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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

685 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Need for public trustee at Royal Inland Hospital. Mrs. Boone –– 685

Planting of seedlings. Mr. Williams –– 686

Political solicitation of government employees. Mr. G. Hanson –– 686

Funding for seedlings. Mr. Williams –– 686

Golf courses in Columbia Valley. Ms. Edwards –– 686

Downsizing of Woodlands and Glendale. Mr. Cashore –– 687

Funding contracts for societies for mentally handicapped. Mr. Cashore –– 687

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

Mr. Serwa –– 687

Ms. Edwards –– 688

Hon. S. Hagen –– 691

Mr. D'Arcy –– 692

Mr. De Jong –– 696

Mr. Barnes –– 696

Mr. Mercier –– 700

Mr. Blencoe –– 700

Mr. Bruce –– 703

Mr. Williams –– 705

Mr. R. Fraser –– 708

Appendix –– 711

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Visiting with us today from Prince George

are Wally and Myrna Moffatt, and Mrs. Moffatt's sister, Mrs. Hall, from

the beautiful province of Saskatchewan. Would the House please give

them a warm Victoria welcome.

MR. MERCIER: With pleasure I introduce in the members'

gallery my wife Mary and daughters Suzanne and Jacqueline. I ask the

House to make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I have in your gallery today two

guests, former neighbours and old-time friends. I would like the House

to join me in making welcome Bob and Gloria Wood.

MR. BRUCE: Today in the gallery I have 60 students from the

Chemainus high school. I have their names No, I don't really. I'd like

the House to welcome the students who are down here today to view the

proceedings, and their teachers, Mr. Ray Faught and Mr. Tom Lewis.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to introduce a

man who has been very active in the forest industry for many years. He

started out as a logger and worked his way up to be a vice-president,

but he spent a great deal of time with the junior forest wardens. It's

Mr. Bert Gayle, vice-president of wood products, B.C. operations, for

Canfor Corp. Would the House please make him welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It gives me great pleasure today to ask that

the House bring special greetings to our Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II,

on her sixty-first birthday.

MS. EDWARDS: Would the House join me in recognizing the

achievement of the Cranbrook Colts, who've just won the Cyclone Taylor

trophy for the fourth time in a row, which sets a record, and who've

won it about 13 out of the 15 times they've played for it.

Oral Questions

NEED FOR PUBLIC TRUSTEE

AT ROYAL INLAND HOSPITAL

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Premier. Over one-half of

the doctors at the Royal Inland Hospital have publicly stated that the

single-issue anti-choice hospital board there is interfering with

medicine and that this interference is detrimental to patient care.

They have requested that a public trustee be appointed as philosophical

and religious views are taking precedence over good health care. As the

Minister of Health has to date refused to take any action to guarantee

women their basic rights under the Canada Health Act, will the Premier

now take the bull by the horns and appoint a public trustee?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think the question is based on a wrong premise.

I don't have all of the details, but I suppose I can only go by what I read

in the paper, as the member no doubt did. The paper

article indicated that out

of 68 applications for abortions, 13 were disallowed and the rest approved.

I would hardly call that a single issue.

MRS. BOONE: To the Premier again. The doctors have indicated

that women's health care is at risk. These are the professional people

in the field. I don't think that this is just a passing phase, and they

are really concerned about it. Will the Premier do anything to appoint

a public trustee under this condition to assure women that they have

the basic health rights under the Canada Health Act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The question suggests that the doctors

serving on the committee that determines whether an abortion is

warranted aren't acting in a professional manner, and I can't respond

to that sort of question.

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health then.

According to the hospital board president, the Ministry of Health has

indicated that it will support the anti-choice board. Can the minister

tell the House what indications his ministry is giving to the president

of the hospital board regarding their refusal to provide the women of

the Kamloops area with this health service?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the question. To

the member, this minister has never indicated whom he supports. I

accept the fact that that board was duly elected, the proper process

was taken, and until such time as someone else controls that body, I

would have no action to take whatsoever except if there was a risk to

health.

MRS. BOONE: A question to the minister again. Who would you

say, then, can say that there is a health risk? If the doctors in that

community are indicating there is a health risk, whose opinion will you

take?

HON. MR. DUECK: The therapeutic abortion committee consists

of doctors. They make that decision. I'm certainly not going to

second-guess a doctor, a physician. Secondly, if these people, or the

other doctors, disapprove of that particular committee, it's the board

that in fact performs that function. We fund hospitals; we don't run

the hospitals. The hospital is run by the duly elected board.

[2:15]

MRS. BOONE: To the Minister of Health again. It is indicated

that people in that community are saying that women can go elsewhere to

have abortions. Is this the move of the minister, then: to insist that

women are forced to go 100, 500, 200...? What is an adequate distance

they must go in order to get a safe therapeutic abortion, according to

the Health Act?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I have never indicated that.

However, according to the statute, or the Criminal Code, a designated

or accredited hospital may in fact form or appoint a therapeutic

abortion committee. That's exactly what they've done, and they have

that choice. The hospital board, in fact, runs that hospital.

[ Page 686 ]

PLANTING OF SEEDLINGS

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests. In his maiden

speech, he spoke highly of the province's silviculture program. Can he

give the House assurance that the seedlings that have been available

are all being made use of this season in the forests of British

Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to extend to the House

the same courtesy as the member for Vancouver East did in this position

some years ago and take the matter as notice.

POLITICAL SOLICITATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

MR. G. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of

Agriculture. I have a copy of a letter which was recently sent to an

employee in the Ministry of Agriculture, and it was sent to his office

address. The letter was soliciting money for the Social Credit Party.

My question is: is it the ministry's policy to provide employee address

lists to the Social Credit Party for this sort of solicitation?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, no, it is not.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the

Premier. Similar letters have been received at work by employees in the

Health ministry and the Attorney-General ministry. My question to the

Premier is: what is the policy of the Premier, as head of the

government, on the use of employee mailing-lists for partisan Social

Credit appeals?

I will rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. A letter comes from Hope

Wotherspoon. It says: "The Premier has asked me to immediately begin

preparations to seize the momentum of the election and take action to

help move British Columbia forward. We will act to bring long-term

stability in labour-management relations." This is prior to Bill 19, I

guess. The employees in the Ministry of Health and the Attorney-General

ministry are receiving solicitation letters from the Social Credit

Party. My question is: is it the policy of the government to make lists

available for such solicitations by a political party?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G. HANSON: Will the Premier undertake to report to the

assembly this week on how widespread this practice is and whether the

government has in fact provided employee mailing-lists to the Social

Credit Party? Will you report back this week?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to bring a report back on. I said the answer was no.

MR. G. HANSON: I repeat my question. Will the Premier

undertake to report back to the Legislature this week on how widespread

the practice is of soliciting government employees at work on behalf of

the Social Credit Party?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only tell you

that I am opposed to this sort of thing because it reminds me of when I

was first elected. I was elected on the grounds, perhaps more than

anything, that a former Provincial Secretary had used government

offices to in fact advise people working for a particular industry in

Surrey who were government employees about a particular matter which,

again, was much like this. I didn't stand for it then, so I don't agree

with it now. I expect, however, that there could be names on a list of

people that are employed by government and that there are also members

of the NDP or of Social Credit. I don't know of any list having been

provided to anyone for the purposes of solicitation.

MR. G. HANSON: Will you report back?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Certainly. If there's something there, I'll be happy to report back.

FUNDING FOR SEEDLINGS

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker. It's

my understanding that the lack of funding in the Prince George region

will mean the trashing of upwards of ten million seedlings in that one

region alone. Has the minister reviewed this question, and can he

advise the House whether he will prevent that kind of trashing taking

place in that region and other regions of the province?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver East for the question. I'll take it as notice.

GOLF COURSES IN COLUMBIA VALLEY

MS. EDWARDS: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

In the Columbia Valley, between Cranbrook and Radium, there are four

great golf courses, with a fifth one under construction west of Radium.

Could the minister tell me why he has decided to approve a sixth course

over the objections of the Regional District of East Kootenay and the

agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, that was not the decision of

the Minister of Agriculture; that was the decision of the Cabinet

Committee on Environment and Land Use.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the

Minister of Agriculture whether he could explain his

part in that

decision, because it is probably of interest to his ministry.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, I cannot explain my part; that's part of the committee structure.

MS. EDWARDS: To the Minister of Agriculture again. Is it the

policy of the Ministry of Agriculture, which participated in this

decision, to alienate the best farmland in the East Kootenay for the

sake of three temporary jobs and one permanent one?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, no, it is not. Further to that,

no decision has come forward...any policy-decisions of my own, when

they come over my desk. These were previous applications that strung

out over a year and a half.

[ Page

687 ]

DOWNSIZING OF WOODLANDS AND GLENDALE

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Recently the minister

announced the downsizing of Woodlands and Glendale, and this raises questions about community backup. What

assurance can the minister provide that full and adequate community treatment housing and support services

will be in place before these residents are asked to move into the community?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can give every assurance to the member, this Legislature and all the people

of British Columbia that every precaution, measure and consultation have gone into this decision, not just with

parents but with staff and with the communities. So I thank you for the question and can give the people of

British Columbia every assurance that everything is being done to make this transition as smooth as possible.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, my next question has to do with the procedure for monitoring, both in

the next year and the year after, with regard to how these people are doing and how the communities are doing.

Will the minister please tell us what instrument he has in place for the ongoing monitoring of this situation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the same instrument that we have in other parts of the province

since we started the deinstitutionalizing of these people, and that is basically the professionals in my ministry

who are doing an excellent job and can tell you of numerous success stories in this field. It's been most

successful not just in my constituency where Tranquille was closed, but anywhere in the province where these

people have been relocated and reestablished with their families and with the community.

FUNDING CONTRACTS FOR

SOCIETIES FOR MENTALLY HANDICAPPED

MR. CASHORE: A new question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Will

the minister tell us if funding contracts for societies for the mentally handicapped will fully match their

increased need for staff and resources, or is this move primarily seen as a cost-saving move?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member and this House that moving people from

these institutions is not done for the purposes of saving money. It is done for the good of the people in the

institutions, and the progress that they make is absolutely incredible. In fact, if anything it costs more to

keep these people outside the institutions than inside.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled an answer to a question on the order paper

from the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). [See appendix.]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, the Select Standing Committee

on Forests and Lands will be meeting later today for organization purposes.

As well the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and

Members' Services will be meeting later today to have a convening meeting

and to hear the Law Clerk's report. I would ask leave of the

House for these committees to meet while the House is sitting.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of

Bill 19. I believe the first member for Okanagan South adjourned debate.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, I'm finding the process of debate on

Bill 19 most interesting. The Industrial Relations Reform Act is

significant in that it is probably the most important piece of

legislation that the first session of the thirty-fourth parliament will

deal with. As legislators we must approach it with a great sense of

responsibility to all of the people of British Columbia. It must be

addressed with good will and noble principles.

Was the old Labour Code working so well? I think that we gave the

old Labour Code every possible opportunity to accomplish the job it was

designed to do. It could have worked. Perhaps it could even be said

that it should have worked. Unfortunately, the harsh facts of reality

prevailed. Internally in our province and externally in the rest of

Canada, and indeed internationally, we in British Columbia are

perceived as having an unenviable reputation in labour relations and an

unstable labour market.

The Minister of Labour accepted a most difficult task. He had to

address the problem of industrial labour relations with a view to

bringing about long-term stability in the private and public sector

arenas of British Columbia. When I consider the very difficult

challenge the Minister of Labour had in pulling together all of the

information and opinions presented to his inquiry committee, I believe

he has done a very commendable job. It will be to the benefit of all

British Columbians when we improve our labour relations climate.

The old Labour Code had 14 years of life. It clearly wasn't working

as well as society expected and required it to work. Improvements were

definitely required. I have heard hon. members of the opposition

indicate that it is indeed a shame to change the Labour Code of this

province just when labour and management were getting to handle the

Code and their negotiations so well. If the labour relations of the

past year are indicative of the ability of labour and management to

conduct their negotiations under the Labour Code without severely

impacting on the public interest, if the opposition believes that the

Code was working well, I suggest that their collective eyes have become

half-muddied.

[2:30]

I note that an hon. member of the opposition pointed out, probably

correctly, that the entire labour force of British Columbia loses more

days to colds and other illness than the unionized sector loses to

strikes. Let medical science do what it can in its field of expertise.

Great improvements in public health have been made. Our responsibility

as government is to make great improvements in public welfare. I also

recognize, as does the member who made the point, that simple

accommodations are made daily without impacting in any negative way on

all the other elements in society. To deny the dramatic impact of the

effect of key-sector strikes by quoting

[ Page 688 ]

misleading statistics is an injustice to society.

An example that may be used to illustrate my point is where a dispute

involving dock workers or grain handlers, and their management, is able

to impact all Canadians in a negative way. The nature of that dispute

is substantially different in magnitude than a small, localized labour

dispute. Statistics, by their nature, can only address days lost. It is

readily apparent that simple numbers cannot form a clear enough picture.

We can and must accept our responsibility to improve labour

relations. The only thing that is constant in this world is change. Is

it possible that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition see their role simply

as resisters of change? Is it possible that the opposition is able to

dismiss its collective responsibility to all of the people of British

Columbia by yielding so readily to the clamour of special interest

groups, which appear to hold the opposition so tightly within their

grasp? Every hon. member on both sides of the House has to agree that

improvements in our labour climate are necessary, desirable and long

overdue.

Almost all of the opposition members have used the word "flawed" in

describing aspects of this legislation. At this point in the debate we

are to address the philosophical aspects and general principles of the

bill. How flawed are they? Bill 19 is designed to ensure the democratic

rights of all the people of British Columbia. It is designed to ensure

the rights and freedoms of the individual. It is designed to ensure

fairness, justice and equity in labour relations. In its general

nature, concept and design, this bill is a good bill; and its

philosophy is the general theme of bringing a greater sense of

responsibility to factions governed by this bill.

In third reading we will go through the bill

section by section. Perhaps amendments

will be made. It is at that point that detailed examination will transpire.

I at that point will be as dedicated as any other Hon. member to seeing that

this legislation is not only good but the best that we can collectively, as

legislators, put out. You will please some of the people all of the time and

all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time.

Simply put, everyone can't like everything.

We can stay in this House and debate this one bill till doomsday. It

will still be "flawed" simply because of change being constant and

being viewed from different perspectives. I know that; we all know

that. That recognition doesn't and shouldn't prevent us from addressing

this bill in depth in third reading and collectively contributing

towards good legislation. The opposition members call out for more time

— for what constructive purpose? In the field, anger and resentment are

being encouraged. The opposition participates not as legislators with

responsibility, but as opportunists who play lightly with their

responsibilities to collective society in order to maintain special

interest benefits.

A responsible party could not and would not distance themselves so readily

and dismiss their commitments to the people of British Columbia so lightly.

Fortunately, competent and moderate voices in the opposition are starting to

be heard. I hope that on reflection members of the opposition will

pay attention to those responsive and reasoning voices. Perhaps it is timely

to remember that we must be decisive and positive in our collective responsibility

to do good things for all of our people. I'm in favour of moving to the

next stage of debate on this bill and addressing the elements

section by section.

MS. EDWARDS: In talking today to the second reading of Bill

19, I want to talk about the idea of principles. We've heard a lot of

talk about whether or not we should — "we" being the public — address

the issue of principle at all, and we've heard the Premier say that we

are not going to change the principles; we are simply maybe going to

change a few details. I think it's important that we not go past...and

that we not consider this to be something that we take as a given.

The principle of this bill is what is at issue right now, and I

think it's important that we look at the idea of principle and at some

of the principles that are involved and that will be affected by Bill

19. One of the most important principles that is at stake with Bill 19

is the idea of public interest. "Public interest" is an abstract term,

such as "justice" or "honour" or "greed." In fact, that means that it

has to be defined in relation to some of the other things that we know;

it is not a concrete term.

We certainly have to ask ourselves, as far as this bill is

concerned, what "public interest" means. Where is it defined? Of

course, we know it is not defined in the bill; it's probably defined in

a dictionary somewhere. But what is the definition of "public interest"

that is going to be used? Because it is used so frequently in Bill 19.

How in fact do we, even if we agree on what it means and we know how it

should be defined, test when the public interest has been served?

I think the question has to be put by all of us.... In our own minds

we have to know whether or not there is a general acceptance of what we

mean by public interest. Obviously, if you ask a number of people, even

around this room, you would get different answers as to what the public

interest is. Why, then, do we use this kind of term in a bill, when

everybody is going to give different answers? The overwhelming answer,

of course, is that there are more similarities, or perhaps more

important similarities, than there are differences in our definition of

public interest. Let's hope there are.

The idea is that we have to have some kind of consensus on this, and

it seems to be that in searching for the similarities that we want to

find in the term "public interest," we should come to some recognition

and some kind of agreement on what that public interest might be. "

Public interest" has been put forward sometimes as perfectly

understandable by the people who said, for example, that in the IWA

strike of 1986 the public interest was not served. There were certainly

a lot of people who suffered in the IWA strike of 1986. Capital

suffered — the owners, in other words; labour suffered; the provincial

economy suffered.

How, in fact, are we going to determine what it is about that that

makes public interest, and how do we follow that up by saying that it

would have been in the public interest to have had someone intervene in

that strike? Now that is not so easily defined and certainly not agreed

upon. At the time of the IWA strike, the issue, as it was put out many

times, was the issue of job security. Had they been able to set out the

issue of job security, the strike would not have gone on so long. To

find that solution, I'm quite sure it would have been much easier to

have a single person come into the dispute and decide where the issue

of job security should be settled. Much easier, I say, but would it

have been better? And if it were not better, is that in the public

interest?

What we do know is that now, under Bill 19, the public interest is

going to be defined by a single person, the commissioner. This one

person has been appointed — or at least named, let's say — even before

the legislation has been

[ Page 689 ]

proclaimed. I think that that is an issue that

needs more looking at, and I think that that is not necessarily in the

public interest: to have legislation set up for the appointment of a

person who is known ahead of time. There is no organizational theory in

the world that will tell you that you consider a position which is put

there for a single person and that that will be good positioning, good

planning. In fact, you set up a structure so that it will work, and

then you find someone to fit into that structure. But that is not how

this was done. We had the commissioner named, as I say, long before the

legislation itself has even been through second reading or even.... It

was announced at the time of first reading.

If you set up legislation that intends to give the kinds of powers

to a single individual that Bill 19 intends to give to Mr. Peck, you

might, I think, observe a few comparisons and suggest to yourself that

maybe this might work or might not work, or what is this going to be

like? Certainly there's no comparison with this kind of labor czar

anywhere in Canadian legislation. It seems to me that you might take a

look at the idea of judges who have the kinds of powers that the

commissioner will have under Bill 19. There are a number of things

about judges — who are appointed even differently, but supposing they

were there — that make it a very different situation than this

single-person situation that we have under Bill 19. For one thing,

judges may decide things all alone in a courtroom, but there are many

judges. There is no case where a single judge sits; there are a number

of people on a bench, and there are many judges. They decide issues by

precedents as well as by the evidence that is put before them;

therefore they have a time range and dimension that is very much

broader than they themselves are able to bring to the bench. Besides

that, each of their decisions can be appealed. These sorts of things

simply do not apply to the commissioner of Bill 19. Obviously, no one

has said that they meant him to be a judge. But an important question,

I think, is whether or not the person in this position should have some

of the checks and balances that go with another of the positions with

that kind of power that we know in our society. This position that's

set up for the commissioner does not have those kinds of checks and

balances, but it has those kinds of powers. I think that we have to

look very closely before we consider that to be a good thing. I think

it is an extremely dangerous thing. I don't agree that it is a good

thing, but I think if the public does, they have to be told what the

dangers are that come with this kind of situation.

What we are not told when we read Bill 19 is whether or not this one person

has to consult in many cases. It looks as though the commissioner is not going

to have to consult with anyone, most times, when he does any kind of action

— and he has many kinds of actions he can take. If he is to consult, with whom

is he to consult? Are there any guidelines at all for this commissioner to make

the kinds of decisions that he's going to make about, for example — and

I come back to it because it's overwhelming in the bill — the public interest?

How much is that commissioner going to have to assume when he decides what is

in the public interest? And in order to decide public interest, one supposes

that he is going to want to know what each one of us in the general public —

that great crowd out there — thinks about our interest and thinks about the

good of society. So how much is he going to have to assume about what that public

interest is, what the public wants? How much are we, as the public, so often

in the hands of the decisions that this commissioner makes, going to have to

assume about what he knew and what he did to make the decisions that he made?

[2:45]

In order to do that, I think it useful to look at a few ideas about

authority that are relatively basic to any of us who have thought at

all about how authority operates. It is important to look at a bit of

theory, if you like, and wonder if we should have a single person with

this degree of authority. What we earn, if we didn't.... What is put

very succinctly here and what I think we all know is that employees

will consider themselves partners in a common enterprise, rather than

tools n the hands of management, if they think that they will accept an

authority, when it is socially accepted that the person in authority is

guided by rational standards in the pursuit of common ends.

I think that there is some question, with the appointment of Mr.

Peck to this position, that he is guided by rational standards in this

bill, and that in fact the ends to which he is going are the ends of

the people on whose behalf he will be making some decisions. Therefore

I think it is very questionable whether or not his authority will be

respected.

There is another analysis here that suggests that there are three

basic conditions that create pronounced inequalities when you have a

position of authority. Authority, if we remember, is a relationship. It

is not a quality assigned to a single person, because authority stays

with the person only so long as people willingly grant him the

authority that they give to him. No one has authority if the people

over whom he thinks he has authority do not think that he does, because

they will not behave that way, and then we do not have a situation of

authority.

It is suggested that three conditions create pronounced

inequalities. I have taken a fairly standard book on management theory

to give these ideas; I think they follow a number of similar types of

analysis. They are close supervision, which forces employees

continually to submit to the demands of a superior; employment of

sanctions; and particularly arbitrary power. What this particular

expert says is that arbitrary exercise of power arouses the most

intense feelings of inequality.

We are right to the ultimate power that the commissioner has under

Bill 19, which is the power to lead disputes to arbitration. In fact,

it is the most distrusted power of all, and the relationship between

the people whom he is trying to work with and the person who is going

to be the arbiter or appoint the arbiter.... That trust will disappear.

In fact, as many of us know, there is a common word in labour theory

for compulsory arbitration: it is called the chill factor. It is called

the chill factor because it prevents real negotiation from going on. If

anybody is ultimately going to go to an arbitrator, they are not

particularly interested in giving up a bunch of the points that they

may otherwise have given up, because everything is going to go to an

arbitrator, and that point will not be on the table. It is a perfectly

logical thing when you think it through, and it happens so often. It is

amazing in our world that logic sometimes happens. But it happens so

often that it has this term; it is called the chill factor.

What basis is this for the kind of relationship that we would want

to exist if we had a commissioner with the powers outlined in Bill 19?

We have a commissioner who is working on a number of assumptions, which

is not a good basis for trust. He is working on an expectation of

authority that depends largely on arbitrary powers, and we know that

that is

[ Page 690 ]

not a good basis for trust. In fact, we would say,

I think fairly rationally, that there is no basis for trust between the

participants with this structure outlined in Bill 19.

This commissioner has no appeal against his decisions. He can impose

cooling-off periods, intermediaries and settlements, he can impose

almost anything, but in fact there is probably very little trust left

between this commissioner and the people for whom he is making these

decisions. Now is this in the public interest? Is this in that bit of

the common idea that we have of the public interest? We certainly have

some of the central core ideas, I think.

We all know very well, if we stand back and look at the imposition

in this case of a single commissioner to deal with so many of the

problems that are predicted in our industrial relations climate, that

if in fact we put a single person in, that will probably be the most

efficient, if you like. In fact, in all political theory the idea of

the dictatorship is, of course, the most efficient kind of government.

Everybody wants it to be a benevolent dictatorship, but it doesn't

matter; that has nothing to do with the efficiency of it. But the whole

issue of democratic process has to do with the sharing of power, and

that really is the direction of growth. It's been the direction of

growth in our political system over political issues, and now over

democracy in the workplace issues, that has been the progress that we

have made. If we've made any progress it has to do with the sharing of

the power, not the giving of more power into the hands of one class or

one individual.

This particular bill, Bill 19, works totally against that. What

we've done over the years is work hard at the development of free

collective bargaining, and free collective bargaining works through a

consensus mechanism. We all know that that's what has to happen in

order for free collective bargaining to occur, and I believe that even

some of the comments that came along with Bill 19 indicate that under

normal circumstances the ministry, and obviously the government,

believes that free collective bargaining does some particular things.

For example, under ending the compensation stabilization program the

comment is there that predictably collective agreements established by

voluntary settlement will reflect the ability to pay of the employer

who negotiated them. Well, that's a big statement of trust by a

government that is not trusting any kind of event like that to happen

in the public service. But free collective bargaining where it is left

alone we recognize gives consensus agreement, or at least some

agreements that in fact have the commitment of both the sides to the

bargaining.

If there is a threat to public interest, what normally happens in

collective bargaining is that the task of determining an industrial

relationship is left to the participants; and if there is a threat then

to the public interest, the elected representatives then decide — not

government alone but the Legislature. Under Bill 19 we do not have that

right. Even our Legislature does not decide what can be done. In fact,

even the minister has very much less power than he had before. What

happens is that we begin to have a situation where we have one person

who decides, and in fact that person is not even considered to be an

impartial person.

I think that that's another question about the naming of Mr. Peck,

who has not generally been regarded as a person who has not taken

sides. I think you need only read.... You can talk to almost anyone on

the street, any group of people: Mr. Peck is not regarded as a person

who is impartial. That is another problem with this issue. If you put

someone in this position which you made for Mr. Peck, and that person

is not generally regarded to be impartial — whether or not he is

impartial, he is not regarded to be impartial — that puts us out with

our labour legislation starting with a limp.

What in fact is happening with the bill is that on accepting the

bill we have a situation where if the process fails — and I would say

it's almost a process of persuasion or whatever and then it comes down

to Mr. Peck intervening and so on — then we have the commissioner

deciding things and then the employer enforcing those things; and that

comes in under the

section of the bill where in fact any employee can

be demoted or disciplined for not behaving. It's the employer who

enforces what happens when Mr. Commissioner decides what should be

done. So in order to accept the bill, we have to accept that the

employers are fairer than the employees. We have to assume that the

union leadership have often been poorer leaders than anyone else. I

certainly do not accept that; I think a wide number of people, perhaps

a majority of people, do not accept that as one of the assumptions on

which we want to base the trust that we would have to put into a

commissioner. What kind of a ball game is it anyway where you have to

assume that one side is nicer than the other?

The whole issue of the level playing-field is in question. It's been

used, but is not a level playing-field. The government has taken sides

in this bill; it has remedied cases where the employers lost at law in

favour of the party who lost at law. In other words, the new bill puts

that in, takes care of all the problems. Is that fair? We have to ask:

is fairness a principle here? Do we have to talk about it? Of course we

have to talk about it; there's no possible way that we can let this go

past without talking about it. Was this what was intended in the bill?

Was it meant that the Treasury Board was supposed to be given broad and

sweeping powers? If that is a principle that is in the public interest,

then we need to talk about it, because it's certainly not in the public

interest by the people that I talk to.

Those are the issues that need to be discussed, and when we talk

about discussion, it's a matter of public interest as well that there

be discussion. We need the discussion and consultation that bring

everybody to agree to legislation. That hasn't happened. We've talked

about that before, but that comes along again. It comes up to the issue

whether this bill should be approved in principle. How can it possibly

be approved in principle? It has not even been discussed yet.

It would be quite fair and quite obvious to say that this bill did

not result from the labour hearings that went around the province in

January and into February. The timetable shows that those hearings

could not have been put together and been considered and been talked

over and formed into a bill. There's no possible way that this bill

came out of those hearings.

We need to have time for the public to consider the issues of Bill

19. The point is that many of the things in the bill were not asked

for. Nobody asked for firing without cause, did they? Nobody asked for

retroactivity. In fact, the kind of retroactivity that's in this bill

interferes with contract law. Has anybody considered that, and did

anybody want the provisions of this bill to interfere with the

contracts that have been signed between parties and now can be changed

by a bill that would apply to them in a retroactive way?

[3:00]

Nobody, it seems, asked for an extensive power of the Treasury Board

to control school and hospital boards as well as other bodies to which

they give money. I believe there may be some movement on that one —

good. It's probably not the

[ Page 691 ]

only part of this bill that needs to be looked at in the light of the public interest.

One of the other interesting things about this bill and about the

way it's come in and the way it's been here is the absolute repetition

of many of the events of 1968, when Bill 33 was brought in, which was

called the Mediation Commission bill. It came in with a legislation

whose edge was — and it was quoted many times — the public interest and

welfare. Constantly there was going to be a decision, and all the

decisions were going to be made on whether or not the public interest

was involved and whether it was being harmed.

There are some real problems with the perception of that. In 1968,

the B. C. Federation made their statement against the idea of who was

deciding what the public interest was. The same questions could be

asked today. Is the public interest that of the logging companies that

are necessarily taking out the profits that they do? Is the public

interest the mining companies that are despoiling the land frequently?

Is that the kind of thing that public interest means?

Perhaps more objective is the statement of the Civil Liberties

Association, who spoke on the bill, which as I said was similar in many

ways to Bill 19. It said that under this bill "the government is

empowered to prohibit or terminate a strike whenever an unresolved

dispute between an employer and an employee group is deemed contrary to

'public interest and welfare' and to refer the dispute to a mediation

commission." In this regard, the bill wasn't quite as far-ranging as

Bill 19, but the commission could write a new collective agreement

between the parties, which would be binding. "These provisions enabled

the government to prohibit or terminate any strike since the phrase

'public interest and welfare' may be interpreted very broadly to cover

any or all labour disputes." I don't know why that would be different

with Bill 19 than it was with Bill 33. "Moreover," the Civil Liberties

Association said,"the power given to the cabinet and the commission" —

and in that case it was given to cabinet and the commission, not to a

commissioner — "is made absolute by

section 38, which prohibits any

access to the courts." Well, of course, as we know, there is no appeal

from the decisions of the commissioner under Bill 19, so the same

situation applies.

The Civil Liberties Association then said:

"To place such arbitrary powers in the hands of" —

in this case it was the cabinet and the commission; in our case it's the

commissioner — "is a serious curtailment to the rights of working people

to negotiate freely the terms under which they will earn their living.

"Ultimately, the freedom to withdraw labour is the

only effective way by which employed persons can try to improve their

condition of life. It is this sanction which, in the final analysis,

gives real power to labour in the collective bargaining process. This

power is matched on the side of management by the employers' ownership

or control of industry."

If in fact it says that labour has the right to withdraw its labour,

it may be relatively equal to the employer's ownership or control.

In this

part it says that the bill — in this case 33; I am putting it to you that Bill 19 would do the same:

"...would remove labour's ultimate sanction without

any corresponding diminution of the employer's power. Assuming passage of

these sections, equality could only be restored if the government, when preventing

or terminating a strike, was obligated at the same time to confiscate the industry

affected."

I don't know whether you would agree with that, but it is probably an objective viewpoint.

I'm not sure that the government today or the government then was

thinking of taking away property from industry if they were doing the

wrong thing. In fact, what the bill does is take away from the workers

the one thing of value that they trade, the one thing they can withdraw

in order to have any power in a labour dispute situation. The Civil

Liberties Association also pointed out that the ability to strike was

taken away, which is of course the reason that the ILO — the

International Labour Organization — has declared that British Columbia

labour law contravenes the Canadian commitment to it. It seems to me it

is not in the public interest for British Columbia to be the single

province where, under the terms and the understandings of the

international treaties that the country has signed, the right to strike

has been taken away.

I think the whole issue of what is going on with this bill should he

put back in the public domain, where the process of consensus building

can go ahead, where in fact the voters and the government and the

legislators of this province can go at the collective bargaining that

needs to be done about this particular issue. Probably we have to look

at that; if we don't, we will forever regret the fact that we have gone

ahead too fast.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak in favour

of Bill 19, and take this opportunity to compliment the Minister of

Labour for being an attentive listener to the debate from both sides of

the House.

I would like to begin today by saying that Bill 19 does represent a

fundamental change in industrial relations for British Columbia. I

emphasize that this change is fundamental, for that is the real

strength of the proposed legislation. The call for fundamental change

was something the Minister of Labour heard repeatedly during his public

consultation before drafting the legislation. He heard it again and

again as he reviewed over 700 submissions from labour, from management

and from the public at large.

Fundamental change is not always easy to accept, even by those who

stand to benefit. It is particularly difficult for those who must

change their routine, who must disrupt their personal or corporate

status quo. This resistance is not evidence of evil or conspiracy, but

rather of the tendency of human beings to find comfort in the familiar

and to fear the uncertainties of innovation. This is only natural.

There is always risk in any change: risk of losing some advantage or

some privilege. We saw this fear of fundamental change in 1973, when

the NDP was attacked by labour and by business after their Labour Code

was introduced to this Legislature. Today we see the same fear, and for

the same reasons.

The true test of fundamental change is not whether it initially

creates fear-based opposition; it always does, for that is the nature

of fundamental change. The true test of such change is whether it

proves beneficial over time. There is no doubt in my mind that the

fundamental changes proposed in Bill 19 will prove beneficial to

British Columbia. I also believe that the leaders of our labour

organizations and our business community possess the wisdom and the

flexibility to move past their initial discomfort with change and, as

they

[ Page 692 ]

did after 1973, learn to benefit from these improvements in industrial relations law.

I believe this will happen because Bill 19 is good legislation. The

proposed law does not attack unions and does not attack management.

What it does do — and I look forward to the day when the official

opposition begins to share this perception — is attack a failed

process, a failed industrial relations process which is not working for

the unions, is not working for management and, very importantly, is not

working for the public interest. It is a process which fails us

whenever union and management are unable to resolve their differences

at the bargaining table, a process which fails to offer adequate checks

or balances when contract negotiations go sour.

The small proportion of disputes — around 5 percent, I believe —

which end in strikes or lockouts often create damage completely out of

proportion to the issues in dispute. Families are bankrupted,

businesses — some of which are not even party to the dispute — are

destroyed, the economies of small towns are decimated. In a larger

context, this province acquires a reputation for labour unrest and for

unreliability. This is why British Columbia needs a fundamental change

in its industrial relations laws. Bill 19 will create new pressures on

management and labour to come to an agreement by negotiation rather

than by lockout or strike.

The new legislation requires good faith bargaining to occur before a

strike vote or a lockout vote is allowed. We are saying to management

and to unions: we no longer tolerate lockouts or strikes until after

you have at least tried. A strike vote or a lockout vote must be a

response to lack of progress in negotiations, not a cause of bargaining

failure. This is not unreasonable, not draconian. It is an alternative

to a failed process, a failed process which no longer does good service

to the people of this province.

When negotiations do fail, the proposed commissioner will have an

extraordinary array of innovative strategies to break the logjam and

prevent a strike or lockout. He can appoint a fact-finder to

investigate the dispute. He can meet directly with parties in dispute

and recommend voluntary settlements. He can direct a secret ballot vote

on the employer's most recent offer. He can appoint a public interest

inquiry board to determine how the dispute affects the public interest.

He can order a 40-day cooling-off period in strikes which affect the

public interest. He can name a special mediator whose report can become

a collective agreement if disputing parties fail to agree. He can order

arbitration proceedings, including final-offer selection or mediation

arbitration.

This is quite an array of strategies. The members of this House are

already familiar with the details. These features have been described

in great detail by previous speakers. However, this listing does point

out the need for a great deal of sensitivity in selecting the

appropriate response. A ham-fisted, clumsy application of these tools

would indeed bring about the chaos feared by the opposition.

This will not happen. We will not have chaos or insensitivity or

ham-fistedness. We will not have any of these because this new

machinery will be administered by an extremely capable man with years

of experience in industrial relations in British Columbia. Ed Peck is

respected by mainstream labour, by management and by both sides of this

House. Mr. Peck also has the sensitivity to make the delicate judgments

involved in recommending to cabinet whether or not a dispute has

disrupted the public interest. The nature of this judgment will vary

with each situation as Mr. Peck evaluates factors which have never

before been formally reviewed on a routine basis — factors such as the

permanent loss of markets or jobs from operations not directly involved

in the dispute; the effect of a particular dispute on British

Columbia's reputation as an international or interprovincial supplier;

the effect of a particular dispute on British Columbia's reputation for

industrial relations; any overall damaging effect on the provincial

economy which could cause job loss, corporate dislocation, loss of

external trade, loss of major investment, loss of government revenues.

[3:15]

As Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, I am especially

aware of the need to maintain tax revenues. We have a fine

post-secondary system in this province, and that system is an expensive

investment. Just last month we committed an extra $50 million annually

to student financial assistance, a move which was applauded on both

sides of this House. That type of service to our taxpayers can only be

maintained when tax revenues are not disrupted by major labour

disputes. In fact, services such as this are really the only

justification for implementing taxes.

My point is that disputes which disrupt the entire economy of this

province, disputes such as the protracted forest dispute last fall, not

only threaten individual and corporate survival, but threaten our

ability to fund our most basic social, health and education programs,

programs which British Columbians of all political viewpoints agree are

necessary to our well-being. Protecting these programs, protecting our

international reputation, protecting individual families and protecting

the overall economic health of this province are the concerns met by

this legislation.

These concerns more than justify giving Mr. Peck the tools to break

logjams, the tools to construct a safety net which will prevent labour

disputes from getting out of hand. This is a safety net that the people

of British Columbia — and this includes the ordinary working people —

want to see put in place. Like all safety nets, it will not be used

very often. The parties involved will make every effort to avoid the

need to rely on a government safety net. However, on those occasions

when the safety net is used, it will, like all safety nets, prevent

damage and disaster from occurring. In the final analysis, that is why

we must support Bill 19, Mr. Speaker: because this province cannot

afford to be without such a safety net.

MR. D'ARCY: Unlike the apologists for this legislation from

the Socred cabinet benches and Socred back benches, I'm going to

attempt to consult notes from time to time but actually to give this

speech, as opposed to reading it. I would think that, while we are

referred to casually as "speakers" on legislation in this House, the

speakers in this debate from the government side could more

appropriately be referred to as "readers."

Mr. Speaker, it won't be any surprise to you, of course, that I'm

speaking in opposition to this legislation. I suppose we could all get

very philosophical about why we on this side of the House oppose the

bill and why people on the other side can support it. But the public,

at least in my constituency — not those with an axe to grind — are

concerned about this legislation. There is not a great understanding of

it out there. There are a lot of opinions out there, a lot of rhetoric

about what it does or does not do, or might or might not do. But

[ Page 693 ]

there is a lot of just plain concern that the government doesn't quite know what it's doing with this legislation.

There is a lot of concern that the government took its own

philosophy, its own ideas — superficially acquired them over a period

of time; yes, sought submissions from the general public, and out of

every hundred perhaps took the five that confirmed the government's own

prejudices and trashed the other 95, whether or not they came from

knowledgeable people in a particular field. In my own experience there

are a number of fields which, in a technical sense, I certainly do not

consider myself to be an expert in. Indeed, in some of the fields that

I've had quite a bit to do with, the more I get to know of them, the

less I think I'm an expert in them.

I certainly am quite prepared to accept the knowledge and experience

of those who have training, knowledge and experience in specific

fields. I tend to believe, for instance, in the legal opinion of

lawyers over my own legal opinions; I tend to believe in the medical

opinions of doctors over my own medical opinions, and so forth. Mr.

Speaker, that is the concern which is running through the community in

B.C. — as I said earlier, not those with a specific axe to grind, who

feel that their own personal situation is likely to be damaged. There

is a general feeling of unease in the public that the government

doesn't really know what it's doing with this legislation and doesn't

really have any idea of what effect it is likely to have on the larger

body politic and the economy of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, when

that feeling gets out there, there is a lack of faith and trust in

government in general. While we in this chamber have disputes with each

other about the direction of government on a great many issues, none of

us likes to feel that the institution of this elected parliament or the

elected Parliament of Canada has fallen itself into disrepute — that

that orthodoxy in itself is not taken credibly by the people out there

who are electing us and paying the bills.

Mr. Speaker, we have had references in this debate, from people on

the other side, that one of the reasons that there's a problem in B.C.

and one of the reasons we need to go ahead with this is that the union

movement and the management bargaining sector have not particularly

helped the economy. In the areas where there has been the most

disruption due to the exercise of individual democratic rights in this

province, we hear again and again that absolutely record profits are

being made.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that there are economic problems in this

province. After all, we look at the most recent employment figures —

and I emphasize employment — in this province, and we find that only

6,000 more people are working in British Columbia than a year ago. This

represents a 0.5 percent increase. That's not much real growth, only a

tiny fraction of the total number of jobs created in Canada over the

same period of time. Not only that, but we find that average weekly

earnings in B.C. over that period have declined in real terms. Some

months they have declined in actual terms as well.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concerned everyone in this

province throughout the last year or so, and even through the election

of last fall, was that some people were too shrill, too

confrontational, too ideological and not pragmatic enough in their

approach to problems in British Columbia. Legislation such as this —

one of the fundamental reasons why I oppose it — brings back the

feeling that this government is confrontational, that it is shrill in

putting forth its ideology, in imposing the personal beliefs of the

cabinet and the back bench on the body politic of British Columbia.

That's not what any of us — this side or the other side — were elected

to do. We were elected to be pragmatic, businesslike and sensible, and

that's not what the public feels about this legislation. That's why I

oppose it, and that's why I ask the government to withdraw it in the

form which has been put before this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, we can all go out and find people who are very

agreeable with how we feel as individuals. The mark of a sensitive

government, though, is feelings of tolerance for those who disagree

with them and how they incorporate those other feelings into their

particular legislation. When the government was receiving submissions,

some of which were apparently considered in the drafting of this piece

of legislation.... I say with all respect to the minister that it is a

very sloppily drafted piece of legislation. One of the things said by

major business groups, major employer groups.... I'm not talking about

recently, since this legislation came in; I'm talking about back in the

winter when the government was receiving submissions. One of the things

said, and I paraphrase, but it was said several times, was that

government should not create a whole lot of new problems while

attempting to resolve or alleviate some older ones. In other words,

let's not make changes for changes' sake. That advice, which was given

several times, has clearly not been heeded by the minister and the

government across the way.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there are elements in this legislation which

drastically alter if not simply wipe out some major contract provisions

arrived at freely by individuals bargaining collectively in both the

recent and the distant past. There's no question that this then becomes

retroactive legislation involving what is in effect the private

property of the parties who freely came to those decisions. In many

cases, in entering into those freely negotiated contracts, both sides

gave up certain concessions to the other — which they weren't happy

about, but in order to resolve some of those things, they gave up

certain situations in order to agree with each other that others should

be in effect.

Because we're not in committee, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I can't

get down to specific sections, but there are aspects of this

legislation that retroactively wipe out portions of collective

agreement contracts freely reached by individuals. I have to emphasize

— "individuals," because those contracts had to be approved by the

individuals involved in the bargaining process on management side, and

they had to be approved by the individuals involved in the bargaining

process for the tradesmen or workers or professional people on the

employee side. So the individuals entered into a collective contract,

provisions of which are being arbitrarily abrogated by this legislation.

I will make a brief reference to something which occurred just

before this session was called in, when the federal government decided

they did not like one of the tax provisions proposed regarding SkyTrain

by the member for Saanich in his capacity as Minister of Finance. There

were howls, shrill howls, from people on the government side about the

terrible thing that Ottawa was doing about the retroactivity of those

changes. Well, there is a whole lot of retroactivity being foisted,

forced, on individuals in this province by only one

section — which I

will not refer to — in this particular

[ Page 694 ]

legislation. This is another reason why I am strongly opposed to this legislation.

The government spokesmen have said over and over again how they want

this legislation in place because, after all, both they and the office

of commissioner which they will be setting up under this legislative

proposal need the power to act in the public interest. I know of no

case where the public interest has been offended by clauses which were

freely negotiated into contracts and are already in place. Can anybody

on the government side tell us — they don't even need to tell us; tell

the people of B.C. — how the public interest has been offended in any

way by contract provisions which are in place now and have been in

place for some time, contract provisions that were freely negotiated by

employers and employees? So if it has to be done — according to Socred

spokesmen — in the public interest, why is that

section even needed at

all?

[3:30]

Over the years employers, employees, individuals have been to the

courts on labour-management questions. They have been to quasi-judicial

bodies like the Labour Relations Board. Again, I can't go into a

discussion of specific sections, but there are aspects of this bill

which state clearly that some, in fact a great number, of those

decisions which courts and quasi-judicial bodies rendered over the

years are in fact invalid. Why is it to be considered by Social Credit

that it is in the public interest, then, for all those individuals and

all those groups to have gone under rule of law, gone under what they

thought was law and order duly enacted by their elected

representatives, gone and argued a case and won some, lost some or had

a compromise decision rendered in others, gone through the process, in

other words, usually — I was going to say "often" — at great expense,

only to find out that they really had been wasting their time and their

money in believing, as Canadians and as British Columbians do, in the

concept of process and law and order, and only to find out that the

government of the day has decided that they did not like the decisions

rendered by those courts and those quasi-judicial bodies and are simply

saying that they are not valid from this day forth, presumably the day

that the government will force this piece of legislation through the

House and get it royal assent.

Mr. Speaker, the powers of the commissioner's office in our history

— and I am speaking not just of British Columbia, but of Canada — and

indeed in the history of democracies in the western world, whether they

be under a republican form of government or some form or outgrowth of

British parliamentary democracy.... The powers the commissioner is

proposed to have under this legislation are broader than any powers

given anyone. There are no checks and balances. It could well be argued

that even the emergency boards and controls that were experienced in

wartime were not as broad as some of the powers to be granted to this

commissioner. And I might point out that in wartime, it was generally

acknowledged that there was an emergency situation; we had a call to

patriotism, and there were genuine emergencies in some areas of the

economy. There was no question that certain aspects of the economy,

such as shipbuilding, port maintenance and the provision of armaments

and foodstuffs, were incredibly essential. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it could

be argued that even those boards did not have the powers that are

proposed to be given this commissioner's office — and I refer to the

commissioner's office, not to the individual who will be employed there

in any capacity. They'll be human beings.

They'll do some good things and they'll make some mistakes, but they will be human beings.

Mr. Speaker, members on the government side have professed in this debate and

at other times that they have a strong allegiance to something that all too

often in our society and economy is rather mythological: something they refer

to as the marketplace. Well, if the government, through terms laid down through

a commissioner's office, is going to be setting the terms of settlement

in virtually every dispute which is not settled at the collective bargaining

level, surely the members opposite would have to agree that the government is

entering into the marketplace in a way which government in this province has

not entered into it before, ever.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few years we've had the compensation

stabilization office; we're all aware of that. That office has had

powers not to increase settlements but to decrease settlements in the

public sector. We now have an office that is going to have powers to

enter into the private sector to arbitrarily increase, decrease or

change provisions of contracts, and that is definitely an interference

into the marketplace which we have not seen in this province — and I

hope we don't see, because there's still a chance that this bill may be

delayed or may not get through the House on the

schedule that the

government wants.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard also from the other side that one of the

great things that this bill is going to do is open it up for trainees

and apprentices to get training and apprenticeships that they perhaps

wouldn't otherwise get, especially in the building trades under the

craft union closed-shop agreement. In my experience in the workplace, I

have known people who were 50 years old before they got an

apprenticeship; they'd been waiting for years and years and years. In

fact, it is quite common in the industrial sector of the B.C. economy

for people to enter the workforce at some point in their lives, in

their twenties or thirties, in a particular plant or industry, work

perhaps in a labouring type job, a fairly low-skilled job, move on into

an operating job, eventually bid into the maintenance department as a

helper and finally after years of having their names on the list —

having passed all the entrance courses, of course, having taken all the

pre-apprenticeship training offered by the province over the years, I

might say — after waiting years and years, in some cases decades,

finally being admitted into an apprenticeship, because the waiting list

was that long and the opportunities were that slim.

Mr. Speaker, no union was blocking them; it was simply a case of

supply and demand; there simply was not the opportunity. We have heard

from the people on the opposite side about the individual rights of the

18- to 20-year-old to get into those apprenticeship programs. What

about the rights of the people in their twenties, thirties, forties and

sometimes even fifties who have been waiting years and years to get

into those same training programs because they want to be a tradesman?

Tradesperson — some of them may be female.

So, Mr. Speaker, we see the selective judgment of some people on the

opposite side. Well, they will see a problem as it affects a younger

person and not see the same problem as affecting people in the

workforce who are not 18 or 20 but rather 38 or 48.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, we all know the real problem is not the

trade union movement, not the apprenticeship programs in British

Columbia, not even the employers; the real problem is that there simply

aren't enough jobs. That's the real problem; there are simply not

enough opportunities.

[ Page 695 ]

But cutting workers off at the knees who have gone through the

process and waited in the queue by saying you're going to allow the

employer to bypass that provision — which is what this legislation does

— is not fair, once again, to individual rights. It is not fair to the

individual who has played the game by the rules — rules they didn't

like; rules they didn't make — because they want to be fair to other

people in their community; they want to be fair to their fellow workers

and even the employers.

Once again, we see what some of the employers' groups warned about

well in advance of this legislation being tabled. They warned about the

government creating more problems than they were going to solve —

again, not just sloppy drafting, but fuzzy thinking and a sloppy

conception of where the real problems were and how to deal with them.

I have another series of reasons for speaking against the powers of

the commissioner's office. All government decisions, whether under this

legislation or some other, are ultimately perceived by the public to be

small 'p' political decisions. Even good decisions are perceived as

being political. When I refer to the public, I'm referring to that

large constituency out there. I'm not just referring to the trade union

movement or trade union leaders, or even individual citizens who belong

to trade unions. I'm not just referring to large, major employer

groups, but also to individual businesses who are not part of a

management collective agreement that works as a group in bargaining

with its employees. These decisions will be perceived by the broad

spectrum of the public out there as expedient, in political terms, on

the part of government, whether it is that government over there or

some other government that may be in place in the future. That is one

of the reasons I am convinced.... As I said earlier, in our

parliamentary democracy and in democracies around the world it has been

generally agreed that any particular office with this kind of arbitrary

power is demonstrably not in the public interest. The Socred government

of today cannot reinvent the world. There are certain truths which

transcend political parties and their philosophies and which should be

retained, having grown as a collective body of knowledge over a long

period of time.

I've spoken with a number of people in my constituency about this,

and even those who generally like what they feel is the philosophy and

thrust of this legislation have great reservations about the

government's ability to do it fairly and the commissioner's office's

ability to accomplish things fairly and in the best interests of the

B.C. economy and the B.C. taxpayer. That's what we're here to discuss —

not the interests of employers, not the interests specifically of trade

unionists, but the best interests of B.C. taxpayers as a whole.

This skepticism doesn't come from some kind of political

bloody-mindedness on the part of those who are simply stridently

opposed to anything Social Credit does, nor does it come from what have

been characterized by some Socred leaders in the past as bad British

Columbians. It comes from people who don't want confrontation. They

don't want unreasoned haste from government. They don't want ideology

and personal theory forced down their throats. This concern has been

expressed by people who perceive that government over the last few

years has caused some of the major difficulties in British Columbia.

Yes, they want the government off the backs of the people, because they

feel the government has been a bad influence. When the government comes

out with legislation like this, they have a sense of deja vu. They feel

that all those high expectations that were there last summer and last

fall — of government at least doing some reasonably objective

consultation, accepting what is reasonable, having some judgment as to

what is reasonable and rejecting what is not reasonable — have gone by

the board.

There is a lot of speculation out there among my constituents as to

what this bill is all about — and, I will say quite frankly, a lot of

misconception. But the fact remains that the public is uneasy. They are

not sure why the bill is bad, but they have a feeling that the bill is

bad, because they're talking about it all the time. In many respects,

the government and the Premier in this province, after being in office

for ten months — six months since the election; maybe nine or ten,

counting the time before that.... The Social Credit government, even

though it's about 11 years old, under this particular Premier is still

less than a year old. It is still, in the minds of many British

Columbians, on a bit of a honeymoon. Mr. Speaker, that honeymoon can

rapidly come to an end because while the public does not expect that it

will agree with what government does — after all, we would not have a

province of 2.8 million individuals if there was constant agreement

over what politicians do or say — the public does not want foul-ups. It

does not want government to cause problems; it wants government to

resolve problems.

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the government and to the minister that it's

not too late to begin a process of genuine consultation where you

listen to the things that you don't quite agree with as well as the

things you do agree with. There has been an aspect of failed economies

in the free world that is very, very common, and that aspect has been

authoritarianism and authoritarian powers. We need only to look at a

number of the military authoritarian dictatorships that have been

tossed out in recent years. I'd like to say they were tossed out

because the public spontaneously rose up and said: "We don't like this

kind of authoritarianism and totalitarianism any more." That's not

really the reason; they got tossed out because their economics failed.

There is one thing about freely operating democracy and free

collective bargaining: it tends to lead to a strong and stable economy.

There is one thing that authoritarianism on the part of government

leads to and that is failed economies. We don't even need to get into

the Soviet bloc to find failed economies; we can find failed economies

under authoritarianism in the western world.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not just a step, it is a major

movement down the road to authoritarianism in this province and a

direct intervention not only into individuals' lives but a direct

intervention into the economy itself. Because what we see is that the

government is going to make what will be perceived as political

decisions in industries which are dependent on variable commodity

markets, industries which are dependent on a whole lot of factors other

than internal things in British Columbia, industries and employers and

groups of employees which by and large have responded to those external

and internal market forces very well — a little slow on occasion, but

they have responded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time.

MR. D'ARCY: Times does fly, doesn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: When you're having fun.

[ Page 696 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, and I'm just getting through my opening

remarks. But, Mr. Speaker, should the House go into committee on this

particular bill — Committee of the Whole — then there will be other

more detailed aspects of this legislation which I hope to have the

opportunity of discussing with the minister.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, it gives me indeed pleasure to rise

and speak in support of Bill 19. While the members of the opposition

are saying that we have not consulted, that we are not consulting, I

believe that consultation has been held. Public hearings have been held

throughout the province. The invitation was to all; none was excluded.

It wasn't limited to anyone, but it appears that some have obviously

not taken the opportunity to express opinions and therefore they feel a

little hurt perhaps at this point in time. But the people generally

have aired their views, and the central theme of the submissions that

were brought to this committee was need for a democratic and productive

workforce.

We in British Columbia talk about being an active participant in

Pacific Rim trade. How can we participate and how can we be successful

participants? Can we expect success with the labour climate that we

have experienced during the seventies and early eighties? Productivity

and stability, in my opinion, are essential ingredients in the

marketplace, but more essential when we are participating in world

trade, which is a must if the people of this province and the

government are to achieve their goals. However, labour is and always

will be a key link to that success.

While we have in the past experienced that a lot of products were

shipped out of this province, there is really no reason why we in

British Columbia cannot manufacture many of these products ourselves. I

believe it is this type of legislation that will help achieve this

goal, and I believe that the goals and objectives of this government

are very clear. This in particular was one of those that was contained

in the throne speech and also in our budget, in terms of funding.

Our Minister of Economic Development, the Hon. Grace McCarthy from

Vancouver-Little Mountain, is indeed pulling this together with the

Partners in Enterprise program....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, sorry to interrupt you, but I

have had to remind the House of this on several occasions. We do not

name sitting members of the House in our speeches. Please proceed.

MR. DE JONG: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. The first member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain is indeed pulling this together with the

Partners in Enterprise program, a program many municipalities are

participating in. The Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training

(Hon. S. Hagen) is also gearing his ministry towards the training of

our young people to take an active

part in obtaining skills and

technical knowledge so that they can successfully, as individuals and

as a province, take

part in Pacific Rim trade.

Sure, the opposition may ask: what does this have to do with Bill

19? Well, I wish to point out that we cannot take everything in

isolation. It is another point in the government's program that must be

achieved, However, there are undoubtedly a lot of different views among

the people of British Columbia as to what labour relations should or

should not be. Having listened to the people in my riding and having

studied Bill 19, I believe that the committee that went around the

province has not only been listening, but has also struck a fair

balance as to what was brought to it in terms of submissions.

There is fairness and equity for both the employer and the employee.

Why would the members of the opposition oppose fairness? Why are the

big labour bosses threatening revolt and other means to stop Bill 19?

Is it because they do not believe in democracy within the unions? Have

the labour bosses and the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation

not learned that cooperation is a two-way street, and that those

traveling one way must respect those traveling in the opposite

direction? Surely neither is going to reach their goal or point of

destination with actions of revolt or disrespect.

I am sure that this government is going to cooperate, but it is also

going to govern. The opportunity to consult was given. The opportunity

for debate is now, and time for implementation is essential. I am

confident that if the union leaders were honest with themselves, they

would back this legislation in an attempt to settle the little wrinkles

it may contain in the spirit of cooperation and to give the people of

the province the opportunities to achieve.

Bill 19 will allow the people of this province to get on with the

job. Bill 19 will give this province the opportunity to achieve the

many applaudable statements contained in the Speech from the Throne.

Bill 19 is designed to provide fairness and equity. It is designed to

minimize labour stoppages either by strikes or lockouts. Bill 19 is

designed to bring about continued growth in the economy of this

province. Bill 19 is designed to honour the rights and freedoms of all

British Columbians, rights and freedoms the people of this province so

richly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill 19 and urge the members of the opposition to do likewise.

MR. BARNES: This is my second time speaking on this bill,

unsuccessfully I must regrettably say, in that the motion to hoist Bill

19 was rejected by the government. We lost in that vote, as I'm sure we

will lose on the main motion. All of the other protests that we may

make are not going to be successful in this House. That's unfortunate,

because if ever there was a piece of legislation before this assembly

that needed the benefit of time and review by all parties concerned,

not the least of which would be the public itself....

It's not just the labour movement and the so-called big labour

people — the big bosses, as I think they like to refer to them on that

side of the House; those people who represent hundreds of thousands of

workers in this province; the so-called biggies who are attempting to

get equitability in the workplace: fairness, decent working conditions,

fair wages, benefits such as those of us who are members in this

Legislature enjoy in terms of retirement plans that are livable, a cost

of living that's related to the purchasing power of our dollar from

year to year, protection of pensions, feeding families, making lifetime

commitments to increasing or making better citizens for this province.

Those big-timers out there who are working on behalf of organized

individuals are not the only ones we're concerned about. Nor are we

concerned only about the people we call the capitalists, who invest

their dollars — the so-called good guys, as that side of the House

would lead us to believe, who have, by the good graces of God, come on

their dollars by accident of birth, by hard work in some instances,

leverage in some instances, knowing the right people at the right time

in some instances.

[ Page 697 ]

But the so-called capitalists are on the other side, and they're not the only ones concerned about this bill.

[4:00]

The public does not understand what is going on. They do not

understand Bill 19. Despite the government's claim that it has

consulted with all parties, the public does not understand this bill.

For that matter — and to be very candid with you — there are details in

this legislation that I'm sure even those of us in this assembly do not

appreciate or understand. So the debate that really mattered, the one

that the government passed up, was the opportunity to hoist this bill

for six months. Now we’re talking on the main motion, having gotten the

clear message from the government that this bill is going to go through

come hell or high water. There is an urgency about it somehow; it

cannot wait. This bill is going to do for the people of British

Columbia what ten years of successive Social Credit government has been

unable to do: that is, to bring about instant recovery in our economy.

Bill 19, the magic bill. Bill 19, the bill that can't wait. It's too

bad, because as a result the people of the province are going to be

thrust into a situation that I think will be unprecedented. The bill,

to put it very bluntly, is a radical departure from what we are

accustomed to in this province in terms of free collective bargaining,

in terms of the processes that all parties are accustomed to in

resolving disputes, be they job related, in terms of working

conditions, fair wages and even market strategies. In other words, this

bill is short-circuiting a process in such a way as to destroy any

semblance of confidence that may have existed between the parties in

the past. It breaks fundamental principles of cooperation. It fails to

recognize that no matter how perfect an idea you have or how excellent

and imaginative your view of the future might be in terms of quick

fixes, there are essential things that you must never forget. Where

there is more than one party involved, it requires a coming together of

the minds and of the dedication and the desire to make it successful.

The methods that the government is using in imposing this bill on

the people of British Columbia are of such magnitude and outrageous

proportions that I think those of us on this side of the House are

dumbfounded by this government's seeming indifference. It is so

accustomed to being in office, and having the power to ram things

through, that it doesn't realize that this is an exceptional situation,

and one that I believe is going to set us back. I'm not one to make

predictions lightly, but it will set us back for fundamental reasons,

not because there weren't possibilities for the bill.

Surely we all recognize the need for an improved economy, the need

for dealing with the changes that are taking place in the world,

especially the marketplaces around the world. We all know that we have

to remain an attractive, competitive economy. No one is disputing that

if you don't have the means you can't get to the end. You have to work

together. People have to recognize limitations on resources, on

capital, on the cost of doing business, and on people's stress levels

and their ability to work without proper compensation. There are all

kinds of problems, and we all recognize that.

No one is arguing that the government shouldn't be addressing this

problem, and that the government should not be innovative. No one is

denying that. What we are saying is that you are short-circuiting the

process — the only process by which you can be successful. You cannot

impose success. The Premier is making predictions that by bringing in

Bill 19 we're all of a sudden going to have people rushing to the

boundaries of British Columbia to pour their capital into the economy.

Why? Why would the capitalists of the world want to come to British

Columbia and pour their money into the economy, unless there is an

awfully good deal someplace? Because there are all kinds of Third World

countries — the Pacific Rim, Asia Pacific, all over the place. You can

put money all along the coast. You don't have to come here.

I was down in the Caribbean not too long ago — St. Lucia. I spent a

few months down there. I couldn't believe that those people had their

day of independence a few years ago and they're worse off now than

ever. Independence is like saying you now have the right to starve,

because your economy is held to ransom. People are not organized.

You've got poor people thinking that they're going to become rich

capitalists by milking their neighbour. You have chaos rather than

cooperation. You don't have compassion; you have the so-called

individual initiative — get what you can get.

But can't you understand that times are changing? The workers far

outnumber the so-called capitalists, who themselves are nothing but

workers. There's no such thing as a big fat cat anymore. Everybody is

working hard — the guy with money and the guy without money. Times are

tough. We have to cooperate. What you're doing now is giving people the

illusion that there is a class system here where there are those who

should have and there are the others who shouldn't have, and that we've

got to put those workers in their place so that we can get on with the

economy. That doesn't work any more. That's an illusion. It's not real.

The capitalists are just as scared as the workers, and if a worker

wants to become a capitalist, and he thinks he's going to have it

easier, forget it. It's tough. We have to cooperate.

The time has come when the markets are changing, when we're going to

have to pay for what we get and do it together. Bringing in a bill such

as this, which begins to put the worker in this place.... It tells him

that he can only organize to a certain point, and after that point

we're going to bring in the hammer of Thor. We're going to bring in the

big czar who is going to come down and say: "That's the end of

negotiations — force a settlement on those people." Do you think that's

the way we're going to build cooperation and we're going to build an

economy in this province? It won't work.

There's one thing we can say: we've been criticized in this province

and in this country as Canadians, people saying we don't have much

backbone and we're always looking for an easy way out; we want to be

rescued by those foreigners with their investments and we want to get

the benefits without much risk. I can tell you there's one thing that

all Canadians like and respect, and that's their right to choice, their

freedom and their right to feel that they are relevant.

If you sit down at the bargaining table knowing that there's some

guy in the back room who's going to have a clock ticking and tell you

that your time is up, what kind of a negotiation is that, especially

when it's favoured on the side of the so-called capitalists, when

you're saying that workers should not be organized? This, in effect, is

what you are saying. You've got all kinds of cute little parts in this

bill that beg the ability of a person to take it seriously. I

personally am looking for solutions, the same as you are; I'm not

looking for ways to obstruct the government. It's tough enough being

government; and it's tough enough being in the opposition. But what's

worse is when you have to go and listen to people complain about the

unfairness of government, the insensitivity of government, the lack of

compassion of government, the lack of consistency of government, the

lack of the

[ Page 698 ]

government standing for something and meaning it,

instead of being all over the place, looking to see which way the winds

are blowing and how the polls are showing. One suspects that the

government has calculated very carefully this initiative and believes

that it is going to divide and conquer; it believes that it will get

public support for this initiative. Because I think the government

believes that the people in this province are so insensitive and so

selfish in their views about protecting their interests. After all,

we've heard from that side of the House that 85 percent of the people

are working; there have been speeches made that indicate to me that the

15 percent who are not working, well, that's too bad. We'll do what we

can for them, but they're going to have to fit in.

I suggest that Bill 19 is probably the gauntlet, so to speak, and I

say that because.... We have to go back a few months to some of the

remarks by the Premier when he was speaking to some of his gatherings

of people from the chambers of commerce around the province. He warned

— actually, he almost admonished — when he said to them: "The time will

come when you're going to have to make up your minds. You're going to

have to stand firmly, be with me, because the fight is coming."

We sort of laughed around Christmastime and said: "Oh, no, surely

Vander Zalm isn't going to go back to confrontation after all those

speeches that he had been making up at Whistler when he was running for

the leadership of the Social Credit Party. Surely he's not going to

start confronting again after convincing everybody that he has changed

his spots. He is truly the saint he's been telling everybody he is, a

compassionate man. He's not a wolf in sheep's clothing. His smile is

for real. It's not true when we say that he's flip-flopping back and

forth" — like we did, you know, in the campaign with our little ad.

That's turning out to be more accurate than even we realized: he says

this, now he says that, now he says this, now he says that.

It was sort of humorous at one time, but you know, let's face it,

we're dealing with an individual who is the Premier of this province. I

feel he has his mind made up, has an agenda. What we're doing in this

Legislature is really immaterial in terms of what's going to happen to

this province because of this man's personal design, his personal

campaign. And he has brought Bill 19 in through the Minister of Labour,

but it's the Premier's bill. And the Premier, I'm sure, will make no

bones about where he stands in terms of the economy.

When the collective bargaining process began to come up to a level

of equitability with capital, when it begins to be a case of equality

so that all parties can get a fair share, he sees this as mitigating

against the development of a good economy, a healthy economy. And he's

opposed to it.

You've heard a few of the references to some of the things that are

happening with the bill — for instance, what they call

double-breasting. I always thought that was a suit or a dress design of

some sort, but you know, now they're calling double-breasting what is a

double reverse — like in football: you're going this way, but he's

going that way, now which way is he going? You'll see in a minute,

because he's cashing in at the till while you're still over here trying

to picket this place. They've moved the goal-posts.

It's the kind of thing that makes it very clear to me that the

government doesn't really want organized labour and the working people

to share in the power and have any serious role to play in which way

things go in this province — that is what this bill is doing. We've

accused the government of being anti-union and anti-worker; but I don't

think there's any doubt about it that this government has an agenda

which involves reducing organized labour in this province to nothing,

so it can go around the world and say: "Look, the workers have no real

power in British Columbia. You can come here and pay them whatever you

feel like. You can invest whatever you wish. You can manoeuvre. We will

support you 100 percent. Just give us a commitment that you're going to

spend your money here. Mind you, we're not going to hold you to leaving

it here. You can take your profit anywhere else you want." It's sort of

like those so-called economic zones that the government had in mind.

That was another scheme, another aborted attempt to try to find a way

to circumvent organized labour and workers in this province, to

basically cheat the majority of people in this province of having a

fair share. That's what it's all about.

Yes, it's sinister, and yes, I think it's evil. I don't think what

this government is doing is sincere, I don't think it's fair, and I

don't think it's responsible. Quite frankly, I don't think it's going

to work. I think you're going to get quite a backlash. And I think the

Premier was probably right when he was telling those people from the

chambers of commerce to be ready to stand tall, to fight: "There will

come a time when we're going to have to have you putting up, because

those guys are going to start to get onto what's going on."

[4:15]

I'm opposed to it, Mr. Speaker. Not that I'm taking sides, but as a

responsible member of the Legislature, I believe that the government

has come up with what it believes is a quick fix. It believes that it's

politically popular, and that any time you want to attack a group who

are at a disadvantage, the people of British Columbia will support it.

Working people basically just want to make a living. They basically

just want to raise their families. They basically just want to pay

their rent. In fact, they want to be able to buy a few cases of that

beer that the Premier promised he was going to negotiate lower prices

on. They want to go to the movies; they want to see the world a bit.

They want to get their children through the school system and into

university — train them so they can get jobs and go out and play their

part in society. Working people — what we've perhaps mistakenly

referred to as "ordinary" people.... But you know, if that's ordinary,

that's a pretty high standard for any of us to emulate. These are

people who just want to do their duty. Why can't we give them a fair

shake? Why can't we ensure...?

Why don't we become more proactive in our legislation and in our

thinking, instead of taking the view that if you want something you've

got to go out and fight for it and take it. It's about time we realized

that equitableness has to be a tangible commodity. It has to be

something that people can get their hands on and feel, and know that

the government cares, instead of having a government led by a Premier

who says: "Look at me. I'm a saint. I'm a man of high moral standards,

and I am opposed to gambling. I never gamble. But if that's what the

people want, okay." There's your so-called high standard, your man of

high morals. "It's okay to gamble. I don't like it, but if that's what

you people want, all right." Check him out. But then, on the other

hand, he says: "I'm a man of high standards. I don't believe in

abortion." "Yes, but, Mr. Premier, it's the law; it's okay." "I don't

care what the law says. It's wrong and I'm going to fight it." That's

the difference between.... That's how the Premier of this

[ Page 699 ]

province thinks. And on and on and on it goes. How can you trust him?

I think that the Premier is insensitive. He's not compassionate. He

has his own agenda, and he's using those people, including the Minister

of Labour, whom I happen to believe is a pretty decent fellow. I

believe he's fair-minded. I believe he means it when he says he's going

to listen. But the cards are stacked against him. He is not going to

get around this Premier. I remember this Premier when he was Minister

of Education. The teachers who are getting ready to go out on strike

now have got themselves a problem. They know, because he filled the

Agrodome with nothing but teachers back in the seventies. They even got

a bottle of Tylenol out and tried to scare him. That didn't scare him;

he turned that into something and made more headlines for the Zalm.

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, we're not supposed to use names. But I think

that in this case.... It's a phrase coined by the press. It's almost an

aphorism. It's something we should all be using: the Zalm, the Zap.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes, not twice. Okay.

This Premier was also Minister of Human Resources. We had social

workers — all those bleeding hearts, do-gooders, committed people — who

were trying to help the downtrodden, the hard-done-by, the misused and

abused, the neglected, the frustrated, the suicide-prone, all of them.

People from all over the province were marching all over the place,

coming across all the bridges of False Creek, coming from every

direction, filling the lawns, and where was the Premier, at that time

the Minister of Human Resources? He was saying then what he says today:

"The bigger the crowd I get, the more I know I am on the right track. I

must be doing something right because look at all those protest crowds

out there." Check it out if you think I am fabricating. That's the way

he thinks, that's the way he talks, and that's why we're getting

nowhere.

So how can we trust this man when he says: "Look, this piece of

legislation is going to do it for us"? Do you want me to withdraw that,

Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please. The hon. member knows much better than that.

MR. BARNES: I withdraw.

We certainly can trust the Premier to do what he has always done, in

the same good character that he has always shown, and that is to be as

deceptive as any quarterback I have ever played against; you never

known where the play is coming from next. Now certainly it is not

unparliamentary to draw parallels like that, Mr. Government House

Leader. You surely cannot object to me drawing a parallel. After all,

politics is power, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? Politics is plays, tactics,

deception, all those things, and this is what the Premier is doing. I

think he feels that all's fair in love and war, or something along

those lines.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But hon. member, the Chair thought we were talking to the second reading of Bill 19.

MR. BARNES: I am talking directly to Bill 19. Bill 19, I

feel, is a tactic. It's a device. It has nothing to do with trying to

resolve the problems of the people of this province. What it has to do

with is the government making a commitment to a particular ideological

stance. It is taking it, and it's firm, and it is warning everybody to

be ready for the fight.

That's what Bill 19 is doing, and I say it is wrong. I say I have to

oppose it not because I am in the opposition, but because it

fundamentally goes against my view of what a democratic process and a

democratic society should be. I don't think the government is

respecting that process at all; if for no other reason, it should be

opposed. Due process is due process. Everybody should be given their

fair chance and equal opportunity. Why should we have a set of laws for

those workers and a different set of laws for other people? Why should

Mr. Ed Peck, who I am sure is a very committed man and is going to do

the very best he can, be asked to take on a job that the legislators

can't even take on?

You know, it's wrong. What are we doing when we can have someone

outside the Legislature with more power than those of us inside the

Legislature? How can you convince those people who are sitting down at

the bargaining table that what they have to say really will matter,

when the clock is ticking and is saying to them: — You've got so much

time. Make up your minds, and keep it in line, or we're going to make

it for you." No choice. Well, so it goes.

You know, I must say something about this apprenticeship program —

the way you are going to go about using young people, the

desperate-for-jobs, those people who are trying to fit in and trying to

make it. Do you think those 19; 18- and 17-year-old young people are

aware of the politics of Bill 19? Do you think they understand what it

means when you say: "We're going to give you a chance to serve your

apprenticeship by just going directly to an employer"? Do you think

they understand that they are assisting the government put up a big

flag: "Children, youth, we're trying to help the young people. They've

got to have a start in life"? What you are basically doing is flaunting

that situation in the face of organized labour and people who have

worked, who also have children and are making their children go through

the process the same as anybody else. You are saying that all of a

sudden the owner, manager or proprietor of a particular business is

going to be able to hand-pick and place people in the system to suit

himself and circumvent the shop procedures of any union.

It's wrong, and the reason it is wrong is that we have a history of

organized labour here — and it's a long, sad story. I'll tell you that

if it wasn't for organized labour, we'd all be a lot worse off. This

wouldn't be a better economy; it would be a poorer economy. There would

be more suspicion, more neglect, more poverty, more people hurting and

more people disillusioned about those dreams that we talk about being

possible in this system. Instead of celebrating organized labour,

instead of cooperating and trying to encourage them.... If you feel

that they are not as democratic as they should be, why not work with

them and support them? This is what they are saying: "Let's sit down

and let's work together." Why wipe out the whole Labour Code and change

something else with this so-called new Industrial Relations Reform Act?

It's not a reform. There is nothing reformative about this legislation.

This legislation is simply a frontal attack on a group of people. It is

an abutment. It stops all action.

I hope these young apprentices, when they do get these jobs, realize

that they have been party to some scams by the government, because at

some point working people are going to realize that they're losing a

very valuable thing. This

[ Page 700 ]

government's agenda has achieved that. Step by

step, bit by bit, they will dismantle the essential elements that make

trade unionism and organized labour what it is. With all the

shortcomings, and there have been plenty — we can all point to

unsavoury union leaders and tricks and exploitation and a number of

things — I can tell you that fundamentally the trade union movement has

been one of the most important things that has happened in our

democratic society. We grew out of a European culture where you had

sweatshops, children being exploited, babies being used and abused and

neglected, working day and night and weekends, until bit by bit these

people began to realize that they had to share the power. They've never

wanted to take over; they've only wanted to share.

How can you say in societies such as ours that you are going to take

away these powers, that the time has now come when we no longer need

representation? In a democracy you always need representation. All

these people have is their labour, and they have a right to sell it at

a fair and equitable price. We have a duty to respect that, the same as

we respect the right of MLAs and cabinet ministers to be properly

remunerated, to be given the proper resources to do their jobs. We

don't need to have anybody organize for us, because we can vote for

ourselves and make sure that we are covered, and I say that we should

do the same thing for those people who are organized workers in this

society.

I hope it is very clear by now that I oppose this legislation and believe that it should be withdrawn.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to

speak in favour of the Industrial Relations Reform Act, Bill 19. You

know, I found the opposition comments very interesting. I've been quite

disappointed that so much time was taken to say so little. Each

opposition speaker used their full time allotment and came up with very

little in the way of tangible criticism of the bill. In fact, the last

speaker spent fully five minutes in a personal attack on the character

of the Premier, which I think is really not necessary when you're

addressing Bill 19.

I'm pleased, however, with that in a sense, because if all they've

got left to say is the personal criticism, it's an indication that the

bill itself....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but

I would just like to point out to you that you are doing precisely what

you're saying is being done on the opposite side of the House.

MR. MERCIER: Well, I didn't think I had said anything yet

that should be withdrawn, except that I didn't think it was necessary

to have an attack on the Premier under the debate of the issues

involved with Bill 19. What I am saying, if it's come down to that, is

that Bill 19 must be fairly sound, if that's all that can be said.

Really, Bill 19 is talking about the freedom that was lost to the

employers, especially in smaller companies. The freedoms that protected

the union members in their battles with the larger corporations became

very onerous, in the sense of the powers granted to unions, for the

smaller employers. Over the years, there has been a shift to protect

organized labour — in the last 20 or 30 years. There were rulings of

labour relations boards of times gone by that often ignored the facts

of the marketplace.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Some rules had, in some respects, overwhelmed small business. It

must be recognized that there are 100,000 to 105,000 small businesses

in operation in this province, and I take small business to mean those

that have 50 employees or less. They are already operating under

incredible odds. They need the freedom to manage their labour force.

Entrepreneurs that are running these small businesses are the

risk-takers. They spend long hours and are dedicated to what they're

trying to do. They're confronted with taxes, regulations, bankers,

financing, mortgages and bad debt accounts that they're trying to

collect.

[4:30]

On top of everything else, they'd have a union organization chasing

their tail. Well, they have to have union organizations in the larger

companies for employee protection. There are alternatives for

protecting the employees' rights in smaller companies. The smaller

companies and the smaller businesses value the efforts of their

workers. They tend to treat them as well as or, in many cases, better

than organized shops and organized businesses, but the employers

probably felt somewhat hamstrung when faced with the labour laws that

were really designed to govern much larger, stronger businesses.

The simple freedom to choose the workers that they wish to employ in

their businesses.... They want to choose the best workers, and some of

the laws that were in place restricted an employer from that simple

freedom, very important to a small business. They would have to go

through the union to replace an incompetent employee or to find out if

they could hire a particularly qualified younger person who wanted to

start out in a working career. Those situations really hurt

productivity. They prevented many businesses from carrying out their

business plans.

Everyone knows that productivity depends on a happy workforce, and a

happy workforce can happen even in nonunion shops. In fact, the

majority of our businesses are not organized and they do have a very

productive workforce. Unions don't necessarily guarantee a happy and

productive workforce.

The expansion of the workforce will follow the confidence small

business will have because of the stability that will follow Bill 19.

The world markets will see B.C. as a reliable producer which relies

heavily on the time-tested individual initiative of the workers and of

those entrepreneurs and small business people who create things and

build things.

The minister has advised that we would look at criticisms that might

arise which disclose technical flaws, and that's part of being an open

government. To put a complex bill together is a difficult task. It's a

good bill, and there may be flaws; minor corrections may have to be

made. That's what the opposition should be directing itself to. In the

meantime, the philosophy and the principles involved will not be

amended. Bill 19 is this government's position, and it's this

government's responsibility under the parliamentary system to take the

initiative and create the legislation. In this case they've done a very

good job, and I'm speaking in support of it.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, as we wind down the debate on

second reading, one had hoped, certainly on this side of the House,

that the government had received a number

[ Page 701 ]

of messages from concerned citizens about the full

implications and ramifications of this legislation — not taking the

point of view of labour or any specific interest group, but an

expression by many British Columbians from all walks of life that this

legislation before us will not do the things that this government

wishes to do. It will continue to create confrontation and

destabilization and in the long term will be bad for the economy.

We tried with the hoist motion to ask the government to take time to

reflect, time to consider other opinions, time for the government to

consider its election promises, which basically stated that this

government believed in open consultation and participatory democracy.

All of my colleagues intelligently and rationally gave good evidence,

looking through the bill, various aspects of the bill that would add to

the problems the province will face in the future if this bill goes

through intact. And the member just said that the basic principles of

the bill will not be pulled and will not be reconsidered.

Mr. Speaker, once again, as I did in my discussion of the hoist

motion, I really do have to sincerely ask the government in its wisdom

to listen to British Columbians — people such as Mr. Matkin — who have

years of experience in these areas, to really think about the action it

is taking. In my preparation for this debate on second reading, I

perused an excellent

article written by Mr. Matkin in 1975, entitled

"Government Intervention in Labour Disputes in British Columbia." In

the opening remarks, Mr. Matkin states the following, which I think

epitomizes much of the philosophical and global debate that's coming

from this side of the House in terms of how the government is

approaching this issue: "Where significant group rights are in issue in

a democratic society, it is imperative to develop a strategy of

participatory legislative reform. Even well-founded attempts to

regulate the balance of economic power in collective bargaining law may

be rendered ineffective and unsuccessful by a unilateral process of

reform, rather than by any lack of merit in the reform itself."

Those who know this issue better than I do, particularly our Labour

critic, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), will give the

merits and lack of merits in this bill, and have already indicated some

of them. But for me, Mr. Matkin's statements about group rights in a

democratic society, and how it is imperative to develop a strategy of

participatory legislative reform, are telling, critical, essential.

What has happened with this piece of legislation is that Mr. Matkin's

sound advice on determining legislative reform by participation has

been ignored. Bill 19 and Bill 20 came into this Legislature with no

consultation with the labour movement, the business community and the

other groups and individuals impacted by this legislation. What Mr.

Matkin is saying is that even if we agree with this bill — and

obviously we don't, because we think it's bad for British Columbia —

the process will render it basically ineffective. The unilateral

process that you're using with this legislation will create nothing but

trouble for the government.

I have to say once again that this government really should heed the

words of people like Mr. Matkin. They are sound advice. As we go

through the bill, and as the days wear on, we find — virtually daily —

new wrinkles in this legislation that even government members,

ministers of the Crown, cannot explain. They don't know the answers;

they don't know why certain things are in the bills. It's profoundly

flawed.

I recall some years ago, when I first came to this House, the debate

we had on the compensation stabilization program, the Public Sector

Restraint Act and others. We asked the government of the time to think

about what they were doing, the chaos they would create in the province

through those various restraint measures. We asked them then to hoist

those pieces of legislation. But we heard from the government that

there was great urgency, and they were going to proceed, hell or high

water, with those and other pieces of restraint legislation. If there's

one thing that all of us who are responsible to our constituents and to

all British Columbians should do in this chamber, it's to learn from

our mistakes, learn from history; learn that when you get a

reaction.... Some reactions are obviously predictable. We know that.

But in this debate, and in the last two weeks, reaction by certain

people has not been predictable. We should learn from that; we should

learn from past experience that when you proceed too fast, when you

surprise people and change the playing field radically, you're going to

have nothing but trouble and headaches.

Once again, over the last few years in this province we've gone

through turmoil and confrontation. We heard that things would be

different. We heard that moderation would be the byword of this

government. We heard that consultation was going to be promised in

anything major that would impact upon people's lives; for instance, on

this particular bill, organized labour. We heard it; we were promised

it. But what has happened? I guess those promises have gone by the

board. And what we have is an extreme piece of legislation — extreme,

Mr. Speaker. On this side of the House, we're calling for moderation,

rational thought and a rethink of a piece of legislation that can only

harm the majority of British Columbians in the long term.

Mr. Matkin said it, and I quote him again. He said on CBC radio that

this legislation was basically moving to protect the non-union,

unorganized part of our economy and presumably that assumption is that

this will attract more investment. But the difficulty with that

assumption is that in the meantime we have to get along with the unions

who do exist. He concluded his statement on CBC radio by saying that

this legislation "doesn't treat unions as an important part of the

economy, is rather insulting to them, and I think that it will make it

more difficult for employers to get along with their trade unions."

Once again, we ask the government to forget some of its ideological

bias, its dogma, its philosophical perceptions of what a union is all

about, or what they perceive to be the problems with unions, and really

talk to those individuals who can give you sound advice on how to get

the job done. Nobody disagrees, Mr. Speaker, that a government should

be able to govern. The government got elected; we don't disagree with

that, obviously. But when you're dealing with such critical issues for

the future of this province, and when, as you say, you violate the

basic principles that Mr. Matkin indicated in his 1975 article.... When

you're dealing with trade unions and working people, you must ensure

that the participatory legislative reform process is alive and well if

your legislation is to be effective. It's not going to be effective,

Mr. Speaker.

[4:45]

What we have is a unilateral action by a government that, for

whatever reasons, is determined to hurt the trade union movement in

British Columbia. They have an axe to grind that can only slow down

recovery in the province and hurt the

[ Page 702 ]

long-term economic benefits to a stable economy and

a unionized workforce that believes in collective bargaining and in

collective bargaining being left intact. It believes that government,

where possible, allows the collective barg