1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd 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, SEPTEMBER 29, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

2195 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 26). Second reading.

On the amendment

Mr. Lockstead –– 2195

Mr. Cocke –– 2196

Mr. Nicolson –– 2201

Mr. Hanson –– 2204

Mrs. Dailly –– 2209

Mr. Mitchell –– 2212

Division –– 2214

Mr. Stupich –– 2214

Mr. Barrett –– 2219

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2225

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2236

Mr. Skelly –– 2240

Mr. Macdonald –– 2243

Mrs. Wallace –– 2245

Mr. Blencoe –– 2249

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2253

Division –– 2256

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 9). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie.)

On

Section I –– 2256

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to

section 2 –– 2260

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Nicolson

Mrs. Dailly

Division

Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 19). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 2267

Mrs. Dailly –– 2268

Appendix –– 2269

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1983

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I notice that in this last week the

opposition benches have introduced something new to the House in terms

of recognition of teams within the opposition benches — the A team, B

team and C team — but I really want to give recognition to a team that

is not present this evening. I notice that there are many empty seats

in the opposition benches tonight. I can only assume that they have

discovered that sleep is a cure for insomnia, but not quite as good a

cure as having to listen to their speeches — but almost. It seems to me

that, although our friends across the way may have now proved that a

human being can go without sleep for many hours, without water for many

days, without food for many weeks and without ideas for many years, we

should at least recognize the absence of those who even now, in near or

far cots, are dreaming of a utopia which can never be realized by the

Rip van Winkles of this world. They are sleeping and deserve

recognition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I just feel that those who are not here

should be recognized as the team that has been forgotten. I would just

like to send a button over to the members of the opposition teams which

are not here: members of the ZZZ team, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: In response, I agree with the hon. minister and I

think that her remarks were extremely sensitive and heartfelt. So in

recognition of this sort of courtesy she paid to the opposition, I move

that the hon. minister be adopted as red.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I need to

comment: I'm the recipient of a button. I would like to draw attention

to this particularly beautifully coloured button, but point out that

the hon. minister obviously went out of her way to have it printed in a

scab shop; there is no union label on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is one thing to rise on a point

of order and make an observation which in itself may or may not be out

of order; but, hon. member, I would caution that the method in which

the member has placed the badge on the table....

MR. HOWARD: It was supposed to go in the basket, but I missed.

MR. SPEAKER: Fine, hon. member, but before we proceed

further.... I think we have had an ideal opportunity to see what

happens when we digress from the routine to which we are accustomed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I resume the business of the evening and once again

call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26. The young gentleman over

there is seeking the floor.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thank the hon. House Leader. "Young

gentleman" — I haven't been called that in many years, particularly the

gentleman part. Thank you very much.

I do have a few minutes left, and I want to complete my presentation

before I accept my Z button. There has been some levity in the House

for the past few minutes and that is all very well; we all require that

from time to time. But Bill 26 is a serious bill because it is part of

a package of anti-working people, anti-labour bills that this

government has decided to bring in this particular session, after it

won the election, and that they didn't discuss prior to the last

election campaign. I am not alone in my

interpretation of this

particular piece of legislation. I did read into the record some

reactions of well-known labour reporters around the province. There is

one more I would like to read in — at least, part of a column I would

like to read in — before I complete my presentation. The reason I want

to read this particular column by Rod Mickleburgh of theVancouver Province

into the record.... It is entitled "Private Sector Hit by Bill 26." I

am just going to read it very quickly and complete my presentation. The

column says:

"There are a lot of sleepers, besides the knockout

bunch that permits firing without cause, in the legislative gauntlet

tossed down by the provincial government. One of them, the Employment

Standards Amendment Act, Bill 26, will have a direct impact on labour

relations in the private sector....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who are you quoting?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Rod Mickleburgh, Vancouver Province ,

August 3, 1983 –– I could stop right there because what we are talking

about here is the impact of this legislation on the private sector. I

dealt with that at some length a while ago, but I think I should read a

couple more paragraphs from this particular column. Mr. Mickleburgh

goes on to say:

" 'Although a lot of the sections are merely

housekeeping' — I agree — 'some changes are quite substantive,' lawyer

Tom Roper told a packed Industrial Relations Management Association

seminar last week. A major feature of the bill is the clause allowing

collective agreements to provide conditions below the minimum

requirements set out in the Employment Standards Act. In the past many

unions haven't bothered to upgrade their contracts to meet these

standards, because the act was there. But Bill 26 proposes that if

there is a conflict between contract and legislation, the contract will

prevail. 'A lot of contracts have pretty archaic language, especially

in an area like maternity leave,' said Roper. 'Now that archaic

language will form the substantive provision of the collective

agreement.'"

I am sure the minister has read this

article and knows what we are talking about.

"Another

section of Bill 26 allows the director of the employment standards branch to arbitrarily cancel

[ Page 2196 ]

collective agreements once they expire upon application by an

interested person. Observed Roper, 'I don't know who an interested person

is, but there seems to be a real potential for conflict between that

section

and the whole thrust of the provincial Labour Code.'"

I'll conclude this quote and then I want to talk about this a bit.

"One

section says employees wishing to appeal wage payment

orders must make a deposit amounting to 10 percent of the order itself. This

deposit is returned only if the order is cancelled. If the order is merely varied,

the money is kept by the government."

First of all, the government has found a way to make itself a few bucks perhaps

— once again, off the backs of the taxpayers. But that isn't the real problem

here. It is the whole intent of this bill, as this columnist points out. The

intent of this bill, of course — like Bill 2, Bill 3, and Bill 11 — is to attack

the working people, the union people of this province. In fact, I would go so

far as to say that this government has deliberately chosen at this time to provoke

the union and working people of this province, and particularly the BCGEU. These

are loyal government employees, and this government is deliberately provoking

these unionized government employees who work so hard for all the people of

this province. Just the intent of this type of legislation....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am sure I am provoking you, Mr. Minister,

because it's true. Before you even enter into bargaining with the

public sector unions you have brought in legislation that essentially

takes all their rights away — firing without cause, no end of things.

[8:15]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, but you asked me the question. I know

we're on Bill 26, but you interjected across the floor. You asked me

the question and I am going to answer you about deliberately provoking

your employees in the BCGEU. That is exactly what you are doing when

you bring in legislation before this House that takes away their

rights. Bill 11, Bill 2 — that we debated — and Bill 26 are all part of

the package. You are deliberately provoking these employees and you

haven't even entered into bargaining with them yet. Do you know what

you are doing, Mr. Minister? You are deliberately inviting these

employees to take action which you are deliberately provoking because

that is the kind of action this government wants. Mark my words if that

isn't the case with this government.

I really feel quite strongly about this, Mr. Speaker. What

government, particularly knowing that they are going into bargaining

with 240,000 of their own employees who have been loyal, some of whom

have been arbitrarily fired...? But I can't use that term here; they

use the term "terminated." I don't know what the difference is, quite

frankly. If you've been terminated, you're fired. If you're out of a

job, you're out of a job. Terminated, fired or whatever, you're still

out of a job. What recourse do these employees have under this

legislation if and when it passes this House? I suspect that some of

the back-benchers are going to vote with the opposition; I know they

feel as strongly about this anti-people legislation as the opposition

does, so it may not pass this House. But I don't know that yet. I think

the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is

having second thoughts about Bill 26. I know he is going to get up and

speak on this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you sit down, I'll get up.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I'm not quite finished but just about.

What I am asking the government to do.... The government probably

hasn't had time to consult with working people throughout the province.

They need time to consult with working people and labour leaders, and

with other people. They want time to listen to members of the

opposition. I therefore support the motion to amend the bill by

deleting out the word "now" and substituting therefore the words "on

this day six months hence."

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the hoist motion is before us in

order to attract some debate from the government to justify some of the

things that are implicit in this bill. The question we are asking at

the present time is: why has the government decided to press labour in

these trying times? What we have on our hands, and the reason we are

asking for a six-month hoist, is a labour movement that is most upset,

suggesting very clearly that what they have before them is a group of

pieces of legislation, not all applying as widely as this one.... Some

apply only to the public sector, but this one applies to the whole

labour movement. I would hope somebody can get up and tell me I'm wrong

when I say the

interpretation that I see in this bill is one that

permits people to drag their feet in negotiations and let a contract go

out of force; having let the contract go out of force, an interested

party can apply....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If you said that on your feet you would have to withdraw, but under the circumstances....

Mr. Speaker, we have asked the question over and over. Nobody from

that side has gotten up and definitively outlined just exactly the

opposite to what I am saying.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Sure you will — and close debate. What you are talking about is closing debate.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is contentious from the standpoint that that

is the general

interpretation put on it. Why does it suggest that a

collective agreement is void.... If an application is made, the

director of employment standards branch can declare a collective

agreement void and apply the minimum standards. Who is an interested

party? An interested party naturally could be the employer. For that

matter it could be the union, although it's not very likely a union

would have a negotiated contract with the basic minimum as their

standard. There are some, however, some areas in this bill that worry

us, and that is around the question of those not negotiated aspects.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think

the member is not addressing the specific question of postponing this

particular bill. He is into the principle of the bill. I think we

should be debating the principle of the bill under second reading and

confine this debate entirely to the

[ Page 2197 ]

principle of the amendment, which is the time the

bill should be read. The member is talking about the principle instead

of the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure the member for

New Westminster is familiar with the rules of the House and will

address the motion before us, which is the six-month hoist motion.

MR. COCKE: The reason for the hoist, and the reason I am

suggesting that the hoist is in order and is required at this point, is

that there is so much misinterpretation out there, if what the House

Leader says is true. The advice we get is that the Employment Standards

Amendment Act should be looked at more carefully.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Until such time as we are satisfied, we would suggest that the

Employment Standards Amendment Act be hoisted for six months and given

an opportunity for input.

I ask the question: who asked for this act? Who suggested it? Does

anyone ever think, when we bring in this kind of legislation, that

maybe it would be an idea to have a couple of meetings with the people

who are most interested? There may have been some meetings with

management, but there may not have been meetings with management

either. A six-month hoist would give you an opportunity to have all the

meetings that you want. It will give you an opportunity to come back

with a piece of legislation that is either going to be highly

criticized or maybe quite highly supported. But at the present time

none of these conditions has been met.

One of the problems is that this kind of bill, interpreted as it is,

gives us a situation where people are very anxious. There is no reason

why a government should be making people anxious. They don't have to.

All they have to do is go out there and have some meetings. It would be

delightful if, for a change, instead of a piece of legislation that was

put together very quickly and brought into the House, some of that

legislation were tested as a White Paper. The only way you can make a

White Paper out of this is to hoist it. We are not alone. When labour

reporters tell us that the bill hits women hard, that the bill is the

private sector....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, you don't think it hits women hard? It does as

far as I'm concerned. The minister will be rushing back up here and

saying I'm speaking to the principle, but my

interpretation is if in

fact in a negotiated agreement there is no particular pregnancy clause,

or this clause or that clause, that the standards apply.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't understand your technical language.

MR. COCKE: You don't understand my technical language? Then

why don't you take it to the experts who can discuss it with you? This

bill hits workers' rights, does it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Which clause?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting any clause,

because any time I suggest a clause I have an argument across the floor

with ministers. Of course I'm not an expert on this. All I know is that

it is highly criticized, and that is the reason for the hoist. As far

as I am concerned there is a great deal of good reason not to trust the

present incumbent within this ministry; after all the things he has

said about organized labour, he expects them to trust him? He puts

forward a bill like this and then wonders why we move a six-month

hoist. Of course we move a six-month hoist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will remind both sides of the

House that the hoist is a time-limit discussion and I would remind

everyone to stay strictly to the motion on the floor.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, why is the minister so restless tonight? What's his problem? All we are asking him to do....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I've read the bill, my friend. That's something you haven't done.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the bill is one that is not well accepted

in most quarters. That being the case, it should be hoisted.

The minister now, without closing debate, can get up on this debate

and argue all the points that he wants to argue. What he would like to

do is wait until he closes debate and then it's over. This gives him

and his colleagues an opportunity to get up.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Isn't it interesting. "Have you heard of

committee?" "How long have you been here?" and all those kinds of trite

phrases. The fact of the matter is that you have a bill that is widely

criticized. That bill should be hoisted. We are not talking on the

principle of it, we are talking of the lack of trust of this

legislation, Mr. Speaker. Because there is a lack of trust in this

legislation, that bill should be hoisted. Just pure and simple. Take it

away for a week of the six months and come back and report what

meetings you've had and come back and report whether or not there is a

tremendously wide acceptance. I can't see a wide acceptance of this

bill. I do not see it — certainly not to the extent that some of the

other legislation does — divesting people of their rights, but this

bill is interpreted in that way, and those people who are interpreting

it that way should have their opportunity to communicate their concerns

to the minister. Is that much to ask? Is that a big deal? No, it is

not. The minister knows that. The House Leader knows that. They all

know that. It is not a big deal. The fact of the matter is that I won't

even suggest that he should vote for the hoist, because that would be a

confidence motion and so they couldn't, possibly.

[8:30]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The second time today I've suggested...or today or

yesterday, anyway. I get times mixed up. You were away in Newfoundland

rowing a dory....

[ Page 2198 ]

AN HON. MEMBER ; Want me to tell you about it?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I wish you would.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down. I'll tell you all about it.

MR. COCKE: Okay, you'll get your chance in just a few minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then everything will be hunky-dory.

MR. COCKE: I hope you had a happy time.

It is conceivable, as I see it, that we could take this bill away

from this place for a short period of time and give it an opportunity

to be assessed outside the chamber. There are very few people on either

side of the House who are experts on this kind of legislation. We have

seen, over the years, legislation of this sort — not necessarily this

exact legislation, but this sort — creating a tremendous amount of

distrust, and following the distrust naturally comes unrest, a shock to

our economy and so on and so forth. I think it is fair enough to say to

the "interested parties" before we get into this, before this is

proclaimed: "Here is an opportunity for you to give us your opinion.

Why don't we have those kinds of discussions?" I have yet to hear of

one. I have heard of the minister going to chambers of commerce and

places like that — not discussing this particularly but suggesting what

he has in mind for labour. That creates a fair amount of unrest. Then

when that same minister says to me, "trust us," or words to that

effect, I say: why not have it looked at thoroughly? It needs to be

looked at thoroughly.

I'm not the one who says that particularly. Why does Rod Mickleburgh

say that? Why does Michael Bocking say that? The people who seem to

make it their career to report on labour matters say that it is a rough

bill. Mickleburgh says the private sector is hit by Bill 26. I say

hoist it. Why would that be so much to ask? Why would it be so much to

ask if at least the minister can stand up tonight, tell us who he has

met with and what their position was with respect to this bill? If he

can do that maybe we'll vote against our own motion. Until such time as

we have some sort of assurance that the bill does what he says and that

it is benign, naturally we are going to ask that it be hoisted.

We also wonder, as part of this whole question, why it is that we

are disbanding the board. Why isn't that being discussed? It strikes me

that it is being taken right back into the Labour ministry under a

branch, if I read the bill correctly. It is going to be a branch. So

that branch will be under the direct control of the Ministry of Labour.

More centralization. Again, it's a worry, because that is part of the

pattern. Wouldn't you agree? The pattern is that only decisions that

are made right here in this cocoon, in this ivory tower — and I'm not

talking about this chamber.... I'm sure not talking about this chamber,

because this chamber is looked down upon by that government. That

government has had no capacity whatsoever to plan to bail our economy

out, to get us anywhere, and then they ask us to divest more of the

responsibility directly through the minister to the branch.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) says I am abusing the chamber. That is his

interpretation. I

have been here a long time. I remember you in opposition. You talk

about my abuse. Heavenly days! I don't consider this abuse. I am asking

questions. I am making suggestions. I am not putting myself down as an

expert, as so many over there seem to be. Yet we are in so much

trouble. I don't know where all your expertise is, but it sure isn't in

these areas. The bill should be hoisted as a result of the very things

that I am talking about. He says it is fine but, Mr. Speaker, nobody

else agrees.

If he would, just for fun, tell us why there are some words in there

that say.... We are told this is very contentious — the

section of the

bill that states that parts of the act do not apply where a collective

agreement is in effect and that the director of employment standards

can declare a collective agreement void and apply the minimum standards

if he is approached by an interested party to do so, after an

appropriate time has passed. Now what does that mean? In my head it

means that it should be hoisted because it means that it will reduce

the motivation to negotiate for a collective agreement. Who wants to

negotiate a collective agreement if it is going to be handed to you —

and not only that, handed to you in such a way as to be below the

standard of a normal collective agreement? That's what we are told.

Prove that we are wrong. Show us that there has been some kind of

discussion. Show us where that discussion took place. Tell us where the

support is for this particular legislation, outside of some

corporations. I don't see it. I haven't heard it. I don't see why, if I

haven't heard it, a great many other people have. All I know is that

this bill is looked upon as a bill that should be pulled.

Just let me give you a couple of quotes that will give you a feeling

why it should be pulled. Would you suggest that a bill should not be

hoisted if these words were said about it?

"Thousands of employees may find they do not enjoy the

rights they thought they had when the provincial government implements

the amendments to the Employment Standards Act. Currently the act

serves as a minimum standard of wages and work conditions that applies

to a union and non-union workers.

"The Social Credit government intends to change the

act so that sections covering wages, vacations, maternity leave and

layoff or termination procedures do not apply to union members if they

already have provisions in their contracts governing these issues. The

change significantly affects many agreements, because labour and

management negotiators bargained on the understanding that no contract

could undermine the minimum standards of the act."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I wouldn't stake my seat on anything, although if you want to run against me, I guess I would do it.

"'Before, they (labour contracts and the act)

interlocked and gave combined protection,' said labour lawyer Leo

McGrady. 'People have bargained on the basis that the Employment

Standards Act served as a minimum. So many agreements have rather weak

language in some areas, because they figured the act served as a

minimum.'"

Is there anything wrong about that?

"McGrady said that there are likely many agreements,

covering thousands of employees, that will be affected by the changes.

While most unions have

[ Page 2199 ]

better wages, vacation and overtime provisions in their contracts

than are provided under the act, there are many that could be quite weak in

the areas of maternity leave and termination or layoff procedures.

"'Women are going to be hit hardest,' McGrady said."

Those are the kinds of words that suggest to me that the act should

be looked at carefully. We certainly can't support it in its present

form until such time as the assurances that the minister hints at

across the floor are there. What is the requirement for this act? What

is the urgency about it?

It came in suddenly after an election as part of a package. Most of

the package leaves a lot to be desired. When we get the kinds of

criticisms that we have seen on this bill, naturally we're motivated to

say, "hoist it." We're motivated to say: "Have a discussion out there.

See where your support is." We don't see it at all. I have listened for

some long time to CBC and read in theVancouver Province a

labour reporter by the name of Mickleburgh. What does he say? He says:

"There are a lot of sleepers, besides the knockout punch that permits

firing without cause, in the legislative gauntlet tossed down by the

provincial government. One of them, the Employment Standards Amendment

Act, Bill 26, will have a direct impact on labour relations in the

private sector." That's what he says.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You guys make me cry — really and truly.

"'Although a lot of sections are merely housekeeping,

some changes are quite substantive,' lawyer Tom Roper" — this is

another lawyer — "told a packed Industrial Relations Management

Association seminar last week. A major feature of the bill is a clause

allowing collective agreements to provide conditions below the minimum

requirements set out in the Employment Standards Act. In the

past........ .. Then he goes on to talk about how the negotiations have

sometimes overlooked these things in the past. There is another part of

the bill, he says, in which the director of the employment standards

branch can "arbitrarily cancel collective agreements once they expire,

upon application by 'an interested person.'"

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. I said it.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that that is our argument for wanting the

bill hoisted. Our argument is that it should be properly discussed.

Labour-management relations is so sensitive an area that it would be

very advisable for a government not necessarily to have the words as

they appear in the bill but at least to have the direction that the

government is going out there and discussed with interested parties —

both labour and management. Why not? What is the hurry? This is part of

the restraint package, we read. Yet there is nothing restrained about

this. All it is is just more centralization, as I see it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It's not? Read the bill. What does it do? It

knocks off the labour standards board and takes all their power and

gives it to the branch, which is directly in the Ministry of Labour. If

that isn't centralization....

Interjection.

[8:45]

MR. COCKE: The board is at least separate from that standpoint, isn't it? If it isn't, it should be.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, no. It is a change. To the minister: why don't

you get up and debate it when I'm finished? Will you? Thank you. It

would be a refreshing change from sitting in your seat, barking along,

wasting my time and yours.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What's wrong with me quoting from newspaper articles?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's a possibility. You lived with a lot of my

original thoughts when you became Minister of Health after I left.

That's right — a province-wide ambulance service that you try to take

credit for and all sorts of other nice little goodies. Anyway, Mr.

Speaker, I'll get on with the bill. That insulting minister doesn't

really put me down — I don't mind what he says because I have very

little respect for that kind of talk.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: My point is this: the bill, in many of its parts,

is not being accepted as being something that is going to improve

labour relations in our province. As I say, I am not an authority, but

what is being said about it is that it will reduce the level of

labour-management situation. It will make us go back to a greater lack

of trust. I just observe that that's the way it is seen.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in 1981 there were 145 of 146

decisions handed down by the board that were related to payment of back

wages owed, and 162 of 175 decisions during the first nine months of

1982 were related to back wages. We are not positive about this, but we

hear that the officials in the employment standards branch were not

informed of the act until it was introduced in the Legislature. The

people working for the board were not even aware that there were going

to be changes. It's not only on the outside that labour-management

people, in my opinion, were not properly canvassed, but even within the

board they weren't properly canvassed. They woke up one morning finding

that a bill marked "26" was part of the "restraint" package.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you consult management when you passed the Labour Code?

MR. COCKE: They certainly were consulted, and plenty. You

people should follow the pattern of the NDP government, which set up

the best labour-management statute in North America.

[ Page 2200 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will remind you all that the

debate must be strictly confined to the object of the motion. While you

haven't been straying that far, I thought it would be wise to advise

you.

MR. COCKE: The minister has given me a marvellous opportunity to say: why don't they do what we did?

MR. REE: Oh, heaven help us!

MR. COCKE: Heaven help you? This province is so much richer

as a result of the labour legislation that we brought in. It is

acknowledged all over....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's reason for a hoist; that is reason to do

exactly what I am saying. That is reason to consult. What we are

talking about is consultation, and they know it. That consultation did

take place and when that legislation came in, it was fair, it was

even-handed, it favoured neither labour nor management. It was a

first-class piece of legislation. This could very well be an

improvement. If there is room for improving this, why don't we do it?

It has had too much criticism to just push it through. What's the rush?

There is no great urgency about this. There may be some urgency about

some other legislation that they have before them, but there is

certainly no great rush on this particular piece of legislation.

The fact that it has been before us for three months does not

suggest that there has been consultation. We know that there was no

consultation beforehand, and what we are asking for now is consultation

after the fact. Is that too much to ask?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. COCKE: That is too much to ask, they say. Press on. Let's

have it pushed through just like everything else. Let's steamroller

this legislation through, and then everybody is going to be happy.

I suggest that this new amendment should have the opportunity that

any good piece of legislation has — that is, an opportunity to be

canvassed first, not after. There are even small changes in wording in

this act that could very well be looked at. We see labour lawyers

suggesting that this amendment has some problems around it. Why not

have discussions outside the present Labour ministry?

The questions about temporary layoff are something that should be

canvassed. The question about employee compensation for financial loss

and damage is an area that I think should be canvassed. These are areas

that can be canvassed if, in fact, we take this legislation and hoist

it — nothing more and nothing less. We are not asking for a great deal;

all we are doing is suggesting that it should be done.

The minister has as much as admitted that there has been no

consultation, and, as a matter of fact, there was little or no

consultation within his own branch when this piece of legislation was

dreamed up. Can we therefore ask that the concerns that are being

expressed be given an opportunity to be canvassed? That's all. Just

give us the six-month hoist, or if you don't wish to vote for it,

announce that you don't want a six-month hoist, but announce that this

bill will be held up until such time as there has been the consultation

that we are asking for. It is not going to take long. The minister

isn't that busy.

Some of them are rushing off to far-flung places, but at the present

time I haven't noticed that he is. I know he is very busy as chairman

of his particular economic council and all the rest of it, but that

doesn't mean a great deal when it comes to something that's going into

the statute books of this province and will be there for some time to

come. There is no sunset clause in this bill. There's nothing in it

that tells us it will go out of force in a certain length of time. This

is a statute and will continue to be a statute. If it's creating

distrust now, how will it be when it finally becomes a statute when

it's proclaimed? Then when it's found to be weak or wanting, it's too

stone once it becomes a statute; they can do no wrong. It would be an

admission of failure. There's no admission of failure if you ask your

questions first. The only failure is if you don't ask the questions

first when you have the opportunity.

The minister has an opportunity to ask those questions right now. He

has an opportunity to report back to the House, to tell us exactly

where he stands in terms of the consultation he has had. Is that asking

too much, Mr. Speaker? I don't think so. I'll afford the minister an

opportunity to make the suggestion as to what he intends to do. If he

intends to soldier right along, well, we're here. We've seen it happen

before, and we hope he's not going to do that. We hope he'll be

sufficiently realistic to agree with us; that he will pull back at

least to the extent of consultation and will reassure those people out

there, including labour reporters, labour lawyers and other experts who

say that the bill is not good, that it's a backward step. Why should we

take a backward step when we can take a forward step? Is there any

particular reason for that? I don't see it. I'm quite happy to sit here

and take notes while the minister tells about all the glories of this

bill and why it shouldn't be hoisted.

MR. NICOLSON: This would appear to be another plank in the

government's war on prosperity. One thing that can be honestly said for

this Social Credit government is that it has wrestled prosperity to the

ground here in British Columbia. It is a carefully laid-out plan that

was set, I suppose, some four years ago. Just as Lyndon Johnson took on

a war on poverty, this government has taken on the war on prosperity in

British Columbia, and I would say they have been very successful in

that respect.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure

the ex-President of the United States has little to do with this bill

or the concept of the six-month hoist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken. The Chair will

remind all members, as it did the previous speaker, that the debate

must be strictly confined to the object of the motion.

[9:00]

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, they're going to

keep going all night long with this kind of intimidation. The member

was developing an argument for the reason to hoist, and you know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. COCKE: I can tell; if you can't, that's your tough luck. Mr. Speaker, he should be given an opportunity beyond

[ Page 2201 ]

three sentences to develop his arguments, without intimidation from that House Leader who is such an expert on everything.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us proceed beyond that point to the member for Nelson-Creston. To the motion.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it appears that I've touched a

little bit of a nerve. Perhaps this describes exactly what this

government is up to: a war against prosperity.

What was wrong with this province the way it was four years ago? Why

did you have to set about to deliberately wreck things; that's

precisely what this is doing. If there is a six-month hoist, I would

propose that people from labour as well as from the Employers' Council

and other responsible employers, who have a great deal more at stake

than some of you, in terms of your so-called elevated positions —

particularly of your own importance.... Those of you who may have

forgotten where you came from and what you might have been seem to have

suddenly taken on the mantle of authority and to have taken yourself a

little too seriously. Have dialogue with some of the people who have a

real stake in British Columbia, whether they be employers or employees,

retired people who are concerned about all the work they have put into

this province over many years, and would be very sad to see it

destroyed by this government in its unrelenting war on prosperity.

That's what we can get from a six-month hoist: some kind of a respite

or a truce. This would be a cease-fire in the war waged on the people

of British Columbia by this provincial government, this unrelenting war

in which the people have had no peace and have been given no hope. This

government continues to preach the politics of despair in this

particular war.

If the government were to look upon this bill more as a White Paper,

then I presume it could serve a very good and useful purpose. If this

bill were a White Paper about which discussion could take place over

the next few years, or even six months, then the bill could be

reintroduced and appropriate amendments brought in.

I've heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) say: "Read the bill." This bill does provide that where a

collective agreement expires and where the undefined interested party

decides to apply, the terms of the collective agreement can be set

aside. It's rather interesting that both the Vancouver Sun labour reporter and the Vancouver Province

labour reporter come up with the same observations about this bill.

Experts such as labour lawyers Leo McGrady and Tom Roper, and Colin

Kelly of the Independent Canadian Transit Union are coming up with the

same kinds of decisions. There seems to be a great deal of concern in

the community, When Mr. Roper made his comments he wasn't making them

just on the basis of an interview. He had addressed a packed audience

at an Industrial Relations Management Association seminar. The

Industrial Relations Management Association is not a branch of the B.C.

Federation of Labour. These are honestly held concerns in the

community, and it is honestly held that a bill like Bill 26 could do

much to dismantle, disrupt and destroy the labour climate of this

province.

One has only to listen to many of the interjections constantly being made —

and that are constantly out of order — to realize that the worst fears of hard-working

British Columbians, whether they be in labour or management, are being realized

in this legislation. Also, where there is mention of such things as hours of

work, overtime and special apparel in a collective agreement then it is being

enforced by this: that those standards will apply even if they are less than

the standards minimum standards in the act. Yet we have heard interjections

from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — and I've heard the Minister

of Intergovernmental Affairs — saying: "No, that's not so. Read the

bill. Read the bill." Mr. Speaker, I've read that part of the bill.

Rod Mickleburgh, Michael Bocking, Tom Roper, Leo McGrady and Colin Kelly have

read that part of the bill, as I'm sure a great number of other people in

this province have read that part of the bill. I'm sure Don Lanskail has

read the bill. People like Bill Hamilton and probably Jim Matkin have read that

part of the bill, and I can't imagine....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What did Don Lanskail say about it?

MR. NICOLSON: I've known Don Lanskail for over 25 years, and

I can't believe, knowing his background, that he would not be concerned

about the tenor and implications of this particular piece of

legislation. He is consistently a person who believes in the collective

bargaining process. He believes in a good labour management climate. If

he has looked at this piece of legislation. I can't believe he would

subscribe to the parts contained in

section 2. Certainly I would think

that if there were some time — six months — and if this were considered

a White Paper instead of the law of the land, which we in this

government should....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I will enlarge upon what I said the other night. There is a need for

this government to send out a message. There is a need for this

government to change its style from confrontation. There could be no

surer signal of this than if this government were to call upon some of

the retired people from political life, people who have a reputation

for fairness and have built themselves a reputation above and beyond

their political careers. If the government were to prevail upon people

the likes of Bill King, for whom I've heard a goodly number of Social

Credit....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: It would show how far out of touch you might be

even with your own party. If I had a dollar for every Social Crediter

who has come to me since the last election and told me what a shame it

is that the House lost a man the calibre of Bill King, I would be

pretty rich.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, there's the minister's attitude. He says:

"Good riddance." He says good riddance to a person of that calibre. Mr.

Speaker, you have a person who, in the pioneer days of this government,

would have been described as a renegade; nothing better and nothing

worse.

If this government would show a little bit of smarts.... I almost

throw out these good ideas because I'm sure this government is too

stubborn to accept them. It

[ Page 2202 ]

wouldn't be in my best interests if they were to

accept a constructive proposal such as I am making, but I'm going to

make it anyhow. The government could prevail upon people like Gordon

Gibson, who also enjoys the confidence of most people. A person such as

Scott Wallace and maybe Cyril Shelford. Three or four people who are

held in high esteem by the people of British Columbia, people who have

built reputations that go above and beyond partisan politics in this

province. But no, the minister sits there and interjects.

It's very curious. It seems that every time someone on this side

strays slightly from the strict confines of a motion, they are brought

to order. But I have been listening to mindless interjections from the

other side, and from behind. I've heard people doing bird imitations

this evening, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it is getting to some hon. members.

Maybe they've been eating bird seed; I don't know. Whatever has been

happening, it's rather curious the way in which the debate tends to go.

If the government would take a bill such as this....

Bill 26 is considered to be a very contentious bill. If the

government really wants to govern British Columbia instead of rule, if

the government really wants to change the style and is really serious

about seeing economic recovery in British Columbia rather than chaos,

they should heed the warning. I think they should take some advice when

it is being offered in the best spirit. There should be dialogue. There

should be an opportunity for witnesses to be called and heard. I'm sure

a great number of British Columbians would be willing to be heard on

this particular issue. I believe such a small commission could meet

quickly at minimal expense throughout the province.

How would British Columbia benefit? We would benefit by backing off

from the confrontational stance we're in today, where the government is

at war with a huge percentage of the population, where you have a group

called Solidarity....

I'm not a member of Solidarity. Not every member of the NDP is a

member of Solidarity, and not every member of Solidarity is a member of

the NDR It is a group of people looking for some kind of positive

response from government. With the exception of a couple of incidents

which I wouldn't support — and even those were rather minor, but a

couple I could take issue with — they have conducted themselves in a

most restrained and responsible manner. It is time for the government

to respond in kind with people of the calibre of Bill King, Gordon

Gibson, Scott Wallace and Cyril Shelford — people with experience. Long

after the current Minister of Labour has been forgotten, these people

will be remembered as people who made a political contribution.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise on a point of order under standing order 43 — tedious and repetitious debate. I believe that Hansard

will show that this member is basically giving the same speech he gave

in second reading on this bill and is repeating some of the comments

that were made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

MR. NICOLSON: That's an absolute lie. It is not the same speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NICOLSON: Absolute fabrication.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was an unparliamentary term used, and I will ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. NICOLSON: I withdraw any unparliamentary terms without equivocation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The term is withdrawn. Thank you. I shall

remind all hon. members that we should be relevant to the motion before

us, which is a hoist motion.

MR. NICOLSON: I am not proposing that we have a hoist and do

nothing for six months. I am proposing that we do something, that we

take some positive action rather than a negative action, rather than

this negative energy, and just look at the energy that this government

is putting into this particular piece of confrontation. It would be an

opportunity for us to maybe find out where this came from. Perhaps Mr.

Michael Walker and Mr. Block from the Fraser Institute could come and

be heard, and maybe we would find that they were the source of this

piece of legislation. We might find that something was lost in

translation, that something else was intended. Maybe the kind of advice

that Mr. Walker and the Fraser Institute gave to the government — and

we all know that they gave advice to the government.... We might, by

asking the deputy minister and the legislative draftsmen, by talking

with the various unions and various management people, find out what

has happened.

[9:15]

It is really interesting when one reads the bill, the criticism of the bill

in the media and our analysis of it. The government says that it does not do

some of these things. I would like to find out if this bill does not reduce

hours of work, overtime and special apparel, if it does not reduce annual vacations

or vacation pay, termination of employment or layoff, maternity or pregnancy

leave, if it does not reduce these to the minimum standards. That is my

interpretation,

Mr. Speaker, as opposed to what appears to be the

interpretation of the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. McClelland). I would like to know if it wouldn't be possible to

put this in clear language, because if what they are saying is that maximum

standards apply, I absolutely cannot understand, for instance,

section 2, which

is one of the major provisions of the act. In fact,

section 2 is one of the

very lengthy and very interesting departures, as most people would see this

particular piece of legislation.

I would like to see some of the labour organizations.... You know,

we can't ask for legal

interpretations in this House, but a commission

could certainly hear lawyers who, I am sure, would be put forward by

the various labour organizations. I am sure the IWA would appear, I am

sure the Steelworkers would appear, and on top of that the B.C.

Federation of Labour would probably appear. Other, nonaffiliated

organizations, organizations that represent groups in which there are a

large number of women, might appear. This piece of legislation does,

for instance, very much affect women, if the maternity and pregnancy

leave provisions of the act are as I read them — that is, where there

is a collective agreement and that collective agreement has relied upon

the provisions of the Employment Standards Act for years and years, if

that collective agreement has been neglected and now, when there really

is no great climate to go and put in new provisions and upgrade

provisions.... What this is saying is that if there is a slipshod old

provision that had previously

[ Page 2203 ]

been superseded by the Employment Standards Act,

now that slipshod provision in the collective agreement is the one that

applies. I don't hear the minister telling me I am wrong on that. Maybe

I have interpreted the bill correctly. If I have interpreted the bill

correctly — and I think I have; maybe the minister's silence indicates

that I have — then the need for this commission is the need to

introduce....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister is going to follow on this

amendment? Okay, that is great. Then there is a need to introduce some

new mechanism whereby we can get more of a dialogue with the total

community.

It's not unusual that collective agreements run out. One of the

examples that was cited is the Independent Canadian Transit Union,

which represents bus drivers in the lower mainland. At the time that

this

article was written, not too long ago, they had been without a

collective agreement since March 31. Another part of this is that by

the wording of this act an interested party could apply to have the

collective agreement set aside, and then all of the other provisions of

this act — I assume even minimum wage, $3.65 an hour — would apply.

Hours of work, overtime rates, various other things could apply

because, if a collective agreement were set aside after a reasonable

time had expired — whatever that is — and after an interested party —

whoever that is — applied to have the collective agreement set aside,

then the employees, if they chose not to be on strike, might have to

subsist on the provisions of minimum standards.

Mr. Speaker, this approach would clearly not be in the best

interests of the New Democratic Party, I suppose, if the government

continues its confrontation with the people, that would be in the

interests of the New Democratic Party. But in the interests of British

Columbia, right now is definitely the time for a change, for a signal

to go out. Every day the editorial pages are calling for the government

to change its stance, its posture. I don't know what the government has

to gain by this posture. If it was back when the balance in the House

was a little closer — when it was 31-26 — I could see it. You had to

prove that you were tough and in control, and things were pretty tough

then. But now you've got a nice comfortable majority. You don't have to

prove yourselves, so that this accepting a hoist, going to the people,

a pause.... Who asked for this in the first place? Where did the

request come from? That is one of the questions, I think, that would

have to be answered. Was it just the meeting with Michael Walker of the

Fraser Institute? Or is it Michael Fraser of the Walker Institute? It

doesn't really matter too much.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Why are you picking on the poor man?

MR. NICOLSON: Why am I picking on him? Well, Mr. Speaker, I

wouldn't want to pick on Michael Walker. He's an economist. He sure

isn't much of a writer, but apparently he's an economist.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I thought you had a little bit of expertise in economics.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, I don't pretend to have expertise in

economics. I take good advice from good people, successful people in

the private sector, but I don't have to pretend.... No, I leave it to

one or two of my colleagues to dabble in economics. After all, I'm a

scientist. I don't believe in pseudo-sciences. I believe in things like

F'ma and you can't push on a rope. Isn't that right, Russ?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's even a little.... But those are two incontrovertible facts.

But, Mr. Speaker, where is the need? Is this the cure for which

there is no disease? If it is, then can we afford to dabble with that?

We might be letting some microbes out of a test-tube that could create

some very serious biological warfare on the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm a schoolteacher; I can put my hands in my

pocket. That's a privilege. You have privileges as a Member of the

Legislative Assembly, and you get certain privileges as a

schoolteacher, one of which is to put your hands in your coat pockets —

not in your pants pockets, but in your coat pockets.

This bill particularly — and I won't reflect on other bills or other

votes — when looked at in conjunction with other bills, is an extremely

bad signal to the people of British Columbia. This motion to hoist

could become a positive signal. Just imagine if this government, after

these long sittings of the past week or two, were to switch around,

Imagine the editorials and the commentary. We in the official

opposition would really be in trouble, but you people could make

yourselves look so good. You could rebound so well because there is

tremendous elasticity there and you could look very, very good. It only

takes the courage to step back a little bit and look at what can be

gained and get your motivation from seeing things accomplished for this

province.

We have had enough despair in this province and we've had enough

depression in this province. It is time to involve the people in

British Columbia in the only way in which we can involve them: by

looking at this a second time. This bill is not just with pitfalls if

we leave it this way.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the

House and the Chair itself has been very forgiving with respect to the

repetition. I recognize that the member opposite has said that he

thinks we should hoist so we can consult with certain numbers of

people. But now that that is said and now that the repetition is taking

place, I think it would be fair if the Chair would advise the member to

go on to some new reason to hoist or to take his place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Nelson-Creston continues. I'm sure he can advance new arguments.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you

should give serious consideration to what is being said — that any

member can't get up and participate in this debate. This idea that

someone else said it or that you must have new ideas is not a valid

argument. I know there is an attempt to set up a reason for closure,

but each member in this House has a right to enter into the debate and

take the

[ Page 2204 ]

appropriate time to establish his argument. These continuing interruptions accusing members of repetition are garbage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One more point of order, then I think we will continue with the member.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I speak on standing order 43 — tedious and

repetitious debate. It has been said in this House that the role of the

opposition is to oppose and the members on the government side

appreciate hearing the points of view of the members opposite. But when

you hear the same points being raised time and time again and the hours

pass in this House, members on this side feel it is only right and

proper to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, standing order 43 and

ask that you bring the member to order and advise him that if he has

nothing to say, he should sit down in his place to allow other members

of the opposition to rise, as the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

requests, so they can stand up and make their points known. But tedious

and repetitious debate is one of the things that we don't need in this

House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The Chair has considered all the

points of order. I'm sure the member for Nelson-Creston will be

advancing new arguments, as he seems to have done throughout the

majority of his speech so far. I will also remind the hon. member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew that it is a member's prerogative to speak in

the House, and it's also a member's prerogative to rise on points of

order.

[9:30]

MR. NICOLSON: As I have said, this isn't a one-sided bill. It

creates other burdens on employers. Rod Mickleburgh pointed out one of

these burdens. In one

section it says that "employers wishing to appeal

wage payment orders must make a deposit amounting to 10 percent of the

ordered sum and the deposit is returned only if the order is cancelled.

If the order is merely varied the money is kept by the government." How

did that slip in there? I think that we should know that these things

do slip into legislation, that sometimes legislative draughtsmen are

over-exuberant or perhaps sometimes the bureaucracy is over-exuberant.

I think the people who have to deal with that kind of a regulation....

I'm sure that labour would like to see the 10 percent deposit but I

doubt that they would insist that if the order is merely varied

somewhat the money would be confiscated by the government. In fact, I

think that what labour would like to see here is a strengthening of the

position of employees in the matters of nonpayment of wages. I know

that there have been some very difficult problems, and perhaps a lot of

that could come out, too. Maybe there are some fresh insights into what

can be done about non-payment of wages. Maybe there are other remedies,

other ways of securing.... In most cases, the banks end up in first

place, then other creditors and workers who have actually.... I don't

really know why banks should be in front of people who have actually

put in a tremendous amount of time. The courts....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The Bankruptcy Act. The courts have ordered

this. I know that there have been attempts at provincial legislation

that have been overturned in the courts. By opening up this whole area

for discussion, instead of just wringing our hands and saying nothing

can be done because of the Bankruptcy Act, we could look at forms of

action in which we could draw attention and really evaluate the

morality of the Bankruptcy Act and if risk capital or labour are all

that much different. I recognize the rights of both: the rights of the

worker who has put work into a business and is not being paid out, and

the property rights of the person who has invested capital and is not

being paid out. Surely it couldn't hurt to look at this with fresh

insight and look at the impact on the people who are not paid wages.

Who is the most guilty? Is it the worker who continues working, or is

it the bank that continues a very bad situation right down to the point

where they know that there's just enough in there for themselves? They

leave not only the workers, whom this bill really deals with, in a bad

position, but they also leave a lot of the smaller unsecured creditors

in bad straits. Anybody who knows a little bit about the Bankruptcy Act

— and I'm sure that most of us in the Legislature know a bit about

it.... Certainly I have had a bit of a crash course in it in the last

two or three years in trying to assist some of the people in my riding.

We know the troubles and difficulties there.

We know that this whole area of employment standards, of non-payment

of wages, maternity leaves and many, many other things are very

important. For the majority of the workers in British Columbia, these

are the standards. There's tremendous confusion. The Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says that we haven't read

or don't understand the bill. If we don't understand the bill then

neither do the two major labour reporters in the print media. Several

professional labour lawyers apparently don't understand the bill. Some

people in management and industrial relations don't understand the

bill, Mr. Speaker, it could just be that the bill is something that is

setting a law that the government didn't intend. I would hope to

believe that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your attention. I would hope, though,

that the government would look for some new ground in terms of their

legislative programs and consult with people in terms of their

legislative programs. You did this a few times in the past. Maybe

that's why you are sitting over there today; if you continue on this

particular bent, you might find yourselves over here. I would be very

pleased to see that, but not at the expense of the destruction of the

labour relations climate and, consequently, the economy of British

Columbia. We've got a lot of very touchy situations going on out there

right now. There are many, many agreements that have expired. The

limate is not good: it's not healthy for labour, for management or for

British Columbia. I would hope that you will support a six-month hoist

of this bill.

MR. HANSON: I move to support the hoist to set this bill

aside for six months. This bill does nothing to improve industrial

relations in British Columbia or to move us ahead in many key areas,

like working rights with respect to women, occupational health and

safety and all kinds of modern, progressive workplace negotiations

which could take place to create a more solid and better industrial

relations in British Columbia. This bill undermines the workplace of

the workers, particularly women, and those people who have enjoyed or

relied upon certain standards that were assumed to be covered under the

employment standards. Rather than having a basement on certain kinds of

provisions covering vacation, wages, maternity leave, health and safety

— other kinds of vital collective aspects of life in the workplace — we

have a removal of the basement — the standards — so that

[ Page 2205 ]

negotiations can take place to downgrade all of

those standards. Many collective agreements have relied upon language

in the act; as a result they didn't continue, as negotiations

proceeded, to upgrade and modernize their language with respect to

maternity leave and so on. They always assumed those baseline standards

were placed there by the provincial government to ensure some basic

standard and equity of protection for all workers in all collective

agreements, and so on.

Many trade union leaders — transit unions and others — have

indicated that employers feel they are getting a signal from this

government to roll back basic standards in certain areas and to

renegotiate downwards standards and protections that should be in place

for all workers in the province. Rather than doing what should have

been done.... A bipartisan committee of this Legislature should have

travelled this province to listen to submissions from workers'

organizations, from all sorts of groups on workers' rights with respect

to women — all the problems that arise from the fact that because women

continue the species they leave the workplace to raise children; the

difficulties they experience in again assuming their job with a

company, all the aspects of child care and protection and so on. A

committee of this House should have travelled this province and

listened to the concerns of working people in a variety of work

environments, and put together a piece of legislation progressive in

nature that would have addressed the real concerns in 1983-84, and for

the decades to come.

There is an attitude by this government that comes from people who

don't understand working people, who don't understand at all the

ordinary working person and the kinds of situations they confront.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: You've had lots of jobs? You don't get a lot of experience, Mr. Minister, living in the Hotel Vancouver at taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's entirely relevant to point out that people

who are insulated on the thirteenth or fourteenth floor of the Hotel

Vancouver for a hundred days a year....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: It's closer to a hundred.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, it probably is.

MR. HANSON: Yes, that's right. Isn't it incredible that a

greater Vancouver MLA has to live in downtown Vancouver at the

taxpayers' expense on per diems....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not germane to the amendment before us. To the hoist, please.

MR. HANSON: I'm saying that if this minister played any role

in drafting this legislation, then it has all the earmarks of the

twelfth floor of the Hotel Vancouver on per diems, when he should be

residing in his riding....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the hoist, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I

wouldn't have raised this at this point, except that that member has

brought it into this debate. I'd advise him to check the Constitution

Act and find out where the official residence of a cabinet minister is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps if the member would continue in order

on the principle of the hoist motion we wouldn't have these problems to

begin with, and I so advise the member.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Is it sleazy to spend taxpayers' money on living

in hotels? Why should we pay for it? Why should the working people of

this province pay for it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Where are you supposed to live, you creep — in the street?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Labour will withdraw the reference to the first member for Victoria.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the traditions of the House, I would withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The first member for Victoria will

confine his remarks to the principle of the hoist amendment before us

or will discontinue his speech.

[9:45]

MR. HANSON: I am pointing out to the government, Mr. Speaker,

the wisdom of moving this bill aside for six months. It hurts women, it

hurts the people that are least able to defend themselves because now

this bill will rule null and void many provisions of protection in the

workplace that previously existed by the employment standards that were

in place to provide baseline standards on vacations, occupational

health and safety, on women's rights, wages, layoff and termination

procedures. This bill centralizes power, which previously existed in a

board that had labour representation, some trade union and working

people representation, to a director who will have enormous powers of

discretion and authority. It will centralize decision-making, which is

the tradition of this government. That is the insensitivity that I am

alluding to. The cabinet that oversaw the draughting and brought this

bill before the House clearly does not understand or respect or want to

achieve better working conditions for the ordinary working person of

this province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order. It seems pretty

clear to me — I don't know about you — that that member is speaking to

the principle of the bill, which is better addressed at second reading

rather than on the amendment which is before the House at the present

time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is extremely well taken.

We have an amendment to hoist which clearly indicates a feeling of

delay and not to the principle of the bill itself. I am sure the member

can continue on the principle of hoist.

MR. HANSON: We hope that the government will accept the hoist motion, will set this bill aside, will go to the people

[ Page 2206 ]

concerned, will go to the various bargaining units

and bargaining agents and employers' organizations around this

province. Even the board was not advised. This bill was ill drafted and

ill conceived. All I can conclude is that it is a direct attack on the

organized workers of this province.

There is a quotation here in the clippings that I have of a remark

from a new member in this House for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael),

who says that the Labour Standards Act, which this bill will replace,

which outlines basic hours and conditions for workers in B.C., is

"superimposing conditions and constraints on employers and employees

with collective agreements." It is a perfect example of government

interference in free trade unions and in the private sector. What that

member does not realize is that unless there are some baseline

standards in protection, in occupational health and safety, in

maternity leave, in vacations, in layoff and recall, in seniority

provisions, in bargaining rights, backed up by the recognition and

respect of the state that there will be advantage taken of small

bargaining units that are unable to protect themselves.... That is the

wisdom of setting this aside, so that the government would understand

that basic fact. Arbitrators and people who are active and well aware

and educated in industrial relations clearly have stated that this is

the wrong way to go.

When we look at other jurisdictions that have low incidences of job

loss and so on as a result of disputes, it is clear that the course the

government has taken is to inflame and confront the working people of

the province, which is going to result in destabilizing our economy. It

is clearly going to result in a large number of days lost in the

workplace if the government proceeds on its present course. Why they

will not accept such a simple motion to set a bill aside which is so

fundamental to industrial life in our province and to the stability of

our economy is really beyond me. The only thing I can conclude is the

lifestyle of the cabinet ministers and the access to government jets....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I have advised the member that he will speak on this principle or discontinue his speech.

MR. HANSON: That minister has used the government jet 140 times.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can continue on the hoist principle or discontinue. The choice is yours. You have some time left.

MR. HANSON: There are some people that can understand the

impact of legislation. It draws from their own circumstances and their

own experience and their own sensitivity about their life and about the

people that are around them. Oftentimes in this House we see bills such

as this that indicate a lack of understanding, a desensitization, a

sense of being insulated by luxury and circumstances and excess to

circumstances that the ordinary working person could only dream about.

Most of the working people who are affected by this bill have never,

ever lived in the Hotel Vancouver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is the second time I've

advised you to speak to the hoist principle and avoid any references to

things that are not contained in this bill or to the principle of the

hoist. I think you would be well advised to listen to my advice,

because it will be the last time I will advise you. You can proceed or

you can discontinue your speech. The choice is yours.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, on your point, why is it that when I

mention the Hotel Vancouver you immediately lurch to the microphone?

What is wrong with mentioning the Hotel Vancouver?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are speaking to a hoist motion on a bill.

The member has made personal references to other ministers which are

not contained in this bill or in the principle of the hoist. Speak to

the principle of the hoist and you'll be in order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill is about working

conditions. It is about the life in the workplace. The life in the

workplace of a cabinet minister is different than of an ordinary

citizen. That particular experience isolates that cabinet minister from

understanding the impact of this legislation. The working conditions....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: We haven't had a chance to look at your vouchers yet.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: We will, if we're not sitting 24 hours a day.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Are you afraid of work?

MR. HANSON: I'm not afraid of work at all.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If you want to yap for 24 hours a day, say something.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests will come to order. I

will advise the member now in his place in debate to speak to the

principle of a hoist motion.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know why they're so sensitive. They're so thin-skinned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! To the hoist, please.

MR. HANSON: As I read the various research notes and

clippings from newspaper articles in analysis of this bill, I see that

there's considerable concern in the community about the impact of the

bill. Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me in making a specific

reference to, for example, the maternity leave provisions, which are

clearly affected, I will....

Let me take another example. In the current act

there is a clear recognition that an ordinary working person under a

collective agreement has a certain entitlement of vacation pay. The

vacation pay for holidays — I shouldn't say vacation, because vacation

generally means two weeks or three weeks of annual vacation, increasing

with the amount of service invested by an employee with a firm.... But

in this case, under the present law that this law will replace, there

is a recognition that at present "general holiday" in the act includes

New Year's Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Dominion Day, B.C. Day,

Labour Day, Thanksgiving, Remembrance Day and

[ Page 2207 ]

Christmas Day. There are changes in this

legislation which create ambiguity. There may be an intent in this

amendment to make all general holidays subject to renegotiation.

Therefore a person would no longer have that kind of recognition to

fall back on that for a working person there were certain kinds of

protection and provisions that flowed from working on Christmas Day,

Labour Day or New Year's Day and so on. What these changes do is strip

away that fundamental baseline and leave it subject, perhaps, to

regulation or negotiation. The concern is primarily about regulation by

the director.

Another concern is in the case of wages for pregnant women. There is

still recourse in this act for people that suffer financial loss of

wages under

section 56 (c), which says that an employer must reinstate

a woman or pay her any wages lost by reason of any contravention. A

woman could suffer financial losses other than wages and could want

damages for poor treatment by an employer. The example is that losses

incurred by the employer's failure to keep up its portion of payments

to pensions, medical coverage, dental or other benefit plans as

required by the act, the loss of seniority upon reinstatement.... Why

should a person lose their seniority because they go and have a child

and then return to work after the standard period of roughly six to

nine months?

They only get UIC coverage for six months, Mr. Speaker. But why

should they lose their seniority and have to start again or change

their employment conditions upon reinstatement? It is particularly

odious that pregnant women should be singled out for treatment under

this act. We would rather see strong language in the bill that would

state clearly baseline protection for working women who leave the

workplace to have a child, to spend a certain period of time with their

child to give the child the best possible opportunities for health and

good psychological opportunities in the early days of growth. At some

point in the future even males in our society will have that

opportunity. It is already a well-accepted fact of life in many

societies that men are given opportunities to leave their employment

for a certain period of time to share in a parenting role with the

child and allow the mother to return to the workplace and have a few

months off to experience that parenting role.

MR. R. FRASER: That's right. Let the consumer pay. Who's going to work?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members will come to order, please.

MR. HANSON: I know it's a foreign and novel notion that males

would ever want to participate in a parenting role in the early stages

and to have that recognized by society as something of value....

MR. REID: Who's going to pay?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. HANSON: The taxpayer pays for the kinds of behaviour that you conduct.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will come to order.

[10:00]

MR. HANSON: So rather than looking at other jurisdictions

such as Scandinavia or West Germany, or Australia, which is moving

ahead in these areas.... Rather than looking at that particular area,

which is really on the cutting edge and is the vanguard for Social

Credit to understand, let's take occupational health and safety. Our

hospitals have many, many people in them who are ill because of

diseases and conditions contracted in the workplace. Many people

believe that a large percentage — 50, 60 or 70 percent — of cancers are

actually environmentally induced. This gentleman down in the corner

here is always asking me, "Who pays?" Well, who pays when a person

contracts an industrial disease such as cancer? Clearly this is in the

provisions of this bill and is one of the reasons that we are asking it

to be set aside. There are people in our hospitals. There are people

contracting illnesses because of the workplace that turn out to be a

burden in terms of the health care delivery system where they could....

If there were proper provisions under this bill to guarantee proper

occupational health and safety standards in the workplace, many people

would not be ill and have to go into the health care system at great

cost.

We see that the government is going to advise all the citizens about

overhead costs for hospitals when they get their bills. That is just a

passing reference, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, that

member has not been anywhere near the principle of the hoist motion in

most of his speech. Certainly now that he is talking about occupational

health and safety, which is not mentioned anywhere in the bill before

us, he has strayed even farther than he did at the beginning of his

speech. Under the terms of standing order 43, I would ask you to bring

that member to order and ask him to take his place if he will not stay

to the principle of the motion before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The member

will continue and please be advised that we've stretched this as far as

we can go. To the principle of the hoist, please.

MR. HANSON: Clearly, they don't want to hear about pregnancy

leave or health and safety in the workplace. Do you think it would be

relevant if I talked about enforcement and issuance of orders for

non-payment of wages?

Under the current legislation, there are mandatory provisions. When

an order is issued by the board to an employer to make payment of

wages, the employer must comply. Under this new act that is no longer

mandatory. It is totally discretionary under the authority of the

director. We think that it is a retrograde step because it gives

discretionary power to an officer. It doesn't make that basic

recognition that the province....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I

don't know about your patience, but the patience of the rest of the

House is being tried. Clearly the member is speaking to the principle

of the bill and what should be in second reading. I wish you would

bring that member to order under the standing orders of this House. He

cannot continue to abuse the rules of this House in the way he is doing.

[ Page 2208 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken, hon.

members. I will remind all hon. members that if members wished to speak

to the principle of the bill, then they should not have moved a hoist

amendment. But now that one has been moved, we will contain our remarks

directly to the principle of that amendment, which is to hoist the bill.

MR. HANSON: We're saying to the government that this

ill-conceived, ill-drafted legislation is remiss in its coverage of a

number of items of basic protection for working people. The items

covered in the bill are such things as basic protection on wages,

vacation, health and safety, severance pay, the issuance of orders, and

so on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member

is speaking to the principle of the bill. He continues to refer to both

wages and health and safety, neither of which are mentioned anywhere in

that bill; even if they were, they would be under the terms of the

principle of the bill. I would ask that you call that member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that point is well taken. Please proceed to the hoist.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to quote from a small

article in the Vancouver Sun ,

by labour reporter Michael Bocking. Michael Bocking is a very informed

labour reporter. Basically he's saying that this bill should be set

aside.

MR. R. FRASER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Standing order 43

refers to tedious repetition, and it talks about arguments used by

other members. Another member has used that

article by Mr. Bocking, so

perhaps we could proceed to new material, with your advice, sit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point is well taken. Of course, standing

order 43 does refer to arguments which have been used by the member

speaking or other members.

MR. HANSON: Michael Bocking indicates that this is clearly a bill that hits workers' rights.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Jesus, we just had it!

MR. HANSON: Look, just because you ride the government aircraft 140 times in one year....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have advised you to speak to

the principle of the hoist or discontinue your speech. There appears to

be some concern about standing order 43, tedious repetition. So I will

cite from standing order 43 what the first member for Vancouver South

(Mr. R. Fraser) was indicating. "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after

having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the

conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition,

either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members

in the debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech...." I'm sure

the member is now aware that we have had quite enough repetition of the

subject matter to which the member is now referring. If he can

introduce new material to the hoist moition, the parliament will be

well served.

MR. HANSON: A committee of this House should be established

while this bill is set aside for six months. We move the bill aside for

six months; we appoint a committee of equal numbers; we travel

throughout this province. Mr. Speaker, we go to your own constituency —

and I probably shouldn't refer to the fact that you're from Prince

George — and we sit down to discuss with the mill workers, the

construction workers, the rock and tunnel workers, building trades, all

the people of that particular region, their concerns about this bill.

We should then go on and talk to another neglected region of the

province. We should be going to the central interior and talking to the

farmworkers of this province. We on this side of the House recognize

that we should be recognizing the way this act impacts upon the working

conditions of those involved in agrarian functions, and so on, in the

interior, which this government should be aware of because that is

where the power base of Social Credit is.

I think it would be important to cover various regions of the

province, because they differ in terms of their demographic profile, in

terms of the occupational groups represented. On the coast people are

primarily in the forest industry and in fishing; some are in mining. In

the interior we have mining, farm labour and so on, which is an

emerging problem. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) must

give us credit for that, at least. Working people in farming

communities are faced with various kinds of working conditions and

situations that are different from those in a more industrial setting,

where people work more fixed hours. In the farming communities people

work hours that correspond to the more natural cycles of animal

husbandry and so on.

While this bill is set aside, and as our committee moves throughout

the various regions of the province, we are then in a better position

to draft legislation that has sensitivity and is appropriate for the

various occupational groupings in the different regions. As you know,

the occupational groupings in the Prince George area differ markedly,

say, from Osoyoos. I think it is important that a working person in

Osoyoos and a working person in Prince George have basic protections in

vacation, occupational health, severance, layoff and recall, seniority,

and so on. I think that a committee should be travelling to all the

different points in the province and holding hearings not just with

trade unions but with small businesses, because small businesses are

employers, often experiencing what they perceive to be a trauma of

having a bargaining unit organize in their workplace. In actual fact it

can be a very good thing and can help their business very much in

codifying and regularizing working conditions, provisions, and so on —

that ad hockery that sometimes exists in small business operations and

creates problems.

Taking away rights doesn't necessarily create harmony; in fact, it

does the opposite. When you take away provisions and protections that

people have, you create anxiety and more dissension in the workplace.

That is sometimes not in the interests of the employer and the business

person, who really want a harmonious working environment. Sometimes

that collective agreement, backed by a good solid, readily understood

code of provisions in a labour standards act that provides protection

understood by both employer and employee, creates stability in the

workplace. It creates a greater sense of investment of the employee

into the workplace in a sense of working together and a feeling that

they have a joint investment in making the business flourish. That's

why I am

[ Page 2209 ]

arguing that the committee should be structured so

that it travels the province. Why do we have bills such as this come

into the House that don't have Government Employee Relations Bureau

involvement and where there haven't been a series of hearings held by

the Labour ministry around the province? It is better to get some

uptown lawyer — a pal — and say: "Look, draft us something tough,

something to knock the daylights and the feathers out of these people."

That's the attitude — not somebody in-house, who understands the

complexity of the workplace. They go outside to consultants. They pay

people uptown, Appin Consultants and all these folks. They get these

people involved, and that is wrong. You shouldn't be doing that. You

should be holding public hearings. Your ministry officials should be

going out during the six-month hoist period and travelling the province.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, we are wandering back to

the points in the bill, I would say, rather than the hoist. The House

has been very patient, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear the member advancing some arguments as to the wisdom of delay. I am sure he can continue.

[10:15]

MR. HANSON: As hearings are held around the province, I think

one of the things the committee would quickly recognize would be that

there is an aspect to this bill which is an extremely dangerous aspect

in an economy where there are a lot of bankruptcies. If this bill

passes right now, a worker will not have an obligatory claim for lost

wages if a bankruptcy occurs in a company. You may not be aware of

that, Mr. Speaker. With the number of companies that are going into

receivership and into bankruptcy, clearly there must be protection in

place that enshrines the right of a working person to recover any lost

wages. We saw the case of the ships tied up in Vancouver. That is

occurring all over the province. Corporations, small businesses, mines

and companies are going into receivership, shutting down and going

bankrupt. The first claim that should be made should be for the workers

to get the money that is owing them. This is one of the things that we

are worried about.

As we travel the province as a working committee of this

Legislature, a bi-partisan committee, we would find that all working

people in all parts of this province, whether in Terrace, Osoyoos,

Smithers, Mackenzie, Telkwa, Langley or near the Hotel Vancouver would

be concerned about that provision. They want baseline standards that

are presently in place under the existing law. They don't want a

situation where the employer can force the employees in tough economic

times to take substandard provisions in areas that this bill covers.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would suspect — and I'm just guessing — that

as we travelled the province we would hear serious concerns expressed

on the removal of severance protection, the removal of the whole

pregnancy leave protection, the layoff and recall and adequate

grievance procedures which leaves them vulnerable. They would probably

say to us as we travelled the province: why would the government, at a

time when working people need to know that the province stands behind

them on certain basic rights to vacations, wages, severance pay,

pregnancy leave and so on, be leaving us vulnerable to re-negotiating

all of those provisions downward or out of the collective agreements

entirely?

Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will take this opportunity to

vote with us to remove this bill. Give it six months and let's travel

to Osoyoos.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the next speaker, hon.

members, the Chair must observe that there has been some concern about

what is relevant under a hoist motion. There has been a lot of latitude

allowed, I guess, during this type of amendment, but clearly Beauchesne

will say that a six-month hoist is in fact a six-month hoist and is

used to obtain the rejection of the bill. One must speak strictly to

the principle of that hoist. Also with respect to committee work, that

would be another amendment, I would presume, if the member were making

it, which would not be allowed under a hoist motion.

On the hoist motion, the Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to be an expert in

this field of labour law and labour management. It's not an area that I

have studied in any great detail. But I am rising to take my place in

this debate on the motion to hoist the Employment Standards Amendment

Act, 1983, for a certain period of time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Even though I am not an expert, as I said, in labour relations and

labour management and unions, I do have a great concern about this act

in front of us for one major reason. I have taken the time to read the

introductory words of the minister when he introduced the Employment

Standards Amendment Act and then I've compared them with some of the

comments that have come in from people who are steeped in the whole

matter of labour-management relationships. I have compared the two, and

if you will bear with me, I would like to read some of the comments of

the minister and compare them with the reactions of some of the members

of the community who are concerned with this. I am saying tonight that

there would be a hoist to this bill because of the confusion that is in

my mind between the words of the minister in introducing this bill and

the actual criticisms which have come in from across the province. They

appear to be very far apart. For that reason alone I would suggest that

the minister and the government may have a serious problem with this

bill.

To illustrate this I just want to read a couple of paragraphs from

the minister's introduction to the bill and then compare what he says

with some of the comments that have come in in order to show you that

without a hoist on this bill and an opportunity for the people outside

in the community to discuss it, confusion will continue to reign over

the true intent of this bill. That is one of my concerns, because, as I

say, I'm not an expert in this, and when I see two very opposing points

of view coming in it bothers me and I feel that as a member of this

Legislature it is incumbent upon me to ask that the minister and the

government delay this bill so that it can be studied.

The minister said, when he introduced it, Mr. Speaker — and he

didn't say too much, so I will not bore you by reading too much of it —

that the bill:

...is intended to address certain issues which have been identified

since the act was proclaimed about a year and a half ago. It's necessary,

after having observed the practices of the act

[ Page 2210 ]

over that period of time, to clarify some applications of that

act to ensure that employees covered by collective agreements will find that

their collective agreements are paramount, and to introduce some new provisions

with respect to the enforcement of the act and the procedures through which

that enforcement takes place.

That is one of the first paragraphs in the minister's introductory remarks.

I have a critique in front of me, which says that there are a couple

of sections in the bill that are very dangerous to union members. It

says:

"If an employer qualifies as an interested party, then it

would be in the employer's interest to stall collective bargaining until

an appropriate time has passed so that an application could be made to the director

to have the minimum standards of this act apply. Since this refers to the entire

collective agreement, it is conceivable that under the application of this

section

union members could find themselves working for the minimum wage with no overtime

provisions.... "

When I compare these two things, Mr. Speaker, it is confusing. We

have the minister introducing the bill saying: "This to ensure and

protect and make collective bargaining paramount," and then we have a

reaction here that says: "This could be highly dangerous to union

members."

It continues:

"Although most collective agreements are much richer

than the minimum standards of the Employment Standards Act, there are

isolated cases where unions have used the act to speed up bargaining

when all but a few issues have been resolved."

You see, the minister has not addressed himself to those areas at

all. I look at both, and I say that if I'm that confused as a member of

the Legislature, then there must be more confusion outside in the

community.

Mr. Speaker — and I think you would agree with me that there is one

area where we cannot afford to have any more confusion, and that's in

labour-management relationships. We all know that unless we have a good

climate for labour-management relations in our province, it affects the

economy, it affects morale and it creates insecurity throughout the

whole public of British Columbia.

I'm trying to say that perhaps this minister is bringing in an

amendment in some haste which may actually cause problems out there in

the community, which I'm sure, as a Labour minister, he would certainly

not want to do.

I note that Mr. Hamilton, who is the former head of the Employers'

Council, commented on the appointment of the present Labour minister by

saying that he hoped that he would not rush into things. The minister

has been a minister for several months, but we know....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Is it a year already? At the time he said this,

the minister had just been appointed, but I still think it's rather

relevant to state this and quote Mr. Hamilton. He said he hoped that

Mr. McClelland would not make immediate major changes to the province's

labour legislation. He said: "That would be the wrong thing. It's

important to get a feel for the job first. Besides, our Labour Code has

worked remarkably well, because it is pretty much bi-partisan." So this

is another area that somewhat confuses me, Mr. Speaker, and I don't

believe the minister has addressed it in his remarks. Why did he bring

this in? Was there a great demand from management or a great demand

from the unions or from the public not necessarily in the unions? We

know this is a widespread act covering non-union employees too. Who

went to the minister and suggested this? Or was it perhaps something

that was thought up by the bureaucracy in the Labour ministry?

I think this causes concern, because we haven't seen any great

applause to date from management, and certainly not from labour, over

these amendments. I think it's unfortunate that the new Minister of

Labour, albeit in it for a year now and not that new, should bring into

this Legislature as his first piece of labour legislation an amendment

that doesn't seem to have been asked for. It's also so confusing,

particularly to anyone like myself, who reads both sides and finds two

very diametrically opposed viewpoints coming through. So I am concerned.

I also feel another concern as I've been reading through some

material here tonight. I feel that if neither labour nor management

have been meeting with the minister to ask for this bill to brought

forward, I have to ask myself why he has done it. I thought perhaps it

was someone in his ministry who decided he could sell this to the

minister for some reason or another, and he has adopted it. But if none

of that is true, the big question is: "Why?"

I don't think I'm paranoic when I say that perhaps this — and I hope

the minister will dispel this — is another piece of legislation that

seems to have far more behind it than appears. It appears to be fairly

simplistic, but confusing. On the other hand, if you really look

through it and take the position that has been given by people who have

studied it in much more detail than I have, there almost appears to be

a somewhat sinister aspect to this legislation. Basically that is what

is concerning me. When I say "sinister," I mean that if this piece of

legislation passes, it could lower the standard of living of workers in

the province, because it allows the opportunity to bring down the wage

structure in this province of groups in our society who already have a

fairly decent standard. If this bill allows that, then we have some

serious problems with the Social Credit government.

[10:30]

This is my problem. I have critiques of the bill in front of me from labour

people who are experts in the field. Maybe labour reporters don't impress

the minister too much, but I find that labour reporters attend a lot of union

conventions and talk to the minister when they have the opportunity. It seems

to me that some of the points they have raised should be giving the minister

a bit of concern. I would sincerely hope that there is no sinister motive behind

this, but if this bill should bring about a lowering of wage standards in British

Columbia — or leave the door open for it — then it lays before us the question

of whether the Social Credit government is embarking, because of their desperation

about the mishandling of the economy and their almost paranoic use of the word

"restraint," on a serious intent to strip the power of the working

people and the unions of this province. Why would they do that? Are they so

desperate that they figure that if they bring about an opportunity for the lowering

of wages in this province, we will become riper for foreign investment?

Interjection.

[ Page 2211 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I'm simply asking the minister the question.

Underlying so much of the legislation brought in by the Social Credit

government, there does seem to be a thread where they seem to be

wanting to centralize power. We find this in the legislation, and I

don't think it can be denied. Instead of the Employment Standards Board

we now have a single official in the Ministry of Labour who will have

discretionary power in issuing orders. Once again we find that the

government — the Minister of Labour in this case, like other ministers

in the Social Credit cabinet — turning it over from boards to some

senior bureaucrat in the ministry to make some major decisions that can

be highly centralized.

I don't think that the minister, in his opening remarks, has given a

reason for it, except that somebody worked out that it will save the

ministry a slight bit of money. I wonder if the amount saved is really

worth the concern and confusion that appear to be rampant out there

among those people who are most involved and who have expressed their

concern over the contentious sections of the Employment Standards

Amendment Act.

I am concerned also, because when we keep getting materials sent to

us from people, I think we in the opposition have a responsibility to

deal with some of those concerns. The former Minister of Labour made it

quite clear that he wanted to preserve and not undermine collective

bargaining procedures and the power of the trade unions. I think the

Minister of Labour may protest that this bill does not do that, but the

generality of his opening remarks has left it open for many questions

to be asked.

I am probably using some of the wrong words in discussing this bill,

because I am not an expert, but I do feel that if other people out

there who are experts are concerned, then I have a duty also to take

part in this discussion and express their concerns. I have to vote on

it, and you know I don't take my vote lightly. Frankly, I don't like

voting on a bill that the minister says is rather innocuous but is

supposed to help in the whole area of employment standards — I won't

use that word "wages" again. Yet on the other hand we have other people

telling us that it will not help.

In the material I've tried to pick up, I haven't found anything that

could possibly say that there was great applause or happiness out there

about this bill. Whenever we talk about minimum standards, one thing

that concerns me, particularly in the health area, is where some of the

poorest employment standards have existed, and that is in private

nursing homes. Many of us recall that one of the areas where workers

have had to fight the hardest to maintain proper employment standards

has been in some of the private nursing homes in this province. Private

nursing, which is there primarily to make profit, is where you find

most of problems arising when it comes to an attempt by the employees

to try to maintain minimum standards. Naturally it is to the advantage

of those who own the private nursing homes to make as much profit as

they can, and it's the employees who have to struggle so hard.

That's why any attempt by the Minister of Labour that appears — and

I say "appears" again, because of my lack of knowledge on this matter —

to be stripping away some of those basic employment standards rights

that were brought in by former governments is very dangerous and causes

a great deal of concern. Again, that's why I think that of all bills, a

hoist is necessary for this one. I don't understand why the minister

would have anything to lose. In fact, as this is the first piece of

labour legislation that he has presented to this House, I think it

would be to his advantage to show that he is willing to take this

outside and get a few more comments before he insists on it coming

before the House. He has nothing to lose, Mr. Speaker, but he has much

to gain as a minister who admits that perhaps he has brought in a

contentious bill, even though he may say that it is not.

I note that in some of his remarks on the bill, he went on to say:

Under our system, the collective agreement

should govern the ongoing relationship between those parties who have

agreed to enter into a collective agreement. These amendments now

before the House clearly recognize that relationship and ensure that we

don't interfere with it. We believe that when that relationship has

been agreed upon, it's up to the parties to determine the terms of

their contracts and to pursue the resolution of any differences....

The second major change is the

wage-recovery process, We are proposing some administrative changes.

The key to these is a greater use of our officers in the investigation

and resolution of disputes.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I realize that all of us can't be experts in

everything, but I want to reiterate there is nothing more important

than the labour-management relationship between the employee and

employer in the area of work standards. There is nothing more important

than ensuring that the people out there who are going to be affected by

this are not made nervous by a piece of legislation that to my mind

appears not to be doing anything to improve the present situation. All

it is doing is creating a considerable amount of concern outside.

That's why I keep asking what the minister has to lose. Why doesn't he

let it go to a hoist?

I think the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who just

celebrated his twentieth anniversary in this House, is one of the few

who was here in 1973; maybe there are a few others in the room. Perhaps

they will recall that at that time the Minister of Labour, the former

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, Mr. King, brought in the Labour Code.

I'm sure everyone is aware of that. There was an interesting paragraph

in his speech in 1973 when he brought this piece of legislation in. It

was a very monumental piece of labour legislation, and I think most

people would agree, no matter what their party politics, that it was a

fairly successful piece of labour legislation. It removed so much of

the going to court that we had before, and so many other things.

This is what Mr. King said:

Now I have said publicly in the past, and I have said on many

occasions, to labour and to management, that this bill is not offered as a blueprint

to which you're going to be tied for time immemorial. It is simply our attempt

to translate into legislative language many of the recommendations which you

people have brought to us and maintain a fair balance of economic power between

the parties, because this is essential to fair and effective collective bargaining,

too.

I would hope that that philosophy is still endorsed by the present

Minister of Labour. He has brought in a piece of legislation, and I'm

sure he too must have received some criticism from groups regarding

this piece of legislation. I don't know how he could possibly proceed

with it if he does believe in the proper balance of economic power

between the two major parties when it comes to labour-management

negotiations.

You know, Mr. Speaker, to most people this evening, this may not

appear to be a major bill, but it is to the official opposition. We are

concerned that some of the points that have been made by people

knowledgeable in the labour field, including some of our own members,

have raised some very serious questions. If the minister allows this

particular piece of legislation to go through, he may be disturbing

that balance

[ Page 2212 ]

that the NDP Minister of Labour definitely based

his Labour Code on. I would hope that the new Minister of Labour would

not want to destroy that balance.

There are questions in front of us to do with this new amendment,

and I simply feel that the minister did not seem to make any attempt to

go any deeper than what seemed to be a fairly superficial approach in

his opening remarks. The elimination of the board is going to save, I

understand, some thousands of dollars, but I suppose what we have to

look at is that if this government continually talks about doing this

for restraint.... But there is also a concern that underlying some of

these moves is more than a move towards control of some dollars, with

the elimination of the employment standards branch. It should be noted

that 145 of 146 decisions handed down by that board in 1981 were

related to the payment of back wages owed, and 162 of 175 decisions

during the first nine months of 1982 were related to back wages.

[10:45]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the

Speaker earlier reminded members with respect to relevancy on a hoist

motion. I can appreciate how difficult it is to speak for 40 minutes on

a subject which really takes only a few moments to discuss, but it

would seem that a recitation of the history of the Labour Relations

Board or any other board or committee is far beyond the principle of a

six-month hoist on this legislation. Perhaps the Speaker would once

again advise the members of the need to remain within the principle of

a six-month hoist, rather than the principle of the bill. If the

members opposite wish to discuss the principle of the bill, perhaps we

could vote on the hoist and then come back to second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, in order

to better understand the need for a hoist, the member is drawing an

analogy. It strikes me that she was very much in order in so doing. I

think when you're asking for a hoist you have to have some reasons and

I thought the member was giving some very good reasons.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair appreciates

the comments from both sides of the House, and recognizes also the

great difficulties involved in speaking to a hoist. However, it is

incumbent upon those who choose to speak to a hoist to ensure that the

remarks they make with respect to that hoist are relevant. I would give

the speaker credit for striving very valiantly to speak directly to the

hoist, but I must agree that over the past moment or two the speech has

strayed somewhat. Perhaps the hon. member could resume and try to

direct her remarks more directly to the hoisting of this bill for six

months.

MRS. DAILLY: I'll try not to reiterate and repeat, Mr. Speaker.

I've always felt that the basic reason for trying to convince a

government or a minister to hoist a bill for study is primarily that

there usually is a concern around that bill. I think I have tried to

point out that there are considerable differences between what the

minister has said and what people are writing in to the opposition, and

what we have been able to discover in analyzing the bill.

There is another

section of the Employment Standards Amendment Act

which seems to be in some conflict with statements made by the

minister. I think the most contentious

part is the area which states

that parts of the act do not apply where a collective agreement is in

effect, and that the director of employment standards can declare a

collective agreement void and apply the minimum standards if he's

approached by an interested party to do so after a contract has expired

and an appropriate time has passed without progress towards a new

agreement. What I was trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that seems.... If

you or I or other members of the House were out there and involved

closely in labour matters today, and that were the intent of the act, I

think there would be serious concern. If that's the kind of act the

minister wants to put through, perhaps he should take his time with it,

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: If; yes. The point is, Mr. Speaker, the "if" is

not just with me. I've pointed out from the very beginning that I don't

profess to be the expert in this, but I am listening to other experts

and there are some very big "ifs." I'm sure it's tedious to hear that

I'm not an expert, but at least I'm trying to be candid about it so

that in no way would I do a disservice to people who know far more

about labour than I do.

I primarily am trying to say to the Minister of Labour that if this

much concern is being expressed about his bill, we in the official

opposition are simply asking him not to insist on putting it through,

but to give it time. After all, this is his first piece of labour

legislation. I think the minister would be received very well by the

labour movement and others if he did hoist this first piece of

legislation; that if there is going to be contention and

misunderstanding and confusion around it, then he has agreed that he

will indeed not put it through the House at this time. I think if he

did that he would gain great credibility. As a member of the

opposition, I can't say that would help us particularly, but I think

we're all here to make sure the majority of people out there have their

lives improved. At this particular time it doesn't matter as far as the

party politics go, because we should all be responsible for keeping a

sane and calm environment in labour management relations. That's why,

Mr. Speaker, before I bore any of you any further, I will now take my

seat.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm glad I have my favourite Speaker in place

and my favourite official critic in his place. I'm very glad that the

member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) made the motion to hoist this

particular piece of legislation. I spoke on the bill in the original

debate, and since that time I have had an opportunity to meet with a

number of people who work on a day-to-day basis with labour

legislation. I don't profess to be an expert but I have worked with

previous labour legislation. I have worked since I was 19 years of age,

dealing with contracts written for employers and employees. One thing

that is always important — and it's something I learned many years ago

— is that the intent of any legislation should be very clear in the act

or the agreements so that anyone can read it, and it has only one

meaning. As you all know, I spent a lot of time dealing with criminal

law, traffic laws, bylaws. When any particular act or any

section of an

act has two meanings, or if it only opens the door or gives a slightly

different intention or

interpretation of one word, one comma or one

section of it when you refer it to another section, you have opened up

a legal nightmare. The only people who

[ Page 2213 ]

really gain from this type of legislation are lawyers. The whole idea of our courts today is confrontation.

I have gone through this act and the amendments to the other pieces

of legislation. I say in all sincerity that I sat down and talked to

other people who are experts in the field. Even with their biases, both

the employer in the management side — I say he's in management but I

would class him as an employer — and those representing the labour

section are finding the wording within this amendment very confusing.

They expressed to me, very definitely, that what we should do....

They're kind of shocked right now at what is coming out of this House;

they want time to study it. They want time to go through each

section

and see how it's going to affect their particular workforce and group

of employees. As the gentleman in management said: "I can't afford not

to have a happy, satisfied and secure group of employees. When I have

people out on the job who are bitching...."

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Bitching. It's a common word in the workforce. I know that someone who has worked on the railway understands that.

They don't want it. If we're going to have legislation that is

restrictive, then say so; if the legislation is going to be there to

protect and give minimum standards, then say so; but don't leave

sections in the particular legislation that can be interpreted two ways

or that leave any doubt. This is the part that really bothers a lot of

employers and employees.

Secondly, I would like to see the act hoisted because I would like

the experts in labour law, lawyers, those who are going to enforce this

type of legislation, to have a chance to sit down and rewrite many of

the sections that are coming up for discussion. There are many problems

that are going to come up and cause unhappiness.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Name one.

MR. MITCHELL: The Provincial Secretary asks me to name one.

One of the gentlemen I talked to was in a union that deals with the

construction trade. In British Columbia we have very mobile and

transient employees who travel throughout the province working on

various worksites. One of the securities for their families has always

been the right to assign their wages to their banks. The families at

home are given that security, to know that when the breadwinner is out

on the job the money will be coming back to the bank and it's going to

keep the family in operation. No one could understand why that

particular

section was put in the legislation — that the employer was

not compelled to make deductions to banks, pensions, etc. People are

worried about that.

If I can use a little history — and this is going back many years to

when I was working on a ship that was taking the workers up to Alaska

to work on the Alaska Highway....

A lot of those employees would come out of the job with $10,000 or

$15,000 on hand, and they would end up gambling it away. One of the

protections that has kind of grown.... It wasn't something laid down in

legislation, but it grew from the need of this mobile and transient

type of workforce that that money should come back to the family

bank....

HON. MR. ROGERS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, at two

minutes to 11 o'clock at night it's nice to hear old stories about what

one did in one's youth, but we are discussing a hoist motion on this

bill. I would ask you to bring the member into some form of relevance

on this, which would be in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. The member speaking

will try to be more relevant. I appreciate the analogy you're trying to

draw, but I think it could be done much more quickly and be much more

relevant.

[11:00]

MR. MITCHELL: What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that a lot of

these conditions grew. The workforce out there are really concerned why

that particular

section was put into the act. They would like time to

meet with the minister, the government and employers to find out the

reason behind it. They've asked me for thi