1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

643 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Committee on privatization. Mr. Sihota –– 643

Mr. Williams

MGS Woodworking. Mr. Lovick –– 644

PWA/CP Air employee layoffs. Mr. Harcourt 644

Memo to government staff on Bill 19. Mr. Gabelmann –– 644

Ministry of Highways subcontractors. Ms. Smallwood –– 645

Presenting Petitions –– 645

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

Mr. Sihota –– 645

Mr. Loenen –– 646

Mr. Jones –– 647

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 651

Ms. Smallwood –– 651

Mr. Long –– 654

Mr. Cashore –– 654

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 656

Mr. Guno –– 658

Mr. Vant –– 660

Mr. Stupich –– 661

Appendix –– 665

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery on the east side is

a very important diplomat who has just been posted to Vancouver from

Copenhagen, Mr. Odvar Mosnesset, consul-general for Norway. The

consul-general, who took up his posting at Vancouver on January 12,

1987, entered the foreign service of Norway in 1960 after some years in

private business. He has served in Paris, Washington, D.C., Cairo and

lately Copenhagen. I would ask the House to welcome him. I believe his

wife Ella is with him.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery this afternoon is Miss Colleen McKilligan from my home town of Houston. I ask the House to make her welcome.

MR. PELTON: Visiting us in the Legislature today are two

longtime friends of my wife and mine, Bob and Emily Hawes. I would

appreciate the House extending them a warm welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL: Visiting today in the precincts we have

students from Lord Byng Secondary School in Vancouver. I believe that

about half of them — they've come in great numbers — are in the gallery

at this moment and I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, there are days when you would

like to bend the rule of brevity during introductions, and today is one

of them. My niece, Ann Hoy, who has already shown herself to be an

achiever — the only anglophone ever to graduate from the University of

Montreal in the translation classes — is here, and I would ask that the

House make her welcome.

MR. LONG: I would like the House to welcome today a good

friend from Powell River in the Mackenzie riding, Grant McNab, who is

in the east gallery.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to welcome to the House

two dear friends of mine, Neil and Joanne Roos. Neil is the business

agent for the Christian Labour Association of Canada. Please make them

feel welcome.

Oral Questions

COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION

MR. SIHOTA: My question is to the Premier, and it relates to

the matter of the privatization committee that was struck a couple of

days ago. The question is this: does the Premier see no conflict in the

fact that these people who serve on the committee will be able to glean

information from the committee that may then put them in an advantage

position when it comes to making bids to purchase these enterprises?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's certainly encouraging to see such enthusiasm

and optimism for the potential of so many purchasers. Frankly, I don't think

there'll be that large a number, and the chances of someone there being

a purchaser are probably quite remote. However, I appreciate the fact that there

could be, potentially, information available to committee members, or to people

who have done legal work for various Crown corporations or government agencies,

or to people who have provided accounting services to various Crown corporations

or government agencies, or to others who may have in some way contracted for

Crown corporations or government agencies. So I suppose, potentially, it could

be a considerable list. Therefore, even though the numbers of potential buyers

may be extremely small, there definitely is that potentially long list, which

is why I think it's important that we come up front immediately, as we've

done, to suggest that really the test will be, and the control will be, in the

fact that all of the pertinent information from the committee — all of it —

will be made public at an early date, so that there's no chance of that,

or certainly that we reduce the risk of anything like this.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary on that matter. The reason why

the Premier introduced guidelines for cabinet members was because of

the same concern about potential conflict of interest. The Premier's

guidelines on conflict of interest do not apply to these people. Will

the Premier give an assurance to this House that he will apply those

guidelines to the people who serve on the committee, particularly the

guideline that prohibits people from getting involved in acquiring

things six months after they've served their term? Will you amend your

guidelines to cover these people?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I guess as a government we

could run things in a way whereby all people involved in any activity

that requires them to volunteer to do anything would be subjected to

some extensive set of guidelines. Those who serve on the executive

council of government certainly are required to meet the guidelines

that have been established, but I don't think we would want to extend

those guidelines to all people who serve in some capacity, volunteer or

otherwise, on behalf of government in some particular effort.

So no, I can't say that. All I can say is to repeat that as we have

been previously, and continue to be now, and will continue to be in

future, it's open government. You make the information available, and

certainly openness provides a greater protection than anything else.

MR. SIHOTA: I am not convinced that openness does.

Let me ask the Premier this question. During the course of the

Sinclair Stevens inquiry, it became apparent that a conflict of roles

with respect to a member on the federal privatization committee, when

he put in a bid to buy Canadair.... That bid was subsequently

withdrawn. Is the Premier not concerned that British Columbia is

vulnerable to the same type of problem under the privatization

committee that he has just struck?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, let me reiterate. I don't start

from the premise that people can't be trusted. I start from the premise

that most people are honest and above board and want to do a good job

on behalf of fellow British Columbians.

But again, in that particular process, I don't think that is a good

parallel, because what we are saying here is that all of the

information will be made public at an early date. That

[ Page 644 ]

really is the best test. It is better than a set of

rules which someone who wanted to be dishonest could overcome, get by

with or get through with. I think instead the openness will be the best

test.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to follow up on this point, in the

case of consultants who are in the business of advising a range of

corporations, it would appear that consultants that were involved in

the task force would have had access to information that no other

consultants would have. That would give them advantage over other

consultants. Could the Premier not agree that in those cases these

people should not make themselves available to consult with those who

would buy the corporations?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, how far do you want to take

this? I am sure that some could suggest that those involved in planning

consulting.... There are a number of people involved in planning

consulting. If somehow they could have available to them certain

information as to where one might establish a pub, would we

automatically suggest that this is related to privileged information?

How far do we want to take that? I have never suggested that. I would

never suggest it until or unless there was absolute evidence of this.

But I think that to say that no planning consultant can ever start any

sort of enterprise on his own which may be related to planning or

community planning, because they had some privileged information, is to

label the profession unfairly.

MGS WOODWORKING

MR. LOVICK: My question is to the Minister of Labour and

Consumer Services. MGS Woodworking of Nanaimo has advised my office

that job applicants are being asked if they are prepared to work two or

three days without pay to give that employer an opportunity to find out

if the employee would like the work. My question is this: has the

minister decided to advise employers now that he approves of this kind

of volunteerism?

HON. L. HANSON: The answer is a very clear no.

MR. LOVICK: In a supplementary, I want to know in what ways

the minister has decided to enforce the existing legislation — namely,

the Employment Standards Act — which very clearly requires an hour's

pay for an hour's work, and whether the minister has decided to give a

personal undertaking that any worker who is let go as a result of

appealing under that particular legislation, invoking his or her rights

under the Employment Standards Act, will indeed by protected if the

employer cannot show just cause for allowing that employee to be let go.

HON. L. HANSON: To the hon. member, the people of my ministry

certainly will investigate the charges that the hon. member has raised.

All I will say to him is that I will ensure that the rules and

regulations are followed.

PWA/CP AIR EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask the Premier about the Canadian

airline job losses. A memo that came out of the federal Department of

Employment and Immigration indicates that the PWA takeover of CP Air

may result in the loss of up to 3,000 jobs, and many of them will be

from B.C. — as a matter of fact, from Richmond and the Vancouver area.

It's unfortunate that deregulation in the airline industry will cause

unemployment and decreased service. We'd like to know what the Premier

has done to ensure that this takeover does not cost B.C. thousands of

jobs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the

opportunity very often to watch television, but it so happened,

coincidentally, that I too took out five minutes to watch television

last evening. I saw that the same question was asked in the House of

Commons, and the response to the question from the minister responsible

was that he had researched the suggestion of this in fact occurring and

that there was no basis for it. So I can't really respond to anything

as hypothetical as that, even though the question has been previously

raised by an NDP member in the Commons.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm very pleased that you're taking advantage

of good New Democrat research. Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier will

have to realize that there will be some job loss. B.C. was the only

province not to appear before the Commons committee on this matter, and

we would like to know if you have had any meetings, Mr. Premier, with

Mr. Eyton and PWA about that job loss.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, certainly we have ongoing

discussions with people in the industry, but I take this question

seriously enough that I don't really want to go on some hypothetical

thing. If I do arrange to meet with the executive members or an

executive member of that particular corporation, I don't want to go on

some hypothesis that was raised in the Commons. I'd like to have some

further information on this; in fact, we're looking to get further

detail. Apparently it was researched by people in the appropriate

ministry federally, and that information is forthcoming to us.

MEMO TO GOVERNMENT STAFF ON BILL 19

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Provincial Secretary. I have a memo which was sent to senior management

staff in the government instructing them to not allow debates or voting

on Bill 19 at the worksite. Can the minister confirm that this memo was

issued with his knowledge and approval?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I can't, because you're addressing the

wrong minister. The responsibility for employees within the government

falls to another ministry.

MR. GABELMANN: I assume the Provincial Secretary is

discussing the transfer to IGR of the operation. I understood the

Public Service Commission and the operation.... There's a fair amount

of duplication in this. I would direct the question, then, to the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Do I need to repeat the

question?

There's a memo that's issued within the Ministry of Health

instructing senior management staff not to allow debates or voting on

Bill 19 at the worksite. Can you confirm, Mr. Minister, if this memo

was issued with your knowledge and your approval?

[ Page

645 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, it was not with my approval.

MR. GABELMANN: I understood the answer to be not with your approval.

The memo prohibits voting and discussion even if it occurs on the

workers' own time. Why has the government chosen to try to dictate to

public employees what they can or cannot do during their own time?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I was not aware of the memo. This is the

first time the information has been brought forward. I will

investigate. I think it's incorrect in its assumption. I will report

back, perhaps tomorrow morning.

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS SUBCONTRACTORS

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. The Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson)

told the House yesterday that labour only subcontracting should

complain to the Labour Relations Board if they felt aggrieved about the

subcontract they had signed.

Article 49 of the minister's standard

agreement requires that all subcontracting be approved by the

government's engineer. Has the minister given approval to Sonny's, Ike

Unger and Maximum, who are operating north of the Alex Fraser Bridge?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I thought that we had covered that

adequately on past questions and with the press. The firm in question

is primarily a trucking firm, and there are no percentage requirements

for subcontracting when it comes to gravel truckers.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What the minister has said is that this is not

illegal, despite the fact that the contractors themselves have stated

they are violating

article 49 –– I understand that the minister has

looked at

article 49, and I would like to know if the minister is

contemplating raising the 35 percent level to 50 percent.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Not that the question of raising the 35

percent to 50 percent has anything to do with trucking firms, because

trucking firms are clearly exonerated from the requirements of

section

49, but regarding the question of whether or not 35 percent is a fair

requirement in trying to keep control in the hands of the primary

contractor, yes, I am looking at that figure. I am not convinced that

35 percent is an adequate control figure.

Presenting Petitions

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here that I would

like to present. It represents the same feeling that has been put

forward in these 220 letters which actually represent approximately the

full membership of the Cranbrook District Teachers' Association. May I

read it?

Leave granted.

MS. EDWARDS:

"To the Honourable Legislative Assembly of the Province

of British Columbia, in Legislature Assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned members of the

Cranbrook District Teachers' Association opposes the separation of

teachers' professional responsibilities and bargaining rights as

reflected in the proposed 'college of teachers'; the changes in the

membership, role and duties of principals and vice-principals; and the

retention of wage controls over teacher bargaining for another year.

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House withdraw Bills 19 and 20."

The petition is dated April 10, 1987, and signed by

the president of the Cranbrook District Teachers' Association, Chris

Johns, and the local association representative, Jack C. Sandberg.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled an answer to question 4 on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Orders of the Day

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

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

MR. SIHOTA: I take it I've got about five minutes left. The

point I was at yesterday in my presentation was really to talk a little

bit about the provisions of the Charter of Rights and how they relate

to the Labour Code. I had brought to the attention of members of the

House a number of sections of the Code which were, in my view, in

violation of the Charter of Rights.

When you start to web together the fact that under the Labour Code,

from one perspective, there is no right to strike, or a limited ability

to strike, the fact that there is no ability to secondary-picket, and

the fact that there are limitations on, if not total banning of, "hot"

declarations, a particular theme emerges. That is that the balance is

tilted away from the trade union movement, and the field we keep on

talking about is no longer level. That being the case, you then, in my

view, undermine the position of trade unions.

When you do that, it seems to me that that in itself raises a

constitutional question related to freedom of association. I indicated

earlier in the course of my presentation on this matter that

freedom-of-association clauses have been interpreted in the United

States and also in Canada — and I brought to the attention of members

of the House the Dolphin Delivery decision — in such a way as to

reinforce the right, the freedom and the ability of people to form

trade unions so that they can engage in free collective bargaining.

When you begin to take those three features away, you then undermine

the very essence of trade unions, and hence begin to violate the

freedom-of-association component of the Charter of Rights. It's on that

point, it seems to me, that the government regulations run afoul of the

Charter of Rights.

[2:30]

Secondly, on another matter — and I'm running out of time on this —

there is a concern that I have relating to

section 37, I believe it is,

which deals with double-breasting. I think a careful reading.... I said

earlier on that I'm not an expert in labour law matters; it's not an

area that I practised in. But certainly my reading of it and

consultation with other people suggests to me that when you begin to

shift the test away from

[ Page 646 ]

ownership to management, you make it easier for

double-breasting to occur. In fact, you make it quite possible for it

to occur once you've changed that test. I realize that the wording in

the

section is nominal; there doesn't appear on the face of it to be a

major change or shift in the wording of the legislation. But

essentially it shifts from ownership as a test, and now the test

is management. Once you've done that, it seems to me that at that point

you make the test a lot easier and indeed you open up the avenues for

double-breasting.

I would certainly urge the minister to take a very close look at

that provision of the legislation and to ask himself whether or not it

achieves what it is that he has said publicly he didn't think was going

to happen with the provisions of the new legislation: namely, that

there was not going to be any double-breasting. That was what the

government said, but on a careful reading of the section, it appears

that indeed the opposite can occur. So I would implore the minister to

take a look at that

section and, once again, to embrace the position

that we've embraced; to pull the bill away from the House and look at

it quietly and bring forward amendments that would deal with that. In

fact, in our view, the entire legislation ought to be defeated,

rescinded and all that kind of stuff.

The final point that I want to make, as once again I am feeling the

pressure of time, is the whole matter of limiting the right to strike

under the provisions of the new legislation, and what effect that has

on the powers of trade unions. Earlier on, when I was talking on the

hoist motion, I talked about Paul Weiler. Let me end with this one very

short quote:

"Let us carry the inquiry just a bit further to be

absolutely clear on that last point. If the law were just to ban

strikes by employees, that would effectively end collective bargaining.

It would deprive the union of the ultimate lever it has to extract

concessions from a recalcitrant employer. In the eyes of trade

unionists it would leave the employees with no more than the right of

collective begging."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the House

that the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social

Services will be meeting this afternoon for organizational purposes,

and I would ask the House for leave for this committee to sit while the

Legislative Assembly is sitting.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, it's an honour and a delight for me

to speak in favour of the motion that's before us. I consider Bill 19

to be innovative, positive and, above all, responsive to the needs and

the wishes of the people in our communities.

Our mail and our calls into the local constituency office are very

supportive; the ordinary people of this province welcome this

legislation. In fact, we're being asked not to give in, not to

capitulate on this. The Social Credit government is not for big

business. It's not for big labour. Social Credit government is big on

the ordinary British Columbian.

We have been told that this legislation, Mr. Speaker, holds an anti-union bias.

This legislation is not anti-union; it is a bias against irresponsible unions

— and rightly it should be. The vast majority of the unions are responsible,

but there are some that aren't. Some neglect the public interest and put

their own private interest ahead of the public interest. Some neglect to look

after their own members' interests. Those are big weaknesses that we must

address on behalf of all people: the question of the public interest and the

question of the individuals who at times are not well served by their unions.

When it comes to public interest, we ought to recognize that all of

us are interdependent. We live in a society where no person and no

group is an island unto themselves. No union, no membership — no matter

how righteous their cause may appear to be in their own eyes — can

claim that somehow everything must bend to their will. There is a

public interest to protect, and it's government that has been uniquely

appointed and that carries the authority to protect that public

interest. This legislation is designed to do that. We have a duty to

the people of this community, this province, and we intend to carry it

out. Last year $2 billion was taken out of our economy because some one

group wanted to see it all go their way; we simply cannot afford that.

This is the type of thing that creates uncertainty, that tarnishes our

image. It creates and generates a feeling of mistrust. When we live, as

we do today, with an economy that is still very fragile, and when we

have unemployment around 13 percent or 14 percent, we cannot stand idly

by and allow one sector of the community to have it all come their way

and damage and cause injury to all the rest. This legislation is

designed to make sure that that does not happen.

A 1985 survey among foreign investors showed that the

labour-management climate in this province was their number one concern

when it came to asking if they should invest here. We ought to

recognize that. We ought to recognize that we live in changing times.

We are pulling out of our economic slump. We are recovering. More jobs

are being created. Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, in February there

were 24,000 more jobs in British Columbia than there were in January of

this year; in March there were some 21,000 more jobs than there were in

February.

I want to say something about the right to strike, Mr. Speaker.

Repeatedly we've been told from the other side that somehow the right

to strike is sacred. The NDP views this as an inalienable right. I

don't believe it is.I don't think it ever is. I believe that we have to

balance the interests of the various groups within our community, and

the right to strike is not an absolute right. Yesterday and again today

the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was defending

strikes; in fact, he was saying that strikes had been a good thing;

that somehow it was the road to progress. That kind of thinking, Mr.

Speaker, is archaic. In today's sophisticated world we must devise

better ways of solving our disputes than to resort to strikes. And then

to point to strikes as somehow the road to progress....

I also want to just briefly comment on some of the remarks that were

made just before I spoke. We were told that somehow this proposed

legislation, Bill 19, is in violation of the Bill of Rights,

whereas we

were just — I think it was last week — told by the Supreme Court of

Canada that it clearly is not. I don't understand how a member of the

legal profession can mislead this House by suggesting that somehow this

proposed legislation might be in violation of the Charter of Rights,

when the Supreme Court has just said it is not.

I want to say something about Canadian trade unionism, Mr. Speaker,

as opposed to our U.S. counterparts who are responsive to changing

market conditions and who are far more pragmatic. Canadian unionism has

suffered from dogmatism, has always followed outdated creeds and not

been responsive to changing conditions. We live in a world where

[ Page 647 ]

we meet new challenges, and we must create a system

that is responsive to the new challenges that face us. We cannot simply

hang on to outdated dogma.

This legislation does not outlaw strikes. The emphasis of this

legislation is not on the big stick wielded by Ed Peck. The emphasis of

this legislation is on mediation, on fact-finding, on all kinds of

innovative ways of resolving these long, drawn-out disputes: the

cooling-off periods, the secret ballot votes, and on and on it goes.

This is positive legislation. To suggest that somehow these awesome

powers are going to be constantly used is to mislead this House and to

mislead the public. The analogy can be drawn to a policeman who is

given a revolver; we give a policeman a revolver not so that he can use

it on anyone who runs a red light....

AN HON. MEMBER: But the potential's there.

MR. LOENEN: But the potential for grave conflicts is there,

and in case it's needed, it's a darn good thing that a policeman does

have a revolver. That is how we must look at this legislation. To

immediately cause this hysterical, emotional response of suggesting

that somehow these powers are going to be used constantly is to do a

disservice to this province and to the many good union people who are

out there making a contribution to our economy.

Just a word, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that there are some unions

that do not represent their individual workers well. I know that from

talking to people and from the kind of comments that come from my

constituency. You know, union power is awesome, because the unions have

been given the right to dictate and to control whether someone's

livelihood will be there or not. That's an awesome power, and we all

know of instances where unions have abused that power using fear and

harassment. This legislation aims to do what is best for the individual

worker, and if we want to speak up for the little person in this

province, then we ought to back this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to many of the speeches from across the way.

I thought that the most thoughtful remarks by far were made by the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I appreciated his very

thoughtful comments. In his latest speech he raised a number of issues

that I feel some sympathy for, but what we ought to remember is that

the kinds of issues that he raised are more properly addressed in third

reading, where we go clause-by-clause. They certainly did not touch the

main thrust of the legislation. I have yet to see cogent arguments for

simply turning down the entire legislation and not even wanting to talk

about it, as has been suggested by the people in the labour movement.

In short, Mr. Speaker, we simply must look to new and positive ways

in which we can create a healthy climate for job creation and

investment. I have previously urged that we look at employee

stock-ownership plans, profit-sharing and productivity bonuses as ways

of meeting the new challenges that are before us. If our unions — they

are losing ground, and we all know that — wanted to continue to play a

positive part, they would look at some of these innovative ways and

continue to make their contribution in a new and changing environment.

I urge all the members to reflect on the fairness of this

legislation and the need to get on with this vital job of strengthening

our economy in the interest of all the working people and families in

the province. Let us be part of the solution and not part of the

problem.

[2:45]

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I rise in sadness today to take my

part in the debate on second reading of this bill — sadness because of

the motion in this House yesterday. I think we lost a tremendous

opportunity, an opportunity to pull back a little bit, to rethink, to

reflect on this legislation, to give it a chance to be understood by

the people in the province. That opportunity was lost yesterday, and I

hope there will be other opportunities for this Legislature.

In the debate that we've seen on this bill, we on this side had been

suggesting that we have a sick patient here — a patient who has a

number of deadly symptoms. Perhaps there is even a cancer in this bill.

We've been saying: "We have to examine this patient. We may even have

to perform some surgery. We need some time for consultation with other

experts in the field." The government side has been saying: "This

patient is not sick. This is the healthiest patient I've ever seen. All

this patient needs is to walk out in the sunshine, to get a little

fresh air and exercise, and this cancer will not have any impact." I

think it's been a blind attitude toward a very serious sickness in this

bill and a potential for serious problems in the province as a result

of passage of this bill.

Our role as opposition, as I see it, is still to try to persuade the

government that there are problems that need to be looked at. I think

everybody in this Legislature has talked to a variety of people. I have

talked to labour leaders, business leaders, labour relations experts on

both sides — on the management side and on the labour side — and I have

talked to constituents. Everybody that I've talked to sees serious

problems, problems that need a rethink, a relook.

I think the tone, other than has been suggested by the previous

speaker, on this side has been by and large temperate and thoughtful.

We are trying to persuade. We're trying to use our powers as opposition

to have the government rethink the serious problem that they're getting

this province into. I don't want to be repetitious of the points

previously made by my colleagues, and I don't want to reiterate

arguments that are well understood, but it's hard not to, because they

keep reappearing. If we look at yesterday's Sun ,

for example, we see two major articles on this bill that I think speak

very loudly of the views not only of people with knowledge but of the

general public.

I'd like to quote the

article by Vaughn Palmer with the heading "New

Labour Law is Fatally Flawed." Mr. Palmer saw three major problems with

this legislation. It does not meet the goals that the government is

suggesting, and I think they are goals that we all agree with and would

like to see achieved with labour legislation. First of all, this

legislation won't bring labour peace. Secondly, "the legislation won't

encourage the efficient resolution of disputes." I think he makes some

excellent points here — points that I've also heard from labour

relations experts, primarily that this legislation "takes away ultimate

responsibility from labour and management and also removes the

incentive to compromise." This legislation is not facilitating labour

peace and harmony, as we all want; it is making it more difficult for

labour and management to achieve the goal of bargaining, which is a

collective agreement. Thirdly, Mr. Palmer suggests that this

legislation will not encourage investment; in fact, just the opposite

will happen. He suggests that "discriminating investors will also know

that the prospect of a three-year battle between government and labour

is reason enough for investors to park their dollars somewhere else."

[ Page 648 ]

I think it's sad that we are facing legislation that is roundly

criticized on all quarters, even by Jim Matkin, president of the

Business Council of British Columbia, in yesterday's Sun .

After meeting with the Labour minister.... This is from a figure who I

think is well respected on all sides of labour relations matters. He

suggested that "the real success of labour-management relations in B.C.

is in the private settlement of disputes by the primary parties," and

that this law, meaning Bill 19, "is of secondary importance." He also

suggested that "collective bargaining is working fairly well in B.C.,

contrary to the forestry strike, which is an unusual dispute." He said:

"Most of the time we're settling without strikes or lockouts, most of

the time the settlements are lower than the cost of inflation...." Mr.

Matkin is suggesting that this bill isn't necessary; that collective

bargaining, even with the legislation we had, was working well.

Mr. Palmer suggested it was flawed, and my colleague from North

Island yesterday suggested it was flawed. Mr. Palmer doesn't know the

half of the flaws in this legislation, because half of them haven't

been uncovered yet.

My colleague from North Island yesterday uncovered what I call son

of Bill 3. Son of Bill 3 is

section 65(2.1), which brings back the

right to fire without just cause. This was the legislation we saw a few

years back that brought thousands and thousands of public sector

employees onto the lawns of this Legislature. I don't think we want a

repeat of that kind of thing, and I don't know why the government has

brought back this kind of legislation.

I'd like to turn your attention to another major flaw that has

really not been uncovered in this legislation. It's on the last two

pages, under the heading "Consequential Amendments." It's sections 72

and 73. These amendments are slipped in as more or less housekeeping

amendments, just clearing up some loose ends at the end of the

legislation. This is introducing changes to the Financial

Administration Act that are supposed to be a consequence of Bill 19. In

fact, what these changes to the Financial Administration Act do is

sanction the Treasury Board to control all activities of independent

bodies like school boards, municipalities and hospitals. This is not

relating to a labour relations matter.

I would call this legislation the son of the Curtis directive.

Perhaps you remember the Curtis directive of a few years back, This is

where the previous Finance minister, Mr. Curtis, tried to run school

boards of this province by directing those school boards to spend

moneys the way he suggested from the Treasury Board office. The highest

court in this land suggested that this decision was wrong. I'd like to

read from that decision of November 21, 1985, where the Hon. Mr.

Justice Hutcheon suggests: "In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that if

the Legislature is desirous of transferring the power of local

self-government from school boards to the Treasury Board, it must do so

in clear and express terms." Well, I think that's exactly what we see

come back in sections 72 and 73; the son of the Curtis directive is

enshrined in this bill.

These amendments are not consequential amendments. They are not

housekeeping, cleanup matters. They are not even related in any way to

Bill 19. This legislation is being slipped in for some other purpose.

In fact, they are sections that give the Treasury Board unprecedented

powers in this province. These amendments aren't about labour

legislation; they're about the ability of Treasury Board to undermine

the autonomy and control the activities of hundreds of autonomous

institutions in this province, from school boards to hospitals to

municipalities to universities, from specialized societies to

professional groups — in fact, anybody receiving money through votes of

this Legislature.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I wonder what sort of consultation has taken place on this

section of the act. Have the mayors of this province been consulted?

MR. REE: Point of order. I understand that we are in general

debate of Bill 19 and not in committee, and references to specific

sections would be out of order in general debate. Possibly the member

could be so advised.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. We are here to

discuss in second reading the general principles of the bill. As long

as all hon. members are aware of that, we will be all right. Would the

member continue, please.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, your point is well taken, as is the

member for Capilano's. But starting with the minister, who made a great

many references to specific sections, there has been a great deal of

latitude allowed by the Speaker during this debate on this particular

bill. I hope that there will not be a double standard in this House,

with a certain latitude for government members not being extended to

members of the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member for Rossland-Trail is

well aware.... He is absolutely correct, of course, that the trend was

established when the bill was introduced for second reading. Subsequent

to that the Chair has been, I think, very, very fair in this regard,

and will continue to be that way.

MR. JONES: The theme and the principle that I am trying to

point out here, Mr. Speaker, is that this legislation is flawed, and I

intend to point out a number of examples, as have previous speakers on

this side of the House. It should not be approved by this House. In

order to develop that theme I have to point out a number of specifics.

Some specifics are so horrendous that they need some detail in order to

point out how disastrous they are. I think it's to the benefit of the

members of this government to get that information, because they're not

aware. The Premier was reported in the news yesterday as not being

aware of the implications of this section. If it's not given an

opportunity to be debated here, neither side of this House can do its

job in considering this legislation properly.

As I was saying, the sections of this bill give tremendous power to

the Treasury Board, power never given before in this province and, in

fact, ruled illegal by the highest court in this province. What we see

now is these tremendous powers being transferred without any

consultation, perhaps even without any consultation of the Premier.

I wonder how the mayors of this province would consider this

legislation. The province could come in and affect zoning in

municipalities by the threat of withdrawal of funds. I wonder how

hospital boards and their therapeutic abortion committees might be

treated if they were told that their operations were going to be under

review and there was a possibility of withdrawing funds, or even fines,

as was proposed under the Curtis directive.

[ Page 649 ]

I think these amendments are dastardly, to give power to Treasury

Board, not this Legislature — not open government, not open debate, not

cabinet, not the executive council, but simply the Treasury Board

sitting in some room in the basement of these buildings making

decisions on the lives of perhaps a major sector of this province that

depends upon this Legislature for its funding.

[3:00]

The Treasury Board gets control of these matters by putting

conditions on grants that force those once autonomous bodies, those

bodies that are given autonomy in other pieces of legislation.... They

now are directed by Treasury Board and can be penalized by that board

for not behaving according to government directive.

So son of Bill 3 is one of the flaws in this legislation that I

pointed out, and I am sure we are going to see more in-depth discussion

of son of Bill 3 and son of Curtis directive in third reading of this

bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: They're busy working on the amendments right now.

MR. JONES: We're going to have amendments to son of Bill 3;

we're going to have amendments to son of the Curtis directive, and we

are also going to have amendments to son of CSP.

One of the pieces of literature that was handed out with this

legislation when it was introduced is called: "Ending the Compensation

Stabilization Program." I was very pleased when I saw the heading:

"Ending the Compensation Stabilization Program." I think we have heard

Orwellian words in this House in the last few days; certainly the

compensation stabilization program was the biggest brotherism that this

province has ever seen in the public sector.

It was introduced in 1982 to restrain and stabilize wages in the

public sector. Another word for "compensation" is "wages," and another

word for "stabilization" is "control." So what we saw was "wage

control" from February 1982 on. What happened was that this Orwellian

body was set up as an arm of government to in fact act as a buffer

between government and the public sector, in fact to do the

government's dirty work for it. The government did not have the

intestinal fortitude to freeze wages, which is what in fact they were

trying to do during that period. But they brought in the compensation

stabilization program.

One of the statements that accompanied this bill suggested that the

public sector settlements now no longer lead private sector

settlements. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to check that out and consulted with

the library and determined that in two of the three years before CSP,

the private sector led the public sector, and that the compensation

stabilization program did not change that one iota. So we had Big

Brotherism without any effect in this House.

A number of members of this Legislature were school trustees and

board chairpersons during that period, and it was certainly one of the

worst periods of education history in this province. Many of those

people have since left their roles on school boards, as I have, because

of the tremendous frustration during that period. Not only did we see

cutbacks to funding, not only did we see the compensation stabilization

program and directives like the Curtis directive, but we even saw

Socred MLAs going around to lobby in a negative way those school boards

that were trying to improve education in their districts. What we saw

under the compensation stabilization program was an unworkable program.

Perhaps the words of Crawford Kilian in his book School Wars

might amuse some of the sports fans in relation to the compensation

stabilization commissioner. Mr. Kilian suggests on page 57 of that book:

"The new post of compensation stabilization

commissioner had the effect of inserting a hockey referee into a

football game. Boards would still go through the motions of negotiating

within the new provincial limits, but any agreement they reached would

have to be second-guessed by the commissioner, Ed Peck. Failure to

reach an agreement by a legal deadline would require the board and its

teachers to go to arbitration, an expensive and time-consuming process

— and again, Mr. Peck would be the ultimate arbitrator, the Monday

morning quarterback and referee rolled into one."

That process went around and around and around. Arbitration, back to

Mr. Peck, back to arbitration, back to the parties; it was a

tremendously frustrating process that led the B.C. School Trustees'

Association of this province to suggest in its brief to the Labour

minister that we should do away with the Compensation Stabilization

Commission.

It was this same piece of legislation that suggests the compensation

stabilization program will end in October 1987, but in fact, teachers

are going to be under wage controls in this province to July 1988. The

health employees' union is going to be under wage controls until April

1989. The Health Sciences Association and the B.C. Nurses' Union are

going to be under wage controls until April 1988 and the Vancouver city

police are going to be under wage controls until January 1988.

So it looks like the compensation stabilization program is coming to

an end. But is it really, Mr. Speaker? In fact, under this legislation

the Industrial Relations Council will review all public sector interest

arbitration awards. Again we see Big Brotherism injecting its ugly head

into labour relations in this province, And the reason that the

Industrial Relations Council is doing that is to ensure that these

awards are in conformity with the principles of the public sector

interest arbitration now set out at length in this act. Guess what one

of those factors is, Mr. Speaker. In fact, guess which factor is

paramount in the minds of this review process. It suggests that where

the ability to pay of the public sector employer is in issue, then the

ability of the public sector employer shall be the paramount factor. So

again we have the worst feature of the compensation stabilization

program coming back into effect in this legislation. This is son of the

compensation stabilization program, with its interference in the free

collective bargaining of the public sector. In fact, this whole bill

smacks of son of CSP. We do see tremendous interference on the part of

government.

Ability to pay is the worst factor in the compensation stabilization

program, because it replaces the long-standing practice of fair

comparison. Fair comparison is the basis on which arbitration awards

have been made as a result of these things being worked out for decades

by labour relations neutrals. It suggests under the doctrine of fair

comparison that the public requires certain services and that the

public must, in fairness, pay the going rate for those services. We

should not have this one-sided kind of legislation that is

unprecedented in Canadian industrial relations.

[ Page 650 ]

Public sector employees are not second-class citizens. Ability to

pay is primarily determined in this province by the provincial

government; so I don't know why, if that's how you want it, the

provincial government does not just legislate wage controls. Why not

set wages? Why not be honest? That's the whole motive behind this

legislation. If we did that, we could save perhaps a tremendous

bureaucracy. The Premier doesn't like these bureaucracies. He's paying

the commissioner two times his own salary. Let's do away with that.

Let's be honest. Let's just set wage controls in this province. Let's

outlaw strikes. This is what it seems the government wants, and

government members opposite want. So I don't know why we don't just

have the intestinal fortitude to be honest; have open government. Bring

in that kind of legislation, and we'll see how the people feel about

it. We would save that tremendous bureaucracy, and we would not have to

pay Mr. Peck two times the Premier's salary.

Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to point out that both business and labour

leaders in this province disapprove of this legislation. The press is

able to pick out the major themes that are flaws in this legislation.

The members of the opposition have done their homework and have found a

number of flaws in this legislation. This legislation is too important

and affects too many people in this province to be rammed through this

House and not given full consideration by the public.

I'd like to raise a couple of other concerns, if I have time, Mr.

Speaker. I'd like to raise just a couple of small points that are

impacted in this legislation. One of the sections, of course, gives

teachers the right to strike, or supposedly does. It categorizes

teachers to be included in Bill 19; and this is a change from previous

legislation. Government members are enamoured with saying to teachers

of this province: "We gave you what you asked for." In fact, Mr.

Speaker, teachers of this province did not ask for the right to strike;

they asked for the right to bargain in a free, collective way. In fact,

they asked for the choice of strike or arbitration. That point seems to

be missed by members opposite and the press, but that was the desire of

the B. C. Teachers' Federation in this province, a choice — at the

point of a labour dispute, at the point of impasse in labour relations,

to have that choice of whether to proceed to arbitration or whether to

proceed to a strike action. What we see in this legislation — and

another flaw, Mr. Speaker — is that in the education sector that I

think we are all very concerned about, the only mechanism for resolving

disputes is a strike-lockout mechanism. I think we can easily see, Mr.

Speaker, that this is going to be tremendously disruptive to the school

system.

The previous speaker suggested that the right to withdraw one's labour

was not a fundamental right. Well, I disagree with that, Mr. Speaker. I think

enlightened countries around the world would also agree that that is a fundamental

right. But in this province any strike can be prevented or ended by the commissioner

— not the Minister of Labour, not this Legislature, but the commissioner — any

time he deems that such action would be a threat to the welfare of residents.

The Premier is quoted as saying that a strike would not be in the public interest,

and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is quoted as saying that he

will deal with any job action if it arises. Teachers asked for the right to

bargain; they asked for choice. And they were given an opportunity in this legislation

that is an illusion of a right. It is an illusion of the right to strike, without

any substance in it, and it has been suggested that the only time teachers are

going to be allowed to strike in this province will be in July or August.

When I look at this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I try to think of the

mental set that went into this on the part of the government. I can

understand the frustration that everybody in this province felt during

the forestry dispute. It was a long, protracted dispute; it did hurt

the province. Nobody benefited — not big labour, not management. I

think the Premier worked hard, and I think, although his motives were

suspect because it was at election time, he did try hard to resolve

that dispute.

It is in the public interest that at some point there may be a time

to intervene in those disputes. The economy did suffer. But I think the

mind-set was that British Columbia is the centre of the universe, that

we're not part of labour relations in this country or in this

continent, and that we did have a fresh start on October 22, so we can

ignore all the history of labour relations in North America. So the

desire was to intervene sooner. Perhaps these motives are honourable.

The method chosen, of course, was the super-body with the super

bureaucrat, so it won't look like the government is interfering. Again,

we'll have a bureaucrat doing the dirty work for the government. It

won't be the Legislature; it won't be the Minister of Labour. It will

be a bureaucrat who will be blamed for intervening in disputes in this

province.

I think it's sad, Mr. Speaker, that under our system of government

we are so polarized in this province and that we cannot easily look

intelligently at this kind of legislation. I think it is difficult for

all of us to appreciate the tremendous implications that some sections

of this legislation have. I think it has been pointed out in this

Legislature, and outside in the media and by labour relations experts,

that this legislation does favour employers, that it does create an

unlevel playing-field, and that it favours the non-union sector and

gives unprecedented powers to a non-elected official.

This Legislature is the one that should be determining when the

public interest is in dispute, not a bureaucrat. What is our job here

as elected representatives if it is not to determine the public

interest? Why not have the courage as government to assume those

responsibilities that the electorate gave to us to determine the public

interest in labour disputes, and not hide behind the commissioner?

That's not open government, Mr. Speaker.

[3:15]

I'm also suspicious of the timing of this legislation. We had

discussed the budget. We were into estimates, and there was a

tremendous amount of concern from a wide variety of people in this

province — from home-buyers, from seniors, from small business.

Everybody in this House, I'm sure, has been getting a tremendous volume

of mail on this concern, and certainly the introduction of these bills

deflects interest from those profound concerns that the average

citizen, who is concerned about issues other than this legislation....

I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation does not

achieve the goals that the government suggests — and that we all agree

— are desirable: to bring about labour peace and harmony, to bring

about labour relations that are fair and just, to have democracy work

in this province in the work sector. It is not acceptable legislation,

and it is seriously flawed. We have seen that in son of Bill 3, son of

the Curtis directive and son of CSP. It is too important. It impacts on

too many lives to be rammed through this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed in principle to this legislation, and I

hope some system can be devised to give it a good look, so the

government and the opposition can work together to bring about the

kinds of goals that we all agree on.

[ Page 651 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey. [Applause.]

MS. CAMPBELL: I thank my hon. colleague for his support, but I am actually just seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier this afternoon

that there were students in the precincts from Lord Byng Secondary

School in Vancouver. They have come in such numbers that they are

coming in and out of the galleries in shifts. I'd like the House to

welcome a large number of students from Lord Byng Secondary School who

are now in the gallery with their teachers, Mr. Robbins, Mr. Downey,

Mrs. Mouat and Mrs. MacDougall. Will the House make them welcome.

MR. REE: If I might, Mr. Speaker, relative to the

introduction my colleague from Point Grey made: possibly for the

education of those from Lord Byng, the second member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and myself are both Lord Byng

graduates — and this might happen to you someday.

HON. MR. REID: I take my place in support of the Industrial

Relations Reform Act, Bill 19, even though I have not attended Lord

Byng — but I certainly give credit to the college of higher education

and learning and hope that you pick up something here today.

In reading the bill, Mr. Speaker, it certainly addresses.... After a

strong public survey undertaken on behalf of the minister in different

forms around the province, strong recommendations were received about

labour management and public input and consultation relative to

industrial relations in the province of British Columbia. And the one

thing that it did point out to us, especially on this side of the

House, who are so strongly concerned about the economy of the province

and about job creation, is that it's time that as a government

representing that sector of the community that the previous member

spoke about — public input.... It also addressed so strongly the

question of big labour bosses, big management bosses, and primarily it

addressed the public interest and consultation with that public

interest, which was the creation and formation of Bill 19.

The paralysis of the economy last summer that the previous member

referred to, with a loss of income to the province's economy of over

$100 million, and with no apparent resolve.... No matter what process

the Premier and this government tried to implement over that six-month

period, there was no process available to allow the economy of the

province to get on with the job.

Mr. Speaker, the rank-and-file members of the labour movement out

there, including the non-union labour movement which has a strong voice

in the province of British Columbia and should always have — the labour

movement entirely; I don't say union movement, but I say the labour

movement — is the one that we're listening to. And we're listening to

the rank-and-file member out there who's tired of being dictated to on

an ongoing basis about his democratic rights and his right to finally

make a decision on whether he can go to work or not.

Unfortunately, the soap-box operation of democracy that they

operated before needed some addressing and that's why it's addressed in

Bill 19. This bill addresses the question of democracy; this bill

addresses the question of employment; this bill addresses the

opportunity for creation of jobs and the ongoing opportunity for the

economy of the province of British Columbia. So as a result of that, I

speak in favour of Bill 19.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Unfortunately, I am unable to speak in support

of the bill. I'm sorry that we've been put in the position of opposing

the government's bill on labour; I'm sorry because I think that it was

a tremendous opportunity — an opportunity missed.

I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the things we've heard

in the last while from some of the speakers on the government side, and

I'd like to start off by talking about quotes that we've heard again

and again: that this bill has been put in place to protect the public

interest; that this bill has been designed for the majority of people

in this province, the people who are not represented by the big

business bosses or the big labour bosses — indeed, the people whom I

represent, the people in Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

Well, I've had some time to talk to those people, and I assure you

that many of my relatives, including those in my immediate family, are

those people, people who work in the mills, in the construction

industry, in department stores, in social service agencies. And those

people believe very strongly that in the issues of industrial relations

in this province the only way that they can have a voice, the only way

indeed that they can have strength, is by joining a union and by having

collective strength. Because it's very clear that when the government

talks about instances of violations of the Labour Code, instances where

we've heard of violations of human rights or Charter issues, as

individuals they have very little strength. They're in a situation

where it's very difficult for them to function within a government

bureaucracy, or indeed in the courts. But by joining a union, by

actively participating in ensuring their democratic right in their

chosen organization, they indeed can be part of a solution. They can be

part of policy-setting in B.C., and historically have been part of

policy-setting in North America.

I find it really interesting to hear members on the other side talk

about their commitment to democracy while they're undermining

democratic institutions and organizations of working people in this

province. I find it ironic that members on the other side talk about

their commitment to young people and demonstrate that by a clause in

the bill showing that young people have a right to undermine the

collective organization of their forefathers. In reality, many of the

opportunities young people have in our society have been brought about

by the commitment of working people's organizations of unions to labour

law amendments, to labour laws that have taken them out of the mines,

that indeed have taken young people out of work situations which have

been dangerous to them personally, and who have fought for the rights

of young people to good public education and apprenticeship programs

supported both by workers and by employers. I find it ironic that the

representatives on the other side find themselves now talking about

trying to undermine those hard-fought victories that democratic working

organizations have gained for all of us.

In the discussions we've had over the last while, we've talked about different implications that the bills bring on

[ Page 652 ]

B.C. residents as a whole. The bill itself talks

about public interest, as have many members on the other side. I've

been trying to hear from the members of the government side what that

public interest is. I've been listening for a definition as to who in

their minds the public is represented by. It's very clear that in the

minds of the government the public is not represented by those who

oppose the bill, and that list grows daily. It's not big business; it's

not small business; it's not big labour; it's not the teachers; it's

not professional organizations. As the days go on, the list grows

longer and longer. I think the challenge is out there for the

government to define public interest, and to do it in a way that we can

all understand so that the public interest, so-called, is not defined

on a daily basis at the whim of any particular minister or government

representative.

Another quote that I want to take exception to, and that has been

spoken of by other members, is that this legislation is a package to

deal with problems of attitude. I think it's really important for us to

make it clear that any problems of attitude are learned by governments

that impose legislation on the population, on democratic organizations,

on organizations that are supporting either professional groups or

management groups or indeed labour groups. Those attitudes are learned,

and I think one of the things we have to commend at this time is how

the people who are being put at risk by this legislation are dealing

with a government that is uncaring, a government that is unprepared to

listen to criticism, indeed unprepared to try to grapple with some of

the solutions that have been pointed out.

I would like to commend the organizations that are systematically

trying to inform and educate their members as to the implications of

this complicated legislation. I would like to commend them for their

commitment to insisting that they have something to say in a democratic

society. Again I would like to add voice to their concerns, and ask the

government to listen to and indeed to join in a partnership with the

people of B.C. to look for solutions.

[3:30]

I think what has to be acknowledged when the government is dealing

with any labour legislation is that a collective agreement is a

consensus document. It is a document worked out by two democratically

appointed representatives. That document is one that strives to deal

with the needs of both management and labour, and that it is a legal

document and has to be respected as such.

I spoke earlier, when we were asking the government to consider the

kind of discussion and dialogue necessary to reach a good Labour Code

for the province, about some of the changes that our province and,

indeed, all industrialized societies are undergoing and have to deal

with. I think that as much as there are reasons to oppose the bill for

what it does have in it, there are also reasons to oppose the bill for

what it does not have in it; and that the government has failed to

seize the opportunity to create a framework for dealing with

technological change. While the bill requires that 90 days' notice be

given to unionized workers, it substantially weakens the legal

protection given to workers during introduction of technological

change. Adam Smith's unseen hand of the marketplace has a new tool; it

is the unseen hand of technological change.

People in workplaces throughout B.C. often don't see technological

change coming. However, the change in the workplace has significant

impact, not only on their working conditions but also on their own

personal lives. For example, the forest industry was shut down for over

four months last year, but the Council of Forest Industries reported

that there was very little effect on total production or sales, which

were very close to those of 1985 and 1984. The reason for this success

was the tremendous technological capacity of our forest industry, which

is now a thoroughly modem industry. However, the successes were

achieved with about 1,400 fewer people working, and that's just in a

two-year period. I think that members opposite who talk about the

impact of that strike are not acknowledging the fact that union and

management were in a struggle in which they were unable to reach a

consensus, a consensus affecting their work lives, and were grappling

with issues like technological change. It is very clear that the forest

companies were not hurt as the working people of this province were.

If the government is truly concerned about working people in the

forest industry, the people who fought for the things they believed in

— and I don't think that point has been dealt with sufficiently by

representatives of the government.... This group of people were on

strike for four months. They had trouble meeting their mortgage — my

own relatives, my own family. They supported the organization that

represented them. They were prepared to withstand personal hardship.

They were prepared to fight for what they saw as their economic and

workplace realities, and for their right to have some say in issues

that spelled out not only their own future but also the future of young

people following them. Unfortunately, what we saw was one group of

people in this dispute suffering greatly while the other side made

mammoth profits. If the government were concerned about the majority of

people in this province, clearly they would try to change that

imbalance; clearly they would put in place labour legislation that

would help share the profits made through the technological advances of

this industry. The people of this province are suffering because of the

changes our society is undergoing. People in the forest industry were

prepared to stand up and fight for their jobs, and to fight for a share

of that profit.

I submit to you that they paid too highly, that working people in

this province have been paying and paying, and this legislation will

make them pay more. The working people of this province will not be, as

was suggested by a quote from the Premier, quieted. Either we have

labour legislation in this province that reaches consensus, that deals

with the issues that are important to working people and management

alike, or we will have further disruption, because people in this

province will not lie down and play dead.

The impact on the forest industry by technological changes is only

one example. We're seeing it throughout all sectors of our society.

We're seeing technological change in industries that are predominantly

jobs for women. We're seeing it with industries such as the

communication industry. I realize full well that it is under federal

jurisdiction; however, I think that it's a really good example to take

a look at, and that is the example of B.C. Tel and what is happening

with the ongoing changes in that industry due to technological change.

Before I talk about B.C. Tel, though, I think that it's interesting

to look at the overall statistics for Canada. Figures provided by

Statistics Canada for the 20 years ending 1980 show a disturbing trend.

The average annual employment per million dollars of real capital

dropped from 82 jobs in 1960 to 37 jobs in 1980. In forestry the drop

was even more pronounced: a million dollars capital provided 175 jobs

in 1960,

[ Page 653 ]

and by 1980 the equivalent capital, allowing for

inflation, provided only 57 jobs — roughly one-third. In the mining

industry there was a similar drop: from 24 jobs per million capital in

1960 to just eight jobs for the equivalent amount of capital in 1980.

Again, I want to emphasize that we're undergoing substantial change.

The change that our society is undergoing has to be seen in context,

has to be part of the so-called package that is put before us, and we

have to begin to grapple with those. If indeed what the government is

saying is that it is trying to encourage investment, encourage

international investors, I have yet to see any indication that has been

put before us — perhaps the members on the other side can show me

exactly where in the bill the flags are — so that international

investors can see that this is a good place to invest.

The impact of technological change for B.C. Tel. As I indicated,

there's a consistent pattern there as well. This pattern has emerged

for work being consolidated in large urban centres, to the detriment of

communities like Cranbrook and Vernon. Many workers were women in

two-income families unable to relocate. Many of them wound up either on

unemployment insurance or in forced part-time alternate employment.

What this is saying to us is that not only is the forest industry

showing huge profits because of their ability to put in place

automation that is causing workers not only to lose their employment

but also causing them to fight for principles such as contracting out

and fight for a share of those profits, but we're also seeing some real

displacement of workers. The 90 days that this bill provides for does

not in any way allow workers to have some say. I think that one of the

things that this government has to acknowledge is that working people

in this province have something to contribute to the decisions that are

being made, and indeed sometimes have a lot more to say about their

workplace and the kinds of skills and decisions that are made in their

workplace. I would hope that this bill would talk a little bit more

about actual democratic involvement in the decisions that are being

made at the workplace by workers.

Again, this bill in no way lends itself to the sharing of

decision-making. It in no way acknowledges that democratic workers'

organizations should have some say in decisions that are made about

massive technological changes in their workplace. And the bill in no

way indicates that working people should have some say in management

decisions that are made. It is clearly one-sided. It clearly supports

capital and management, and does everything possible to weaken

organizations that working people have and indeed fractionalize and

undermine the ability of working people to have a say in their

workplace.

[3:45]

There are some fundamental decisions that our society has to face,

and I think that our government should be in a position of supporting

collective actions by democratic organizations. What we are beginning

to hear now throughout B.C. is that the initial concerns raised by the

representatives of business, community groups, teachers and labour

organizations are beginning to be reflected throughout all segments.

We're hearing people saying things like: "We agree. You have our ear.

We are concerned. We'd like to hear more." The government has denied

people in this province that option. They have denied them the option

of participating meaningfully in the development of a bill that could

serve their needs and acknowledge the fact that we are undergoing

significant changes in our society. Again I say to the government side

that it's not too late; it can withdraw its legislation, it can

postpone, and it can join in a process of consensus-building in this

province.

It's important that if we do acknowledge that there is significant

change going on out there, we acknowledge too that it is a very fragile

time for our society. Everything that government can do to support and

help the people of this province work through this fragile time will be

a step forward. The economy is not stable, and we need to send signals,

not only to people in B.C. but across Canada and internationally, that

we are committed to doing the kind of slogging or work that is

necessary to reach consensus. Perhaps it's not glamourous or glitzy,

but that's what's needed. I think it's a commitment to reaching a joint

agreement, a platform, a position to move forward. I believe that the

time spent on that will be time that will bring us into the new era and

will bring B.C. as a whole into a position of shared prospering that

will stop the momentum that I believe is now undertaken, a momentum

that is dividing our province, clearly putting one small group of

people in a group of the haves and a larger group into a group of

have-nots. It's a time, as I said earlier, for opportunity. That

opportunity can be a shared opportunity and to the benefit of the

majority. But people have got to start grappling with the new

technologies that are coming at us so quickly, embrace them and move

forward with them, ensuring that the technologies that are made by

people serve people.

I think the opportunity that will be ahead of us where we go

clause-by-clause, looking at the impact of the bill, will be a time

where we can look at the specifics. I hope that the government will

listen to the people of our province. I'm concerned that we are not

seeing any indicators right now. The government indeed is not

proceeding on its own agenda, an agenda that doesn't reflect the needs

of the people of the province...that are not hearing the cries out

there, the cries for consultation, the cries for consensus. I hope that

over the Easter weekend the government can have a few moments to

itself, to contemplate the things that it's heard, to reconsider, to

open the process and indeed be the government that they talked about,

the government of consultation — to show that the words we heard of

openness were not just rhetoric, that indeed the government is

committed to my neighbours, to my relatives, to the people that are

working in the mills of this province, to the people who are working in

the many industries that are indeed the backbone. Because regardless of

the investment or, indeed, of the power that management and capital

wield in this province, the working people are the backbone, the people

who will build the future for all of our children.

I will just wrap up and again ask that the Minister of Labour — I

see him sitting over there — have a good Easter weekend, and maybe an

opportunity to read Hansard ,

some of the speeches that have been made by members of the opposition;

an opportunity to contemplate some of the very good points that have

been made by my colleagues and by many people who have first-hand

experience with the different sectors in our society. I think a good

indicator of the measure of any government is their ability to listen,

to take all of the points into consideration and be able to amend, for

the betterment of all of us. I think it is a sign of strength and of

commitment for a government to be able to say: "We put a bill to the

House. We listened to the people. We listened to the reactions and the

concerns expressed by all of the people

[ Page 654 ]

of our province, and we agree; we want it to be the

best that it possibly can be." I think it is an opportunity for the

government to show that it is indeed committed to the principles that

it says it is committed to, and to take the next step and formulate a

bill that is a consensus document, a document that reflects the needs

and concerns of our diverse society. It is an opportunity to

acknowledge that a tour which the government undertook was only an

introductory step, only an opportunity to open some doors, to begin

dialogue; that it wasn't the only dialogue going to be out there; that

it is prepared to put itself in a position of acknowledging that the

advice it has had to date is not the only advice out there; that there

are talents and strengths in our communities, our society, that have to

be tapped; and that this bill is only the beginning, only an opening

statement instead of a closing statement. If indeed it is the closing

statement, then I'm fearful for what will happen in our province, what

will happen to working people's daily lives, their workplace, their

influence and their opportunity to have some say in what goes on in

their workplace.

I'll just wrap up with that, and look for an opportunity to discuss some of the impacts of the legislation clause by clause.

MR. LONG: I rise today from this side of the House to speak

to Bill 19. I don't know why some of the other members on this side of

the House don't realize there are people on this side of the House that

are for the bill, and I think they're for the bill because it's good

legislation.

I think it's fair legislation. It's fair for industry and it's fair

for labour. Industry needs stability in its markets. The people who buy

our goods overseas have to have stability; if they don't, they're not

going to shop here. And if they don't shop here, we don't have jobs for

union people or for any people of British Columbia. That's in the long

term. This has happened in the past. We've had problems, and we've lost

a big market share in the world. It's starting to come back, and we've

got to make sure it's going to be there in the future. It's fair to all

of the public — the union and the non-union sectors of British

Columbia. They need our support in this bill.

One of the biggest areas it's fair to is labour. I've been a labour

person for 20 years, and I still am today. In the labour industry you

have the top end and you have your companies, but not too many people

are talking about those people in the middle, the people working and

doing the job. No one is asking what they want in this bill. What they

want is stability. They want stability for their lives. They want to be

able to buy and pay for a home; they want to be able to raise their

children; they want to have their cars and their holidays, without

these huge interruptions in their life that stopped labour causes.

I heard the hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood)

say that they never heard from this side of the House on public

interest. Well, the public interest is everybody in British Columbia,

be it union, business, the non-union sector or our social services. If

we don't have stability in our province, we don't have the moneys to

make the social services work. With all the labour interruptions

through the argument between big business and big unions — not the

working people; they're just held as pawns in the game — this is what

happens: we lose our funding.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend Bill 19, and I think it's a good

piece of legislation that can do the very thing that we're looking for

for the working people in this province. I think it's time that the big

union bosses and the big company bosses realize that these are the

people who make our economy, and they're the ones we've got to look

after. So I think I can speak for a lot of union people, and I think

that if we proceed with this bill it will bring stability very quickly.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off my

remarks in speaking against Bill 19 by saying with all sincerity that I

appreciate very much that the Minister of Labour has been present in

this House throughout most of the debate to hear the comments of the

members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I think that in doing so he

has set a standard that is going to bring good repute to this House,

and I appreciate it very much.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to stick pretty closely to my notes this

time, because I've been finding that when I don't, I don't end up

saying what I wanted to say, or I miss out on quite a bit of it. So

please forgive me for staying so close to my notes.

I rise to speak against the principle of this bill with real

sadness. It's not a pleasant task in a democracy to have to argue and

plead for consultation. This is sad, Mr. Speaker, not only because you

shouldn't have to argue for democracy in a democracy, but also because

the Premier of this province promised to end confrontation. Members of

the labour movement have responded with openness and trust to the

Premier's stated intention. They participated in joint initiatives.

Labour, management and government participated together to create real

jobs. They worked at it. Were it not for the embarrassing,

inappropriate and naive incursion into the forest industry dispute

during the election, therefore prolonging the day of settlement — were

it not for that one unfortunate series of events, where the Premier dug

a hole with his silver shovel, only to fall in.... But we do recognize

that he did climb out. He did dust himself off and he started again,

and labour and management welcomed him back and continued to cooperate.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for the Premier and his government

to inflict an insensitive, unnecessary process on the workers, the

employers and, yes, the oft-mentioned third party — the public. Many

government members have referred to the third party — the public. The

use of the phrase "the public" by the government doesn't guarantee that

the public interest will be protected. You can say those words as often

as you like, but if they're merely words, they don't guarantee any type

of protection for the public. The public is not asking you for this

kind of help. Why? Because it won't help. Help like this the public

doesn't need. We could write a new title for this legislation. I've put

a lot of thought into this, and I think we should at the very least

recognize that we need a new title on this bill. The title, I submit,

should be "The Helping Hand Strikes Again." I think that would be a

more appropriate title for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, no one who has spoken on behalf of government has

indicated that the public specifically called for a sledge-hammer to

kill a fly. Certainly some people want changes, but this is overkill in

the extreme. The people haven't asked you to dismantle the Labour

Relations Board and render useless 15 years of experience with the

Labour Code. The people you refer to haven't asked you to do that. The

public did not call on you to destroy the ability of workers to decide,

free from employers' interference, whether or not to form a union. The

public didn't call on you to invite the courts into labour relations,

didn't call for government interference at every phase of bargaining,

didn't call for a super-

[ Page

655 ]

bureaucrat to rewrite collective agreements, didn't

call for employers to be enabled to fire while denying arbitration

protection to workers.

[4:00]

Do you think the public really wants to experience the continued erosion of

the wage base in this province, Mr. Speaker? Much has been said about the Expo

project and its example of industrial harmony, but many of those who worked

at Expo received wages so low that in the case of students, they couldn't

save to go back to college. In the case of single parents, in too many instances

they found themselves among the working poor. There are many other examples.

This bill will result in continued erosion of the wage base in this

province. This will result in the continued drift toward the rich

getting richer and the poor getting poorer. On the one hand, the

government lowers taxes for the very rich; on the other hand, it raises

taxes for working people. While this is unfair, it is the fiscal policy

of government. How does government expect to raise tax revenue by

enacting legislation that will erode the wage base, thus lowering

revenue and, at the same time, promoting disharmony?

Mr. Speaker, I understand that government members are calling for us

to be positive. How can we be positive when we see a government

behaving like a runaway train — a runaway train that will be derailed

by job loss, investment loss and a general loss of quality of life for

the majority of our citizens?

If the government feels that it is speaking for the people in inviting this kind of disruption, it had better think again.

Mr. Speaker, small business generates most of the jobs, by far. If

this legislation lowers wages and scares off investment, then

bankruptcies will continue at a high level in B.C., and the multiplier

effect that we hear so much about will need to be renamed the divider

effect, because it will cease to provide the kind of stimulation that

is so desperately needed.

I would just like to refer to the comments made by John Mika in the Times-Colonist

on Monday on this point. He said:

"When you strip away the verbiage, the naked political

motive is to provide cheap labour and services for the big and powerful

interests outside this province. That points to peonage, with its

characteristic rising unemployment and declining wages, for more and

more British Columbians, while foreign fat cats, stock marketers and

other non-productive types skim the riches of this province."

Mr. Speaker, this legislation sounds very much like the grandiose

plans of the Bill Bennett government. Cause confrontation, play around

at being tough-guy.... You people don't need to dust off your macho

image over there. Why would you do that? Why send out a message that

the Premier is a wolf in sheep's clothing? Why continue to go down that

path?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

To go back to the runaway train image, when the train fails to

arrive at the station, what do you want the people you constantly refer

to to say? Do you really want them to say:"Bill Bennett lives"? Is that what you want: confrontation, to make

a point? You know that tough-guy strategy won't work; that's why you

got rid of Bill Bennett. You knew the public was tired of that non-consultative,

hurting, damaging, counterproductive approach. Is that what you want: the people

you claim to protect saying: "Bill Bennett lives"? Is that what you

really want?

To change the metaphor again, the Social Credit leopard tried to

change its spots and to go with a new leader — a leader styled on

non-confrontation, styled on consultation, openness and cooperation.

Are you now admitting that that was only style, and that there really

was no substance, that Bill Bennett is alive and well. I don't think

you want that; I think it is out of character with what you say you are.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has registered his

concern that this legislation violates the International Labour

Organization covenants. Because this legislation severely limits the

right to strike, and in some cases removes that right where it was not

prohibited before, this law violates our signature on those agreements.

If we wish to maintain our good name in the arena of international

affairs, then clearly we must avoid any intemperate action that will

sully our name abroad. Clearly that's in the best interests of British

Columbia.

We know the government is concerned about investment on a global

scale. We know from the statements that were made about the budget that

it was designed to enhance and increase the amount of foreign

investment. While we argued from our side of the House that that really

wasn't the case, that it wasn't going to work, we know that the

government genuinely does want to increase international investment.

That's a legitimate concern. But our economic self-interest, perhaps

not to the same extent but to a significant extent, will be damaged if

we are known as the province that won't keep the agreements on

international covenants.

I have listened in this House, and I have read Hansard ,

and to my knowledge no one has answered the question concerning the

effect the bill will have in removing the incentive to bargain in good

faith. If you are in a dispute and if you are aware that if you don't

reach an agreement you face compulsory arbitration, then there is no

incentive for you to trade off any items during bargaining. Why would

the government insist on that? Surely this government has different

available avenues leading to the opportunity to save face.

One was the hoist motion, and that was rejected. But here is hope;

there is light at the end of the tunnel. There are procedures for

changing, for pausing and reflecting. That opportunity has not passed.

Another change that is needed involves the guidelines for the public

interest inquiry board. Apart from the question of the appropriateness

of this procedure, the guidelines are broad in that the board can

determine its own procedure.

Section 137.99(6) should assure that the

real rules of natural justice shall prevail.

I know that with the support of the legal counsel, this right can be

argued. I know, having been the senior chairman of the British Columbia

mental health review panel in public earnings of that nature that do

involve persons who are not trained in law, that it is very important

to have stated very clearly in the legislation, or at least in

regulations governing that legislation, that employers and workers

would be assured of their right to retain legal counsel and to

cross-examine witnesses. I think it would be very, very disturbing if

we found in the carrying out of that procedure that the rules of

natural justice were not being followed in the most appropriate way

possible.

We have looked at this legislation from many different angles. We

have considered the way in which it impacts on the public. We have

considered the way in which this legislation will cause disruption and

dissension. We've considered

[ Page 656 ]

the way in which there are signals coming from the

employers that indicate that they have very serious doubts about it.

Obviously our approach in opposition is to call for this legislation to

be withdrawn and to recognize, as the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Guno)

said in an earlier speech that he made, that sometimes you just can't

get there from here.

That would be our hope, but at the very least I think that several

different key parts of this legislation have been identified as being

severely problematic, and at the very least it would be a gesture of

good will on the part of government to start to indicate that there is

a willingness, on the basis of the kind of very good listening that has

been going on by the minister, to make some significant changes. I

think that that kind of indication would send a signal to the public of

this province that you are not hard and fast, that you are willing to

listen and be influenced by the process of public dialogue that is

taking place. I think it is incumbent upon you to do that, and to pay

very close heed to some of the very startling concerns that have been

raised during this discussion.

In his column last night Vaughn Palmer mentioned three basic points,

and with regard to these three basic points there is a growing

consensus in this province. One is that the legislation won't bring

peace. The second is that the legislation won't encourage the efficient

resolution of disputes. The third is that the legislation won't

encourage investment, because the dispute-settling powers are so

unprecedented that investors are more likely to be shocked than

impressed.

Madam Speaker, I think that concerns are being raised from virtually

every sector and segment of our society. These concerns are to be taken

seriously. I do not believe that the Social Credit government is going

to enhance its position, either as a body that produces legislation or

as a political entity, by insisting on this approach that seems to be

hell-bent on going along that track leading to a very, very dangerous

situation.

I think that one of the time-honoured values of the democratic

legislative process that is being affirmed in virtually every speech by

members on both sides of the House is that that process involves the

public. Having heard the term "the public" used so many times by

members on both sides of the House, I wonder what the public is really

feeling about its role in all this. I would expect that members of the

public, the people who really are out there — and some of them are

represented by folk in the gallery today — would be people asking this

question: "Between elections, does anybody really listen to us? Does

anybody really care?"

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: I'm glad to hear the hon. Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Veitch) say: "Absolutely, we do listen." I would expect that

the next thing the hon. Provincial Secretary would say is: "And because

we listen, we are about to make some announcements that are going to

bring a sense of stability and hope to the people" — which you so often

refer to — "and an awareness that there is indeed light at the end of

the tunnel," and that you are not going to proceed to take us down this

track leading to something that is going to be very, very detrimental

for the fabric of our society and for our future.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Are you looking for a lottery grant in Coquitlam?

[4:15]

MR. CASHORE: I think that the people of

Maillardville-Coquitlam expect fairness with regard to all aspects of

what would be done by government within this province. Certainly they

would expect fairness with regard to Bill 19. They would expect

fairness that would assure them that justice is not only going to be

done but seen to be done, knowing that they are being listened to, that

their opinions are valued, and that those opinions are capable of

getting through to a government that seems bent on enhancing an image

of toughness.

As I said before, I think that it has been made very, very clear

that the Social Credit Party wanted to turn over a new leaf. They

wanted to get away from that process, which they admitted was not a

helpful process, that had been operating in this province for so many

years. In going with your new leader, in a very real sense — and I

think that pundits have mentioned this on many different occasions —

you were saying that you had become your own opposition taking over

from that government which you didn't approve of before. In this new

age, we are now going to produce consultation and cooperation. It seems

to me that that's what you were saying during the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CASHORE: As you thump your desks, I would hope that would

carry forward to you using your influence with the Minister of Labour

and his colleagues to ensure that the voices of concern that are

assuredly coming to you in letters and phone calls, which you are not

referring to in your speeches, will be passed on to the minister, so

that the minister would know that there is a ground swell of opinion

out there that is extremely concerned and worried about what this

legislation is going to do to this province — not only to this

generation but to future generations. There are people who are

concerned about the way in which this legislation is going to have a

detrimental effect, the price of which will have to be paid not only by

our children but also by our children's children. That is a sobering

concern, and I would urge you to take that very seriously.

Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure to be able to rise and speak

against this bill in this House, and to do so again in the awareness

that my comments are so well received by the members of the government.

I look forward to the continuing debate.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987.

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member. He is very

articulate; he is well trained. I don't have a licence to preach, you

see, so I am not quite in the same league.

MR. CASHORE: I handed mine in.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You handed yours in? When did it expire?

MR. CASHORE: On October 22.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, don't give it away for good, because you may have to go back to it again.

Anyway, the hon. member mentioned voices. At various times we hear

various voices. But I have been listening to the voices too. I have

been around this place for a long time —

[ Page

657 ]

not as long as the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has. You haven't been around too long, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: You come second.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yeah, second. I have listened to a lot of

debate, and I have seen a lot of bells, and I have heard the cries of

Chicken Little that the sky somehow or other is going to come crashing

down upon us if we proceed with some particular type of legislation.

But you know, hon. member, for all but a brief hiatus of some three and

a half years, some 1,200 days, Social Credit has been accepted by the

people of British Columbia. They put their faith in this government,

and they will continue to do so.

MR. CASHORE: That's why the sky is falling.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, hon. member, it isn't. It may be in the

circles that you travel in, now that you've left the church, but it

certainly isn't with our group and it certainly isn't with the people I

speak to. I have never in my time in public life seen two pieces of

legislation — I will refer to this one; I realize I don't want to

offend the House by referring to the other piece of legislation — that

had the general support across the wide spectrum of people that this

particular bill has at this point in time.

You know, Madam Speaker, whether we like it or not, we live in a

global village, as our friends talk about from time to time across the

way, and that global village is not just a village of social problems

and everything else; it is an economic village. We've got to realize

that we are not alone in this province. We're not alone in this

country. We're just a small economic part of it.

Just like Caesar's wife, if we are going to compete in this very

competitive world, we not only must be pure, but we must be seen to be

pure. That is true from the point of view of industrial relations as

well. I firmly believe, and the studies that the government has done

point out, as the minister has enunciated time and time again, that the

single inhibiting factor that will put some water under that boat, that

will rise up and help all people, is the perception, if not the

reality, of the economic problems that occur in British Columbia from

time to time. This bill goes a long way to addressing those problems

and to bringing fairness to industrial relations that....

I believe it was envisaged back in the time of Bill King, and I

think that from his point of view and from his political perception and

perspective at that time he felt he was doing exactly the right thing,

albeit labour flared up and they had strikes and they finally had to

call an election to try to straighten the whole mess out. But I believe

he thought he was doing the right thing. What happened was that,

because of a particular bias, tons and tons of case law accumulated

that made it impossible in many cases to do particular things that

would provide employment, would provide taxes and would provide help

for people who can't help themselves in the province of British

Columbia. I believe that the labour climate brought about by a variety

of reasons has done more than anything else to mitigate against

economic welfare in this province. This is the time to change it. This

bill goes a long way towards addressing that.

You know, we talk about fairness. I don't know how much fairer it

could be than for a minister to travel thousands of miles around this

province and to talk to literally hundreds of people, listening to

their views in an open way with a fresh start, looking for solutions

and asking the people who really count, the little people, the big

people....

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Grass Roots.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This Mr. Grass Roots right here is at last

bringing grassroots democracy to a labour movement and a labour

situation that's needed it for far too long.

MR. CASHORE: Why don't you ask them now?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I've asked them, hon. member. But you've got

to go beyond that. You've got to stop talking to the special interest

groups. You've got to talk to all the people out there. That makes a

difference. You see, sometimes we forget that there are other players.

There's not just labour and so-called management. There's a whole bunch

of other folks out there who can he affected by the way that these two

gangs operate, you see. That's where it's at.

Those are the people who make the difference in this province, in

this country or in any jurisdiction, hon. member, and sometimes,

because we have narrow interest groups that practise

self-enlightenment, we forget about the people who really count in the

system. The people who work every day and go to school and pay their

taxes are just sick and tired of all this labour noise and labour mess

that's brought about by management on one side and labour on the other.

It's inherent upon government to bring some sense and worth and reality

to all this, and Bill 19 goes a long way in that direction, in my

opinion.

There are no easy answers to this. There are no easy answers to

labour problems. Somehow or other, I've heard on the other side all of

the.... The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) said that he was a

quasi labour leader or a labour leader at one time, and the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was involved in the labour movement. But,

you know, you don't have any strings on that situation. We have a

gentleman over here who, aside from being a canon in the Anglican

Church, was also a boilermaker and worked in that system.

Believe it or not, when I first came to British Columbia, I came to

work for a union — not in British Columbia but in western Canada. That

union is now extinct — I didn't have anything to do with that; I'll

just say that in passing. It's gone, but that was the reason I came

here. I worked in the labour movement, and I know how the situation

operates. The labour movement has gone a long way in this country and

in North America towards the betterment of the working people and all

people. But, you know, there are other people, as I said before, who

are involved in this whole.... You have to have individuals; you have

to take into account not just the combatants and their views. You have

to take into account the people who count, as I've said before, and

that's just the common people on the street, the people who....

I believe that there's been a call out there for change. There's

been a call for change ever since I've been around this Legislature,

since 1975, with some brief time off — forced retirement. But there's

been a call for change, and we haven't responded to that call for

change very well. I want to say that it takes a tremendous amount of

courage to bring forth a piece of legislation like this, because it

would be much easier to just sit back and do nothing, and let the two

combatants —

[ Page 658 ]

management and labour — fight it out and hang with the people who

count. But this minister and this government have had the courage to

bring forth legislation that, sure, we're going to get heat about.

You know, there are other parties.... I believe this bill, Madam

Speaker, serves that true interest, which is the general public

interest that we have out there. It goes a long way towards enshrining

real, true democratic rights in the workplace, and those people who are

affected by the mitigation of those rights....

We talk about free speech, and we have every right of free speech in

this province. We have every right to say what we think, but employers

have not had the right to express their opinion to their employees, and

for a long time that has been something that, to me, is not free speech

at all. It may have been free speech for an organizer; it may be free

speech across a bargaining table. But the two people who really count —

the employees and the employer — are not at this time able to get

together and sometimes talk things out before a strike comes into place.

I worked for a while in a post-secondary institution that worked

with apprentices, and I can tell you that one of the problems we've had

in relation to the youth of the province of British Columbia is their

lack of opportunity to get into trades training. It wasn't because

there wasn't a need out there for these people or a desire to hire

them; it wasn't because the young people didn't want the opportunity to

get involved. It was because a craft union stood squarely in the way of

progress and help for these young people. This bill changes that, and

that's courageous.

If you want to talk about the rights of people and free speech, what

about the rights of those young people who wanted to become apprentices

and were unable to do so because of antiquated labour laws that

couldn't respond to the desires? They didn't know why they couldn't

have these opportunities. They just knew that they couldn't join the

union; they had to go to the bottom of the list. They just knew that

they couldn't go out and talk to an employer who would hire them and

apprentice them so that they could become journeymen. They just knew

that the system wasn't working for them. Hon. members talked about the

rights of our children and our children's children. How about the

rights of those young people who seek nothing more than the opportunity

to go to an employer, to receive trades training, to become journeymen

and better themselves and their families and those who follow after

them? I think this bill goes a long way towards that, and I

congratulate the minister.

[4:30]

We are in a changing world. We talk about something that may

possibly have been right for 1973 or 1974, for 1983 or 1984. We talk

about the industrial revolution; we talk about a whole bunch of things.

Some of those things may have worked at that point in time, but we're

in the latter part of the 1980s, and this type of legislation is a bill

for the times that we're living in now. I want to congratulate the

minister. I want to congratulate the government. I want to congratulate

that great majority of people who, once this legislation is enacted

into law, will support it and this government for many, many years to

come.

MR. GUNO: I would like to say that I'm also proud to rise

today to vote against this bill. Yesterday the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann) delivered, I thought, a measured analysis of this bill.

It was an excellent exercise and in some way a moving plea for sanity.

In addressing some of the serious implications of this bill, he called

for a measured pause, a sober second look, if you like, but of course

the hoist motion was defeated. Now we on this side of the House have

the serious task — the sad task — of trying to convince the other

members of the House to reconsider their support of this bill.

I've tried to understand the government's reason for introducing

such a complex and radical bill, one that would so drastically alter

the whole fabric of industrial relations in British Columbia. I have

also tried, but futilely, to understand why this government is in such

a hurry to ram through a bill like this, which even the government

members must concede is a complex one that would have wide

ramifications for the people of this province, that would have a

serious impact on the prospect of significant economic recovery in

British Columbia. The only question I could come up with is: why the

unseemly haste? Why is the government trying to ram this through

without more public input, in spite of the daily outcries since this

bill was introduced? I cannot make any sense of the contradictions

between the government's rhetoric and its actions. I can only suggest

that people who are trying to make any sense of that watch what they

do, not what they say.

I believe that many people really believed the Premier when he said

he was offering a fresh start, an open government, one that would be

consultative. That is what he said, but his actions belie his words.

Pushing this radical bill through with such unseemly haste raises a

question about the credibility of this government. The government

speakers talk reassuringly about public interest, yet not many of them

were able to define in any clear way what they meant by "the public

interest." Nor is "public interest" defined in this bill. There is no

question that the public interest is of paramount interest to all the

members of this House, and I have a feeling that the vagueness of the

government, in terms of trying to define what they mean by public

interest, stems from their inability to distinguish between what I

would call private concerns and genuine public interest.

I would suggest that the government members should come to realize

that "public interest" is a multifarious concept; it's a collection of

differing interests. The job of any responsible government is to try to

reconcile these differing interests, to strike some balance so that we

can attain a measure of social harmony, not to pick sides, to try to

weigh or stack the odds against one sector of society, which this bill

will ultimately result in.

In handing over to Mr. Peck such awesome powers under this bill,

this government, I would suggest, is committing a serious abdication of

its responsibility. In fact, I would suggest that such action may be

open to constitutional challenge at a later date under certain sections

of the Charter.

Someone challenged this view when it was presented by a colleague of

mine, but I would suggest, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling last

week — it has in effect said that the right to strike is not

constitutionally protected — that this is a different question. We are

talking now about this Legislature delegating that right to deprive

people of the right to strike, and I think that's a totally different

question and still open to court challenge.

Under this bill, Mr. Peck would have total control of the destiny of

the public and private sector members who bargain collectively. He can

impose a collective agreement without workers having the right to vote

on it. I would challenge any

[ Page 659 ]

government member to name another jurisdiction in a free democratic

society where a non-elected official has such power over people's

lives. I would challenge them, and I have yet to hear any speaker

address that serious issue. This part alone represents an unprecedented

attack on the whole collective bargaining process, and it makes a

mockery of the claim of the Premier to a fair and open society.

Yesterday my colleague from Victoria compared this to the Mediation

Commission Act, which was introduced in 1968 by the Social Credit

government. It resulted in even more industrial relations strife for

the province. Now, almost 20 years later, we have the same ideological

group, in the name of a fresh start, introducing the same solutions

under the same premises. I am reminded of Yogi Berra's famous saying:

"It's deja vu all over again." In this case, maybe he'd be more apt to

say: "It's Bill all over again."

Do we really need to go through that experience again? Experience

must count for something with the government. Surely by now they must

see that cooperation is infinitely better than coercion, and it has

been pointed out by a number of my colleagues here that it is so

mystifying that this government is bringing down such draconian

measures, in light of evidence that both management and labour were

moving toward a more cooperative attitude. I would suggest that if the

Premier is serious about reducing confrontation, about involving more

people, about consultation, he should have shown more courageous

leadership and seized an opportunity to sit down with the two parties

to foster that spirit, a spirit thus far that has been so rare in this

province. He had that opportunity, but again I would suggest that he

has ignored an opportunity to unite the people of this province and

instead is driving a huge wedge between them. I would suggest that it

is not what he says but what he does that counts. We wonder why people

are so cynical about politicians in this province.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

I got a call this morning, Mr. Speaker, from someone in my riding

who wanted to be described as an ordinary citizen. She has no political

axe to grind, is not affiliated with any union, and just wanted to

respond to the Premier's "so far nobody has shown me what is

objectionable about Bills 19 and 20." She states that her objection —

and it's shared by a lot of her neighbours and friends in the small

community of Atlin — is the way this government is pushing through a

bill that would have such wide ramifications for all people in this

province, without giving them more input.

This is even more so for the people in the north. I gather that the

Minister of Labour travelled throughout the province, but I have yet to

meet anyone from my riding who was able to make any presentation to

that process. I also would raise the question about the nature of that

kind of consultation, whether or not it was as open as the government

speakers would have us believe. As I understand it, it was quite a

wide-open process. But we have yet to see any kind of evidence as to

the mix of that particular consultation: how many labour organizations

were actually able to make presentations; how many people from the

north were able to have the opportunity to have a say, if this was

truly a wide-open consultative process.

For many of our people in the north, and I know in Cassiar this is

true.... The members of the Steelworkers of America, who are the

collective bargaining agents for the mill there.... When I spoke to

them just five days after the bill was introduced, they still hadn't

received the copy of that bill, yet by the time they have the

opportunity to read it, to try to analyze it and to bring forth their

concerns about it, this bill may be fait accompli as far as they're

concerned, again depriving a very significant segment of British

Columbia of the opportunity to have a say in such a vital piece of

legislation. I think that the point she raised about the haste with

which this government is trying to ram this bill through is a good

point, and this government will have to answer that one day.

I've been speaking with enough people in the last few days to

realize that the government has misjudged the readiness of this

province to accept such a radical overhaul of the collective bargaining

process. I would repeat my colleague's point that this government did

not receive the mandate to introduce such a radical overhaul of the

collective process.

[4:45]

I've also read, Mr. Speaker, the reaction of the wide range of

citizens of this province — and again, I've listened to the various

speakers there talk about the public and then begin to exclude from

that public a significant segment of it: management, union, teachers

and anybody who's opposed to this bill are not part of that public. I

would suggest that that is a very narrow view of what constitutes

public interest.

At any rate, the wide range of views has recognized and expressed

concern about the serious flaws of this bill. There seems to be a

growing consensus that this bill will not mean more labour peace. The

point has been driven home over and over again by the speakers from

this side of the House: it will not mean more harmony in the workplace,

but it may in fact mean more industrial strife for the province.

If there is to be industrial harmony, there has to be that ability

of the two parties to bargain in good faith. The context within which

that can happen can only be where there's not that kind of intrusive

government presence. I think the Minister of Labour recognized the need

for some form of consensus, if any changes are to be made in the

collective bargaining process, especially among those who are directly

affected. On page 5 of his report, the Minister of Labour writes: "Any

law, without the support or at least the acquiescence of the majority

of those whom it purports to affect, will inevitably be opposed, and

this opposition will" surely have a detrimental effect on the overall

objective.

I want to address some of the specific concerns I have about this.

One of them that I feel very strongly about — one which I think needs

some very serious analysis, which I don't think can be done under the

kind of hurry-up process in which we're forced to debate this bill — is

the concept of tinkering with the principle of firing without cause. As

a member of a minority and a person who has worked in a number of

workplaces, including a cannery, as a commercial fisherman and in a

pulp mill, I've thanked the union for keeping my job, because there

were a number of circumstances in which I could have lost it

arbitrarily. I've seen instances of this. Later on, when I moved from

working for a living and became a lawyer — I worked briefly as a labour

lawyer — I took on many cases relating to firing without cause. I know

the problems. I know that eliminating that kind of protection would

introduce again the kind of uncertainty in the workplace that leads to

loss of productivity and to people having to protect themselves all the

time in the workplace. I want to reserve any specifics about these

various sections until clause-by-clause debate.

[ Page 660 ]

Mr. Speaker, this massive assault on the rights of the worker also

represents — and I know that several of my colleagues have pointed this

out, but I think it's worth repeating — an infringement on basic human

rights which are recognized by the International Labour Organization,

of which Canada is a signatory and which had the assent of all the

provinces. I want to refer to some of the background as to why the need

for such an international organization was recognized. It was organized

shortly after the Second World War, which saw the defeat of an ideology

that refused to recognize the concept of human dignity.

This sort of process was recognized by some very able politicians

and thinkers early in the century. One of them was Woodrow Wilson. In a

presidential campaign speech of 1912, he had this to say about

attitudes and why we need to have a balance between the interests of

the employers and the interests of the workers. I'm not a student of

American politics, but I think what he had to say applies here:

"The treatment of labour by the great corporations is

not what it was in Jefferson's time. Who in this great audience knows

his employer? I mean among those who go down into our mines or into the

mills or factories. You never see, you practically