1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

487 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Lunch program in schools. Mr. Williams –– 487

Job training for the mentally handicapped. Ms. Marzari –– 487

Teachers' benefits. Mr. S.D. Smith –– 488

Disability allowances. Mr. Cashore –– 488

CPR ships terminal lease. Mr. Blencoe –– 488

Teachers' benefits. Ms. Campbell –– 488

Mr. Rose

Mr. Ree

CPR ships terminal lease. Mr. Blencoe –– 489

Non-union firms in B.C. Mr. Miller 489

Tabling Documents –– 489

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Second reading

Mr. Gabelmann –– 489

Mrs. Gran –– 493

Mr. Rose –– 494

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Strachan ! 497

Mr. Hewitt –– 498

Mr. Clark –– 500

Mr. Mercier –– 503

Mr. Miller –– 504

Mr. Jansen –– 509

Mr. Lovick –– 509

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

We're very pleased and honoured today to have in our midst a delegation

from the Osaka, Japan, Chamber of Commerce, led by Mr. Keizo Saji. I

would ask that we all extend our good friends a big welcome.

lot of the time occupied in my office on getting things through is

thanks to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. David Poole. Unfortunately,

because of the many hours he spends each and every day of the week, he

doesn't see his wife Barbara that often. So I'm very pleased that she's

with us in the House today. I would ask us all to extend a big welcome

to Barbara.

MR. G. HANSON : We have visitors from New

Zealand in the precincts today: Alec and Sue Muir and their sons,

George and Ben. They are from the small town of Te Puke in New Zealand.

Would you join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Hon. members, on behalf of Mr. Speaker, would you please welcome Don Sheldon and his son Scott from West Vancouver.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Visiting in the House today, with quite a number of them joining us for

the first part of our sitting, are 47 people from my constituency of

New Westminster. I see a number of them in your gallery, sir. The trip

has been organized by the New Westminster NDP women's group, which has

a long history of being interested in parliamentary democracy and

issues of concern to the people of the province. They are here to see

us in action in a very important debate today. Will you join me in

bidding our guests from New Westminster a hearty welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Speaker, in the precincts this afternoon is Mayor Gordon Campbell

and members of his staff, who have been here today to meet with some of

my cabinet colleagues. I would ask the House to please bid them welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL :

In the precincts this afternoon also are two visitors from Vancouver

who are my constituents: Mr. David Whitelaw and Carol Henriquez. Mrs.

Henriquez is one of the founders of Arts Umbrella, one of the most

active and lively cultural organizations in Vancouver which brings

instruction in all types of art to the children of Vancouver. I'd ask

the House to make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT : Mr.

Speaker, with us today holidaying in Victoria are two former residents

from Yale–Lillooet, neighbours and friends of mine. I would ask the

House to give a warm welcome to Len and Elaine Wells.

Oral Questions

LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. It is following

up questions of yesterday and the statements by the minister responsible for

social concerns. It centres on the question of seeing this problem as one of

reporting and one of neglect by children. I wonder if the Premier has been able

to reflect on his answer and the minister's answers of yesterday and reconsider

the position, and whether he's considered the possibilities of a school-based

nutrition program for hungry children that arrive in our schools.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, following the question in the House yesterday, I called

Mr. Robb, the principal at the school that was mentioned here, and I

received some first-hand information from him. I think the gentleman is

certainly doing a good job and I appreciate his efforts as principal of

that school. I advised him that we would look into it further.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I note that the principal of Seymour school, which is in the

Strathcona–Woodlands area of Vancouver, was making similar comments

today on CBC. Clearly there is a problem of poverty, at least from that

principal, that they must face. Could the Premier advise the House,

then, that there will be a thorough review of this and that a possible

supplementary program might well be considered in this regard?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, again I would appreciate the name of that principal, and I'll give the principal a call as well.

think I should mention, however, that the principal I spoke to was very

helpful, but I think he realized that it's not a totally new problem.

I'm sure that we've seen over the years many children in various

schools who weren't always packing the appropriate or proper or any

lunch, and perhaps often have arrived without breakfast. It's not

necessarily a problem of someone not having the necessary funds; it may

be a problem at home, which is why we should, through the Ministry of

Social Services and the offices locally, follow up on these problems.

think as well the question infers that somehow we ought to investigate

a means by which we may make some lunch available to children at

schools like this. I'll take the question on notice, and we'll

certainly investigate it further.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr.

Speaker, we appreciate the assurance of the Premier, and hopefully he

could investigate the cost-effectiveness of these kinds of programs in

terms of preventing problems in the future, as the principal from

Seymour school indicated today.

JOB TRAINING FOR THE

MENTALLY HANDICAPPED

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, I too have a question about poverty. About 150 mentally

handicapped people are presently off welfare and in the workforce under

a work stations program sponsored by the Vancouver Richmond Association

for Mentally Handicapped People. An attempt to increase this program —

to get more mentally handicapped people off welfare — has been turned

down, the rationale being that the Ministry of Advanced Education and

Job Training is to provide practical training to persons with

disabilities who have a realistic potential to benefit from their

participation in the workforce. I would ask the Minister of Advanced

Education and Job Training if there is any intention to change this

regulation so that, in effect, we can get more people born

[ Page 488 ]

with

mental handicaps off welfare and into the kind of job station program

we're talking about here, without having to fall back to welfare.

HON. S. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the question — it's a good one. I can assure

you that our ministry is working together with the Ministry of Social

Services and Housing to make sure that these people have every

opportunity to enter the workforce and not only enter the workforce but

enter it in a trained manner so that they can contribute in a useful

way.

MS. MARZARI : My question here is that the

special achievement program under welfare doesn't really do the job —

it's sheltered. We're talking about real people in real jobs with real

potential. Would you decide to revise the JobTrac program to assist

people with mental handicaps if they prove themselves in the community?

HON. S. HAGEN : I would think that we can work within the JobTrac program to see that that happens.

TEACHERS' BENEFITS

MR. S.D. SMITH :

I have a question to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

Several teachers who have been in contact with me and with others in

this House have expressed concern and have related information they

have received that certain benefits they now enjoy, including sick

leave and pensions, may be in jeopardy of being lost to them. Can the

minister assure teachers, through this House, that those benefits will

be protected during that period of transition which may occur between

matters being contemplated by this House and agreements being entered

into between school boards and local teachers' associations?

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER : I will say to the member, as I did yesterday, that that issue is before the House, and the question is out of order.

DISABILITY ALLOWANCES

MR. CASHORE : This is a question to the Premier. It too is a question about poverty.

When

the federal government increased the disability allowance contained in

the Canada Pension Plan by approximately $150 at the beginning of this

year, the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare wrote to all

provinces asking them to pass on this increase to disabled people.

Instead, the B.C. government has reduced its own contribution so that

the increase intended for disabled people disappears. Why is this

government robbing disabled people of increased benefits that should be

improving their standard of living?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad there is a whole lot more enthusiasm and optimism

out there generally in British Columbia than what we see from the ranks

across the way. All we hear about is poverty.

I'm sure that

our visitors from elsewhere, and those who are viewing British Columbia

today as visitors, don't see it as a place where all we can talk about

is poverty. We have much to be proud of and there is a great deal to be

thankful for.

That's not to say that we can always as a

people address all of the problems immediately or that we have all of

the answers for all situations. However, we attempt to address these as

favourably and as fairly as we might. I would defer this particular

question to the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond).

MR. CASHORE :

On a supplementary, the Premier has said that he supports the efforts

of Rick Hansen. Does the Premier intend to meet with the

representatives of the disabled community to explain why this increase

has not been passed on and to explain to them that you indeed do plan

to pass it on?

HON MR. VANDER ZALM : This Premier

gets many requests for meetings — as a matter of fact, hundreds in the

course of a month. I attempt to meet with as many groups as possible,

and I'm pleased to say that I've had several meetings with those

representing the disabled community. Yes, we've also announced and will

be proceeding with the establishment of a council to advise government

on the problems faced by the disabled. I would be pleased to take that

up as one of the items for the meetings.

CPR SHIPS TERMINAL LEASE

MR. BLENCOE :

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs in her capacity

as minister responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission.

March 10 this year, in a special meeting hastily called, the Provincial

Capital Commission made a secret agreement to offer Dr. Arne Lane, who

is well known as a Social Credit fund-raiser in this area, an extension

to 1998 of his lease on the historic CPR ships terminal here on the

harbour. I should also add that the city of Victoria representatives

were not present at that meeting. Was the minister aware of the

agreement, and will she order an investigation into all the

circumstances surrounding the agreement?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'd like to thank the member for the question. I was aware of the

discussion that was to take place at the meeting. I have not yet seen

all the details, and to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing to

investigate.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Speaker, does the

minister intend to recommend that the Provincial Capital Commission

once and for all begin to conduct its business in public, so that such

backroom deals are subject to public scrutiny and evaluation on their

merits?

TEACHERS' BENEFITS

MS. CAMPBELL :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully submit that the

substance of the question asked by the second member for Kamloops (Mr.

S.D. Smith) does not relate to a matter that is before the House, and I

would therefore respectfully reiterate the second member for Kamloops

question and ask that it be answered by the minister to whom it was

addressed.

MR. ROSE : I'd like to speak briefly on

the same point of order. It is the practice in this House not to

question the Speaker's ruling during question period, because that eats

[ Page

489 ]

the clock. If the hon. member wishes to raise that point of order, later, I

think she would be welcome to do it.

MR. SPEAKER : That is the ruling, and we will discuss it right after question period.

MR. REE :

On a point of order, if the point of order is brought up after question

period, when the person asking the question has been denied the right,

will he have an opportunity to ask that question again, after question

period? Or is his full right disallowed on that day?

MR. SPEAKER :

The tradition in this House, Mr. Member, has been that points of order

are raised after question period, and when that happens, the question

would obviously be asked the next day.

CPR SHIPS TERMINAL LEASE

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary on the previous topic to the

Premier. This building on Victoria harbour is a special building. It is

Rattenbury's last addition to the harbour. On November 18 of last year,

in keeping with the fresh start that the Premier offered, I wrote to

him, asking that he take a look at how the Provincial Capital

Commission does business — secret meetings . . . . We have here a

special deal, made to a well-known Socred in this area, for major

expansion of the extension of his lease. Does the Premier approve of

such secret meetings, meetings in camera, particularly when they deal

with sensitive buildings on the Victoria harbour and local Socred

supporters?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, first

of all, I think it is unfair to accuse someone of having received a

special privilege when there is certainly no evidence of that. To raise

it in the House is perhaps one thing, but it is obviously very unfair.

It may be that some people are more aggressive and certainly take far

more initiative to seek out those opportunities, and we should credit

them with being progressive and helping Victoria, such as this

particular person has done in contributing so much to the city and its

tourism potential. Having said that, I appreciate the member's

reminding me of a letter he did send which had some good suggestions in

it, and I'll look again at those. I thought they were very worthy of

consideration.

MR. BLENCOE : I don't know if the

Premier is aware. . . . He refers to this gentleman in question as a

tourist operator, but I would also tell the Premier that the lease does

not expire for three years. Will the Premier himself take a look into

the circumstances of why this lease on the most prestigious building on

the Victoria harbour, three years before it was up, was extended to

1998? Will the Premier undertake such an investigation if the Minister

of Municipal Affairs won't do it?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The Capital Commission certainly acts on behalf

of the capital city and strives to better facilities in all of the operations

as they affect the capital city. Therefore, if there's any question as to

the advisability of that particular transaction, the member should really address

it to the Capital Commission, which certainly is a respected body in this city.

NON-UNION FIRMS IN B.C.

MR. MILLER : My question is to the Minister of Tourism. In today's Sun

the minister is quoted as saying he's all in favour of helping his

friends who are fighting to keep unions out of a road-building company

— that they're "just two British Columbians who deserve the

government's help in their fight against unions." Is the quote correct?

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, the question is out of order and I won't answer it.

MR. MILLER :

A supplementary. Does the minister not feel that these kinds of

statements are one of the reasons we have some labour strife in this

province?

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the auditor-general dated March 1987.

MR. SPEAKER :

I may ask the first member from Vancouver—Point Grey if she'd like an

answer to her point of order. The question that she was talking about

must offend the rule of anticipation. The time to bring the matter

before the House is when the bill is called for debate. We discussed

this matter yesterday, and I think both sides would agree that if we

start stretching that order, we'll be offending the rules of the House.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued debate)

MR. GABELMANN :

This morning I bounced around a number of issues that were of concern

to me, and I discussed some of the concerns in what might be described

as a rather philosophical way, in an attempt to have a debate on second

reading that was meaningful in terms of the impact of this legislation.

This afternoon, in the remaining 35 minutes or thereabouts that I have,

given the time limits, I want to express — if I can raise my voice

above the general hubbub, Mr. Speaker — some comments on some of the

major sections of the bill seriatim. I do not, by doing this, mean to

transgress into committee stage debate, and I won't do that. Nor do I

suggest, by talking only about some of these sections, that others are

not important. Every

section in this bill, with the exception of the

ones that change the name from "board" to "council," are amazingly

significant.

Before I start that, I just want to say again

that the more time one gets to read and study and analyze, and to talk

to people about this bill, the more one realizes its implications —

deliberate implications or otherwise. The effect of this bill on the

industrial relations climate in this province is yet to be measured

fully, in my view, because I think the full understanding and analysis

of this legislation has not been completed. I saw, for example, one

analysis of the bill that ran to 80 pages, and in a discussion with the

author of those 80 pages, it soon became evident that there were

additional points that had eluded the author in the first run-through

of the bill. This is incredibly complicated legislation. It deserves —

and we will make this a major point during the course of this

[ Page 490 ]

debate — much more time, thought and consultation than the government seems prepared to provide.

Mr.

Speaker,

section 5 of the bill is amended to allow for what I think is

an unheard-of practice in labour relations. It allows for an employer

to campaign actively and openly against workers who may choose to

certify into a trade union. Coercion or intimidation cannot be used,

but campaigning is now wide-open. Traditionally, and I think properly,

in labour relations, the question of whether or not to join a union is

a question for the people involved, not for people outside of that

area, and in particular not for people who can make an impression on

workers. Employers have a variety of ways of making impressions upon

employees, even under the existing Labour Code provisions. Many Labour

Relations Board hearings have been held on this subject.

[2:30]

The legislation now will allow for employers to openly campaign

against certification. It is none of the employer's business whether

workers choose to bargain collectively or to bargain individually. If

they choose not to belong to a union, that's a choice to make personal

or individual contracts, or to just accept whatever the boss provides.

It's a choice they can make freely and appropriately. But it's up to

the workers themselves to make the decision about how they want to

conduct their bargaining. It's not up to the employer to say, "You

should bargain collectively," or "You should bargain separately."

That's a decision for employees to make. It's a long-standing tradition

in labour relations, an appropriate tradition, one that should be

maintained in British Columbia, and one that will be lost by this

amendment. .

Section 6 of the bill effectively makes

illegal the prosecution of hot declarations. What's going to happen

with the hot declaration being made illegal? Not the declaration

itself, but the prosecution of the declaration. When you do that, small

companies in particular, but many medium-sized ones as well, who

strike-break and who continue to operate while a strike is on . . . .

Because they have their strikebreakers crossing the picket line, the

production is still going on, so there is no economic pressure against

the employer; the business still produces goods or services and the

profit is being made. The only effective clout that the strikers have,

in terms of exerting economic pressure, which is what bargaining is all

about, is to declare — and it's rarely done; it's done with discretion

— a secondary boycott so that the product or the service that is being

produced behind the picket line can be affected, so that purchasers are

affected directly in buying that particular service or product.

Otherwise there's no clout left for the striking union. Otherwise, if

you're going to strike an employer who is prepared to hire

strikebreakers, you might as well forget it; you're gone.

this is notice to any employer who wants to break the union and get rid

of it. It's simple. What you do is force them into a position where

they have to go out on strike. They now go out on strike. They've got

no economic clout because they can't prosecute the strike with a

secondary boycott or through a hot declaration. The strikebreakers

continue to work and the product is purchased. The business is

profitable, and in a year or two down the road the strike peters out.

We've had many cases over the years. I remember when I first got

involved in this business. Dominion Motors in Vancouver was one of the

first of these kinds of situations. There have been many, many in the

service and small retail industries over the years.

This is

effective strikebreaking and effective union-busting, because there's

no clout left without the possibility of a hot declaration. It will

also lead to longer strikes in bigger operations where the

strikebreakers aren't going to end up being permanent employees as a

result of the strike. The strike will last longer, for the same kind of

reasons I was giving this morning in terms of the lack of economic

clout on one side.

Section 7 of the bill is 5.1 of the Code.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Is that committee debate?

MR. GABELMANN :

No, it's not committee debate; these are principles. Let me tell you,

when we get to committee, Mr. Speaker, to the House Leader, we will

then start to get into technical detail. This is principle, all this

stuff.

Section 7 of the bill, in effect, is the first step

towards right to work. I will acknowledge that, in my view, this is not

a right-to-work bill, but there are several clauses within the bill

that start us down the road towards right-to-work legislation, and this

particular

section is one of those particular sections. Paul Weiler has

said — and he's written a book about it — that B.C. unions are among

the most if not the most democratic in North America. I think that's

generally agreed, that the unions in this province are democratic. But

the amendment in this

section prevents democratic decisions, made by a

majority of members in a democratic union, from being carried out. And

the government talks constantly about democratic rights and freedoms. A

democratic decision made by the membership of a union to carry out a

certain activity can be wiped out by this particular section. People

can be disciplined by their union, can have their union card revoked in

a union shop, and can still continue to work. That is a step through

the door to right-to-work.

Section 9 of the bill I've just

been talking about.

Section 10, which is 9.1 of the Code, is entitled

"Freedom of Association." It is exactly the opposite. What it does, in

specific terms, is to restrict the rights of the affiliation clause in

places like Duke Point or Whistler, or a number of those situations

that we've talked about over the years. In fact, because the definition

of "construction" is so broad, workers will not have the right that is

apparently guaranteed them in another

section of this bill to

affiliation-clause protection. I'll deal with that in more detail again

during committee; it's an important point.

Section 10 of

the bill also prevents union workers from, by their own free choice,

saying: "We want the uniform we wear to work every day to be made in a

union plant." That's a right that workers should have. This particular

section denies a union the right to negotiate that particular provision

in a collective agreement. Pretty picky stuff; pretty inappropriate to

prevent employers and employees from freely reaching an agreement that

. . . Sure, the goods used, or the services provided, have to be union.

Why not?

Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this particular point to make another

general point about the legislation, and that is this. There are a number of

sections — half a dozen at least, and probably more — that are similar to this

one, in which a right or a provision that has been negotiated by a union . .

. . And when provisions are negotiated, something else is given up. Sometimes

it costs you money: you give up having an extra 10 cents an hour, Or you give

up another clause, you give up something else you want. Whenever you get a clause

in an agreement, you give something else up.

[ Page 491 ]

This

bill, in a number of sections, including

section 10, takes away from

collective agreements clauses that have been bargained; it just strips

those clauses from those collective agreements. It doesn't give people

back what they gave up in order to get those clauses. As you go through

the bill, in every instance of that kind of change, the clauses in fact

take away from unions something that they have struggled hard to get

and have in some cases gone on strike to get. It's been taken away by

law. After they've struggled to get it — freely reached between them

and their employer — it's taken away; but what they gave up to get it

isn't given back to them. That's not fair in a free and democratic

society either. If the same principles were being applied in terms of

business contracts, relationships between individual businesses in

terms of purchasing goods and services from each other, or whatever . .

. . If that kind of law was brought in, there would be howls of outrage

from the business community, and properly so. What we have here is the

government interfering with the sanctity of a freely reached agreement.

That is an inappropriate principle, especially when applied

retroactively, as this is.

Section 11 is the religious

clause. This morning I talked in philosophical terms about the

religious-exemption-from-paying-dues clause. What the clause does is

say to workers who pay their dues to a charity: "You don't have the

right to vote on votes that are conducted under the statute." But those

workers have the right to get the wages that other workers' dues have

paid for. The other workers' dues have paid for the bargaining that

goes on to get those wages; and these people who pay nothing for it,

these freeloaders, still get the benefits of the collective agreement.

Not only do they get all the benefits of the collective agreement in

terms of salary, wages and protection, they also get the collective

agreement applied to them in terms of unfair dismissal and a whole

variety of other things that could happen to them. They get all the

provisions of the collective agreement, and it's free. Why? It's

inappropriate. If they don't want to pay, fine. They shouldn't get

anything that the contract provides.

You start going down

that road, and the next step is right to-work. You've taken that first

step by saying that there are certain rights that they don't have, and

these are the rights to vote on a strike vote or ratification vote. You

are setting up a situation in this and other clauses where, bit by bit,

the framework is established for further amendments that may come down

in the years to come, that will just complete this circle of bringing

in right-to-work in this province. I thought I needed to make that

point on this particular section, and we'll do that again in detail in

committee.

Section 18 — just moving along and missing all

kinds of other important issues in the bill — is the famous

section 27

of the Code: the intent, the purpose, what the Code is for. Stripped of

its verbiage, the Code called for harmonious labour relations. The

objective of the legislation was to achieve good labour relations

between employers and employees, keeping in mind the public interest —

that was there in the old words. This amendment takes that major

objective out and replaces it with the philosophy that what counts in

the marketplace is all that matters. I guess that the burden of my

comments this morning and this afternoon relate to this point. When you

take away from the adjudicative body, the Labour Relations Board or the

Industrial Relations Council, the mandate to pursue good labour

relations, and say that they are now to pursue benefits to the market

economy instead, you open the door to unrest, to disputes, to

difficulties, because their mandate is no longer harmonious relations.

It's a major principle of this bill that is wrong in practice, wrong in

theory and wrong in philosophy, and we'll debate that too.

There

is a series of sections between 21 and 24 — but 22 and 23 especially —

that adopt a principle all British Columbians thought we were rid of,

and that's the involvement of courts in labour relations. The

destruction of the privative clause . . . . This amendment makes it the

weakest privative clause in labour relations in Canada. The original

Code was written with a privative clause that was very carefully worded

so that we could avoid having labour relations appear in the courts,

except in unusual and very specific circumstances. What happened when

labour relations ended up in the courts was the chaos we had in the

sixties right through to 1972, leading in some cases in those days to

actual violence, including violence perpetrated on a former member of

this House, unfortunately. That was the kind of reaction that occurred

as a result of a variety of provisions, but especially the fact that

the courts had control of labour relations.

The whole idea

in establishing a Labour Relations Board with a strong privative clause

was to set up the LRB as, in effect, the court for labour matters. The

impact of all these amendments, in particular

section 23, which is

"finality of decisions and orders" and if you're not a lawyer, you read

it exactly backwards — is to open up every decision to the courts.

Every single decision of the board is now available to appeal in the

courts.

[2:45]

Disputes are going

to go on for ever and ever, and they're going to be bitter. The

professionals, the people who understand the business, aren't going to

be making the decisions. We're going to be turning it over to Supreme

Court judges and whoever else on the bench: good people, educated, well

versed in law, not involved in the day-to-day nitty-gritty of

industrial relations in the way that people who sit on an adjudicative

council or a labour relations board are. As a result, we'll make

mistakes; we'll make the wrong kind of decisions, and we'll tie up

matters for such a long time that the dispute will fester, leading

again to weakened or worse relations out in the community.

The

employer now has the right, under these changes, to go to court without

the approval of the board. The board or the council should have the

right to say no to that, because it should have been pursuing the goal

of harmonious relations. The moment you give unfettered access to the

courts by anybody in this process, including the unions — it's equal in

that sense — you end up delaying, you end up festering, and you end up

with bad labour relations. The government will rue the day that they

once again opened the courts of this land to labour relations issues.

want to talk a moment about double-breasting. I covered it this

morning. I want to reiterate that

section 25 of this bill in

particular, and other sections when read together with it, do allow for

double-breasting. I talked this morning about how that can happen — how

an employer can in fact doublebreast. For the benefit of those members

of the House who don't know, double-breasting is simply a mechanism

that a unionized company uses to avoid using the unionized employees to

do the work. They set up another company and do the work non-union.

That is now going to be available under this legislation, despite what

the minister said earlier today and at first reading. In addition, the

way the legislation is worded, nothing discourages the employer from

trying to double-breast. In the construction industry, the job will be

finished by the time the process is complete through the

[ Page 492 ]

council

and the courts, and there's no retroactive penalty for having

double-breasted during the course of the job, which may be two or three

weeks, or a month or so. They do it, and while it's being adjudicated

the job gets finished. It has then successfully gotten away with

double-breasting, even if the council were to rule later that it was

illegal. So we have doublebreasting in British Columbia if this bill

passes.

Another way in which unions can avoid or get out of

their commitment in law to deal with the trade union representing their

employees is contained in

section 28 — the two-year clause. The Wall

and Redekop case is the standard decision on this one. All that a

company now has to do is to contract out all of its work except

non-union supervisory work; in other words, the non-union

superintendent or whatever is the only employee of that company.

Everything else is contracted out for a period of two years. The

certification dies. That kind of manipulation of the law was prevented

by the Labour Relations Board, and that's the Wall and Redekop case, as

I understand it. Now, two years later, having contracted out all of its

work — not had its own workforce — that contractor can have the union

certification cancelled by the council.

Another bit of

wording in that particular

section talks about certification being

cancelled upon abandonment of the certification. Hundreds of thousands

of dollars in legal fees will be spent debating this particular

section, I guarantee you. There will be efforts by employers to say

that the union has abandoned the certification and therefore the

council should decertify. What you're doing is contrary to what I think

are all of our goals in labour relations, which is to delegalize the

whole process. As much as possible let's get the lawyers one step

removed and return industrial relations to the people who know

something about it, who deal day to day with it, who aren't making a

living practising law. We've got too much of that at the present time.

We all have to depend on lawyers to begin to get through this stuff.

This abandonment

section is just . . . . If I were a young lawyer in

law school I would learn about the abandonment stuff and set up

practice and become a millionaire on this section.

Section

29 of the bill, successor rights —

section 53 of the Code — is famous

because of all the discussion over the last few months about sections

37 and

Section 29 opens the door wide for businesses to be

transferred or sold without selling the certification, especially in

construction; but it's true in a whole range of areas. In the

bankruptcy

section at the top of page 9, the minister will say that the

words "a deliberate attempt to evade collective bargaining" has to be

proven prior to the use of bankruptcy to get out of the certification.

The language here is weaker than in the United States, and it is the

language Continental Airlines used to get out of its certification. It

declared bankruptcy, got rid of its union and resumed operations.

Under the. American legislation, as I understand it from a non-legal point

of view, not being a lawyer, the rules are tougher than they are here. You cannot

prove, or you can have a great deal of difficulty proving, a deliberate attempt

to evade collective bargaining. The reason you go into bankruptcy is to make

a deliberate attempt to evade collective bargaining. How do you prove intent?

How do you get inside the employer's head? How do you prove what it was

that he or she was thinking when they made that decision to go into bankruptcy?

It happened in Continental Airlines in the United States, and under this wide-open

barn door, it will happen here in British Columbia too. So there is yet another

example of how successor rights are not protected by this particular piece of

legislation.

am puzzled by sections 32 and 33, on a couple of counts. These are the

sections that relate to councils of trade unions and accredited

employer organizations. I want to make two points. The effect of the

legislation is to say that there are different rules if you are a union

than if you are a company. If you are a company, you can get out of

your accreditation simply by waiting two years and making an

application nine months prior to the expiry of the agreement. If you

make the application following those rules, the council is required to

automatically accept or agree to the withdrawal from accreditation. On

the other hand, a trade union following the rules outlined here has to

apply to the council, and the council may or may not approve the

union's application to pull out of the council of trade unions. It's

not even-handed at all. Lawyers can do it on their own volition without

any impediment; unions can only do it if the council agrees.

But

more importantly in this section, the destabilization that will come in

labour relations will come as a result of this. We have moved since the

early seventies to bargaining with councils of unions and accredited

employer groups, because it provides some stability, because it

prevents the whipsawing that can go on and because it just makes more

sense to have one set of negotiations in an industry with a lot of

employers and a lot of unions than it does to have a whole myriad of

negotiations with different expiry dates, where whipsawing can take

place. That's why councils of unions and accredited employers'

organizations were established.

I'm not saying we should

make it impossible for unions or employers to get out of a council that

they've joined. I think the freedom to do that should be there. But

what you've done is to make it wide open, make it easy and, in the case

of employers, make it possible to do so without even any reference to

the council. So the management of industrial relations does not have as

its task any more a decision as to whether or not, in the public

interest — to use that term again — there should be a council of unions

or an accredited employers' organization. It may so decide, given the

facts and after hearing that the council should be broken up, but what

you have done with the legislation is to say to employers: "You can do

it if you want, and the council has no say whatsoever."

Mr.

Speaker, I am rapidly running out of time. These new two-hour limits

are difficult. I wouldn't have gone as long as Don Phillips or Rosemary

Brown, but I could have used a bit more time.

Tech change.

I have made some favorable comments to the media about the tech-change

section, because it provides 90 days' notice. But you know, when you

look at it more closely, I wish I hadn't been so generous. The reporter

said to me: "Say something nice about the bill. Find something nice."

I said: "Well, 90 days' notice for tech change; good." Then I read the

bill, and the definition of tech change, and I found that the whole

thing has weakened so much that the 90 days is irrelevant anyway. So my

praise of the government was wasted and wrong, and I hate to make those

kinds of mistakes. It leads one to be very careful about praising. But

in any event, I just make the point: the tech change

section is now so

watered down and so irrelevant that it is not going to be of much use

to anybody.

The picketing

section in 48: again, the effect

of it is to lengthen strikes. Slade and Stewart is the law on this

one. If you can't picket the place where the struck goods are being

delivered, you can't prosecute the strike, which means that

[ Page

493 ]

the

strike will go on forever. Slade and Stewart is the retail-wholesale

case, and that one is a classic. The point that needs to be made about

it all is the same old point, and it's the point that it delays, makes

longer, strikes, creates more industrial unrest — the opposite of what

it is the government says it wants.

Section 49 I think we

should entitle the "orphan's clause." Remember the old joke about a

child murdering his parent and then asking for clemency from the court

because

he was an orphan? He applied for clemency from

the court because he was an orphan; the reason he was an orphan was

because he'd murdered his parents. That's what this

section is. When

you wipe out

section . . . .

Section 91 of the Code is repealed by this

particular

section — that's the so-called orphan's section. In labour

relations it's "clean hands." The clean hands principle, which applied

in the Code which we're still living with, is now gone, completely

gone. This orphan will have the right to appeal for clemency because

he's an orphan, even though he murdered his parents. To do that in this

legislation is absurd, and we'll deal with that too in some detail

later on.

[3:00]

The productivity fund: there we had a good idea, an idea proposed by

management, by unions, and accepted by the government — a small start,

the 500 grand, and good, appropriate, but in effect wiped out by the

failure to consult on everything else. This fund will not work, because

you don't have the cooperation of the parties to make this legislation

work — another example of where something good is going to be lost

because of a failure to consult and a failure to discuss, and I regret

that.

I talked at length this morning about the disputes

resolution section, the whole new provision of the bill that sets up

these awesome powers, and I'm not going to repeat all of that now; but

in concluding my comments, Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal for a couple

of things.

I want to reiterate my contention, and I believe

the contention of anyone who's had a look at this, that this

legislation is so complicated, so complex, so far-reaching and

potentially so devastating of our industrial relations, that we should

take some time; we should take some time about this legislation. We

should either postpone the second reading for a few weeks at least,

perhaps a month or so, so that full discussion can be had with

everybody who's affected by it, once they get a full understanding of

it; failing that, we should depart from the normal traditions of this

House and refer it to a parliamentary committee, the Labour and Justice

Committee, with the power to do the normal things that committees have

the power to do — to summon witnesses, to listen to briefs, to seek

opinions, not just from the participants in the piece but also from the

public, because they've never had a chance to comment on these

proposals. They've had a chance to comment to the minister through the

public hearing process about what they would like to see in labour

relations; they've never had a chance to comment on all of the

proposals and implications in this particular bill.

Either some delay so people have time to talk to all of the MLAs on both sides

of the House about what this means, or — and maybe even more appropriately —

failing that, a reference to a committee; not the Committee of the Whole where

we can only talk to ourselves and where we can't, with rare exceptions,

bring people here to talk to us about what it means, but a parliamentary committee.

Put a time limit on it — I'm not suggesting that that would be used for

delay; I'd certainly give my commitment that it wouldn't be used for

that purpose — and seek opinion.

you don't take some action like that, whether it's a delay now or

whether it's a committee or some other mechanism of that sort, the

result will be exactly the opposite of what the government says it

intends. I believe — some of my colleagues don't but I believe — that

the government is sincere in its attempt to bring in legislation that

will bring peaceful labour relations; I think they really thought that

this could do it.

The fact is, now they're being told by

everybody out there that this doesn't do it. Labour is saying it; the

employers in a muted way are saying it, particularly in reference to Ed

Peck's powers; the newspapers are saying it. They aren't always the

best judge but both the Sun and the Province have editorials today. The

Province is saying the bill should go to a legislative committee; the

Sun is saying: "Seldom has a government proposal had such high

potential for defeating its own purpose." These are important words

from editors who have had some experience in politics in British

Columbia. "Seldom has a government proposal had such high potential for

defeating its own purpose." Not to be too sincere, but as

non-rhetorically as I can say it — and as sincerely as I can say it — if

the government is sincere about providing a framework for harmonious

labour relations in British Columbia, it will pull back on its

timetable, it will open avenues for consultation and it will accept

opinion, from wherever it comes, on how to bring in legislation and

what that legislation should be, that will create harmonious relations.

I talked this morning about those tentative steps that were being made

by the B.C. Fed and the Business Council as they were beginning to get

together; all of that gets fractured by this kind of legislation.

The

government's purpose will not be achieved by this bill. This bill will

create unrest and so much disruption that investors who may want to

invest in this province will be more scared to do so than they ever

were before. Pull back. Let's take some time. Let's have some

discussions, and let's get some labour legislation that will work. This

will not work.

MRS. GRAN : I'd like to compliment the

member for North Island on his good presentation. I don't agree with

his views, but he made an excellent presentation.

Mr.

Speaker, the budget, and now Bill 19, demonstrates for all to clearly

see a government serious about its mandate to represent all of the

people of this province in a fair and equitable manner. Bill 19

introduces a regard for the public interest for the first time in many

years in this province. The Industrial Relations Board has a mandate

that is clear and unbiased, and it must take the good of the public

into consideration as well as the rights of individuals and the rights

and obligations of the parties involved. There is a positive change in

philosophy indicated within Bill 19, a change that shows that our

government is committed to solving problems — not creating them, as the

opposition suggests.

The hon. members of the opposition

want the people of this province to believe that they are capable of

leadership, and yet they see the Industrial Relations Reform Act as

negative and want us to study it to death. Why? Because the opposition

represents special interest groups in our province, and not average

citizens. Both organized labour leaders and the NDP are the authors of

their own fate. After a great deal of public consultation, this

government has a duty to see Bill 19 become a reality in this session.

Negative thinking is why

[ Page 494 ]

labour

peace has been difficult if not impossible to achieve in this province.

In the few short years that the NDP formed government in British

Columbia, they managed to scramble an omelette that has taken some 10

years to unscramble. And they now talk about state intervention, when

they proved to be the masters of state intervention.

Mr.

Speaker, with the tabling of this legislation the Minister of Labour

and Consumer Services has brought British Columbia into step with the

rest of Canada. For too many years radical union leaders have

intimidated and misrepresented their own union members. It became

evident during the last election, when more union members than in any

other election joined the Social Credit Party and worked hard to get

this government elected. The opposition would be well advised to take

that into consideration when opposing this bill. There is no way this

government would have been elected with the strong mandate that it has

without the help of union members. Those members are unhappy with many

of the decisions made by their leaders. They're tired of confrontation

and intimidation. The people of this province have demanded these

changes, for they too are tired of confrontation.

Last

year, in my own constituency, a labour disturbance resulted in violence

and the need to bring in the RCMP tactical troop. A court case

followed. The Chief Justice expressed his concern at the growing

tendency of some unions to disobey the law and found the bargaining

council of the building trades union in contempt of court. Condemning

the lawlessness and violence that occurred between June 5 and 6 on a

picket line at the Langley construction site, the judge said: "No class

of society can, with impunity, take the law into its own hands."

was an alderman in the district of Langley at the time. In the council

meeting immediately preceding the incident, the chambers were filled

with irate union sympathizers. Ironically, most of these people were

also NDP supporters and officials. They criticized the RCMP for

employing its tactic squad at the site. Of that the judge said: "The

criticism is not well-founded. I commend the police for doing their

duty and doing it effectively."

This is just one example of

the many incidents that have served to cause bitterness both between

organized labour and management and between organized labour and the

public. I believe many of these incidents have been politically

orchestrated. Now, because it's politically expedient, the opposition

wants us to leave everything the way it is and we'll all live happily

ever after.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I urge the opposition

to join us in supporting Bill 19. This is an opportunity to cooperate

for the good of unions, management and the general public. I can say

with complete confidence that this government is not interested in

union-busting. We are interested only in the welfare of the people we

serve, all British Columbians, union and non-union. Both the opposition

leaders and leaders in organized labour have an opportunity at this

time in our history to join this government in ensuring the very best

employment opportunities in the country.

In

summary, the

Minister of Labour has given us the tools to negotiate in good faith.

He has given us the choice to be union or non-union. Best of all, he

has given British Columbia back its self-respect.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. ROSE :

The debate seems, at the moment at least, to be rather moderate and

reasoned, if partisan. I suppose that's the way it should be. I would

just like to tell the House, though, that the only power working people

ever have is the power to withhold their labour. No matter where you go

in this world, there are demonstrations, whether or not the right to

strike is granted in legislation. There are jurisdictions, such as

Australia if I'm not wrong — and I can be corrected — where the

person-days lost through a no-strike arrangement exceed our own. We

don't lose as many days in management disputes — I won't call them

labour disputes — as we do through the common cold in this country.

you can blow that up all you like, and you can make it as large an

issue as you like. You can make your own straw man and then push him

over if you like. But when working people get pushed into corners,

they're going to react, whether it's within the law or against the law.

I could name you a few very celebrated people who broke the law. One of

them was Jesus Christ. Another one was Mahatma Gandhi. Another one was

George Washington. We all honour them today. The Americans don't

believe in revolutions anywhere else in the world. They only believe in

one. They don't think there should be an instant replay anywhere else

where people demand justice. Only for Americans.

I'd just

like to say that the only power we have in this House is time. If the

only power that working people have is to withdraw their labour, and to

have some sense of security while they're doing it so they're not just

picked off . . . . Otherwise it isn't labour; it's slavery if you don't

have any choices.

[3:15]

I'm not going to inflate the rhetoric, because it's not believable

when you do that, but I would argue that this is a very serious matter.

It is going to affect all working people in the province, whether they

be union or not union. I'll get into that a little more later.

Mr.

Speaker, democracy functions only when it rests on the consent of those

governed. If there's consent out there to hammer everybody, if during

restraint you talk about . . . . The hon. first member for Langley

(Mrs. Gran) talks about confrontation. Where was she for the last four

years? I mean, what are people supposed to do? Are they just to say:

"Yessuh, mastuh. Whatever you say"? Of course not. They have a right to

express their opinions. They have a right in a free and democratic

society to demonstrate, just as those people who are concerned about

mining or nuclear armaments or Candu reactors have the right to a

public premises such as our lawn to make their protest public. When you

start taking those things away from people, you strike at the very root

of democracy. And I don't care what your polls tell you, public opinion

can shift rather rapidly.

I wouldn't accuse the minister,

Mr. Speaker, of having sinister motives. I think he genuinely believes

that this is going to be helpful. I think that he's going to be cheered

on by those who want to bash any kind of organization, any kind of

organized labour. He might be cheered on, but I think he might be

misled. I don't know what his experience is in labour relationships.

The only sort of feedback I've ever had in terms of his reputation is

that he dealt fairly with employees, and I wouldn't see any reason for

thinking that has changed. But I do think that he perhaps hasn't the

background that some people have in this very important field, and

therefore I think that a second look at this would be worthwhile.

[ Page

495 ]

This is a very long and complicated bill, and the whole is greater

than the sum of its parts. It's a package, and there are little things

here and little things there and little things elsewhere that make this

bill very, very tricky. It's not something that you can study and

determine and debate intelligently in five minutes. You have to have

time to think about it, and that's why it's important to receive the

consent of those people who are being governed. Those people who are

going to be affected by this bill should have an opportunity, not just

through their elected representatives, to come to the House or to the

committee and express their views.

One of the most

pernicious parts of this bill is the appointment . . . . I could again

inflate the language and call Mr. Peck a czar. I mean, that is a

pejorative, but undoubtedly he is going to be a very powerful figure.

He has been a very powerful figure in the public service up to now.

Just ask the schoolteachers. I don't know whether the minister and the

government have thought of it — and they probably have — but they aren't

simply bringing in Bill 19 or Bill 20 as they affect the teachers. And

I'm not going to comment on legislation in the future; I'm not

commenting on that at the moment.

One of the things is that

Mr. Peck's organization, the public service compensation stabilization

program, or whatever it was called, ignored the School Act. So we had

the ridiculous situation, the ludicrous situation, of a teacher group

required to bargain with a board . . . . This is the kind of ping-pong

they had to go through. They negotiated up until compulsory

arbitration, and then Mr. Peck would get at it. Whatever agreement

came, whether it was a negotiated agreement or an arbitrated agreement,

he'd say, "Well, you can't do that; it exceeds the guidelines," and he

would send it all back down the line, after we'd spent thousands of

dollars of public money on lawyers and thousands of dollars of time.

There

may be a possibility of a repeat of that same thing here unless there

are some changes made to other acts such as the School Act. So this is

ping-pong by Peck with teachers: negotiate and then arbitrate — that's

for lawyers; Peck would cogitate, then he'd dictate. We've been through

that far too many times in the last four years. So don't talk to me

about confrontation, because that side invented it.

How do

you expect people to react when they're being punched? Of course

they're going to punch back. What do you expect? Do you think you're

going to get peace out of this? This is virtually . . . . It's not a

dove of peace. It's probably grounds for war, and that is what you

might face. What that is going to do to our future in terms of

developing a prosperous province, I can't imagine. Some people say it's

all great; some people say it's not.

I would just like to

correct the minister on something that he might not have known. I don't

know who wrote his speech, but I was surprised to learn that principals

and vice principals wanted to get out of the BCTF. I checked, and at the

last convention they had, a resolution to the contrary was passed

overwhelmingly. So where the minister is getting his information is

beyond me — I have no idea.

This morning the minister said

that this is really important for investment, and we had some Japanese

investors up there. We've got investors coming out of our ears in

Canada. Do you know that since we got rid of FIRA — that's the Foreign

. . . .

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : Out of your ears. All right?

you know that we've got so much investment in Canada — the largest

foreign investment anywhere in the sort of developed world — that

nowhere else is . . . . Last year 48 percent of the profits of Canadian

corporations was shipped abroad, and you guys want more. Since the

Mulroney government took over, 1,400 firms are no longer Canadian;

they're foreign-owned. You know, if this keeps up, we'll be hewers of

wood and drawers of unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, we're not

traders; we're just pedlars.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

You want to have us competitive, eh? Does that mean we have to take $1

to $2 an hour less in, say, our agricultural products than we get

currently? And that's at the minimum rate. Is that what you mean by

being competitive? Is that the competitive edge that we're fighting

for? That's what I would like to know. Is that what you're talking

about? You want productivity? We've got productivity in the woods

industry. They retooled, they became modern, they fired 20,000 people,

and America has nailed us for a 15 percent countervail. That's

performance. That's what we've done in our forest industry. Sure we've

got to be competitive, but when we're working in this kind of an

atmosphere, it cannot be that simple.

Mr. Speaker, I don't

mean to be critical. I am a very optimistic, positive person, but I

just want to say a few words . . . . In my view, this legislation

strikes at the very essence of what we are in a democratic society.

Again, that may be considered inflated language. But how do we live

together today in a complex, urbanized society? That's really the

question here. I think we have to remember that we're no longer as

rural, agrarian and independent as we once were — a nation of small

farmers producing most of the things we used, and getting the rest from

Eaton's mail order. And we found great use for the out-of-date

catalogues. That's not our world any more. We either work for people we

know in small local concerns, or we're employed by huge, faceless,

multinational corporations with their head offices in Toronto or

Montreal perhaps, or New York, Hong Kong or Singapore — or somewhere. I

wonder if this bill is perhaps not designed to accommodate those

corporations. If the unions in, say, Sudbury get too strong, what

happens to Canadian Nickel? They go to Indonesia. I have a Buick made

in Canada — very lucky to have it. Its motor was made in Brazil. We talk

about this international market, but we're not employed any more.

The

bill talks about the new reality of internationalism. We're supposed to

rush headlong to the siren song of competitive advantage. I'd like to

know what that is. It treats with contempt our whole tradition. This

bill wipes away traditions we've built up over a century on how we live

together and work together and bargain for our services. I think it

defiles the graves of those who fought for bargaining rights in the

coal-mines of Nanaimo and Comox, and for the Dunsmuirs and all those

other wonderful forebears of ours. We were an attractive country to

millions of people, the children of whom are perhaps sitting right over

there or over on this side. They came here because they were looking

for an opportunity and they were looking for freedom. They were looking

for a place to contribute, a place to work and a place to prosper. You

can't change it. What you want to do is change what they were looking

for because you don't know the traditions. You don't know the

traditions; that's it exactly.

[ Page 496 ]

The

bill is not British Columbian, it is a foreign bill. It talks about the

code. Where did you get the code? Is it Alberta that we are trying to

match? Or is it Alabama? It is a fundamentalist, right-to-work piece of

republicanism. That's what this bill is. That is exactly what this bill

is. It is a Moral Majority Jerry Falwell-Jim Bakker bill; that's what

this bill is.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE : I

know. You're going to tell us God is a free enterpriser pretty soon

too. All our ancestors came to Canada. We came from the downtrodden

peasantry of Europe or the rotten factories in the big cities of

England or somewhere, and what were we looking for? We were looking —

even the people who landed at Plymouth Rock were looking — for new

opportunities and new freedoms and a chance to contribute, to work and

develop. That's why they came here.

Through it all we

developed certain kinds of traditions, and those are under threat. This

is a free trade precursor. This is what we are getting ready for so we

can set it up, so that we can become more of a branch plant than we are

already. Well, whether the Roses happened to come to this country in

1800, or the Duecks came from the southern Ukraine or wherever it was,

say, after World War I, or the Vander Zalms came after World War II, we

all came here really for the same thing. Canada was something we wished

to experience. We wanted to grow. Whether they were poor potato farmers

as my ancestors were, or they were kulaks in the Ukraine or wherever

they were, or whether they were bulb growers who came after the Second

World War, we all came for something, and that was to be more

prosperous than we were. It wasn't the winners who came to Canada, you

know, friends. It wasn't those people who were the high rollers that

developed this country. It was the city and urban losers who came here.

They were our ancestors and they looked for something. If we try and

think we are going to relive that agrarian society, that is a

clodhopper mentality. That is the kind of rural dumb-headedness that is

going to lead us into lots of trouble.

I think the bill

shows no wisdom. It ignores our traditions and it is a dumb bill. It is

a dumb bill because people who support it, I think, are not people who

are wise people, they are indoctrinated people. They believe in all the

old slogans, you know. They think that's right.

Let's talk

about individual rights over group fights. My colleague from North

Island touched on those. What is an individual fight in our society? Is

it paramount? I mean, how will this government tolerate individual

fights? Does a person have unlimited individual rights? We all know

that is not true. You can't run around infecting somebody with some

horrible disease and say that that's your right because you have the

liberty to run around and spread something like AIDS. That is not a

right. But the right to check out of some group thing like a trade

union or some organization, that's got to be a right you cherish, don't

you? Of course you do.

We will see how your individual

rights work. First time you need to vote against your own government,

we will see how many of you stand up and do that. It is your individual

right to do it. I'd like to see you do it. I've never seen it yet and

I've been here for four years. I've never seen it yet.

[3:30]

As a matter of fact, the member for North Island on the previous labour bill did break with his government and voted on his own.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : I welcome you. It's a great experience for you. You should try it some time.

That's

an example of individual rights. So much for that. If that happened

with your government, Mr. Speaker, it would destroy your government

over there. There is a need to join forces for a particular objective,

to further a particular cause; I don't deny that. But if that is true

for the survival of your government, then the right to subvert

individual rights to preserve something for the group is also

paramount. This isn't even the Rand formula. He can give it away to

charity somewhere; he can give it away to anything. I don't see how

that is tolerable. Again, it defies all the traditions.

Competitive

advantage. I'd like to tell some of those bureaucrats about competitive

advantage. I think that I would be willing to give up a certain degree

of income — say, going from $10 an hour to $8 an hour — if those

bureaucrats would, or if you would, over there. What about your

competitive advantage? You know, we're all paid the same here. What

about your individual rights to come here and work for less? Why don't

you work harder for less money? Why don't some of you say: "I'm sorry,

Mr. Speaker, I'm getting too much money here. It's bad for my

competitive edge. Actually, I would probably work a lot harder if the

marketplace determined my pay." You probably would, but you probably

wouldn't get as much money as you do now. The reason that you get what

you do — some of you might even be worth it — is because you've got a

closed market and a monopolistic system, and I don't see why you aren't

fighting that one. I don't see anybody running into the House trying to

get rid of that. Mr. Speaker, that kind of protection . . . . What you

want is the insecurity foisted on others but security for yourselves;

that's what you want. Because it will make them sharper.

Mr.

Speaker, a few years ago I read in the Sun this little satire by a man

by the name of Gary Engler. He was talking about all the business about

restraint and all that claptrap that went with that. It had nothing to

do with restraint at all; it was just a hammer to the civil service.

But let's not relive that old debate. He said: "Canadian workers would

be better off . . . .

Interjections.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you recall that during the speech of

the minister here a little while ago we had the Attorney-General get up

(Hon. B. R. Smith) in self-righteous indignation because there were

certain hecklers over here bothering our friend the minister. Now I'm

having to suffer. As a relatively new member here, I have to suffer

this kind of claptrap from across the hall.

Let me read you

what he said. Remember, this is a satire. I think maybe you might

believe this one; I want everybody to know that I'm fooling. I've got

to underline that, because I'm quite sure that somebody will believe

it. Engler says: "Canadian workers would be better off if they were

paid less. "We hear this all the time — in order to become lean and

mean. He goes on to say: "Poor people must be given less money, and

that will make them work harder. Rich people need more money to expand

the economy." See, that's good. "Rent controls cause rents to be too

low" — which is bad. "Free market causes land prices to soar, which

allows speculators to buy hockey teams and baseball teams and football

teams,

[ Page 497 ]

which

is good." Hear that, Nelson Skalbania? Do you hear that, Peter

Pocklington? "High interest rates are necessary to reduce inflation,

make work for bankruptcy lawyers and create opportunities for the

happily unemployed. Unions are going to destroy this country by

fighting for better pensions, proper health care, safety legislation,

medicare, equal pay, the minimum wage for farmworkers, decent maternity

leave. B.C. forest workers should take wage cuts, in order to expand

the American economy and get more houses built."

Then this

concludes: "Tighten your belts, Canadians, and expand the military.

Tighten your belts and compete with the dollar-per-day, militarized,

beaten, tear-gassed South Koreans" — anybody driving a Hyundai? All

right. Well, I think that's what this legislation is all about. It's

not designed for labour peace; it's designed to downsize. It's to beat

back the standard of living that we enjoy. That's what it's all about:

to make us competitive. With who? The South Koreans? Is that what you

want? Everybody's got your number. I know where you get your lessons,

too, but I'll tell you some other time.

Anyway, I think

what it is is it's designed for the Bechtel corporation, the George

Shultzes of this world and the John Turners — the guys who want to build

Candu reactors and things like that all over the world. That's really

what it's all about. That's what it's for. It's for the international

multicorporations that shift their production all over the place. I

wouldn't want to say that you people are lackeys of that, but you're

sure falling into the same kind of claptrap.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : I did not say that that was how you felt about it.

it designed so that we can harmonize our traditions with those of our

competitors? Do you want to harmonize your tradition with the Koreans,

or perhaps the Taiwanese? Or even the Americans? People are Canadians

because they don't want to be Americans.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : Not at all. They don't want to be Americans.

this designed to pay off the Kerkhoffs of this world? Is this designed

to protect contract-breakers like Maximum Contractors and Sonny Zappone

and Ike Unger — is that what it's for? — that flaunt agreements and try

to beat people out of unemployment insurance? Because they're the

contractor, but these guys are all subcontractors, eh? Is that what

it's for? You want to see what kind of contract Maximum wants to wring

out of their truckers? They can't belong to any teamsters' union.

They're bad. Remember Jimmy Hoffa? He may be sleeping happily now on

the New Jersey turnpike somewhere. I don’t know.

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, the bill talks about freedom. Whose freedom is it? Whose

freedom is this bill all about? Is it freedom from fear? Is it freedom

from hunger? Is it freedom from a school lunch program? Or what is it?

Is it more like freedom for employers to be free of regulations? Is

that what it's for? I mean, there are lots of other countries that are

doing quite well. Sweden was mentioned earlier and West Germany and

Japan. There is not a reluctance on the government and labour and

companies to manage and plan and have an industrial strategy. Is it the

old business like a century ago? The people who talked about freedom

were the slave-owners.

They're the people who talked about

freedom. Freedom what? Freedom to smash unions. Freedom for employers

to do as they like. Freedom to anything. Government get off the backs

of the people. I just think that the whole thing, aside from the sort

of diatribe which I have mounted against it, is probably as sad as it

is anything else, because I think it's going to lead us down the line

to more and more trouble. Again, I think it's absolutely foreign to our

own traditions here. It is un-British Columbian. It is not something

that I think we can be that proud of.

Mr. Speaker, this

bill is extremely complex. There hasn't been enough consultation. My

colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) made that point, I thought,

very ably and eloquently. I don't think that he exaggerated. I don't

think he was even as impassioned as I sometimes become. Maybe he's got

better control over himself. But I think he spoke with a sincerity that

we all wish to express. It is not unusual for legislation to be sent to

a committee for study. It is a common stage in many Legislatures. It's

all very well to say, "Well, we did it that way in Ottawa and that's

why Ottawa's in so much trouble." They're not in any more trouble than

we're in right here. I don't know whether you've looked at the

difference in the unemployment rates in British Columbia compared to

something else. That isn't just because Ottawa's stealing all our

money. I agree that we sometimes don't get all the breaks we need to,

but that isn't the main reason behind it. This legislation is very

complex. There hasn't been enough consultation. We'll never know its

implications. Its implications are profound and far-reaching. People

should begin to think about that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to move that the motion by the minister that Bill 19, Industrial

Relations Reform Act, 1987, be read a second time now be amended by

leaving out the word "now" and adding the words: "on this day six

months' hence." I believe the motion to be in order.

I hope

that the intervening time would be used to study, consult and, if you

like, rap, and have a rapport with a wide segment of society, and use

that time to . . . . Sure, we need improvements in legislation of all

kinds and certainly in legislation of this kind, and I think that would

give us an opportunity to do it.

Let me close in the same

way that I started. The success of a democracy rests on the consent of

those governed. This is popularly known as a six-month's hoist, Mr.

Speaker; I believe it's in order, and I'd be very pleased to turn it in.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member. The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

On behalf of the government, just let me say that we reject the motion.

Beginning in January, the minister held well over 250 hearings with

respect to industrial relations in the province, and we feel there's

been adequate and fair hearing progress in terms of putting this

legislation together. Further, the minister did advance the bill to the

member for North Island some time in advance of its being given first

reading last week, and at that courtesy advance notice was a senior

official who played a large

part in drafting this legislation.

On the basis of that, the government must reject the amendment as proposed.

[ Page 498 ]

MR. HEWITT :

I was going to rise and speak in support of the bill, but now I'm quite

prepared to speak against this motion. I always enjoy the member for

Coquitlam–Moody speaking in the House; it's very entertaining. He did,

however, make one comment, I guess, that I found a little disturbing

because I hadn't heard it from him before, and I didn't think he would

go quite so far. He mentioned that the bill really is grounds for war.

I would hope that the member, in retrospect, will himself wonder

whether he really meant that.

[3:45]

MR. ROSE :

On a point of order, if that is what I said, I would be very pleased to

apologize to the House. What I thought I said, or what I meant to say,

was that I felt it could be considered by some as grounds for war.

That's what I intended; we'll check it with Hansard , but if I didn't

say it, I have no difficulty apologizing to the House for that.

MR. HEWITT :

My compliments to the member. I wish he would refer to Hansard , because

I wrote it down when I heard him say it. I hadn't heard you say

anything like that before, because you're such an entertaining speaker.

The

member mentioned salaries — you know, maybe we should work for less. I

can tell the member opposite that we have worked for less on two

occasions. When we came into office in 1975, one of the first actions

this party took was to reduce the salaries of MLAs by ten percent; we

again reduced it by ten percent in 1982 or '83, 1 believe, and we did

so to show leadership. I would also mention to the members opposite and

to my colleagues on this side of the House that it was that party, the

party that's concerned about those people who are at the poverty level

and less fortunate than us, that doubled the salaries of MLAs from

$12,000 to $24,000 a year when they took office in 1972. So I have

difficulty with the socialists sometimes when they speak about being a

responsible government.

When I looked at this legislation

the first time around, I had some difficulty as well. To be quite

honest with you, I had difficulty with regard to the teachers' right to

strike, because I felt that teachers have a responsibility as a

profession because of their line of work: to provide our young people

with an education. To have a work stoppage in an education system is of

great concern to me, because the one who suffers most is the child. So

I had difficulty when the bill indicated that the teachers could have

the right to strike.

I had difficulty also with the

compensation stabilization program and the fact that this legislation

does away with that concept, which I think has worked reasonably well

over past years to hold public sector settlements down to a level that

is reasonable and within the ability of the economy of British Columbia

to pay. But then I read the bill further and in more detail, and I

found the main thrust was very positive and very needed at this time,

and that was workplace democracy and freedom. When the member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann) spoke, he said that the legislation interfered

in people's lives. Yet when I read the legislation I find that it talks

about democracy in the workplace, and individual freedom.

Maybe I can identify some of the items that, when I look at this bill as a

package, indicate to me that that's really what we're talking about:

true democracy in the workplace and the recognition of the individual and not

special-interest groups, which is what we seem to have done over the past years.

The goal of the bill is long-term stability, and it's not because the minister

sat in a darkened room or sat in a room with advisers and dreamt this up. This

minister went out, along with other representatives of government and staff,

and listened to the people, travelled the province, and put in long days and

nights to get a feeling from "individuals" as to what they found wrong

with the present Labour Code in British Columbia. They didn't hear just

from the multinationals or the small businessman or the medium-sized business.

They didn't hear just from the labour leaders. They heard from a lot of

individuals. A lot of people who are "the innocent third party" to

a labour dispute often get hurt because there is a management-labour conflict

and it extends into the marketplace and hurts innocent third parties.

believe something like 700 submissions were heard. That's a tremendous

credit to the minister and to his people — to get that information first

before they introduce a bill. So let's not talk about lack of

communication or consultation, because it was there and it was with the

right people. What the opposition tries to lead you to believe by this

motion is that we did it without any consultation. The consultation

they talk about is: "Hey, you've got to sit down with the leaders like

Jack Munro; you've got to sit down with some of the other labour

leaders." Sometimes I have difficulty with their names.

AN HON. MEMBER : Georgetti.

MR. HEWITT :

Georgetti, thank you. Another one, Elsie McMurphy. You've got to sit

down with those, and why? Because that's a special-interest group,

political in their own sense as leaders but quite often out of touch

with their members who came and spoke to this group that went around

the province to get input from the people, from the individual, and not

from the special-interest groups. There was a message in that process.

There was a need to recognize, as I mentioned, the impact on innocent

third parties.

The impact on investment in our province. We

see it in the paper all the time. The comment is made that yes, we want

to invest in Canada, but we're not too sure about British Columbia

because of all the concern over labour.

Impact on trading

partners. Can we guarantee a secure supply of our product offshore when

we don't know whether we're going to be shut down for one week, one

month or one year?

Those were the concerns expressed at

these meetings. And the impact on the employer, the small businessman

or the medium-sized businessman. And the impact on the employee. I

think the members opposite tend to forget sometimes that it's not "the

union" that we're dealing with here; it's the union member. When there

is a labour dispute, it's not the union that suffers; it's the union

member, the employee, who suffers because he can't get his paycheque,

he can't put food on the table, he can't make the car payments or the

mortgage payments. The little guy is forgotten by those people who

would preach to you all the time that they're for the little guy. They

aren't; they're for special-interest groups, and that's all they're

for, not for the individual.

Mr. Speaker, in the few

minutes I have, let me try and elaborate on that point of workplace

democracy and freedom. Is it wrong that an employer should have the

right to speak to his employees about the effect of the work stoppage

in his plant? Is it right or is it wrong? I say it is his

responsibility to be able to communicate the impact of a work stoppage

in his plant on the employees. But the people opposite would tell

[ Page 499 ]

you

that he is going to intimidate them and harass them. That was what one

of the members spoke about a few minutes ago. That's not what he wants

to do. He wants to say: "My God, my employees recognize that if they

demand too much from me, I can't compete in the marketplace. Therefore

I don't sell my product, we don't have production, you are out of a job

and I go broke." So think about it. It is the employer's responsibility

to communicate to his employees the impact of a work stoppage.

it wrong, Mr. Speaker, for an employer to want to do his bit in

training young people, to hire an apprentice? Is that wrong? The answer

is no, it's not wrong, but under the present system the union has the

say in some of those shops where it cannot be done unless the union has

a part to play in it. But who owns the business, and what is so wrong

about hiring an apprentice and giving that person the ability to learn

a trade?

Is it wrong that an employee has the right to say:

"Because of religious beliefs, I do not wish to belong to a bargaining

unit"? The answer to that is no, it's not wrong.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT : Somebody says "yes it is." Well, I say it isn't.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT :

I don't want to get into a debate with my learned friend across the

floor; he'll have his opportunity to speak. All I'm saying is that the

Labour Code that's being debated in this House today gives that

individual that right, and that's democracy in the workplace, Mr.

Speaker.

Is it wrong that teachers may or may not form a

union? They may decide to go and form an association, but it is their

personal decision — each one making that decision, determining by vote

which way they want to go. What is so horrible about that? That's

democracy in the workplace. If they want to be a union, they now have

the right. If they want to be an association, they can have that right.

it wrong that an employer's final offer may be presented to the

employees, not denied by some faceless union head office negotiator,

which is what happens now? That's exactly what happens. At least at

this point the employer can say to the commissioner: "I would like my

final offer presented for a vote by the employees." Is that so

terrible? Is that so wrong? The answer is no, it is not wrong.

it wrong that there's a cooling-off period of 40 days that could be

invoked when the public interest is going to be seriously affected? It

is a responsibility of government to ensure that a labour code includes

that type of provision. We're talking about a seriously affected public

interest, where a shutdown could seriously impact on the community.

it wrong that parties affected by illegal strikes or lockouts should

have access to the courts? Under the present Code we have to go to the

Labour Relations Board and debate that issue ad infinitum before we

find out whether we can go to the courts. We're talking natural

justice. We've got a few people on that side of the House who

understand the law. Why should we have to go through this third party?

If I'm impacted by this labour dispute, where else should I go but the

court to have my say, to hear pros and cons to the argument?

Mr.

Speaker, I cannot understand, on the items that I've brought up at this

particular point — and there are many others . . . . Many of those

people on the other side should be recognizing that this Labour Code

does bring democracy to the workplace, and is not an attack on the

unions. It says that in an organized or developed society we have rules

by which we must play the game, and they must be fair and equitable to

all. And by "all," we mean individuals, both on the union side and

management side.

Is it wrong to ensure voting by secret

ballot? The most disturbing thing I ever saw on TV regarding labour and

management disputes was a vote that was taken, and the TV cameras were

on it. The people walked up, and they had one box marked "yes" and the

other box marked "no."

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER : Makes counting a little easier.

MR. HEWITT :

That makes counting easy, and they determined that that was a secret

ballot. I'm sure we all saw that on television. I was very disturbed by

that, because I would think that, as we do in our election or for any

other political member or any board member, whether it be hospital or

school board, you would have the privacy to make your decision, and it

would be yours alone. Yet on TV I see where you walk up and put your

ballot into a "yes" box or a "no" box. And I'm sure if you were going

against the wishes of the "union leaders," they would certainly be

able to identify quite easily whether you voted the right way or the

wrong way. I don't think the members opposite should find that

difficult at all.

Is it wrong for an employer to make that

decision to withdraw from an accredited association? I would imagine

that the members opposite would be quite in agreement and would say,

"Oh, that’s great," mainly because they don't like the employers'

accredited associations, because that means that employer groups, small

as they may be — for example, municipalities — may band together and

negotiate on behalf of a group of municipalities, as opposed to having

part-time aldermen negotiating with full-time professional union

negotiators that are brought to the table by CUPE.

The

association of municipalities, I think, has worked well in the past,

but at least this Labour Code addresses the question of whether or not

they should have the right to associate or not to associate. It's no

different than the teachers making their decision as well.

Madam

Speaker, in my view the Industrial Relations Council, the body that is

being struck now, has two major functions, one in the disputes

resolution and the other in the adjudication division. Interestingly

enough, it is headed by a man by the name of Mr. Ed Peck. People over

here, particularly the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), were

taking offence with him this morning and saying all these terrible

things. For the benefit of the members here today, you might be

interested to know that Mr. Ed Peck was appointed vice-chairman and

chief administrative officer of the Labour Relations Board by the NDP

in 1973. You appointed him; you put him in office. He's done some

tremendous things over the years, yet you stand today — after you

appointed him — just because he is very responsible, dedicated and

concerned about the labour relations in this province . . . . But just

because he is in this position — I would think you would very quickly

say: "Thank goodness

[ Page 500 ]

it's a man of his stature" — you attack him. Yet you appointed him in 1973.

[4:00]

Madam

Speaker, the role of Mr. Peck and of the Industrial Relations Council

and its two divisions is to assist the employers and the employees to

achieve resolution without work stoppage. That is its role: to do its

utmost to bring the parties together, to use all the tools they have

available to them to avoid the work stoppage because of the recognition

of what it does to the B.C. economy, what it does to the employees,

what it does to our international image in the world marketplace.

That's its role. Yet the members opposite can find all sorts of reasons

why this is a terrible thing: it is administered by bureaucrats, or by

the super-bureaucrat, as I think the member for North Island called

him. It is there to assist. That's primarily its role.

This

bill does something that has not been achieved heretofore: it

recognizes the individual worker. That's really what it does. As I say,

I was concerned when I first read it because of the few areas where I

thought that we were going a little too far. But when I read it

through, I found one main theme all the way through it, and it really

was down to dealing with the individual worker, dealing with the

individual employer, dealing with the marketplace and the impact that

work stoppages have. I think as a package it addresses the concern of

the individual, of democracy in the workplace and of freedom, etc., but

it does not deal with special-interest groups. It doesn't deal with

either the union on the union side . . . . There is no favouritism

there, and no favouritism on the employer's side. It comes straight

down the middle, recognizing everybody in the same manner, the

individual worker and the individual citizen. Isn't that government's

responsibility: to protect the interests of the individual in this

province, each and every one?

I just ask the members

opposite to look at this piece of legislation as a package and

recognize that it provides for fairness, equity and democracy in the

workplace. For that reason I support the bill and am voting against

this amendment that is being proposed.

MR. CLARK :

Madam Speaker, I thought I was supposed to speak on the Labour Code

this morning, and I was told I am speaking on a hoist motion. I guess

the new members would agree with me — that I always thought a hoist was

some kind of mechanical device. It's news to all of us, I am sure. I

looked up Erskine May, and for the sake of the new members I will read

what it says: "A traditional way of opposing the second reading of a

bill is to move an amendment to the question, by leaving out the word

'now' and adding the words 'upon this day six . . . months.'" It goes

on to say that it is a motion of non-confidence.

I want to

assure the members that they can vote in favour of this motion of

hoist, and it shouldn't be perceived as a motion of non-confidence.

MR. WEISGERBER : You're not trying to trick us now, are you?

MR. CLARK :

No, we're not trying to trick you. What we're trying to do is genuinely

and sincerely delay the legislation for six months in order that we can

have more debate and discussion. Now how can someone be against

delaying for six months such a controversial piece of legislation? So I

think you should vote in favour of it and not feel threatened by the

solidarity of the party. We've had lots of discussion about that. Feel

free to exercise your individual rights as members to vote in favour of

this hoist motion. It doesn't mean you're voting against the

legislation.

MR. WEISGERBER : You've got 25 minutes to convince us.

MR. CLARK :

You mean that took five minutes? I will say why I think there is reason

for hoisting this legislation for six months, and I'm going to try and

use measured words, not flights of rhetoric, and not get too carried

away with some of the pejorative language that I could use and have

used in the past. My friend from Prince Rupert and the islands will,

I'm sure . . . . But I think this legislation, when you look at it as a

package, is radical, ideological legislation. It's really a fundamental

shift in the industrial relations practice in this province.

It's

a dramatic, fundamental departure from our traditions and the way that

we've conducted business, and for that reason it requires a lot of

deliberation. It places, for example, a single individual . . . . The

member before me talked about Mr. Peck. Well, I'll talk about some of

his duties later, but it's not the individual that I'm concerned about

at all. It's the job; it's the institutional structure and the power

that is vested in that individual. He's all-powerful. He's basically a

labour relations czar and can impose the heavy hand of government

intervention.

What happened to Adam Smith and the invisible

hand of the marketplace? This government that professes to talk about

the invisible hand and the freedom of the marketplace and the

discipline of the marketplace has brought in legislation that is the

most intrusive, the heaviest in terms of government intervention, that

we've seen both in Canada and in North America. It is really a dramatic

change that means that one individual — a bureaucracy — has the power

to impose tremendous constraints on the past traditional way of doing

business. Those constraints used to be solely the preserve of this

chamber and the people here.

It was a decision for

politicians to make on the question of the public interest and on

whether or not we felt things had got out of hand and required that

kind of heavy-handed intervention. From time to time that's been done

by both parties, as a matter of fact, in this House, but it's an

extraordinary thing. What's happened is that this legislation allows

one man, a bureaucrat, to determine those kinds of things. I find that

offensive on this side of the House, and I would think that the members

over there who profess freedom and the invisible hand of Adam Smith and

these kinds of things would find it offensive as well.

think the government has bought the line that we're really a labour

relations basket case in this province. I think that's the rhetoric

that we hear from the other side, and we hear that from the newspapers,

but it's not the reality. It's really not the reality. In British

Columbia 95 percent of all collective bargaining between parties is

settled without any dispute whatsoever, without any recourse to

industrial action at all. It's only 5 percent that have any kind of

disruption. So we're bringing in this legislation, this dramatic

legislation that centralizes power in one individual, because of 5

percent of the collective bargaining situations in the province.

think it really is a kind of ignorance — and I don't mean that in a

nasty way — of the process of collective bargaining, and that carries

through not just in this chamber but across the

[ Page 501 ]

province

and in terms of the media. I, for example, have participated in

collective bargaining from one side, and I am sure some members over

there have, and they know that the give and take of collective

bargaining forces each party to explore all avenues to reach a

consensus. I think it's probably the most satisfying thing that can

happen when you go through this process of give and take, of discussion

and hotly contested debate and maybe a little flexing of the muscles,

in the end to come up with something that both sides can live with and

agree to. That is what happens in 95 percent of the cases in this

province.

But

now we have a dramatic departure from that.

We have this thing hanging over everybody's head, with tremendous power

— the power of government — vested in one man. He has the power to

determine whether or not collective bargaining will continue, whether

it will be stopped, whether there will be intervention, whether there

will be votes. All of these things are now removed from the

participants in the process. Those participants, as I've already said,

reach agreement amicably, or at least reach agreement without any

disruption, 95 percent of the time. So it's quite dramatic. I think, as

my colleague from Coquitlam–Moody mentioned, it really runs counter to

the lessons of history, both in Canada and in British Columbia.

We've

talked about this, and I want to talk about the kinds of briefs the

minister has had. I have just picked up one of the briefs, the B.C.

Federation of Labour's, and looked through it. They have embarked on —

at least initially, with this new government — an attempt to be

conciliatory and to genuinely attempt to seek a new consensus in

British Columbia. They reviewed it, and I'll just read it into the

record.

"Any review of labour legislation and policy in the

British Columbia context is of necessity a delicate task. The central

reason for this is that any changes must be perceived to be fair. The

Canadian experience, and the British Columbia experience in particular,

with legislation that is perceived to be unfairly weighted, has been

entirely negative.

"The example which is perhaps most easily remembered

is the experience in this province before the enactment of the 1974

Labour Code. Prior to 1974, legislation was in place which was widely

perceived to be biased in favour of the employer community. The trade

union movement responded to that situation by widespread refusal to be

bound by the existing law. In addition, in 1972, for example, in this

province we had one million employed workers, but in that year we had

two and a half million days of productivity lost due to strikes or

lockouts. This is an astonishing ratio, never achieved elsewhere" — in

1972, that is, prior to the implementation of the Labour Code.

"In

1973, the government moved to change the balance so that it was more

equitable" — so that there was a level playing field. "It is worthy of

note that the trade union movement was not in favour of a great many of

the changes proposed by the then New Democrat government. However,

there can be no doubt but that many of the changes in the legislation

since that period of time have been weighted solely in favour of the

employer community, thus significantly altering the balance of

industrial relations.

"If we are to avoid

repeating the sad history of the early 1970s, the early 1940s and the

periods before that, we must learn that any revisions to labour policy

and legislation must be perceived to be balanced and fair."

That

too is the sentiment of most of the academics in the field, and the one

who has written about British Columbia extensively was the original

chairman of the Labour Relations Board, Paul Weiler.

said — and this isn't the academics talking; this is proven by history

— that every attempt to stifle collective bargaining has led to

increased conflict and confrontation. Every single attempt throughout

history in the western world that has attempted to impose a government

solution on a problem between the parties has led to increased

confrontation and conflict. That's not a threat; that's the historical

record; that's the fact not just in British Columbia but everywhere in

the western world.

[4:15]

The

Mediation Commission in the seventies that I referred to, the sorry

record in 1972, the worst record in history in British Columbia — and I

think one of the worst records in the world that year — was as a result

of similar legislation to what we're seeing here today. This is very

similar to the Mediation Commission: again, government-imposed,

artificial solutions to complex industrial relations problems. It

didn't work then, and it quite simply won't work now.

Good

labour relations, I think in everybody's view, depend on consensus.

They depend on a consensus between the parties. Legislation that is

imposed from above by government won't work. Legislation that is

imposed or recommended by other people or by one side won't work.

Legislation that's balanced one way — either in favour of labour or in

favour of management — simply won't work, by its nature. The

legislation has to establish a level playing field for it to work.

believe this government talked at great length about the fact that it

was a new start — a fresh start, they called it. I believe that there

really was, prior to the introduction of this bill, an historic

occasion. The government had an historic occasion to deal fundamentally

with labour problems that have been developing in British Columbia, and

to deal with disputes like the IWA dispute. That moment in history came

about because of good will on the part of most of the management

community in this province — I think of the Business Council, for

example — and good will on behalf of the B. C. Federation of Labour;

clearly a consistent attempt over the last few months by both of those

groups to put forward constructive, non-partisan and non-inflammatory

suggestions for the Labour Code. As I said, I have the B.C. Federation

brief before me; I've seen the Business Council brief, and they really

attempted to put forward balanced changes.

But what did we

get? We didn't get a response based on the kind of reasoned, rational

approaches by the parties involved, and those parties have a long

history of conflict. But they put it aside because they took the

Premier at his word, and they said, "Let's really try to develop a

consensus," and they did. And then this legislation comes down, which

doesn't deal with any of the suggestions made — or hardly any of the

suggestions made by the business community and virtually none of the

recommendations put forward by the labour movement.

What

does labour say about these changes? I've seen the headline "B.C. Fed

Pullout Launches Protest Against Labour Laws" in the Vancouver Sun . And

I think we've seen

[ Page 502 ]

very moderate and modest rhetoric from the labour movement — rational and reasoned responses again, although clearly hostile.

I have before me a letter from one of the most moderate trade union leaders in the province, and I just want to . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER : Fred Randall.

MR. CLARK : Yes, Fred Randall of the operating engineers. I thought I'd read it into the record.

"As

the elected business manager of the International Union of Operating

Engineers, Local 115, representing 10,000 members in the province, I

have some serious concerns regarding the recently introduced

legislation. First of all, no one understands it, including the press,

who feed the information to the public. The legislation should be put

on hold until it is fully understood by the public, the legislators who

will vote on it, and the elected representatives of the workers. We

have tried to arrange a meeting with the new Premier since his election

at Whistler, to discuss various labour matters, but have been

unsuccessful to date.

"I know many of the

MLAs from both parties in the Legislature, and find it hard to believe

that they could support what is being proposed, if they really

understood it.

"My views must have some

credibility with the government, as I sit on the board of governors of

the B.C. Institute of Technology and the Public Service Commission on

their behalf."

I understand that the appointment to the

Public Service Commission was very recent, so this government must have

some faith in this labour leader's opinions on those kinds of matters.

He says at the end:

would like to make some comments on what I understand to date, as I

have not had the opportunity to read all the material or get a legal

opinion. Again, time is needed for all of us."

So clearly,

even the most moderate labour leaders, who use temperate language and

have very cautious but tough criticism of this legislation, have asked

all of the legislators to delay it. This hoist bill clearly is not

meant to be a motion of non-confidence in the government. It's meant

in a genuine non-partisan way to delay the legislation for six months

for further discussion.

Now what does the business

community say about this? Do they believe that we should be rushing

along and passing this legislation? Mr. Matkin, who represents the

Business Council, has been very critical of this legislation. "Big

business told Premier Bill Vander Zalm Friday his new labour

legislation may well detract from labour peace in B.C. rather than

contribute to it." That's very damning, coming from a strong supporter

of Social Credit and this government over the years, and certainly now.

says later on: "He said he told the Premier the employer community does

not welcome the possibility for government intervention raised in the

legislation. 'We said we don't like third-party intervention. And yet

you've made third-party intervention a centerpiece of the legislation.

And so you may adversely affect collective bargaining."' It goes on to

say: "Matkin said the Industrial Relations Reform Act introduced

Thursday does not make labour peace in the province a sure thing." That

is understated.

I have some other comments which I think

are very telling. We've talked about the labour reaction; now we are

talking about the business community's reaction. He said a number of

things on CBC. He said:

"I think the reality

of our pluralistic society is that there's no one single public

interest. If you say, well, this legislation is protecting the public

interest, what you really mean is that it's protecting the public

interest of third parties. Because there certainly is a public interest

in employers getting a competitive settlement so that they can continue

in business. There's a public interest in unions getting a fair deal so

that they can continue to enjoy the advantages of life."

goes on to say, and I am paraphrasing: the assumption is that

protracted disputes would be prevented from continuing by this new

Industrial Relations Council. A cooling-off period would be

implemented, and eventually even binding arbitration. He says: "The

difficulty I have with that is that I know quite a bit about that

dispute last year," — meaning the IWA dispute — "there was a lot of

intervention, a lot of third-party intervention, and it didn't succeed,

and I think that knowing the dimension of the feelings of the parties,

I doubt that this legislation would have prevented the long strike. It

may have indeed made it worse."

These are the comments of

Jim Matkin, a supporter of the government who has indicated very

clearly that in his view this legislation may well make things worse

and not better. It is rare that we get a consensus in the views of

management and labour in this province. We have a consensus, and it is

that this bill stinks.

Clearly it makes sense to delay it. Clearly, this hoist motion to delay it for six months would give us a chance to clean it up.

think what they are saying, really, is that cooperation cannot be

legislated. That is what this attempts to do. It attempts to impose a

rigid, bureaucratic government organization on free collective

bargaining, and it attempts to say that you shall do this, this and

this, and this bureaucrat will tell you to do this, this and this. Not

the government, not the Legislature, but one man can tell you what to

do.

You cannot legislate cooperation. The government

should know that the best way to deal with labour legislation is to

operate with consensus, to engage in debate between the parties so that

there is a consensus before moving ahead. This kind of radical

legislation simply doesn't do that.

Now as we talked about

fresh start, I want to look a little bit at what the Premier said about

how he was going to proceed on labour questions in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER : What did he say during the election campaign?

MR. CLARK :

I am just going to get to that. What did the Premier say during the

election? We'll see whether he's fulfilled . . . . The Premier said,

September 25, 1986: "People know the issues are too pressing to allow

the politics of division to continue . . . . They want to be part of

the solution. Main Street British Columbians want an end to partisan

warfare. They want to set aside the sectoral strife which has become

the unhappy hallmark of B.C."

Vander Zalm said he wanted government to be less intrusive. Nothing in this legislation deals with those remarks. All

[ Page 503 ]

the labour comment has been negative. Almost all of the business

comment has been negative. Yet he campaigned by saying that he wanted

consensus, and then he said he wanted it to be less intrusive

government. In fact, he's done exactly the opposite of what he said

that day in September.

Then I have here an advertisement

from the Social Credit Party during the election, with a picture of the

Premier on it, who said: "We need to put aside partisan interests and

adopt a new spirit of cooperation." He said: "Let's bring together

representatives from labour and management to set a new tone for

industrial relations." Well, no one thought a new tone meant what we're

getting now in the papers in this province. No one thought a new tone

meant that both management and labour would be arguing against

legislation put forward by the government. On September 25, 1986, he

added that he feels voters also want an end to expensive, wasteful

warfare between labour and business. What else did he say? Oh, here it

is.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK : The member

says: "What did he mean?" Well, we're seeing now what he meant. The

brakes were applied all of a sudden. During the election he said: "If

you try and ram it down someone's throat, you create confrontation, "

referring to the previous administration. So this motion, it seems to

me, is clearly right in line with the Premier's statements during the

election. We're going to get a chance to debate it more between the

parties, try and reach a consensus, try to reduce that big bureaucracy

that will result in legislation, and have a chance not to ram it down

people's throats, but in fact to do the opposite, to build a consensus

around the changing of the Labour Code in this province.

[4:30]

The

other reason for supporting this hoist motion, it seems to me, is

really the lack of consultation. I notice the government House Leader

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) mentioned the hearings that were held in British

Columbia, and that's true. So they heard lots of people, but it doesn't

appear that they listened to very many of them. It seems to me that not

one of the participants in those hearings recommended the kind of

super-boss or super-czar of labour relations that we see in this

legislation.

What is the role of this commissioner? I think

it's very important, given that as legislators we used to have the

power, or still have the power, to deaf in extraordinary circumstances

with labour disputes. Now this commissioner has that power; it used to

be ours. He has the power to assign panels, the power to sit on panels

himself. He has to monitor all labour disputes in the province. He has

to advise the Labour minister every time a strike or lockout has lasted

28 days. Then each week until it ends he has a duty to report to

cabinet whenever he perceives the dispute threatens the public interest.

Every

time he is advised of a dispute the commissioner may instruct the

chairperson to appoint a mediator; to appoint a fact-finder to make

non-binding recommendations within 20 days, at which time lockout

action is suspended until 48 hours after the party has received the

fact-finder's report; to talk directly to the parties and recommend a

way of settling the dispute; and to order a final-offer vote by the

workers if a strike or lockout has already started. And before a

stoppage either party can require the commissioner to order a

final-offer vote. In other words the employer can require the

commissioner to

order a final-offer vote. Where the commissioner believes the public

interest is threatened, he may either impose a 40-day moratorium on

strike or lockout action, or instruct the chairperson or a panel to

designate essential services — the minister said essential service

legislation was gone; here it is, buried in this legislation — and he

can appoint a public interest board of inquiry which will hear evidence

from the parties and the public, and report in 30 days. The

commissioner may appoint a public-interest advocate and order the board

to think again if he feels it may have not given enough weight to the

public interest and the employer's ability to pay — there's the

Compensation Stabilization Program.

AN HON. MEMBER : You've got three minutes.

MR. CLARK : Three minutes? I've only gone a tenth of the way through my remarks.

this chairman has this enormous power to smother the process in

process. First he could appoint a fact-finder, and that may take a

while; then he could appoint a mediator after that; then he could

appoint a special conciliator or something, and bury it in process. But

the bottom line is that the frustration that results from that is going

to cause more labour problems, not less.

Oh, I see my time

is up, so I want to encourage all the members here to support the

motion to hoist the legislation for six months and then vote against it.

MR. MERCIER :

Thank you for this opportunity to speak against the motion to hoist the

Industrial Relations Reform Act, Bill 19. 1 cannot agree to any delay

in passing the bill, which I believe increases democracy in industrial

relations. The intention is to indicate clearly that industrial

relations affect virtually everyone in this province and cannot any

longer be considered the exclusive preserve of organized labour and

organized management.

To provide a perspective for the

legislation, it is noted that B.C.'s total labour force as of February

1987 is approximately 1.5 million persons. The organized portion is now

460,000 persons, or something less than 40 percent of the total. We

have heard comments from leaders of labour and teacher organizations

ruffling their tailfeathers like angry grouse. It's appropriate to

note that they speak for less than half the workforce in B.C.,

whereas

the legislation is directed to benefit all British Columbians.

I'd

like to comment on civil rights and the democratic process. There has

been a perceptible shift in rights in our society from the rights of

individuals to the rights of powerful organizations. Bill 19 is an

effort to restore balance and enhance the rights of individuals. Also

it recognizes the fundamental right that those not directly involved in

a labour dispute should not suffer by that dispute.

The

opposition critic has asked: why bring the act to the Legislature for

passing at this time? The answer is why not? This government has a

philosophy of freedom for the individual, and it has completed its

research and is ready to pass the bill at this time. The opposition

critic says why not take the bill to the public, for example, by having

a committee travel about the province asking opinions? Where has the

opposition been? What did they think was done? The answer to that

criticism is that the government committee has already done that and

incorporated the opinions of more than 700 written and oral submissions.

[ Page 504 ]

The

government campaigned and was elected on the basis that changes would

be made to improve individual rights in industrial relations. Bill 19

is a response to that commitment. We feel satisfied that the majority

of British Columbians shall be served by passing the Industrial

Relations Reform Act now. That is how, in a democratic system, a

government entrenches its views and remains accountable to the

electorate. The system is simple, if the opposition wants to know how

it works. The words of the opposition, the words of newspaper

reporters, the words of radio broadcasters are all important, but the

government is accountable only to the electorate. Why should the bill

not proceed? We have a leader who leads, a Minister of Labour with

tremendous common sense and a caucus that is pleased with Bill 19. We

are confident in the work that has been done, and we are satisfied that

Bill 19 is good for all British Columbians.

I think

productivity, not power, is the issue. British Columbia is competing in

a world economy, where the competition is fierce. What profit is there

to our people, if we have a powerful, organized labour base, but if we

cannot sell the products we make, apart from natural resource-based

products? I hope Bill 19 will help small business compete and expand

their efforts virtually unencumbered. It's a certainty that I support

strong labour unions to bargain for their members with huge

corporations.

AN HON. MEMBER : What did he say?

MR. MERCIER :

I'll repeat that. It's a certainty that I support strong labour unions

to bargain for their members with huge corporations. It is equally

certain that I speak today on behalf of approximately 105,000 small

businesses operating in B.C. They, not like their larger brethren,

require flexibility to grow, to increase their productivity. Let us ask

the leaders of organized labour to keep this bill in perspective in a

global sense. We are not talking about sending juveniles to work in

coal-mines; we're talking about increasing productivity by eliminating

minor barriers that have crept into our system which give unwarranted

advantage