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, JUNE 3, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1539 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Hearing on patent act. Mr. Cashore –– 1539

Mr. Lovick

Drafting of Bill 19. Mr. Sihota –– 1539

Mr. Clark

Mr. Gabelmann

Economic impact of work stoppage. Mr.

Huberts –– 1540

Drafting of Bill 19. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1541

Mr. Williams

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1987

(Bill 29). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 1541

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987

(Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1541

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Guno

Mr. Sihota

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. S.D. Smith

Appendix –– 1562

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, in the

precincts today are 30 grade 7 students from Grandview Elementary

School in Dawson Creek, along with their teacher, Mr. Jim Mah. Would

the House please make them welcome.

MR. CASHORE: On behalf of the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) and myself, I would like to invite the House

to join us in giving a warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Douglas and Dorila

Furlot, longtime Coquitlam residents.

MR. RABBITT: Visiting us in the gallery

today we have J. Allan Thorlakson, who is the president of Tolko

Industries, which recently purchased Balco Industries. They have a

division in the Nicola Valley. I would like this House to offer a

hearty and warm welcome.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, visiting in the

precincts today we have 25 grade 4 and grade 5 students from Pacific

Academy in Coquitlam, along with Mr. and Mrs. Adrian Cooke, Mr. and

Mrs. Randy Robinson, Mrs. Rose Soderlund and Mrs. Ruth Frith. Please

join me in welcoming them.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I didn't know he was

here or that he was coming, but I believe I see — faintly — my old

friend Cal Kinsey from Port Moody up in the gallery, and I wonder if

everyone would extend him a welcome.

Oral Questions

HEARING ON PATENT ACT

MR. CASHORE: I have a question for the

Minister of Health. Yesterday a Senate committee held hearings in

Victoria regarding proposed changes to the Canada drug patent act. On

December 12 last year, the Minister of Health stated the government's

opposition to these changes. However, I have a copy of the agenda from

yesterday's hearings here, and the government cancelled an already

scheduled appearance. I took their place on the agenda, I might say.

Will the minister explain his absence, when he has assured the

public that he would take a tough stand on this issue?

HON. MR. DUECK: I was not aware of the

meeting.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I find that

beyond credibility.

I would also point out that the costs resulting from the

changes in the drug patent act are already reflected in the budget,

prior to this receiving royal assent. I think we should note that

generic substitutions currently save Canadians well over $200 million

annually. If the Patent Act changes go ahead, the additional cost to

British Columbia will be about $75 million annually by 1995. Is the

minister prepared to just accept that increase quietly? Or does he have

any sort of plan to try to stop it?

HON. MR. DUECK: For your information, Mr.

Speaker, this government has gone on record not once but a number of

times opposing that particular legislation, and we were denied any

access or any remedy for that. So when you asked if I attended this

meeting, no, I did not. I did not know about the meeting. I'm being

fairly honest with you. However, we have opposed it on a number of

occasions, and we have not had any results in our favour.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, just a

supplementary to the Minister of Health: is he telling us, then, that

that these hearings were taking place?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say

that. I just said I personally was not aware of the meeting. I did

not have an invitation to it, but a member of our government did attend

and spoke about the alcohol review process that was taking place.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary

question. I'd like to ask the hon. minister how he can say that his

government didn't know anything about this, when his government is

listed on the agenda as planning to appear at the meeting and the

chairman of the Senate committee explained that the reason you couldn't

be there was because you were too busy in the House on Bill 19. Why was

that stated by the chairman of the Senate committee?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I find it

absolutely incredible that a person would get up and say that I didn't

attend the meeting because I was too busy with Bill 19. I think we

have a Minister of Labour who was busy with that bill. I personally

wasn't. I was working in my office. I have many duties. However, I did

not say that my government was not aware of the meeting. I said I

personally wasn't aware, and when I say that, you don't have to get

sore at me. I wasn't aware of the meeting.

DRAFTING OF BILL 19

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of

Labour. Yesterday when I asked the Minister of Labour whether or not he

was aware of what other consultants were hired by the ministry to

provide input after and during the public hearings in drafting Bill 19,

the minister did not answer the question. I want to ask the minister

again today: has he now decided to tell us who they were or to table a

list of the individuals involved?

HON. L. HANSON: The answer to that is no.

MR. SIHOTA: It's difficult to understand

what it is that the minister wants to hide. Last night on radio, Mr.

Leslie confirmed that there were indeed a number of private practice

labour lawyers who did the drafting prior to its introduction in the

House. One of those was Donald Jordan of the law firm Jordan and Gall,

and in the public accounts of the government it is now evident that

last year the government paid Jordan and Gall over $220,000. Was any of

that money for work on preliminary drafts of the bill?

[2:15]

[ Page 1540 ]

HON. L. HANSON: I can't really answer that.

I don't know what the $220,000 was paid to Mr. Jordan for. The drafting

of Bill 19 began some time ago and as a result of the various briefs

that were received. Starting in mid-November we received briefs from

various organizations, and the process has been going on continually,

both within my ministry and outside my ministry. So I can't answer that

question because I don't know what the $220,000 was for.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, we know as a fact that

Mr. Jordan — because he has confirmed it — was engaged to give some

advice to the government prior to the introduction of Bill 19. Will the

Minister of Labour confirm that Jordan and Gall were paid for that

advice? Were they or were they not paid by the ministry?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it's

fairly well known that over the years the government has used all sorts

of counsel for various reasons, and I know Don Jordan has been used in

labour matters as it is involved. What the $220,000 was paid for, I

have no idea.

MR. CLARK: The minister has now confirmed

that this started some time ago. In his February 28 report to this

Legislature, the minister says on page 2 that he had at his disposal

"the options which were considered in preparing the 1984 amendments to

the Labour Code." Did those options include an already drafted version

of the Industrial Relations Council system which appears in Bill 19?

HON. L. HANSON: Is the question whether the

present bill before the House, as it relates to the Industrial

Relations Council, has the format that was suggested in 1984? I think

that there were probably references to a council such as we envision in

Bill 19, but I would have difficulty in relating the 1984 information

to exactly what we have here.

It's only understandable that we in the Ministry of Labour

look at all of the things that have happened over the years before we

come up with it. Some ideas we pick up, and some ideas we don't. But if

the direct question, as I understand it, is whether the 1984

recommendation appeared in Bill 19, I would suggest to the member

opposite that we considered the 1984 recommendations in all of our

drafting right through, but the actual form of it was not introduced in

1984, to my knowledge.

MR. CLARK: Let me clarify. Was there a

version of the Industrial Relations Council? Was that an option

considered in 1984? Was it drafted in 1984 but not implemented until

now?

HON. L. HANSON: I wasn't here in 1984, Mr.

Speaker, but by the same token I was privy to some of the information

that was gone through in 1984. To the best of my knowledge, there was

no Industrial Relations Council as we see it in Bill 19 in the

information that I was given.

MR. GABELMANN: Would the minister deny that

that legislation was already in draft form in the Ministry of Labour

when he took office last year?

HON. L. HANSON: Bill 19?

MR. GABELMANN: In reference to the question

asked by the second member for Vancouver East,

section 62 of the

legislation,

part 8.1 of the Code.

HON. L. HANSON: That was not in the

ministry when I arrived on the scene.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WORK STOPPAGE

MR. HUBERTS: A question to the Minister of

Finance. As you know, Mr. Minister, our ferry system is of paramount

importance to the people on Vancouver Island. Certainly you and I have

firsthand knowledge of its importance to Saanich and the Islands.

Having said that, following Monday's illegal stoppage, which included a

shutdown of the B.C. ferry system, can the minister advise the House

what economic impact the work stoppage had on the business community of

Vancouver Island?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I wish to thank the

hon. member for the question, which is topical, relevant and current,

as opposed to some of the other questions.

I have a long-standing interest in the question of tourism

development on the Island, so to the best of my ability I've been

monitoring the effect of that one-day stoppage. It's clear that no one

universal sort of conclusion can be drawn from the loss of the day's

ferry service. However, if you look at it by sector, it is evident that

many of the hotels in Victoria and presumably up-Island would be

impacted in different ways. Some have had a relatively small impact in

terms of vacations: empty rooms Sunday night, people leaving. On the

other hand, many hotels, particularly those along Belleville Street

here, would have had dramatic declines in room rentals. If you look at

the traffic enjoyed by the B.C. Steamships, I understand that their

volumes on both Sunday and Monday were down as much as 50 percent below

anticipated volumes. Clearly, if you look at services provided by the

bus companies on Vancouver Island, they similarly had sort of a mixed

performance.

I think it's not unreasonable to expect that a sizeable

financial hardship was imposed on the tourism industry of the Island.

As it relates to Victoria in particular, I would think that a figure of

maybe as much as $1 million wouldn't be out of line in terms of lost

revenue. If you extrapolate that figure — what the question was — for

the whole of Vancouver Island, you would likely come closer to a figure

of $2 million. That explains why it was necessary to make sure that

that kind of a stoppage would never happen again, where innocent people

would be deprived.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister would

conclude....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The whole point, I believe, of the questioner was to bring out

the fact that there are innocent third parties affected by these kinds

of illegal actions. I believe there's sufficient evidence on the record

to indicate that you can attach a dollar value to that in terms of lost

income.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, because of the

applause by the government members, some of us missed some of the

Minister of Finance's reply. I wonder if he'd mind repeating his reply.

[ Page 1541 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, that's out of order.

DRAFTING OF BILL 19

MR. GABELMANN: I also have a question for

which a minister has been warned. I want to repeat a question to the

Minister of Labour which he did not answer yesterday. The question is:

in recommendation No. 43 in his report to the Premier, he recommended

the often unique problems of the construction industry should not be

addressed by legislation at this time. Yet this legislation, Bill 19,

does address concerns relating to the construction industry. Why did

the minister not take his own advice?

HON. L. HANSON: I don't know whether that

question's in order or not, but I'll certainly answer it. When I made

that report on February 28, it was a report that I had drafted as a

result of a number of visits and presentations by various people around

the province. At that point in time it was felt that there should be

some exclusions and that the construction industry was a very difficult

one to provide labour legislation to.

If the member looks at the report that I tabled with the

Premier and then looks at Bill 19, I think he would see that there are

some things in the report that were not absolutely followed through as

they were in the report. There's a very good reason for that. The

reason is that this Bill 19 is a bill of the government of British

Columbia, of the Social Credit Party, and the discussions that went on

about my report at the cabinet level, as well as with the Premier and

other individuals, decided that some of the issues, as it related to

the construction industry, should be looked at in Bill 19.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's now

abundantly clear that the bulk of Bill 19 was drafted in the Premier's

office, and nowhere else. Mr. Leslie, the former deputy, said last

night on the radio that he had expressed his concern and dismay

frequently and consistently to the Premier about Bill 19. In view of

this, and in view of the tradition in parliaments, and in view of the

minister's credibility being in tatters, has the minister ever

considered simply withdrawing from his role as minister, because it has

been totally usurped by the Premier's office?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it's very nice

to hear all of those compliments coming from such a learned gentleman

on the other side, but I would certainly have to dispute that my

reputation is in tatters. No, I'm not going to resign. That you think

it is doesn't impress me.

Introduction of Bills

TAXATION (RURAL AREA) AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant- Governor: a bill intituled Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment

Act, 1987.

Bill 29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 19: Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 23.

MR. GABELMANN: Yesterday afternoon, as we

concluded debate, I had made reference to a 1981 statement by the Chief

Justice, Allan McEachern, in which he made the point, in response to

queries from our friend Peter Gall, that he had always considered that

the courts had the ability to review decisions of the Labour Relations

Board — or for that matter, by implication, any other administrative

tribunals. That was said at a time when British Columbia had the most

restrictive privative clause in the country in respect of labour

legislation. It also had other sections in the Code which were as

strong as any in the country — in fact, stronger — in establishing the

exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board to hear and rule

conclusively on issues that came before it.

[2:30]

We then were presented with an amendment to the bill in its

initial form, which we are now amending again, which said: "A decision

or order made by the council is final and binding." I'm told — because

I don't know, in this subject — by lawyers of all persuasions that this

is the weakest privative clause imaginable for protecting the authority

of an administrative tribunal.

We're now debating an amendment which has additional wording

included in it, and I'm told by many of these same lawyers that this

change makes absolutely no difference whatsoever; that courts, should

they choose to interfere in the administrative affairs of a tribunal

like the Industrial Relations Council — to quote the second member for

Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) — will. He and I, I think, agree about this.

I wonder if the minister could give us his views on this

matter — whether he agrees with attempting to restrict the superior

courts' review of tribunal decisions or whether he simply believes that

they should have the right to come in whenever they so choose. If he

believes that, why has he introduced an amendment which, according to

lawyers, means absolutely nothing in legal terms?

HON. L. HANSON: Well, obviously we don't

consult the same lawyers; maybe I should talk to the lawyers you've

been consulting. The advice — and again, the member opposite is not a

lawyer, and neither am I — that I've been given is that the other

provinces' privative clauses may appear stronger than ours, but it's

their opinion, which was passed on to me, that ours is as strong as is

constitutionally possible. The existing privative provision in the

Labour Code.... My advice is that they are obsolete; they go beyond the

provincial powers. This is what legal counsel has told me, and the new

section 33 keeps industrial relations matters within the council's

jurisdiction, as far as is constitutionally possible.

We can't prevent court appeals in instances of bad faith,

denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction. But the

[ Page 1542 ]

question the member asked me was if it is our intention to

open it more up to the courts. That is not the intention. The wording

that we have put into the amendment of the bill, on the advice of legal

counsel to myself, is as strong as any that we could possibly put in.

MR. GUNO: I think that this particular

technical point actually demonstrates the need for having this whole

matter discussed at a committee stage, where we can call legal,

technical advice so that we can determine exactly whether or not this

privative clause is as strong as you say or as weak as we contend. I

agree with my colleagues that this particular change renders the whole

privative clause useless.

I just want to say first of all that the main intention of any

privative clause is to prevent the intervention of the courts in the

affairs of the tribunal. In our society today, with its growing

complexity, we require these various tribunals to handle various

functions which require specialty knowledge. I think that it's sound

government policy for any government to delegate certain of these

functions, in order that they can be carried through.

In recognition of the sound policy that people ought to be

able to resolve their differences with minimum interference by the

courts or by the state, we can evolve an effective dispute resolution

mechanism, one that would deal in a very expert way whenever there are

any industrial conflicts. So I think it's important that we establish a

board that has certain autonomy, one that would not invite judicial

interference without the present judicial tests. There are two tests

that rise to mind. One is whether or not the board is being

unreasonable or patently unreasonable. I think that if we were to

allow this change to remain and render the present privative clause

useless, then we're going to have even more instances of court

interference. I just want to quote an excerpt from Paul Weiler's book

where he addresses the need to curtail that kind of court intervention

in these kinds of tribunals. He states:

"The parties must not be able to

sidetrack or even to derail the board's processes by running off to the

courts along an open-ended avenue for judicial review. If the labour

board is to be effective in the fray, it must be seen by the

labour-management community as the body with the final authority on

labour law."

I think you would agree with me, Mr. Minister, that if

the parties were to recognize that if they were not happy with a

decision made by the board, then it's off to the courts.... I have

practised labour law very briefly, shortly after I was called, and I

would think that if this particular fact of Bill 19 passed, I'd

seriously consider resigning as a politician and entering back into

law, because I think it's going to be very lucrative for lawyers.

The thing is, that was the very thing we tried to avoid in

1973. We tried to have a less legalistic approach in solving the

problems within the labour relations field, and I think it worked. As

long as you have the integrity of the board to make those kinds of

decisions and to be able to restrict court intervention, then you're

going to have a dispute-resolving mechanism that's going to work.

I'd just like to hear more about how you say the changes that

are made here would guard against further court intervention. Would you

not agree with me that if we can make the case that this privative

clause is weak to the point where we can say it's silent — and if it's

silent then the court may, in the future, take that as saying that they

can interfere on wider and wider grounds than just the two tests that

we've discussed — then there is room for changes in terms of

strengthening this clause?

HON. L. HANSON: I don't agree to that. I

think that I as the Minister of Labour suggest a philosophy that says

we want the Industrial Relations Council's decisions not to be

contested in court, to the best of our ability, because that's the

purpose of the Industrial Relations Council — the adjudication

division, that is. When I do something like that or when I develop

some philosophy like that, I go to people who are constitutional

experts in the field. The constitutional experts within the Ministry of

the Attorney-General advised me that that is a very strong privative

clause and will in fact do everything that we are able to do, keeping

in mind that we can only go as far as is constitutionally possible.

So while I respect the opinion of the member opposite, I don't

believe that anything.... When there are two experts, as the phrase

goes, legal professionals who have a difference of opinion as to the

wording of the clause, then I suppose the only way to do it is to try

it. But again, I don't know what further experts you could get. I guess

the reason there are disagreements between legal experts is the reason

they have courts. This change to the privative clause was as a result

of what I accept as reasonable legal and professional advice: that it

is a good privative clause and will stop a lot of interference from the

courts.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm of two minds as I stand

here and decide how I want to deal with the debate on privative

clauses. On the one hand, I could stand up and talk about the history

of privative clauses and the extent to which they have been opened up

by courts. On the other hand, I could sort of go through the law.

I guess the thing that has always struck me as somewhat

strange with privative clauses is that on the surface they seem to

totally ban and prevent judicial interference with decisions of

tribunals, in this case the Labour Code. As a matter of interest, I was

looking at

section 33, which talks about the board having exclusive

jurisdiction to determine, to the extent of its jurisdiction, questions

that arise within that jurisdiction. That seemed to me a fairly

comprehensive clause. You would scratch your head, I think, if you were

a layperson and wonder how it is that someone could find a way for

judicial interference. Yet that has been the case not only with the

Labour Code but with privative clauses in other legislation. One only

has to look again at the current legislation and the section. On the

face of it, it appears fairly solid, but within the context of the

decisions, in my opinion that is not necessarily the case.

I guess there's room then for a debate as to whether or not my

opinion or the opinion of the member for Atlin is justified, and

whether or not it ought to override the opinion of solicitors from the

Attorney-General's department. If my friend from Atlin wants to

continue on that line, I'm certainly not going to stop him, except that

I don't intend to do it that way. I think there's a larger issue here,

which gets me into the second sphere. If I were to take that line and

pose a series of questions that I have here — there are about 15 or 20

of them — I'm sure that at some point things would break down and the

minister would say: "Well, my advice from the Attorney-General, or from

the best constitutional experts in that department, is that this

privative clause will withstand any challenges. It is my view,

therefore, that the

section is sound.

[ Page 1543 ]

The member for Esquimalt is in error in suggesting otherwise."

I don't particularly want to erode to that point. But it is of

considerable concern to me still, because I tend to think that this

privative clause is very weak and is going to invite all sorts of

judicial intervention.

[2:45]

The member for Atlin is quite correct. This is a highly

technical matter. It is a complicated matter, and it's really something

better put before a committee. I don't want to get into name-calling or

begin to question the competence of the minister in understanding these

matters, but if there's a

section that we've dealt with so far where we

agree on the principle, it's this one. Taking the minister at face

value, there is an agreement in principle that both sides don't think

the courts ought to intervene in this matter. But I think there's

legitimate room for some experts to argue whether or not this clause is

going to serve that principle and serve it well. If there ever was an

argument that a clause should be allowed to stand, it clearly applies

to this section.

I've purposely been very frank in laying out my concerns and

where I'm coming from on this, and also laying out the ways and areas

in which it would be appropriate for me to temper my comments. I've

done that, I think, largely as a measure of good will, only to implore

the minister, if I can put it that way, to allow this thing to stand so

that we can have some other opportunity to debate it in detail with

experts from both sides. I'm not satisfied at all that it would

withstand a challenge from the court. I would venture to say that if

the minister is true to his principle, we'll see a whole series of

amendments with respect to this

section later, because it will get

opened up,

I say that in good will. I don't know if the minister is

prepared, and I don't know what the etiquette and procedure is, and I

don't know if the minister is prepared to entertain that type of

thought with respect to this clause. I'll sit down at this point, and

if he's not, then I'll make a number of other comments.

HON. L. HANSON: If the member's question is

whether I am prepared to stand down on this clause and subject it to

debate, no. I think the advice I was given is professional advice.

Obviously the advice I was given would differ from the opinion of the

gentlemen on the other side who are also qualified in that area. The

debates on that, I think, will ultimately be tested by the application

in the real world as the IRC gets into.... I just can't say that

there's a requirement to stand down on this particular clause for

debate, because I believe that it's as strong as we can get. I've been

given the advice of a constitutional expert, and I think I have to

accept that as being the truth.... I'm not suggesting it isn't the

truth, but as being reasonable and fair advice as to what that clause

will do.

MR. SIHOTA: Then you've only left me with

one choice, Mr. Minister.

A question to the minister. What is the nature of the advice

that you've gotten? I guess that is the question. Will you give us some

detail as to why you think this clause is superior to the clause that

currently sits within

section 33? What legal grounds?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not here

as a legal expert, and I don't give legal

interpretations. Secondly,

I'm not qualified to do it. The system of drafting this was a very

simple one, in that we wanted — which we both agree on — to restrict

the intervention of the courts into the decisions of the new council.

We got the best constitutional advice we could to give us the wording,

and this is the wording that has been produced as a result. The effect

will be that there will be very little intervention by the courts.

I know the member opposite is arguing that there will be all

kinds of intervention. I think a gentleman with all of the

qualifications of the gentlemen on the other side has a different

opinion, and I have to accept his opinion.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Chairman, I think that we're

in agreement that the old privative clause was quite effective in

reducing the amount of court intervention. I would just like to canvass

the minister's opinion as to why he saw any need to change that if it

was working. The old principle is: if it ain't broke, why fix it?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, I go back to the

counselling I was given by the constitutional experts that if it was

subject to testing, the new wording is stronger than the wording that

was in the act, and therefore the privative clause that's there now is

more appropriate, I guess, for the new Code. Again, that same legal

counsel advised me that the amendment is in fact stronger wording than

was in the Code originally.

MR. SIHOTA: There was a

section some time

ago that dealt with exclusive jurisdiction. That's now been removed,

the exclusive jurisdiction clause. Is the minister saying that with the

removal of that clause, this privative clause is stronger than what

currently sits in

section 33?

HON. L. HANSON: The answer to that question

is yes, on the advice of the constitutional expert that we called in to

give us advice.

MR. GUNO: I can see why we have these kinds

of frustrations. I mean, we ask a fairly technical question, and I

think the whole process of this exercise is to try to canvass from the

other side — from the minister — some of the reasons why the changes

are being made. I don't think it's sufficient for us to just accept "my

experts told me so, and trust us." I think we require a more detailed

and more thorough answer than that.

MR. SIHOTA: If the minister doesn't

understand the comments that were just made by the member for Atlin,

I'm really.... Maybe he'll understand, just from the body language on

this side of the House, that there's all sorts of frustration, and that

frustration comes from the fact that we're dealing with a complex

clause, a technical clause that has all sorts of ramifications if the

courts can intervene. We're talking about a principle where everyone

agrees that the courts ought not to be allowed to intervene. When we

ask the minister, "How is it that you think this clause is superior to

what it was before?" he says,"Well, that's my legal opinion, that it's

better," and in all deference to the members from this side of the

House, he's going to buy what his legal opinion says.

That's fine; we can live with that if you go one step further,

and that's to give us an indication of what that opinion is, what the

content of that opinion is, so we can begin to understand either where

we may be wrong or where the minister may be wrong. Because as I

understand this process,

[ Page 1544 ]

it's designed in part to try to strengthen the clauses that

are before the House. Surely people on that side of the House do not

have a monopoly on all the ideas. If we can offer some suggestions to

improve this clause, then it would seem to me that it would be only

rational that the minister would embrace those suggestions. But we

can't seem to get through to the minister. We get a curt answer based

upon what's written down in front of him, which says: "My legal opinion

is superior to what you're saying." We don't get to find out what the

content is. Nor can the minister explain, either in legal lingo — and I

understand he's not a lawyer — or in lay language, what that advice is

so we can understand how it is that he's arrived at the conclusion that

this

section is superior to

section 33 as it sits right now,

particularly in light of the fact that you removed "exclusive

jurisdiction."

It's frustrating when one of us asks a question of the

minister and the minister just sits there silently and we have to deal

with the situation I find myself in, not knowing where the minister is

coming from, what the content is, and we're being asked to vote on

approving a section. Will the minister indicate to us in whatever

language he wants — legal lingo or lay language — just what the content

of that advice is? Why does he think, with the elimination in the last

section that we dealt with of "exclusive jurisdiction," that this

section is superior as it appears before us now to what is contained in

section 33? Why, Mr. Minister? Can we have an explanation?

HON. L. HANSON: I have a long legal opinion

here that I'd be prepared to share with my colleague. As a result of a

philosophy that we extended to our legal consultant, the amendment

simplifies the current privative clause in the act. Such a clause

restricts the power of the courts to review decisions or orders made by

an administrative tribunal. The amendment will remove a conflict with

decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that a provincial

legislature is not competent under the constitution to create an entity

with jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. The form of

privative clause provided in this bill allows reviews by the court if

the council exceeds its jurisdiction, either by exercising authority

not given to it under the act or by breaching the rules of natural

justice, which I said earlier.

The privative clause provided in the bill is not intended to

allow unfettered review of the council's decisions by the courts. It is

not intended to provide an avenue of appeal by the parties from a

council decision or order. The parties cannot ask the court to rehear

all the evidence and/or legal arguments, and come to a contrary

conclusion which replaces the council's decision. For example, a court

cannot intervene merely because it would have come to a different

conclusion than the council.

A decision or order made by the council is the final word and

is legally binding on everyone to whom it was intended to apply, unless

the council has made an error which amounts to an excess of its

jurisdiction. Only then may the courts intervene, and only to a limited

extent.

Now to me, in layman's language, that says that when this

privative clause is there, the courts will not be able to intervene

unless there is a serious impairment of natural justice or unless the

board has gone beyond its jurisdiction, as it relates to this statute.

[3:00]

MR. SIHOTA: I thank the minister for his

response, and I'll thank him without editorial comment.

But let's then move along a bit. Let me ask the minister this

question: which, if any, case prompted the change in the section? In

other words, you have a section,

section 33, which was doing a

relatively good job. You now have decided to change it. I agree with my

friend from Atlin, who says that if it isn't broken, then don't fix it.

Now if that's the case, will the minister explain to me which decision,

if any, of the courts prompted him to change the wording from what it

sits as now in

section 33 to what is being proposed for

section 33?

Were there any decisions of the British Columbia Supreme Court, the

British Columbia Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada which,

as a result of those decisions, the minister came to the conclusion

that yes, this

section had to be changed?

Let me just fine-tune that a bit. The other day when we were

dealing with legislation — the social service tax amendments — the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier).... There was a new

section

added, and if my memory is not mistaken, it's

section 3.1. That was

brought in in light of a decision which had declared certain native

Indian bands to be exempt from the social service tax. As a result of

that decision, the minister brought forward an amendment to capture

that situation, to make sure the social service tax could be collected.

Apart from the difference of opinion as to whether or not that should

have been done, it seems to me that's the proper way of doing it. You

have a section, you have someone challenge that section, you have a

decision that as government you don't like, and then you bring in the

legislative change.

Now here we have a section, and we also have a change. What

I'm trying to find out is: what was the catalyst? What prompted the

change? Were there any decisions of the courts? The minister says he's

got his legal advice there, so I'd like him to go through that advice

and tell me which, if any, decision prompted that change.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the process

that you go through to develop this is that you identify difficulties,

and you have a lot of people who are giving you advice. Some you

accept; some you don't. There were several instances given to me as

examples of cases where there was difficulty with the old privative

clause. I don't have those cases here with me, because I can't bring my

whole office, but I'd be very pleased to provide the member opposite

with copies of those cases.

The only demonstration that was needed by me was that in fact

there were cases where there was a difficulty with it. When that was

demonstrated to me — that there was a difficulty with it — then it

seemed very reasonable to take the advice of the constitutional expert

and provide the new wording.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Minister, we have also

canvassed our own legal counsel — I mean, opinion.... We are lawyers,

but there are lawyers and there are lawyers. At any rate, the combined

effect of changing

section 33 to include a final and binding clause,

and the repeal of

section 34 (2), is in effect removing the privative

clause. That is the position that we take. A final and binding clause

has been interpreted — or has usually been interpreted — by the courts

to be not a privative clause. So the result of combining the changes

and the elimination is really the deletion of an effective privative

clause. I'm just trying to reiterate our position. As my learned friend

has pointed out, we can shout across the floor and say

[ Page 1545 ]

our experts are better than yours, but I just wanted to put

that in a nutshell.

MR. SIHOTA: Now I'm going to do something

that I said earlier on I wouldn't do. It is once again a function of

the frustration that we feel on this side of the House. I am advised

that there haven't been any cases. There haven't been any decisions of

the courts that would bring about the type of change that the minister

is proposing. There haven't been any challenges to

section 33 such as

would warrant the radical change in language that's being proposed here.

There aren't any cases, Mr. Minister. Quite frankly, you don't

seem to have a grasp of what's involved here. That's the feeling we get

on this side of the House. I can go back to a comment that relates to

credibility, which the minister made during question period, but you

really have to wonder after a while what the motivation is for these

changes, and who is putting these changes forward. There hasn't been

one case that would invite this type of radical departure from the

current language of

section 33, and I'm shocked to hear that the

minister thinks there may have been.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says he didn't say

that. The fact is that the minister referred in general terms to advice

that he had been given from the Attorney-General's department and to

conclusions they came to which led them to believe that this

section

ought to change. But those conclusions were not predicated on any

decisions whatsoever.

I'll tell you something: if your principle is quite correct,

Mr. Minister — that you don't want the courts to intervene — and

recognizing that there haven't been any decisions which invite a

change, then clearly the

section should not have been changed. If you

are going to change it and if you're going to change it in the way

that you have, then either you have gotten bad advice or you are not

being upfront with respect to the principle you're talking about. In

other words, it is your intention to open this up to the courts. Again,

you can't have it both ways. You can't bring about a change in the

legislation and argue that that change will keep the courts out when

nothing has happened to make one think that the courts are going to

intervene.

You don't have a grasp of what privative clauses are all

about, you don't have a grasp of what the court decisions have been all

about, and you don't understand why this

section is being changed. You

can't offer one scintilla of argument in favour of the change. There

hasn't been one case. There hasn't been one decision. There hasn't been

one judicial pronouncement. There haven't been obiter on any decisions

that would warrant a change as radical as this one. Therefore the

advice you're getting is consistent with the views outlined earlier by

the member for Atlin and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann).

That view is that you'll want to open it up to the courts; that you

don't want the council, as it is going to be in the future, to have

exclusive jurisdiction in these matters. If you didn't agree with that,

you wouldn't have changed the section.

Credibility is an issue on this section. I say that with a

tremendous amount of reservation, because I try not to get into

personality attacks on this thing. But believe you me, it is very

frustrating when someone reads a prepared text, some nonsense and

drivel on background to the section, when it doesn't contain any

reference to any material factor that would warrant the type of change.

Credibility is in dispute, and that is becoming clearer and clearer as

we go through

section after

section of this. I wonder, Mr. Minister,

whether you are just a messenger for this awful legislation and this

awful amendment, and it's somebody else who drafted it.

Amendment approved on division.

Section 23 as amended approved on division.

section 24.

MR. GABELMANN: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman,

this is the final of the series of sections that deal with the courts,

and I just want to make the point that from the beginning to the end of

them, we are opposed to the direction that the government is taking,

and we oppose this

section as well, although we do not intend to debate

it at length.

Section 24 approved on division.

section 25.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to

section 25 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

HON. L. HANSON: The test in the bill for

treating two or more businesses as a single employer was seen as being

far too narrow to properly restrict double-breasting. The new test,

which is "same control and direction," directs the council's attention

to the key issue of who has the ultimate and effective authority to

make the decisions which would run the company.

Of course, the second one is deliberate. Concern has been

expressed to us that it was too onerous to require proof that an

attempt to evade collective bargaining responsibilities was deliberate

before a decision under this

section could be made retroactive, and

deleting the word "deliberate" we feel reduces the subjective element

of the legal test to be met by trade unions attempting to protect their

bargaining rights.

Just elaborating on that a bit, Mr. Chairman, the intent of

this

section is hopefully to allow for some investment that may have

been precluded under the previous legislation — for people in a

business or an organization to start another business which isn't the

same business but could be seen, under the old act, as being an

associate, which would allow them to be certified with a certification

that was attached to the parent company.

While I know that the argument is going to come that this

section does permit double-breasting, we believe that in the

jurisprudence of the council, with the deletion of the "operational"

and the "deliberate," it will free up investment to start other

businesses but will in fact protect someone from starting another

absolutely parallel company, doing the same business and so on, that is

non-union.

[3:15]

MR. GABELMANN: On April 2, when Bill 19 was

introduced in its original form, the minister said, among other things:

"It does not permit double-breasting." He then was told that in fact

the bill did permit double-breasting, both in this

section and in

section 29 of the bill or 53 of the Code.

[ Page 1546 ]

He brings in amendments and says to us: "The amendments now do

not permit double-breasting." Mr. Chairman, the minister was wrong on

April 2, and he is wrong today. If the minister did not want to allow

for double-breasting, he would have left the language of the original

Code untouched.

He attempted to provide a rationale in his comments now that

dealt with the issue of investment — somehow

section 37 of the Code has

prevented investment in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister

would give us a list — it doesn't have to be too long; several or half

a dozen — of companies which legitimately were unable to invest in

British Columbia because of

section 37 of the Code; not companies which

used it as an excuse for making a decision that they wanted to make in

any event, but rather a list of investment decisions that honestly

related to

section 37 of the Code.

I'd like to have the minister at some point in this debate....

He'll have some time to get this from his office, if that's what he

needs to do, because this

section will take some time this afternoon.

Our contention is based on advice from a variety of sources, including

the man who, for all intents and purposes, administered the Code for

the last few years and prior to that sat on the Labour Relations Board

administering the

interpretation of the language, Graham Leslie. He is

quoted as saying this

section and the other sections will in fact

permit double-breasting. Just because Graham Leslie says it's so

doesn't make it so, but many other people have said the same thing.

There has also been a concern or an expression that this is only

related to the construction industry, that the double-breasting

provisions of the bill will only have the effect of deunionizing the

construction industry.

We will this afternoon make arguments here which will suggest

— and I think prove or demonstrate at least — that, in fact, these

changes in particular, and others, will deunionize the industrial

sector in this province too. I know for a fact that contractors in the

forest industry who contract to TFL holders are slavering at the mouth

— if that's the correct term — waiting for this change so that they can

begin the process of deunionizing in the forest industry in this

province the contracting that goes for TFL holders in particular.

MR. LOVICK: A gyppo amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, but I don't want to be

flippant or minimize the effect of this particular change. It is a

serious change, and for the minister to suggest that it will now not

allow for double-breasting is simply to misread the case law and, in

particular, the American case law, because the language that we're

using here now has been tested for decades in the United States.

The test is clear; the results of the test are clear. There

will be a variety of ways, and it's not just this

section that

employers will use. There are other ways in which they can get at it,

but big employers will be able, under this section, to double-breast

without question. Now I have asserted that, and I think we will spend

the afternoon attempting to demonstrate that.

Before we get into a false debate, I don't think it's going to

be very easy for small contractors who have a pickup and a half dozen

people on occasion — nobody for a long time and maybe a job crew that

is half a dozen or a few dozen or that kind of size of operation. I

don't think very many of those operations will use this particular

section to escape their unionized contract. I think we should make it

clear in the beginning that those kinds of unionized contractors will

use

section 53 of the Code.

The big contractors — and here I'm talking about contractors

who employ 50 or 100 or more people, particularly on a full-time basis

— will have the door wide-open under this particular section. The test

in British Columbia has been ownership in terms of determining whether

or not double-breasting has taken place. That will no longer be the

test.

The language now has been changed significantly by the change

of the word "and" to the word "on." Previously the Code included words

that said "common control or direction." The test, then, could be that

if either one of those situations were present, then double-breasting

was in fact prohibited. Either one: common control on the one hand,

direction on the other hand. We have now gone to words which say "the

same control and direction." So we have gone from "common control or

direction" to "same control and direction."

I'm not a linguist nor a lawyer, so I can't tell the

difference between the words "same" and "common." It seems to me they

are pretty similar. So I ask people whose job it is to make decisions

about what words mean, and I'm told by enough of them, from not just

one side of the political spectrum but across the political spectrum,

that the change is significant enough to make the test less rigorous,

in changing from "common" to "same." But more importantly, the change

of the word "and" to the word "or" in the new wording allows for either

same control or direction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now it's "and."

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sorry —"and." That's

right. I'm making the point, though. You now have to have both. You now

have to have same control and direction. It's one thing, and if you

can't prove that you have both the same control and direction, you

don't have an argument.

Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the financial control

is no longer a test, as a result of this. Once you eliminate that

financial element as part of the test, you open the door wide for

double-breasting.

I'm not by a long shot the best person in our caucus to make

this argument, because I find that using language like this that

requires precise

interpretation and case law to demonstrate what the

words mean.... I find this a dreadful way to do business. I don't like

it and so I don't pay a lot of attention to it, in terms of how I

operate.

I would rather the government had a line in the bill that said

we do not believe that businesses should be able to escape their union

contract obligations by setting up another company or by operating in

any form, and having general language like that that makes the

intention clear. Get rid of this legal mumbo-jumbo. The problem is,

we've got the legal mumbo-jumbo, and it allows — according to American

case law, given this language — for double-breasting. I know the

minister will stand up and say: "No, it doesn't." But when we are faced

in this House, as non-experts attempting to have this argument, we

point out clearly an obvious flaw with this process in trying to

determine this legislation. We should be able to take these words and

quiz people whose job it is to interpret these words as to what they

mean, and arrive at a consensus about what the

interpretation is likely

to be.

You may have a different philosophy from ours, but state what

your philosophy is and then let's get at it. What we've got now is a

situation where we're going to have an argument about what "same

control and direction" means or what "common control or direction"

means, or a whole variety of

[ Page 1547 ]

possible

interpretations of wording. I find that an invidious

position to put us in on an important issue of this kind. Because if

Graham Leslie is right, and if all the labour lawyers in this province

are correct — I haven't talked to all the management lawyers, so I

don't know what their view is — if all of the contractors who are out

there just waiting for this

section of this bill to be proclaimed are

right, then the minister is wrong in his assertion that

double-breasting will be prohibited.

If the minister is committed to his statement of April 2,

which implied that he did not want double-breasting to take place, let

me ask the question I asked before: why change the law? That goes back

to the first point I made, and that is: where is the evidence that

either disinvestment or failure to attract investment occurred as a

result of this particular issue? I'm sure that the minister has had,

over what will tomorrow be the last nine weeks, plenty of opportunity

to marshal the evidence, to provide all of the case law, to provide all

of the names of potential investors and the industries in which they

failed to invest, and that he will give us all that information. I'm

surprised he hasn't done that yet in debating this issue in the public

forum, but he has an opportunity now to do that. If he doesn't, I will

be left with the impression and a clear bit of evidence that what the

minister asserts is untrue.

In the course of this debate we will be unable to prove, I'm

afraid to say, what the IRC will decide the words mean. As a result of

that, we will be unable to predict with any precision how much

double-breasting will be allowed and which way double-breasting will be

allowed. It's very difficult to predict that because the words don't

give us enough clue. They give us enough clue, in my view, that there

will be double-breasting, that there will be reinvestment by currently

unionized employers establishing operations which are non-union and may

not have both the same control and the same direction; they may just

have one or the other, which will clearly open the door.

I know that the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), who

will follow me on this, will talk about how, in the forest industry,

this will have a major impact on what is at the present time, in terms

of the TFLs at least, a virtually fully unionized industry.

[3:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but

your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll defer at this point to

the member for New Westminster.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I haven't been

involved in the debate for a number of days, although I have been

listening and following the debate with a great deal of care and

attention. I'd like to begin my remarks by commenting on the member for

North Island's last remark on the language we are debating and the

actual intent of the legislation. I think that has been to a very large

extent the subject of our discussions on this very major legislation.

The government and the minister speaking on behalf of his government

have spoken frequently on the intent of the legislation in broad terms.

It seems to me very important that we understand the intent clause by

clause. I consider this particular clause to be one of the most

important, both in its own right and in the context of the principles

which at various times the minister has enunciated. I want to note that

in my remarks this afternoon I will be to some extent dealing with the

principle of the bill, but in the context of this particular clause.

I hope that at some point, either through some questions I

will ask or when I finish my remarks, the minister will again comment

on his statements about this particular clause, clause 25, and what it

does allow. But I am working from the premise that this clause does

allow double-breasting. I'd like to begin, if I may, by just taking a

case that has recently been before the Labour Relations Board on the

issue of a common employer. I think it's a very likely kind of scenario

in respect to the forest industry. We've noted all along, I might say,

that in the analysis of this bill there has been an assumption that

this particular clause and its potential for double-breasting will have

the effect of deunionizing the construction industry.

But as I looked at the clause, and coming as I do from a town

and an area where the forest industry has historically been and still

is a very important part of the economics of that community, it seemed

to me that the same kinds of reasons that would cause the

deunionization of the construction industry would in fact apply to

the forest industry, because there, too, we have many small operations.

We have operations either in the logging division or in the sawmill

divisions that are highly portable, where there is a tremendous amount

of movement, where people are in and out of the industry, and where we

have both large and many small employers.

I am not sure that I agree entirely with my colleague from

North Island that this particular clause will not be used in fact to

escape union certification and union setups, although I agree with him

that it will certainly be tied in with the successor clause that we

will be debating later on.

Let me just cite very briefly the case that I think could very

well have been decided differently by the Labour Relations Board with

this amendment. It is one where there is a logging licence being

allocated to a local firm. It is an interesting case because there has

been an Indian band involved, and there has been a concern to have

successful logging occur in that area. It is in the area of Zeballos on

Vancouver Island.

The particular logging company involved has a family involved

in logging. What happened was that the son set up a separate company

and tried to have it certified as separate from the company of his

father. In fact, in that particular company that was set up the

operation of the company was in the hands of the son. So I would

presume that in that particular case we were dealing with that son

having effective operational control, although that word is now gone

from the language. But I assume that that's what we mean when we talk

about control.

Now in the old Labour Code amendment we would be dealing with

either control or direction. Now we are dealing with control and

direction. The Labour Relations Board dealt with this case and its

decision was that this was a common company, that the control was

indeed in the hands of the son, but that the direction was coming from

the father; that the father was providing advice, that the father was

very much involved in the setup of this particular company. So in this

particular case we had control in one hand, direction in the other. But

because it was control or direction, either one of them, the direction

caused, as I understand it.... I can't put it in legal language,

because that is not something that I can do; I am trying to explain

this very much from a lay perspective. Because the direction was coming

from the parent in this case, this was one employer, and in fact the

[ Page 1548 ]

double-breasting, if you like, the two companies, were not

allowed.

Again, we cannot interpret what the results would be for the

Industrial Relations Council by that change from "or" to "and." It

might very well be that in this particular instance, although the two

companies very much had a common relationship, they would be seen to be

different because the "or" had been removed. I think we would find in

the forest industry — and certainly in my conversations with members of

the unionized forest industry this has been expressed very strongly —

an extensive process to deunionize that particular sector.

Mr. Chairman, one of the goals of this legislation is to be

fair, to be democratic and to improve international investment. I have

spoken in the House before about matters relating to health and safety,

particularly as they pertain to the forest industry but to many other

industries as well. The premise on which I am operating today is that

it is healthy for our investment opportunities and for our forest

industry to have a strong union sector. I'm concerned about any

section

of the legislation that would have the effect of preventing

unionization of that sector or deunionizing any aspect of that sector

that presently enjoys a certification.

The minister today received a telegram from Jack Munro, the

president of the IWA, around this clause, and I'd like to take just a

brief moment to read it into the record. It's addressed to the Hon.

Lyall Hanson, Minister of Labour:

SIR:

WE UNDERSTAND THAT "DOUBLE-BREASTING"

CLAUSE COMING UP FOR DEBATE VERY SOON. THIS IS TO ADVISE THAT WE REGARD

THAT CLAUSE AS GRAVE THREAT TO STANDARDS OF WAGES AND CONDITIONS,

ESPECIALLY SAFETY STANDARDS, FOR WHICH LABOUR MOVEMENT HAS STRUGGLED

FOR A CENTURY.

AS AN INDICAT10N OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF

THE MATTER, WE REMIND YOU THAT WITH GOOD SAFETY CONDITIONS AND STRONG

UNION SAFETY COMMITTEES, WE STILL KILL ABOUT 35 PEOPLE ANNUALLY ON

AVERAGE IN B.C. LOGGING.

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE

DOUBLE-BREASTING, IF ALLOWED TO OPERATE IN B.C. WOODS, WILL KILL MANY

MORE LOGGERS. WE URGE YOU, IN THE NAME OF SIMPLE SANITY, TO DELAY

CONSIDERATION OF ANY MORE SECTIONS OF BILL 19 UNTIL YOU HAVE HAD YOUR

FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS AND OTHER MATTERS WITH THOSE WHO HAVE

HAD SOME EXPERIENCE IN THESE FIELDS.

AS TO CAMP CONDITIONS THAT INEVITABLY

WOULD FOLLOW FROM SYSTEMATIC DEUNIONIZATION, WHICH WOULD BE THE RESULT,

IF NOT THE INTENT, OF THAT CLAUSE, WE INVITE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE

OBSERVATIONS OF FORMER CHIEF FORESTER ORCHARD.

THESE ARE URGENT MATTERS — LIFE AND DEATH

MATTERS — FOR MANY THOUSANDS OF BRITISH COLUMBIANS. TO PROCEED WITH THE

BILL WITHOUT EVEN DISCUSSING THEM, OR CONSIDERING THEM, WOULD BE THE

SHEEREST LUNACY.

It's signed by J.J. Munro, president, IWA — Canada.

Mr. Chairman, there's no question in my mind that unions are

important in the forest industry. They're important for two reasons

that are very dear to the heart of this government: the first is that

that forest industry is still one of the major mainstays of the economy

of our country, of our province. I think that has been reflected in

some of the initiatives the government is taking around silviculture

and reforestation, to ensure that that particular industry remains

healthy. It has been demonstrated as well as we have looked at the

countervail, which has allowed us to put the forest industry under a

microscope and observe how productive and competitive it is in

international markets. That's one of the reasons we have the kind of

forest industry that we have today.

I want to deal, then, with two issues: the productivity issue

and the health and safety issue. I'm going to start with the health and

safety issue, because I know how critical this is to the forest

industry. I know that studies indicate that where there is a unionized

industry, the health and safety of workers is in fact much, much more

successfully handled. I'd like to note for the record an

article that I

have used a couple of times in preparing for discussion of this issue

in the House. It's from a magazine called Silviculture Magazine , the

January and February issue. It's a fairly extensive

article by Thomas

J. Smith, who is with Simon Fraser University. It's a unique study,

because to the knowledge of the researcher, it's the only study that

has ever been done on tree-planting and silviculture in B.C.

Silviculture is a non-unionized industry. The accident rate in

that industry is phenomenal: nine out of ten workers. Almost 75 percent

of workers in any one year have some kind of injury as a result of

their work in that field. The living conditions in which these people

live remind me of the stories that I used to read about logging camps

in the days before unions; they are living conditions that produce

illnesses that I've never heard of, but that are really serious

illnesses.

The point I want to make here, Mr. Chairman, is related to

this whole issue. We have to debate the principle of this clause, the

principle of double-breasting, and I think it's appropriate to debate

it in the context of this clause. In the forest industry, the health

and safety committees that exist within that industry exist because

unions have gone in and have certified, even in the very difficult

circumstances, people who are working in many different localized areas

under common control or direction. The kinds of conditions that have

developed as a result of health and safety measures have very

significantly improved the productivity and the success of our forest

industry.

Dr. Smith notes in his analysis of the forest industry, and

again I would like to quote one brief

section from his report: "My own

collaborative analysis of hazard management in a B.C. logging company

suggests that participatory management represents a promising

organizational design strategy for improving tree-planting work."

[3:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am sorry, your

time is up under standing orders. Just before we proceed, hon. members,

recognizing the particular importance of this

section 25 and

recognizing the desire on both sides of the House to comply with the

requirements for relevancy, the Chair is going to call the question on

the amendment to this section.

Shall the amendment to

section 25 pass?

Amendment approved.

section 25 as amended.

MR. GABELMANN: Now that we've had

intervening business, I am sure the member for New Westminster would be

able to continue.

[ Page 1549 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: I should have prefaced my

remarks with the recognition of that amendment and waited until that

business was out, so I appreciate your latitude in allowing the debate

to continue on what is basically the amendment, now amended, of the

Code and

section 25. If I may go back to the quote, I will for the

benefit of Hansard just pick it up again.

"My own collaborative analysis of hazard

management in a B.C. logging company suggests that participatory

management represents a promising organizational design strategy for

improving tree-planting work. This project established that allowing

loggers to participate more directly in decision-making with regard to

operational, productivity and hazard management planning was associated

with a dramatic reduction, over a five-year period, in job-related

injuries experienced by workers in the company's six logging

operations."

Mr. Chairman, the intent of this legislation is to improve the

competitiveness of B.C.'s major industry within our marketplace; and

the contention that I am making today is that in the forest industry,

where certification is often difficult to achieve, it is to the

advantage of our economy and of that very important industry in the

economy to be, in fact, unionized. Anything that makes it more

difficult to unionize or that enables small logging companies or large

logging companies, through this particular clause, to move to set up

parallel operations that are not union will, I fear, have an effect on

the improving health and safety conditions that have developed in our

forest industry as a result of that participatory management between

the employers and the workers and their health and safety committees.

I'd like to raise one other point in the perspective of the

productivity matter and to put on the record some information that I am

sure is well known to the Minister of Labour, and I hope well known to

the Minister of Forests and Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) as well, that has

come out of the analysis of the countervail duties. Again I am dealing

here with the importance of this union sector and its having protection

in the area of being difficult to organize because of its nature.

Over the past five years we have seen tremendous change in our

forest industry, a change that has come about as a result of

technology. I think it's acknowledged in this province that we have one

of the most highly productive, efficient, economic and competitive

forest industries in the world. That has come about as a result of a

stable workforce, a workforce that has cooperated with management

through the process of tech change and has produced some really

phenomenal results in terms of productivity, the very thing that we

desire to have to be competitive on world markets, but at the same time

to maintain within this province high standards of living, service for

our people, the generation of taxes, those conditions that are a part

of a modem and sophisticated economy in the latter part of the

twentieth century.

The figures I have state that in a sawmill in the interior,

the average worker produces three times more in the way of production

per hour than in equivalent mills in the United States. If we look at

the total compensation package for that worker in U.S. dollars, the

unit costs with a huge wage disparity are identical because of that

productivity. U.S. dollar terms for that worker in an interior mill in

B.C. would be $16; in a southern mill in Georgia or Alabama it is $7 or

$8. But in terms of productivity — the cost of producing that wood —

they are identical.

But look what that $16 does for the economy that we are

seeking to nurture in this province, in the spending power of that

particular individual, in the taxes that person pays and in the

spinoff that occurs in the community in which that worker lives. That

has occurred because of the stability of the workforce and because

those operations are ones where working conditions and the collective

agreements that have been developed have been developed for the benefit

of the workers but also for the benefit of the employer, the community

and the province.

Mr. Chairman, by opening up the potential for double-breasting

in this regard, with the potential for changes in the logging industry,

in sawmill operations and, of course, in the construction industry —

which I haven't dealt with because it has already been canvassed, and I

am sure other members will speak to that — we are opening up a process

that will result in the very things that we have been talking about

with other clauses of this bill: destabilization, a lack of security as

far as the foreign investor is concerned, and a downturn in our economy

rather than a nurturing of that economy to greater productivity.

In the health and safety area, no investor wants to come into

a community where he is going to face WCB costs that are high or a

workforce that is not looked after in terms of those conditions. No one

is going to want to come in to an industry where that productivity is

threatened by a destabilized workforce. I want to say very strongly

that in the industries that will be affected by double-breasting,

having a highly unionized, highly trained, highly productive workforce

that works in a participatory way with its management would be to the

advantage of our province. I am very concerned that the thrust of this

particular amendment suggests, to all those who have examined it from

its technical aspect, that we are moving to a destabilization of those

working relationships and to an undermining of the conditions that have

advanced health and safety working conditions in our forests and in

other parts of the more dangerous injuries of the province.

This is an amendment that will counter the intent of the

legislation and should therefore not go forward. I notice the minister

has taken a brief and probably well-deserved break. I have some

questions that I would like to ask of him, but I will stand down in

deference to others who may wish to pursue this and then will ask some

questions when the minister returns to the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I have

listened intently to the hon. member for New Westminster, and inasmuch

as quite a bit of her debate, discussion and evidence is centred around

the central interior sawmill industry, which we all recognize is

probably the most efficient in the world, I would like to respond.

The member indicates that

section 25 is going to cause

irreparable harm to the central interior logging and sawmilling

industry. I really can't accept that. I can advise the member that the

comments that she makes about comparisons between Alabama and Georgia

are no doubt correct; we are far more efficient than those areas. But

we also have to recognize that it is not necessarily because of a

unionized sector in the central interior sawmills that we are that

efficient. It is because of the tremendous capital investment that the

owners and operators of those sawmills have made in their plants. I

want, parenthetically to this, to state

[ Page 1550 ]

that modern technology and proper training has caused those

mills to be so efficient.

A point I do want to make, because I don't want to be seen as

union-bashing.... With that said, I'll advise you that one of the most

efficient mills in Prince George, the Lakeland sawmill, is an IWA mill.

When they modernized two years ago, the IWA and the principals of the

company won a Canadian labour award for modernization in the workplace

with the least impact on the working man. The award was a double award

to the IWA — Tage Mogensen was the business agent at the time — and to

the principal of the company. But there are many non-union central

interior sawmills that compete equally on the North American market.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, yes, I'll agree.

That's the point I'm trying to make. But you don't necessarily have to

be IWA to have that type of efficiency, and there are many sawmills in

Prince George that are not unionized, and they do equally well. They

couldn't compete in the market if they were not efficient, if they

didn't have a dedicated workforce and if they didn't have the capital

investment that the company has made in modernizing the plant. So I

cannot accept the argument that only an organized worker is efficient.

All workers in that very efficient workplace are efficient. In terms of

wages paid, they're competitive in both the non-union and the union

mills. They have to be, otherwise the non-union people wouldn't be able

to attract skilled workers to the plant. In some cases they'll actually

pay a bit more, for pension and health reasons that I'm sure the

members are aware of.

The other fallacy that I seem to draw from the member for New

Westminster's (Ms. A. Hagen'

s) comment was about contracting on the

logging side. I can advise the member that very, very few contractors

in the central interior are unionized. They're mostly non-union, but

they're competitive, they're extremely efficient, and they do an

excellent job of harvesting and getting the wood to the mill. So I

can't accept the argument that only union people can contribute to our

efficiency or our good share of the American market.

[4:00]

There appear to be other concerns expressed by the member that

I would be opposed to as well. One is that safety would suffer. The WCB

is in place irrespective of organization of a sawmill. They simply have

to be there, and therefore I can't see

section 25 affecting safety in

the workplace, whether it be in the mill or on the logging site.

I will not accept the notion that only organized labour can be

efficient. Specifically, it's really the investment that's been made by

the principals, by the sawmill operators themselves, that has made the

central interior sawmilling industry so efficient. And with that said,

I would urge all members not to be that concerned about

section 25 with

respect to the efficiency or level of opportunity for manufacturing in

the central interior.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, just to comment

briefly on the remarks of the hon. government House Leader, I think it

would be fair to say that the standards that we've been talking about

have certainly been set by the unionized sector, both in the health and

safety area and in the other areas. I would certainly think that his

first example, the Lakeland sawmill, suggests that. I don't think

there's any argument that those standards are set by the union sector —

in wage levels, productivity, health and safety. I was making that

point. Certainly there are others that compete in that same area.

I would like to comment on the assumption that WCB provides an

adequate safety net. I know what its mandate is, Mr. Chairman, but the

mandate and the delivery, we all know, are far removed from reality.

The article, from which I quoted briefly, on the occupational

characteristics of planting work.... We're talking about something in

the order, I think, of 10,000 planters in the year ahead. The

occupational safety record of that particular field of work in the

forest industry is shocking, to say the least. The hazards that are a

part of that particular occupation in the industry are well documented,

and the history.... The point I am making here in respect to this

particular clause is that there is a tremendous need for an organized

workforce with participation of workers and management around the

collective agreement and solid health and safety conditions to provide

the conditions that we wish to have for productive, competitive and

successful industry in the province.

I maintain, in the context of the remarks of the member for

North Island, that it appears that double-breasting is to be allowed,

however that will be interpreted by the Industrial Relations Council,

and I think it is a backward step. It is unfortunate that we are moving

to make it more difficult for the forestry sector and the construction

sector to organize, to stay organized and to bring to bear on industry

and business the standards that help to establish working conditions

and economic conditions that are to the benefit of this province in the

spirit of the legislation that the minister has been discussing with us

for nine weeks.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I want to make my

remarks under two separate headings, I guess. The first concerns

language, and the second concerns economics.

First, language. My colleague the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) stated to us that he had some difficulty grappling with the

significance of the wording presented to us, the change in wording in

the new bill as distinct from the old Code. As one who has a little

expertise and a little background in that area, perhaps I can clarify

precisely what we are concerned about with this wording.

The change is specifically from the phrase "common control or

direction" to the new wording,"the same control and direction." Any

student of language can tell you very clearly that the first phrase is

restrictive and exclusive; the second phrase is expansive and

inclusive. It is precisely for that reason that we read this clause —

and indeed we have legal help that gives us the same opinion — to mean

that this is indeed a door-opener to the concept of double-breasting.

Now we could solve the problem very quickly if we could get

assurances from this government that the intention of this legislation

is not — categorically, undeniably not — to allow double-breasting.

Unfortunately, however, what we get is a statement from the other side

of the House, from the minister — whose sincerity I do not call into

question, by the by — that says: "As far as we can interpret, as far as

we can understand, this does not mean double-breasting." I am sure that

the minister can submit for our attention case law and statements from

his legal advisers to support that claim. However, I would make the

point that we on this side can present an equally compelling case with

the same kinds of evidence.

[ Page 1551 ]

My statement about language can lead to just this conclusion:

unless and until we can get specific assurances that have the force of

law — in other words, an amendment to this piece of legislation — my

colleagues and I will continue to stand and speak against this

section

of the bill, because double-breasting quite simply is not compatible

with a free and flourishing trade union movement in the province of

British Columbia. That is our contention; it is a contention we are

going to argue again and again at every opportunity to state that case.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Let me then start by stopping, if you will allow that paradox,

for a moment to ask the minister if he would care to respond to that

first assertion about the language and why we conclude, we think with

every justification, that this is indeed opening the door to the

concept called double-breasting, namely the operation of union and

non-union companies under the same ownership. Would the minister care

to respond to that, first of all?

HON. L. HANSON: I guess first of all, the

members opposite would have to agree that if we had wanted to allow

double-breasting, we would have repealed

section 37. It would have been

very simple — and brought forward.

I think something else that's forgotten is that there's no

concern, or at least nothing in this legislation that says that a

organization can't be organized. What we're saying is that an employer

in a union company should have the ability to start another company as

long as it isn't a deliberate attempt to avoid his responsibilities

under his collective agreement. He should be able to invest in another

company. We have difficulty with some decisions that happened in the

past that a common employer has been related to the fact that the son

may have started a business. The intention.... I know you'll come back

at me with that word, but my advice.... And I have to take advice. I

take advice from my learned friend sometimes. The way I hear the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) speaking, if I ever have any difficulty with

has great expertise in that area, and I admire the member's ability to

debate.

Again, the ultimate test is going to be when the IRC makes

decisions. Quite frankly, we believe that this legislation will free up

some capital that may be reluctant to be invested because of a concern

of a common control decree. We also are concerned that the relativity

of a person starting a business should not be an automatic declaration

that the two companies are the same employer. But by the same token,

I'd like to point out that there is nothing in this

section of the act

that says there is a deterrent to anyone organizing a company. It

appears to me that there's some misunderstanding about this section. It

doesn't deunionize the industry. Nothing prevents the organizers from

seeking to certify any new operations. That's absolutely allowed, and

we would defend that right. I'm sure that those workers who see the

benefits of organized labour and the benefits that accrue to it, as is

explained to them before there is a drive for certification.... They

will see the benefit of that.

The member for New Westminster mentioned some concern that

there was going to be a serious decline in safety in the workplace. I

think the member was predicating that on an assumption that this

section of the bill would lead to deunionization of the industry. I

don't subscribe to that conclusion. By the same token, I'd like to

point out that the Workers' Compensation Board has a comprehensive

safety regulation program, a comprehensive inspection program. It's

well enforced by a number of people in the fields. As a matter of fact,

if my ministry gets a lot of complaints, it's in the area of fines

being levied against employers who have contravened the safety

regulations.

It was interesting the other day, as far as safety is

concerned. I had a long presentation from a group of forest industry

people — and I'm saying forest industry now, not unionized or

non-unionized; a combination of all — saying that statistics in the

forest industry show that there has been a tremendous decline in

injuries in the workplace. They were relating their concern to the

rates set at the Workers' Compensation Board, but their charts and

graphs showed that there was a considerable decline in the seriousness

of the accidents as well as in the numbers, and therefore they were

looking for a reduction in the rate. They were both union and

non-union. So I'm not suggesting that there has not been a lot of

benefit to British Columbia in the form of safety and benefits and that

sort of thing as a result of unionization. I think that's good, and it

should continue.

[4:15]

I think the member for New Westminster mentioned that for the

people in the tree-planting industry there were great safety problems

there. I don't know — not being the Minister of Forests, there may be

some other difficulties with that. Again, I would say that in the

tree-planting industry, the organizers should be talking to those

people if that's a concern. They have every right to see if the

employees wish to become part of organized labour, and I would defend

their right to do that.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The government House Leader

wishes to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, it is

with great joy that I introduce 12 Girl Guides from Saltspring Island,

the Fulford Harbour group, and their leader, Mrs. Gardom. The Girl

Guides are visiting with us this afternoon to view the House in session

and to earn their citizenship badge. I'll advise the young ladies that

we're currently in committee on Bill 19; free-flowing, but nevertheless

reasoned debate. That's why the Speaker's not in the chair, but we have

a Chairman at the table. The mace is off the table and on the hooks,

and that's what we're doing at this time.

In any event, welcome, and we hope you have a good day.

MR. LOVICK: Madam Chairman, let me begin my

remarks by extending on behalf of the opposition the same kinds of

greetings to the Girl Guide troop. I hope indeed that you all see some

example of good citizenship in operation. What you're looking at now,

of course, is the very ritualized and theatrical process of having

disagreement within our society. That doesn't make it any less

valuable; it's just that it's quite different, as I'm sure you've

noticed.

[ Page 1552 ]

I want to begin by thanking the minister very kindly for his

remarks and also for the compliments embedded in those remarks. Let me

address some of the concerns that the minister raised. I'll be brief,

because again I think it's precisely this kind of dialogue that is

requisite and important for this House. If we are ever going to come

together on this bill, if we ever are going to find some kind of

compromise position and stand between our two sides, it will happen

precisely because of this interaction, and I thank the minister for

taking

part in that.

To address some of the particular points the minister made....

I'm sure he noticed that I was rapidly taking notes as he spoke, and I

hope I rendered his comments fairly. His first comment was that if

indeed the government were concerned with double-breasting and wanted

to introduce it, what they would have done, of course, is just repeal

section 37. That strikes me as curious, because certainly if you want

to give us assurance, Mr. Minister, that you are opposed to

double-breasting, the obvious question is: why not leave the Code as it

is? Why change

section 37? Because it is precisely the changes to the

Code that have everybody on this side of the House wondering what the

intention is. That's the first point I would make.

The second point the minister makes is that what we are trying

to embrace and enshrine in this bill is the freedom and the right of a

particular company to start a new company as long — he stressed this,

and I give him his due — as it is not with a deliberate attempt to

effectively undercut or undermine the existing bargaining unit that is

in place. That again, Mr. Minister, is what opens the door to our

concerns and demonstrates why we feel so strongly about this section.

The terminology "deliberate attempt...." Because I think we

know, and I've had occasion to refer to this before.... From past legal

experience, from other cases, from precedents, we have discovered that

to demonstrate a deliberate attempt is virtually impossible. We are

therefore suggesting that that terminology, that wording, in effect is

what sets an extra barrier and obstacle in the path of the trade union.

The other point the minister made that I'd like to refer

to.... Again, I accept the ingenuousness of the proposition: namely,

that the purpose of this bill, and indeed this section, is to free up

some capital so that in fact owners of capital, holders of capital — or

at least those with access to it, rather than owners necessarily — will

perhaps invest in areas where they otherwise would not. I would just

ask the minister to please consider why it is for just that reason that

workers are apprehensive. Because, of course, if we're saying that what

we're going to do is free up capital by amending the existing labour

legislation, understandably and predictably workers are going to say:

"Fair enough, fine; but at whose expense"? If the capital is now

not being used, is now not in fact flowing into the economy, the

argument must be: why isn't it? And the answer, predictably again, will

be that because workers are appropriating too large a share, therefore

capital has decided to sit tight or go elsewhere. Again, what we're

giving then is a direct signal to workers that we are going to change

the law such that capital will have more freedom to manoeuvre; in

short, non-union companies.

I think, again, that isn't an inflammatory observation. It's

certainly not intended to be. I think, rather, that is a logical

conclusion that labour can and will draw from that statement by the

minister. I think it's a logical and fair conclusion they can draw.

The business about the relation of one person to a company —

the son or daughter. I think we all know the particular case in B.C.'s

recent history that refers to. I think it's safe to say that what the

LRB concluded in the past about that one is that the attempt did indeed

appear to be deliberate; that it wasn't simply some coincidence that it

happened to be the son of a particular construction company that

happened to want to start another company.

So I guess what I'm saying apropos of that particular point

the minister made is that too often we have seen the evidence where the

family connection will be used as a means to create another company

which is to directly compete with the unionized company. I think we

need much more assurances than simply talking about filial piety, or

some such thing, as the explanation for that.

The other statement the minister made is that this bill and

this measure within the bill doesn't provide any deterrent to any one

organizing, i.e. establishing a union in a workplace. I think that

is simply transparently not the case. It is a difficult proposition at

the best of times to get a union organized anywhere. Some of the

reasons for that are sociological; some of them are political; some of

them are economic. I'm not about to go into some kind of first-year

industrial relations or sociology discourse, or some such thing, to

explain that. I think we know that.

The point, though, is that why it becomes more difficult,

given this measure, to get organized is precisely because what we do

is effectively say to workers — if we allow union and non-union

companies to function side by side under the same control and

management and direction — who are not organized that you can

apparently get virtually the same benefits without the responsibility

and effort of organizing. Because organizing is difficult, it's hard to

do. I speak from minimal experience on that, Mr. Minister, but I have a

little bit. I know how hard it is to convince people that they ought to

be members of a union, even if logically one can demonstrate your

working conditions will improve, health and safety, wages over the

longer term, and so forth.

The fact remains, it is difficult to do. What we're doing by

setting up a possibility for parallel streams — union and non-union

companies doing the same jobs essentially, which is what

double-breasting of course allows for — is discouraging thereby the

campaign for workers to get organized. I don't think there is anything

esoteric, mysterious, abstruse or complicated in that. I thought I'd

throw in a number of different words there, Madam Chairman, because I

could see the member for Vancouver South was suddenly paying attention.

I know he relishes the multiplicity in language.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: The other point that I simply

cannot refrain from responding to.... I hear primordial grunts coming

from other sections of the House, which is certainly what I'm more

accustomed to hearing from certain parts of the House.

The other concern that the minister raised, and it simply must

be responded to, is the business of safety in the workplace and the

suggestion that, after all, we had laws in place and, more

specifically, we had the Workers' Compensation Board in place.

Important and significant though those measures are, they are

not a substitute for a hands-on, on the-jobsite safety committee by a

trade union. As a former logger, as somebody

[ Page 1553 ]

who worked in the bush, I know that. And anybody else who has

ever worked in construction or in the woods knows that's the case.

Let me put that in a context that I think we can all relate

to. Some years ago I did some work on a coalmining history of

Vancouver Island. As it happens, I didn't write the book, but I worked

on it. One of the stories that the old miners told us again and again

about working in the mines was that they always knew when the mine

inspector was coming. They always knew by some mysterious process when

that was going to happen, because suddenly the fire boss would take a

little more time getting the guys out of there before the shot, before

the explosion went off. Suddenly they'd clean up workplaces a little

bit. Suddenly even the mules in the mine would be treated a little

better, get a little more hay and maybe the odd carrot thrown in.

That's an old story, and it's obviously an anachronism, but

the point and the message of the story is alive and well today. If

you're competing in a tough environment and you know that somebody else

down the road is going to be able to drag more logs out of the bush

than you, at less cost perhaps, then the tendency is to cut corners. And

workers will do that just as readily as managers. We as human beings, I

think, can all get caught up in the excitement and the importance of

the job we're doing. We don't care about the wages we're making and we

don't care much while the job is going on about whether we feel we're

being fairly treated. Instead, there's a job to do, and we want to get

on with it. And all of us, I think, have been caught up in that. What

happens, of course, as I say, is that you want to cut corners, and the

pressure to cut corners is all the greater if somebody down the road

doesn't have to abide by quite the same rules as you do regarding

safety, the number of people working at a given job and environmental

constraints, for example.

Government, using the Worker's Compensation Board, does all

kinds of good things, but that usually happens after the fact.

Government simply does not have the resources and the wherewithal, and

I submit that the minister's government would be the first to say that

we cannot afford to police every worksite in this province, because it

would bankrupt this provincial treasury, and therefore we do not have

WCB inspectors policing the site to the degree that ought to be the

case.

[4:30]

Instead, we have the potential, obviously, for accidents to

happen, and Lord knows we have sufficient evidence that accidents do

happen. Indeed, B. C.'s labour history is a pretty sorry record of

accidents — a record that some would argue is more than sorry; some

would indeed argue that it's a criminal record of negligence. Until

recently, frankly, we did not do a very good job of policing the

workplace in terms of health and safety. To suggest, Mr. Minister, that

the WCB is somehow a replacement for an on the-job, on-site group of

people whose duty above and beyond what they are doing on the jobsite

is safety is, I think, not a very good argument.

I see the chairperson is looking at me with suggestive

glances. Is that a message, Madam Chairman?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, I don't

think some of the language you've used is entirely appropriate.

MR. LOVICK: For example?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Did you refer to the

government with the word "criminal"?

MR. LOVICK: What I suggested, Madam

Chairman, was that the history of policing the worksite in this

province, until relatively recently, has been called by some"criminal

in its negligence." I would suggest to you that any historian of

industrial relations in this province would agree with that conclusion.

I think the minister would agree with that conclusion.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Chair has decided that

it isn't appropriate, hon. member. Would you continue.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Those

are, then, just responses to statements from the minister. I certainly

have some other things, but perhaps the minister would like to respond

to some of those counterarguments.

HON. L. HANSON: I thought your colleague

was going to get up and give you an opportunity to continue. In any

case, I think I mentioned in my remarks about the WCB that credit must

be given to union organizations as it relates to safety in the

workplace. I am not disputing that; I am just simply saying that part

of the safety in the workplace — and certainly organized labour gets

credit for their

part in it — I think does have some relativity to the

activities of the Workers' Compensation Board.

It is sort of interesting to note — I don't know the

percentage, but I certainly could get the percentages if it was of

interest — that most of the fines that are issued by the WCB are issued

not as a result of an accident, although I believe there was a fine

issued as a result of a young man killed by a crane truck or some kind

of a truck coming in contact with electrical wires. But most of the

fines that the WCB do issue are not as a result of accidents; they are

as a result of inspections, which in fact are unsafe practices in the

workplace. I was pleased to hear that the mules got special treatment

when the inspectors came around, as an animal lover also.

Interjections.

HON. L. HANSON: I don't agree that a

company forming another company to deliberately avoid their

responsibility as it relates to their certification should be allowed.

I believe that it will be absolutely caught in the wording in the act.

But I do believe that a company should be able to invest its money in

another kind of business without fear of having that certification go

automatically. I guess I shouldn't say fear, but the members of that

new organization should obviously have the opportunity to organize if

they want, or they should have the opportunity not to organize if they

want.

I don't believe that there is in this act anything that allows

a parallel operation that is absolutely an attempt to avoid their

bargaining responsibilities. I noted in the member's remarks that he

was referring to the word "deliberate." I just wanted to point out that

we have removed that word as a result of the amendment.

MR. LOVICK: But you said it, Mr. Minister.

You just did.

HON. L. HANSON: Well, I know, but I am

saying that we removed it in the text of the....

[ Page 1554 ]

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON: We certainly subscribe to

the view that we should not allow the setting up of another company to

provide the ability of the individual or whatever to form a second

company.

Again, we do want to liberalize the investment opportunities,

and I think that there is a real benefit to British Columbia as a whole

to make it as reasonable and enticing to start to invest their money in

another operation. But we also believe that in the act we have

protected those people who will attempt to avoid their responsibilities

under their obligations for collective bargaining. Again I guess I have

to say that the ultimate test will come when the Industrial Relations

Council's decisions come down as a result of specific cases and

specific circumstances.

MR. RABBITT: Madam Chairman, I would like

to commend the minister on handling a very delicate subject with some

very delicate legislation.

We have heard over the last few days, dealing with this

particular bill and various segments of it, about the history of labour

and the struggle in labour. I can assure you that over three decades I

have been involved in making part of that history. I have been involved

in part of that struggle. As a matter of fact, Madam Chairman, I have

spent more time serving on a picket line than I have serving as an

elected member for my constituents.

I think that when addressing the bill, I want to look at how

it is going to affect my particular riding. I have looked at the forest

industry, and I've heard different comments today as to how this

legislation will affect the forest industry. Even if double-breasting

was allowed — only under very stringent regulations is it — I ask any

of the members here if they can see a mill operator going out and

spending $20 million to establish a new plant in order to bypass the

IWA. No, it doesn't make sense, does it? It doesn't make sense. In the

bush, out of the thousands of employees we have in that riding, we have

approximately nine that are unionized, and not one of those individuals

have addressed this to me with any concern.

If we go through the industries — whether it be agriculture or

tourism.... You're not going to have a lodge completely relocate to get

around a union contract, to void it. We have to see how it's relevant

to the union movement and to our own riding. I look at the mining

industry. We have the largest copper mine in Canada in my riding. That

copper mine is unionized, and it's operating smoothly. They cannot pick

up that ore body and move it somewhere else and try to double-breast

another company to go in there. We have to look at the realism, and in

many cases the realism in the job place is that this legislation will

not change the working place; it will not change the conditions which

these people are working under.

There is one area and one area alone — and that is the

construction industry — where this will have any possible effect. And

in my riding that's the heavy construction industry or the

road-building industry. I believe that the minister has addressed this.

He is not going to allow a deliberate attempt by an employer....

Interjection.

MR. RABBITT: He is not allowing in the

legislation.... It is spelled out. And I would suggest to the hon.

member that if there was abuse, I would be the first on this floor to

see that that abuse was changed at the next sitting of this House. I

personally feel that there are scare tactics being put out there in

order to posture, in order to see that the ranks of supporters are kept

in tune. But I wish to say that in all my years of union involvement, I

did not feel that using workers in the workplace was a way to obtain a

political goal.

The latitude that's needed is to allow for the establishment

of a parallel industry, if that is needed, that could possibly have

expertise from the construction field. But again I say that there will

not be allowed by this government a deliberate attempt to void a union

agreement.

I don't feel that the opposition owns the ground that the

union movement walks on. In the last few years — you can check with the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) — on the major construction

that happened in my riding, the non-union companies started getting

more and more of the contracts awarded to them. I can see in my riding

that if this is not addressed, we're going to see the erosion.... One

of the major employers in my riding is a union employer, a union

road-builder, and I believe the numbers are that on phase 3 of the

construction, of the last six contracts that have gone out five are

non-union. I do not support this concept at all. I want to see the jobs

remain in British Columbia for British Columbian workers, and I'm sure

that my colleagues do as well.

[4:45]

I think that the latitude has to be established so that when

people do decide to enter into another avenue — another company — they

aren't stamped automatically such as they have been in the past, and I

think this legislation delicately addresses this particular problem.

I'd like to conclude, Madam Chairman, by stating that I'm not

a lawyer. Although I've spent many, many years working in the labour

movement, I'm not a lawyer. I do take for granted some of the advice of

lawyers, and I do feel that the minister has worked very strongly to

take the advice of some very knowledgeable people to correct a very

serious problem.

I would also suggest that this legislation will do more to

strengthen the union movement than it will to harm it or to kill it,

such as is being indicated by some members that have spoken to this

already. I would defer to the hon. member for Vancouver South to speak

on that particular area.

MR. G. HANSON: I want to rise on

section 25

and register my opposition to this clause, as we've registered

opposition to the entire bill. But first I would like to say I really

found the previous speaker's remarks quite incredible, because I gather

he was a steelworker at one point, or was in the mining industry and a

union in the valley up in the Yale-Lillooet area for many years. It's

always a mystery to me how individuals with that kind of hands-on

experience at the working level in an industry can pop up on that side

of the House.

We did have a member from Kootenay who moved on, as that

member for Yale-Lillooet will move on after the next election. The

large unionized mine that he referred to prefers to have a union to

deal with. They prefer to have predictability in their contract so that

they can sit down, have a tough round of good-faith bargaining, and

then sign on the dotted line and try to make that contract work for

whatever the duration of the contract is.

[ Page 1555 ]

It's in the employer's interest to be able to speak with one

voice to their workers, to have an agreed-upon set of working

conditions, hours of work, pay and all the inputs that go into running

an efficient operation. They prefer to deal with a unionized company.

No large mines in North America really want to have scattered,

fractious units within their workforce. It's not in their interest to

have that kind of working relationship in modern society. They just

don't want it.

I'm standing because I have a great deal of respect for the

unionized construction industry in the province of British Columbia and

the unionized workforce. I think the quality of their work is very

high. Oftentimes people who have been assigned to come in to be the

superintendent or the chief officer on a large construction project are

coming in from the United States or elsewhere, and many of these large

corporations are trans-national. They will have a person in charge

coming from the United States or from Britain or from somewhere else to

take over a project, and they always assume that they're working with a

unionized operation. They prefer to operate on that kind of

professional basis because they have a clear, high standard of work.

The predictability in the way the project will proceed and the reporting

procedures on time and on budget are just the way things are done.

I think the philosophy that underlies this bill and certainly

this clause is that the Social Credit Party is really not very

supportive of unions, period.

MR. R. FRASER: Wrong again.

MR. G. HANSON: We're lucky to be very close

to the provincial library here, with very excellent reference indexes

and so on. Look at the statements that Social Credit MLAs make through

the course of their political lives with respect to.... When they

mention the term "union," it's generally derogatory. It's usually about

bosses, bullying and so on. It's clear; just check the references.

MR. R. FRASER: Didn't I just hear the first

member for Victoria referring to individual members of Social Credit —

not the party, but the members?

MR. G. HANSON: MLA members.

MR. R. FRASER: Yes, so it seems to me that

it was a derogatory remark. I think it should be withdrawn.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get serious.

MR. R. FRASER: I am serious; it's

unparliamentary.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I want to thank the first

member for Vancouver South for the point of order, but the Chair really

doesn't think that the member for Victoria said anything

unparliamentary.

MR. G. HANSON: This section, as has been

pointed out by our debate leader, has an impact that has not been

previously fully recognized. It could have an impact on the forest

industry, the mining industry and other large economic sectors in the

province.

But I'd like to address a few remarks about the building

trades. When the minister made his initial presentation in this House,

as I recall, in his introductory remarks he said: "The House

will be pleased to know that this is not extreme

legislation. We are not introducing any sections that have received

some speculation in the press that we may be dealing with

double-breasting and allowing companies to deunionize, and so on." In

fact,

the language effectively does that. It deunionizes the construction

industry.

I don't know why the minister would want to do that, because

my reading of it is that the building trades have put a great amount of

their own resources into apprenticeship and training and into

educational and safety programs; the quality of the work is high and

the reliability factor is high. We have generally recognized competent

and highly trained building trades people in this province. I don't

understand why this minister would want to undermine and place at risk

their total organization. Because my remark to the member for Yale

Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) that large corporations that are undertaking

projects, dams, construction projects of some magnitude.... They don't

want to be dealing with a multitude of bargaining units, non-union

here, union there, all the problems with the proliferation within the

workforce. That does not promote a strong and effective modern

industrial economy. So why would the government want to be undermining

one of our most stable and best-prepared workforces? It just doesn't

make sense.

I think W.A.C. Bennett had a better sense of the importance of

having a strong building trades and construction industry than this

government does. This government seems to be catering to some

middle-level non-union entrepreneurs. It's not really setting its goal

for a balanced industrial relations climate, big or small. It's a

series of chocolate-chip cookies for the non-union construction

industry that is trying to grow and to decertify and create

opportunities for other organizations to decertify and drive wages and

building standards and safety standards down.

In whose interest is that? The public's? No. It's substandard

construction. It will create stress and conflict between ordinary

British Columbians who want to earn a living.

I believe the minister's ancestors, some time back, came from

Scandinavia. Isn't Scandinavia showing us the way in many respects?

Almost everyone in Scandinavia, whether in a professional grouping —

like lawyers, doctors, dentists, professionals of various sorts — is in

a union. "Union" is not a bad word in Scandinavia; it is a modern word.

It means everybody is at the table; everybody is having a say and

having some discussion about what their appropriate apportionment shall

be in the economy. But here there's the notion — and we hear it all the

time — that unions are too strong, and unions had their day way back when,

etc. Nonsense. In the modem industrial state, as demonstrated by West

Germany, Scandinavian countries and Japan, people are unionized. They

are organized so that both the employer and the union can undertake the

necessary training and reporting networks so that production is

efficient and safe and there is a value to the economy.

Why are we lurching back, as the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann), our debate leader, has indicated, to the 1840s and 1850s,

into some notion that somehow the economy is more efficient if people

are not organized? I don't understand it. The modem examples of

countries that are leading the way in living standards, productivity

and innovative ways in which production is organized are beating us,

and here we are....

When I was in elementary school I learned that British

Columbia produced raw resources and that we had very little

[ Page 1556 ]

secondary industry. I learned that in Tecumseh Elementary

School at 41st and Victoria Drive in Vancouver, and it hasn't changed

much since. We learned in grade 1 social studies that British Columbia

caught fish and sold fish in the round.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's grade 11.

MR. G. HANSON: Grade 1.

MR. R. FRASER: How long were you there?

MR. G. HANSON: Just a month or two.

The harvesting of timber, with very little value added.... Yet

we have industries where the unions are themselves undertaking

enhancement of their own people's skills. The operating engineers, for

example, run extensive training schools for operating in a safe and

efficient way, with all sorts of equipment and so on. They're faced

with a government that wants to deunionize their industry and drive

their wages down. A fact of life for unionized workers is that they

don't work 12 months a year. They normally work — when the job is

available — perhaps three, four, five, six, seven months a year, and

there's downtime. An hourly wage as publicly interpreted sounds

astronomical, but on a year-round basis it's not, by any stretch of the

imagination.

[5:00]

What I want to ask — and this more of a philosophical question

related to

section 25 — is this: if the minister basically wants to see

our economy streamlined, its performance enhanced, competing with the

world leaders, which are northern Europe, Japan and parts of the United

States, why would he not want a highly organized workforce and to

encourage and promote the organization of the workforce into a more

efficient body, rather than have it become fractious and a

proliferation of random units that, by definition, are less efficient?

MR. R. FRASER: Madam Chairman, I would like

to join this debate and make some references to the comments just made

by the first member for Victoria, suggesting that we did not approve of

unions or union members, which is not true. It's conspicuously not

true, because members of unions vote for members on this side of the

House; otherwise we wouldn't be on this side of the House. It's

conspicuously obvious that union members support us.

We talk about what this bill will do. My experience with the

construction industry tells me that this bill will be the salvation of

the unionized construction industry. If we were against the union

movement, we would leave things alone and unionized construction would

totally self-destruct. This is the saving grace. This is the

opportunity and the hope. I'm in favour of unions and collective

bargaining. This is an opportunity that we need and have to have. If

this government were anti-union, nothing would be done. This is a

salvation stroke.

We talk about training and safety. Those things are great, and

if the union movement is as good as it says it is, which I think it is,

then they'll build to outcompete and overproduce like crazy, and win

over and over again. It's productivity we're talking about. We're not

talking about knocking wages and conditions and safety and this and

that. If the union movement is as constructive, positive and productive

as I think it is, they'll survive — because of this bill. This will

help them survive. It's a positive move.

I've been in the business for a long time. I had a unionized

company that was involved in the construction industry; I know what I'm

talking about. This is a good move: an opportunity for capital to move

into different businesses if they want, an opportunity for people to

accept capital as they might not otherwise have done, a chance for

employees to join whatever union they want, at their choice. What more

could you possibly want than an opportunity like this? Not only that,

you have a minister and a government who will make changes — as we've

seen, amendment after amendment — as a result of the union movement

saying: "Would you change this and would you change that?" It's been

done.

I personally was opposed to the idea that an apprentice

could come into a company and stay there forever and not join the

union. I was opposed to that personally. It's gone. Thank goodness.

It's a good move. There are still some things that I would change. I

don't have a preference for abstention because of religious belief, in

fact. However, we'll see about that. It's time to work on some other

changes as well. But I'm telling you that this bill, including this

section, will save the unionized construction movement, because we want

it to be saved.

MR. GABELMANN: I happen to have in my

hand....

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: Do you want more?

MR. GABELMANN: No, thanks. The only thing

that went wrong in the last five minutes, Madam Chair, was that the

minister didn't take the customary option to go out for a cigarette —

or some other reason for leaving — which he normally does when the

member for Vancouver South speaks.

I happen to have in my hand the application made by the

Concerned Contractors Action Group to the Labour Relations Board in

April 1985 that the member for Vancouver South, although he may not

have been aware of it, was actually talking about. These contractors,

in their presentation — which I'll get to in a minute — tried also to

make the point that if we could just have double-breasting, then we

would save the unionized construction industry in this province, which

is an incredibly convoluted argument and one without any