1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th 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)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, No. 10

[ Page 3959 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

The Speaker: Before we begin introductions this afternoon, I want to remind all hon. members of the CPA meeting upon adjournment today. You should find a memo on your desk. I would also urge members to advise my office regarding your attendance.

Hon. D. Marzari: It's my privilege this afternoon to introduce the Rt. Hon. Helen Clark, deputy leader of the opposition Labour Party and the former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. It's always a pleasure to welcome a sister parliamentarian to this House. It occurs to me that she should be sitting down on the floor of this House. Would the House please welcome her and wish her well on her way to a conference in New York.

D. Mitchell: It's good to be back, and let me congratulate the winner of the pool, whoever that is.

I'd like to make a brief introduction. Today with us in the gallery is a very good friend of mine, Shari Graydon, who is the president of a national association, MediaWatch. With her is Norma Graydon, a resident of Victoria. Would the House please welcome them here today.

Hon. G. Clark: I was going to welcome the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi to the House, but I won't do that.

I'd like to welcome to the chamber today the man who has the toughest job in British Columbia: Dave Laundy, vice-president of public affairs for the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Also with the VSE are Colleen Chambers and Nancy Woo. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

E. Barnes: Today in the members' gallery we have some very special visitors from Mexico. I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Ernesto Cadena, secretary of economic development for the state of Sonora, and the members of his delegation. Assisted by Michael J. Beley, president of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, this delegation is here to provide an exchange of information, technology and mutually beneficial working relationships between the mining industries of British Columbia and Sonora.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Fraserview and I had the pleasure of lunching with the delegation and enjoyed the exchange of ideas. I'm sure that their visit to British Columbia has been most fruitful, and I'd like everyone to join me in making them welcome.

J. Beattie: It's my pleasure to have in the House today two members of my constituency, Peter Simonsen and Cyndie Salting, both from Naramata. I'd like the House to make them welcome here today.

J. Doyle: I'm pleased to welcome a couple of constituents from Golden who are here in the galleries today: Talea Pecora, a friend of many years, and Tammy Stoffel. I'd like the members to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

AIRLINE MERGER EFFECT ON JOBS

G. Wilson: The question to the Minister of Finance is: given that we now have the CAW deciding to join in and help the Canadian Airlines situation, and given that there is some reconsideration taking place in Ottawa, could the Minister of Finance tell us why this government, with 15,000 B.C. jobs on the line, is waiting to be led by the nose by the federal government and why it doesn't show some leadership in the protection and saving of those jobs in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: As always, I think it's clear that we've been working hard on this question for some time. We're prepared to play a role in any attempt to save those jobs. Our principal concern is not whether it's Canadian Airlines or Air Canada, but to protect jobs in British Columbia. I think it's important that British Columbia be part of a constructive solution, and we're working on that. We are in the middle of very delicate negotiations. The federal government is part of that. Our officials have been meeting and met again this morning and will be, I'm sure, discussing it.

I'll be discussing this very question with my counterparts in other provinces, hopefully this afternoon. It's a very difficult time. We're working hard. We are hopeful, but there are still lots of hurdles to overcome. The federal government in particular has still refused to provide the assistance required to really save this airline.

G. Wilson: Again to the Minister of Finance. Given that there are somewhere between 15,000 and 16,000 employees at risk here, and given the amount of dollars that this government has said it's prepared to put up in the event that the federal government in fact comes through with its money, can the Minister of Finance tell us: what will be the cost to the B.C. economy if those 15,000 jobs are lost and those people have to go onto the social assistance rolls?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I guess, we don't take a defeatist attitude in this question. We are working extremely hard to protect as many jobs as we can in British Columbia. Obviously we have to be prudent about it. We can't simply throw money at every company that comes in through the door, as the Liberal Party would suggest -- day in and day out in the House, whenever there's a company in trouble. We have to act prudently and carefully. We have to work with other governments and with employees to ensure that there is a viable airline industry in this country -- not just for the next week or the next month, but for the years ahead.

G. Wilson: I think that the people affected -- not only the employees, but many of the people who will be

[ Page 3960 ]

losing their income through the spinoff impact of this tremendous loss of employment in the province -- were looking for something more than political rhetoric from the Minister of Finance this morning. In the event that the federal government does not come forward with the money, can the minister tell us what contingency plans he has in place to look after B.C. jobs in this industry?

Hon. G. Clark: Let's get this clear for all members of the House. A month or so ago, when this Liberal opposition demanded that we give $50 million to Canadian Airlines and other people, we refused. It's clear that from the time we initially refused assistance till today, the financial situation of that company has deteriorated dramatically. If we had done as the Liberals requested and put $50 million of taxpayers' money at risk at that time, today we'd be back looking for more money from government. We have been proven to be absolutely correct in that analysis.

It is imperative that the federal government -- which is responsible through its policy of deregulation, through its failed economic policy -- now take a lead role in saving an airline industry in this country. We're prepared to play our part. We're waiting for the federal government to show its leadership.

DOCTORS' DISPUTE WITH GOVERNMENT

J. Tyabji: My question is to the Minister of Health. In question period the last few days, this minister has refused to interfere with the Monty Python tactics of Ray Skelly in Powell River. Will this minister admit that the reason she won't interfere is that his harassment of B.C. patients ties into her own agenda of changing our health care system through doctor-bashing?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I've tried very patiently over the last number of days to explain to the official opposition that inflaming the situation with the B.C. Medical Association at this point is not helpful. However, I will tell the member that I have a meeting tomorrow morning with Dr. Steve Hardwicke, and I'm sure it will be on the agenda.

[2:15]

J. Tyabji: I'm glad to hear that the minister is finally meeting with the president of the BCMA. It's about time.

Will the minister admit to the House that her friend's propaganda campaign is part of her plan to manipulate the patients of the province into a Brave New World NDP health care system, which includes doctors as government-salaried workers and higher health care premiums?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I don't know where the opposition has been for the last two months. The Ministry of Health and the BCMA have been meeting almost daily, and I've been in almost daily or weekly discussions with the head of the BCMA.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Again, hon. members, the Chair cannot hear the answer to the question.

Hon. E. Cull: I don't think the opposition understands that the concept of community health clinics, with a variety of payment mechanisms for doctors, is well established in this province. Many communities throughout British Columbia are preparing proposals for me right now to put together community health clinics, which may involve salaried positions, capitation, a rostered group practice or a number of other payment mechanisms.

Interjections.

Hon. E. Cull: The laughter on the other side of the House shows that they obviously haven't done their homework, and they don't understand how doctors in the province can be remunerated.

TAXATION AND AIRLINE INDUSTRY

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Finance as well. One of the main reasons that the airline industry is in such trouble in Canada is excessive taxes. This spring the minister raised jet fuel taxes by 66 percent and projected that the tax would raise $16 million in new revenue. Can the minister advise how much of that $16 million will come from Canadian Airlines this year; whether or not, as he considers the plight of this company, he is reconsidering that tax; and whether he would consider withdrawing it?

Hon. G. Clark: When we took office we had to write off $300 million of taxpayers' money in bad loans to business, given out by the administration that you were part of. Talk about shovelling money out the back of a truck, hon. Speaker! Dozens of companies, day in and day out, were given money, money flushed down the toilet by that administration. It's obvious that when it comes to assistance to business, we have to take a businesslike approach and make sure that the taxpayers' money is being protected.

On the question of the jet fuel tax, it's important that we be competitive across the country. We raised the jet fuel tax to exactly the same level of taxation as that socialist province, Alberta.

J. Weisgerber: That prompts so many responses from me that I hardly know where to start. That socialist province is putting up $75 million for Canadian Airlines. Indeed, we now see the write-off that this government manipulated last year to try and boost its deficit being written down as part of a cost-saving measure.

In any event, another tax that's killing not only the airline industry but profitable businesses across this province is the capital tax. Has the minister calculated the effect of the new corporation capital tax on Canadian Airlines? Does he know how much this tax is contributing to the problems of Canadian Airlines?

[ Page 3961 ]

The Speaker: Order, please. Before I recognize the minister, I would remind hon. members that both questions and answers must be precise and without argument or debate.

Hon. G. Clark: It's obviously a ridiculous line of questioning. To say that the problems of Canadian Airlines -- which is losing $700,000 a day and has for some time -- are the responsibility of this administration and the last budget is ludicrous. After the budget British Columbia is the second-lowest tax jurisdiction in Canada. Our taxes are competitive with anywhere else in this country -- after the last budget. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We believe in fair taxation. We have to be competitive across the country, and we are.

KOOTENAY COALMINERS' COMPLAINTS

W. Hurd: A question for the Minister of Labour. He will be aware that the Greenhills Workers' Association is charging that it has been disfranchised; and the Balmer workers claim that their collective agreement is being gutted by the Luscar sale in the Kootenays, in violation of union bylaws. What steps has the minister taken to investigate the complaints of these workers' associations and the unions?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member may not be aware that the whole issue of those mines is currently before the courts -- today, as we speak. Given the fact that those hearings are going on, I do not think it is prudent to address that issue at this point.

W. Hurd: Since the matter is before the courts, we assume the minister would put out a press release anyway.

Perhaps I can shift your attention south to Fording Coal, where there is talk of a collapse affecting 750 workers. Can the minister outline what steps he's taking to alleviate the plight of those workers in Elkford?

Hon. M. Sihota: Perhaps the hon. member is not aware that this government appointed Mr. Vince Ready to examine that dispute. Mr. Ready has reported on that dispute, and he indicated the difficulties at the bargaining table and the distance between settlement and the current position taken by the company and employees. He has made some recommendations, and the government has acted on them. One of his recommendations was to simply give the dispute a little bit more time. We're prepared to do that.

We've had an additional opportunity subsequent to Mr. Ready's recommendations to meet and discuss the issue further with both union and industry representatives. We placed representatives of our ministry into that community to talk to the parties to see whether the conditions are ready for negotiations to resume. In addition to that, I've had discussions with the mayor and union representatives in the community to ascertain their views. For the time being the ministry is taking the view that this is a collective bargaining dispute where the parties are far apart; and consequently we will stick to the recommendations made by Mr. Ready to date.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the Minister of Labour is aware that the union in Elkford is currently spending $30,000 a week on food hampers to feed miners and their families and $60,000 a week to maintain their insurance. When was the last time this Labour minister actually visited the Kootenays?

Hon. M. Sihota: I was in the Kootenays about two weeks ago.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE WORKERS

G. Farrell-Collins: I didn't know there was any snow on the ski hills in the Kootenays yet.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. In a press release dated November 5 the Finance minister announced a delay in hiring new employees. What came out was a virtual hiring freeze. How does this affect the 700 community health care workers currently being hired by the Ministry of Health?

Hon. E. Cull: Almost all of those positions are now filled.

Ministerial Statement

RESOURCE COMPENSATION

COMMISSION REPORT

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wish to advise the House that at the conclusion of this ministerial statement I will be seeking leave to table the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for the Taking of Resource Interests.

I want at this time to thank Dr. Richard Schwindt for his very comprehensive study of the issues surrounding resource compensation. The level of participation in Dr. Schwindt's inquiry demonstrates recognition throughout British Columbia that forest and mining interests should be compensated fairly when their interests are taken for public use. Over the next three months we will consult with the forest and mining industries and other interested parties before introducing legislation in the spring 1993 session of the Legislature.

This consultation will ensure that the legislation to be introduced will be fair and equitable. Passage of such legislation will in turn ensure fair compensation decisions. By eliminating through legislation the uncertainty of costly and lengthy legal actions, we will help ensure greater economic stability in our province.

It is important to note that the compensation legislation, when it is introduced, will not include the commission's recommendations relating to the deletion of lands from forest tenures. Those issues will be addressed within the context of broader forest management issues in ongoing discussions with the forest industry. Similarly, the compensation legislation will not deal with the broader mining tenure issues raised in the report; these will be dealt with in the context of more comprehensive mining tenure reforms through discussions with the mining industry.

[ Page 3962 ]

As I said, I think Dr. Schwindt has done an excellent job, and his report will be invaluable as a basis for consultation and the subsequent drafting of legislation. I am confident that our consultations over the next three months will be constructive and productive.

Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to table the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for the Taking of Resource Interests.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for the Taking of Resource Interests.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, the opposition is also pleased to see this report come forward. But we have some concerns about its relationship to a previous bill that's actually still before this House. And the sad fact is that this particular commission has created a great deal of uncertainty in the resource industries in this province and has engendered a great deal of concern in those industries about their future and the rights they have of resource tenure.

When we look at the original terms of reference of the Schwindt commission, we note that public consultation was supposed to have been a hallmark of that commission as well, and we find it rather surprising that this particular consultative model will now be used as a means for further consultation with the industry and with the various industrial users. It's also interesting to note the Peat Marwick Thorne independent financial review, which talked at length about the alienation of resources and how it will affect government costs and revenues.

We certainly hope that in the course of this consultation with the resource holders over the next few months, the amount of revenue that will be lost and the amount by which the deficit will be increased will be of paramount importance in these considerations.

J. Weisgerber: We certainly look forward to having an opportunity to examine the report. We welcome the notion that there would be consultation, and we expect and take it to be that it would be a meaningful consultation and that there would be an opportunity for industry to express some of its concerns. It was clear when we were debating second reading of Bill 32 that this government's idea of fair and the industry's idea of fair were worlds apart. There needs to be a process to bring the government and industry into some common frame of mind on this issue.

I would have felt much more convinced about how genuine the government was in this undertaking if the minister had taken this opportunity to withdraw Bill 32, which still sits on the order paper of this House. If there is a genuine intent to consult, and if indeed there is a genuine intent to find a mechanism other than the one that's outlined in Bill 32, it would have been reasonable for the minister, in tabling this report, to have given notice that he was in fact withdrawing Bill 32. Perhaps he'll take the opportunity to do it later this week.

[2:30]

It also seems to me that, because the legislation deals with land claims and the creation of parks for the government, there would have been a great opportunity here to have clarified for third parties the role that they will have in the future expropriation of tenures and resources for the purpose of satisfying those two items.

With that, hon. Speaker, we will be examining in detail the report that's been tabled, and we thank the minister for his courtesy in extending to us a copy of his statement beforehand.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I'd like to advise the House that we anticipate voting on second reading some time this evening, so that the number of speakers can be accommodated. I want to advise the House that we intend to do that if it takes half an hour or so past the normal sitting time. With that, I call second reading of Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

(continued)

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise, I believe for the third time, to speak to the bill that's before us in second reading stage. We in the Liberal opposition have tried hard with the amendments we have put forward to have this government recognize the need for a broader and wider consultation with respect to the process and to the impact of the legislation, which is likely to affect not only management and organized labour in the province, but quite likely all members of B.C. society one way or another.

In speaking to second reading of Bill 84 and for those who are following my remarks, I'd like to break down my comments into three principal areas. The first is to talk a little about the process of this debate and where we have gone to date with respect to the intention of the Liberal opposition to be constructive in our direction. The second is to talk specifically about some of the philosophical questions. Third, and in the interests of the minister, I want to talk specifically about amendments that I believe could be looked at and reviewed in committee stage. I have a specific direction with respect to those amendments to this bill.

With respect to the extent of the debate to date, it has been interesting to listen to those members opposite who have taken the time to come forward and debate this most important issue, how broad-ranging the debate has been and how members opposite seem to, at least on the surface, have some misunderstanding of the direction that the Liberal Party of British Columbia has taken. I also suspect that it is in their political and partisan interests to make sure that the words we put forward are essentially glossed over -- even twisted, some would argue -- by members of the government to put out a message that might be less than direct.

If one looks at

section 2 of Bill 84, it illustrates, more than any other part of this new legislation, the fundamental differences between the philosophical base and direction of the New Democratic Party, which is

[ Page 3963 ]

obviously the party that is in government in British Columbia, the Social Credit Party, which is the third party in the House, and the Liberal Party. If we look at those philosophical differences, I think that members opposite will understand the position we have taken with respect to this debate.

As a preface to those remarks in terms of the philosophical differences we take with respect to this bill, let me say that we did not support the hoist motion that was put forward by the third party, not because we were not tempted, but because we decided that this bill needed further review. We did not support the hoist motion as a party.

For well over six and a half months we pressured this government to release the public report that was done and bring forward the labour bill in a fall session to ensure that the bill was adequately reviewed -- for consultation -- and to make sure that the areas we believed needed amendment could be freely and properly amended.

Having talked for six and a half months about the need to get this bill before the people of British Columbia so that the interests of both labour and management could be looked after and reviewed, so that the interests of the individual worker, male and female, could be respected, so that the interests of British Columbians as a whole could be reviewed, it would have been quite hypocritical -- in fact, foolhardy; some might even have said cynical -- for us to have then stood up and voted to have it hoisted from the House so that it could not be debated.

It wasn't because we were going to give this bill a soft ride or not fight it or somehow be lax in our position as opposition with respect to what we wanted to do.

It was because we were honouring a commitment that we made to the electorate in the last election to be a responsible and effective opposition that would look after the interests of those who elected us, our constituents -- the people of British Columbia -- and not be driven by the single interest of any one group in the province, whether that single-interest group was organized labour, as it obviously is with the government, or whether it was a large corporate business or any other segment of the Canadian or British Columbia population.

We decided that we needed to move this bill to committee stage to allow us an opportunity to review, through a legislative committee, exactly what it entails with respect to the rights of organized labour, management and individual workers. That is clearly the area that draws the lines of distinction between us and the old-guard philosophy that has been demonstrated by some members of the third party -- not all, but some. It clearly draws a line of distinction between the philosophy of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party.

We are looking after the interests not only of employees who are represented by a trade union and of management, but of individual workers as well -- those people who are free to choose whether they wish to be in a union or not. And if they are represented by a trade union, we want to make sure that their individual rights as members of that trade union are not eroded in the interests of the collective rights of those who govern them -- the management of the union itself.

That's where we have some very serious difficulties in the first part of this bill. In

section 27, "Purposes and objects," of the current Industrial Relations Act, it suggests: "securing and maintaining industrial peace and furthering harmonious relations between employers and employees." Employers and employees are emphasized in all of the key purposes and objects. "Trade union" is usually qualified by "freely chosen representatives of employees" or "employers and bargaining agents." When we look at this, we recognize that it is either qualified by those particular conditions or it is not mentioned at all.

In this government's Bill 84, employees are mentioned only once. It suggests that trade unions are the freely chosen representatives of the employees, and that is where it begins and ends. In the rest of

section 2, the code talks only about vague generalities and principles which promote and secure the welfare of the union. The Labour Relations Code should not protect unions; it should protect organized workers: individual labourers, working women and men. This bill, in the language of the bill itself, removes the emphasis on the employee -- the individual woman or man -- and puts in protection for the union itself. Philosophically we have some real concerns about that.

If you look at this, you will see that in

section 2(1)(

a) it says it's to encourage the practice of collective bargaining. That's really no different than what we see in the current act, and none of us would get too terribly upset about that.

Section 2(1)(

b) suggests that it should "encourage cooperative participation between employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues...." This concept has the force of a straitjacket on the employers in

section 53(1) through (5). We have some serious problems, because in 2(1)(

b) we are looking at a carte blanche guarantee of a contract re-opener at any capricious fancy or idea of a union. There is nothing there except a huge leap of faith that we are being asked to take that that is not going to occur.

We also recognize that

section 2(1)(c), which is "to minimize the effects of labour disputes on persons who are not involved in the dispute," is a commendable thing. All of us would agree. That

section is completely abrogated by

section 65, picketing;

section 66, actions;

section 68, replacement workers; and

section 69, which is other acts not actionable in this particular act. If we take a look at that, and couple it with the secondary boycott provisions and the common site picketing that is present in this through the elimination of sections 4.1 and 9.1 of the present act, we can see that the

section which talks about minimizing the effects of labour disputes on persons who are not involved in the dispute is something that simply cannot be obtained, nor will it be. In fact, this is a recipe for us to have far greater conflict and a far greater impact on the ability of individuals, especially those in medium and small business, to have the security to practise the business.

We clearly understand that there are going to be provisions in place, and there is a need to put them in place, to provide members of trade unions with the right to strike and to bargain freely and collectively. None of us in the Liberal opposition is opposed to that. None of us is opposed to people unionizing if they wish

[ Page 3964 ]

to do so. But we become very concerned when we see in the bill, in the amendment to the existing act.... Let us be very clear that Bill 19 is not

an act that we would support or would encourage retaining in its current state. Certainly those of us in the Liberal opposition would not encourage that Bill 19 be maintained, despite what members opposite may try and charge. They simply have not taken the time to understand the intellectual argument or the fundamental principles upon which we base our comments.

Let us say also that

section 2 is designed to eliminate the established practice of the present act, which is "encouraging the voluntary resolution of collective bargaining disputes" -- that's what it says in the current act -- and replace it with compulsory consultation every two months and the use of imposed mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism. That doesn't advance the individual's right to free collective bargaining.

That doesn't advance the individual's capacity to be able to direct their union and the way in which their union should be advancing a new and more progressive collective bargaining process that will give them a contract and that will better protect the rights of workers in British Columbia.

This new act insists: "The board shall exercise powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed on it under this code, having regard to the purposes set out in subsection (1). The present act provides that council shall have regard to the following purposes and objects but not as duties conferred or imposed. Hon. Speaker, why are we doing that? What is that going to do for the individual rights of the worker? How does that advance the individual rights? It clearly doesn't. It looks after the interests of the union, of those who are in executive positions and who will be able to advance the desire of the union.

But who looks after and protects the right of the individual as a member component of that if the act does not also have the ability to act on behalf of individuals within the collective bargaining unit itself? Clearly we have to have those protections put in place.

[2:45]

The above clearly illustrates the basic differences in the philosophies of the parties debating this and in those of us who have taken a philosophical position and are simply not standing up in our prescribed time -- which I understand members opposite are doing -- in order to push forward a line that really does not have the freedom of thought that I believe all of us need to put into this bill.

The government opposite, because of the philosophical base from which they come -- and I don't hold that as a criticism; I simply put it out as a stated fact -- is obsessed with the collective rights of the union at the expense of the individual rights of an employee, with a determination to fetter the traditional rights of the employer. That's the fundamental basis of this bill.

That is exactly why we needed to have a broader consultative process, and that's why you're starting to see business and industry, now that they have had an opportunity to review this bill and their lawyers have read it, understand that not only are the rights of the employer affected, which is something all of us must have concern for, but the right of the employee, both manager and worker, is also negatively impacted by this bill.

It is our view that the government would act through a board to ensure the union dominates, during negotiations, the terms of the collective agreement, with reopeners ensuring conflict by banning replacement workers but enforcing secondary boycotts and common site picketing. It's clear to any who have read and understand this bill what that means in terms of a proposition with respect to this bill. Since we have gone through the process of attempting to amend this bill in second reading, we look forward to the individual members of the government standing up and speaking to this bill in their turn.

I hope that they will each take, as their own consciences dictate, the interests and rights of the individual worker into account.

How does this differ from some members of the third party? I would argue that members of the third party tend to be locked into the traditional concept of the sanctity of the contract for employment and the collective agreement as its vehicle. Clearly we must move beyond that today. We can no longer have the kind of polarization that that kind of progression has provided. We need a more progressive and better way to resolve our disputes. We believe that there is a proposition for that.

If you are locked into the concept of the sanctity of the contract for employment and the collective agreement as its only vehicle, then we have to understand that any proposition for amendment, new technologies or change that is made necessary by a quickly changing economy, market demands and working conditions that affect new business and industry will be extremely difficult to bring about.

Good working conditions are essential if the rewards of a competitive market economy are to be achieved. We all understand that in essence management must set tasks and working conditions. We've heard an awful lot about the history of unionism from the members opposite; some have certainly viewed it from one set of glasses. Traditionally the role of the union was to determine the conditions that would essentially protect the interests of the employee in terms of fair wages and a benefits package.

That was the traditional model, but it's changing worldwide. As we see this change beginning, it's important for us to understand that flexibility in the workplace is necessary. As I go through the second component of my discussion and lead to where we should amend this particular bill, we recognize that we cannot be all things to all people. I know that members opposite have suggested that the Liberals try to be all things to all people. It's an honourable goal; one that you simply can't achieve. It's better to look after the interests of all people as your goal than to state that you are essentially advancing the cause of one select group, which is what the government seems prepared to do.

I recall that the last speaker on Tuesday made a point of saying that he wants to know whose side the Liberal Party is on. The Minister of Labour said that he claimed to be confused, which comes as no surprise to anybody who has been listening to the Minister of Labour, as to whether the Liberals were for or against Bill 84. Let me say to those who raised this issue -- and let us be very clear whose side we're on -- that we're on the side of

[ Page 3965 ]

the women and men of British Columbia who work, whether they are unionized or non-unionized and whether they are in management or a union-management position. We are on the side of the interests of the people who elected us. We're on the side of the people of this province and not any one component group. I know that this is a very difficult concept for the members opposite, because they have just come from their convention, and every time we saw the Premier, we saw the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour on his right-hand side.

When we see those members at their convention and hear the discussions about their "labour arm," we understand that it's the labour arm that has its hand deep into the labour pocket, and that's what takes the money and finances the party opposite. That's why this bill is the way it is.

However, I digress. I must stick to the issue at hand, which is second reading of the bill. Let me say that in telling the people of the province where the Liberal opposition stands, we are also prepared to suggest that there are some issues here that must be resolved if we are to put ourselves in support of this bill. What are they? Let us be clear that our basic philosophy, the fundamental principles upon which the Liberal opposition is based, that which drives us....

Those people opposite who say that they don't have a philosophy remind me of one prominent member opposite, who came forward so forcefully the other day and said: "These are the principles by which I stand. If you don't like these principles, then I've got these sets of principles, and maybe we'll deal with those."

The Liberal Party is founded on a base of fundamental principles, and those are to ensure that all three parties involved in this particular bill -- that is, labour, as an organized collective; management, as an authority that administers; and the employees, as individuals who have rights in the workplace -- must get a fair deal, and the public and those innocent parties who are not involved in the dispute must be protected from all three of these groups. The Liberal Party believes in the sanctity of the basic, fundamental rights of the individual, and those have been removed from this bill.

We can point specifically to where those rights have been taken away. In the first instance is the question of the right to work, whether you are unionized or not. That is a fundamental right. It's interesting that we had the member for Vancouver-Hastings say that this is only a problem for women, because all of the men who want to be in the workforce are in the workforce and are employed. It shows you how out of touch the members opposite are. They don't understand the plight of the unemployed and those who need to be redirected and who need new training.

People are being put out of work because of the dramatic reductions in the annual allowable cut, especially in the midcoast area. People there who are involved in the IWA -- a good, strong union -- have members who are being turfed out because this government refuses to phase in the AAC. We recognize that they have a right to work and a right to freely choose if they wish to be in a union or to remain unorganized. That right extends to a supervised secret ballot for certification -- a fundamental right to cast your ballot in private, so that you can choose freely whether or not you wish to be organized.

That is a most basic right, and we find that to be unbelievable.

We also believe that there should be a secret ballot with respect to the provision for a strike vote and that the secret ratification of a collective agreement is in equal balance to it. If you have a right to secretly say yes or no on the question of a strike, you should have equally the right to say yes or no to the ratification of your agreement. It is fair; it is balanced.

We believe that the government has no place in the collective bargaining process, that government should allow the parties to freely negotiate their agreements. We have decided that in this bill the government will not only play a role and a part but will do so in a manner that favours the union and not the employer. We understand why this government is trying to do that, because we have witnessed the problems with Bill 19. We witnessed the history of how it came about. We don't need to relive that problem, because we in the Liberal opposition are committed to a reformed labour code that brings about a greater degree of harmony and peace.

We don't believe that the way you do it is to tip the scale the other way. It's as if the government has been saying that for so many years of Social Credit rule the willow stick has been bent this far, and now we're going to bend it equally far back to the rights of the workers so that we can have a balanced situation. That's not how you build a new, progressive labour code in this province.

Let us also say that there are areas in which we believe amendments need to be put forward. One of the areas in which there needs to be a great deal of review, and we offer this as a suggestion to the minister opposite.... As a matter of fact, if the minister was prepared to introduce this as an amendment, we would be prepared to suggest it was his idea. He could take full credit for it. I think it would go well in both employment and union circles.

The language that pertains to the replacement worker restrictions on management is, quite frankly, unacceptable, unworkable and has not been thought through clearly. Let us focus for a moment on the process by which this language worked. The report of advisers that was put forward worked in a manner that provided us a great deal of movement with respect to this. The only place that this fell down was not among the members who were active in the report to government, but when the government interfered and started to put in place its own agenda, its own set of regulations.

It didn't advance that proposition; in fact, it confused the situation and now has exacerbated it to the point that it's unlikely you're going to get management, or certainly large industry, to comply.

That report had three choices. The first choice, which essentially was the management position on the committee, was to do nothing at all; the second choice, which was the neutral position on that committee, was to move to some form of compromise; and the labour position on that committee was to introduce, essentially, the Ontario labour bill. This government went to a far more radical position. It went to a position that said extreme measures are going to be put in place that

[ Page 3966 ]

eliminate the possibility for management to bring in replacement workers. That cannot be accepted.

There needs to be an amendment, and that amendment must say that there will be exemptions to allow management to bring in replacement workers from other operations, especially in the question of the protection of property and property management. It's the kind of provision that exists in Quebec and allows for the protection of property. It's a sensible amendment. What do you do when you can't even get a fire department across the line to put out a fire? That's how ridiculous this proposition becomes unless we have some measure to put those kinds of protectionist measures in place. It seems to me it's one amendment we could deal with right now that would help us move.

[3:00]

The second is the question of secondary boycott provisions. There has to be some provision for the protection of small industry, small business and especially those people in small, single-family retailing propositions that are going to be negatively affected by this bill. We would support an amendment that would look after the secondary boycott provision if it was to remove, in terms of the scale of operation of business, from those people who simply find they are going to be out of work if they cannot keep their businesses going.

Hon. Speaker, I look forward to this bill moving into committee stage, as that is our only choice now, given that our attempt to move this to a more progressive committee stage is something that can't happen. We in the Liberal Party wish these amendments to proceed. We hope the minister will take them in the spirit in which they were offered.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, it's with pleasure that I stand to join the debate on Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code.

It's more than 80 years since the mining families of Cumberland were forced out of their homes onto the banks of the Comox River where they sheltered through the winter in makeshift tents. The company had locked out the workers and brought in scabs from as far away as England to take their jobs. The issue was safety and the right of miners to refuse to work when tests indicated that there was gas in the mines.

The strike started in the mine in Extension but soon spread to Cumberland and Nanaimo, and the toll on the community was severe. The company was fully protected by the laws of the land, while the miners had no way to defend their right to safety, except by withdrawing their labour. All they had to sustain them was their anger, and it finally burst into action after two decades of struggle.

To understand the anger, we must look back. In 1887 at the No. 1 mine under the water in Nanaimo harbour, 148 men died. The following year 77 men died at Wellington. At the Extension mine 16 men died in 1901, and 32 men died in 1909. In the 25 years between the opening of the first mine on Vancouver Island and the strike of 1912, 373 men died. All these deaths were the result of gas explosions that could have been prevented with simple regulations to control open flames and gas concentrations.

Laws to protect workers in British Columbia mines were instituted slowly and subverted quickly. In desperation, the men themselves were paying gas committees to examine the mines and post their findings in conspicuous places. But their patience ran out when a miner who reported gas in the Extension mine was fired and then blacklisted by other companies. They walked out of the mines and were soon followed by workers at other sites. In Ladysmith 1,200 miners joined the union in a single day. So began the series of events that came to be known to workers as the Vancouver Island strike.

But the government of the day saw it differently. Their reaction was to call the strike a riot -- the Vancouver Island riot.

In August 1913 the acting Premier Bill Bowser ordered out the militia to put down the foreign agitators who were disrupting the coal companies' production. The Seaforth Highlanders sailed across the strait to do their duty but were unable to disembark at Nanaimo harbour, because the people of the city seemed to think that the only foreign agitators in sight were wearing kilts and carrying guns. The Highlanders retreated to the company wharf at Departure Bay.

The civil disturbance of 1913, where 213 men were arrested, was carried into the courts in 1914. One hundred and sixty-six were tried for their

part in the Vancouver Island riots. Of those, 50 were sentenced, but few actually went to jail. It wasn't until 1937 that the companies recognized the justice of the miners' cause and settled the dispute, but by that time the mines were exhausted and most of them were closed by the time of World War II.

In many countries, workers are still unprotected by law, but here in British Columbia we have come a long way since the miners' union was outlawed and "Bowser's Seventy-Twa," to use the folk song's title that describes this incident, invaded the island brandishing kilts and machine guns. But our very progress has wiped away the memory of those who spent the winter of 1912 to 1913 living in tents on the banks of the river.

As we debate this labour relations code, it is important to keep in perspective the relative power of those who own and those who work. To achieve a reasonable balance between the two requires the intervening power of the public as a whole to ensure that relationships between workers and employers are fair and equitable. That has been the objective of this government in the process that was followed and in the resulting legislation. This labour code is fair and equitable. It restores a balance that is necessary for stability in the relationship between employers and those who work for British Columbia companies.

Disputes will be minimized under legislation that begins with the principle of fairness, and where disputes cannot be resolved, this legislation provides for a process based on mutual respect and cooperation.

Bill 84 provides new standards of fairness for labour relationships in British Columbia. By prohibiting the use of replacement workers, we have moved toward a level playing field in the bargaining process. It is a simple truth that unless workers have the power to withdraw their labour, they have no resource to balance the financial power of the employer. A fair settlement

[ Page 3967 ]

can be achieved more quickly and without bitterness when those who sit across from each other at the bargaining table are able to proceed on the basis of what's reasonable rather than who is stronger. By eliminating the possibility that striking workers will be replaced, we protect the integrity of the bargaining process. This is fundamental.

It is these fundamentals that will make the difference as we move more aggressively into the Pacific Rim trading bloc, because our economic strength lies in our ability to provide high standards not only in the workplace but in the everyday life of working people of the province. For example, by protecting free speech for both employers and workers, we ensure the preservation of basic values.

By re-establishing traditional Canadian procedures for certification -- I am referring particularly to the demonstration of support for a bargaining unit through signed union membership cards -- by re-establishing these Canadian traditions in labour relations, we also reaffirm our commitment to those historic rights of association that were so hard-won through more than two centuries of political development in Canada.

On a more practical plane, the provisions of this bill will expedite the resolution of disputes. We know that disputes between management and labour are inevitable, but with this new approach to labour relations, I believe that these disputes will be less frequent and more readily resolved. Joint consultation committees will be addressing issues of technological change and work reorganization and productivity, so employers and unions can work together to plan for the changes that happen so quickly in today's workplace.

Disruptions, resistance and dislocation due to such changes can be minimized if we work cooperatively. Bill 84 ensures that this process will be available to any collective bargaining unit requesting it, and advance notice must be given when an employer wants to introduce changes that will affect the working conditions or employment security of a significant number of employees.

Now some of this language gets pretty technical, and whenever I hear myself using a phrase like "significant number of employees," I get worried. I worry because it's easy to forget the very real people, those working people, whose everyday lives are seriously affected by this legislation. I think of my grandmother, who went to work at Children's Hospital during the war. She worked for more than 20 years, until at the age of 64, with less than a year to go before she was eligible for pension -- six months to be precise -- she was fired without cause. There was no union to protect my grandmother's rights.

She had no one to appeal to. It wasn't fair, and it didn't matter. The hospital could avoid paying her pension, and they did. As my grandmother said goodbye to her colleagues, there was a solemn understanding among them all that few of them would ever make it to their pension; and for the young woman who had just taken my grandmother's place, it was especially clear that she could not hope for job security so long as workers were absolutely without resources other than their labour.

Some would say that those bad old days are long gone; and for those of us who are lucky enough to be protected by unions or who own their own business, that's true. But there are many workers in British Columbia -- and I'm thinking especially of women like my grandmother -- who are still unprotected, and it gives me hope that this labour relations code will facilitate the certification of bargaining units wherever workers believe they can benefit from organization.

I believe that there is a direct relationship between our standard of living and our standards of fairness in everyday life. In the laws we pass here in the Legislature, we set the standards of fairness in matters of public concern and lay out rules by which we will conduct ourselves here in British Columbia. Our labour relations are one of the most fundamental forms of conduct to come under public law, because the conditions of our work determine so much of the rest of the way we live. So I venture to say that this labour relations code will play a vital role in structuring the future of our province.

To appreciate the centrality of the labour code in our everyday lives, we only need remember "Bill Bowser's seventy-twa," riding their horses off the boat and onto the wharf at Departure Bay; and then remember as well another Premier Bill, who sent the notorious Bill 19 charging into our workplace to demonstrate the might of government against the ordinary worker.

In Plato's most famous dialogue, Socrates debated the meaning of justice with Thrasymacus. Thrasymacus said that justice is simply the rule of the stronger. Socrates argued that justice is possible only in a society that is structured so that people can fulfil themselves in the work they do. By replacing Bill 19 with Bill 84, the government of British Columbia has taken sides with Socrates, and I will cast my vote in favour of justice by supporting this bill.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and speak to second reading of Bill 84. We've now been in the Legislature for more than two weeks talking about this legislation and about the various amendments that were put forward. They were good amendments, and it was a useful exercise to put forward those amendments. What was particularly useful about that exercise was that it gave workers, employers and others who were interested in labour legislation an opportunity to examine this legislation and to consider its implications to British Columbia and to British Columbians.

[3:15]

It was interesting to note that after about nine days, a number of organizations, which had initially indicated a rather lukewarm support of the bill, had an opportunity to consider more carefully the ramifications of the legislation and to then come out very strongly against Bill 84. I think their response would be mirrored by many British Columbians who have listened to the debate around Bill 84. As we have an opportunity to consider the impact of this legislation on British Columbia, it is the natural progression of our thoughts to come to the conclusion that Bill 84 goes too far. In fact, it skews the relationship between management and labour too far in support of organized labour.

[ Page 3968 ]

As you think about that, it follows that the impacts on British Columbia will be negative as a result. They will be negative for a number of reasons. The workplace relationship will be affected adversely. The investment climate in British Columbia undoubtedly will be negatively impacted. I don't think many companies will decide to pick up and leave British Columbia solely as a result of this legislation. I won't say that there won't be any, but I don't think many will.

Perhaps a combination of the budget last year, this legislation, some other legislation and the budget that we anticipate next spring will cumulatively be enough to cause some people to decide that Washington State, Alberta or some other jurisdiction looks more attractive and will then consider the move. But I think the first people most likely to be affected by this legislation will be those deciding on investment opportunities in British Columbia.

Those people, whether they be British Columbians, Canadians from outside British Columbia or people from outside Canada who have looked at British Columbia, particularly over the last five or six years, as a very attractive place to invest, as they consider again the opportunities in British Columbia, they will undoubtedly look at labour and labour issues here, and they will look at Bill 84, and it will be a negative issue in the weighing of the pros and cons of various jurisdictions and various investment decisions. That would seem to be abundantly clear.

So I'm pleased, hon. Speaker, that we've had a couple of weeks to talk about these issues in this Legislature. I'm glad, before we embarked on second reading and move forward to committee stage, that we've had an opportunity to look at this legislation; examine it to decide which parts of it we like, if there are any, which parts we can live with, if there are any, and which parts of it we find unacceptable -- and I can assure you that there are some of those.

This is, I believe, the opportunity for us today -- and Monday and Tuesday, however long it takes us to debate second reading on the principle of this legislation -- to bring together the concerns we've heard, and to talk in very general terms about the kinds of changes that should be made to this legislation before we move to considering it at committee.

It seems to me, as I talk to employers and employees, and also to British Columbians who perhaps think of themselves as neither one or the other but simply as involved British Columbians, that there are three areas where this legislation is particularly unacceptable. The first one that is always raised is the issue of the secret ballot on certification; I'll talk a bit more about that in a minute. The second is secondary boycotts and the third is the restriction on replacement workers. Those three areas of this legislation should be changed.

There have been convincing arguments made in this Legislature by the opposition. I've heard nothing from the other side of the House to counteract the arguments raised by the opposition. It seems to me that at the very least those are changes that should be put forward now, or the government should give us an indication that they are preparing amendments to bring forward. We hope that perhaps this weekend will give the government an opportunity to perhaps consult with the affected parties; my goodness, there's nothing wrong with that.

I know that the Premier has said he won't cut any backroom deals, because the major employer organizations disagreed with the last backroom deal that he made -- and that seems to me a bit of a contradiction: you didn't live up to the last deal we had, so now we're not going to make any more deals, and we're going to call them backroom deals. There's nothing wrong with this government going back to those organizations -- organized labour, organized employers -- but there's nothing wrong also with this government listening to British Columbians.

We had an example late last month, in a period of about six weeks leading up to the referendum where the government seemed determined to close their ears to the concerns being expressed by average British Columbians. They seemed unwilling to even listen to the arguments being made -- and we know the results of that. We know how roundly British Columbians rejected that deal, and we know of the involvement of the government in it.

So we would hope that this time round, as we look at another major issue for British Columbia, that we would consider not only the special interest groups on both sides of the question but the whole range of British Columbians who don't see themselves as being one or the other. It would seem to me that the 75 of us who serve in this Legislature have the responsibility to be the ears and the eyes and the spokespersons for that interest.

Hon. Speaker, you have heard it at least from the opposition. You have heard opposition members telling members of this government the concerns that British Columbians have with this deal. It seems incredible to me that we in the Legislature of British Columbia, in the democracy of Canada, would be standing here arguing and trying to convince the government to maintain a secret ballot on something as fundamental as whether or not a person wishes to join a trade union.

It's incredible that it ever was raised. It's incredible to me that someone has suggested there would be an argument against a secret ballot. It's more incredible that the government would adopt that argument, present it in this Legislature and then have the temerity to stand up and argue in favour of it. It is a sad day in British Columbia when we in this House are debating the appropriateness of a secret ballot.

An. Hon. Member: Any trucks for sale?

J. Weisgerber: The member -- the former union organizer -- asks if I have any trucks for sale. I can only assume that the member finds himself being convinced. I suspect that he feels his conviction slipping and feels himself being moved by those fundamental, basic arguments. So his conviction should be shaken by a questioning of the democratic principle of a secret ballot. Indeed, the arguments, few that we've heard in this House in support, have been that individuals are intimidated and coerced by their employers.

Those individuals who may have signed a certification card of their own free will would then somehow be coerced and intimidated into voting secretly, whether or not their agreement to sign a card was fair -- and somehow

[ Page 3969 ]

whether they are still convinced that they might want to certify and to unionize. These same members ignore the possibility that someone might be coerced and intimidated into signing a certification card.

I suspect that both happen. I suspect that employers try to persuade their employees not to vote in favour of certification, and I suspect that organizers such as the member down the way have from time to time applied a little bit of pressure in convincing someone to sign a certification card. It seems so fundamentally simple that the answer to this is a secret ballot, where you can go, free from intimidation from either peers or employers, to decide and vote with your heart and your head, and indicate by secret ballot whether you want to be certified.

I have not heard in this House yet an argument that would convince me otherwise, and I strongly suspect I never will. It is so basic to what we should all stand for in this House.

I would think that at the very least this government should acknowledge the basic unfairness of arguing that we need to have a secret ballot to decertify, that somehow the signing of a card in favour of decertification was not enough, and that the employee then had to have an opportunity to cool off and go into the balloting place free from any intimidation or coercion and decide whether or not they want to vote in favour of decertification. But for some reason that I have been unable to grasp, the same principles don't apply to certification.

It is abundantly clear that this legislation is crafted in such a way as to support certification, encourage organization and tilt the playing field in favour of those who seek to unionize. The government's role, I believe, is to provide a fair and balanced approach. There should be an opportunity for discussion on both sides, and the individuals most affected should then have an opportunity, free from the influence of either side, to cast a ballot indicating their preference. That seems so simple and straightforward that perhaps that's why this government is unable to come to grips with it.

Perhaps it's too simple. Perhaps we should have made our arguments more complex, and then perhaps they would have somehow been, if not convinced, at least confused enough to consider the possibility. That issue of secret ballots seems to speak for itself. I find myself reluctant to speak more about it, because it seems, on the surface, so simple and fundamental.

[3:30]

More complex is the question of secondary boycotts. For a number of years there has been a prohibition against workers and their employers signing an agreement that would prevent a business from doing business with or accepting goods or services from a non-union business or workers. It seems wrong to think that we will regress to a situation where two groups in society can decide something that profoundly influences a third group without that third group having any say in the matter. We see that as another of the many sections in this legislation that tend to tilt the balance in favour of those that would see organized labour take a more aggressive role in our society.

I don't think that's the responsibility of this government. Obviously the government is of two minds. When we look at the contributions that are made to the governing party by the B.C. Federation of Labour, we start to understand why this government believes that it has a responsibility to take sides on this issue. We start to understand why this government is not a neutral party but is proactive on one side of the issue. And we take exception to that. We don't think that is right.

The former legislation considered the public interest -- those people who are neither directly on one side or another but who are profoundly affected by labour disputes: strikes, lockouts and the necessity to certify. We're led to believe that we can expect public service unions to press for secondary boycotts in their next round of negotiations. I've raised this question and this suggestion, and I put this theory forward two weeks ago. No one has come forward to say that won't happen.

I've not heard John Shields, Ken Georgetti or anyone in the public service unions say: "You're incorrect; we're not going to push for that at our next round of bargaining." So I assume that my theory is correct, and that's what we can expect to see. If we examine the record of this government dealing with the public service unions in the short year it has been in office, we see them come to the table without much backbone or willingness to argue about the demands that are being put forward.

I'm reminded of the comments that were made by the government negotiator following the last round of BCGEU negotiations, after which a reporter asked him: "What kinds of concessions did you get from labour?" He said: "We didn't ask for any, so it's quite normal that we didn't get any." If the government learns nothing in the period of time between that round of negotiations and the next, it would be reasonable to expect that very soon we will start to see public sector agreements that include a secondary boycott clause.

That will mean that British Columbia employers and employees who are now unorganized or non-union, whether the employers or the employees wanted to or not, would have to certify in order to do business with their own government. So to have a chance to access your own tax dollars, you would have to certify. You would be driven by a decision of two other groups of people in which you had no say whatsoever. Surely this government recognizes that it has a responsibility to all British Columbians. They were elected by 40 percent of British Columbians, but surely they don't represent only that 40 percent.

Surely they're big enough to understand that they've been given a opportunity to represent all British Columbians. The government is failing in that responsibility in the area of secondary boycotts.

That surely is one of the areas of this legislation in which the government will surely have the good sense to announce before we get into committee stage that it intends to move an amendment, so that when we introduce our amendment, we won't offend them by it. They could conceive of it as their own idea. Without losing face, they could do the responsible and honourable thing and stand down the

section of the legislation on secondary boycotts. We know that the Premier, the Minister of Labour, the cabinet and the caucus will come under a fair amount of criticism from the B.C.

[ Page 3970 ]

Federation of Labour and others. We understand that. We also understand that the convention is past and there is a little time. You may not be under direct pressure, and even though you've enjoyed considerable support from the B.C. Fed and others, you were elected as a government to represent all British Columbians, and in supporting this section, you clearly don't do that.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

The third area that I think warrants careful consideration -- and there are more than three, but I want to speak about the three that I find are most emergent and most urgent to deal with -- is the restrictions on replacement workers. I can't see any compelling arguments for this

section to go forward at all. There is no history in British Columbia of employers going out during a strike to hire replacement workers or professional strikebreakers. That has simply not been the history of British Columbia. The members across the way, if they haven't already, will soon start heckling: "What about Canada Post?" That's their best argument: Canada Post. And one of their members from the government had the good graces to acknowledge that that was federal legislation, and indeed it is, and it will continue to be, whether this bill passes or not.

Whether this bill passes or not, there will still be federal legislation, and Canada Post can continue to hire replacement workers if it so chooses. So that argument doesn't wash.

But where replacement workers and the changes proposed here seriously affect business are, first of all, that they considerably narrow the number of management employees who would be excluded and would continue to qualify for exclusion under the contract. They would reduce the number of replacement workers available to help carry on the business during a strike. That will have a serious effect on the company's ability to survive a strike.

We know that a strike is a contest of wills: the employees withhold their labour as a way of pressuring the employer to increase their compensation or improve the working conditions or whatever; while on the other hand, the employer, the company, has the opportunity to try and continue to operate without those workers and to force them to reduce their demands. That's what bargaining is all about.

However, this provision will make the situation such that there will be so few members left in the company who are able to perform work in the company that it would be virtually paralyzed, particularly when you consider that not only would the number of management workers be reduced, but the ability to bring in other management workers from other locations within the company would be prohibited under this legislation. Companies will now -- or after the passage of this legislation, should it happen -- really have a couple of options when struck.

They will really be forced to close their doors, and then the decision will be whether they have the financial strength to withstand a strike without any revenues. That is a very serious situation: it very significantly shifts the advantage to one party.

Let's take this a bit further. Let's think about this

section and the other ramifications of it, particularly for public service workers in government service. Indeed, there will be fewer exempted people within the government service, fewer people available to provide necessary services, services that British Columbians would expect from their government during a strike. To make it even a bit more difficult, just in case government managers or private sector managers still found some way to keep operating, there is a provision in this legislation that requires the exempt employee to indicate their willingness to do the replacement work.

The employer can no longer tell those few management employees that they have to go and do some of these jobs.

We've had strikes in the public service. For example, Riverview Hospital was shut down, and the patients there were given only the most basic services. Exempt personnel in these buildings have been sent by their employer to Riverview Hospital to work in the laundry and do those kinds of jobs that weren't considered essential but that certainly contributed to the basic comfort of the patients in that hospital. Now the employer will be required to say to the minister's ministerial assistant: "Would you like to go out to such and such hospital and work in the laundry?" Hon.

Speaker, what do you think the answer will be? It will be: "No, I'd rather stay in the buildings here and work with you, minister." So the patients in those hospitals will be deprived. That's not acceptable.

I received a letter today from a quasi-public company, B.C. Gas. The letter wasn't written to me; it was written to the Minister of Labour. Many of the members of this House were sent copies of it. The headline, if you like, of the letter dated November 6 to the minister is with regard to the restriction on the use of replacement workers. The writer goes on to say that he is a professional with 15 years experience in labour relations, and he asks the government to reconsider the inclusion of

section 68 in Bill 84.

[3:45]

I want to read just a couple of paragraphs from this letter, because I believe they describe better and more accurately than I could the impact of the current

section as it deals with replacement workers. The writer from B.C. Gas goes on to say:

"For our company, the reason" -- the reason for asking the government to reconsider the

section on replacement workers -- "is simple: our obligation is the safe delivery of natural gas to hundreds of thousands of customers, including ordinary residents, hospitals, schools, industries and commercial establishments. In the rare event of a work stoppage, B.C. Gas would transfer management and exempt staff from their normal headquarters to critical operating points throughout the province in order to keep the gas flowing."

Before I go on to the next paragraph, recall, if you would, that this legislation will reduce the number of exempt employees available to do that and will prohibit the transfer of an employee from another location to do the work normally done by a striking worker.

[ Page 3971 ]

This individual goes on to say -- and I'm not sure it's a he; it could be either a he or a she:

"As we read the bill,

section 68 would prevent us from doing this and we would be obliged to commence a total shutdown of natural gas service to all our customers shortly following a work stoppage. This would have an immediate and catastrophic impact on the economy of our province, to say nothing of the comfort, health and safety of most of our citizens."

If that letter isn't enough to convince this government to reconsider its stand on replacement workers and at least abandon the

section that would narrow the number of exempt employees....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I notice the red light is on, and your normal time has expired. Are you a designated speaker?

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I think that I will take this opportunity to close by encouraging the government to seriously consider the three points that I've raised, at the very least.

V. Anderson: As we continue to look at Bill 84, we have many ways of approaching it to understand its implications. One of the ways I like to approach an activity is to look at the beginning. In this particular case I've turned to the

definitions that introduce the nature of the bill and also the purpose of the code. As I do that, I realize that I need to turn back and look at the very name -- Labour Relations Code. In trying to understand what this means, I turn to the

definitions of key words within the code. The problem is that the term "labour" does not appear in the

definitions, so I had to go outside the code to understand what it was referring to. I turned to a dictionary, and this is the definition of labour: "Physical or mental effort when especially difficult or compulsory. Human activity that provides the goods or services in an economy. The services performed by workers for wages as distinguished from those rendered by entrepreneurs for profits."

Having looked at the definition of "collective agreement" as defined in the code, I find that it is a collective agreement between employers and a trade union. It seems to me then that this is not, as it pretends to be, a labour relations code, but a trade union act. It should clearly be stated as such, because that's what it is:

an act dealing with trade unions. That's fine with me. I am in agreement that there needs to be an opportunity for people to organize trade unions. I would encourage to do so those who wish to do so. I have raised this with people who are having problems: why don't they organize and make themselves into a trade union in order to solve the problems they might be having? That's different from discussing the working conditions of people within the province. This is a trade union act, not a workers' or a labour relations act.

Also it seems to me that we need to look at the

definitions closely, because they give the underlying sense of what we're talking about. Unless we look at them, we can be easily misled. The collective agreement refers to employers and employers' associations and organizations. Then it refers, on the other hand, to a trade union. It does not take into account that there might be employees' associations, fellowships or organizations apart from trade unions. It implies that if people working in a company are organizing, it's a union and there is no other way, and therefore they are bound by it. That's the way the

definitions are put forward. When you look at the definition of "employee," it does not say in that definition that it should be a union member, per se, just as it does not say that an employer must be part of another employer union. So there is a distinction between the

definitions and the different

interpretations of meanings.

It also goes on to define a person. I didn't bother to look up the definition of person, but it seems to me fairly logical that a person deals with an individual person. But here the definition leads you astray, unless you look at it closely, because a person deals with not only an individual, but it also applies to a group of individuals, to a thing, to an organization. So what definition you might be using depends on which part of the act you're reading, and it could easily be misunderstood.

The trade union, then, talks about being an association of employees. As I look at the definition, I'm not sure how a family business fits into this description. A mother, father, their eight children and perhaps some cousins...

D. Streifel: They're not covered.

V. Anderson: ...and nephews are part of this.

I hear my friend down there on the government side saying: "They're not covered." But this act doesn't say that they aren't covered.

When you come into the next part, it talks about a unit. A unit for organizing purposes is one or more persons. Most people, when they read the labour relations act, are thinking about an organization as a group of people. They haven't stopped to think that this act takes that ordinary understanding and changes it, so suddenly they'll discover that if they have one person working for them -- that person might even be their wife, brother, cousin, son-in-law, or whoever else -- that person is now a unit in organizational terms and is covered by this act. So it opens up all kinds of possibilities that are not, on the surface, readily available to people.

If you look at the purposes of the code, you begin to see even more clearly what the government is trying to put forth in this undertaking. It sounds good when you read it at first: "The following are the purposes of this code: to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions...." It's not to regulate, but to encourage, and there's a completely different motive. It's saying that the proper and only really viable thing for people to do is organize and become part of a trade union. The government will put all of its power, force, strength and wealth into organizing and encouraging people to become part of trade unions.

In this past week I had an opportunity to meet with a multicultural advisory committee. They told me that there is a growing concern in our multicultural society that we are placing a particular cultural mode of

[ Page 3972 ]

operation on the new people who are living in our midst, and they are not familiar or comfortable with it. They are very uneasy. By government action we are putting a layer on people that is not part of the style of operation or work or cooperation that they are familiar with.

It seems to me that we have two modi operandi here. I've categorized one, in my own shorthand, as a CM operation, and the other one is an MC operation. The CM operation builds on the model of confrontation. You confront your employer or your employee, as the case may be. If you have used up all of your force and power, the government will come to your assistance in that stalemate and force you into mediation -- whether you can solve it that way or not. The mediation is biased, because the only outcome of the mediation is that you must have a collective agreement. There is no other place to go, no other alternative. That's the CM: from confrontation to forced mediation.

MC starts at the other end of the ledger. This says that there is an opportunity for people to come together and understand that they will mediate and cooperate from the very beginning. In a sense, there is an entirely different mood -- not of confrontation but of cooperation. The mediation in which they engage is a voluntary, joint undertaking and is for their benefit.

It's this difference in process that we need to take into account. On the one hand, Bill 84 recognizes the confrontational approach that was in Bill 19. I think we're all agreed that this approach needed to be removed and changed. But in the process of doing this, they have accepted the basic elements and added a mediation process, rather than reversing the process and building it from a mediation background into cooperation. They have not solved the problem. Indeed, in moving to Bill 84, they have made the problem even worse.

[4:00]

As you look at the other purposes in the bill, they give us the general tone. If you look at the purposes, you often see the implementation coming afterward. The purpose of the act is to minimize the effects of labour disputes on persons who are not involved in the dispute. That is a very laudable purpose and one with which we would heartily agree. However, the act does not fulfil that purpose. Let me give an illustration in the area of replacement workers. This will affect, among other things, the area of education.

If teachers go on strike -- which they have done, and quite appropriately so -- the principal or the administrator is responsible for the well-being of the children there. If the children happen to cross the picket line to come into the school yard, which they're free to do because it's a school day and no one will stop them, there needs to be somebody there to care for them. The caretakers and the teachers are gone; everybody else is gone except the principal. However, if the principal is sick that day and isn't able to get to school, there is no way you can send in a replacement worker for the principal.

So the children are there all by themselves and are unprotected. If something should happen to those children, whose liability is it? We could say that the liability will come to those who are striking. It's not that so much, but: who will care for those children?

Already that effect is being seen in the present code, if a teacher for some reason is called away and asks one of the other teachers to take on their supervision duties while they're away. In a particular school that I'm aware of, there was a slowdown by the teachers. The teacher who might normally have taken on that supervision responsibility said: "No, I'm sorry, my union won't allow me to do that." So the supervision of the children was not there. The children were in school and were being taught, to some extent, by their teachers.

But if an emergency arose, there was no one in that building who could care for them. In this particular case there was someone some distance away, but it would have taken them an hour or more to get there. This is the kind of difficulty that this act makes even worse than the present act does. In trying to solve a problem, it has created a problem of even greater consequence.

Another purpose is to promote conditions favourable to the orderly, constructive and expeditious settlement of disputes between employers and trade unions. That is also a laudable goal. But as we've mentioned before, there is the problem when people are caught in a business relationship and something goes wrong. Richard Findlay is one of the people to whom this has happened. This presents an example of the very difficult situation that's being perpetuated here. He came into a disagreement on working relationships with the brewery for which he worked.

He then went to his union and came into a disagreement with the union in attempting to solve that dispute. He then came into a disagreement with the Labour Relations Board. So he has been to court, and he has been everywhere. But there's no place for him to go, because the ombudsman -- the part of the act that has been left out and was unproclaimed in the last act -- was not able to give him the support he needed. It has been reported that he has been forced to sell his Surrey home, his furnishings and about $100,000 in stocks to pay for legal fees.

A person who had worked for many years, a person who had been a boxing champion in Canada, is at the present time picking mushrooms, without any ability to resolve through all of the channels which should have been there to help him and no place to go for the retribution and the justice that he so rightly deserves. This is the kind of thing that Bill 84 does not rectify, and therefore it needs to be reconsidered.

Hon. Speaker, we need to look at the implications, which are far-reaching. This last week I had an opportunity to do some travelling in British Columbia with the aboriginal commission. As I talked to some of the aboriginal fishermen and as we talked to some of the aboriginal people on the reserve, questions were raised about the implications of the labour bill. They had not thought about the implications for them.

They had not thought about the implication that they might not be able to carry on their regular business, because if they were organized as an aboriginal business and were not "unionized," they would not be able to do business with "unionized fish plants, with unionized processors, with the government itself," and they would be frozen out. They had never considered that the labour bill we

[ Page 3973 ]

were discussing here in this Legislature could have a very devastating effect on their economy and on their livelihoods.

Most of the small business people I talk to, who may be in one-person businesses, along with one or two people they call in periodically to help them, haven't bothered to read the labour code, because they understood that this code dealt with big business, big corporations and big organizations. Their first reaction was: "This doesn't relate to me. Why would I look at it?" But as they look at the implications of the code, they discover it has a great bearing upon them. In fact, it could be the one item above everything else -- the economy and everything else -- that could put them out of business.

Hon. Speaker, this bill needs to be put out so people can have time to look at it. It needs to be amended in a way that does not affect those parts of our economy -- and our businesses and our employees -- impacted by this bill without there being a chance to consider it.

Under "purposes" it says: "The board" -- which shall be set up within this code -- "shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed on it under this code having regard to the purposes" above. But as you go along you discover that the powers of the board -- and actually, its activities within the code -- are not all contained within this act, because there are provisions in the act that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can not only make regulations but really extend and change the powers of the act.

There are provisions in this act where the Minister of Labour has unspecified authority and power to give directions and undertake actions which, again, are not specified within the act.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to suggest that there are many people in this province who have no awareness at this moment of the impact that this act will have upon their lives, and I dare to suggest that there are very few acts that this government has passed that will have a greater or more adverse impact on more people within this province than this particular act.

I would encourage the government to do a proper trade relations act and to also bring in a workers' labour act, to separate these two concerns so that people can distinguish between the regular working regulations and labour regulations. Then they have the chance to choose between one and the other.

I would urge that the government take seriously the amendments that will be put before them. Hopefully, they will bring forth their own amendments, having had the opportunity to consider the unthought-of implications that are part of this bill.

B. Copping: A lot has been debated over the last few days, and I would like to comment on a few things I heard from the opposition.

I heard over and over again about the process and the three wise men. I would like to make clear that this process involved far more than the three wise men. Last February our Minister of Labour appointed nine members to a committee of special advisers to advise the government how to build stability and long-term cooperation in this province. He then appointed a subcommittee to develop recommendations to improve the labour legislation. This subcommittee visited 11 communities, heard 203 oral submissions and took 296 written submissions. This was an eight-month process of public hearings.

All voices were heard; all points of view were heard. Out of that process came consensus on 98 percent of this bill. Out of over 160 clauses, there were only four that weren't unanimous.

At the same time, I hear members say that they liked Bill 19. Where is the logic? It was a bill done in back rooms with absolutely no consultation at all. It makes no sense. In the nearly 500 submissions on this bill, no one attempted to defend Bill 19 as balanced legislation. Some sections of Bill 19 violated Canada's commitments under the United Nations International Labour Organization conventions dealing with freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. The same members who are opposing this bill favour Bill 19.

I've heard no end of anti-union sentiments. I've heard members say that our government talks too much about the history of labour unrest; or perhaps we're not looking at history enough, because there hasn't been terrible labour unrest in this province. Are we to be selective about history? Yesterday was November 11, and we honoured a very important piece of history. No, we didn't have bombs drop on British Columbia, but I think that was a day that we acknowledge should be recognized. Are we to ignore the confrontation that happened in the textile mills when unions did try to organize years ago?

Are we to ignore what is happening today? Eighty union organizers have been murdered in Mexico since 1989.

G. Farrell-Collins: That doesn't happen in B.C.

B. Copping: No, it doesn't happen in B.C. -- and the Holocaust didn't happen in B.C. But I hope that is no argument for saying that we should ignore it, not learn from history, and that we shouldn't put protection in a labour code.

We all hear about the big unions and the big union bosses. Unions are absolutely democratic organizations. The union leaders are elected by their membership, they are accountable to their membership and they stand up for their membership. They vote on their collective agreements.

[4:15]

I've heard no end of talk about individual rights versus collective rights. You tell me where an individual's rights are if they are the working poor making barely enough to feed their families and working in a minimum wage job in terrible or unsafe working conditions. The rights that we all enjoy today, whether we are union or non-union -- occupational health and safety, wages and working conditions -- are due to what the unions have fought for.

I would like to comment on an

article in the Sun on Tuesday, November 10, regarding the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who at that time were urging the federal government to ban the use of replacement workers. Bishop Faber MacDonald, chairman of the social affairs commission of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, talks about individual rights. He says:

[ Page 3974 ]

"To put a person in another's job, as one would change a cog in a machine, is to attack the very dignity and mystery of the human person. The right to strike is a basic human right, and to take in police and replacement workers is to fly in the face of that basic human right. The fundamental principle is to work for democracy in forcing both parties to stay at the bargaining table."

That is what this bill excels in.

Then I have heard that this bill is tipped in favour of the unions. I've heard that from people who never argued that Bill 19 was tipped totally in favour of the employer. I have heard people say that this bill is going to create unemployment, create hardship on people, close down businesses and keep out investment. Is this opposition really serious? Do they really believe that is the agenda of the government and unions? This is just totally unacceptable and illogical thinking.

This bill is about a level playing field. It's about restoring fairness and balance, and it will ensure a stable labour relations climate. It will help dispute resolution by providing ways other than strikes, and it will look at enhanced mediation services and expedited arbitration services. It is to be commended on these points.

The hundreds of groups and individuals that worked so hard to build this new labour code are to be thanked and congratulated, as is our Minister of Labour, of whom I'm extremely proud.

I'm going to conclude by saying one thing, to paraphrase a favourite story of mine. When you look at the face of a woman and you see your sister, and when you look at the face of a man and you see your brother, you will understand what unionism is all about.

C. Tanner: I want to speak today on the principle of Bill 84. I'd like to run over what we've covered so far in the two weeks that we've been in this House. There's been an attempt by the third party to have a six-month hoist, which this party objected to for the simple reason that we felt it was time to get to the debate in this House. We felt that there had been eight months of circulation and report, that a number of individuals had had the opportunity to give their opinion and that it was time to have the debate. As a consequence, we didn't support that amendment.

The next step we suggested -- we think it's the most appropriate one and wish that the third party had followed this course of action -- is that it go to committee. All members in this House know that the general format followed is that you have public hearings. You bring it to the House or to the people who are making the decision, and then you have comments again from the public on the suggestions that have been made during those public meetings. It's a logical course of action, and one that we would have expected to have been followed in this case.

In her speech an hour or so ago, the member for Surrey-Green Timbers said that labour relations is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our society. I don't disagree with her at all, but the fact of the matter is that if it is that important, surely the people and the public who had input into the report should have had the right to another comment on the suggestions that were made in the report.

You have heard from this side of the House that we are concerned with a number of specific items. We get to the point now where we're debating the principle of the report, and from here we'll go into committee and discuss the detail.

It is my view that this House, the public, employers, unions and, most of all, the public at large would have been better served if we'd gone to a committee and had meetings showing the legislation that was suggested, so that the opinions expressed in this House, whether they be from that side or this side, would not be the only opinions to address, as the member for Surrey-Green Timbers said, this most important piece of legislation in the lives of British Columbians.

Addressing the principle, which will be found on page 9 of the bill, under the purposes of the so-called code.... It's divided into two sections. In the first

section there are six subsections, and the expression "employers and trade unions" is used in three sections. I see nothing in the purpose of this code addressing the members of the public. All I see is unions and employers, and that's one of the major criticisms that this side of the House has of that side of the House.

Quite frankly, one of the problems we have is that we know the government side of the House -- the New Democratic Party -- is very strongly supported by unions. We know for a fact that at their recent convention a third of the members were there as union representatives. We have problems with the fact that perhaps in this legislation the motive for this legislation isn't quite as straightforward as it should be and is, in fact, a payoff to those very unions which support that party. That is the reason we have questions.

We also have questions, quite frankly, with the third party. The question we have with the third party's position on this bill is that they are the successors to a government which brought in Bill 19, which, in our view, was equally not impartial. Bill 19 was directly opposed to this piece of legislation: it was far too much in favour of the employer. The Liberal position has always come down in the middle. We are neither opposed to the unions nor to the employing fraternity of this province, but on the other hand we are very concerned with individual rights. We don't see our concerns addressed in this legislation.

I suppose what makes us most nervous is illustrated by the fact that the NDP, the government party, is not prepared to have a secret ballot. It's their contention -- this party which has "democratic" in its name -- that if 55 percent of a group of employees sign cards saying they want to join a union, that is sufficient. We have a great many problems with that. Why 55 percent? Why not 50 plus one? If they're going to be consistent, that's all they need. One assumes that 50 percent plus one is a majority. I think it's 55 because it's just enough to make it look like it's acceptable.

I don't think it's sufficient, though. In my view -- and it would be a suggestion from this side of the House -- we should have a secret ballot, but one based on the fact that 50 percent plus one want to join a union. When the secret ballot takes place, everybody in the company can express a serious point

[ Page 3975 ]

of view. After all, it is our democratic right to elect members that way; it is the public's democratic right to express an opinion that way. What makes an employer-employee relationship any different? Why does the party on that side have difficulties with such basic democracy as a secret ballot? We have difficulty with that. We would like to see that amended.

On the other hand, we would also like to see the right to withdraw from a union be private and a secret ballot too, because if there's going to be a change, then it should be by secret ballot as well. So we are consistent in this; it's the party on that side of the House, the government party, that we find is terribly inconsistent.

The last speaker said that this is a fundamental piece of legislation which we need to run our province, and that the government party would be foolish to bring in anything that was in conflict with the needs and requirements of the public. We don't buy that, hon. Speaker. We think the party opposite has a very definite purpose, and that is to fulfil an obligation to the major unions of this province. They're fulfilling it by bringing in legislation which is equally as biased as Bill 19 was, brought in by the previous government.

I suspect that one of the most unfortunate things that happened to the NDP government in this session was when they finally sat down in their seats on that side of the House, after 21 years of waiting, and saw us on this side of the House. What they saw on this side of the House was a party which is representative of fair play and which looks after the rights of the individual. What they had hoped to see on this side, of course, was a number of past government members, so that no matter what they brought in they could berate them for being instrumental in their having to compensate for the legislation they'd put forward.

While I am addressing the principle of the bill, I would like to illustrate some of my points by addressing that area of government which is my particular concern, and that is tourism. Tourism is made up, in the vast majority, by businesses that are individually owned or by very small companies which, with the best will in the world, try to make a living in a very difficult circumstance, the difficult circumstance being that tourism is suffering these days. It is being damaged by virtually every department of this government.

Tourism in British Columbia this year is down by 2 percent, not the least of the reasons for which are the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Tourism, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Labour and the Attorney General ministry, which have all attacked tourism in a number of different ways.

The Ministry of Health has made it more difficult for people in the tourist industry to look after their public health problems, and it has made it more difficult and more expensive to offer services to the public. In days gone past, when you had an inspection from the health inspector, you merely had an inspection and put up with the inconvenience of that sort of thing. Now you are told after the health inspector leaves that it will cost you so much money for the service; that's new. It used to be that when the Ministry of Health came to inspect you, it only inflicted one piece of pain on you.

Now it inflicts two. It not only charges you for the inspection, it charges you through the nose for the privilege of being inspected.

At the same time, the Ministry of Tourism has made a decision that it is going to reduce the amount of money it invests in marketing. Consequently the tourist industry has suffered again this year, and it will suffer again in the future.

The Finance ministry has decided in its wisdom that it is going to impose more taxes on small business. The small business taxes it is imposing not only come from the bottom line of a financial statement but also from the fact that all of their assets are now taxable, whether or not they're making a profit.

The Ministry of Environment, in its wisdom, has decided to impose more and greater restrictions on various tourist industries in this province, making it more difficult for those operators in the hinterland of our province to operate. It is imposing different criteria for angling and for recreational areas, and different seasonal protections on various trails and so forth, all of which, while it may be necessary, make it that much more difficult for tourism.

[4:30]

The Ministry of Attorney General, in its wisdom, has decided for some reason that having followed a policy in this province for the last six or seven years of encouraging people to go into business for themselves in the marketing of cold beer and wine.... They have suddenly decided right out of the blue, for no apparent reason, that the government wants to get into the same business. It's going to make it that much more difficult, since most of those wine and beer stores are operated by hotels, for them to show a profit at the end of the day and consequently to pay taxes.

Now we have the Minister of Labour and the ministry bringing in their new labour code. They are changing the rules in midstream. After all the other ministries have attacked the ministry in which I'm interested -- Tourism -- and after all of them have got their piece of the pie, now the Minister of Labour is bringing in a bill which is going to make it more difficult for the tourist industry to operate. It's going to make it more and more difficult for those smaller industries to show a profit and to pay taxes.

It's going to make it more difficult for the employees, which this bill is trying to protect, to make a dollar. As a consequence, you're going to see the tourist industry suffer even more.

I've got a couple of letters here from the tourist industry outlining their reservations. This letter is from the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association. The coalition for their position is:

"Bill 84 undermines one of the fundamental pillars of workplace democracy -- the workers' right to a secret ballot vote. A secret ballot vote leaves no doubt about the workers' true wishes and therefore allows the collective bargaining process to get off on the right foot.

"Example. Often during a certification drive, workers will experience pressure from all quarters as they make their decision on whether or not to join a union. The opportunity for a worker to vote, in secret, by ballot, ensures that there are no questions about the employees' wishes."

[ Page 3976 ]

On secondary boycotts the hotel association is saying:

"The new code creates the freedom to negotiate terms to allow secondary boycotts in a collective agreement.

"`Top-down' unionization methods such as secondary boycotts do not recognize the special circumstances of individual companies and do nothing to encourage a healthy labour relations climate. Just because a business is not unionized doesn't mean they're anti-union. Many small and medium-sized companies would be forced to unionize if, for example, the public sector began to negotiate `union-only' clauses into their collective agreements. The coalition believes in the workers' right to choose to join a union -- they do not believe workers should be forced to join unions.

"Example. Once this provision becomes law the following situation could occur: ICBC could negotiate into their collective agreement a `union-only' clause which would stipulate that only unionized companies could supply goods or services to ICBC. For example, a small business with three employees that sells computers to ICBC would be forced to unionize or risk losing the ability to sell its products. The government is telling you that `unless you're unionized we won't do business with you.'"

Nobody can claim that that's democracy in action.

They're also concerned about replacement workers during a strike: "Companies must have the ability to operate during a labour dispute." Particularly in the tourist industry, because the tourist industry is frequently made up of very small companies. "Often small and medium-sized businesses do not have the financial means to cope with a shutdown."

They offer another example:

"You own a small bakery and your eight workers go on strike. In order to keep your customers, and your business, you have to run your shop and your sister and brother-in-law volunteer to help you. If Bill 84 becomes law you won't be allowed to do this even if it means you have to shut your doors for good."

We have a circumstance here in secondary boycotts where we could be losing jobs in this province, because this so-called labour code is trying to protect employees. In actual fact it could be closing down businesses, and we could be losing employees.

The first contract settlements are of particular difficulty to the tourist industry:

"The government must amend

section 55 to explicitly state that first contract arbitration must only be used when one of the parties engages in `surface bargaining'. It must not be used as a tool to force a first contract when parties are negotiating in good faith.

"Example. Potentially, first contract arbitration could be forced upon you even if you are negotiating in good faith. An arbitrator could virtually impose a standard `boiler plate' collective agreement on your company, regardless of your firm's financial situation."

For those who don't understand "boiler plate", it is an agreement used throughout an industry that is imposed on a smaller location even when it's coming from a bigger organization.

The tourist industry is also concerned about the right of striking or locked-out employees to picket their own worksites and feels it should be maintained:

"The coalition believes no changes are needed to the existing laws for secondary picketing. The new amendments in Bill 84 are in no way substantial or positive. They only give the Labour Relations Board discretionary powers to allow workers the right to picket their own worksite even though other parties may be affected.

"Example. You do business in building and a company down the hall from you has gone on strike. Their union wants to picket the entrance to your building -- if they do, your business will be hurt as well. You must apply to the Labour Relations Board for relief from the pickets. Under Bill 84 it is up to the board to decide if they want to grant you relief -- it's not automatic."

Mr. Speaker, the tourist industry is concerned that this government is not bringing in a fair act. They're not bringing in a balanced piece of legislation. They're bringing in legislation for a specific purpose, and that purpose appears to be to the benefit of the big unions. For the past year the Minister of Finance has got up time and time again and spoken to this House about trickle-down economics. I guess it's something he picked up in one of his many trips down to New York.

But what we've got in this case is trickle-down legislation, trickle-down organization to organize the employees in this province for the benefit of unions -- and large unions at that. That is trickle-down in its true sense of the word.

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific letter from the Restaurant and Food Services Association of British Columbia. This is now another very large area of employers, many of whom are small businesses, many of whom employ six or seven people. Many of those very people they employ -- who you might call "waitresses" and "waiters" but I call "servers" -- by choice prefer to be in business for themselves in that capacity because they don't want to be unionized, for the very simple reason that they are doing very nicely thank you this way.

They feel that if they put their best foot forward and work hard and show their best efforts to the people whom they serve, they will be rewarded by the people they are serving. In fact many servers are making a very reasonable living and prefer it that way. It's been the experience of some of these restaurant owners that their turnover of staff is not as high as it is in union establishments, because in a union establishment it takes you a year to get up to full wage. In these establishments you get full wage, if you count tips as wages, as soon as you get competent in the job that you're doing.

The Restaurant and Food Services Association of British Columbia is saying this, and it is addressed to the Minister of Labour:

"We have reviewed the proposed changes to the labour code and are pleased that you encouraged input from business and labour with regard to said changes. However, our association is strongly opposed to the new certification clause.

The certification clause says: "If the board is satisfied that on the date it receives an application for certification not less than 55 percent of the employees of the unit...."

[ Page 3977 ]

And it goes on, it's in the legislation. The comment by the Restaurant and Food Services Association of British Columbia is as follows:

"'We believe all employees must have the democratic right to vote by secret ballot on certification.'

"Most of the employers we represent are small independent businesses employing relatively unskilled, entry-level workers. Our overall experience has shown that intimidation and significant peer pressure is...often the reason the employees sign cards. This is an extremely important decision that affects the employees' long-term relationship with his/her co-workers. Therefore, all employees must be able to express their true wishes by voting in a secret ballot.

"We respectfully recommend the following: (1) leave the old certification clause in the new code, which clearly protects the individual's rights to belong or not belong to a trade union by way of secret ballot; (2) reduce the time between the application for certification and the representation vote; (3) divide the cost of the representation vote equally between the employer and the union."

That doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable request to the Minister of Labour. What he's saying is: why can't we recognize the fact that these employees have the same democratic rights as every member of society does when they vote for us in here or when they vote to join the union?

"To quote from the subcommittee of special advisors' submission: `Labour legislation should provide the mechanism by which employees can obtain union representation without being subjected to unlawful interference.'

"This new proposed change, we believe, opens the door for even more union pressure by taking away the true measure of our employees' wishes -- the secret ballot.

"Our members are currently trying to survive in an incredibly competitive industry made worse by the current recession."

They're being kind. They should say made worse by the current government.

"Bill 84 in the long-term will increase our costs, causing us to increase our prices to our customers. This in turn will affect our ability to remain viable in a highly competitive international market.

"If you have any questions regarding our position, please...contact the undersigned...."

Here we have the hotel and restaurant industries of British Columbia -- two of the most labour-intensive organizations in the province -- both saying: "Go slowly, and think about what you're doing."

It takes me back to where I started. It seems to me that these people are saying: why can't we make comments at a public hearing on the suggestions in this legislation, and why can't we, having had input at the beginning, have input at the end?

This House and that government made a decision not to go to a committee, and it was wrong. This legislation is incorrect for British Columbia at this time. I sincerely hope that those members opposite will see the light and make some amendments to this very detrimental piece of legislation.

D. Symons: I too wish to speak to Bill 84. While we agree with better than 95 percent of this bill, there are some sections of it that give us some concerns. Much of the bill is the same as Bill 19, which the government is saying was a terrible bill. What's interesting is the number of sections that they've kept almost intact in the new bill. There are other sections in Bill 19 that did indeed need changing, because it was, as the previous speaker mentioned, tipped toward favouring management, and this was not fair to labour.

There are some sections in this new bill, Bill 84, that I find somewhat contentious and unfair. Those areas are: the secret ballot for certification, secondary boycotts, replacement workers and the successor rights and obligations. Those are the primary ones that I wish to focus on later on, during my discussion.

[4:45]

As I looked at those four areas that concern me most, I began to wonder if this was, as it's claimed to be, a labour bill. Is the government really interested in the rights of labour and bringing labour peace to this province? That began to weigh upon me, and I tried to look for an answer to that question. What was the intention of the government in bringing in this bill? As I looked about, I kept wondering if there was some other motivation. I found what I think is the answer to that question in Hansard , April 7, 1987, page 479 -- in case you care to check it up.

"If you had 95 percent of the people in this province organized, you wouldn't have any poverty, because the wealth would be shared by the mechanism of collective bargaining." The speaker went further, to say: "Trade unionism, in its most fundamental way, is the best element for redistribution of wealth in society." If you were to just change a few words in there -- take out the word "union," put in the word "collective" and maybe throw in a few "dictator of the proletariat" -- you would have Karl Marx in Das Kapital speaking.

I wonder if the government was using that as part of the blueprint for its labour bill, because this is not a bill on fair labour legislation.

Interjection.

D. Symons: In the original German. Das ist richtig.

Rather, it's an attempt at a managed economy and a restructuring of society on the socialist model. That's what is intended in this bill. It hasn't worked for the Soviet Union, and it hasn't worked in Romania or in Cuba. They've tried it. We can see that this type of structured, managed economy doesn't work, and it won't work in this province under this bill. A union-managed economy will be no better than a soviet-managed economy, and it won't work in British Columbia.

As I discovered what appears to be the motivation for this bill, I also discovered that the government doesn't really -- I shouldn't say I discovered this; I knew it the day the election took place -- have a mandate for major societal changes. This government got slightly less than 40 percent of the popular vote -- a smaller percentage of the popular vote than they had in the previous election when they were opposition.

In a sense, this government didn't win an election. What happened was that the electorate voted out a tired, discredited government. The Liberals, in effect,

[ Page 3978 ]

split the free enterprise vote, and in that sense the government walked down the middle.

I can assure this government -- and I'm giving them notice -- that there is now only one free enterprise alternative to the NDP government in this province, and that is the Liberal Party of British Columbia. If this government persists with these contentious restrictions and sections without changes to make a fairer balance in this labour bill, the government is ensuring that the next government of B.C. will be a Liberal government.

What I would like to look at is....

Interjection.

D. Symons: Well, I didn't expect the opposition to applaud that. The truth does hurt.

One of the previous speakers read this part; it seems that we prepared the texts as we found concerns about the bill. Looking at the purpose of the code,

section 2(1) says: "The following are the purposes of this code: (

a) to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of employees."

Again, as we lo