1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

713 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Hedley One Way Adventure Program. Mr. Cashore –– 713

Sunflower family crisis intervention centre. Mr. Cashore –– 713

Hedley One Way Adventure Program. Mr. Barnes –– 714

Ministry of Highways subcontractors. Ms. Smallwood –– 714

Mount Klappan coal project. Mr. Guno –– 714

Queen Charlotte Islands tourism potential. Mr. Miller –– 714

Assessment Appeal Board appointment. Mr. Clark –– 715

Tabling Documents –– 715

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

Mr. R. Fraser –– 715

Mr. Harcourt –– 716

On the amendment

Hon. L. Hanson –– 717

Mr. Clark –– 718

Hon. B. R. Smith –– 720

Mr. Miller –– 721

Mr. Sihota –– 725

Mr. Cashore –– 729

Mr. Lovick –– 731

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a couple from

Pincher Creek, across the mountains from my riding. Mike Cooper was the New

Democratic candidate for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest in the last Alberta election.

He's also the first vice-president of the Alberta New Democrats. I'd like you

to welcome him and his wife Kathy, and their friends Marge Benson of Delta and

Mae Allison of Victoria.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have another birthday. I have a horoscope here

that says: "If April 26 is your birthday, you are unique, dynamic, creative,

sensual, sentimental and stubborn. You envisage your own destiny while still

young." There's more, but I won't dwell on that. With that said, I will

ask all members to wish many happy returns and a very happy birthday to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston).

HON. MR. DUECK: It's my privilege today to introduce a couple of fine

young people. Rick Graham is the nephew of my secretary, Louise Mercer, and

Monica Ronn from Sweden is visiting friends she made while a grade 12 student

in Agassiz approximately five years ago; she will be in B.C. for approximately

three weeks. I ask you to welcome her to this House.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two friends from

Penticton. I'm very pleased to introduce the chief of surgery for the Penticton

Regional Hospital, Dr. Tom Whittaker, and his wife Liz. Would you please welcome

them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's indeed a pleasure for me to welcome in the members'

gallery today the chairman of the Vancouver School Board, who is over here for

a meeting with me and my staff. I'd like the House please to welcome Mr. Ken

Denike.

Oral Questions

HEDLEY ONE WAY ADVENTURE PROGRAM

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Attorney-General. The government

has finally decided to investigate the Hedley One Way Adventure camp, where

over $5 million in public money was sunk. What monitoring system has the Attorney-General

established in order to make sure that other fiascos are not occurring with

regard to other youth programs around B.C.?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Inquiries are usually meant to try to determine the

truth, not to have

preambles like that one, which has already prejudged the

result. So I would await the result of this inquiry. I might say that on many

occasions very good reports were received from that community as to the way

the program that this society administered for young offenders was handled,

and similarly with the Social Services program. Some criticisms have arisen

in that community, and they were repeated and widespread. After consulting with

various people there and with the MLAs, we decided to have a joint inquiry of

my ministry and the Social Services ministry. We will make that inquiry public.

I'm certainly not going to prejudge it and call the program a fiasco.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary to the Minister of Social Services and

Housing. During the debate on his estimates, the Social Services minister refused

to admit that he had any responsibility for the well-being of these children

in Hedley. Given his clear responsibility under the Family and Child Service

Act, what is the minister doing to make sure that these children are now being

cared for properly?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The Attorney-General announced in the House some

ten days or so ago that his ministry and mine were doing an audit on that group

and that project. So I think that until the results are in, as the Attorney General

says, we won't prejudge it.

MR. CASHORE: Before a new question to the Minister of Social Services

and Housing, I'd just like to say that my previous question was not about the

investigation; it was about what is now being done to make sure that those children

are now being properly cared for while the investigation is going on.

SUNFLOWER FAMILY CRISIS

INTERVENTION CENTRE

MR. CASHORE: My new question is this: on March 2, the minister sent

me a letter in which he refused to investigate allegations of improper diversion

of funds by the Sunflower crisis centre. Given the Hedley experience and the

January 12 letter he received from a Sunflower worker, will he now investigate

the Sunflower use of public funds?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the audit team from my ministry audited

that organization some time ago and it was determined, partly because of the

audit, to put that service out to tender again, which has been done. So an audit

has been done on the Sunflower organization.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Again, my question was not

about what the minister answered; my question had to do with what the minister

will be doing to make sure that the use of public funds that were put into that

place for a considerable amount of time will be reviewed so that we can make

sure that items that were purchased are presently being used for the benefit

of our children.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, Mr. Speaker, just to repeat: an audit was done

on the organization to determine the use of funds, and that's one of the reasons

why that whole service has been put out to tender: so that we can determine

that we're getting value for the dollar for the taxpayer. From time to time

we do re-tender these contracts and this is one of those times.

[ Page

714 ]

HEDLEY ONE WAY ADVENTURE PROGRAM

MR. BARNES: To the Attorney-General, a supplementary to the question

already put by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. I don't quite understand

the minister's concern with having an investigation when in fact there was a

contract with the One Way Adventure camp. What were the terms of the contract?

Have there been any violations? Are these young people's labours being exploited

in terms of the labour laws of this province? Has there been any breach of the

contract that the government has with the society?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'd be glad to bring the terms of reference of the

inquiry into the House, but they are broader than the contract. We never had

any evidence that there was a breach of the contract. If I could put it this

way, it was more the lifestyle of the operation that concerned us. So we made

the inquiry broader than the contract. It may be that they were living up to

the terms of the contract, but that there's still not an acceptable community

contractor for the service, so we tried to give broader terms of reference.

I'd be quite happy to bring them to the House or to supply you with a copy of

them.

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS SUBCONTRACTORS

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. On April 15 the minister responded to my question about contract violations

at the Fraser Bridge access project by asserting that the firm in question was

primarily a trucking firm and that there was no violation. In point of fact,

more than 45 workers employed at the site by Maximum, Sonny's and Ike Unger

do non-trucking jobs — jobs such as compact operator, carpentry and labouring.

In light of this information, has the minister decided to reconsider his response?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question,

and in light of the additional information I will take the question as notice

and bring back a response as early as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: I might mention, hon. member, that the purpose of question

period is to obtain information and not to give information. The minister has

taken the question as notice, but if the member has a new question I'll recognize

the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: New question. I understand that the minister has been

meeting with these contractors, so he's aware of a lot of the information that

I am providing. Revenue Canada ruled on a test case concerning this issue yesterday,

and determined that workers on the project who signed one of the release forms

that I filed with the assembly was in fact an employee as opposed to a subcontractor.

Given this, has the minister decided to direct that the labour and materials

bonds be used to ensure that UIC, Canada Pension Plan and income taxes are properly

deducted from these workers?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: We'll take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SMALLWOOD: New question. The government can no longer pretend that

these workers are all truckers, or are they subcontractors. It is time to put

an end to this eight week delay, and I would like to know if the minister has

decided to exercise the option available to him under the agreement to replace

the present contractors, whose blatant violations have risked over $17 million

of public funds.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the member for Atlin, I would ask the

members to please review standing order 47A. Questions are to be without argument

or opinion. If the Chair is to allow questions with argument and opinion, the

answers will be with argument and opinion, and I don't think we will really

have a question period.

MOUNT KLAPPAN COAL PROJECT

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources. In its stage 2 submission on the Mount Klappan coal

project, Gulf Canada proposes that power should be supplied to the site using

a thermal generator. Does the minister not agree that it would be preferable

to extend B.C. Hydro's main grid to Stewart, as well as to the Mount Klappan

site, in order to encourage economic development in the whole area?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, nothing has been decided in that respect.

It hasn't been proven that the Mount Klappan coal project is economic, let alone

the best means of generating electricity for that development.

QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

TOURISM POTENTIAL

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism,

Recreation and Culture, who was a tourist on the Queen Charlotte Islands this

weekend and indicated in an interview that he did not hold much stock in the

notion of South Moresby being preserved. I wonder if the minister could advise

the House how he reconciles that position with the position enunciated by the

government in the throne speech.

HON. MR. REID: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the question needn't be answered,

because that is not the statement or the response I gave to the question.

MR. MILLER: My information is that the minister also indicated to people

on the Queen Charlotte Islands that the government would not be providing funding

for tourism development. I wonder if the minister could advise the House how

he reconciles that apparent contradiction with the statements in the throne

speech which indicated that the government was seeking a bilateral agreement

with the federal government to promote tourism development on the Queen Charlotte

Islands?

HON. MR. REID: In answer to the question....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Yes, there is no place for a water slide on the Queen

Charlotte Islands.

The question of whether development funds were going to be provided by the

provincial government for development of tourism and tourism potential on the

Queen Charlotte Islands was addressed and answered to the reporter as such

[ Page

715 ]

that the possibility for development on the Queen Charlottes was only at this

time on Graham Island, the north island, and if there were any development funds,

they would be coming from the private sector. The provincial government does

not have any development funds for tourism for the Queen Charlottes or any other

location in British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: I'll quote the words from the throne speech: "My government

will seek a bilateral agreement with the federal government to develop the enormous

tourism potential this area offers." It seems to me that that statement

indicates that the provincial government in conjunction with the federal government

is going to take action. Are you saying you're now not going to take any action?

HON. MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker. This government is always interested

in development of any possibilities for economic development in the province

of British Columbia, including tourism. But any future action in relation to

this province and the federal government will be brought to this House for explanation

when it's brought about.

ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD APPOINTMENT

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the

Assessment Appeal Board. Can the minister advise the House what experience,

other than his work for the Social Credit Party in Maple Ridge and his success

at appealing tax assessments for the Premier, qualifies Clark Chilton for appointment

as executive director of assessment appeals?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I would be delighted to send a curriculum vitae

to the questioner. That should satisfy the question.

MR. CLARK: This appointment clearly sends a signal, it seems to me,

to prominent members of Social Credit that their tax appeals may be reviewed

in a more favourable light. At least that's the signal that the government is

sending. Would the minister please reconsider this appointment in light of the

the clear patronage connections?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I assume you will allow me the same

freedom to respond as the speaker exhibited with his question. To the suggestion

that any public servant, given the task, and the difficulties and complexities

of the problems he will be dealing with.... I find objectionable the suggestion

that such a person would be party to any sort of favouritism on the basis of

political beliefs or bias, particularly from a side of the House that proclaims

that those sorts of things shouldn't be influenced, while every day we see evidence

in the prolonged dragging out of debate on Bill 19. If any party in this House

is responding to lobby groups, no one could be more guilty of that than the

opposition.

Insofar as the questioner draws into disrepute the qualifications of a capable

British Columbian who has, by virtue of winning every single case he's brought

before appeal boards, exhibited his competence in that field, the submission

of a curriculum vitae to prove the capabilities of the person who has been awarded

this position and this onerous task will, I think, stand in defence. The question

doesn't require any further response.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I have the pleasure to file regulations passed pursuant

section 196 of the Election Act.

Orders of the Day

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

first member for Vancouver South adjourned debate.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver South has 17 minutes left.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, just before I go into the great characteristics

of Bill 19, I would like to join with my colleague in welcoming the chairman

of the Vancouver School Board, Ken Denike — nice to see you here, Ken.

In fact, it's nice to see all of you in the gallery today, so that you can watch

what we do down here.

Well, it seems that we touched a few tender spots yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in

talking about the opposition. The plaintive attack on me, obviously, by that

heckler across there.… Never has he heckled like he's heckled today —

unbelievable.

But there are a few things that we'd like to talk about with respect to this

bill: how it's going to provide the people in the province with the chance to

make their own decisions about who they're going to work for and which union

they're going to join, if they want to join one. That's what we're talking about.

In fact, I had a union member in my office this morning. He casually walked

in, as they would, because as you know, this side of the House has more experience

with union managers than that side; we have more union management people, more

union people. There's clearly no doubt about the fact that when it comes to

a broad spectrum of the community, this party has it all.

That union man said to me: "What would happen if the teachers in some

area wanted to join the teamsters and in another area they wanted to join the

BCTF and somewhere else they wanted to join the rock and tunnel workers?"

I said: "It seems to me that it would be their choice." That's what

it's all about: that choice of the members to do whatever they want. If indeed

they all want to go collectively with the BCTF, let them so do if they wish.

That's what we're talking about.

Speaking about the BCTF, I hope I didn't hear correctly that the teachers are

going to express their anxiety about this great new opportunity by refusing

to mark the kids' exams. That doesn't seem very bright to me; I hope that was

incorrect. I would like to think that the executive of the BCTF would be smarter

than that. I know the teachers are, generally, and I hope the executive goes

along with it.

[2:30]

In fact, it's my feeling that there are a number of moderate labour leaders

in the province of B.C. who are very understanding about this legislation, who

are not going radical, who are thinking it out and working it out. I would suggest

that in spite of being pushed by several members of his executive and by his

member unions as well, Mr. Georgetti is a man who, at his tender age, has exhibited

an enormous amount of talent and who will be here for a long time, will do a

good job and in fact will find a way to make the legislation

[ Page

716 ]

work for his people. That's what it's all about, Mr. Speaker: we're making

it work for them.

Indeed, when speaking of the legislation, one can hardly omit some mention

of the minister, whose dedication to his job and whose commitment to the people

could hardly be more conspicuous — around the province, month after month

after month, talking to every group that wants to come to see him, listening

to the arguments from all sides of the equation, doing it all right. You know,

I think it's been an ongoing demonstration by this government to find people

to serve in cabinet who will in fact do the work in accordance with an honest

desire to make things happen for the benefit of the province.

Again, the thrust of this entire piece of legislation is fairness in the workplace.

It's not a bad concept, you know, letting the members decide for themselves.

I want to see the day coming very soon when in fact the unions will say: "We

want to make sure that we give this legislation a fair trial, a fair chance"

— or whatever it is you want to call it. And we'll say: "We are going to

work on the committees that are involved with this legislation; we're going

to work with the minister; we're going to work with Mr. Peck and others so that

we can get the best result for the province of British Columbia — the best action

in construction, the best action in investment, so that it will work."

I think in fact they're going to do that.

You know, the appointment of Mr. Peck, who's been called a number of things

by many people — and who gets compliments from me — is a suggestion,

I think, that we should remove from the political spectrum some of the decisions

that can be made to get people to work together. Indeed, if we have to do something,

we have to make some decisions and bring in some legislation that will prevent

long strikes, long lockouts or long strike-lockouts, and keep people working

and earning money. Then we're doing it right.

Mr. Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I've had my chance to speak in this

debate. I look forward to many other occasions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More, more!

MR. R. FRASER: You want more. As a matter of fact, I'm sorry that the

first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is not here today, but I suppose

he's in his office listening to this great opportunity, isn't he?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: He's in the forests of Vancouver East.

MR. R. FRASER: And never saw a tree, I know. Good grief! As a matter

of fact, I was noticing where the first member for Vancouver East sits — right

behind the Leader of the Opposition. And I thought, I wonder: is he the power

behind the dome [laughter] — or the dome behind the dome? I don't know.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I've got a funny feeling that before this is all done

with, all the debate here and all the debate in the community, it is all going

to come down as one bill that we are all going to support. It is going to work,

it is going to be great, and I am totally in favour of it.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we also notice where

the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) is sitting, and that's

out of the cabinet. But I am glad that he appreciates the old saying that bald

is beautiful; that God made perfect people and put hair on the rest of them.

Eat your heart out.

We're getting some consensus in this Legislature, and that is what we are here

to talk about. I will be putting forward a reasoned amendment at the conclusion

of my remarks. Part of my remarks are based on, I suppose, the comments of the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) about responding to lobby groups. Yes,

we are responding to the lobbying from the people of British Columbia. We are

not responding to the lobbying of the gambling and liquor and right-to-work

employers of this province of ours, as the other side of this chamber is doing.

What we are saying is, let's take stock on this legislation. Why are you introducing

this wholesale dismantling of the collective bargaining process of our democracy

when 95 percent of the disputes are being resolved by the parties themselves

on a volunteer basis? One out of 20 disputes goes on, usually for a very short

period, and we have one bill here because of an aberration in the forest industry;

we have this overwhelming, centralizing, arbitrary response.

We are saying that that is an overreaction by a skittish government to one

dispute. We think that there are better ways to improve the collective bargaining

climate in this province, and that this bill is going to be very harmful. It

is going to do the opposite of what the government has said. It is going to

bring not stability but instability. It is not going to bring a consensus; it

is going to bring a lot of conflict, confrontation and bitterness. It is not

going to bring investment and jobs; it is going to chase that investment and

those jobs away from this province.

We are saying it is time to take stock. Step back before it is too late. We

have had only a very short period of time. The bill was tabled in this Legislature

on April 2. We started debate on April 7. We have had approximately seven days

of debate and discussion. The people of British Columbia have not had an opportunity

to review this bill. We think that it is severely flawed. That is why we felt

it was necessary earlier to hoist the bill.

Here we are, just two weeks and seven days of debate later, nearing the end

of second reading, and it is clear from the commentaries that we have received

from the business community, from the trade union community, from people who

are not in trade unions, and from members of the media, that it is a severely

flawed piece of, at best, social mischief, and at worst — which we fear — social

damage. It is going to do more harm to this province than most people can fathom.

I think it is important for people of this province to see in some detail the

harm of this bill, and it is time to regroup and build up the consensus that

is absolutely essential if you are going to have stability and healthy labour-management

relations, and not try, as this bill does — and it won't — to solve labour

problems. It cannot be unfair in the collective bargaining process. So it is

clear that the bill as a whole is severely flawed.

What I want to speak about today, though, is

part 8, which is fundamentally

undemocratic. It's a delegation of the decision-making that this Legislature

should be doing, and it should not be making decisions on the arbitrary and

unilateral basis that

part 8 allows for in the disputes resolution

section of

this bill. In particular, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to one particular

part of this legislation which probably exemplifies the unfairness of this particular

bill: proposed

section 137.9(1)(7). I know that hon. members have this bill

[ Page

717 ]

sitting on their desks and are breathlessly reading through it for the tenth

time. But in case you haven't done that, I would like you to know that this

is the

section in the Industrial Relations Reform Act — I hate to use the

word "reform;" I would say deform more than reform — that provides

for the most severe of penalties for employees. There is no mention whatsoever

of employers.

Employees who fail to comply with the commissioner's orders, however arbitrary,

unilateral, unfair, undemocratic they may be, are treated to some of the most

severe penalties imaginable. It is one of the most blatant breaches conceivable

under the principle of equality of law, and members of this Legislature should

have that as one of their primary concerns. It breaches International Labour

Organization covenants and every civilized standard of law-making that I learned

about in law school and in almost 20 years of being called to the bar. There

is no provision for employers — none — if they breach this particular section. I

think that symbolizes this bill's intent, which is to punish employees and let

employers.... It's mostly bad employers that we're concerned about; that's

why we have laws — for the small number that break our society's code and

standards.

That's just one reason why we think this bill has got to be delayed, deferred,

discussed. The people of this province have not given the government the mandate

to carry out this kind of legislation. And when they see more and more what

is involved in it, they will become more and more enraged and will further create

the division and the conflict that none of us wants to see in this province.

There are a number of ways in which this bill is arbitrary and unilateral.

It gives the commissioner a number of arbitrary and unilateral powers: the power

to intervene in any labour dispute without the consent of the parties; the power

to interrupt disputes that could shut down essential services, and then a wide

definition of what essential services may be; the power to end disputes with

a cabinet order-in-council — not the Legislature, but the cabinet; the

power to continue wage controls. No rent regulations, no price regulations,

no inflation regulations, but wage controls, another sign of the unfairness

of this particular piece of legislation.

[2:45]

The amendment that I will be bringing forward basically calls for an affirmation

of democracy. In support of that resolution, I can think of no better source

at this time than to quote the government's own material. On page 3 of an April

2 news release, the government says: "The commissioner and council will

have broad powers." On page 6 of that same release we are again cautioned — and

I say advisedly so — as follows: "The commissioner will have a wide range

of powers." And to reinforce the point, I suppose, in a different release

on the same day, suitably entitled "Broad Powers for New Council,"

the government says that the new Industrial Relations Council will have sweeping

powers.

The government is being candid and correct in its description of these powers,

but much less so in identifying the recipient of those powers. The recipient

is none other than the commissioner, Mr. Ed Peck, who has described as inquisitorial

the much more modest powers that he wielded as the compensation stabilization

commissioner. Can you imagine what he would describe in private over a glass

of apple juice from the Okanagan Valley? The range of these powers in this bill,

part 8.... The mind boggles at what words he would use to describe the

powers that he is going to be granted. It's unheard of.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, calls for a reaffirmation from all of us of the

values that were first formally affirmed by Canada as part of the Treaty of

Versailles and incorporated into that treaty at the insistence of, amongst others

— members of the government will be pleased to know — Sir Robert Borden,

who was then the Prime Minister of Canada. What that resolution refers to, to

repeat, is free collective bargaining. That is what this reasoned amendment

and, I hope, reasoned discussion gets to the heart of: democracy — to be

able to form or not form trade unions, and free collective bargaining.

We are asking for delay. We are asking for moderation. We are asking for consensus

and cooperation. We are asking that the people of British Columbia have an opportunity

to see this extremist legislation that the government is bringing down upon

the heads of British Columbians. We hope that this government of special-interest

groups will step back from that special-interest group focus — a narrow

focus — and look at the good of British Columbia, because this bill is

not for the common weal. It is not for the common good of British Columbians.

The amendment is as follows:

"That the motion be amended by striking out all the words

following `that' and substituting, therefore, the following: This House declines

to give second reading to Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987,

for the reasons that it is contrary to the interests of democracy and our traditions

of free collective bargaining to grant the non-elected chairman of the Industrial

Relations Council such wide powers to intrude into labour-management relations

and arbitrarily to determine contracts without reference to the parties involved."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker — I'm not entering

into debate — could the government have a chance to review that motion before

entering into subsequent debate?

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has had an opportunity — I would thank

the opposition House Leader for providing me with a copy a little earlier — to

review the amendment to the motion, and it appears that the amendment is in

order. Maybe we could declare a ten-minute recess. Is ten minutes satisfactory

for both sides? The Speaker will ring the bells in ten minutes.

The House recessed at 2:51 p. m.

The House resumed at 3:03 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has had the opportunity, as I mentioned before

we took the recess, to read the amendment to the motion. I thank the opposition

House Leader for providing it to the Chair before the motion was presented.

It would appear that the amendment to the motion is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. L. HANSON: Certainly the amendment as presented by the opposition

cannot be accepted, but I would give my undertaking as the Minister of Labour

that we will give very serious consideration during the committee debate on

the specifics of the legislation to the specific issue you have

[ Page

718 ]

raised as it relates to the wide powers of the non-elected chairman of the

Industrial Relations Council. I will give you that undertaking as the Minister

of Labour.

MR. SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: I think that I welcome the remarks of the minister. While

he hasn't said that he accepts the amendment — and I understand the legal

and parliamentary reasons why he cannot do that — his assurances, I think,

are very warming. I think perhaps though, to be fair, it might be helpful for

Your Honour to declare another recess, as was granted to the other side, so

this side could caucus to determine our future role in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: How much time would members request of the Chair?

MR. ROSE: Ten or fifteen minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: We will ring the bells in 15 minutes time.

The House recessed at 3:06 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:30 p.m.

MR. CLARK: Our amendment deals with the extraordinary powers of an unelected

bureaucrat, powers which we've never seen before, unprecedented power —

which were the words used by Mr. Peck himself after his appointment. I want

to begin by talking about the purpose of the legislation as stated by the Minister

of Labour in his press release. He said: "It is essential to our province's

economic well-being that we show potential investors that British Columbia has

an improving industrial relations climate." Well, I agree with that, and

I think all members of the House and the province agree with that. The question

is, will this bill do that and will this

section of the bill that we're dealing

with in this amendment do that? It's my view and that of the members on this

side of the House that it won't.

The power of the commissioner is one which I think will be counterproductive.

It simply won't work, and the reason is basically, or generally, that you cannot

legislate consensus. Nor can you legislate labour peace. You simply can't legislate

those kinds of things. As President Kennedy said: "You can't legislate

the hearts and minds of men." Voluntary collective agreements are, in fact,

consensus documents, and consensus and cooperation are the basis for fundamental

labour relations questions. The resolution of labour relations problems depends

on consensus.

As R.G. Saunders said in the latest report of the Business Council of B.C.:

"We cannot realistically think and hope that legislative, regulatory or

any imposed reform will improve the labour climate in British Columbia. Personal

attitudes among the active participants in the business and labour community

must change." So the Business Council chairman has said quite clearly that

it is an attitudinal question and not one that lends itself to rigid, imposed

solutions by government or, in this case, by a bureaucrat.

The passage of this bill and particularly of this

section actually hardens

the positions of the parties. In fact, it becomes counterproductive to the stated

intent by the Minister of Labour, and that's really the point of this amendment.

The point of the amendment, to move this

section to a committee for deliberation,

is because it deals with the heart of the legislation, which simply cannot work.

The positions of the parties are already hardened as a result of the introduction

of this legislation. I think we can all see that. Before the introduction of

this legislation, we saw for the first time significant movement towards cooperation

such as we hadn't seen for some time in British Columbia. This legislation has

threatened and in fact stopped that move towards cooperation. So even accepting

the minister's own purpose of the legislation, it is clear that this bill will

in fact be counterproductive and won't accomplish the stated purpose.

Part 8

section 137 of the bill essentially removes the right of free collective

bargaining and virtually eliminates the right to strike. Most importantly, it

severely limits the ability of workers to put any pressure on their employer

to reach a collective agreement. I recognize that most people on that side of

the House would say: "Well, we want to limit the power of workers to pressure

employers." Some people might think that is a good thing. The problem is

that it doesn't work that way in the real world. Collective bargaining works

when both sides exercise their economic power, and where there is a relative

equality, and that is where you get the give and take of debate and negotiations.

In my view, this legislation weakens the ability of unions to exercise their

economic power. The other side fails to realize that strikes happen because

unions are too weak, not because they are too strong. I say that in all seriousness;

you think it is a joke. The fact is that in areas where there are strong unions,

like the Scandinavian countries, there are rarely strikes. You have strikes

in a province like British Columbia where you have lots of unions fighting against

both bad legislation and tough employers. Where the unions don't have that relative

equality of power with employers is where you get that kind of action.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The member says they are legislated back. They may in fact

be legislated back. This legislation removes the power of the government or

this chamber to legislate back and invests it in an unaccountable private individual.

I'll go through that in a minute. The bill accumulates all the power to interfere

in collective bargaining in the hands of Ed Peck. He has CSP wage-control powers.

He and he alone has essential service disputes powers. All the former powers

of the cabinet are now vested in Peck, and many new powers are under the control

of one non-elected official. It sets in place a complicated series of steps

which control collective bargaining in every phase of the process. Bargaining

normally commences with an agreement reached bilaterally between two parties.

The only thing that can be done now is that either party can request a mediator.

In a small fraction,5 percent, a strike or lockout occurs. The final authority

to halt the strike or lockout rests with the Legislature and/or the cabinet,

not with an individual; that's how it is now. Now the notice to bargain, for

example, must be filed with the Industrial Relations Council.

I think what I'll do is go through what I think the agenda would be for 1988

with the forest industry negotiations under the provisions of Bill 19, if it

passes unamended. We have very powerful private interests involved in the forest

industry. Those kinds of private-interest conflicts are bound to happen in 1988,

as they happened last year.

[ Page

719 ]

For the union, it's a question of whether people will have to work on weekends,

12-hour shifts; whether, in the case of logging, people can be compelled to

work every day of the week for six months. Those kinds of questions are, from

the union side, vital ones to the future of their organization and the future

of their membership. For the employer, the question of whether the employer

can use contracting-out to reduce his wage costs or to circumvent the collective

agreement — or to, in his view, remain viable — I think is critical. really fundamental.

So we have a very tough situation, where we have two parties that have very

difficult situations to resolve.

Let's suppose that the industry, as I think would happen under Bill 19, would

essentially stall through April, May and early June — as they say, now

that it's the Stanley Cup season, rag the puck for three months. The reason

they would do that is that Bill 19 prohibits, of course, strikes during the

current agreement. Also, the employer can adopt a strategy with impunity, because

he knows that the union is prohibited by statute from engaging in any kind of

strike action remedy.

So having gone through this period-those three months where, right up until

the end, there hasn't been really fruitful collective bargaining, because of

the advisability of delaying — the union then has to advise the Industrial

Relations Council, as it's bound to do under

section 49, that it intends to

take a strike vote; that's normally the case in the IWA. But then the employer

says,"Well, gee, this isn't really an impasse, as is required under the

new

section 43," so the council then directs that no strike vote can be

taken until some "negotiating" takes place. So the council right away

can intervene and say.... If the employer says that no collective bargaining

has taken place meaningfully, then it can direct that no strike vote take place.

After the council satisfies itself that there has been negotiation — some

couple of months later, presumably — the union then begins to take a strike

vote. Normally the strike vote would be taken by secret ballot — always

in the IWA, across the board.

Now they have to get permission and approval of Mr. Peck as to what the wording

of the strike vote will be. In fact, they presumably have to get permission

all the way through negotiations on every question that goes before the membership

with respect to collective bargaining. So if there is a question of strategy,

and the membership wants to decide which areas are priorities, all of that information

has to be provided to Mr. Peck. All of the votes have to be public, so the employer

knows exactly what the strategy of the trade union is at all times, and so does

Mr. Peck. The actual wording must be determined by an unelected bureaucrat.

So contrary to the rhetoric of democracy, which says that it's up to the workers

to decide, in this case the workers can't decide on the wording or the language.

Their democratically elected officials can't decide on the wording of the strike

vote or any other vote. That wording is determined by an unelected bureaucrat.

If the membership accepts the negotiating committee's recommendation and authorizes

a strike, then the union would give its three days' notice. We're now, of course,

into August by this time, it seems to me. Then the employer realizes that with

provision 137.7(4) at his disposal, he can increase the offer by, say, 1 cent

and demand that a new vote be taken under this

section — a final-offer vote.

And that new vote, unlike.... Although this commissioner has sweeping powers

of discretion and can do almost anything, one thing he can't do is deny that

that vote take place. In fact, the legislation directs that a vote shall be

taken, even if it's only 1 cent higher than the recently voted-on offer.

So it says that he "shall direct that a vote of those

employees....be held in a manner he directs." So after the commission

decides how the union should in this case conduct its business, the

union is once again compelled to begin a full vote on whatever the

commission decides is the question. Let us assume that once again the

union membership accepts the negotiating committee's recommendation and

rejects it.

For the first time the commissioner may decide that the dispute poses a threat

to the economy. After all this, they could say: "Well, they've rejected

the final offer. They've voted in favour of a strike even after all this, and

delays have gone on." Now the commissioner can decide that it's not in

the public interest because it threatens the economy. It certainly could have

done that before that, because of the process that would be grinding it down.

So he orders a 40-day cooling-off period, which he can do under this legislation,

which brings the parties and the province to November 1 , more or less. These

negotiations continue along — I think this is in fact how the bill is intended

to work-to November 1, and they still haven't gotten anywhere. Let's suppose

that the parties don't settle during the 40-day period. I submit that it's probably

not in the employer's interest to settle at this point. They may in fact think

it's in their interests to try and delay it, because all the time they're working

at the old rates of pay, et cetera.

All of this frustration that builds up — they still have the capacity to strike

finally after 40 days. After all of this, the commissioner can then decide to

appoint a public interest inquiry board, which presumably sits on the dispute

all through November; and if he advises that no settlement has been reached,

he makes a recommendation for settlement. The commissioner can then order another

vote on these recommendations, which takes us through to about January 1989.

During all of this time it seems to me that the frustration has been building

up. The commissioner can in fact make all kinds of other amendments. He can

appoint fact-finders and mediators, order votes, etc., but in the final analysis

he can order a settlement after 28 days on strike, if they in fact finally do

go on strike.

Now how is it in the interests of industrial stability, how is it in the interests

of investors in this province, to see these two major parties struggling with

very tough arguments for months and months and months, frustrations building

up in the workplace because of an inability to settle it? It seems quite clear

that this legislation is counterproductive in terms of promoting any kind of

labour harmony that would be conducive to investing in British Columbia. All

history with respect to government intervention indicates the same pattern.

Where there are imposed restrictions, imposed settlements, where there is no

consensus, clearly one party or the other will feel harmed by that, and that's

certainly not conducive to productivity in terms of promoting a healthy and

relatively content workforce that's going to produce for its employers.

[3:45]

So all of this delay in the name of the public interest simply won't be in

the public interest, and I think that's the fundamental point we're trying to

get across today. I think also I can say this: I started out saying — and

the members opposite didn't agree — that strikes are a sign of weak unions,

not strong ones. Anybody can go on strike. It's the easiest thing for a union

to go in and say to their membership: "We're going to go for a 50 percent

wage increase and get people to go on strike." The tougher thing is to

settle the dispute. If weaker unions know they only have to go on strike for

28 days and then there will be arbitrated settlements, it encourages people

to go on strike for 28 days. It actually encourages employees who wouldn't otherwise

go on strike because of the jeopardy of a long-term strike, because that's a

difficult decision for an employee to make. This legislation says you really

only have to go on strike for 28 days because then the commissioner will either

appoint some form of fact-finder or mediator or negotiator, or will finally arbitrate

a settlement. It doesn't even do that. It encourages people to go on 28-day

strikes.

Once again, where you have stronger unions, and where you have a relatively

equal relationship between employers and unions, in 95 percent of cases you

get a settlement. I think this legislation clearly encourages weaker unions

to rely on the government intervention, encourages individuals to go on those

short strikes. In the case of stronger unions, this legislation is counterproductive

because it builds up frustration in the workforce. So I don't think this legislation

accomplishes the stated intent of the Minister of Labour — the province's

economic well-being — to show potential investors that British Columbia

has an improving industrial relations climate.

The editorial in the Vancouver Sun, which I don't normally quote, says:

"But Mr. Peck added: `Extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary

problems require extraordinary power on occasion.' That's fine in abstract musing,

but we're at a loss to see what those extraordinary circumstances are at this

time. During a discussion with Sun editors and reporters on Friday, Mr. Hanson

and his officials could cite but one strike or lockout now going on in B.C.

Their commitment to this massive overhaul plan appeared repeatedly to be a reaction

to the unusual events of last year's forest industry dispute. The new labour

commissioner is being given this authority to make labour peace."

I think that is a point worth considering. This amendment asks that this

section

of the bill be put for debate elsewhere. It effectively means that we will have

some time to consider these wide-ranging powers. There is no compelling labour

relations reason for passing this legislation now. There is no major strike

taking place that requires extraordinary powers to be vested in the hands of

one individual. There is no compelling reason to push this thing through unamended

or even amended. Because of the concern and uncertainty, there is a compelling

reason to put this to a committee, to have debate, to have reasoned discussion

and reasoned amendments to try to make this legislation better. There is clearly

a reason to have that kind of debate. There is no reason to push this legislation

through, when there is no major strike either now or on the horizon. The next

forest industry negotiations are not until next year.

It clearly makes sense, I think, to vote in favour of this. I urge all members

to do so.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I regretfully have to speak against the

reasoned amendment and oppose the reasoned speeches opposite, because it is

apparent that there are many very favourable features in the organization of

the new council and the role of the new commissioner.

To begin with, you are going to have a council with two parts that are going

to be able to do their job and not going to be intermingled and confused the

way they often were in the past. You are going to have an adjudicative side

that can adjudicate, not go out and try and mediate and settle and delay adjudication.

You are going to have a mediation

section that doesn't have to make decisions

as to whether or not picketing is illegal. On questions like designating essential

services, they can do their work. The separation of those two, I think, will

produce more democracy and better collective bargaining.

The commissioner has a number of important powers under this act that he should

have. He is a fact-finder; he is able to confer with the parties himself and

to make recommendations directly to them. He can take a hands-on position in

a serious strike, not just in the public sector, but also in the private sector.

Now I know that that is a new beginning for the industrial relations community

in this province, and that there are both union and management people in this

province who.... What they dislike about this bill is that it provides some

basis for mediation and control, ultimately, if necessary, in the private sector

and not just in the public sector. They are used to some intervention in the

public sector and not in the private sector. The difficulty that all of us as

legislators had in the past year was that we had to witness a strike of major

national and international dimensions that we were powerless to do anything

about because of an impending and then a real election. There just has to be

a mechanism here that can deal with that kind of situation.

The commissioner also has the power to direct a public interest inquiry board

to deal with matters in the private or public sector. That board can accept

submissions from the public and can even appoint a public interest advocate.

There are many features in the power that the commissioner will have that are

not, as the resolution would suggest, contrary to the interests of democracy

and our traditions of free collective bargaining. They are inclined to allow

democracy to speak, and that is to take into account all the people in this

province who are affected by a labour dispute, not just management and not just

unions.

Also, the traditions of free collective bargaining have changed, and collective

bargaining in essential resource industries has a third-party interest. It doesn't

just involve some shareholders in Vancouver or Toronto and some union leaders.

It involves everybody in this province. Everybody who earns his or her living

in the service industry, everyone in a town dependent on one resource industry,

directly or indirectly is involved in that dispute.

Free collective bargaining in the late eighties and nineties has to take into

account the public interest. I think that this reasoned amendment, while well-spirited,

is not soundly conceived, and I must oppose it. It is with regret, because I

know that members opposite have done a lot of anxious soul-searching about this

legislation.

I also know that they really quite like many features in this legislation,

and that it may be difficult for them to express their view in this chamber.

Their leader was having some difficulty in getting up a head of steam against

this legislation. He really is having.... [Laughter.] Well, he is. He is a

reasonable fellow. Today he invoked Sir Robert Borden. I didn't notice him invoking

Mr. Andstein and others, but he fell back on Sir Robert Borden. Sir Robert Borden

is a very good role model for him, because his family motto was

[ Page

721 ]

"Advance, but advance slowly," and I feel that there's some chance

that under the tutelage of a good Tory like Sir Robert, the Leader of the Opposition

is going to make great developments in the next two or three years.

This legislation is very conservative legislation really. What it does is....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. B.R. SMITH: It is indeed. It is, you see, because.... But you're

not in the 1980s, you're in the 1960s. It is very conservative legislation.

It is fine-tuning. It brings into focus changes that have taken place in the

labour movement and in labour relations in Canada, changes that have already

occurred in other jurisdictions. What it does is keep the sacred pillars of

the union movement absolutely intact. This is not anti-union legislation. Anyone

looking at this and studying it would know that it is not.

What are the pillars of the union movement? First of all, security. The closed

shop isn't threatened or challenged in one way by this. The Rand formula —

the check-off and union dues — isn't affected or interfered with in any

way. The statutory right to collectively bargain after you've been certified

and to be the exclusive bargaining agent — which is the pillar of the trade union

movement — is not affected by this legislation but is continued. And so

are some of the particular practices that have grown up which have been highly

criticized — which it would have been very easy for this government to

remove, because there would have been enormous public support to do so —

like the non-affiliation clauses. They have been left in construction, because

they have been negotiated and because they are part of the market system and

they're there. In the construction field they've all been left. I tell you that

this is legislation that is designed to update and to fine-tune labour relations

in this province, not to destroy the trade union movement. It is very, very

sensible and very conservative legislation.

It is true that some changes have been made in the bill which have democratized

labour relations and which have recognized individual rights, and one of the

changes that's occurred in Canada in the last five years — one of the major

changes under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which members opposite were

so fond of, Mr. Speaker.... They were so fond of the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms until the courts started to hand down rulings which were not rulings

that some of their special-interest groups liked. When their oxen were being

gored, they didn't like the Charter of Rights, but I can tell you that the Charter

of Rights has made a new focus on individual rights, and what this bill does

is focus on and give force to individual rights. The rights of minority members.

The rights of an employer who decides that he wants to explain to his employees

in a peaceful and democratic way the merits or demerits of certification; now

he's able to do so without being hustled off on an unfair labour practice the

moment he opens his mouth. Also the rights of a union member to dissent....

MR. BLENCOE: What page are you on?

HON. B. R. SMITH: I'll tell you what I'm on. I'm on the

preamble about

the effect on our democratic traditions; that's what I'm talking about. What

this does is it protects the rights of minority members to dissent. It allows

those who decide that they're not going to honour an illegal picket line.... They can't have reprisals against them later, they can't be intimidated, and

they can't be punished for failing to obey an illegal picket line or secondary

boycott or a hot-goods edict or something like that.

So I'll tell you that this legislation has broad support from rank-and-file

members and also from their families. It may not get people to stand up at an

NDP meeting and say who is in favour of this bill or who isn't — or a yes-no

ballot box, which is....

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Oh, sure. Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is

popular legislation. It has broad public support.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Well, you'd be very well disposed to hustle this bill

through the House. That's what you....

MR. BLENCOE: That's exactly what you want to do.

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, we'd be quite happy to be here and debate it until

August, because it's very good news for the province. You want to get it out

of the way very quickly, because you don't want to be in bed with the B.C. Federation

of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. B.R. SMITH: Sure you do. You're the ones who have the....

MR. G. HANSON: We saw you on cable last night.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm honoured.

So all these bad practices are controlled under this bill, and the democratic

process is revived. Secondary boycott, hot-goods edicts — and so is double-breasting,

too, because double-breasting is not permitted. And successor status, Mr. Speaker,

is no longer going to be like malaria. It's going to be something that doesn't

pass with land, doesn't pass with cranes and equipment, but passes only with

the running of a business.

[4:00]

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will bring stability; it will also

encourage people to put some risk capital into this province that they weren't

before.

The only danger of this legislation is that in fanatical opposition to this,

some opponents of it may try to create a self-fulfilling prophecy and produce

the kind of unrest and bad propaganda abroad that we get from this kind of debate.

That's the danger — not the bill, but how irresponsible opponents of this

bill can stir up the public instead of having reasoned debate.

I am delighted to rise in my place again, Mr. Speaker, and to support the bill

and to vote against the reasoned amendment.

MR. MILLER: Of course, I rise to speak in favour of the reasoned amendment,

and I think the word "reasoned" is an important one as we talk about

the debate that has taken place in this chamber over the past little while.

It seems to me that

[ Page

722 ]

the debate has indeed been very reasoned, and I'm starting to get the sense

that some of that reason is prevailing, by events earlier today.

Referring to remarks by the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), I would hope

that he would think that we were all reasonable people in this chamber. I am

cognizant of another dictum, if you like, of conservative philosophy, and that

is — I hope I'm saying this properly, but I think I'm getting the sense

of it — "He who governs least, governs best." I've heard many

conservatives of my acquaintance express that in varying degrees and in varying

forms. Maybe Robert Borden said it, for all I know. Maybe he said it first.

Given that dictum or that underlying philosophy of conservatism, I again express

my puzzlement why we are seeing legislation that does the opposite. We think

it's totally unreasonable that the powers that normally would be granted to

this Legislature are given over to an individual. There is a pretty serious

underlying reason for that. Certainly none of us would claim to have the wisdom

of Solomon, but when you read the legislation you'd almost wish or hope that

Mr. Peck does, because he certainly will need it. I just don't think that that

exists in the 1980s. The world is a very changing place.

So the issue is not whether labour-management disputes from time to time require

some form of intervention. I think there's agreement, not just in this House

but in many legislatures in Canada and throughout the world, that at some points

in time the interests of the majority take precedence over the interests of

the minority. When that happens we are in a position — now under existing

legislation — to take action as people who are elected by the people of

this province to represent their interests. I don't think that it's wise to

take those powers away from this Legislature and give them over to an individual

for a five-year period. That's placing too much faith in one person, and it's

removing our responsibility as elected officials to deal with those questions

in a public manner and to take the heat of our decisions.

If having made a decision you go out there in the community and you're castigated,

well, as a friend of mine once said: "That's the price of fame." You've

got to be prepared to make difficult decisions and to live with the consequences.

We all do that and we're all aware of that, because we rely on the electorate

either to put us in this chamber or to take us out.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

The cumulative effect of the legislation, with regard to Mr. Peck's powers,

is to me very disturbing. Labour-management relations or bargaining can be a

fragile thing, and it seems to me, in looking at it, that the minimum of interference

in that process is the best. Despite rules or legislation to the contrary, you

can't really get at the fundamental disagreements that exist in a labour-management

dispute. Those issues have to be thrashed out by the parties. Later in my address

I'll get to what I think to be very positive and constructive suggestions made

by the B.C. Federation of Labour in a brief presented to the Minister of Labour,

in terms of how that process can be improved.

Getting back to my original premise, if we want to pay lip-service to at least

the concept of the government staying off people's backs, let's get rid of red

tape. We've got a bill that, I think, will create more red tape than most I've

seen. I think the government has an obligation to try to be consistent. I note

that even in the proposed legislation, under

section 18, which repeals

section

27(1).... I think it's interesting to read the words here, because they

again pay lip-service to the dictum of conservativism that, you know, we live

under a free market economy and that the less we interfere with that the better.

I'll read subsection (1): "The council, having regard to the public interest

as well. as the rights of individuals and the rights and obligations of the

parties before it and recognizing the desirability for employers and employees

to achieve and maintain good working conditions as participants in and beneficiaries

of a competitive market economy...." And yet the legislation, in my

view and in many other people's view, purports to take away their rights, or

their participation, and whatever benefit they may derive from a competitive

market economy. It says that, no, we're going to set up a labour commissioner

who's going to regulate your actions in that competitive market economy. At

a time when conservative governments are moving — and, I think, unwisely

in some areas — to deregulate and get out of the marketplace, this government,

with this legislation, is proposing to become more interventionist. In my opinion,

intervention cannot succeed; in fact, it will eventually end up as being an

irritant to the process, and will probably give rise to some things that nobody

wants to see.

I want to briefly quote from an

article that appeared in the Globe and Mail

of April 16. I think it has a couple of good statements about the rights of

trade unions in our society, and it relates to the recent Supreme Court decisions

which, in effect, as I understand them, say that unions do not, under the Charter

of Rights and Freedoms, have the automatic right to strike. Yet the writer,

Prof. Allan Hutchinson, who is a law teacher at Osgoode Hall, very wisely sets

out a couple of statements, which I'd like to enter in the record, about the

struggle of trade unions and what is likely to happen despite this kind of ruling

coming down from the Supreme Court of Canada. He says: "When labour legislation

is challenged, unions will have no effective constitutional rights to counter

those of employers, such as free speech, liberty or equality." The effect

of the rulings by the Supreme Court is to, in one sense, say to unions: "No,

you do not have equal rights in terms of bargaining with an employer."

Unions are very, very cognizant of this position that they are in.

Going on, Prof. Hutchinson says: "The whole idea and existence of a union

is to establish a collective solidarity and presence that can overcome workers'

vulnerability to the greater power of employers. By limiting a union's rights

to those its members can exercise as individuals is to subvert its entire raison

d'tre. " That's very true, and that's what I think trade union members

and trade union leaders have been saying in this province ever since the introduction

of Bill 19.

There were dissenting opinions to that Supreme Court ruling. The Chief Justice

and Justice Wilson both offered dissenting opinions, but they were pretty careful

to say that the right to strike can't be justified when "the effect of

a strike would be especially injurious to the economic interests.... "

As I said at the outset of my remarks, we recognize that as legislators; and

that has happened in the past in this chamber. Some of us here — not me,

but some of us — have been parties to that kind of legislation when the

interests of the majority have been threatened.

The

article goes on to say — and, I think, wisely, in terms of deciding

when intervention should take place.... Prof. Hutchinson says: "But

can't it be argued that all strikes cause economic harm to somebody?" Certainly

it can. "That's why the strike is such an effective weapon against the

economic clout of employers. Will the courts be equally eager to protect

[ Page

723 ]

the interests of third parties, such as local businesses and workers, when

a corporation decides to relocate or close a plant to help it `rationalize'

its operations?" There is the flip side, if you like, of one of the arguments

that the trade union movement is trying to make.

I would like to offer a couple of personal observations on that, because I

think it is a very real argument. Some years ago this Legislature adopted a

piece of legislation to create the B.C. Resources Investment Corp. That corporation

went out and sold shares to the public. It was a very successful offering, and

a lot of money was raised, and the assets that were really owned by the people

of this province were transferred to that corporation. They then proceeded to

do, in my opinion, a very seriously bad job of managing that corporation.

As a result of that, workers' livelihoods were taken away in this province,

in the Kootenay Forest Products mill and in Prince Rupert with the Skeena Cellulose

pulp mill. Because of that kind of mismanagement, there were extended and protracted

periods of layoff. I know workers who lost their houses. I know workers who

suffered every bit as much as some of the stories that have been related by

the other side about people who suffered because of the IWA-FIR dispute of last

year.

Yet they had no recourse through bargaining. The union was essentially powerless

to deal with this kind of issue. The best that those workers could look forward

to was a committee coming in, not from the provincial government — the

provincial government was not there offering any assistance whatsoever to those

working people — but from the federal government through Manpower. If the

layoff is massive enough, a committee will come in and do what they can in terms

of trying to get some retraining for some of those displaced workers.

Quite frankly, at a time when our unemployment rate was running at an extremely

high level, it really was next to nothing. There was no assistance. So those

workers were reduced to individuals. We love to talk about the freedom of individuals,

but as individuals we are powerless to deal with a major corporation which had

a major impact in their lives in terms of mismanagement and the denial of their

right to earn a living. Nobody was there saying that that company was making

the wrong decisions and that somehow government should be involved to the extent

that the livelihood, or the ability to earn a livelihood, of those working people

would be protected.

Yet when it comes to labour legislation, the government wants to come in with

a bill that, in its entirety, is really a devastating shock to free collective

bargaining as we have known it. It is small wonder, then, that that shock has

spread throughout the community and the labour movement is out mobilizing. It

is out talking to its members, and from the information I got from a recent

weekend trip to my constituency, a lot of those members are saying: "You

are not going far enough. Why are you taking this calm, reasoned approach with

the government? They have never listened. We've got to do something more drastic."

[4:15]

That's the message I get from the rank and file. And I know those people; I

have worked with them for 20 years. I think the leaders of the labour movement,

who have been quite unfairly castigated by members opposite as being labour

bosses and manipulators of ballot boxes and a host of things that are generally

pretty unflattering, have been overwhelmingly reasonable in terms of this piece

of legislation, in terms of trying to explain to the government what is wrong

with it and why it won't work.

As I said earlier, I am starting to get just a touch optimistic. I hope you

don't let me down, because it would be tragic not just for me, but for what

could happen in this province.

Yesterday the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) talked about

some unions that were in favour of this legislation. They may be afraid to speak

out or something, but we know there are people out there who really are in favour

of this. Well, he mentioned the teamsters' union. He said he hadn't heard from

the leader of the teamsters' union. Well, the teamsters' union is talking. The

teamsters' union has been a quiet union in some sense. The leader of the teamsters'

union is a Liberal, I believe. But here's what the teamsters' union is saying

in a story put out by the Canadian Press, and the headline is pretty alarming:

"Teamsters Consider Economic Sanctions to Battle Labour Law."

The government has talked about the need for this legislation in terms of trying

to attract investment capital. I haven't particularly bought that line, because

I think that there are a number of serious reasons why investment capital has

not flowed into British Columbia. Part of that may have to do with the perception

— quite frankly, most often spread by members of the Social Credit government

— that labour is too powerful and that there are too many disruptions.

But the teamsters' union has some economic clout of its own, as do some unions

— not too many; I haven't heard of too many that have got this kind of

money.

Let me read on and enlighten you about what one of the bad side-effects could

be if the government persists in this legislation without listening to the concerns

of the trade union movement.

"The teamsters' union said Tuesday it is considering economic

sanctions against B.C. employers who support the provincial government's proposed

labour legislation changes.

"The union has $60 million invested in company pension plans

and stocks, teamsters' B.C. president Peter Moslinger said, and it might pull

out of companies which favour the sweeping legislative changes. 'It means survival,'

he said. `We're going to need everybody's help, and that includes some of the

employers we do business with. They can't dump on us on the one hand and try

to get this legislation through and then want us to support them."'

There's a union that's prepared to take some pretty drastic action to defend

their right to free collective bargaining.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The minister opposite said they should sell their shares

in Canadian Tire. I don't know if the minister can have it both ways. If you

want to be a purist on the one hand, do you want to attack unions for where

they place their investments? On the other hand, I suppose you think as a free-enterpriser

that that's probably a good thing.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The teachers invest in housing co-ops.

[ Page

724 ]

MR. MILLER: Well, trade unions have invested in housing. We could get

on to talk about some of the investments that trade unions have made in housing

co-ops, but I want to get on to some of the suggestions that the trade union

movement has made to improve collective bargaining in British Columbia. I think

there are some very good ones, and I just want to touch on some of them. In

a brief that was maybe too brief — it was ignored....

I note again in another story that this legislation was not written by people

in the know; it was written by people outside the know. I think that's becoming

more and more clear.

In any event, the brief from the B.C. Federation of Labour has a

section called

"Bargaining — Improving the Success Rate." They deal with the

history of collective bargaining in terms of how we've arrived at where we are

today, and they make some very positive suggestions for the future. Just a couple

of quotes from that before I get on to the suggestions in terms of collective

bargaining. They say in their brief that "collective bargaining is the

central aspect of contemporary labour relations in democratic countries."

That's certainly true. "Just over 200 years ago wages and other prices

were governed by statute and set by justices of the peace. With the rise of

the market economy in the eighteenth century, this practice fell into disuse."

With Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, laissez-faire and the market economy

we entered a new era, and there have been some struggles along the way in terms

of the labour movement really overcoming some pretty bad legislation and pretty

bad laws that said you were not able to bargain freely. We've arrived at a situation

today where that for the most part does exist in this province; and it's regressive,

not reformist, to introduce a piece of legislation that seeks to take us backwards

instead of forwards.

Dealing with the suggestions for improvement, the federation argues that there

can be a larger role for government in terms of assistance to the parties. They

say: "While collective bargaining works relatively well in British Columbia

for the vast majority of disputes, the impact on the public at large, when a

set of negotiations fails, is often alarming. For this reason, the federation

proposes a number of areas for government initiative."

The first one is a central information bank. They note that the Minister of

Labour at one time published the Labour Research Bulletin, an excellent publication

that provided statistics and research on issues of concern to both management

and labour, and which both sides relied heavily on. That kind of information,

in terms of what other unions and other companies are doing to arrive at resolutions

to their labour problems, would be invaluable for all unions. So rather than

take an approach that says,"We're here to tell you what to do," the

federation is proposing an approach which basically says: "The more information

we can get out to people and the more knowledgeable people are about negotiating

and contracts and what's current, the better it's going to be and the easier

it will be to arrive at the resolution of labour relations problems."

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I wonder if the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch)

could perhaps move over a couple of chairs. I can't hear myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't saying much, anyway.

MR. MILLER: Well, Mr. Member, you will get your chance, and I will listen

with interest to what you have to say, and you can talk right after me if you

like.

The brief goes on to talk about an increased role for mediation, and certainly

they recognize that there is a role for mediation and that one of the cornerstones

of that is that there has to be a certain level of confidence. If that confidence

does not exist, then either party is going to be wary — and I say "either

party" because certainly if a mediator consistently displays a bias towards

a trade union the companies eventually will reject him. Therefore again I get

back to the point of the reasoned amendment that the legislation displays a

bias in the opposite side, and that bias will be considered very carefully by

labour and will be interpreted — as it has been interpreted — as legislation

that clearly is aimed at reducing their effectiveness and at reducing their

ability to sit down on an equal basis with their employers and arrive at a collective

agreement.

Bargaining is not a simple or easy process. It involves a lot of strategizing

on both sides. Really, I think the thing in my experience that has made bargaining

work the best is experience. Quite often a union or a company will get in trouble

when they get outside their own experience — when they try things that

are really hare-brained or that they're afraid to have some trust in, in terms

of sitting down at the table and taking the opposite side's word for what they're

saying. That's when things go wrong. No amount of Mr. FixIt legislation, giving

Ed Peck — or whoever the commissioner is — the power to interfere

at every stage and to say,"I want to see a copy of your financial statements,"

to say,"I want to see a copy of your offer," to say that the company

has to have the full results of the vote....

I mean, it's a bit ludicrous to talk — as the legislation does —

about unions being required to take a vote because the company wants them to,

and on the other hand to say that a company has to take a vote because the union

wants them to. Companies don't vote. Unions are a collection of individuals

who come together for their collective good, and they meet in open assembly,

and generally when they're putting together their contract demands it's a very

free and open process. I've participated in many of them. Quite often labour

leaders are put in the position of saying to members: "No, we think that

that's unreasonable. It would be foolish to take your suggestion about whatever

it might be to the table. It's unreasonable in light of economic conditions

or what we can reasonably expect to get or what our priorities are." The

proposed labour legislation and all of the comments I've heard from the other

side seem to ignore that process that does take place.

But getting back to the federation's brief, it lists the items that they consider

need to be in place for mediation to be effective. They talk about confidence

in and a rapport with the mediator, and we do have some good mediators in British

Columbia — some very experienced people. They talk about appropriately timed

entry into the mediation process — appropriately timed. This legislation

would be there like a dark cloud constantly; it wouldn't be a question of coming

in at an appropriate time. This is saying: "We're sitting beside you every

step of the way. We don't trust you." They talk about getting the parties

together in a constructive way, not saying to unions: "Look, the employer

wants you guys to take a vote

[ Page

725 ]

— you go out there and do it, and make sure you get the results to him."

They talk about establishing common facts, and about proposing alternative solutions.

So the federation proposes and has recommended to the minister a number of ways

that the bargaining process can be improved, and mediation is one of them.

There was also another brief from the federation in terms of the operation

of the Labour Relations Board, and I think it's unfortunate that that brief

was generally overlooked because of the shock of this legislation being introduced.

They talked in the brief about the system getting out of hand and into the hands

of lawyers. Somewhere I read — I think it was in this

article here, and I'm going

to quote this because I wouldn't want to be quoted as saying this on my own.

I didn't dream this up, and I have many friends who are lawyers.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I can't say that I have any enemies who are lawyers now,

but with the passage of time, who knows? Nonetheless, Prof. Hutchinson, again

in his

article on the Supreme Court decisions, refers to a quote from Shakespeare.

He suggests that unions take Shakespeare's advice: "The first thing we

do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Getting back to the federation brief, one of the main points they made is that

the Labour Relations Board, and all of the things that happened around the Labour

Relations Board in terms of resolving disputes, had really gotten into the hands

of lawyers and away from the hands of the people who actually have to deal with

the issues on the job. When I look at the legislation, in addition to the enormous

powers given to one civil servant, I see a document that's going to be a lawyer's

delight for years to come. The lawyers must be rubbing their hands with glee

and saying: "Order up some copies; let's take a look at this one."

Perhaps my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew might....

MR. SIHOTA: I don't practise labour law.

MR. MILLER: Oh, he doesn't practise labour law, so he's not worried.

But he might confirm...

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, yes, it's a make-work project.

MR. MILLER: ...that we have an untried piece of legislation.

I see that my time is up, Madam Speaker, so I'll resume my seat.

MR. SIHOTA: I see that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

is not in the room. I was of course looking forward to more words of wisdom

from his direction, but I guess we'll have to wait.

AN HON. MEMBER: We might have to wait a long time.

MR. SIHOTA: Yes, we may have to wait a long time. In any event, Madam

Speaker, the amendment to the motion before the House actually talks about the

fact that provisions of Bill 19 are contrary to the interests of democracy and

our traditions of free collective bargaining. In particular, it talks about

the powers under

Part 8 of the legislation that are prescribed to the chairman,

who will of course be Mr. Peck. This afternoon I want to talk a little bit about

the tradition of collective bargaining-how it is that we arrived at collective

bargaining in this society — and then I want to talk a little bit about

rights.

It seems to me that whenever we're in this debate we're talking about rights:

rights of the individual, rights of the employer, what's fair and what's not

fair. So I want to dwell a little bit upon that. But the thrust of my submission

today is basically that it's only through the institution known as free collective

bargaining that working people can begin to redress the inherent inequities

that exist between themselves as employees and their employers. I'm sure some

members of the House would like to think there are no inequities between employees

and employers, but I think we would all agree that they exist; and I think we

could all agree that they exist the larger the institution becomes.

In any event, a view that has slowly evolved in our economic development and

our economic history — our economic evolution, if you want to call it that — has

resulted in collective bargaining being a cornerstone of our economic system.

That hasn't always been so, Madam Speaker. At times there were indeed direct

efforts to limit collective bargaining, times when both Canadian and British

legal policy clearly discouraged collective bargaining. In fact, there was a

time in our economic history, our economic evolution, when very concrete obstacles

were placed on the collective bargaining process and upon trade union activities:

obstacles such as criminal penalties for association and involvement in trade

union activities. There were all sorts of civil injunctions that made it very

difficult for people to get involved in trade union activities, to engage in

collective bargaining, to meet at work to try to negotiate working conditions,

to strike or otherwise.

There were all sorts of common-law remedies that were used and applied by the

courts in order to restrict the rights, or the opportunity, of working people

to decide whether or not they wanted to engage in free collective bargaining.

Common-law remedies like nuisance and trespass were applied over and over again

to say that people did not have the right, as working people, to get together

and talk about their conditions of work, let alone decide to form a trade union.

There were, of course, legislative enactments passed by legislatures throughout

the British Commonwealth that eliminated the ability of people to form units

of collective bargaining.

Slowly but surely the pendulum began to swing the other way in our economic

history. In many ways the flashpoint was some American legislation known as

the Wagner Act, which came down in the United States and which started to take,

instead of a contrary or even neutral position against collective bargaining

or organization into trade unions, an affirmative role, in many ways, towards

the establishment of trade unions. Perhaps not as affirmative as many of us

would have liked to have seen; nonetheless it started to bring about a change,

or swing the pendulum, as I put it earlier on, towards a system or regime of

free collective bargaining.

Accordingly, we started to see the introduction of laws throughout the British

Commonwealth that basically embraced the philosophy that employees were free

to form trade unions and to enter into collective units to deal with their employer.

Canadian public policy started to reflect that, particularly during the thirties,

and more so, I would say, during the fifties. In fact, Canadian public policy

during the fifties and sixties was to the point.... And when I say public

policy, I don't mean public opinion; I mean public

[ Page

726 ]

policy as expressed in legislatures, through the courts, as it evolved within

our legal system.

That public policy started to embrace the position which felt that it was worthwhile

for employees to join trade unions, and slowly but surely we started to see

the type of provisions that started to appear in the labour code that currently

is law in this province, which went as far as to say that employers had no right

to interfere with the collective decision of employees who are deciding whether

or not they wish to form a trade union or engage in collective bargaining. In

other words, there were restrictions on intimidation and activities of harassment

that were designed to suggest to employees that they should not make a decision

on their own as to whether they wished or did not wish to form trade unions.

In a nutshell, that's sort of been the evolutionary history of collective bargaining

within the British Commonwealth system. Now you have to ask yourself why it

was that we began as a society to say that trade unions were okay, that it was

okay for people to engage in free collective bargaining. Well, let me suggest

that there were two basic reasons. The first one is the most evident one, which

is really a matter of economics. Purely and simply put, the employees at some

point began to consider it to be within their economic interests to decide to

get into collective bargaining.

Before I launch a little bit into that, I want to preface my comments by saying

that I don't intend to talk too long about the economic reasons for people to

engage in free collective bargaining. The reason why I don't intend to do that

is that I think we all understand the economic arguments, because we're faced

with them every day. We know the arguments about wages and benefits and all

that kind of stuff. It seems to me that there are other reasons — the second

sphere, which I want to get into later on — which in many ways are philosophically

far more important, that you don't want to undermine.

In any event, having given that bit of a preface, I do want to sort of talk

a little bit about the economic reasons. Working people would look around and

see counterparts engaged in similar activities enjoying better economic working

conditions than they were. I think the analogy that's used quite often —

it's an interesting one because it's one that hasn't always worked — is

the one of tellers working in banking institutions taking a look at clerks working

in a Safeway and saying: "Look, the work that I do is not that different

from what the people in Safeway do, but I'm getting paid $5 an hour and they're

getting paid $18 or $19 an hour."

There's no doubt that the economic system could handle both of those. Like

I say, we have a whole history that led to collective bargaining being embraced

as a component of public policy in this country. So when they began to look

at their counterparts in the working world and to see that they were enjoying

better wages for a similar type of work, they began to look at why that was

the case. Indeed, that led to them making a collective decision to form a trade

union to try to enhance the level of wages that was being paid to them.

In a similar fashion, if I may continue with the economic reasons, workers

started to look at the master-servant relationship, as we still call it today

as lawyers. When we deal with matters of wrongful dismissal, we still call it

by those archaic terms. There was an inequity in that relationship between the

master and the servant, in that the master, or the employer, would often be

there saying: "Here's my wages; take it or lose your job." Therefore,

not only in terms of wages, which I talked about earlier, but also for reasons

of economic security, in order to address that inequity, workers felt that if

they got together and took on their employers collectively, then they would

begin to address that inequity between master and servant, or between employer

and employee.

Once we began to see in this country the evolution of the breaking down of

that traditional master-servant relationship, it became apparent that the collective

bargaining process that we had established as part of Canadian policy was not

simply there for the benefit of the employee only; that it wasn't there simply

to increase wages and better working conditions for the working person. It was

also to the advantage of the employer, because the employers knew that in their

hands they had a negotiated settlement, an agreement; and that agreement, for

its tenure, whether it be one, two, three or four years or whatever, meant that

for that time period the employer was assured of economic stability. They knew

what their wage and benefit costs were going to be. They knew the cost of labour;

they then knew the cost of their production, and they also knew the basis upon

which they could make investment decisions. So the collective bargaining regime

was seen over time to be something that was in the interests of both the employee

and the employer. It injected a sense of stability within the relationship of

master and servant, if one is to call it that in legal lingo.

I provide that background only as a springboard to the next point that I want

to raise, which is this whole issue of rights. We have heard nothing but comments

from the other side — I go back to the comments made by the Attorney General

(Hon. B.R. Smith) because, regrettably, he was the last speaker to speak from

the government side; the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) wasn't here

to address this chamber — that the whole debate, when it comes down to

rights, is really a debate between group rights and individual rights. That's

what it really boils down to. The view on the side opposite is that you've got

to protect individual rights. You've got to protect the right of individuals

— as we hear the rhetoric day in and day out-to decide if they want to

join the trade union, if they want to participate, if they want to cross the

picket line.... If I can quote the Attorney-General, during the course of

his presentation he said: "Well, those are the rights."

The amendment, Madam Speaker, deals with the matter of democracy and the traditions

of free collective bargaining, and that's what I'm talking about at this stage

of the game. But it seems to me that the central issue is one of asking yourself:

how are the rights and the well-being of the individual enhanced? Are they enhanced

through the type of legislation that we've seen here, which says,"Yeah,

if you want to cross the picket line, you can go ahead and cross the picket

line," or are they enhanced by maintaining in place a collective system

that says that individuals profit if the group profits? If the group collectively

can negotiate a settlement between the employer and the employees that is to

the benefit of the group of employees, then not only does the group benefit

but the individual benefits from that.

[4:45]

It seems to me that when one is engaged in this debate, one must ask what ought

to be the paramount concern — group rights or individual rights. When you

begin to analyze what at the end of the day promotes the position of the individual

and the economic well-being of the individual, it's those group rights; those

group rights that are enshrined and, hopefully, protected through the tradition

of free collective

[ Page

727 ]

bargaining that we've embraced as Canadian public policy since the fifties.

That's how we've got to the place that we are. Yet we have legislation before

us, particularly through the power of this non-elected chairperson, that begins

to take away from those group rights, breaking down the tradition and the system

of free collective bargaining that we've established in this society. When you

begin to break that down, through the intrusion of an individual in the collective

bargaining regime — in this case Mr. Peck, the commissioner appointed under

the legislation — you begin, in my view, to take away the essence of free

collective bargaining. The essence of free collective bargaining is not the

economic factors that I talked about, but instead what I call the social factors

as to why people get involved in collective bargaining, in trade unions, and

getting involved in that process.

Let me elaborate on those social reasons. We know that, for example, in every

large corporation there is a system of bureaucracy. There are line supervisors,

management personnel, personnel departments and department heads, and in each

case they interact with an employee. In each case decisions that those people

make can have an effect on employees. From time to time — hopefully, seldom

— somewhat arbitrary decisions are made, for reasons of personal gain or

discrimination or retaliation or simply thoughtlessness, that impact negatively

upon an employee. At that point the employee requires a system in which he can

then go to the employer and say: "Look, I think I was dealt with unfairly.

There was thoughtlessness, personal gain, discrimination or retaliation involved

in a decision of management, the personnel department or my department head,

in order for them to do what they did."

So there has to be a system of appeal and a system of organizing employer-employee

relations. We've embraced, as Canadian public policy, free collective bargaining,

wherein employers and employees decide on the methods and the appeal process

and the way in which employees can deal with matters of grievance. When you

begin to say that third parties, whether they're mediators, commissioners, inquiry

people or fact-finders, can impose or arbitrate a settlement — cut a deal

out of new cloth and impose it upon the parties — they upset the ability

of the employee and the employer to negotiate freely between themselves an appropriate

system of appeal for dealing with employee-employer difficulties on the job.

This intrusion upon free collective bargaining is assured by the provisions

part 8 of the legislation. I say that that intrusion is clearly contrary

to the interests of democracy and the traditions of free collective bargaining

that we've established for the reasons I outlined earlier on.

Apart from that, to talk a little bit about what I call the social, as opposed

to the economic, reasons why people get into collective decision-making and

collective bargaining and trade unions, I think there is another level of argument.

You see, there are good employers and there are good employees. I think I heard

the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen), when he was making his presentation

a few weeks ago, talk about good employers. And indeed there are good employers

out there, but the employees will never get what they want. The issue arises

that even if the most benevolent employer is there, who ought to decide what

the employees should get? Should that decision be made by the employees, or

should it be made by the employer?

Take the following example, Madam Speaker. In a working unit you have some

young people, and their interest is to get better wage benefits and increase

the quantum of their paycheque; but you also have in that same workforce some

older people whose interest is securing pension benefits, because that's the

road they're looking down. Assume for a moment that the employer is a benevolent

employer and is willing to grant one or the other. Now the employer can decide

— I guess that's one option. But it seems to me that a better option is

for the employees to decide among themselves collectively, democratically, sitting

down as a unit to decide what their bargaining priorities are going to be, and

then to take those priorities to the employer and say: "Here's what we

want to negotiate." If the older workers prevail and they place a priority

on pension benefits, then that's the way it ought to go. But let the employees

make that decision. Let the employees take their collective decision, democratically

made, to the employer, as opposed to having the employer simply decide what

he wants to give — or more importantly, having a third party intrude upon

that free collective bargaining regime and say, "Here's what I think you

should get," and it's something totally unrelated to the wishes of the

younger workers, the older workers or the employer.

Part 8 of the legislation allows for that type of intrusion. Members opposite

talk over and over again about getting government off the backs of people, and

yet they have set out in

part 8 of this legislation an intrusion into the free

collective bargaining system. Let the employees and the employers decide. Let's

not impose the settlement upon them.

There are undoubtedly going to be times when the parties to collective bargaining — the

employer and the employee do not to come to an agreement. They're going to get

into an argument, and then you've got to make sure that each one has at his

disposal tools to create pressure to bring about an ultimate settlement. The

tool that we've decided upon is an instrument of Canadian public policy. The

tool that we've decided to give employees is the ability to strike-or to put

it in more blatant terms, the ability to inflict economic harm on the employer.

I don't think anybody wants to see economic harm inflicted upon anybody. But

we have given them that tool in the event the free collective bargaining system

breaks down.

I don't want to dwell on that too much, except now, with that background, to

move in a little bit more concrete terms into the legislation that is now before

the House, and into

part 8, which is really the provision that we are dealing

with in this amendment, because it establishes a czar. It starts to erode and

take away from employees in particular the one economic weapon that we provided

them with. It begins to place additional weaponry in the hands of the employer.

I don't want to dwell on that, because I think that falls outside the provisions

of the amendment that is before the House right now.

Let's review certain provisions of

part 8.

Section 137.7(4) talks about a final

vote on an employer's offer. Shouldn't the employees be free to decide among

themselves? Isn't it their right to decide collectively among themselves whether

or not they wish to vote on a particular offer? Isn't that a part of their democratic

rights, to decide what they want to vote on and when they want to vote on it?

Isn't it a part of the democratic institutions we have established in this society

under the guise of free collective bargaining to say that their trade union

representatives, the ones that they have elected, can decide on or provide guidance

on matters of voting or not voting, or support or non-support?

[ Page

728 ]

In a democratic society, it seems to me that the employees should decide, and

there should not a third party ordering that they should vote on something.

How would you like it if a third party had to tell you that you had to vote

on a particular matter, or if a third party descended upon us and said that

we have to have an election now because they decided or the NDP caucus decided

that we should have an election in this province? Maybe that is stretching the

analogy, but the point is that there should not be that level of intrusion into

the free collective bargaining regime, and that is precisely what

part 8 does.

Section 137.7(9) says that he may order a vote on a particular offer, on grounds

of public interest. Shouldn't the employees, through their elected democratic

representatives, again decide if it is their wish to vote on the matter? Why

should it be that a third party, determining what is or is not in the public

interest, then imposes a vote? Is that democratic? Is that fair? Is that consistent

with the public policy that we have embraced in this country that says we are

in favour of free collective bargaining? Of course not.

Section 137.96(

l) deals with the public sector, and it says that in determining

a matter of arbitration, whether or not an agreement is proper, it is going

to be looking at a number of factors. One of these is "the need to maintain

an appropriate relationship between occupations or classifications within the

employer's employment."

I gave the example earlier on about bank workers and Safeway. That is an inequity,

in my view, that the employees within the banking system ought to be trying

to remedy through the form of free collective bargaining that we have set up.

But this provision in Bill 19 says that we want that level of inequity to continue;

that we feel through this legislation that it is appropriate to make those types

of distinctions — that you are able to look elsewhere and see what other

people are saying and use that as a justification for lowering, or keeping low,

the wages of certain people.

In my submission, that again is an unwarranted, uncalled-for intrusion upon

free collective bargaining. Should it not be for the employer and the employee,

engaged in the process of free collective bargaining, sitting across the table

from each other, to decide what it is that they can agree on in terms of wages

to be paid to various classifications? Why should it be in the power of a third

party to tell them that they have to pay heed to that, and to indeed make a

recommendation that will result in those classifications continuing to exist,

notwithstanding the willingness on the part of both parties to do away with

those inequities? Is that fair? Is that democratic? Is that consistent with

the free collective bargaining regime that we have established and embraced

in this country? Of course it is not.

I know I am running short on time, so I want to touch on a couple of other

matters that step outside the provisions of

part 8.

MR. CLARK: Lots of time.

MR. SIHOTA: I see the member for Vancouver East wants to hear more,

but I'm not the two-hour hitter on this. There is, of course, the matter of

equality before the law. There are instances under

part 8 of this legislation

that allow an employer to remove from the workforce an employee who defies an

order, and the employer can take whatever action he wants. In the case of an

employee that the employer doesn't like, or a union activist who defies an order,

he can say: "You're fired." In the same instance another chap can

decide to take a different action; it doesn't have to be the same action. For

the same transgression, a different action can result. Is that fair? Is that

treating people equally?

Is it then fair to go one step further and say that the employee who has been

hindered or booted out of the workforce has no right to appeal, that he has

no forum he can go to and say: "Hey, look, I'm not happy with the decision

that the employer made. In similar circumstances he made a different decision

for employee A, and because I'm involved in my trade union he's firing me. That's

not fair"? There's no provision in this legislation that would allow that

individual, under the circumstances I'm talking about, to go to appeal. Is that

what the members opposite want to see? Is that consistent with democratic rights?

Is that consistent with individual rights? I talked earlier about the paramountcy

of group rights, collective rights over individual rights, but is that consistent?

Of course not, and the legislation fails on that point.

If one were to look at layers of concern as one looks at the provisions of

part 8, what about the whole matter of the political accountability of Mr. Peck?

He is making decisions, deeming them to be within the public interest, and yet

he is not elected. Is that the type of autocratic regime that we want to establish

as a component of free collective bargaining in a democratic society? I say

no.

[5:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'm going to end on this point: There is no collective bargaining regime, no

piece of legislation that anybody could introduce that's ever going to work

if it does not have the faith and the trust and the confidence of the parties

that are to be governed by that legislation. If you want to introduce this type

of legislation you have to ask yourself: do those who are being impacted by

this legislation have confidence in it? Are they saying that they'll participate

in it? Do they perceive it to be fair? Do they perceive it to be something that

will allow for the continuation of free collective bargaining under the democratic

traditions that I've outlined? Of course not, and in the absence of trust, in

the absence of good faith, the legislation can't work.

Part 8 will never work. The powers of the commissioner will never be embraced.

They will always be a source of contention, and that's where we're headed under

the provisions of this legislation. Hence, it seems to me that the amendment

makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense to do away with

part 8, to bring

in some amendments to

part 8, which I'm hoping the government will see fit to

do, so that we can begin to move towards a regime that reduces the wide powers

contained and preserved for the Industrial Relations Council under the provisions

of the act, and we can see some amendments that will do away with the arbitrariness

and the ability of the commissioner to intrude upon the traditions of free collective

bargaining that we've embraced as public policy.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: In the galleries this afternoon, or over the course of this

afternoon, have been some 90 students and their teachers from Templeton Secondary

School. May I say

[ Page

729 ]

that Templeton high school has a long and rich tradition of graduating individuals

who contribute significantly to my community of Vancouver East. I ask the House

to make them welcome.

MR. CASHORE: It's an honour to rise in support of the amendment. It's

also quite an experience to follow somebody with whom I agree. So far my experiences

in this House have been that there's a kind of counterbalancing procedure going

on, so this again is a new experience for me.

It's rather sad that we have to present this amendment without the overwhelming

and enthusiastic support of the entire House. I think there has been time for

it to become abundantly clear that the message from the people of British Columbia

is that such a gesture as is presented within this amendment is timely, wise,

appropriate. This amendment embodies one of the principles unfortunately lacking

in Bill 19, a principle that I think it would be very wise for the government

to consider including if they insist on going ahead with it, and that is the

principle of consensus itself.

What we have before us, especially with regard to the amazing powers that would

be lodged with one individual, is a bill in which the right to free collective

bargaining is to be virtually removed. It's a bill that severely limits the

ability of participants to reach an agreement. We have a situation now where

all power to interfere in collective bargaining is put into the hands of one

individual, where the wage-control powers of the compensation stabilization

plan are with this one individual, where this one individual has essential-services

dispute powers and takes over many of the former powers of cabinet and as well

as that, is handed many new powers. That we have a situation where one non-elected

official would be given this kind of power in British Columbia at this time

bodes ill for the direction our public policy is taking, and it bodes ill for

the future of democracy itself, for it embodies a neo-conservative philosophy

that is consolidating more and more power and wealth in the hands of the very

powerful and the very rich. We see that movement happening in many parts of

the world, much to the detriment of those parts of the world. We see it happening

at a time when we really don't have to be moving in that direction.

The human race, Mr. Speaker, not only here in British Columbia, but on a global

scale, is at a crossroads. We are going to have to decide very soon what we

want the future course of history to be. Do we want future generations, should

they survive, to be able to look back and say: "This was a civilization

that continued to use every opportunity to enhance its institutions — its

precious institutions, such as the institution of democracy"? Or was this

a society that tried to take a shortcut and tried to put all the powers into

the hands of the very few, and thus to step back in history to a time where

there was less participation and more of the harsh kinds of judgments that are

made when a process of consensus is not available?

Within the former situation, bargaining would normally commence and an agreement

be achieved bilaterally, unless one party was to request a mediator. A strike

or lockout would occur in a small fraction of cases, and final authority would

rest with the Legislature or the cabinet. But now, if this legislation were

to pass, if the wisdom of this amendment were not to be recognized, notice to

bargain must be filed with the Industrial Relations Council. For example, if

a strike is not considered to be in the public interest, then the commissioner,

Mr. Peck, can appoint a public interest inquiry board or compulsory arbitration

or a special mediator, or he can declare that the dispute involves an essential

service — and that's an interesting concept in itself, for who would expect

one person having that kind of power to have any kind of perspective that would

be fair and just with regard to what constitutes an essential service? Clearly,

this is a convoluted situation in which one person would have the kind of power

that would be potentially very harmful.

I think it should be noted also that this legislation is unequalled anywhere

in North America. This seems to be the type of situation where our government

is wanting to be the first — but, I would submit, a reckless first, without

having clearly and thoroughly researched the possible consequences of these

kinds of measures that are anti-democratic and anti-consensus. We only need to

remember that in 1983 the British Columbia Social Credit government took what

it considered to be a lead in developing their version of a restraint program.

At that time they wanted to be the first again; they wanted to be cutting new

ground; they wanted to be seen as the tough guys who were able to really come

to terms with the problems that were developing in the economy. But it wasn't

really the kind of help that was needed.

It has been outlined many times in this House that as a result of that program

the deficits grew, both the real deficit with regard to the regular operating

budget of the government and also the deficits of the Crown corporations, to

the point that we are now approaching $20 billion in debt. That was really not

a restraint program that could be considered to provide leadership to British

Columbia or any other part of Canada, or any other part of the world, for that

matter.

Now we find with this new radical legislation, this labour bill, that we seem

to be bent on trying to become infamous again, again trying to produce legislation

that is purported to be leading a new way, but which is really going to be leading

British Columbians down the garden path. I realize it may seem for a short time

that this will consolidate even more power and wealth in the hands of a few

people. But again, how is this approach — which is a denial of democracy

and consensus — really going to be any benefit at all to the working people

of British Columbia, to women and men, to children, to those people who in order

to have fulfilment in their lives need to feel that they are taking

part in

a participatory democracy, and to feel that the traditions that have been fought

for and won here in the North American north are traditions that are worth preserving,

developing and enhancing? Not the kinds of traditions that we would end with

a stroke of the pen, not the kinds of traditions that we would suddenly change

and say, "Consensus hasn't worked," or: "Democracy hasn't worked

and therefore we're going to start to dismantle it."

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that democracy in an incredibly complex world has

worked very well indeed; it has brought us a long way. There have been many

times that the system seemingly has not worked, where it has resulted in dispute,

where there has not been consensus. But again, there is a corrective built into

the democratic institution, in that those who find that through their lack of

participation in the democratic process they lose hard-won gains.... Those

persons then tend to become more participatory. Democracy has within it the

ability to heal itself from within.

This measure, Mr. Speaker, which would take decision-making out of the hands

of employers and out of the hands of employees and put those decisions into

the hands of one

[ Page

730 ]

individual.... Those are not the kinds of decisions that are going to enhance

democracy.

[5:15]

We find that with the economic direction that we have been receiving in this

province over the past several years, our economy is very much an integral part

of the issue and of the problem. We find that in this present economy it's gravy

for a few and it's lost hopes and dreams for too many. Now we would see these

measures dragging people's hopes and dreams even further into the mire. Why

would that happen? Why would the government want to do that? Why would the government

not want to consider the opportunity to listen to the growing public voice on

this issue?

Our country has achieved a degree of civilization that is worthwhile. When

we look at our country, perhaps we're looking on a scale that is so large that

it's difficult to grasp. Perhaps when we look at provincial initiatives, that

seems hard to grasp. But if we look at democracy as it functions within the

very basic units in our society, the point that I am making becomes clearer.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, one unit that functions in our society is good family

life, and good family life, I submit, depends on consensus. I realize there

is authority within the family, and I realize that there are those who have

responsibility and who must exercise their responsibility. But I also recognize,

as I think all of us do, that in order for members of a family to have a fulfilling

life both in childhood and in their adult life, the degree to which they have

the opportunity to participate in decision-making in that family has a direct

relation to the level of maturity and leadership that they are able to exercise

in their later lives. I don't think that's a profound point, but I think it

is a simple and basic point from which we can learn by observing something that

is very fundamental within our Canadian society, and that is the healthy family.

I think we could apply that principle to a good marriage. We could apply that

principle to good community development. That community wherein people participate

in the decision-making of the community is a community that provides a more

fulfilling opportunity for all those who live therein. I think that we find

in. our society today that there are a great many factors that mitigate against

consensus, and because of that, the kind of direction that would be most helpful

for the people of British Columbia right now would not be a direction that would

tend toward the breaking down of consensus, but indeed it would be a direction

that would help build consensus, recognizing that it is endangered. It might

be considered that there is a better way than the consensus way of going about

achieving our goals, and I do recognize that sometimes disputes can be pretty

upsetting and unsettling. Again, to recognize our Canadian traditions, we come

from a society that is rooted in collective support for one another. We do not

come from a history of violence. We have not had a violent revolution within

our country, and we hope and pray that will never be the case. But we do come

from a tradition in which people have moved toward creative participation in

each others' lives — a supportive relationship, you might say.

I don't think that we are going to be helped by what might be considered the

top-gun concept. This is not our tradition. We can't solve the problems that

exist within our society by asking a John Wayne to come in and solve it for

us. We can't solve the problems by asking Big Daddy to make the decision.