deliberately designed to prevent those people in small employment centres from having the opportunity of expressing themselves through collective bargaining. As a social purpose, and as an economic purpose, this bill is a step backward. The more you hinder small economic units from organizing, the more your guarantee an unstable work force in those small economic units.

M y good friend the member for Vancouver-Burrard points out the difficulty of women organizing. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, this kind of legislation will drive working women who are making marginal incomes back onto the welfare roll. As the Socred backbenchers so often point out, they say: "What's the use of working? I can make more on welfare." They're quite right. If a woman finds herself in a situation where she has been deserted by her husband and she has two or three children, she wants to maintain her pride, her dignity and her self-respect. She goes and gets a job. She works in working conditions that pay her, in terms of services and benefits, less than what she would make if she stayed on welfare. Now you tell me, what is the incentive of a woman who is unskilled, who has been deserted, who goes into the service area, receiving a marginal wage and no opportunity for benefits that are negotiated through good basic trade union activity? What is her motivation to stay on the job? Absolutely none, when she finds she can go to the social worker, lay out her situation, receive rental accommodation assistance, receive extra benefits per number of children, and receive more money by quitting her job and going on welfare.

MS. BROWN: Especially since they cut off the day-care centres.

MR. BARRETT: Well, cutting off the day care was part and parcel of the auxiliary benefits that could be negotiated by a trade union. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of fact, and it can be recorded even by your own minister who makes grandiose statements such as: "We need incentive for people to go to work." It is a recorded fact that in some instances, depending on the number of children and the locale that the woman is in, welfare actually pays more than what a low-wage earner will earn.

Now it's one thing to abuse the wage earner by saying, "there she is on welfare, " but it's another thing to abuse her in legislation by saying that when she's trying to get off welfare and earn a decent income through a unionized job at a small operation, she can't get it. You haven't demonstrated how this benefits that person. You haven't said one single thing that gives a viable argument as to how this helps small workers organize who work at near minimum wage, or minimum wage. It's patent nonsense to say that this helps them. How do you figure that -raising the number from 35 to 45? That's stupid.

'Now there are those, people who finally get together in a small group in somebody's living room and say, "let's organize, " and they talk about the possibility of coming together and speaking to represent their own self-interest, such as lawyers do and such as doctors do. Lawyers protect themselves. Doctors protect themselves. Don't working people have the same right? Not according to this legislation. You make it tougher for people to organize. You will drive people onto the welfare rolls and you will make the turnover at the local, small-unit level even higher than what it is now.

This is not fair legislation, Mr. Speaker. A Minister of Labour is supposed to give the impression of being fair. This is not fair. This is an opportunity for a small, right-wing employer, who thinks that he must maximize his profit benefit out of employee involvement and keep the unions out at any cost.

I don't know whether the minister has addressed himself to the basic philosophical question. Does he believe a trade union movement with the widest possible membership and participation is good for an economy and stable social structure, or isn't it? I happen to believe, and it is proven by history, that the trade union movement is one of the most stabilizing influences in society. A free trade union movement, Mr. Speaker, has always been instrumental in progressive, rational change in the community. Aside from any specific instance of excess by a trade union or an employer, in the long run trade union activity and organization is healthy, socially and economically, for a community.

Mr. Speaker, people talk about this province's labour record. They talk about labour-management relationships in this province as being horrible. There are worse places, A case can be made that the relationships are worse on a relative scale between this province and areas that have higher unorganized

[ Page 5407 ]

pools of labour to draw upon. Violence in this country related to trade union organization is less in British Columbia than it is in Quebec or the Maritimes or Newfoundland, on a relative scale. Violence increases in organizational activities when there is a deliberate attempt to make competition stiffer among workers for jobs, and less opportunity for those workers to secure themselves in those jobs. Witness in this country in the last couple of years the Kraft strike, and recently the tragic happenings of the Robin Hood mills back east. What are they caused by? What are the underlying causes? In any set of human relations no legislation can lay down the clearcut guidelines for people to behave; it's an atmosphere that's created. Those disputes and that violence were caused in an atmosphere of high competitiveness for relatively few jobs, and the need to secure some benefits out of those. jobs so that non-unionized people can come in, or be prevented from taking those jobs.

Mr. Minister, I don't really believe you understand the relationship to the tranquility of a social order, and the opportunity for people to express themselves in a free society towards free collective bargaining. You take away this right from small bargaining units to come into being and I guarantee you that you will increase the number who voluntarily go on welfare, who throw up their hands and give up the idea of showing incentive and getting off welfare. You also will create the kind of atmosphere at the small rural economic base of unnecessary competitiveness for fewer and fewer jobs, because these people don't have the right for security. Who is it that secures a society in a small community? It is the professionals. It is the small businessmen, and it is the trade unionists. Without those three elements in a small community you have high transition of the social structure and high change in the number of workers and transient workers. As a consequence there is no solid social base in that community, leading to serious social problems. There is the lack of opportunity of a stable economy to grow on a rational basis with people participating in a free choice, and on the basis of staying there because it's secure and safe. What you're doing in this legislation is condemning the voiceless, the unorganized, the less educated and socially handicapped to the lower level of the economic scale. You are saying as a government that those of you who prop up the economic scale at the bottom end, who are voiceless now, shall remain voiceless, stay there, and guarantee that you supply a pool of labour that is on the poverty level - or at the working poor level - forever.

This is the same government that flagrantly denies any sense of social justice in terms of economic responsibility by individuals when it says to millionaires, "We will no longer tax you when you die, " but it says to the working poor and to the unorganized: "We're going to cut your chances down to get organized."

What will you do, Mr. Minister, when someone is interviewed on the radio or television: "why did you go on welfare?" and says, "because I could make more money on welfare."? Will you unleash your partner, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon Mr. Vander Zalm) to go into a catalogue of describing incentives as somebody going out begging is showing initiative? Your actions are in direct contradiction of statements made by the Premier of this province and of the Social Credit Party in defending the rights of people in a free society. It's not going to be the big unions who are hurt. You come here and piously say that the big unions have not done their job of organizing -maybe they haven't - but how in the world after you make that statement can you justify bringing in legislation that makes it harder for anyone to organize? To stand there and say that the unions have not organized the unorganized, and then to come in with legislation that makes it nearly impossible, is humbug! Sanctimonious humbug! I believe the safest defence for that kind of rationalization is to truly believe that you did not read the legislation, and that you are just mouthing phrases that come to mind based on clichés and attitudes, and not facts.

Mr. Minister, this legislation is a declaration to the poujadistes of this province - that small, right-wing mentality that thinks all the problems in the world have been caused by the trade union movement -represented by some of your backbenchers there with whom I'm sure you would find it uncomfortable to even break bread. They're not in your class-, they're not from his social milieu. But he must keep them happy in their place, so he brings in this kind of legislation that panders to ignorance, that panders to stupidity and is frankly out of date and out of touch with reality.

We should be saying to everybody who is earning the minimum wage, to every working mother, to every widow, to everyone who is trying to maintain themselves, who has a handicap of not an adequate education or no skills with which to find employment, that we are going to go out of our way to make it possible for you to organize because your only defence is in group activity. Who learned it most? The lawyers and doctors.

It is incredible in 1977 for the minister to come in and say that the trade union movement has not organized the unorganized and, because they haven't, we are going to make it even more difficult for it to happen. There's no logic in that.

So help me, I have tried to figure out why you have brought this in. I still haven't come up with a satisfactory answer. At first I thought he was told to, but I don't believe that. Then I thought it was ego; he has got to have something on the order paper because the other kids had something on the order paper.

[ Page 5408 ]

Then I didn't believe that. The only area left is exactly what you are saying. Like all converts to a new philosophy, you have to prove that you are more righteous than the group you joined. You stepped over from the Liberal Party. You are an ambitious person, and we don't deny that. You became the Minister of Labour by joining a right-wing group. Then to confirm that you belong in that right wing, you have gone even further right-wing than some of the others.

That's exactly what has taken place, and I can't help but believe that is the move made by the minister. Mr. Speaker, the minister has not given one rational, economic argument for this legislation - not one rational social argument. He has not given one specific incident that he is referring to. I challenge the minister in closing to give us a specific incident that has prompted this legislation - just one case. As a case lawyer, tell us one case that has inspired this. Not one.

It's politics, Mr. Speaker, and it is dumb politics. He's trying to make himself, in my opinion, look better with the rednecks. You can't be happy with it, but if you are, then we have seen the total change. There's not a shred left of any of the principles you had when you used to sit over there.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, we have in this House listened to many diatribes, but never in my time in the House over the years have I heard anything so facetious as what we have been treated to in the last few minutes - not only what went before, but crocodile tears falling all over the place. Where was it and what parliament was it? How long ago was this parliament called together to put the unions back to work against their will? Are those the people who are on the union side? Are they union organizers? Are they the ones speaking for the working man? No, I say not.

The hon. member who just spoke has the effrontery to point in this direction. He says: "Those millionaires down there." I would like to know whom he is talking about.

MR. LEA: Are you on welfare, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM: They refer to those people who, when they die, do not pay their succession duties because of this government, ct cetera. Is it true or is it the little man that was damaged by that NDP government? Did you speak about Mrs. Tundridges, who lost her farm, or Mr. Jack Lindsay, who lost his farm because of their legislation?

This government is for the little people of British Columbia because the rich and the big can look after themselves. The rich can look after themselves but the poor need us and they need this government. We are their bulwark and strength, and we're the only ones who ever stood up for the working man in this country. Who elected us?

AN HON. MEMBER: Phil Gaglardi!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Who elected us seven times before and this time again in 1975? Who elected us? It was the working person - and no other. I'm proud of it.

And they give you to believe that we are opposed to unions. We are not! No person in our caucus and no member of our government has ever, to my knowledge, made such a statement. But I've heard many, many statements to the reverse. We are for unions. We are for unionism. We are for organization of the working person, but we are also for equity and justice in the working place.

We have two things in our society to fear. No. I is big business; No. 2 is big unions. Those are the dangers that this economy faces. Those are the killers that are in our midst. But, Mr. Speaker, if I may address my honourable friends and say: government can look after big business; government can stop big business in its tracks; government can dictate, by sanctions to big business - but government cannot dictate, in any way, to a labour leader out of control.

We saw a labour leader sit in this House a day or two ago, through the whole session, and listen to the performance of that side that he was supposed to be.... They were the champions of his cause. He was the same man who twice ran as vice-president of the party and was defeated. The same man who is here today was here, then, saying: "I am here to listen to you tell those people over there, those anti-unionists, where to get off." I repeat again: if there are any union people in this House, it is those who sit on this side of the House. We are for the working person; we have always been for the working person.

Let me give you my own case in point. I run a small business with 70 employees,

MR. BARRETT: Are they organized?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, they're organized.

MR. BARRETT: Now you're trying to break them.

MR. MUSSALLEM: And who do you think organized them?

MR. BARRETT: Who did, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM: My father. He said to me 35 years ago: "George, go out to that shop and ask those

[ Page 5409 ]

men if they'd like to become unionized." That is the truth. I went out and did what I was told and they.... (Laughter.) Well, laugh.

Do you know what the laugh sounds like most? It sounds like the laugh of a horse from the other end. (Laughter.)

I did what he asked, because I respected my father and I did the job that he requested. I was a boy then. I was in the business and my son is running the business today. It is not a new business. It's been organized for 35 years and I'm proud of it.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Are you proud of that, Allan?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm proud of our organization with our people and our union. I'm telling you, the automotive, or the machinists.... I don't even know the name of the union. I don't, really. But what difference does that make?

MR. BARRETT: That shows you how much interest you have in your workers.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The Automotive Lodge No. 20, or whatever it is.

MR. BARRETT: Or whatever it is.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Certainly I take an interest in it, as do all of us.

MR. BARRETT: Whatever its name, he takes an interest in it.

MR. MUSSALLEM: But I'd like you to tell my men and my women in my shop, what respect I have for unions. I'd like you to tell them that I'm against unionism. I'd like you to tell them that, Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , and you'd have a nose that would be very flat in two seconds. Yes, indeed. Because these people wouldn't stand for the kind of nonsense we've heard in this House today. I only represent but one of the hundreds of small shops that are unionized.

British Columbia has the largest union membership in Canada by province, by percentage. Why is that? Because they were encouraged to be unionized, not by those people, but by the previous government and by this government. We want unionism, but we are afraid - as you should be - of big unions under the control of violent men. That's what we're afraid of.

If the unions had a right to vote as they saw fit in a clear and secret ballot, half the strikes we have today would not happen. I have a friend who came to me during a lumber strike that happened some years ago, and I asked him why, because I knew he was a solid man, and he said: "George, when I'm sitting at a table and they put a ballot in front of me that says , sign here, ' what do I do?"

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's unionism? That is the antithesis of unionism. That is the antithesis of democracy. They call themselves New Democrats. Shame on the name.

I want to tell you today, my friends, as I stand here, that I did not intend to speak in this debate. I'm not prepared to speak in this debate.

MR. BARRETT: That's obvious.

MR- MUSSALLEM: Not because we have no interest. The only thing we need is to get this debate over with. That minister sits over there as one of the finest Labour ministers this House has ever seen, because he acted with honour, integrity and forethought. When he saw what was going on he adjusted the Act to suit this situation because he was honourable, and you come up and drag all these red herrings all over the place.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the time has come that we should call the shots. We should say to them: "Stop the crocodile tears." I would like to say "lies, " but the word is not permitted in this House. The prevarications that rolled out from those benches were almost impossible to behold. They played last week, on Friday, Mr. Speaker, to a gallery of one. First the gallery sat there and then the gallery sat there and they played to a gallery of one. I could see the violins going and them looking up all the time. They played to the gallery of one and that man went away so pleased with such an excellent performance.

Mr. Speaker, what a disgrace to democracy. What a disgrace to this House, What a shame we have brought about in this House in talking the way we have. Do you think these benchers of ours remain silent because they are told to? No. Anyone can speak.

MR. LEA: You mean they have nothing to say?

MR. MUSSALLEM: There's nothing to be said. You want to sit up and orchestrate this whole thing over again. The minister has said it all and said it well. I am proud of him and we are all proud of him.

I would hope that you would recognize this situation as it is, forget your differences and realize that if you mean what you say - that you are for labour - then when the vote comes you will stand with us in favour of this bill. If you do not mean what you say you will sit down, as I expect you to do, because you speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time on this bill. Sometimes you've been all right in this session. You have done some good things and I have respected some speeches. I have never heard so much claptrap, so much

[ Page 5410 ]

nonsense.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Name names? Everyone that has spoken. It has been orchestrated. I can almost see it in the caucus: "You say this and you say this and you say this. . . ." Shameful.

I'm particularly ashamed today of my hon. friend for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , because there is a man for whom I hold considerable respect in this House. It was obviously not him speaking, It was not the member for New Westminster. No, it wasn't him speaking. It wasn't him at all. It's not his language, it's not his style, it's not his manner. Those are empty words. Particularly I'm ashamed of him. But he's under' caucus control. I don't blame him for that, but he should tell us.... I beg your pardon - he told me. "It's hard to control, " he told me. "There's hawks in the caucus." I guess that he's not one of them, but it was not him speaking.

If you had listened well, Mr. Speaker, you'd have heard these people talking in not their own voices. Their words were put in their mouths, because had they not been put in their mouths, they would have been standing up and supporting the bill because they would have been with us. We support the principle of unionism, but we do not support runaway union control. That's what we do not support. We do not support big business out of control, and every strike we've had has been big unions out of control.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Not big business. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a thing or two. Big business does not dare go out of control. Big business can be controlled by government, by the turn of a pen, and big business knows it.

MR. KING: Big business is in complete control -that's the point.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Unions cannot be controlled in this manner, so we must have union leaders with responsibility and integrity. The man in the gallery the other day was not the union man who should be leading a union of that size in this country. He is not the man; he should not be there. He wants to be with you - the ones who are anti-union. He wants to be your vice-president. The man is anti-union.

There is no debate. I make no points. I make no great speech except to say, Mr. Speaker, their main stock in trade is gibing and throwing abuse. That's what they're trying to do to me, but it doesn't bother me at all. The facts are still there. When the vote comes they should stand with us, but I kind of doubt it.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, we just heard a speech that we've come to expect from that member of the House. It was predictable, and almost for that reason it's understandable. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it does give us some understanding of perhaps what fostered this type of unnecessary and very regrettable legislation.

I heard that member refer to the trade unions in the hands of violent men. I hope that that member has the courage to go outside of this House and name the names. Tell who these violent men are who are leading the trade unions of British Columbia. That is the kind of fear-mongering speech that would encourage irresponsible actions. But thank goodness - in this province, our trade unions are led by persons more responsible than that member.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this legislation has two thrusts ' but its main thrust is one which will make it more difficult for the unorganized of this province to come under the protection of collective bargaining. This legislation is meant to encourage division. It is meant to disorganize, and it is meant to keep people who have not enjoyed a decent standard of living and decent working conditions, in that position. This is an absolute interference.

This minister, if he wanted to be a successful Minister of Labour, would want, in his first term of office, to set as a goal perhaps 70 or 80 per cent of the working force of this province as being organized at the end of his first term of office. That would be a reasonable goal; this goes in the absolute, opposite direction. Who would want him to go in this direction? Does this serve the main components of industry in British Columbia? Does this serve the Council of Forest Industries? Would they support this kind of legislation? This actually threatens them. The Council of Forest Industries should also have a lobbyist, their president and their executive here in the galleries of this Legislature, because this legislation seeks to disrupt the best labour climate that this province has enjoyed in a good, long time. CLRA, their executive members and their working executive members should be here, because it's also a threat to them. They have an interest and their interest is not being served by this legislation.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, if you were to look to categorize it ... I won't go as far as some as to say that this is fascist legislation. But certainly, if it were a fascist country, they would be making it not just difficult, but impossible for the unorganized to become organized. So I won't say that this is fascist legislation. I won't accuse these members of being fascist. I would just say that this is legislation toward fascism.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the NDP are accused of

[ Page 5411 ]

being Liberals in a hurry. If the NDP are Liberals in a hurry, then Social Credit is a very patient sort of fascism. That's really what we see here. It's a very small, faltering, halting step toward totalitarianism. Certainly a totalitarian government would approve of this kind of a step because this is a restriction of freedom. It's a restriction of the freedom of assembly. It's something that goes back to the Magna Carta and which has been improved and enhanced. These rights to assemble and to bargain collectively and to build up a collective bargaining agreement have been won with great sacrifice.

People have been blacklisted. I know even today a man not in his 80s but in his 50s who has been blacklisted in his mining profession because of his union Organizing activities. Strangely enough, only one company in the province will hire that person, and it happens to be an American firm. They will hire him because he's a good man at his job. But because of what he believed in, that man has had to pay a personal price. The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) finds it very humorous that a person should be blacklisted. But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, blacklisting is not a very funny thing if it happens to you for trying to help people to organize. So there is one person.

He tried to do his bit when employers were allowed to call their people together and to give them a talk when he heard that there was some union activity going on. It was back in the days when an employer could fire somebody out of hand if he found out that they were involved with union organization and to set an example. He was involved in trying to help the unorganized when an employer could change working conditions just at the drop of the hat and remove the irritant at the moment that it motivated people to become organized.

Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the level of activity of union organization, certainly it has stepped up a little bit. It has stepped up on the federal scene as well. In fact, there is a tendency in this direction. It's anticipated that this year there is going to be a tremendous amount of activity in the banks toward union organization. This is under federal jurisdiction and won't be affected by this legislation, but it does point out the principle that people are becoming more and more aware of the need to be assembled as a collective bargaining unit.

Mr. Speaker, we had statements when the head of state of West Germany, Mr. Schmidt, was here. The Premier of this province asked him for the blueprint for such economic stability - how they have managed to go against the tide of events in the western economic community. The other western economic entities are experiencing devaluation of their currency, unemployment, and every other type of economic problem. The Premier asked for the secret. Well, the secret was a social democratic government for many years in that country.

Certainly one of the other secrets is the very high amount - I believe over 90 per cent - of union participation by employees. I've read parts of the Cormaghan report - in fact, I think I've read the whole Connaghan report - and he touches on this. When we talk about the possibility of doing something like that in this country, we have to point out the fact that we do not have the high level of participation by organized employees under collective bargaining. That is one of the differences. That is one of the reasons why we might not be able to implement the other types of changes in legislative structures which exist in West Germany which have led to it being such a successful economic unit. This is a step which, at the very best, is going to impede that progress. This legislation is an impediment.

I'd also like to point out another serious reservation I have with this Act. That is, Mr. Speaker, that this Act will be changing the role of the Labour Relations Board in terms of precedent. What is seen to be a proper course of action, and where the board has created a precedent, it will in future only use this as a guideline. This means, in fact, Mr. Speaker, that future Labour Relations Boards will be able to completely ignore the decisions that were made by former Labour Relations Boards.

We have asked the question many times then: who does this benefit? It doesn't benefit CLRA; it doesn't CFI; it doesn't benefit organized labour; it doesn't benefit unorganized labour. Who can it possibly benefit, this piece of legislation? It can only pose a very real threat to the present balance and stability.

MR. LEA: It will benefit Phil Gaglardi.

MR. NICOLSON: It will benefit Phil Gaglardi and Sandman Inns, which have been the subject of probably half of the LRB decisions - at least they're constantly making the news. I know that Mr. Gaglardi tried to build his Sandman Inn chain without union labour. He tried to start operating them without union labour. I know that the beverage dispensers union has managed to get a few collective agreements in the interior. I suppose it will aid him. These are the kinds of people, then - the only people I can see -who this will benefit.

Where this is a good non-union employer, such as in my riding, a Mr. Koslesnikoff, there is no way, with the Act the way it is today or with the Act the way it was or will be, that the IWA will go in and organize that sawmill. But that is because the man is not likely to create an incident where the workers will decide that they want to become part of a collective bargaining agreement. But it certainly will aid people who do want to exploit their employees, people who will stoop to any depth to twist the new advantage that they will have in this legislation.

[ Page 5412 ]

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to be an alarmist. I'm not going to overstate the case and say that this is fascist legislation, but it is a small faltering step toward fascism.

MR. BARBER: I rise to speak about the bill that, properly titled, would be the Phil Gaglardi Amendment Act, because it gives him what he wants. The Phil Gaglardi Amendment Act will allow that government and its redneck supporters, particularly in certain of the businesses for which they've become famous, to take advantage of working people in a way that we thought had been written out of the history books after the election in 1972.

There is another person who is trying to take credit in this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, and that's the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) . He stood up in this House, with a straight face, trying to take credit for the fact that British Columbia had enjoyed in the last year one of the most peaceful years, regarding labour and management unrest, in the history of this province. The fact is: that is the case. The point is that the author of the bill, the author of the legislation which we are so proud to support in this province, and legislation that is unique and fine and that is proven a model for every other progressive jurisdiction in North America, was authored by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . If anyone deserves credit for labour peace in this province, it is the former Minister of Labour, Bill King.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: What do you know about labour? You've never worked a day in your life.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: The man who is responsible for the most enlightened, progressive and successful Labour Code in North America is right here on this side of the House. The man who's responsible for creating a Labour Relations Board that is the envy of every other jurisdiction in North America is the creation of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. The man who deserves credit for what has worked so well and so peacefully to date is the former Minister of Labour.

I believe that a man who has created this, a man whose achievement is labour peace the like of which we've never enjoyed before in this province deserves some respect when he stands up in this House and tells the present minister what just might be wrong with his bill. It seems to me that the man who created the peace is in a better position to advise about continuing it than a man who is going out of his way to create the war.

I'd like to confess to one particular mistake made by this opposition, Mr. Speaker. We've made a mistake since December, 1975. It is this: we presumed that the Minister of Labour was one of the strong and competent silent forces in that administration. We made a serious mistake. We presumed that silence means strength. We presumed that his silence represented a respectful, competent, cool analysis of what's going on and a strong upper hand in cabinet. We were wrong, Mr. Speaker. Silence does not mean strength at all. In the hands of that minister it has come to mean ignorance.

What does he do with the finest Labour Code in North America? What fine tuning does he bring in? What does he defend for two days in a row and then admit was a mistake?

AN HON. MEMBER: All he had to do was nothing.

MR. BARBER: If he wanted to maintain labour peace in this province he would have maintained the Labour Code as we enjoy it now. He wouldn't tamper with it; he wouldn't twist it; he wouldn't alter or modify it. He wouldn't give in to the redneck backbenchers in his own party. If he really wanted labour peace he would have left the situation alone that has so clearly and admirably been working so well.

The man who deserves the credit for labour peace is the member for Revelstoke-Slocan with whom so proudly every member on this side of the House associates himself or herself. What is that minister to do? He comes in; he brings in an amendment which he pretends was a mistake, which he purports was an error and which no one believes was a mistake or an error. It was deliberate.

This minister has two serious problems. One of them he did not intend to have. It's the result of the first which he created.

Mr. Barber moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Mair presents the 65th annual report of the superintendent of insurance.

Hon. Mr., Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.