[ Page 1573 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Deputy Attorney-General and Lady Grace discussions. Mr. Lauk –– 1573

Appointment of fitness co-ordinator. Mr. King –– 1574

"Cents-off" coupons. Mr. Gibson –– 1574

Bus tour cancellation. Mr. Stephens –– 1575

Provincial Museum closing time. Mrs. Dailly –– 1575

Payment of duty on imported liquor. Mr. Lea –– 1575

BCBC work on Island Youth Centre. Mr. Stupich –– 1576

Advertising and the legal profession. Mr. Macdonald –– 1576

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Labour estimates.

On vote 161.

Ms. Sanford –– 1579

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1580

Mr. King –– 1581

Mr. Macdonald –– 1584

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1584

Mr. Shelford –– 1586

Mr. Nicolson –– 1586

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1587

Mr. Skelly –– 1587

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1590

Mrs. Wallace –– 1594

Mr. Gibson –– 1596

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1598

Mr. King –– 1600

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1602

Ms. Brown –– 1602

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1603

Mr. Gibson –– 1603

On vote 162.

Ms. Sanford –– 1605

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1605

On vote 163.

Ms. Sanford –– 1605

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1605

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce today a class of students from Vic West Elementary School %, ho are touring the precincts with their teacher, Mr. Davies, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, also touring the precincts today is a class from St. Joseph's School in Nelson. They are here today with their teacher and with their principal, Rev. Father Dulong.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a group of students from Moscrop Junior Secondary School led by their teachers, Mr. Wayne Axford, Mr. Joe Argue and Mrs. Ruby Dickson. I would like this House to bid them welcome.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today I have the honour to introduce our constituency president, Mrs. Pat Blight, accompanied by her daughter Jocelyn. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, we have a group of school children from Prince George touring the building this afternoon with their teacher, Sister Vianney from St. Mary's School. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, at the present time in the gallery behind me are a group of students from Chemainus Senior Secondary School. I am hoping to meet with them personally a little later. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them and their teacher, Mr. Tom Lewis, to the gallery.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of yourself I would like to introduce some legislative interns from Alberta who are being hosted by our legislative interns. They are: Susan Au, Laura Hamson, Maureen Riddell, Bryan Post and Terry Wood. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the House join me in welcoming to the gallery today a person who sat in this House for many years, Leo Nimsick - and his wife, Marie from Kootenay.

MR. HADDAD: In the Speaker's gallery today I have two good friends, Mr. Bill Citra and his wife, Stephie, visiting from Cranbrook. Accompanying them are his brother, John Citra, and John's wife, Elsie. I would appreciate it if the House would make them welcome.

I would also like to welcome two other constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Leo Nimsick, to the House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, every year Mr. Ippen of Kitsilano Secondary School brings his grade 11 students in government to visit us, and they are here today again. I wonder if the House would join me in bidding then welcome.

Also, from the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard are a group of students in an alternative educational programme - funded by the Ministry of Education, strangely enough -attached to Kitsilano school. The KAT students are here with their teacher, Mr. David Morgan. I would like the House to welcome them, too.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today we have a large group of students from the Princess Margaret Senior Secondary School in Surrey, and 30 exchange students from Montreal, Quebec, visiting as well. I would ask the House to welcome the group.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, by the tone of most of the introductions that have gone before me there are not too many students left in school today. I have 100 students with their teachers from Port Coquitlam Senior Secondary School, touring in the precincts. I would like the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two newcomers to Victoria, Mrs. Ethel Farris and Mrs. Mary Thompson. I believe this is the first time they've visited the Legislature, and I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should introduce all those remaining in the gallery. But I do notice today one of the oldest social democrats in B.C., a life member of the NDP, Darwin Charlton. I would like him to be recognized - also a young one, Vic Johnson from the Cariboo.

Oral questions.

DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL

AND LADY GRACE DISCUSSIONS

MR. LAUK: The Lady Grace is still resting in murky waters. Thursday, the Attorney-General gave a lengthy but somewhat generalized answer

[ Page 1574 ]

regarding the extent of his deputy minister's personal involvement with the Lady Grace. The Attorney-General, if the minister will recall, told us that Mr. Vogel severed his role as director, secretary and something called the attorney of Lakex Mines on June 30.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It was later than that? That's prior to entering the government service. Further, referring to Lakex and the $350,000 loan to Coal Harbour Maritime Leasing, the minister said, and I quote from Hansard: "He" - referring to Mr. Vogel - "had nothing to do with these documents in September."

To prevent any possible misunderstanding as to precisely what the Attorney-General is assuring this House, I should like to ask the following question: when was the last occasion Mr. Vogel was personally involved in Lakex or Coal Harbour discussions in transactions surrounding the Lady Grace? Could the Attorney-General be more specific as to the nature and actual dates on which the present Deputy Attorney-General was involved with the business of this vessel which is now the subject of some very complicated bankruptcy proceedings?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'll obtain the information and report.

APPOINTMENT OF

PHYSICAL FITNESS GO-ORDINATOR

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. When was the minister made aware of the Premier's decision to extend the appointment of Mrs. Wendy Robertson as the provincial physical fitness co-ordinator?

HON. MR. BAWLF: I'm not aware yet of any such thing and I don't expect I will be asked to act in any such fashion by the Premier. it's an appointment which was initiated by myself. As to whether it will be extended is a decision for myself, which is presently under consideration by myself and strictly by myself in consultation with the officials of my ministry.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I want to understand the minister clearly. Is the minister saying that the decision has not yet been made to extend Mrs. Robertson's appointment?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I'm saying that I'm giving that decision consideration now. It is a decision for myself and I've had no discussion in regard to either the present appointment or any future extension of the appointment with the Premier.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this is incredible that the minister doesn't know what's going on in his own ministry. An order-in-council was passed, dated May 4,1978, "Pursuant to the Public Service Act, and upon the recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor, " et cetera. It's order-in-council No. 1136, extending the appointment of Wendy E. Robertson to the position of provincial fitness co-ordinator, Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, from August 31,4978, to June 30,1979.

Now if the Premier didn't make the decision and the minister is not aware of this order-in-council, can the minister tell the House what's going on in his ministry?

MR. BARRETT: That's asking too'much.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the order-in-council. Whether the person in question will continue in that service for that time is not yet determined.

MR. KING: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It would be interesting and very nice if we could get some straight answers from the minister. In Hansard on April 26, just about a week before this order-in-council of May 4 was put out, the minister said that Mrs. Robertson was simply appointed for the length of her school term, and he denied that she was drawing a salary of $28,800 a year. Four or five days later an order-in-council was passed extending her appointment, which in fact does place her salary at $28,800 a year.

MR. SPEAKER: To the question, please.

MR. KING: Now I'd like the minister to explain. On one hand it's been denied that her salary level is $28,800. The minister has now denied that the Premier appointed her. Now what on earth is the order-in-council for if it's not intended to extend her appointment? That's nonsense.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, as I related to the House at an earlier date, the person in question was retained under essentially the same conditions as she was employed previously in the school district. That is to say that she was working at a rate of so many dollars per month for 10 months. That member opposite, Mr. Speaker, has chosen to produce from that a salary of $28,000 per annum, but that's only

[ Page 1575 ]

if she were to work 12 months. In fact she is earning approximately $24,000 for her term of contract, and that is the equivalent of what she was earning for a similar 10 months of work in the school district.

MR. KING: I have an order-in-council dated November 3,1977, appointing Wendy Robertson, effective until August 31,1978. The minister answered when questioned, and I quote from Hansard of April 26, page 843: "The fitness co-ordinator is also a teacher who has come in under a limited duration appointment which has carried forward her salary from her teaching profession. She has, however, for some time now, several years, been regarded..." and so on. The minister also stated that my arithmetic was correct in computing her annual salary at $28,800. The latest order-in-council continues her appointment until August 31,1979. That's in excess of 12 months. When was the minister telling the truth?

"CENTS-OFF" COUPONS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would like to ask the minister if he's familiar with recent reports, including that of Nicole Parton in this morning's Province, that so-called "cents-off" coupons as used in stores to get a discount on a certain product are, in the long run, leading to higher retail prices.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful to the member for giving me advance notice of this question and a copy of the article. Yes, I had read the article; yes, I am aware of the practice. I will take it to my ministry for a reply and bring it back to the House as soon as possible.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure my supplementary is covered by the minister's response. Will he initiate a study into whether or not the allegations are in fact correct - that they do, in fact, lead to higher prices - and will he bring a report on that back to the House?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm always a little nervous about the use of words like "study." I will take it to my ministry, ask them to look at it and give me sufficient information to report back to the House.

BUS TOUR CANCELLATION

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would like to ask the minister whether the regulations that he now has under his jurisdiction are sufficient to cover the recent cancellation of a bus tour to Reno by a local booking agent. The bus was due to leave at 6:30 a.m. last Saturday and the cancellation was given at 10 minutes before midnight on the night before.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sufficiently aware of the circumstances of that latest incident to be able to answer whether or not the regulations would cover that situation. If consumers lost any money by reason of them having paid in advance and not receiving the services, the answer is yes, but I don't know that that's the case at this point. I understand that the booking company could not obtain a bus, and that was the reason for the cancellation.

PROVINCIAL MUSEUM CLOSING TIME

MRS. DAILLY: This question is to the Provincial Secretary. Could the minister tell us what the daily closing time of the Provincial Museum will be this summer?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Because that's under consideration, Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

PAYMENT OF DUTY

ON IMPORTED LIQUOR

MR. LEA: I have a question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Where in the administrative procedure is the duty on imported liquor paid to the federal government and who pays it? Would it be the importer such as Seagram's or Gordon's who pays the duty to the federal government? At what point in the administrative procedure is that duty paid?

HON. M- MAIR: Hr. Speaker, that question is not quite as simple as it appears. I will get the answer and bring it back to the House. I know that the payment is made under supervision of the customs people and it is held in bond. But I presume you want to know precisely at what point in the transaction the amount is paid, and I will determine that and report back.

MR. LEA: While the minister is looking into that, are there circumstances where that procedure is not adhered to? If so, what are the circumstances surrounding the procedure being

[ Page 1576 ]

broken?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll be pleased to take that question as notice as well, Mr. Speaker.

BCBC WORK ON

ISLAND YOUTH CENTRE

MR. STUPICH: To the Minister of Highways and Public Works. On Monday last, he informed the House that B.C. Buildings Corporation had allotted funds to make certain improvements at Island Youth Centre with a view to it going over to the Alcohol and Drug Commission. I wonder on what date those funds were allotted by BCBC.

HON. MR. FRASER: What I did say was that a decision had been made to turn over those facilities to the Alcohol and Drug Commission, and no money had been spent on the facilities.

MR. STUPICH: If I can remind the minister, what he said was that he wasn't sure whether work had started yet. But my question was: on what date was the decision made to do that work?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd have to go back and get the date that decision was made.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice.

ADVERTISING AND

THE LEGAL PROFESSION

MR. MACDONALD: To the Attorney-General, in following the citation of Don Labour for conduct unbecoming a lawyer for advertising, and in view of the fact that the clients and the public have a clear interest in that question, does the Attorney-General intend to make any inquiry on his own or does he think that this is a matter that can be left solely to the legal profession?

HON. MR. GARDOM: What do you mean by an inquiry?

MR. MACDONALD: I've asked you.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not acceptable since it reflects on the future action of a minister of the Crown.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary then. In view of the present state of affairs and the fact that the public and not just the lawyers has a clear interest in the question, has the Attorney-General any present plans to do anything about it to protect the public interest?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The point that has been raised by the hon. member affects all of the professions, of course, and not just the legal profession - the doctors, the architects, the chartered accountants and the psychologists. I think historically the professions have taken the position that the best form of advertising is a satisfied client.

I think, hon. member, it is very much up to the professions to indicate their specific desires if there is to be advertising, under what kind of guidelines, what form, specialties, standards, performance and so forth. The issue is one that is not unique to this province. It is being considered in other parts of the country. It's also been somewhat more extensively considered in the United States. We've got to bear in mind that what is really requested.... If the professions choose to take that route I suppose that is satisfactory, but it will end up being a cost passed through, because advertising does cost money and that charge will be passed on to the consumer.

Quite frankly, I think the permutations could be quite something. I say, somewhat with a degree of levity, that we could have "Drs. Cut-em and Slash-em, the fastest knives west of the Catskills. Pay as you choose - by the pound or by the inch." Or "a free chance on a weekly gallstones draw, even or odd, take your pick, 6 to 5 in favour of the house." Or, with the legal profession, "Messrs. Filch-em and Ditch-em - what we lose for you in contract we will pick up for you in tort, cash-and-carry adoptions, and free wills for every estate you leave to us."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed to orders of the day, with respect to the application of Thursday last of the Leader of the Opposition under standing order 35, the matter involves a select standing committee of this House. While there may be other grounds on which the application may be out of order, the application fails as it does not involve the administrative responsibility of the government as required by references of Sir Erskine May at page 373, and so I must rule the application out of order.

MR. BARRETT: Before I have the opportunity of challenging or not challenging your ruling, I think it would be more appropriate if I could have an opportunity of reviewing the citations and make my decision at that time.

[ Page 1577 ]

MR. LAUK: I take it, then, that Mr. Speaker agrees that the ruling can be challenged subsequent to our reference to the rule.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is whether or not the ruling can be challenged?

MR. LAUK: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Let me just refer.

Hon. member, just after reflecting for a moment and checking with references, the matter is the opinion of the Chair and, as such, is not subject to appeal.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of appeal, it's a question of challenging a ruling. What I'm saying is that I would prefer, rather than being forced to make that choice at this moment, the opportunity of reviewing the citations and letting you know at the earliest opportunity whether or not it is our wish to challenge your opinion.

MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me that if the matter were to be challenged, now would be the appropriate moment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the procedure to deal with emergency debates is immediately. We gave leave so that citations could be found and I'm asking the same delay so that a proper decision can be made to review the citations.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before I recognize another member on the same point of order, it might be wise to remember that if the ruling or the opinion of the Chair cannot be appealed, then time is not of the essence, is it?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I believe that perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition has inadvertently made a suggestion which I'm sure will appear in Hansard, which I believe should be set correct at this particular time - that is the inference that for some reason there is something improper about a Speaker deferring a decision on any matter which is put before the House.

I would humbly submit to you, sir, that there is ample precedent not only here but in every jurisdiction that I have ever looked at, and every text that I have ever looked at, that it is a common tradition and courtesy to allow a Speaker to defer a decision. It is not something improper in any means and should not, in any way, be castigated in that particular light.

MR. BARRETT: No one is suggesting that it was improper. Mr. Speaker, I don't know why that smokescreen came in from the past, but I am referring not at all to the delay in your making your decision. I am asking for some time to review the citations. Without time then I must challenge your ruling on the ruling that I cannot have time.

MR. SPEAKER: The challenge is on the ruling that the ruling of the Chair cannot be challenged. Shall the Chair be sustained?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: I think the ayes have it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. BARRETT: You didn't call for noes. You just asked one side.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right, and it seems to me the ayes have it.

MR. BARRETT: You didn't ask for the nays.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, whenever a question occurs, the question is put and the voice vote is given by "aye" and "nay." We do not ask for the ayes and the nays separately.

MR. BARRETT: I challenge that ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's dispose of the first ruling first. The challenge was on the basis of whether or not a decision of the Chair can be challenged, and that rule was challenged. Then the question was asked, and it was clear that the Chair's ruling was sustained. No division being asked for, no further vote is necessary.

MR. BARRETT: I challenge that, Mr. Speaker. I made that very clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition now challenges the ruling that we do not ask for separate votes. Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

[ Page 1578 ]

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

MR. LAUK: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Speaker, who has now ruled that a motion of privilege of the hon. Liberal leader is out of order and that a motion to debate the subject on an emergency basis under the standing orders is out of order, direct us what one does in a standing committee when one cannot ask questions in a legislative standing committee of witnesses that have been duly called under the standing orders and who are responsible to the committee. Are we to allow this attack on the democratic process by the majority to go unanswered?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. member, I think that perhaps it is time to reiterate what is the principle by which committees operate. That principle, simply stated, is this: committees must solve or absolve whatever problem arises in committee in the committee. That is the basic principle. If it were not so, then we would have reports of committee, subreports of committee, minority reports of committee, interim reports of committee. Really, the business of committee would be done in this House, which would do injury, in my opinion, to the whole reason for committing a matter to a committee. As a result, I think that we should obtain as closely as possible to the practice of absolving all matters arising in committee in that committee.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that does not preclude, I assume, request of leave of the House to suspend the rules for an emergency debate or for any other reason. If leave is granted by the House, we could deal in that instance. So there is an approach that must be considered and that is the request that by leave the rules be suspended and we deal with that matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Your observation is well taken. It's always opportune to bring up a matter of urgent debate. Whether or not it is in order or not must be determined on the merits of the individual motion.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, I don't want to delay the proceedings of the House, but will Mr. Speaker take into consideration the fact that the Chairman of the committee, when he finds that members, for example, who may be operating contrary to standing orders will not bring themselves to order, by his own motion, can leave the Chair of the committee and report to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The member is seeking to bring to the floor of this house a matter which needs to be cared for in committee and it is not in order.

MR. LAUK: No, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying that I agree that many, many reports from committee are to be discouraged, but under the standing orders when a member of the committee is in breach of the standing orders after duly being warned on several occasions to bring himself within the standing orders, the Chairman has no recourse but to report this conduct to the House. If the majority of the members of the committee are in breach of standing orders, how on earth is he going to bring it to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a matter for the committee to report. The committee, of course, can elect to make such a report to the House - not a member of the committee, but the committee itself.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, if all or the majority of the members of the committee are in breach of the rules and are flying in the face of the rules and the Chairman of the committee, are you asking that the committee should therefore have a majority report of such a breach of standing orders to the House? That suggestion defies common sense, with great respect. Surely the Chairman should have the opportunity to bring his committee to order either by himself or by an intervention of the order of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the matter of

[ Page 1579 ]

decorum in a committee must be solved within the committee itself. The Chairman could put the vote to the committee and the committee can vote, and the report is not a majority report or a minority report, but a report of the committee. I think that matter is very clear.

If there are any further questions perhaps hon. members would like to reflect on the citations of the precedents themselves.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 161: minister's office, $140,241 -continued.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I note on the weekend that yet another voice was raised in support of our criticism of this minister and this government on the issue of human rights. We have been critical of this minister for refusing to appoint a Human Rights Commission in this province. We've now been without a commission for well over four months. We have been critical of this minister because he had refused to appoint boards of inquiry when the branch has been unable to resolve the question of discrimination within the branch, and on the weekend we had yet another voice criticizing this government and this minister for their attitude towards human rights.

Some time ago Bishop Remi de Roo criticized the minister for refusing to appoint boards of inquiry. Bishop Remi de Roo, who was the chairman of the former Human Rights Commission, a person who is very concerned about human rights issues in this province, was bold enough to state publicly his criticism of this minister and this government.

On the weekend, Mr. Chairman, we had Gordon Fairweather, who is the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, raising his voice with that of Bishop Remi de Roo, with that of people throughout the province who are concerned about human rights, and with this opposition, who have been critical all along of the lack of priority and the lack of interest shown by this government in human rights.

Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated to us last week that he was going to appoint an expanded human rights commission. I hope that this additional criticism by Gordon Fairweather of the Canadian Human Rights Commission will prompt that minister to act quickly and to get 'on with appointing a human rights commission in this province. Shame on him!

When the minister does get down to appointing that expanded Human Rights Commission, he should take into account that the people of this province represent very wide-ranging viewpoints, wide-ranging incomes and wide ranging backgrounds. When those appointments are made, they should represent a cross-section of the public and a cross-section of those viewpoints, incomes and concerns.

This afternoon I want to raise an issue with the minister and request that he, as Minister of Labour, launch an investigation into the operation of the PREP programme. As most people know, the PREP programme is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . I notice the Minister of Human Resources putting up his hand, indicating that he thinks it is a fine programme.

I am so incensed about an incident that has come to my attention that I want to raise it this afternoon with the Minister of Labour and appeal to him to launch an investigation into the operation of the PREP programme because of this particular incident. I would like the Minister of Labour to put an end to the kind of exploitation that is taking place under the PREP programme operated by the Minister of Human Resources. I am going to outline to the Minister of Labour my concern and why I am so incensed by what has happened under the PREP programme.

Within my constituency there was a 16-year old boy who had left school early, who was very shy and who was desperate for a job. When I checked with the director of the PREP programme in Campbell River, he indicated to me that the young man had phoned him on many occasions because he was very keen to get a job. The Minister of Labour knows that because of the very high unemployment in this province, 16-year-olds have a great deal of difficulty in getting work. This young boy approached the director of the PREP programme. After waiting for about six weeks and phoning the director on a number of occasions, he was told by the director of the PREP programme to meet with him and the operator of a small logging company. He thought he had some work for him.

The young 16-year-old - and I must point out that he is very inexperienced and shy - met with the director of the PREP programme and the logging operator and was told to pack his clothes and get a sleeping bag. He in fact had a job at a logging camp, a small operation. The young boy had indicated to the director of

[ Page 1580 ]

the PREP programme that he was interested in cooking and that he hoped to some day become a qualified cook.

On his way to the logging camp the following morning, he thought to ask about the salary. He had not thought to do that the day before; he was that keen to get work and he was also that inexperienced and that shy. He was told by the logging company owner that he would be earning $300 a month and that he would have to have $100 deducted for room and board. He was also told, or at least under the impression -I don't know if he was told directly - that his work would entail assisting a cook, cooking for 12 people at a logging camp. When the boy arrived he found that he in fact was the only cook; he was the only one responsible for preparing food for 12 people. He was also told that his duties would involve getting up at 5 o'clock in the morning in order to start the power plant and to have breakfast ready by 6 o'clock. Then he was to do the dishes, clean the kitchen, wash the floors ' do all of the baking, clean the bunkhouse and have supper ready by 7 o'clock. In addition to that, this young boy was to prepare lists of food that would be required - in other words, a shopping list.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I have the minister's attention because I think this is a very important issue and one which the minister should be concerned about.

After dinner the young boy was required to clean the tables, again clean up the kitchen and prepare the lunches for the following day. He then managed to finish work at about 10 o'clock and, of course, had to be back again on shift at 5 o'clock the next morning.

This young boy worked for a total of 17 days. I don't know the total number of hours involved, but he worked for 17 days. After he'd finished the job, he was then presented with a cheque for $100.10; that represented the pay for the total 17 days that this boy worked. Now this was a job that the boy received and obtained with the help of the PREP programme operated by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . Mr. Chairman, this is exploitation of the worst kind, and I'm appealing to the minister to launch an investigation to find out what's happening with the PREP programme. What kind of jobs are they finding for these people?

The young boy, even at the end of that time, having received a cheque for $100.10, was too shy and too concerned to come directly to me. It was only through his aunt that I was able to obtain this information arid direct him to Mr. Hutton, the industrial relations officer out of Nanaimo. But how many others are there?

The industrial relations officer, when I spoke to him, indicated that he's going to look into it.

Mr. Chairman, how many others are being exploited through that PREP programme, as this young boy obviously was? I think this is exploitation through the Minister of Human Resources PREP programme, and I'm calling upon the Minister of Labour this afternoon to give us a guarantee that he will launch an investigation into the operation of that PREP programme throughout the province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With regard to the first matter raised by the member - namely, the statements attributed to Mr. Gordon Fairweather, federal human rights commissioner -over the weekend I have written to Mr. Fairweather and have invited him to come to British Columbia to discuss with me the administration of human rights in this province. It appears that he is guilty of the same errors that the member fell into last Thursday. I think I corrected her, and I will be happy to discuss them with Mr. Fairweather so there's no misunderstanding.

On the matter of investigation of PREP, yes, I'll be happy to have that looked into to determine whether or not the PREP people, having found jobs, are involved in the negotiations for any wages and working conditions between the respective employer and the employee. I would be surprised if that's the case. I might say that the sparse details that the member has given me indicate at least two breaches of labour standards legislation in this province: one, hours of work; two, the deduction of board and room from wages, which is not in accordance with the law. I'm very pleased that the member has referred it to the industrial relations officer of the Ministry of Labour at Nanaimo, Mr. Hutton. May I ask when that was done?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think there's another breach of the labour standards here, and that relates to the minimum wage, because I would assume that even working a 40-hour week, which this boy did not work - he obviously worked more than that - he would be making somewhere around $1.63 an hour at the outside so that's another point that the minister might look into.

This information was brought to the attention of the industrial relations officer in Nanaimo about May 15. He has since then written to the aunt of this particular young boy, because he wanted additional information. He has not yet received that information, according to him this morning when I talked to him.

[ Page 1581 ]

MR. KING: There are a number of things I would like to comment on to the minister. I didn't really understand the minister's response to my colleague with respect to the human rights controversies that have been swirling in the province of British Columbia for the past two and a half years. But rather than deal with the matter that's already been raised by the member for Comox, I would like to deal with the minister's response to questions regarding applications for boards of inquiry that come to his office. The minister has delayed decisions on some of these applications, in my view, unduly. The minister has indeed declined to appoint boards of inquiry or provide the permission to do so, and the minister points out that he is permitted to do that in the Act. That is indeed true. The Act is permissive in that sense, but I think that's a rather shallow dodge for the minister to take.

I feel that the minister has a human rights branch. He has investigating officers. He has a director of the human rights branch. Surely if they have investigated a case and determined to their satisfaction that a board of inquiry is indicated and justified, then the minister should not, in his political judgment, make a decision which overrides the investigators and the professional staff of the human rights branch. While the Act is permissive, that does not justify that kind of practice, in my view.

Perhaps I made an error in writing the Human Rights Code by making that language permissive. Perhaps it should have been mandatory that a board of inquiry would indeed be appointed when requested and recommended by the branch.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Did you write the code all by yourself? What a farce.

MR. KING: I certainly had the responsibility, Mr. Chairman, and I take that responsibility seriously. If that offends the minister I can only assume that perhaps he doesn't like making those kinds of political decisions, and perhaps with good reason. The point is, and let's not get off the track, that the minister is using a bit of a dodge in the language of the Act to frustrate inquiries that his staff feel should be proceeded with.

I don't think that is justified and I say to the minister that if the permissiveness of the Act is the only reason he is doing this, then for goodness' sake bring in an amendment and make it mandatory.

As a matter of fact, I believe when the Human Rights Act was debated in this chamber, upon its introduction, that particular member, then in opposition, questioned the very fact that the boards of inquiry should be a permissive decision of the minister rather than a mandatory obligation. I find it a bit hypocritical to hide behind that particular dodge, now that he occupies the minister's chair.

Perhaps the minister disagrees but they are my views and I would strongly recommend that under the tenure of this government, as short as it may be, he should bring in an amendment which will relieve him of the necessity of biting the bullet, a thing that he doesn't seem to relish doing.

I want to mention one other thing that has concerned me. I would appreciate it if the minister would comment on it. A decision of the Labour Relations Board that was handed down this year I haven't got the number of the decision relates to the Decker Lake lumber company or saw mill up north. There was a delegation down here a short time ago and I presume they had a visitation with the minister, as they had with members of our caucus. Far be it from me to criticize the Labour Relations Board. I think the entire staff of that agency has done an outstanding job. I hope the minister doesn't find that offensive. I'm not just referring to the ones that were appointed under my tenure. I think by and large the people who have been called on to act in that particular agency have done so with judiciousness and responsibility. That's to their credit.

But I do take exception to a decision of the board and I wonder if it shouldn't be looked at in the way of legislative remedy. If I'm wrong in my understanding I would appreciate the minister's comments, but it is my understanding that in this particular case, after a dispute over the number of members in good standing in that particular unit, a certificate was granted. This certificate was subsequently appealed by a dissident group of workers in that unit who claimed that there was not a majority of members in good standing who would sign cards and hence the certificates should be withdrawn.

The board provided a hearing for this dissident group and their counsel, the union and management. The board came down with a decision that had changed somewhat. The decision was that the certificate would be granted under a different section of the Act. I think it was 43 (1) , if I remember correctly, or 43 (3) . 1 forget the precise section of the Act, but it was a slightly different section. They granted in effect a conditional certification. That certificate was conditional upon the union, which was now in negotiation with

[ Page 1582 ]

the employer, being able to win either a majority mandate for a strike action or, as an alternative, a majority mandate for a new collective agreement. Therein lies the thing that concerns me so greatly.

That, in my view and to my knowledge, is the first time that the certification process has been married to the collective bargaining process and I think it's an extremely dangerous precedent. I think it's wrong-headed and to some extent I think it's in conflict, if not with the language of the Act, certainly with the spirit of the Labour Code of British Columbia. There is provision in the Code for a conditional certificate where there is doubt as to whether or not the true wishes of the employees can be determined. The provision has been that a temporary certificate would be issued subject to a new vote six months hence or a year hence. And I have no argument with that procedure; I think that's a good one. Let them live together for a period of time and, after emotions have cooled down, conduct the representation vote. If a majority reject the union, well and good; if a majority support the union, then the certificate stays. But in this case, to suggest to the union that it's certified and to suggest to the employees that if they don't want the union they shouldn't sign the collective agreement and shouldn't give a ratification vote to a new collective agreement to me is in effect encouraging bad faith bargaining.

Any dissident group in a union can have a tremendous impact on frustrating good, commonsense, good-faith collective bargaining, if that is its desire. And, as I say, for the first time, to my knowledge, in the history of industrial relations - not only under the new Labour Code of British Columbia, but in previous history too, as far as I know - these two processes have been married, involved and interlocked. I think that's just a grave error. Once the precedent of bad-faith bargaining is established, then how do you restrict it to a situation where the certification issue is the sole issue in dispute?

I am informed that in this particular Decker Lake case there was advice given to those employees of the plant who did not want to be represented by a union that they should vote against the proposed collective agreement, no matter what it contained, no matter how good it was. Mr. Chairman, I say that that is not in keeping with the spirit of good-faith collective bargaining and it indeed prostitutes the process as far as I'm concerned. If it was necessary to grant a conditional certification to the union, then it should have been related to a time basis, certainly not to the rather nefarious dodge, in my view, of saying: "We will in effect now make collective bargaining the test of whether or not the union has the majority support of the workers." I don't want to condemn the Labour Relations Board for that because, as I say, I think they've done an excellent job by and large. I don't know where they found the precedent for that particular decision - again, as I understand it - in the Labour Code of British Columbia. But if indeed it is there, and if it is to become a precedent, then I certainly recommend to the minister that he consider an amendment which would once and for all separate the two processes. I don't think they have any need to be related and I think it's a dangerous precedent that could have other, unanticipated repercussions.

Mr. Chairman, I've got one other matter I wanted to raise and that is the so-called right-to-work issue, which is becoming stronger and stronger, it appears, in the province of British Columbia through a variety of organizations, such as the Independent Contractors and Businessmen's Association - and they're not the only firm. There are political spokesmen in the government who have indicated support and sympathy for the right-to-work proposition. The minister has stated that he opposes the concept - and I give him credit for that - but I'm concerned about the narrow margin by which the minister seems to hold sway on this issue in this particular government and in his conventions.

I would like mainly for the benefit of all members of the House to state my own views on this matter. I think that the issue is misunderstood in many areas of the province. And I think it can be put into perspective a bit better if we liken the process which a trade union must go through to win certification, the right to represent and then legal jurisdiction to negotiate contracts and to bind their members to those contracts - and I'm directing this at some of the government backbenchers and some of the cabinet members who have indicated support for the concept basically, I think, because the title "right to work" implies something very good.... If it were the right for all people to obtain gainful employment, who could argue with that? That is not in fact what it means.

Let me just point out that our federal, our provincial and our municipal governments all have an area of jurisdiction. The federal is defined as the entire dominion, the provincial governments are defined by provincial boundaries and municipal governments by municipal boundaries. So the appropriate unit in political terms is spelled out in our constitution

[ Page 1583 ]

and our laws. All that is needed for a governing party to win the right to represent the people within that designated area, within that appropriate unit, is a majority mandate in a freely conducted election.

Federally, provincially and municipally, it is not necessary for politicians to win 50 per cent of the vote. All that is required is that they receive the highest number of votes cast - in other words, more votes than their opponents. After so doing, any government, even though it may have been elected with only 39 per cent of the popular support throughout the nation, throughout the province or throughout the municipality, is constituted and allowed, I would point out, with what is viewed as majority consent, the basis on which all laws are passed in this nation, to tax, to make laws and to set regulations governing the rights, the conduct and the obligations of all of the voters within that unit.

Why is it then that certain members of this government say that a trade union, after con forming to the laws we wrote, seeking to represent a designated unit of workers, must perform by a different yardstick? I hope that the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) and the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) are listening, because I know that they hold other views on this matter. I'm appealing to them to try and understand it in its proper context. The union is first of all obliged to demonstrate to the Labour Relations Board that here we have an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. They are then required to either sign up a majority of the members - indeed not a simple majority as with governments, but 55 per cent of the workers within that unit - and then they can be certified. If they sign up less than 55 per cent, then they are obliged to go to an election, a representation vote, and that representation vote.... No, I beg your pardon. I think I got it wrong. They had to have 55 per cent for the cards and they still have to have 55 per cent for the vote now, don't they?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. KING: Fifty per cent plus one. On the signup of cards they have to have 55 per cent, otherwise the representation vote is taken. In the representation vote, they do not get by with a simple majority like provincial politicians, you or I, like federal politicians, like aldermen in the community. They must win an absolute majority - 50 per cent plus one.

Now what right-to-workers are saying is okay, they've won their majority, but the people who didn't vote for them should have the right to opt out of paying union dues. They should have the right to opt out of joining the union and, indeed, they should have the right to opt of the obligation to support the union. Now applying that to municipal areas, provincial areas or federal areas of politics, what the right-to-workers are saying with the support of certain politicians is that with a majority mandate you shouldn't have the right to tax, you shouldn't have the right to pass laws, you shouldn't have the right to issue a constitutional decree that says that your constituents and your members are obliged to live up to the constitutional provisions of your organization.

Mr. Chairman, you know what most of those people would say if the minority in opposition to a political party, after seeing their opponents elected, opted out of the system and said: "I'm not going to pay my taxes. I'm not going to live by your laws." You know what you'd call it? You'd call it the same thing that I call it - anarchy. We operate in a free democratic society by majority consensus and by majority consent. What the right-to-workers are saying is: "That's fine for the politicians. We demand conformity and we demand adherence to the law for legally constituted governments and democratically elected governments in this nation, but a different yardstick for trade union workers."

Why? Who are the proponents, Mr. Chairman, who are going to go out and save working people from the heavy hand of trade union organization? They're employers, that's who they are. It's not an organization of workers. It's an organization of employers - the Independent Contractors Association.

I say to this House and I say to each and every member of the government - and particularly to the minister - that every time the employer raises his hand and says, "Come you with me, son, " to his employee, "I will protect you better than any free association of your fellow workers...." I say' beware, because that's who the proponents of right to work are, and they can see themselves saving at least 25 per cent in terms of the administrative costs of collective agreements, fringe benefits and so on. They can afford to pay equal wages, even higher wages, and still save money by keeping out the unions.

So let's understand the issue. You're not arguing for the democratic rights of workers. You're arguing for the right of a minority to dictate to the majority. That's a proposition that is not accepted in any area of our democratic life in the western world. I say to you it is not only rejected as a concept of

[ Page 1584 ]

government, it's rejected as a practical or a rational concept with any social organization in our community as well. We give churches and fraternal organizations the right to operate in a democratic fashion.

I'm concerned, you know, particularly when a right-wing government decides that they're a better authority to determine and protect the democratic rights of groups of workers than anyone else. I know other regimes that had the same idea. They tend to be totalitarian. They do. You can't trust the people to protect their own democracy. By golly, I say to this House that once government starts intruding into the democratic rights of intelligent working people in this province or in this nation to administer their own affairs in a democratic way, how long will it be before you're in the churches or fraternal organizations?

The issue is clear and the precedent is clear. So I ask you not to be taken in by this glib description of "right to work, " and that's what it is. It's a glib description; it's a misnomer. It has nothing to do with the rights of people to enjoy gainful employment in this nation.

I want to say to the minister that although he has argued at Social Credit conventions against the right to work laws, although he has responded in this House to questions when asked, he had never come out with a clear, ringing ' statement in support of trade unions as an instrument of representing and protecting workers' rights in this province. I think he has an obligation as the Minister of Labour to do so, and I call on him to do that today, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping the minister would get up at that point and repudiate right to work. I'm just going to say one or two words on that and then pass on to one other subject here.

All of the professions enjoy compulsory membership. That is, if you practise law you must belong to the Law Society. If you're an architect, you must belong to that association, you must pay your dues. You don't have any choice about it. As a matter of fact, in the case of the professions they enforce the rule that obligations shall be equally borne and the rights and privileges of membership equally shared by statute. Yet there are some in this House who are prepared to deny, by statute, that right to working people. You know, I think that's just ridiculous and I think it's an extremely biased and unfair point of view.

I just want to refer, Mr. Chairman, to a strange and dangerous development that is taking place in the field of labour relations that was touched on by hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan. We have a situation in the North Cariboo around Burns Lake and Quesnel, particularly, where you have a group that is well financed and well organized and has skilled legal help. They call themselves DARE. They're an orang-utan group of union-busting vigilantes who are supposedly not acting on behalf of the employer, but are acting on their own.

They did their thing up at Burns Lake and they managed to break the union. They did not break the certification application by the IWA - that was successful - but the collective bargaining process. This group made a farce of that, because, as the member for Revelstoke Slocan said - and I have the exact words here somewhere - a lawyer, W.R. Hibbert, goes to a meeting of the employees, representing DARE, and he tells them: "It doesn't matter what agreement may be presented to you or how good it may be. If it's a union agreement, reject it.11

Now when this happens the protection of the Labour Code is lost pretty much so far as the employees are concerned because DARE will deny that it is acting on behalf of an employer. I've forgotten the section number, but I think most of the unfair labour practices that are contained in the Code begin with the words, "No employer and no one acting on behalf of an employer" shall do certain things, including using intimidation and slander and various unfair practices to deny either a trade union organization or fair collective bargaining.

But when you have a group of well-financed interlopers.... When I say well financed, you only have to look at the ads they present throughout the interior, in the Prince George Citizen and many other papers, showing that they have collected a lot of money. From what source nobody knows. They won't dare reveal where their money is coming from. They have money to hire a lawyer. After certification was granted to local 1-424 of the IWA, this group, with the help of their lawyer, W.R. Hibbert of Prince George, fomented a strike of the dissident employees - those Employees who in the certification proceedings had not voted or indicated their wishes to have a union.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Where is the proof of that?

MR. MACDONALD: Where's the proof of that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That Hibbert fomented any strike. He didn't. You better be careful, because you're being very sloppy in what you

[ Page 1585 ]

are saying. It's typical of the kind of debate we are getting from you in the House this year. Now be careful.

MR. MACDONALD: I am amazed at how chippy the minister chooses to be.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You are prepared to do anything in order to make your point whether it is true or not.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm tired of the petulant arrogance of this government. When you raise a point in this House, they say: "Oh, you better be careful." It's a Big Brother, arrogant government and a chippy attitude that I'm not prepared to accept.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If you want to sit down I'll answer you.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not prepared to abandon free speech.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Sit down and I will answer you right now.

MR. MACDONALD: As long as I get the floor again. I'd like to hear what you're trying to say in the middle of my making a point.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You were making a point at the risk of straying too far from what the truth is, as a matter of fact.

MR. MACDONALD: What is the truth?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I happen to have investigated this case in which you are raising these accusations, and I know that what you say is not true. As a matter of fact there was a work stoppage at that particular plant and it was against the advice of their lawyer. So be careful about referring to people who foment strikes.

MR. MACDONALD: I am going to resume what I was saying. The dissident employees who joined in the group called DARE conducted an illegal picket line at Decker Lake Forest Products Ltd. at Burns Lake. Now if that was against the advice of their lawyer.... The lawyer seems to be the chief instrument in organizing that group. He's the one who has written letters on their behalf. He's the one who went down to Dunkley at Quesnel and interviewed employees of Dunkley with a legal stenographer to take it all down in shorthand. If he is saying now that he didn't advise on this particular incident of the illegal picket line, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to investigate further and find out who he does represent.

Who has contributed the very large sums of money that have gone into advertising for DARE on a union-busting spree in the interior? Who is doing it? Where does that money come from? Why does the Minister of Labour act so cavalier when I suggest to him what is happening? You have an interloping group, well financed and with legal advice, coming into the collective bargaining process and saying they are not the employer, and they are obviously not a union or incorporated. There's no indication whatsoever of where their funds are coming from, and they are interfering in the collective bargaining process saying, "Don't sign a union contract whatever its terms may be, " and having members of DARE going around slandering other employees who want the benefits of the Labour Code of British Columbia. That should be no crime but they are called communists and other things for their efforts.

I want to read this report of what happened at the Dunkley lumber mill. After DARE had broken the process of collective bargaining at Burns Lake, this is what they did. This is from a radio report of the incident and I have no reason to doubt that it is correct:

, "A group of employees from the Dunkley lumber mill, about 20 kilometres north of Quesnel, this morning quickly adjourned a meeting in Quesnel which was called by the International Woodworkers of America. The union had obtained certification from the Labour Relations Board two weeks ago, but the group is saying they want a secret ballot to determine whether they want the union or not. The meeting today was abruptly adjourned as the group outnumbered other employees."

Mr. Chairman, here is a group, as I say, financed from some hidden sources and with a lot of money to spend, having managed to stave off a union contract at Burns Lake - find I would have thought the minister would be very concerned about that because I think the object of the Code is to protect and to promote collective bargaining and collective agreements, or it should be - this group goes down to where there is another certification, near Quesnel, and moves in and talks individually to the employees, with a lawyer and a legal secretary in attendance, sees them at their homes at night, advertises, gets out their propaganda and then works out a plan.

Now the minister may tell me their lawyer didn't agree with this plan either, I don't know. All I know is that he's their lawyer and they seem to be taking his advice on most

[ Page 1586 ]

things. I'm rather surprised to think they're not taking it on all. They go into a properly organized meeting called by the certified bargaining agent to discuss the terms of settlement that they might propose to the employer, and then what do they do? Do they engage in a discussion about terms of collective bargaining? No, they get enough of a majority to abruptly adjourn the meeting. And what happens to free speech in that situation? They abruptly adjourn the meeting. The union spokesmen have nothing to say because there is no longer any meeting. Those who favour the trade union have nothing to say; their meeting has been disrupted by non-members, dissident employees, well financed and well organized by this organization DARE.

Now what I'm saying to the minister is a very serious point. For the first time, we have an outside group intervening in the collective bargaining process between employees and employer. It is an outside group of well-financed, union-busting vigilantes. They may be able to prevent a union here or a union there, but in the long run they are going to do irreparable harm to the collective bargaining process.

The minister ought to stand up and tell us what he proposes to do about it. I don't think that as the Code stands at the present time it is adequate to protect the interests of employees who are exercising their democratic right to belong to a union and to bargain collectively. So I am specifically asking the minister what he plans to do about what is a very dangerous development in the field of industrial relations.

MR. SHELFORD: I had not intended to say a word on this this afternoon until the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) got up, and I'm sorry he's not here. He makes everything sound extremely simple but it certainly is not as simple as he tried to point out to the House this afternoon.

I've certainly never at any time supported the right to work legislation because in a number of areas, there is no question, it certainly does not work. However, he says joining the union and the right to join the union is as democratic as a provincial or federal election, which is certainly not true at all. An awful lot of those people up north don't even get the right of a vote at all. Where is the democracy when they're not allowed a vote at all? So I do not see how he compares it with a federal or provincial election.

No one, thank goodness, stops anyone from joining a political party. But they do stop people from joining the union, which is quite a lot of difference.

I personally have no objection whatsoever to anyone who happens to join a union if they decide to take the union course, and I never have. That's their right. However, I do object to unions with headquarters in the lower mainland saying to northern workers: "Not only shall you not work, but you haven't even got the right to join the union." I don't think this is good enough.

I know of a number of cases where they have actually sent the money back. That happened right in Terrace a very short time ago. It happened at Kitwanga last summer when three Indian boys went to work for the Highways ministry and they were told to go home or the whole unit would go on strike because they had men in Vancouver who had seniority, which is quite true. They wouldn't allow these three Indian fellows to join.

I don't know where the democracy is that my friend from Revelstoke-Slocan talks about when they don't even allow these people to join so they have a vote. No wonder, I would say, that the northern people and especially the native Indian people are demanding change. That's one of the reasons, unfortunately, why many turn to such things as right to work.

I would certainly hope - and I have asked on many occasions - that the unions themselves will come to grips with this issue. I know my friend from Prince Rupert, if he had been up there recently, knows this is a very serious thing, the same as our friend from Atlin, where the large unions in Vancouver that have a lot of men unemployed will not allow northerners to go to work. There is no %, my they are allowed to join. I think every one of us should be concerned.

I will have to say, first of all, that the IWA is democratic because anyone is allowed to join the IWA. Furthermore, they expect them, after they go to work, to join after 30 days. I've got no objection to this if it is a union job. I've got no objection. But I do object to union bosses sitting in Vancouver and telling northern people they shall not go to work and, furthermore, they won't let them join the union. This is something that has to be changed. I certainly appeal to the unions themselves to stand up and make these changes or they're inviting government action in the future.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I hope we don't get off this very important topic which has been started here, but I would like to ask a brief question. It also deals with the Labour Relations Board.

Over a year ago - in fact on December 21

[ Page 1587 ]

1976 the workers at the Nelson Medical Associate Clinic were certified with the IWA. They tried to get a first collective agreement and I don't believe they were successful. I think a decision was reached in conjunction with those workers and also between the IWA and the hospital workers union that the hospital workers union would be a more appropriate union for these people to be associated with than the IWA.

It's my understanding that an affiliation vote was held, I believe in February, and that there were two choices on the ballot - whether they wished to continue as members of the IWA or whether they wished to affiliate with the hospital workers union. The hospital union was the unanimous choice.

It's my understanding that the lawyer for the Medical Associate Clinic, Mr. Micky Moran, has been objecting that there was not a third choice on the ballot, which I presume would have been to discontinue union affiliation. There appears to be a tremendous delay. The workers have expressed their concern to me this past weekend. It would seem to me that it's always been very clear under either previous legislation or the present legislation that there is a difference between an affiliation vote and a certification vote.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The question which they wanted to know and which they asked me is: Who is more powerful -Mr. Moran, the council or the government? Is the government afraid? I'm relaying the feelings of some of the workers who came to see me about this. The minister might recall that last year during estimates, Scott Wallace, when he was a member for Oak Bay, also brought up the matter at that time. There were some breaches of the Labour Code right in the journal of the B.C. Medical Association, where some very strong and charged language was used, perhaps not knowingly or deliberately. Even the former member for Oak Bay took very strong exception to the type of treatment that these people were getting in seeking union affiliation.

I would like the minister to outline, so that I might report back to these people, just where there can possibly by any problem in granting a reaffiliation to a group that was certified with the IWA on December 21,1976, in a certification vote and then underwent a government-supervised vote to determine affiliation with two clear choices, and with the hospital union being the unanimous choice. Why have they not been affiliated and the hospital workers union been made the union with responsibility for these people? I see the minister is consulting with his deputy on this.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Who has the certification, Lorne?

MR. NICOLSON: The IWA had the original certification. They originally went to the IWA. I think they went to the local labour council, and an IWA business agent, being available, went through the initial actions. I don't believe the IWA is contesting this; it appears to be hung up because of some objections of the counsel for the Medical Associate Clinic, as I understand it.

Really, there actually were some unfair labour practices in the original instance. I can understand them happening quite often when an employer is not completely familiar with the Labour Relations Act. This thing has not had a very long history. They were certified, I understand, on December 21,1976, with the IWA. The government-supervised reaffiliation vote has been held some months past. There are objections from the counsel, Mr. Micky Moran of Castlegar, of Moran, Geronazzo. People are quite concerned as to why there should be such a long delay in reaching a decision on this matter, as they have been without any type of an agreement for some time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the medical clinic situation in Nelson. I have watched it develop from the time it was certified by the IWA, and the differences of opinion there were as to which union was properly to represent the employees in the unit. It was my understanding that the Hospital Employees' Union now has the certification and I would have expected them to be negotiating for a collective agreement. But I was unaware that there was any continuing problem, Mr. Chairman, and I'll get an immediate report and advise the member.

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for that response. I'll just say that last Friday evening two workers from the clinic came to my office and brought this information to me, so I would appreciate it being looked into.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to discuss another aspect of the minister's jurisdiction, and that's in relation' to his office as the person in cabinet responsible for Indian matters.

In October of last year the minister made a statement on radio saying that as far as he was concerned, any question of an aboriginal claim to the province of British Columbia ter-

[ Page 1588 ]

minated at the time of the terms of union of this province with Canada. It came as a surprise not only to members of the Indian community, but also to other political parties in the province, who saw the Social Credit candidates in 1975 campaigning or at least basing their appeal to Indians on recognition of that claim and negotiations based on that claim once the Social Credit government took office.

It came as a total surprise and, in fact, a betrayal of the Indians who supported that government and all Indians in the province when, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, a government simply closed the door on the question of negotiations based on aboriginal title.

Now governments in the past have waffled and dodged on the issue, and have tried to shuffle it off on the federal government, and have refused to recognize an obligation on the part of the province to negotiate aboriginal claims. But at no time was the door ever closed as directly as was done by that minister back in October, 1977. It came as quite a shock, and most Indian people in the province saw it as a betrayal of the government's promise to negotiate that claim, particularly with the Nishga.

The minister said at the same time that he would negotiate other issues, other outstanding grievances, economic problems, the fact that Indians suffer from problems involving welfare and standards of education - this type of thing. He also said he would negotiate problems of access to common property resources, like hunting, trapping and fishing - that type of thing. The minister also said he would become involved in negotiations around economic development projects and training programmes that would encourage economic development.

So I would like to ask the minister a direct question, just to see if he will get on the record in this House: what is the government's position on aboriginal title in the province of British Columbia?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Now the minister said he was going to encourage and negotiate with Indian groups around the question of economic development. What economic development projects are currently being negotiated? What is the government doing specifically in the area of Indian economic development? As far as we have seen, very little is being done by this provincial government to encourage or to enhance Indian economic development. In fact, some of the projects that had gone ahead under the previous government are now sagging a little bit as a result of the lack of government interest in that area.

The NDP's position on aboriginal title is that there is an aboriginal claim to British Columbia, and a responsibility on the part of the provincial government to negotiate that claim. That's the policy of our party and it still stands as the policy of our party.

In fact it is the aboriginal claim which is the basic inequity and the outstanding grievance that must first be solved before you can successfully proceed with negotiations based around those other issues. So I would like to have the minister answer that question.

All over the world, countries and states and jurisdictions are dealing with this question. The state of Alaska, Australia, the state of Maine, all the states in the United States are approaching this issue of aboriginal claim to those states and aboriginal claim in those areas.

It's the two areas where the government has been approached on economic issues that I'd like to discuss today, and I would like to find out just exactly what is happening in those areas. One probably should have been discussed under the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , because it involves negotiations with the Moutcha band over the Captain Cook celebrations. It looks like the government, in an attempt to buy co-operation in that area, proposed something like a $100,000 contribution towards a longhouse at Friendly Cove. This is the kind of beads-and-trinkets approach that seems to have been adopted by this government in their dealings with Indian bands. In order to try and buy their cooperation they've adopted a beads-and-trinkets approach, and the Moutchas rightly turned down that offer. What the Moutchas did demand, however, was economic development and a proposal for economic development in exchange for their co-operation in the Captain Cook Bicentennial. They proposed to the Provincial Secretary and to other members of that government that the government assist them in purchasing five fishboats.

Now at the turn of the century, the Moutcha band, or the Nootka band as it was called at that time, had 25 fish boats, and all of the employable people were involved in the fishing industry. There was no unemployment at Nootka at that time. From the time of the turn of the century down to 1977 or 1978, whenever these negotiations were taking place, the Moutcha band now has no fishboats.

No one in the Moutcha band owns a fishboat. They called for five in their negotiations with the provincial government, and the cost

[ Page 1589 ]

of a boat has increased substantially since the turn of the century. It costs something like $100,000 now to become involved in the purchase of the fish boat, so what they were asking was something like $500,000. Immediately they made the demands the Provincial Secretary said they were irresponsible, that the government was willing to make an offer of $100,000, but the Nootka demands went right out of sight and at that point negotiations ceased.

They were cut off completely. She could have come back and made an offer for seed money to get involved in these fishboats, or for assistance with the federal government to get involved in a programme to get the Moutcha band back involved in the fishing industry as owners of boats. Yet immediately they made the proposal to the ministry, negotiations ceased and now the co-operation of the Moutcha band is almost out of the question in this Captain Cook celebration. In fact what they're asking for from the provincial government now, and are unlikely to get, is money to present their side of the story - what they feel is the truth about the history of this province from the time of Captain Cook's arrival back in 1778.

Another area where people seem to have had some difficulty in dealing with the minister is in the Nazko-Kluskus area. In fact they have difficulty in dealing with their own MLA. When they write letters to him, they get no response.

When they were dealing with the NDP prior to 1975, at least there were negotiations being carried on. We imposed a moratorium in that area. People from the government approached the Nazko and Kluskus bands to find out exactly what their demands were in that area and exactly what demands could be met by the provincial government. There was some involvement in discussion between those bands and the provincial government as to how to handle logging operations which were an incursion into the homeland of the Nazko and Kluskus peoples.

The Nazko and Kluskus people rightly saw this incursion of logging operations as destructive or potentially destructive to the way of life they enjoyed, which in part was subsistence hunting and fishing and a bit of subsistence farming. They wanted to be involved in the decision making around resource management in the Nazko and Kluskus homeland. Now when I talked to the representatives of the Nazko and Kluskus bands last year after their discussions with the minister, they said that as far as they were concerned they were back prior to 1972 in the position they enjoyed with the government at that time. I'm wondering what has taken place in the Nazko and Kluskus areas to assist them in becoming involved in the industry, and becoming involved in resource decisions which affect the lands they claim and the lands they consider their homelands. What has the minister done to assist the members of those bands in becoming involved in resource allocation decisions in those PSYUs?

Another thing is in relation to the cut-off lands. When the NDP government was in office a special commission was set up on which the Indians were represented and the government was represented, and an independent chairman was chosen by the two groups. When the Socreds came to office, of course, they sacked the commission and now they've entered into negotiations between the provincial government and the individual bands. But I understand that the government is now asking the bands to set up a corporation, so that rather than those lands being held under the Indian Act as Indian reserves, since according to the Act it's my understanding that any land acquired by Indians becomes Indian reserve, the government is suggesting that those lands now be held by a corporation owned by the Indians, so that it will be subject to provincial taxation, subject to provincial and municipal zoning bylaws, and in fact will essentially be the privately held provincial land, rather than Indian reserve land.

One of the objections the Indian people have to this situation is that they feel that taxes on Indian lands are unfair because of the level of services to Indians. The minister mentions this himself in the question of the lack of government attention to Indian concerns, social problems and economic problems. Indians rightly feel that because of the level of services going to Indians, taxes on Indian lands and Indian employment on Indian lands is unfair, because they're not receiving the benefits from that tax revenue in proportion to the amount of tax they pay. This has been an outstanding grievance by Indians on Indian reserves, that they have to pay sales tax. For example, in the store on the Pachena reserve near Bamfield they pay sales tax on everything that's taxable provincially and yet the amount of service that reserve receives from the province in proportion to the tax they pay is unfair. They don't receive any services at all. Whenever that band approaches the provincial government, they're told to go down to the First Citizens Fund, and when they approach the First Citizens Fund on an issue which involves economic development, they're told that they're not going to get the money. That's where it stands with the First Citizens

[ Page 1590 ]

Fund.

So they feel, and rightfully so, that taxes paid on Indian land are unfair and that they should be waived on Indian land because they don't receive the services that those taxes are designed to pay for. So I would like to know just what the status is now on the cutoff lands. Is the provincial government demanding that the Indian bands involved in the cut-off lands settlement set up a corporation to receive those lands and to hold them as a private corporation not under the Indian Act?

Also, how many bands have received lands back from the provincial government, lands which were taken away from them illegally and contrary to the terms of reference of the McKenna-McBride commission and contrary to the recommendations of the McKenna-McBride commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt, without being overly long, to correct the serious misapprehensions which the member for Port Alberni has with respect to the Indian policies of this government, and his complete and abysmal ignorance of the Indian affairs policies of the former government. He doesn't know what his own party's position is because, quite frankly, with respect to aboriginal claims, the position of the NDP was precisely the same as it is of this government today. It is not recognized by the NDP government, and speeches made by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Barrett) when he was the Premier make this abundantly clear - speeches throughout the length and breadth of this province, as a matter of fact.

The situation is quite clear. If aboriginal rights ever existed with respect to land in this province, then to the extent that they were not extinguished prior to the colony of British Columbia becoming a province, the responsibility for the extinguishment rests with the federal government. That is the policy of this government and that is the policy of the previous government, clearly stated in correspondence between the responsible ministers of that government - or I assume they were responsible - and the federal government. I wish that if the member is going to make speeches in respect to a matter as significant as this, he'd at least understand what the situation was.

He suggests that it was a campaign promise of the Social Credit Party in the last election that we would solve the aboriginal claims. That's not true at all. The printed literature of the party makes it quite clear that the promise was related to cut-off lands and that we said that we would involve ourselves in direct negotiations between the Indians and the federal government in the resolution of the cut-off land problem. We have, a step that was never taken by the former government; in fact it was denied by the former government in the documentation that they entered into with the Indians themselves.

They excluded the federal government, a very necessary party, in the resolution of that cut-off land settlement. As a result, we have made significant progress, both with the national government and the province, and with the Indian bands themselves, not by establishing some commission which was going to go off and make examinations of matters, the answers to which were right in these parliament buildings, right in records that are here. You were going to spend tens of thousands of dollars going on some province-wide hunt for material which is right in the hands of government ministries.

As a result, we have spent our time in bringing ourselves close to settlement. The settlement is quite clear; it has been clearly spelled out as to what the positions of the two governments are with regard to this. The province of British Columbia is prepared to give back all of the cut-off lands save that which has been alienated and that which has been sold or leased. All land goes back to the Indians - all of it. The federal government has agreed to negotiate compensation with the Indians for that land that can't be returned, and that's their responsibility.

For those lands that the province would like to retain, we are prepared to sit down and negotiate with the Indian bands and pay them at fair market, current value for those lands. For lands that have been in any way diminished by use, we're prepared to pay them on the basis of independent appraisal for the diminishment of that value and for the funds that were retained by the province out of the terms of the arrangement with the national government, they are to be returned to the Indians with interest for all of the period of time that those moneys have been kept by the provincial government. In every respect, the two governments are prepared to return to the Indians and restore them to the position as much as is humanly possible for the breach of the arrangements made at the time of McKenna and McBride.

MR. SKELLY: When?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Now the member shouts across the chamber, "How soon?" The answer to that is quite clear: as soon as the Indians are prepared to accept the concepts that were

[ Page 1591 ]

placed before the 22 bands earlier this year. The provincial and federal position was presented to the Indian bands in writing and we're waiting for the Indians to advise us. There have been two meetings since that date. They are seeking further clarification of a position taken by the federal government. They are taking no position with regard to the offer made by the provincial government. We're prepared to accept it today. As soon as the Indians are prepared to accept the principles of the agreement, then we will return the land, we will put up the money and we will conclude, band by band, those specific negotiations which are necessary in order to complete the appraisals and restore to them money compensation.

Now there is no insistence on the part of the province of British Columbia that any lands that they get be placed in the hands of a corporation - none whatsoever. But we have offered to the Indians the opportunity of taking, instead of dollar compensation, additional lands, because this is what the Indians seem to desire more than anything else. We say with respect to additional lands that they receive, outside of the limits of their reserve, that we would like them to consider the value to them of placing them in a corporation rather than as part of the reserves. But that's not exclusive. It's another opportunity which is being extended to them in the resolution of this long, outstanding problem, a problem which has existed for more than 60 years. I would hope that the member would take the time to look at the material and do his homework. We will consider in the fullness of time who is the betrayer as far as the Indians are concerned in this whole problem.

The Nazko-Kluskus. The former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources - the $80,000 man of the NDP - was the one who made the decision that in the interests of the forest resource of the province of British Columbia, forestry operations had to move into the Nazko-Kluskus area. In the best interests of the timberlands of this province, they had to stop the overcutting that was then taking place in the Quesnel area and extend to the Nazko-Kluskus. As a result of representations that were made by the Indians at that particular time, there was a moratorium placed on those lands - absolutely right - and a study was undertaken. Having had the study and the recommendations, the question was: how could those lands be best utilized in the interests of the forest industry of the province of British Columbia and to the people who occupy those lands, both Indian and non-Indian, taking into account the best interests of the entire community?

Now the MLA for the Cariboo, the hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , and I met with the Indian people and with representatives of the Forest Service. We agreed that there would be established a community committee composed of representatives of the Indian people and others who live in the Nazko-Kluskus area, non-Indians included, to determine what was the best way of harvesting the resources from that area which would ensure that the Indian land would not be disturbed, that some significant archaeological sites would be identified and that all the logging operations would take place in such a way that these matters would be taken into account.

The hon. Minister of Forests accepted the recommendations made to him in this respect and engaged to work with his ministry and with the Indians a qualified person to work out a plan. The Indians wouldn't play the game. The Indians didn't want to come to the committee. The Indians didn't want to have a say in the operation of those lands. They have been offered it and offered it and offered it.

Today, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation and the rest of the ministries who are involved in this government are prepared to sit down and discuss with the residents of that area, Indian and non-Indian alike, the best utilization programme there can be for the harvesting of the forest resource in the Nazko-Kluskus region. That offer stands, but if the people won't come forward and take the opportunity that the offer provides for them, there is no alternative but for the Forest Service to do its logging plans based upon the best advice that it can obtain. That's the situation so far as the Nazko-Kluskus area is concerned -an opportunity which was made available to those people of that area, Indian and non-Indian alike, which was never offered to them by the former government.

Taxes on Indian land. You talk about social services tax. I would have thought that the member would know that social services tax was never a tax intended to return services to land. The social services tax is intended to return services to people. As a matter of fact, the member should also know that the Indians in this province and the non-status Indians are entitled to all of the services that any other citizen in the province of British Columbia is entitled to have. They have been made available through the Ministry of Human Resources, the Ministry of Education

[ Page 1592 ]

- every one of the ministries makes services available to Indian people the same way as any other resident of this province. That's what the social services tax is intended to provide. In addition to that, the Indian people receive services from the national government, no question about it.

But the Indian people have to take time -and this is no criticism of them - to recognize the opportunities that are available to them from the government of the province of British Columbia. That's what my responsibility as the Minister for Indian Affairs is in this government.

Regularly Indian groups come to my office because they have questions about health services, economic development, human resources whatever the case may be - and I tell them and I tell them clearly it is not the intention of this government to form a Ministry of Indian Affairs. And they applaud because they don't want to be treated as they have been by the national government. But it is my responsibility to ensure that, to the extent that they require, every assistance will be made avail able to ensure that they receive those services from every department of government available to the citizens of this province Indian status Indian, non-status Indian alike, we make no distinction. I wish that our national government could say the same.

Interjection.

HON. M. WILLIAMS: Oh, there is the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . They are bound by the law, but the Department of Indian Affairs makes arbitrary decisions which result in the strange situation that if an Indian woman marries and leaves the reserve, she loses her status, while a person with no Indian blood at all can marry into an Indian family, move onto a reserve and become a status Indian. That's the kind of arbitrary decision which is made by the federal government - the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development - and yet other departments of the national government recognize the non-status Indians and fund them throughout the length and breadth of the province of British Columbia.

Yes, there is a great need for clarification of the Indian problem in the province of British Columbia. Unfortunately it is not being helped by members of the opposition who seem to hold themselves out as Indian affairs experts - I wish that they would take the time to study very carefully the records of performance of this and previous governments over the decades and recognize the enormity of the problem which faces the people of British Columbia in resolving these important matters as they affect those of our citizens who are Indian.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I noticed that when the member opened up his speech, he said that Social Credit policy with regard to the aboriginal claim in British Columbia is exactly the same as the New Democratic Party policy with regard to aboriginal claims in British Columbia. That statement is totally false. And then he goes on to cite speeches made around this province by our leader when he was Premier of the province. He didn't table any of those statements or cite any of those statements...

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I will, if you want.

MR. SKELLY: ... but it's totally false. That is not our position on the matter of Indian claims. And if you'd like to see our position, I'd be willing to table that as party policy in the House. It hasn't changed between then and now. But he was very careful to say that nobody in Social Credit made a written promise on the question of the general aboriginal claim to British Columbia; he was careful to say that the only written promises made were with regard to the cut-off lands and that they would get involved in direct negotiations on the cut-off lands. And then he proceeded to attack the NDP government of the time for setting up a commission to study the whole issue. The first time that issue of the cut-off lands was opened by a provincial government in 53 years was under an NDP government. For the first time in 53 years, during which that abuse persisted, it was opened in justice to the Indians of this province, from whom those lands were stolen without their consent. The intention was announced that those lands were to be returned to the Indians. And a commission was established to provide Indian representation, government representation and an independent chairman to study how those lands should be returned to the Indian people of the province - for the first time since the McKenna-McBride commission was struck in 1922. That was NDP policy.

Today they have not followed through. He talked a lot about what he was prepared to do and what they were studying doing, and what they might do, but nothing in the way of cut-off lands has yet been returned to the Indians in this province from whom those lands were stolen.

[ Page 1593 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They can have it tomorrow.

MR. SKELLY: They can have it tomorrow, provided they agree to the conditions which you've prescribed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, they accept in principle the concept of the settlement.

MR. SKELLY: And then, on the Nazko-Kluskus, they set up a committee on which the Indians, I believe, were allowed one representative and it was - as the Indians heard about it - only an advisory committee, which would have no impact and no effect whatsoever. The final decision, according to the people in the Nazko-Kluskus bands, was to be made by the Forest Service; it was to be made in cabinet by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) . Why take part in that? It's just simple tokenism and all this government is offering to the Lians at any time is pure tokenism, except the things that were initiated by the New Democratic Party. The rest is simply tokenism.

The decision made by the former minister was to impose a moratorium and to analyse the situation in the Nazko-Kluskus area. The moratorium went on for some time. Even the forest companies in the area supported Indian involvement in decisions with regard to resource allocation. Even the forest companies went along with it. It was a darned good idea. In fact, it should be policy of the government throughout the province to get citizens - and I'm talking about Indians and non-Indians alike - involved in the allocation of the resources of this province, particularly the forest resources because they do affect the aboriginal claim in the province of British Columbia.

Yet nowhere in the new Act or in the Forest Service is effective public input allowed. There is no change as far as the Indian people of this province are concerned and there is no positive change as far as the people of Nazko Kluskus are concerned. That is why they say that in their situation with regard to the provincial government and resource allocation in their homeland, they are back where they were prior to 1972. The Social Credit government has been a waste of their time and a loss of their homeland and a loss of their re-sources.

The minister talked about the $80,000 member for Vancouver East. I'd like to find out how much money the former Premier of the province, W.A.C. Bennett, paid to have his kid made Premier of this one. We tried to reduce his salary to $3 and I think that would have covered it in Terms of the value of that member.

MR. KING: How much does it cost to buy a Liberal these days?

MR. SKELLY: Oh, if you want to get down to that, I talked to his former campaign chairman when he was a Liberal. The reason why he changed over was because he wasn't getting enough as a Liberal backbencher. That's why he bought into the Social Credit cabinet. That comes from his own organization.

It's disgusting the way this minister twists things around that are brought up as serious issues in the House. He twists them around and doesn't tell the truth about the policy of the previous government. He accused me of the same thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll have to ask the member to withdraw that.

MR. SKELLY: I withdraw.

He misleads, whether wittingly or not...

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Make him withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: ... about the policy of the previous government with regard to Indian matters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: That's not on the list.

And then he follows a policy which is simply tokenism with regard to Indian matters in this province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't recall wittingly misleading the House but I suspect the member did it half-wittingly. The member for Alberni is a half-wit anyway so that's all one can expect, I suppose.

MR. SKELLY: I won't ask you to withdraw. I'll consider the source.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll have. to ask the minister to withdraw the last statement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Is it unparliamentary to call the member for Alberni a half-wit?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that it is.

MR. SKELLY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 1594 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If it is unparliamentary, then I certainly do withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The remark is withdrawn. The member for Alberni on a point of order.

MR. SKELLY: It may be unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, but it is uncharacteristic of that minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MRS. WALLACE: I had the opportunity to be in Quesnel last week and talked with the chief of the Nazko-Kluskus. I would suggest that the minister is completely out of touch with what is happening in that area.

The member for Alberni has drawn the picture very clearly: you give the so-called opportunity to one or two people to sit on a committee that is completely overweighted and where there is no way their input is going to have any real, meaningful influence on the decision-making process. It is no wonder that those people are declining the so-called opportunity to join in those deliberations.

I'm surprised that the minister thinks himself such an authority that he can stand up and say that the aboriginal rights were lost at the time of Confederation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't say that.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm reading from your own statement.

The Supreme Court of Canada did not make that decision. They could not decide. This has to be, because the courts cannot decide it, a political decision, and in your statement of January 10,1978, you have come out very clearly indicating that you will not recognize aboriginal rights. That is a political decision you have made, Mr. Minister, through the Chairman, and I suggest that it has taken us way back down the trail where we have been struggling to gain some kind of relationship and understanding with our native people. It's turned the clock back, Mr. Chairman, and those people are becoming very discouraged. That minister, with that one statement, has done more to foster the era of confrontation that is presently existing in this province with the native Indian people than any other one thing has done. I am very concerned at this attitude that has been evidenced by this government.

The one thing that that minister did accomplish was the meeting in January of 1976. 1 would like to point out to the House that that meeting was set up by the former administration and he simply capitalized on the work that was done by the former minister responsible for native Indian affairs in this province. That minister had refused to meet in private meetings with the federal government to come to any prearranged decision. That minister said: "No, we will meet in a triparty negotiation, equal and fair - native Indians, federal government and provincial government." it was not until December 2, after the election was called in 1975, that the then minister Buchanan finally agreed to this. It was a long, hard struggle carried on on behalf of the native Indians in this province by the former minister that set up that meeting that that minister capitalized on, and it died. He had one meeting, and nothing happened. Then we get these kinds of statements about not recognizing aboriginal rights. I think that has set back the whole case of Indian relationships in this province farther than I even care to think about.

I have one particular thing relative to native Indians that concerns my own area very much. The minister is probably going to say that it's not his responsibility, but he is the minister responsible for Indian affairs. We have a situation where there is no funding available for a native friendship centre in the Cowichan Valley. That, group is being told by other authorities that they can go to Nanaimo or come to Victoria, and they are a month and a half behind with even their payroll in that centre. I suggest to that minister, Mr. Chairman, that that native friendship centre in the Cowichan Valley is an extremely essential organization that must be carried on. It can't carry on without funds.

We have, as I am sure the minister is aware, a very large native Indian population in that area. That friendship centre is carrying on untold numbers of good, valuable programmes that are doing a great deal to take loads off the hospitals, the courts, and the whole social service situation in the Cowichan Valley, and we find it in a position of having to close its doors because there is no fun-ding. Because the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is tossing the thing around and there are no funds available there, I think this minister, as the minister responsible for Indian affairs, must step in and do something about some funding for that centre.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Where is it?

MRS. WALLACE: The Cowichan Valley.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Where is it located?

[ Page 1595 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Duncan.

That is all I want to say about the native Indian responsibility of this minister, but I would like to turn to a couple of other matters.

One of them relates to his responsibility with the Workers' Compensation Board. We've heard a lot of talk in this House about the delay in appeals, and there have been a lot of reasons advanced as to why that happens. The minister has assured us that he has appointed another chairman and that this thing is all rolling along very nicely now. Well, that doesn't seem to be the case, Mr. Chairman. The delays are still there. I don't know if it is because of lack of personnel on the board, because you can't have a board even if you have a chairman if you don't have enough bodies to make up that appeal board. I have several cases that have come to my attention in the last few months where those delays are still lasting and lasting and lasting.

There was one in my own constituency where August 23 was the first application for WCB. He filed a claim. He had no response until September 23. Then he was told it was not a compensatable injury. He complained about this. It happened because he was lifting an 80-pound weight over his head when the accident happened. On October 7, he appealed. He had heard nothing on November 25. He received an apology for the lengthy delay on November 28. This letter said: "The heavy workload and shortage of staff has slowed us down considerably." Time went by again, and up to March of 1978 his appeal had not been heard. This was an accident that took place on August 23. That was a case right in Duncan.

Another case that's come to my attention is the one that was sent to all MLAs. This was a case that had been taken to The Province's Action Line. The injury was on July 25,1977. This letter is dated May 1, and still no action before the appeal board. These delays are inexcusable, Mr. Chairman. Those are human beings out there who are having problems getting enough money together to pay their rent, to pay the payments on their cars, to feed their families. The thing is delayed and delayed. That's in addition to the physical and mental suffering that they're going through because of an injury that's causing them a great deal of discomfort in many instances and certainly making them incapable of continuing as the breadwinner for the family. These delays are inexcusable.

The minister has appointed another chairman, but obviously it's not enough. lie either needs another chairman or he needs more staff for staffing those boards of appeal. He needs something to get away from this thing where the only excuse they have is that they're so overworked that they can't accommodate the cases coming before them.

Another point I wanted to raise deals with the number of accidents that have been occurring in the province. By the minister's own report, there were 7,383 more on-the-job accidents in 1977 than there were the preceding year. This is not a record to be proud of, Mr. Chairman. Those accidents are a loss to our economic return; they are an expense not only to the Employer but to the government and to the taxpayers of this province. That's in addition to the human suffering and often irreparable damage that is done. I would suggest that this minister should be looking at some very strong measures that will prevent that kind of increase in accidents in future years. We must be moving in the direction that will cut back on the number of accidents that take place in the workplace. We must be looking at ways and means of eliminating these things from happening.

We've been doing education things, that's true, but have we really been looking at the conditions in the workplace? If there's a loose step that you can fall over and break a leg, that's very obvious. But there are many things in the workplace that are not so obvious - things like escaping gases, for example. There was a report done, I think it was in the Health and Safety Digest, which talked about "One Killed and Three Injured in Propane Explosion." Those things are not so obvious, and they're much more dangerous.

Other articles and studies that have been done deal with things like cedar poisoning. I can think of one outstanding example in my own area. In the Crofton pulp mill we had an instance of lung damage to an employee in that mill. His case before the WCB went on for more than two years - more like three years. The WCB tried and tried to refuse acceptance of this. That man was tested and tested until I thought he was going to be tested to death. In fact, the number of tests has caused some degree of heart damage. The man had never smoked and yet he was questioned over and over. They kept telling him that he must have been a chain smoker in his early days because of this condition in his lungs. Finally, after three years, that case has been resolved. The WCB has accepted the fact that there are poison gases in that mill that cause that kind of a problem.

I'm talking about this today, Mr. Chairman, because I want that minister to recognize this, to be aware of this. Let us not have a repeat of these long, drawn-out cases. The

[ Page 1596 ]

precedent has been established that those gases are there, that they are hazardous, that they can cause industrial illness. Let us not have a second recurrence where a case like this comes up again and a man is required to go through that kind of long, emotionally disturbing, physically disturbing situation before he is finally awarded a settlement by the WCB. We've established the precedent; let's carry it across the board now and make sure that when that occurs again it's covered.

Even more than making sure when it occurs again, let us make sure, as the people responsible for the legislation in this province, that companies are now allowed to operate parks that have those kinds of conditions existing in them. Let's make sure that we correct those situations because in the long run, it's a whole lot cheaper to prevent those kinds of accidents from occurring than it is to cover the cost involved. Just from a plain dollars and cents point of view, and excluding any of the physical and emotional problems that occur to the worker involved, it's much cheaper to move to prevent those things from happening than to correct them after they have happened.

So I'm urging the minister to ensure that he take Some action to tighten up some of the conditions that are existing in the work place. Industrial good health is one of the prime things that should be considered in this province, particularly when we see that our compensatable accidents have climbed by an amount of nearly 8,000 in one year. There are problems out there, Mr. Chairman; there are problems this minister should be looking at and I would urge him to move into that.

The final thing that I want to speak about has to do with job creation. There has been a plan underway by many of the trade unions in this province in attempting to solve some of the unemployment problems that are facing the citizens of British Columbia. That has to do with the banking of overtime. My own particular union in B.C. Hydro was involved in that kind of a programme, and so was the IBEW. The OTAIU particularly met with some difficulties in getting it established. They think they have finally now established it. But that system of banking overtime - and I'm sure that the minister is aware of this - where if you work 16 hours, you get paid for 16 and the other 16 is simply banked for time off afterwards, could have a very helpful influence on the unemployment problem.

(Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I have some statistics here that were put together by the pulp and paper industrial relations bureau. It lists the percentage of overtime that was worked at various pulp mills in the pulp and paper industry throughout British Columbia for the year 1977, for example. Now the average of the industry was 4.41 per cent overtime work. This ranges from 0.81 per cent at Powell River, which was the best mill, up to 17.9 per cent in the Cariboo operation. Now that amounts to a lot of hours. It is estimated that it would mean about 600 new jobs in the pulp industry itself. 1 would urge this minister to have a long hard look at taking some action that would ensure and encourage this kind of a programme, because management has been the biggest stumbling block in initiating this kind of programme.

Management has been the biggest stumbling block. I would urge the minister to take some moves that would encourage this kind of a programme being adopted as a good long step in the right direction towards helping with the unemployment situation in this province.

MR. GIBSON: I want to return very briefly to the subject of Indian affairs, which was the subject of some emotion in this chamber this afternoon, which is natural. It's a subject with a very long history in this province. I have here a picture of the members of the Nishga land claims committee in a portrait around 1910. It probably has a long future too. I hope not quite so long, but these aren't questions that are quickly worked out. This minister has a very difficult responsibility and the minister of the government previous had a difficult responsibility. I think we can at least welcome the fact that the government of the province of British Columbia has finally assigned this responsibility to a particular minister.

I don't claim to be any kind of an expert whatsoever on Indian affairs. I have some minor experience as executive assistant to the federal minister of Indian Affairs in 1965-67. Based on that experience, I will just give a well-intentioned piece of advice to the minister which I'm sure will be crystal-clear to him from his own extensive experience in negotiations in many sectors of the province, and that is the necessity of preserving mutual dignity in negotiations. I say that in the context of the British Columbia land question, and the whole area of aboriginal rights which has been such a vexatious one for provincial governments and the federal government since Confederation in British Columbia.

I make this proposal: I say that the minister does not have to accept aboriginal rights.

[ Page 1597 ]

1 know that lie's philosophically, I suppose, rather strongly opposed to the concept. But I also say that it would be better if he did not unequivocally reject aboriginal rights, because a rejection of the concept of aboriginal rights leaves one of the parties at the bargaining table - in this case the native people - without the dignity of having a position of entitlement as opposed to a imposition of supplication. As time goes by, there will be gradual settlements of the various outstanding issues in this area of Indian affairs. I'm suggesting that these settlements may come more quickly, and certainly will be more acceptable to both sides of the table if they are seen as entitlements - when the settle ments are made - rather than settlements based on grace and favour, or charity, or whatever label one might put on it.

I won't comment on the past negotiations such as those having to do with the Nishga claims, as I did that at the time. I simply give that, as I say, as a well-intentioned piece of current advice. I would be glad as a very particular question in the area of cutoff lands, because it affects my constituency and the minister's as well, to know if he can give us any specific progress report concerning the cut-off lands under the footings of the Lions Gate Bridge at the north end. It may be that the state of negotiations is such that he can't comment on that. I ask him to do so if he feels he can.

My next general concern touches the minister's responsibility for job creation and employment. The instant concern relates to student summer employment, but the general concern relates to job-creation terms and conditions of all kinds. I have written the minister on this subject in the past, and asked him a question on it in the House, I think a couple of weeks ago, and asked if he will make a statement having to do with the general terms and conditions of employers being able to work with unions for this purpose of securing opportunity particularly for summer student employment, but as I say, job creation plans generally. We've seen various projects around this province founder because of lack of such agreement, and we have a very distinct unemployment problem in this province.

Direct job-creation programmes funded by governments are one of the tactics which our society has settled on in an attempt to meet it. The hope which I know the minister and his ministry have is that areas of friction where bargaining agencies are concerned about the security of their own employees can be settled largely through the collective bargaining process. I agree with the minister; I hope that this will be the route. But increasingly we are going to see job-creation programmes being a part of our attack on the problem of unemployment, and I would ask the minister if he is now ready to do what he forecast in response to the question I gave him in the House a couple of weeks ago, and make some kind of a statement about the general area and perhaps express guidelines that he feels would be suitable for the provision of summer employment, at the same time preserving the integrity of the bargaining unit, with these jobs, of course, generally speaking being outside the bargaining unit or subject to somewhat different rules.

On another area I would ask the minister a question I asked him last August with respect to the labour college. At that time the Vancouver Province of August 5 last quoted the minister as follows: "He said officials of his department are considering some revisions and changes in programme approach to the college. 'I'm expecting a cabinet submission to be placed on my desk any day now to deal with the subject.' " I'd like to ask the minister where this labour college question stands today, how soon he will be able to move on it, and if there has in the meantime been any progress on the related question I asked him last summer of funding for the Institute of Industrial Relations at the University of British Columbia.

Another question follows up on a matter I raised with the minister in the House in question period on April 12. 1 asked the minister about the Kay report, and the minister indicated at that time that the report might not be filed but a statement with respect to the report would be. I'll quote his words exactly: "Recognizing the constraints which the legislation imposes upon me with respect to that report, it may not be filed but a statement will be." I will ask the minister if he would be good enough to give us a progress report on that one as well.

I want to now repeat a plea which I made last year with respect particularly to unorganized workers in our society who have none of the protections afforded by the trade union movement, which is what we tend mostly to concentrate on in debating the minister's estimates when in fact the majority of the workers of the province - over 55 per cent - are not organized and do not have the protection of the trade union movement.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Forty-five is high for Canada.

MR. GIBSON: That's right, Mr. Minister of

[ Page 1598 ]

Mines, but British Columbia, as you know, is higher than the Canadian average in terms of unionization.

I cited to the committee last summer a report presented by the National Council of Welfare entitled "Jobs and Poverty, " which was put together in June of 1977. This report noted that unionized manufacturing workers, for example, earn between 10 per cent and 17 per cent more than non-unionized workers in the same industry, and that there is significantly higher payment of fringe benefits to unionized workers than to non-union workers. The report drew some interesting conclusions. I want to quote one of them: "Improved working conditions, better fringe benefits throughout their working years and a more secure retirement will not come to the working poor through unions as it has for workers in the normal labour market. Instead there must be government action." That is a very important conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and I happen, generally, to endorse it.

I want to ask the minister what kinds of government action he might have in mind; he said in debate on Thursday afternoon that work was well underway on standards legislation. We aren't allowed to discuss the terms of legislation in this committee, but I would ask the minister to give us a reasonably precise forecast, if he could, as to when such legislation might be available for introduction in this chamber by the government. I return again to the position of those in the unorganized part of the labour market, quoting again from that report: "Many of the jobs performed by the working poor are essential to the functioning of our economy. A-11 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 sub-subsidy which stems from the underpayment of their labour." That, I think, is a reasonably good statement of fact in many of the unorganized sectors of our economy. I think it is something that one of these days governments must effectively address.

We've had perhaps two great income redistributions in our society during the 20th century, one of them being from the workers in the economy to people who are less fortunate, those who can't find jobs, through unemployment insurance and the social assistance system, and those who are in need through no fault of their own, again through the social assistance system - handicapped benefits and so on. That's been one.

A second great redistribution, I suppose, came as a result of the activities of the trade union movement, in the form of some transfer of wealth from the capital part of society to the working part of society. It seems to me that there is need for a third important transfer in favour of the unorganized in our society. We have to be realistic, that money can only come from those who are currently more fortunate. That's going to cause some difficulties and it may be that government, through standards legislation, has to take steps to attack this. But a very definite step that can be taken now to attack those kinds of problems, to attack the problems of those in the unorganized sector who are subject to arbitrary dismissal, let's say, can be addressed, if the minister chooses to do so, through the proclamation of Part VIII of the Labour Code, to put in place a labour ombudsman. The labour ombudsman, as the minister knows, has very wide powers to investigate the situation of any working person in the province. I would put it to the minister that now is a good time to proceed with this section. I believe that he and his ministry have had the ramifications of proclamation under study; I would hope that by this time they will have arrived at the conclusion that it would be a good thing to do and I would ask the minister if he would be good enough to tell this committee his current stand on Part VIII and the labour ombudsman.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) thoughtfully raises a number of matters to which I must respond - specifically cut-off lands in his constituency.

The arrangements for settlement of the cut-off land controversy has not yet reached the stage where negotiations with respect to individual parcels of land cut off will be dealt with. I think it is fair to say that there is substantial agreement between the 22 Indian bands, the federal government and the province as to that settlement. I am advised that at the last two meetings of those three parties the only issue was some better understanding and some refinement if not modification of the proposal put forward by the federal government for financial compensation for those lands which cannot be returned. I am reasonably satisfied that all other matters have been resolved.

If that last issue can be resolved, then we will move immediately to restore the lands that have not been disposed of in any way, to repay to the Indians money that has been held from lands which have been sold to compensate them for any of their lands which may have been diminished in value, leaving only this matter of reserve-by-reserve or band-by-band

[ Page 1599 ]

assessment of financial compensation. At that same time, the province will wish to join with the several Indian bands in negotiations to retain those lands which have by reason of their use become identified as public lands, and to arrive at adequate compensation for those which the Indians would agree that we should retain. Particularly with regard to those reserve lands which fall within your constituency, this may involve negotiation with other parties such as the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District for transfer of leases to allow the Indians bands to become in effect the landlord. That is a matter for ongoing discussion. I believe that we are almost complete with the basic principles of the agreement, and it will then take some time, I suspect, to resolve all the separate claims of 22 bands. But the major settlement will be reached and the province in particular will be able to discharge all of its responsibilities under the settlement.

As for the the youth Employment programme and the situation as it exists between employers whose employees are organized, I think the member should be clear that under the regulations that presently exist for the programme, it was believed that we had already accommodated the programme to those where the circumstances might require the involvement of employers and their trade unions.

If the member will remember, the programme is one whereby Employers are invited to apply to have jobs that they are prepared to offer approved for funding under the programme. It must be a job which would not otherwise exist aside altogether from the programme. Therefore it must be a new job. This year it must have a significant training value for the person to be employed. If it fulfils those basic criteria, then the matter can advance.

In the operation of the programme over several years, it has been the practice for the employer to indicate also whether or not the job that is being offered is within the bargaining unit or outside. That is a statement that the employer is asked to make. The officials of the programme have no way of challenging the response one way or the other. As has been the case in the past, if the employer says, "Yes, the job is within the bargaining, " then the application form requires that the trade union also join in the application.

So we thought we had a system whereby difficulties that might arise out of unionization would not affect this programme. This year we find that such is not the case. There are instances when employers have applied for funding and have indicated that the jobs are outside the bargaining unit. Therein lies the issue, because when funding is provided and the union finds out that there is suddenly a claim that the job was within the bargaining unit, there comes a dispute between the employer and the union, and that is grievable under most collective agreements and resolvable by application in the final analysis to the Labour Relations Board. The problem that arises from that is that by the time that process is all finished, the programme has run out and the money has gone unspent - or would have gone unspent except that, recognizing the problems, we have made it quite clear that if there is any delay in the handling of the application and the job is not going to be fulfilled, then we will relocate the funds. This is what we did in the case of the recent dispute involving hospitals.

It is significant, I must say, that we have issues in dispute this year between employers and their unions when last year the same parties had no difficulty with the jobs. It seems to be something different. Whether it's the high levels of unemployment affecting union members, I don't know. At any rate, having thought that we were meeting all of the concerns and finding that such is not the case, this year in the regular post-programme assessment - and we do one every year to see exactly how the programme has worked - there will be an additional term of reference to the assessment programme. We're going to use two law students to do this; we're going to make an analysis of each instance when a job allocation by an employer was not proceeded with because of some union activity. I'm not suggesting there is blame one way or the other. We want to know what the problem is, because when we design the programme next year we want to make sure that we can accommodate to it, if at all possible.

There are cases where unions are saying: "Full-time employees are being laid off or part-time Employees who are union members are being not hired and they are picking up students because it's a cheap rate." Well, that's not acceptable under the programme. It never has been. On the other hand, it has been suggested by some employers that unions are insisting that wage rates be paid which are in excess of those which properly rate the nature of the job and the skills that the young person brings to it. So that has to be resolved. But that's where we are with regard to the youth employment programme.

Officials of the branch meet with the public sector employees' co-ordinating group of all the unions. We're trying, through them, to work out arrangements so that these problems

[ Page 1600 ]

don't arise. By the short duration of the programme, if a problem arises, then it generally results in the job not being filled because we have to fill our jobs very quickly as the period of time is so brief.

If I could say one thing generally about the policy of the government with respect to this programme, it must be recognized that the young person who seeks a job under a programme such as this is probably going into the work force for the very first time. The experience that he receives in this first job is one which can have a lasting impression upon him for the rest of his working career. We want it to be an exciting opportunity, we want it to be one which will be rewarding in the sense of training, and we want the person to be encouraged, having gone through this programme, to seek a full-time place in the labour market.

As the government, we don't wish either the employers or the unions to stand in the way. It is to the advantage of both employers and unions that they make certain that these young people have the fullest opportunity to benefit from this programme. If any union thinks that by standing in the way of a young person gaining some advantage through this programme, they are benefiting themselves, I'd suggest that they should look at it very carefully. That young person, as a future employee, may one day be a future trade union member. There is that possibility. And the unions cannot, on the one hand, come to the steps of this Legislature and demand employment for young persons and at the same time take positions which exclude them from employment just because of the seasonal nature of the opportunity.

The same applies to employers. If we're going to encourage young people to come into the work force, to respect the opportunity, then they've got to make sure that they play fair as well. That's the position of the government.

The Kay report and the Teamsters. No, it is not my intention to file that report, and I can't give the member a precis of it at the moment. We have just received, in the last couple of days, the full decision of the international president of the Teamsters. I'd be happy to make a copy available to the member if he has not seen it. It very significantly modified the impact of the local proceedings here.

I can say this about the Kay report. It was pointed out quite clearly that in addition to the right of appeal to the international president, there were two other avenues still open to Mr. Vlahovic, both of which he had already in part taken. We were advised and Mr. Kay was advised that in anticipation of the international president's decision, Mr. Vlahovic had engaged counsel to contest, if necessary, that decision in the United States' courts. Of course, there is the continuing opportunity that Mr. Vlahovic has, if he is dissatisfied with the result, of returning to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. To that extent the matter, I suppose, in this province is sub judice.

Unorganized workers. It is my hope that we will see labour standards legislation before this House this session. We have a couple of significant areas which are just being resolved and I trust that, within the few weeks available to us, we will see this legislation. Yes, about 45 per cent of our work force is organized in this province and those who are unorganized are entitled to have fairer Employment standards by way of legislation than presently exist. Most of our legislation is very old; regulations are complex and conflicting. It is difficult for employers, and not as fair to the unorganized employee as might otherwise be the case. Areas such as payment of wages, holidays, minimum wage, paternity leave, deceived workmen legislation - the whole range of employment standards - are to be, we think, adequately modernized and Embodied in this new legislation. As I say, I hope to have it before the House shortly.

MR. GIBSON: How about the labour ombudsman?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That still remains under consideration and, quite frankly, I was startled at the member's suggestion that the labour ombudsman would be a proper one to look after the unorganized worker. I must say that I hadn't contemplated extending his role that far, although I know the legislation would perhaps permit it. I suggest that the labour ombudsman would have more than enough to do working with those who are organized, rather than having to concern himself with those who are unorganized. I suspect that the ombudsman will generally find that the legislation we bring in will permit him to assist the unorganized worker.

MR. KING: I will be quite brief. I wanted to respond particularly to remarks made by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) earlier on. I didn't want that text to remain on the record unchallenged or without cement.

I would point out to the members that - as some know of course, and as others may not -there is a sharp difference in the trade union movement between those involved in what are referred to as industrial unions, and those in

[ Page 1601 ]

what are referred to as the building and construction trades. The main difference is that the industrial union members usually work for one employer and they develop their seniority with one employer. As a consequence, they have preference of seniority over new employees. In the building trades and in the construction industry, on the other hand, there is no continuity of the employee-employer relationship. They move from contract to contract and from employer to employer, so that a person who has been a carpenter or a cement mason or a brick layer for 20 or 30 years would, under the terms suggested by my friend from Skeena, have no preference of employment over anyone else in the province.

Now I don't think the member would consider that fair and just. Certainly he would not suggest that a man with 20 years on the railway - such as the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and myself were and will be again some day - should be displaced by a new employee. The opportunity to gain Employment is restricted by the availability of work. To suggest that anyone who applies to be a member of a union goes to work on a project flies in the face of recognizing seniority rights of people who have worked in that industry for many, many years.

The difference is that on the one hand, seniority is established with the trade union because of the lack of any employment relationship on a continuous basis with an employer. In the industrial sector it's true that the seniority is with a single employer. And it's a difficult question. I too have had some disputes about this very thing. I think there is a case to be made in certain public ventures for a division of employment between the normal union members and some people who re-side in a confined local area, perhaps on a work permit basis, so long as they pay their dues and so on. But there's a very significant difference and people should understand that. There's no easy alternative. I certainly don't know what the alternative is.

I suggest, however, the alternative is not to ignore the seniority rights of people who have worked in these trades for many, many years and just say: "We're going to throw your ranks wide open and let anyone who wants join the union and have an equal right to jobs." You can't put more people to work in the final analysis than there are jobs available. I just wanted to make that point, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STEPHENS: I would just like to deal with two subjects with the minister. First of all, I would like to ask the minister if he could tell me whether there is any representation from the ranks of small business on the Labour Relations Board.

I know that the appointments to that board, many of them, have background from the union movement and the labour movement, and many from business, and some, I believe, even from the professional field. I'd like to know whether small business, which employs the greatest percentage of people in this province has any representation on that board at all.

The second matter I'd like to deal with the minister on, Mr. Chairman, is section 36 of the Workers' Compensation Act. This section, the minister will know, is the section that requires an employer to keep certain records and to provide these records to the board at such times as may be required by regulation or by the board.

I'm speaking directly, Mr. Chairman, of a matter involving RAG Trucking Ltd., a company which in 1977 was reassessed. The panel, on examination of the accounting records, adjusted the 1975 assessment of that company upward by the sum of $253.30, a relatively small sum. Unfortunately, the owners of that company and the members of the board dealing with this ran into personal difficulties with each other and tempers got a little hot, and I suspect that proper negotiations broke down because of this difficulty. However, I'm not here to discuss the difficulty; but the net result was that under section 36 (2) of the Act, on April 6,1977, the 1975 assessment was reaffirmed and the company, under section 36 (2) of the Act, was penalized the sum of $1,272. It occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, that to penalize a company that sum of money, $1,272, for not producing records involving an upward assessment of only $253.30 is an abuse of that section.

If we read that section, Mr. Chairman, we find it says:

"Where the employer fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) - that is the failure to produce as required - he is liable to pay and shall pay as a penalty for his default such percentage of the assessment as may be prescribed by regulations, or may be determined by the board."

Now in the plain reading of that section, I would say that the words "liable to pay as a penalty ... such percentage of the assessment" would mean something less than the assessment. In this particular case, the board interpreted that to mean that they had the power to penalize this man 500 per cent of the assessment. Now this man has followed some of the appeal procedures. The appeal procedures have failed to give him any satisfaction. I corresponded for him on his behalf at one time, and I pointed out to the board that in my opinion the

[ Page 1602 ]

gross overreaction on the board's part appears to be vindictive. "A penalty of 500 per cent in our opinion exceeds both your authority and all common sense."

My suggestion to the minister, Mr. Chairman, is first to have a look at this particular matter and to step through the personal animosities that may have existed between the parties involved and determine whether in fact this man has been grossly and unfairly penalized. When we give any board the right to assess penalties against a citizen, we are in fact giving them a right to levy a fine., and any fine in a court of law is always measured according to the offence. Now to suggest that a penalty five times greater than the amount of the assessment is fair and reasonable under the circumstances I think is just carrying the interpretation of the Act too far.

The second thing I would ask the minister, after examining this, is whether anything can be done to rectify this matter. If it cannot, I would ask him to consider clarifying that section - in other words, an amendment to that section which would make it clear to the board that if it chooses to penalize somebody, there have got to be some limits on the penalty, that you can't simply take $253-odd and multiply it by five and say that's the penalty.

Those are the two points I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, and I'd appreciate hearing from the minister on both of those.

HON. W. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the last matter first, I'm aware that there are assessment problems associated with the operation of the WCB. I generally hear about them much too late to do anything really helpful. I think there's one advice that all MLAs can give to employers in their constituency if they have problem of this kind. If they would seek the assistance of the employer's adviser, who is part of the Ministry of Labour's direct staff in the board, we can generally identify serious problems before they become much more serious and probably incapable of solution.

On this particular issue, officials of the ministry interviewed last week and will be recommending to me an addition to the employer advisory staff. This person is being collected as a specialist in this whole field of assessments in the WCB from the employers' point of view. He will be adjoining the employer advisory staff to work out problems such as the one raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) .

I have a note of this particular case. I feel there must be more in it than has been indicated here today for such a penalty to have been assessed. If there is not, then I'm certainly prepared to give most serious consideration to the member's suggestion because I don't think this kind of penalty is even imposed by the Crown in respect of defalcations with respect to tax. It would be strange if the board had that much more authority.

With regard to the LRB representation from people who are associated with small business, one of the members, Mr. Ken Martin, who is a professional consultant, conducts his practice in what is termed the small business field. He has been on the board since its inception, and he was chosen for the board in part because of his association with the small and smaller business group. The member may have noted that in the press this past weekend the appointment of Mr. Ben Vanderburg as a vice-chairman was announced. Mr. Ben Vanderburg likewise has his background in the small business community. And that also in part was taken into account in his appointment as a vice-chairman.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister has thought about the unorganized workers who have no protection from job dismissal. In fact there is no statute on the books that protects a person from being dismissed without being given any kind of notice.

I've been told that under the common law, usually a worker is given 30 days' notice or two months' notice, as the case may be, but in practice this is not always honoured. I'm wondering whether the department, while it's looking at redesigning some of its legislation, would look at the Ontario legislation which covers the job-dismissal thing. This complaint came to me through the Legal Aid Society in Vancouver which says that they're beginning to surface a number of cases of people who are just being dismissed from their jobs without even 24 hours notice. I'm wondering if you would look at that.

The other point which I said I was going to discuss on Thursday and didn't get a chance to talk about is the whole business of occupational health. 1 want to refer the minister to The Province of May 8. the article by Suzanne Fournier, about the Alcan union charging human experimentation. This has to do with the high levels of benzine that the Alcan workers have to go through, and the fact that the Workers' Compensation Board was approached and asked to lower the permissible limit of benzine in the air from 10 ppm. to I ppm. They have not yet done so. In particular, there was the case of someone by the name of Harkness, who, when she appealed for compensation benefits was turned down by the adjudicator, R. Carson, who said:

[ Page 1603 ]

"Since you appear to be upset by the smell of a number of chemicals, it would appear that your symptoms are due to anxiety and not to any effects the chemicals may have." It would be interesting to know whether R. Carson is a psychiatrist and therefore qualified to make that kind of assessment. But in any event, is the Workers' Compensation Board thinking of lowering the permissible limits to I ppm of benzine in the air in view of all the information coming out of the United States studies and Canadian health authorities' studies of the links between this drug and leukemia, chromosome disorders, malignant blood diseases and other carcinogenic kinds of illnesses?

The union itself at Kitimat conducted its own study on 1,200 of its smelter workers and was able to link fluoride emission at the plant to a high level of lung and bone abnormalities. I know you're not interested in this, but it's important nonetheless. I notice that Dr. Little of the Workers' Compensation Board says that he's going to be evaluating the Kitimat study, but it's unfortunate that the workers had to do this themselves. It's not the kind of thing that workers should have to do themselves. If the Workers' Compensation Board is really doing its job, it would have been on that before.

Would the minister like to respond to those two questions, please?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the answer to the first matter raised is yes. The question of notices is under consideration with regard to legislation that we're talking about.

As to the second question, whether the WCB has the first responsibility or not with regard to the identification of new hazards in the workplace is arguable. It certainly has a responsibility, but so has the employer and so has the worker. I think we are finding each day as medical skills and certainly research expand that heretofore unrecognized problems due to substances used in manufacturing processes are now being identified as harmful to humans. As these are discovered, then the WCB and other organizations connected with environmental workplace problems must respond, and it's always a reaction. I suppose that until we become more skilled in anticipation of these problems, it will always be a reactive one.

But out of this are coming some situations where reaction is not necessarily going to be the result. The studies made in Kitimat with regard to air and lung disorders are now being.... The equipment that that union used in their studies is now being made available to others. Presently.it's being established at

Harmac and tests are being made there with regard to certain deleterious fumes. This is an attempt, in advance, to ascertain whether or not Harmac has got similar problems to those which were experienced in Kitimat. It is just part of the emerging and enlarging problem of environmental safety, occupational environment and workplace environment which is emerging with a rapidity not anticipated certainly a decade ago.

MS. BROWN: Just very briefly, is the ministry considering any intervention, certainly in the form of legislation, as some of the other western provinces have to enshrine the fundamental right of workers to an environment that neither damages their health nor impairs their safety?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's in the Code now.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, in responding briefly to the minister's response to me, I welcome his statement that his ministry will be monitoring the youth employment projects this summer. I had in mind in asking the question not simply the summer job projects, but some of the other direct job-creation projects. And one in particular, on which we had correspondence, related to the construction of I think it was a pier in White Rock - a job which would appear to have met the two criteria laid down by the minister. The job would otherwise not have existed - it was funded under a LIP programme, I believe - and it would have given some significant training value to those employed in the project. Unfortunately it was never possible to make an accommodation between the city and the employees' bargaining unit, and in the end the project was abandoned. It's this kind of thing which gives some considerable concern to people and the wish for certainly not government coercion, but government persuasion and guidelines in these particular areas. I won't belabour the question further because I think it's probably an area the minister agrees with.

The minister didn't answer my question about the labour college, the Labour College Act and the labour college which is yet to be set up. The minister is on record in previous debates as generally supporting this concept and I'd like to know where it stands.

With respect to the labour ombudsman, the minister said that he was startled that I saw this officer as a potential defender of those in the unorganized sector. But surely this is where a labour ombudsman would be the most useful, particularly in view of whatever mini-

[ Page 1604 ]

mum standards legislation the minister will be bringing in later on this session. The people in the organized sector have someone to turn to when they have a grievance of one kind or another; they have a spokesman in the office of the union. People in the unorganized sector do not have such a person to turn to and it would seem to me that this would be a logical role for the ombudsman. So I make that representation to him; I think this is a potentially very useful office. Having just now reread part 8 of the Labour Code Act, I am certain the full terms of reference would be there. I think it could be a useful move for the minister to make.

I would have a brief word to say about industrial democracy. I should say I enjoyed reading the speech of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) on this subject. I won't go over the general area. I have spoken on it in previous years. There seems to be a lot of agreement growing that we have to adopt procedures, whether we find advice from other countries or whether we develop it ourselves, for ways and means of working with the natural forces for harmony between the parties across the bargaining table rather than paying more attention to the forces that divide.

The other day I was on an interesting panel with Jim Clifford of the Employers' Council and Art Kube of the B.C. Federation of Labour and Ben Trevino and Clive McKee. There seemed to be'a general consensus that, yes, we had to find better ways along this line. Whether industrial democracy is just a buzz word that has outlived its usefulness I don't know, but better ways of living together must be found.

I want to speak about one particular means that I believe fosters common interest. That relates to greater capital diffusion and greater ownership of the corporations in our economy by those who work for those corporations.

The other day I was reading a very prophetic speech, considering the fact it was given in 1927 by the then chairman of General Electric who was speaking at the dedication of the Harvard Business School. He said words that for that day must have been very radical:

"I hope the day may come when these great business organizations will truly belong to the men who are giving their lives and efforts to them, I care not in what capacity. Then they will use capital truly as a tool and they will all be interested in working it to the highest economic advantage."

These are visionary words. Are we much closer to them today? From United States sources where numbers are more available than they are in Canada, we were told that even now the pension funds controlled by the union movement in the United States own something like one-third of the equity of the great corporations. If this is true, there is not a feeling that there is a community of interest here.

I'd like to put this thesis to the minister: in many areas there is an opportunity for very significant worker ownership of corporations or firms. Where that is possible it should be an aim of government to foster such ownership, probably by tax incentives. Of course, the circumstances have to be right; probably the firm has to be a mature firm rather than a young entrepreneurial firm. In the young entrepreneurial stage, naturally the entrepreneurs will want to take all of the risk and hold all of the equity. But as firms become more mature, there is an increasing case for ownership by those who work within it; the firm must also be a profitable firm, certainly not a non-profit institution or a government institution. And it would have to have reasonable prospects. With these criteria met, it seems to me there's a very good case for tax fostered diffusion of ownership. For those in less appropriate areas for such things as in non-profit organizations or government organizations, there should be vehicles available to invest in for workers in these areas, which would themselves hold shares in other enterprises. I won't belabour this point because the hour is late in the day and people are anxious to get on to other estimates. But I want to suggest to the minister that whether it be through such vehicles as an employee stock-ownership plan or otherwise, it's one of the ways within his own government and other forums that he could advance this general area of capital diffusion as a way of promoting a community of interest in the labour relations field.

My final point, and a brief one, has to do with experimentation with the work week. The private sector has indulged in a good deal of experimentation with the four day week and so on. In the public sector, I would ask the minister if he could advise us based on the information available to his ministry. What is being done? What prospects are there for, let's say, combining three facts of life: the desirability of work experience programmes for those engaged in the later years of high school and university, which I think everyone agrees is a very desirable concept but hard to put in practice; the fact of high youth employment and the fact of a work schedule such as is becoming known as the nine-day fortnight, where every second weekend would be a two-day weekend, every second weekend would

[ Page 1605 ]

be a three-day weekend? The people would just work a bit longer for each of those nine days. Instead of a 71/2-hour day, an 8-hour and 20-minute day would do the trick to maintain the work hours.

Putting these three things together, there are opportunities for people to have better weekends, do the same amount of work and have those who would otherwise be on the job replaced by people getting work experience from the high schools and universities, receiving training from those who are on the job that day to replace those who are off the job for the longer weekend. It's a concept which I would suggest is one that might be experimented with in the public service. I pass it on to the minister for his thought.

Vote 161 approved.

On vote 162: ministerial administration and support services, $2,795, 211.

MS. SANFORD: I have one brief point to make under this particular vote. Section 141 of the Public Schools Act provides that the Minister of Labour shall appoint a chairman of an arbitration board when that is necessary, but current provisions under that Act put constraints on the fee schedule for this chairman to the extent whereby at least the teachers' association is concerned about that whole arbitration procedure. The current fee schedule allows for $40 a day to be paid to a chairman, and if the school board or the teachers will not waive that schedule of fees, then that whole arbitration procedure could be in jeopardy.

I'm wondering if the minister has considered, or is considering, a change in that fee schedule.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, there was a problem in her constituency and one in Trail which arose from that. Yes, that fee schedule is under examination by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) right now, as a matter of fact. We've changed so that we can make adjustments very quickly in that fee schedule, but that's one matter we're discussing with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to cover this particular problem. It's being done.

Vote 162 approved.

On vote 163: job training and employment opportunity programmes, $29,308, 710.

MS. SANFORD: I have one brief question again, Mr. Chairman. It's been brought to my attention by someone who was quite concerned about the standard of some work that is being done in the province in the upholstery field that there are no training provisions for upholsterers in the province.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I missed that comment by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . Perhaps it's a good thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The comment was addressed to the Chair.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, all right.

I just wanted to know whether the minister or his staff have considered the possibility of including upholsterers in that job training programme and apprenticeship programme. They have not, to this date, received any training at all in this province. The training in Europe, for instance, is very extensive. They are professional people by the time they are finished. In this province anyone can begin an upholstery business simply by getting a licence and upholsterers who have been trained are concerned about the present situation.

HON. M. WILLIAMS: If there is a group involved in the upholstering industry who are concerned about this, would they please address their concerns directly to the director of apprenticeship in the provincial apprenticeship committee, and the whole question of the designation of the trade and provision of programmes can be taken from there.

Vote 163 approved.

Vote 164: occupational environment and compensation advisory services, $1,5031,301 -approved.

Vote 165: collective bargaining and labour standards programme, 2,622, 380 - approved.

Vote 166: human rights programmes, $507,351 - approved.

Vote 167: Labour Relations Board, $1,197, 304 - approved.

Vote 168: essential services advisory agency, $300,000 - approved.

Vote 169: building occupancy charges,

$1,384, 760 - approved.

[ Page 1606 ]

Vote 170: computer and consulting charges, $638,202 - approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.