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)

MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 581 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures)

Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr.

Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 582

Oral Questions

Lunch program in schools. Mr. Harcourt –– 582

Mr. Clark

B.C. Place development. Ms. Marzari –– 583

B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Ms. Marzari

–– 583

Protest on legislature lawn. Mr. Sihota ––

Colony Farm. Mr. Rose –– 583

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987

(Bill 19). Second reading

On the amendment

Mr. Cashore –– 584

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 587

Ms. Edwards –– 590

Mr. Messmer –– 593

Mr. Guno –– 594

Mr. Peterson –– 595

Mr. Skelly –– 596

Mr. Weisgerber –– 599

Mr. Williams –– 600

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 603

Appendix –– 606

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : First thing, I would

like to extend our congratulations to the new Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Harcourt) and to wish him all the very best in the thousand-plus

days ahead. We've been involved in various activities together, from

time to time, and I know that we can both look forward to working

together. I'm very impressed with the fact that the new leader has said

that we want to work in a cooperative spirit for all British

Columbians. We certainly look forward to that, realizing that

undoubtedly from time to time we'll have our differences. But always

the bottom line will be and must be the same: the people of the

province. So I look forward to working with the new leader. I'm sure

that he will do an excellent job, not only for his party and for his

constituency, but for all British Columbians. We wish him the very best.

MR. HARCOURT : I'd like to thank the Premier

for his very gracious remarks. I'm pleased that he was able to tell us

that there will not be an election until 1990 and that he won't call an

election over the labour legislation.

I had an opportunity to have an informal, impromptu session

with the Premier this morning in Vancouver at a radio station,

and we expressed these remarks to each other: that we're here to make

the government and the Legislature work for the people of British

Columbia. I hope we can continue the very good relationship that has

been built up between ourselves, the House Leaders, the Whips and the

chairmen of our caucuses, to make this Legislature work even better.

In that spirit of cooperation, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say

to the Premier that if he's prepared to give me some gardening

tips, I'm prepared to give him some tips about his golf game and the

hitches appearing in it, particularly that slice that keeps going

further and further to the right.

MR. BARNES : First, if I may, I'd like to

just congratulate the first member for Vancouver Centre, who, as our

campaign manager in 1972, was successful in getting Gary Lauk and me

elected. He's come a long way, I would say. The first member for

Vancouver Centre is doing all right.

As well, I would like to introduce the House to Dr. Ernie Epp,

MP for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, who is the multiculturalism critic for the

NDP. At one time Dr. Epp was a professor at Notre Dame

University. I believe that he has the former Premier, Mr. Bill Bennett,

to thank for his political career, because as I recall, the Premier

closed down Notre Dame University, where Dr. Epp was formerly employed.

So would the House join me in welcoming Dr. Epp, who is

touring the western provinces promoting the idea of full participation

of all Canadians in celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the

Canadian Citizenship Act. Let's make him welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, we too

welcome Dr. Epp, and we wish him well in his endeavours on behalf of

culture in our province.

I know that we have many visitors in the galleries today, but

I want to take this opportunity to extend a big welcome to one group in

particular who are with us today: Mr. Alan Boyd, a director of Cariboo

Regional District and chairman of the Northern Development Council;

support staff of the Northern Development Council; His Worship Mayor

Len Fox of Vanderhoof, president of the North Central Municipal

Association; and Mr. Mike Hillman, president of Pacific Congress

Projects Corp.

[2:15]

MR. GABELMANN : I have three separate sets

of introductions I'd like to make this afternoon. The first is that in

the galleries behind us on this side is a group of students from the

four high schools in Campbell River. This group is here thanks to Crown

Forest Industries, which for years, until the recent recession, had

student tours to Victoria. This group is here accompanied by two

teachers: Mr. David Brown of Robron and Ms. Lesley Bird of Southgate.

Also Mr. Bob Jakubec from Crown Forest. I'd like the members of the

House to make this group particularly welcome.

The second introduction I'd like to make is Mr. Ted Conover,

from Quadra Island in my constituency. I'd like the house to make him

welcome.

AN HON. MEMBER : Is this a filibuster?

MR. GABELMANN : This is not a filibuster.

My third introduction is a very special one for me, and I

don't get to make it very often. I want members of the House to

recognize my parents, Fritz and Honorah Gabelmann, who are here in the

gallery this afternoon with my wife; I have never introduced her to

this House, but I'd like today to ask members to make Robin Geary

welcome as well.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery this afternoon is a former boss of mine and long-time associate

in the post-secondary education system in British Columbia, Mr. Henry

Justesen. I'd like the House to bid him welcome if you will, please.

Also a constituent of mine, John Leech, the executive director of

Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, I'd like you to

join in a very warm welcome to Thelma Pankiw, who has served the

members for Vancouver Centre as the constituency assistant for almost a

decade. She's over here to arrange my new

schedule after the New

Democrats' very successful weekend.

MR. RABBITT : Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure

today to introduce Kevin, the youngest of my three sons, who is in your

gallery. Would the House give him a warm welcome.

MR. REE : In the gallery today we have 50

students, 25 of them from Balmoral Junior Secondary School in North

Vancouver, under the guidance of their teacher, Tom Moore; the other 25

are from the College St. Charles Gamier of St. Cyrille, Quebec, under

the guidance of their teacher, Rodrique Samuel. I'd ask the House to

welcome them to Victoria and this Legislature.

MR. SIHOTA : In the gallery today is a good

personal friend of mine and former president of my riding association,

Dennis David.

MR. PETERSON : In your gallery today, Mr.

Speaker, are three very close and dear personal friends of mine, Mr.

[ Page 582 ]

and Mrs. Paquette from Sidney; and Mr.

Charlie Johnson, who resides in Victoria. Will the House please join me

and give them a very warm welcome.

MR. DE JONG : Mr. Speaker, it gives me great

pleasure to introduce to the House today Ann and Bill Venema, who are

up in the gallery. I'd like to ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, in the members'

gallery today we have a dynamic businessman from the constituency of

Surrey, Mr. Ed Kisling. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. MOWAT : Mr. Speaker, I have two

introductions today. The first is a group from the Prince of Wales Mini

School, with their teacher, Mr. G. Lewis. With them, visiting from

Nequac, New Brunswick, with their teacher, Ms. Nicole Marquis.... There

are 50 students in total. The students from New Brunswick are on

exchange. They're visiting our parliament buildings today, and I'd ask

the House to please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Mr. Ed Kisling,

vice-president of the Social Credit Party. I'd ask members to make him

welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (FINANCE

MEASURES) AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance

Measures) Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, this bill

makes a number of minor word changes in a variety of acts. I move the

bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

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

House after today

Oral Questions

LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, it becomes

clearer every day that the Premier's attempts to confine the crisis of

child hunger to a few schools in east Vancouver just won't

fly. There is solid evidence from a number of sources — the Vancouver Sun and

many others — that this is a problem in schools from Victoria to Fort

Nelson. Will the Premier now admit that the time for study has passed

and assure British Columbians that the government will support a

provincewide school-based nutritional program for children?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I've certainly had

figures presented to me right here in the Legislature, in fact

from theVancouver East constituency. I've not got figures for Victoria

or Fort Nelson, but certainly the ministry, as I mentioned

last week, is getting the information, and we're very pleased

to see that principals are reporting these matters now. Unfortunately,

perhaps, this might have been done a lot earlier, but we're grateful

for the information. We'll follow it through. It may also be something

that the Royal Commission on Education will be looking at as a part of

its mandate.

MR. HARCOURT : Principals are indicating

that as a general rule 5 percent of their students are hungry. To

extrapolate that, generally it means about thirteen and a half thousand

elementary school students, and if you include secondary students it's

about 20,000. The time for study has passed. So we're asking Mr.

Premier: the time for a reliance on band-aid charitable solutions has

passed; how are you going to continue to justify relying on that

band-aid when the facts are in? What are you going to do? We'd like to

know. No further study. What are you going to do?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I think there are a number of

things. Certainly our first concern must be for children who in fact

are not getting the necessary and proper nutrition, but, similarly, we

must find out why it is that if the figures that have been quoted are

correct and 5 percent of children are going without proper food and

coming to school without lunches or not having had breakfast, this

might have gone on as long as it has — I'm sure it didn't happen just

last week — without reports coming from the principals, the schools or

the offices in the area. Certainly that matter should be addressed as

well, because if the matter is as serious as 5 percent, then obviously

something in the system is amiss, in that it should have been drawn to

our attention, or to anyone's attention — members of the opposition,

members on this side, or the ministries.

So the ministry is properly addressing that, and we'll get

more information on it soon.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, it is

embarrassing to admit you are hungry if you're anybody, and

particularly if you are a kid.

There are many studies from SPARC and others that show that if

you haven't had a welfare increase for four or five years —

you've had one that brings you up to the 1982 levels — it is not

sufficient funds.

Has the Premier decided to stop scapegoating parents and

educators and accept that it is the government's responsibility to make

sure that the poor have decent social assistance rates? Are you

prepared to look at increasing those social assistance rates so there

can be food for children not to go hungry?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, there

was obviously ample opportunity for members of the Legislature to

canvass that question under the estimates for the Minister of Social

Services and Housing. It has been canvassed, and I am very pleased that

the government was able to provide, unlike governments perhaps

elsewhere in Canada, additional moneys in the budget this year to

assist people on welfare.

MR. CLARK : On a supplementary, that

attitude by the Premier is exactly the kind of attitude we have seen in

terms of blaming the victims for the problem. The Minister of Social

Services has directed his senior staff to investigate and to interview

principals in Vancouver East to find out who talked and why. Will the

Premier direct his minister to call off his officials, stop

scapegoating principals and parents for the problem, and deal with the

very real problem of hunger in Vancouver and elsewhere in British

Columbia?

[ Page 583 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, this

matter was brought forth through the media a week ago. When it appeared

in the media, we did get the matter raised in the House. After it was

raised in the House, we immediately responded that the ministry would

investigate this whole question not only as it applied to the one

particular case brought forth at the time but as it might apply

elsewhere in the province - the cause of it and how it could best be

addressed. Obviously we've heard from the opposition a number of

examples as to why it might be, but I think it's incumbent on us to

really do a proper job through the ministry and get all of the

information and find out the best approach to this problem.

B.C. PLACE DEVELOPMENT

MS. MARZARI : The Premier has personally

promised local city councils that they would get more decentralized

control over their planning procedures, but his Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is ignoring the joint planning process

that was established with the city of Vancouver with regard to the

North Park development on B.C. Place land. The person who held that

planning process together, Stanley Kwok, has now resigned. Has the

Premier decided to take personal charge of the planning process for

B.C. Place, so that we can ensure that his promises to local councils

are fulfilled?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I think

perhaps the question should be directed to the Minister of Economic

Development, although I certainly appreciate the question being asked.

Frankly, while the Premier may be capable of many things, and is

obviously required to do many things, I don't think I want to get into

the planning process.

MS. MARZARI : I must pursue the line of

questioning. In that planning process, social housing had been built

in. Now that these plans are unravelling, because social housing has

suddenly become uneconomic, I want to know if the Premier is going to

ensure that those plans for social housing are incorporated.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I

understand it was upon the recommendation of the B.C. Enterprise board,

following their review of the plans and all of the economic studies

that have been done with respect to those plans, and considering also

the future of the whole of the B.C. Place development.... It was based

on that that the recommendation came that we not proceed with that

particular part of the proposal as it was planned.

[2:30]

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MS. MARZARI : This is a new question. I am

glad that the Premier has mentioned the B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

This is a question to the Premier about that corporation. Because it is

such a sensitive corporation and because it is dealing with a very

sensitive acreage in the city of Vancouver as well as 120,000 acres of

provincially owned land, has the board of BCEC been required to file

disclosure papers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I will take that

question as notice. I don't have that information.

PROTEST ON LEGISLATURE LAWN

MR. SIHOTA : My question is to the

Provincial Secretary. The other day in question period, the Premier

said that he did not authorize or order the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff to

remove the protesters from the lawns of the Legislature. Did the

Provincial Secretary make those orders on the first day, and if he did,

did he do it without consultation with cabinet and the Premier?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, I am sure the

hon. member is new here, and I understand that, but he must understand

that there is such a thing as discussions that take place in cabinet,

and every minister is obligated not to make known discussions in

cabinet. So as much as I would like to answer the hon. member, I am

unable to at this time. I am sure he will understand why.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I will ask a new

question to the Premier. The Premier would understand that in the cases

of picketers outside of corporate offices, one would normally go to

court to obtain an order to remove them. Now if due process is a

responsible action in that type of situation, why is it that the

Premier does not consider due process to be the responsible action with

respect to removal of picketers from the lawns of the Legislature?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, this was

not a labour dispute.

MR. SIHOTA : The question was not a labour

question. The question to the Premier is simply this. There are

instances where due process is exercised, and I just gave you an

example of one. Could the Premier tell me why in this instance due

process was not exercised?

MR. SPEAKER : I might mention to the member

that he may want to put that question to a different minister. If he

wants to refer to May, page 331,

section 10: "It is not in order to put

to a minister a question for which another minister is more directly

responsible, or ask one minister to influence the action of another."

He may want to redirect that question to make it in order.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, Mr. Speaker, in light of

the fact that no one has assumed responsibility for this action, I

would wish to put the matter and the principle of the matter to the

Premier.

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order

to the Premier.

Did you rise on a point of order, opposition House Leader?

COLONY FARM

MR. ROSE : No, I wouldn't do that in

question period and abuse the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Premier is getting a lot of attention today, and I

have another question for him. It has to do with Colony Farm. You read

all about it in the newspapers. I know that that may not be a basis for

a question, but there are a lot of concerns about the possible

commercialization of Colony Farm — possibilities of two or three

racetracks, hotels; we've even

[ Page 584 ]

heard the word "casinos." What it is is the commercialization

of land which is currently in the agricultural land reserve. I'd like

to know if the Premier is aware of what's happening in these proposals,

and if he intends to support this kind of application to change the

nature of that property.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I

understand the proponents have made representation to the councils of

Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam. We've also had representation made to us

in the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, but I don't have

enough of the details. Frankly, I'm not sure that they're sufficiently

advanced in their plans to make a thorough request to council, which

would in turn need to then take it to the other appropriate bodies. I don't believe it has gone that far.

MR. ROSE : I wonder if I could ask a

question, a supplementary, to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the

Minister of Agriculture decided to support the removal of the lands of

Colony Farm from the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : To the Hon. House Leader,

no, I have not.

MR. ROSE : Can the minister assure the House

that he will not?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : That's future policy, Mr.

Speaker, and no decision will be made until such time as we have a

concrete proposal in the first place.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Adjourned debate on the

amendment to second reading of Bill 19 –– I believe adjourning debate

was the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. CASHORE : It's a great honour to rise in

this House and speak in favour of this hoist motion. I'm sure that my

hon. colleagues in government have had the opportunity to do some sober

reflection over the weekend and will now recognize the value of the

wise counsel that we have been providing here as we have risen one

after the other among the ranks of the New Democrats to bring some

logic and some common sense into this hallowed chamber. I hope to

carry on in that tradition.

In speaking in favour of this hoist motion, 1 have been trying

to come up with some kind of an image, some kind of an analogy that

would enable me to characterize the way in which I see this issue that

is now before us. What is happening, partly because of a

well-intentioned pride, is that the members of government seem to be

intent on operating much in the manner of a runaway train. I think what

is happening here is that the train is going down the track, it's

picking up momentum and we have, through some pretty careful experience

and pretty careful searching, come to find out that down the track

there are dangers, that the bed under the track is not in good shape,

that the pilings on the bridges are rotten, and that if you were to

persist with the intention that is within this legislation, there needs

to be a warning and that warning needs to be heard.

This, Mr. Speaker, is not the kind of a warning that one makes

when one is involved in saying: "If you don't do this, we'll do this."

It's a warning that is saying that given the circumstances within our

social structure, given the circumstances further down that track, the

fact is that if you continue on this track with this very cumbersome

train which is picking up speed, it will get to a point that you will

not be able to recover from the mess that you are going to create with

this legislation.

So I am appealing to government to take another look at it, to

do what you can to stop that runaway train before it gets to that point

on the track where it can no longer be supported and where it will be

derailed, much to the detriment not only of this government but to the

detriment of the fabric of industrial relations within this province.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that for reasons of pride, that is far

too great a price to exact from the people of British Columbia at this

time.

Mr. Speaker, as we began the debate on the legislation with

regard to Bills 19 and 20, the hon. member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) rose in his place and he gave what I felt was a model of a

parliamentary speech. I was very pleased to see during the ensuing

debate that members on the government side said that while they did not

agree with that hon. member, they commended him for the craft that went

into the development of that speech and of that statement. And I would

like to remind the hon. members that in making the points that he made,

it was not a strident attack on the government; it was a reasoned

presentation of a perspective that was put forward in all seriousness.

Continuing to honour that seriousness, it would behoove each

member who is potentially going to vote in favour of this legislation

to ask himself or herself if they have addressed each of the questions

that the hon. member for North Island has raised, not to address them

in the sense of trying to beat down an argument or to ridicule an

argument but in the sense of really looking at the points that he made

and asking if those points are not points that really are cause for

sober reflection. The purpose of this hoist motion is to enable members

of this House to participate in a time-honoured activity in

parliamentary, democratic jurisdictions throughout the world, and that

is the tradition of participating in sober reflection — taking a second

look, giving an opportunity for the healing process that time can

provide, to perhaps heal some of the wounds that may be there, some of

the breakage already becoming apparent where there are cracks and

deficiencies within the structure of this legislation.

Some of the points that the hon. member for North Island made

would include the following. He said that it interferes with freely

negotiated contracts between employers and employees. I have not heard

that issue addressed in this House. Therefore I think it is incumbent

upon us to hoist this motion and give an opportunity to reflect on

that. The member for North Island also pointed out that there was lack

of consultation in the presentation of these two bills. I know the

argument has been made that there was all kinds of consultation, that

indeed, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Hanson) went throughout the

province and received briefs in places. I've even heard it mentioned

that some 700 briefs were presented, and I would grant you that that is

consultation. But I think that consultation is a process, if the

[ Page 585 ]

perpetrators of this legislation are to be respected, that

happens after the fact as well as before the fact. I don't care if you

listen to 700 briefs, or 7,000. If you do not heed the people of this

province bringing you the substance of their concerns about labour

legislation, then it can't really be called consultation — it's

consultation in name only.

I have received a number of letters and briefs prepared since

this legislation came forward, pointing out — and these are coming from

people who have a great deal of expertise in the labour movement — what

they feel will be really serious problems with this legislation. They

are not saying that these will be problems for them; they feel that

these are going to be problems for all of us, in terms of their

ramifications for industrial bargaining within our province. In all

fairness, I think that when we're talking about consultation.... When the product the government puts forward is such a radical

departure from present conditions, which do offer a very considerable

degree of stability in labour-management relations, surely members of

the government should be receiving 700 proposals or briefs and going

out to the people of this province after they have produced the

product, so that they can find out exactly what the people of the

province think about it.

[2:45]

I think the point has been made that were there conditions at

the present time that indicated a great urgency, that somehow this had

to be done right away, then there might be an argument against this

consultative process that this hoist motion would enable. But it has

been very clearly demonstrated — indeed, nobody in the government has

responded when this has been demonstrated — that there's nothing coming

down the pipe in industrial relations that anyone could use to suggest

that it's a matter of urgency to rush these bills through. Hence the

logic of hoisting the motion and allowing the healing to take place

that can take place through consultation, and allowing that sober

second look to happen that might result in something far better for the

future of this province.

One of the points that the hon. member for North Island made

was that it was quite obvious the Premier had solicited support from

management against what he expected to be a reaction from labour. Now

that was a tacit recognition that this is a pro-management bill and

therefore goes very dangerously in the direction of removing the

delicate balance that needs to exist if management-labour relations are

to be intact. The Premier actually sought management's support.

When we recognize that that kind of a process was taking place

prior to and at the time of the introduction of this legislation, we

really need an opportunity to stand back and reflect on that — another

reason to support this hoist motion. The point that the Premier had

solicited support from management has received no response that I'm

aware of, and it is an important point. I would think that it is as

important a point to management as it is to labour.

Another point that the hon. member for North Island made was

that to rush this legislation through at this time would be provocative

and confrontational. There is no need at this time to be trying to

provoke confrontation in this province. This is not something that will

serve the needs of the province at this time. We do not need

confrontation; what we do need is an opportunity for dialogue, a

dialogue of the kind that the Premier has been talking about during and

before the election campaign, dialogue of the kind that opposition and

government both indulge in talking about.

When we as members of this House toss around words like

"dialogue," is it simply to mean that we're doing this because we want

people to think that we're using a word that is going to somehow win us

recognition or affirmation? When we talk about dialogue, do we really

mean it? I'm saying that to both sides of the House. Do we really mean

that we want dialogue? Because if we do, six months is not too great a

price to pay to create that opportunity, not only for members of

government and opposition but for the members of the populace of this

province who increasingly are expressing an amazing amount of concern

about this.

When we talk about rushing this through, the only reason that

I could possibly expect would have any credibility whatsoever is a very

disturbing reason. That would be the reason that would say: "We must

get this legislation through the House as quickly as possible before

those who are going to oppose us get their response together and before

there is a tidal wave of concern being expressed. That might happen,

and that might mean that we aren't able to put this package through in

the way it exists now at some future date — if that tidal wave of

public opinion ever has the opportunity to really get rolling, because

we will know at that time that both politically and logically we won't

be able to put forward the package that we had wanted to put forward."

If that is the thinking, I would remind this government that

there have been very good governments and legislatures and parliaments

throughout the world who have achieved a tremendous amount of respect

by having had the presence of mind to take a sober second look. Very

often the kind of reasoned response that we should be inviting from the

public at this time is the very kind of response that will inform the

government and enable this government to produce the kind of

legislation this province really needs at this time. Therefore I urge

you to seriously consider that there really is not a good reason for

rushing this legislation through.

I understand that there are reasons, but no one in the debate

on this hoist motion has come forward with a good reason for rushing it

through. I would like to ask that the next member of government to

speak, who probably already has his or her speech ready, talk to

somebody and include in that next speech the government's reason for

feeling that this must be rushed through. Respond to my suggestion that

perhaps the reason is that if you don't rush it through, there's going

to be such a groundswell of public opinion that you will have to change

it. If that is the only reason, I do not think the members of

government can logically support that reason.

Another point that has been made is that the bill is a move

toward the deunionizing of British Columbia. I understand that that

point has been disputed in the speeches of many members of government.

I recognize it is a point of argument, but I think we really need to

look at the history of trade unionism within this province and

recognize that there have been some unfortunate incidents over the

years in management-labour relations. The public perception often seems

to be that the fault lies on the side of labour, yet I think an

objective look at history would find that an unfair, biased assessment.

I think it would be tragic if this present dialogue — which we are

hoping will continue to be dialogue after the hoist motion — ended up

producing the judgment that trade unionism is somehow suspect, when

really one of the ways we can get this province working together is for

the government, as well as the opposition, to tacitly recognize the

marvellous contribution that the trade union movement has made to the

development of the fabric and structure of the

[ Page 586 ]

society in which we live and which we enjoy. I think it's very

important that that recognition be made, and be made clearly. But I

think there is a danger whereby this legislation could he seen to be

anti-union, and a major sector of our society could be downgraded by

words, which I think is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate at this

time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should hoist this legislation.

Another point that was made is that Jim Matkin of the

employers' council is warning about the bill having the potential to

create industrial havoc. It would seem that he recognizes there is an

intent here to achieve a goal of ending unions in B.C. I'm not saying

he has said that, but I am saying that obviously he recognizes that the

delicate balance between labour and management is endangered by this

legislation. I think he's concerned about it, and I think the warnings

he has issued are important for us to heed. Therefore, again there is

reason to hoist this legislation and take the healing of time to

reconsider it.

A valuable term in our language is "consensus building,"

which for me is not a buzzword. I really do believe that all members of

this House would hope that in the best of all possible worlds we could

be involved here in a process of consensus building, where we would

come out with what would truly be best for British Columbia: that there

would be a building of consensus and that a maximum number of people

within our province would feel their words had been listened to, their

hurts had been heeded, their concerns had received some due compassion,

and their hopes for the future would have an opportunity to be realized

because of the consensus that would be built. I think the role of

consensus building is a role that this legislation would give us an

opportunity to be involved in if it could be hoisted, if there could be

that six months of dialogue. We are reminded that the 1973 Labour Code

developed through that kind of consensus process. There is nothing to

be ashamed of in a government taking the leadership to open the doors

to the refreshing breezes of consensus, so that we might participate in

that in a way in which all of us can become winners.

Following up on that point, we also have another word that I

think is very important in the lectionary of our history in this

country of Canada and in British Columbia. That word is cooperation. I

think that we need to look into the history of labour-management

relations and discover where those experiences of cooperation have

been, and learn how to build on those experiences where they have taken

place, because if we really look at it — and I know this isn't always

that newsworthy — we will find that there are far more examples of

cooperation than there are of disputes. As a matter of fact, the member

for North Island reminded us that 95 percent of labour negotiations do

not end up in some form of dispute or some mechanism to deal with the

dispute.

I think that we need to be looking in good faith at the

possibilities of cooperation. For instance, instead of hearing in

speech after speech after speech from the government side of the House

a reminder of the IWA strike, which somehow creates the impression — or

perhaps is put out there to create the impression — that the big, bad

IWA has really done it to us again.... We really need to recognize,

as the hon. member said, that through consultation and cooperation —

and again, no one has addressed this point — the IWA gave up literally

10,000 to 15,000 jobs because of recognizing the need to make the

industry more competitive.

[3:00]

The trade unions and management cooperated in that process. I

think it's a disservice to single out this one incident in a way that

seems intended to reflect far more negatively on labour than on

management — which I think is unfair — when there are obvious reasons

that are far more dramatic, far more succinct and far more worthy that

show us that there is a history of cooperation between management and

labour in this province. If we can go about the task of affirming that

cooperation where it has existed, we can discover within the seeds and

the roots of that cooperation where the solutions for the future really

do lie.

We don't have to set out to destroy something that has been

working when what we really need to do is to try to do that which

develops the healing process within that instrument. That is what this

call for a hoist motion is all about, because we believe that there is

an opportunity for a healing process; not only a healing process that

would happen within the fractures that exist when there are political

polemics, but a healing process that needs time — I think all of us

know that healing needs time — and that can help out.

As you go throughout the length and breadth of this great

province and really hear from people with regard to what they think

about this legislation, it might be that you will find out that there

some aspects of it that they like. I'm not able at this time to say

what those aspects would be, but you might find that out. You might

find out that there is some affirmation in that process, and that might

be a very worthwhile experience for you. But if you really do believe

what you are saying, that it is as good as you say it is, then surely

six months in the long, long history of British Columbia is not going

to in any way hurt you or hurt this legislation or hurt the people of

British Columbia. It can be a healing process, as I said before.

Mr. Speaker, another point that has been made is that there

really is a considerable degree of trust. We can talk about the degree

of mistrust, but we can also talk about the considerable degree of

trust that exists between management and labour in this province. The

member for North Island made the point that because of that trust that

does exist, there is within the present circumstances the opportunity

cooperatively to make our plant in British Columbia modern. I think

that is something we really need to look at. We are facing the very

real difficulties and the opportunities that are afforded by

technology. There are the difficulties, because as technology develops

there is disruption in terms of the workplace. There are the

possibilities, because technology when used wisely and founded on

positive ethics can help to produce a much more worthwhile society and

a much more worthwhile set of mechanisms whereby our society functions.

I think that is something that we really need to give an opportunity to

happen. But it is going to be difficult for that to happen if we do

something that breaks down that trust, or that impacts on the balance

that enables that trust to take place. Trust is a very delicate part of

human relationships, and it is a very difficult value to save once it

begins to be lost. 1 think that is tremendously important.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left? Two

minutes? There are some other points that I have wanted to make, and I

will be planning to make those points when I have another opportunity.

But I did want to conclude my remarks today with a reading from the

late F.R. Scott, a distinguished Canadian, a leading figure in law,

labour and politics in Canada and one of the architects of the practical

[ Page 587 ]

compassion that is fundamental to the CCF/NDP. He said this

in a poem in the 1930s:

From those condemned to labour

For profit of another

We take our new endeavour.

For sect and class and pattern

Through whom the strata harden

We sharpen now the weapon.

Till power is brought to pooling

And outcasts share in ruling

There will not be an ending

Nor any peace for spending.

HON. B.R. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, it is a

pleasure to rise today and — in his absence, as no doubt he is very

busy today in his first day as new leader — to express also my

congratulations to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt)

on taking the mantle of his party at a hard-fought convention on the

weekend.

I regret that I was unable to enjoy that convention. I kept

turning my dial, thinking I had the wrong week, and all I could see was

the Masters golf, the Family Circle tennis and the hockey game. But I

couldn't see the first member or his acceptance speech, and I regret

that the media didn't give more coverage to their convention. I think

that is wrong and that they should have. I think it was an important

convention, even though it wasn't contested, and it is too bad that

when you have a contest, they're there night and day, but when you

don't, you barely get a look-in at the six o'clock news.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

To speak on the hoist motion, I feel sure that having

reflected over the weekend and having listened to the moderating,

terribly sensible tones of their new leader, the members opposite are

probably going to decide that some of their criticism of this bill has

been a little bit hasty, that they have pressed their buttons maybe a

little too quickly, that the shrill cries that have been heard from

their constituency — and which indeed we have heard from the Employers'

Council as well — may be a little bit off the mark and a little bit

wide, and that this bill is not as bad as any of them think.

I remember in 1973 when the Labour Code was passed by their

government, that the minister of the day, Mr. Bill King, faced very

much the same kind of criticism from labour and from business. They

said that this was a monstrous, undemocratic bill, that it was taking

away rights, that it would produce chaos in the construction industry.

I can remember those comments being made at the time, and all sorts of

dire predictions were made for the future of the legislation.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is really an attempt to profit

and learn by some of the experience that has taken place over the

ensuing 13 years. It's an attempt to make the Labour Code of 1973 a

document that is more in keeping with the needs of industrial relations

and commercial activity in British Columbia today. In 1973 that bill

may have been the bill for the day; Bill 19 is the bill for 1987. If

you look at that bill carefully, and reflect on it and consider it,

you'll see that it really does not challenge the underpinnings of

industrial relations in this province. It still puts harmony between

employer and employees as a very, very high priority. It still puts a

good impartial method of solving disputes in the form of an

adjudicative board, one of the prime divisions of the new council. It

still provides for voluntary arbitration between the parties, although

it improves that somewhat and streamlines that somewhat in that it

encourages more single arbitration.

It also still provides for a good deal of give and take in the

administration of collective agreements. It provides also for a much

better framework, in my view, to deal with complex industrial relations

in the 1990s.

In 1973, when the Labour Code was brought in, and we had the

experience of that Code and

interpretations under it.... You'll

remember that the first chairman of the board was Mr. Paul Weiler, who

was a professor of law from the University of Toronto. He presided as

our first chairman for a number of years. In his day, you had a

chairman who was very much in sync with the objectives of the

legislation — indeed, had been consulted as to the drafting of the

legislation. By the power of his intellect and by his sheer ability, he

was able to bring under that legislation a fair degree of control over

labour relations in the province; at least, to provide a direction for

them.

His predecessor, Don Munroe, was also a remarkable figure in

the field of labour relations. He was a very hands-on type of chairman;

he was out doing a lot of adjudicating and also a lot of settling and

arm twisting. He had a very strong influence on labour relations that

went beyond his adjudicative function. I think that in the years that

have gone by since the passage of those two, there have been increasing

difficulties in finding personnel for the Labour Relations Board and

attracting people to the board, and I think we've got very backward in

the kinds of salaries and opportunities that we've been providing for

people to take these positions.

So I'm delighted, Mr. Speaker, to see that this bill provides

that the commissioner is going to receive a salary the same as a

supreme court judge. I would hope that the divisional chairmen are

going to receive considerably higher salaries than people on the LRB

receive now, and that we will attract a high calibre of person to

administer this act. I also see that the commissioner has some tenure

by statute, and that he will be anything but a clone of the government;

that he will be a person who will be able to act independently.

He's going to have some advantages, Mr. Speaker, that Mr.

Weiler didn't have. He is clearly going to be at the top of a pyramid,

with two divisions: one division that can go out and can mediate and

can try to settle things; and the other division that will clearly have

to adjudicate. The problem that Mr. Weiler had in his day was that he

was expected to do both. One of the criticisms I can remember, as a

Labour Relations Board practitioner during the seventies, was that you

often couldn't get decisions out of the board on adjudicative matters.

You couldn't get illegal pickets taken down. You couldn't get a clearly

illegal job-action stopped, because there was so much negotiating going

on. The board was coming over and having little chats and informal

meetings, but they would never rule on the illegality. Well, you see,

under the new setup, Mr. Peck will be in a position where he can put

his mediation side in, and he can try to settle things, but if an

employer or a union wants to have their legal rights decided, they will

not be delayed in doing that. They will be able to go ahead and get a

ruling that some action by the employer or by the union is legal or

illegal. I think that will be much better.

[ Page 588 ]

Another one of the problems that arose, and one of the

criticisms that arose under the old Labour Code, was that parties

didn't have clear access to the courts at any stage. There was a very strong privative clause that kept the courts

out, and you couldn't sue for wrongful action without the permission of

the board. I notice that those provisions, which I consider to be

probably contrary to the Charter, have today been removed, and it will

now be possible for people who have an error in law or jurisdiction, or

a denial of natural justice, to go to the courts for a ruling. Also, it

will be possible to sue for breaches of the Code without the permission

of the board. I think all of those things are steps in the right

direction.

As a result of the Labour Code of 1973, the

interpretations

that grew up under it and the practitioners who specialized in labour

law, it's fair to say that what happened in the field of Labour

Relations Board

interpretations is that they became increasingly

legalistic. I know that when the minister conducted his tour around

this province he heard the same thing from labour, management and third

parties: "Please save us from the over-legalistic drift of this board."

It's impossible to go before that board now unless you're a John

Baigent or a Bruce McColl or somebody of that kind of skill. You get in there and you're faced with seven or eight

different legal arguments, and it has become a very specialized

tribunal.

So I hope that out of this new council and the two divisions

will come not only high-calibre people, but people who will give a

sense in the hearings that the layman can be there or the non-legally

trained person will have a chance to appear, or that the little guy

who's bringing an action under a collective agreement won't have to

have these high-priced practitioners but will be able to speak for

himself. That may be a vain hope, but I still have that hope. I think

labour relations boards should not be too legalistic.

[3:15]

Some of the results that occurred during the period of

excessive concentration on legalistic matters in labour relations is

that we got a number of rulings, of concepts, that created

difficulties, and there was a lot of criticism as a result of the

administration of the act. A criticism heard continuously by employers,

particularly small businessmen, was that sign-up campaigns were the

fastest thing the Labour Relations Board dealt with, that a

certification application was dealt with almost overnight but that a

decertification application took forever. You were told, "Don't come

back; we'll call you," and sometimes no votes were held on

decertification. As a result, employers felt they were quickly finessed

into a union, often without votes because there was no provision that

required certification votes to be taken, and there were never

decertification votes either. So it was a once in, never out kind of

proposition. I suppose there are always good reasons for having

certification matters dealt with swiftly. For instance, if you let them

linger for a long time, you allow opportunities for intimidation,

unfair labour practices, this kind of thing. Nevertheless, I think it

was generally admitted by most people in this field that the law had

gone far too far in the direction of penalizing a small employer

particularly, making him totally subject to an instant sign-up

campaign.

Also, of course, for a long time the law was thought to be that

a small or a large employer faced with a certification drive

couldn't say anything to his men, couldn't talk to them, couldn't

communicate to them at all. If he even said "good morning" to them on

the way to work, he was maybe going to be up before the LRB on an

unfair labour charge. I'm glad to see there are some really good union

democracy provisions in this bill, provisions which.... It has been

said that this is radical. I have a lot of respect for the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), but I think his characterization of the

radicalism of this bill is quite misplaced. If you look at the

restrictions contained in

section 7 of the bill on discriminatory

practices that prevent employees from losing their jobs if they aren't

treated equally by a trade union, that provision is now in place in

almost every province in this country. Manitoba has a provision like

that; Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I,

Newfoundland, and it's in the federal bill as well. So there's nothing

radical about those kinds of protections for democracy in the jobplace.

In my view, the minister has done a very good job of balancing

various reforms and taking into account the need to have more democracy

in the workplace to protect individual rights. If the minister hadn't

done that, no doubt applications would have been made to the courts

under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we don't want labour

matters ending up in Charter challenges under the courts. I was

delighted to see that the Supreme Court of Canada handed down decisions

on Friday in a host of cases involving Alberta, the Public Service

Alliance and a Manitoba matter as well, in which the sum and substance

of the decisions and the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada was

this: that neither the right to strike nor the right to bargain

collectively is something that a legislature or parliament can't take

away if they wish, that that is not freedom of association and freedom

of expression under the Charter. The right to bargain collectively may

involve those things, but it is not in substance those things. The

power to limit the right to strike is something that Parliament or the

Legislature can do if it wishes to take the responsibility to do that.

I therefore think that the best forum for deciding these things, for

deciding if there is going to be some limitation on the right to strike

or on certification, is in parliament and not in the courts.

The reforms brought forward here, the democratization of

procedures, are very good and very much in keeping with Canadian

practice. They are not in the least radical. I notice that there is a

limitation in this act of the non-affiliation clauses for construction.

That can hardly be described as a radical assault on the fabric of

labour, as I have heard said. I've heard that kind of charge from some

people in the labour movement who know better — and who would tell you

privately they know better That is hardly a radical departure, because

these non-affiliation clauses, odious as they may be, have been around

for some time. They permit a group of trade unions that are certified

for a particular construction project to provide in their collective

agreements with their employers that the employers will not bring on

that job any people who are affiliated with non-union labour. That is a

reality in the construction industry. The construction industry tried

to deal with those matters in the courts. In the ironworkers' case in

the late 1970s the courts upheld them, and now they are part of the

construction industry, like it or not. But they have never been part of

the collective agreements and labour relations of other segments of

society, nor indeed should they creep into those. There may be times,

such as the Expo occasion, when those provisions cannot be used to

override major projects, any more than single-site concepts can be

used. Those are kept here in this legislation, and so is the right to

peacefully picket.

[ Page 589 ]

The right to picket under this legislation is now limited

basically to the employers' places of business. It does not extend to

secondary picketing, nor to boycotting and hot-goods edicts, whereby

someone who has peaceful labour relations in some other part of the

province, is minding his own business, has a collective agreement with

his employees and is treating them well and is suddenly faced with an

edict that he cannot handle the goods, which he has been handling for

many years, of some customer of his in the lower mainland, hundreds of

miles away, who has a labour dispute. That's gone. But again, in doing

that, we're in the mainstream of developments in labour relations in

Canada and around the world.

These sorts of changes have been made over the last three or

four years in the United Kingdom, and they've been made in other

provinces. So I see the bill as very, very positive, and there are many

positive features in it which I don't think we're examining from a fair

point of view.

I also notice that there is some clarification of successor

status, but there is no elimination of successor status. There hasn't

been a revolutionary change in the law of successor status which is now

going to allow employers to circumvent certifications and double-breast

all over the province. In fact, one of the criticisms we've had from

the construction segment is that we haven't gone far enough. But the

fact is that we have clarified the law of successor status so that if

you have a particular skill, it won't be caught by successor status; or

if you happen to have a piece of equipment, such as a crane, that's not

certified.... A certification is not a communicable disease which

you can never get rid of, so that it never leaves anything you do. It

doesn't leave a jobsite, a tool or anything else. What it does is

attach to the business and the goodwill. You can't carry on the same

kind of business somewhere else under a another guise; you can't have

some kind of phony bankruptcy or liquidation to try to avoid

certification and then open up business tomorrow, because bankruptcy

ends certification but not colourable bankruptcy. So there are lots of

protections here for the trade union movement and for the working man.

The main theme of this bill is that there is a whole new

constituency out there in the field of labour relations: not big

unions, not big employers, but the public, who suffer from bad labour

relations when you get an employer and employee who can't come to an

agreement and they decide to harass each other and harass the rest of

us and we have a long and bitter strike.

I can well remember, as I'm sure people in this room can, the

trouble that Mr. King had in 1973 when he brought in new legislation,

got it passed and then put it into practice, and how it was supposed to

bring about labour peace and it was supposed to keep everybody happy

because it provided so much greater sort of collectivization for the

labour side of the equation. But what it really did, unfortunately, was

raise aspirations. Instead of having peace, we had: "Give me more, give

me more, give me more." We had settlements of 25 and 30 percent. We had

civic strikes. I remember we had one in Victoria here in 1975, where

the union was asking seriously for an increase of 45 percent. That

strike went on for weeks and weeks. I can remember Mr. King inviting us

down — I was a mayor at that time — saying: "Please, couldn't you

people be reasonable? Couldn't you compromise and maybe pay them 30

percent?"

This kind of thing went on. We didn't get labour peace by that

kind of legislation. You don't really buy labour peace by passing

legislation that the trade union movement, or the employers, may like.

You get labour peace, I think, by having fair legislation that protects

the public, with rules that are fair, and with fair, reasonable people

who will operate those procedures.

Who in this province could be better, and who is better

equipped, to head up this new structure than Mr. Ed Peck? He was

trained by Paul Weiler; he served as his vice-chairman. Ed Peck had

many years experience on the old LRB, and he has now had the

experience of the compensation stabilization program, which has ended.

He's always kept his oar in the field of labour relations. He's been an

arbitrator and a mediator. He understands the importance of solving

disputes by other than strikes or job action. He understands mediation,

intervention — this kind of thing. He'll be able to use that part of

the new apparatus, Mr. Minister of Labour. He'll be able to use it with

great effectiveness. Under this new regime and Mr. Peck, we are not

going to have a whole bunch of disputes that we can't settle coming

onto the desk of the minister for some kind of statutory intervention.

Because I've listened to the employers' council and also some

of the spokesmen for the B.C. Fed, I know that they look upon this

large council and the imposition of the will of the government in the

final analysis as destructive of collective bargaining; that this will

destroy and impede collective bargaining, and that we will not have

proper collective bargaining; the parties will wait for Big Brother to

intervene and then they'll hammer them with this solution. That is not

going to be the case, Mr. Speaker. The legislation has all kinds of

mechanisms for resolving disputes, for intervention, for public

interest inquiries, for boards, and for persuasion. It has a

cooling-off period. The cooling-off period is not new to labour

relations; it was there before in the public sector.

I've also heard the argument that we have gone too far in

intruding into solutions for the private sector; that we should stay

out of the private sector in labour relations. The private sector is no

business of the public: that's the proposition. Mr. Speaker, we saw

last summer and last fall the kinds of results that can flow from that

sort of thinking, because there we had a major dispute in our major

industry, which shut down a number of plants and really decimated a

number of towns and meant that no money was flowing to families all

over the interior and the coast of this province. Absolutely nothing

could be done at one point in time because there was no Legislative

Assembly; there was an election going on. Unless the government can

have some control mechanism at times like that, where it's a strike

that cripples the entire economy of the province, so that government

can finally, after lots of safeguards, as there are in this

legislation.... After Mr. Peck does all his things, mediation, public

interest

inquiries and all these things take place, and then there's still no

solution, and then he recommends that he cannot settle the matter, at

that time the government has to assume responsibility. If the

Legislature isn't sitting, or if the Legislature is dissolved, you

can't have a legislated solution. The bill has safeguards for a

solution by cabinet too, because the solution has to be laid before the

Legislature when it next sits and has to be approved. If the

Legislature is sitting, the decision won't be made in the cabinet

chamber; it'll be made in this chamber

I'll tell you that I think we're hearing a lot of smoke and

mirrors. What we're hearing is the rhetoric of two sides that are not

looking at the bill, and not trying to understand it but are terrified

of any kind of change. That's what it is. They

[ Page 590 ]

don't want any kind of change. I'm equally critical of the

Employers' Council as I am of the B.C. Federation of Labour. This is not

radical legislation. This is not going to change their lives. This is

not legislation that's going to hurt their members. It's legislation

that provides a better, more modem framework for trying to get on with

things in this province.

[3:30]

Look at the objects of the bill, Mr. Speaker. The objects of

the bill tell the whole thing, because the greatest object now of

labour legislation is not just harmony in collective bargaining....

That's important, but it says: "...having regard to the public

interest as well as the rights of individuals and the rights and

obligations of the parties...." It says also — and it's central to

this bill — "the participants in...a competitive market economy,"

and it recognizes that both management and labour are participants in a

competitive market economy. And unless we have legislation that deals

with the competitive market economy, we're going to be going on doing

things in our old way, the way we were back in the seventies. We're

going to be locked in some kind of warp in time, when the rest of the

world is outcompeting us, the rest of the world is outhustling us and

we're not able to change, and we're caught in our own way of doing

things, the way they are in parts of the Maritimes or in some of the

eastern states, where their industries are locked in — or the way the

British were with their mineworkers for so many years, and it erupts in

violence when change is finally brought about.

You have to be able to bring change about or else we're not

going to compete in the world, and we're not going to grow, we're not

going to have a decent standard of living, and we're not going to

attract capital from abroad.

The bill is a good bill, and I cannot support the hoist

motion. I thought long and hard over the weekend. I listened to the

news clips of Mikey, waiting and waiting and waiting for some new

evidence to come forward, but I cannot support the hoist motion. I must

urge all members of the chamber to support this excellent bill, which

will allow us to go forward with better labour relations and will allow

free collective bargaining to replace collective bludgeoning. That's

what it will do. So I urge you to vote against the hoist motion and

support this excellent bill.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I

can't go ahead and debate the bill and answer some of the points that

the Attorney-General just brought up, but I'm speaking to the amendment

to the motion. I'm speaking to the amendment to the motion on behalf of

my constituents who.... And I'd like to just mention to the members

of this House that when you're in Cranbrook, Victoria is a very remote

community. In fact, some of the news about the two bills that have been

put forward — but particularly Bill 19, which we're talking about right

now — has not got through to these third parties that the government is

talking about.

You've got to remember that when you're in the corners of the

province from which Victoria is very remote, in fact what happens is

something like.... A bill is introduced in the Legislature on a

Thursday; by Friday it's in the newspapers; by Saturday those

newspapers might arrive in my community. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have

been talking to a number of the people in my community, and they have

not yet absorbed the implications of Bill 19. It is not because they

are not able to do it as fast as anyone else; it is because the

implications are very complex, the bill is complex. In fact, there

seems to have been no particular attempt to let the people know what

was in the bill before it came out, and there's been no particular

effort to now decide whether or not they do know what's in the bill.

That is why I'm supporting the hoist motion.

There are a number of reasons, and that will become more clear

as I go along, but mainly I would like to say that if in fact members

of my community, who are those third parties who are so important in

the bill, were to have finally decided that they had read the newspaper

and found out more details about the bill which they might not have

gotten with electronic coverage, and that they might want the bill sent

to them, and they could get it, it would probably take two weeks. Now

if they had even noticed the radio on the day that the bill was

introduced and decided that they wanted it and had phoned immediately,

and it had had to go by mail, it would probably be this coming Thursday

when the bill would arrive.

Mr. Speaker, I put it to the government: that is a fact of

life. It's a fact of communication in the province and is one of the

reasons that we deserve to have the bill delayed until all of the

people of the province have had an opportunity to examine it and to

take a good look at the implications.

In my examination of the bill and where it came from and so on

and so forth, Mr. Speaker, I took a good look at the labour legislation

review that Mr. Hanson put forward on February 28, which was released,

as we will all recall, the same day that Bill 19 was introduced into

the Legislature. If you remember, the labour legislation review was

announced on December 12, and in fact said that Mr. Hanson would expect

briefs up until January 16, and he would make recommendations by

February 28. His itinerary was announced on January 7. All of this

looks like a very rush job, Mr. Speaker, as you can see. December 12,

as everyone knows, is at a time when very few people in a community are

going to have their attention taken away from the major celebration of

our society, the Christmas season. So they probably weren't disturbed

by the fact that they did not know where or whether they were going to

be able to make presentations to Mr. Hanson's review process until

January 7. What happened was that the oral presentations, which were

not more than 15 minutes, went on until February 7. On February 7,

after Mr. Hanson had travelled the province to the number of places

where he went, and had in fact had private meetings on two days in late

January, he then had three weeks to make a presentation to the Premier.

I would like to compare that with the process that went on

with the major labour legislation of 1973. Everybody refers to it a

lot, and they say it is a similar process because it is such a sweeping

change. It was a sweeping change. In 1973, the bill was introduced in

March. From March until October there were numbers of two- and

three-day conferences held throughout the province, and people were

able to sit down and talk to each other. They were able to discuss,

back and forth, the implications of this bill. It wasn't simply a

series of hearings put together at a month's notice or so with

organizations that were already busy having other social functions and

doing other work, and just at the drop of a hat were expected to make

presentations. They were given warning from March 1973. They had

conferences so that they could exchange views and not just make

presentations. By the beginning of October the legislation was

introduced in the House, and it was debated for seven weeks in the

Legislature.

That legislation had a considerably better.... I guess I

can't predict, can I? We don't know. This legislation could all

[ Page 591 ]

of a sudden begin to get some positive response, but it hasn't

happened yet. People are alarmed and concerned. The whole timetable was

rushed. After February 28, when the report came in, we had one month

until the legislation was introduced into the House, and it is already

being rushed through the House. We think that that is too fast. We need

to take at least six months to take this legislation to the people -

not just to the companies, not just to the people who work for the

companies, but also to this third party who keeps being mentioned.

We've been talking also about the crucial role of this

particular bill, and that is not really a difficult thing to talk

about. I think that Mr. Hanson saw that it was sweeping legislation,

and it is fairly clear that there was a recognition in all the comments

that this legislation is going to make a huge change. In fact, in the

letter that Mr. Hanson wrote to Mr. Vander Zalm on submitting his

report, he said: "More than anything else, I have been mindful of the

crucial role which we know our industrial relations climate plays in

the decisions of foreign investors, upon whom so much . . . ." That

term is used there. When we go further ahead, he also says in the

beginning of the report itself: "In recognition of the broad and

substantial impact labour legislation has on the people of British

Columbia.... He says: "Hearing times were solidly booked." We

know there were more than 700 submissions.

He certainly indicated that he was well aware that there was a

broad and substantial impact that was to occur because of this hearing

process, because of the whole review process. The whole thing was

recognized not just as something that was going past, but as something

that was going to make a major difference.

"The basic assumption and motivating

factor behind the present review...is that our industrial relations

climate must be improved, " he said. He made other comments both here

and further in his report indicating that he recognized the importance

and the significance of what was going on. He said most individuals and

organizations felt positive steps could be taken; he recognized it was

a broad and important thing. On page 17 of his report he said that "it

is apparent that the world of industrial relations is a complex one";

but they wanted to be "fair and reasonable to all concerned." Changes

to the Labour Code, changes to other legislation and nonlegislative

changes have all been recommended, and "great care will have to be

taken."

All of these words, Mr. Speaker, indicate that Mr. Hanson was

well aware that this was an important process and that it was going to

make some important changes. He said, in the releases that came with

the bill as it came out, that the changes were wide-ranging and

significant. He said: "The council will have sweeping powers to act."

You could go on and on, and on a regular basis make comments about how

it affected all parts of the labour climate and our labour negotiations

and labour activities in the province. So I think to suggest that this

is going to slide through and that it isn't very important goes against

all the evidence that comes otherwise.

Mr. Hanson also recognized particular problems with going

through, and he made it clear that it was not going to be an easy thing

to put these recommendations he had into legislation. In fact, he said

that he is satisfied that the need to improve is widely, if not

universally, appreciated. He said that there is less agreement,

however, on the best method of bringing about this improvement. He then

went ahead to discuss the kinds of change he had considered. He had

considered legislative change, and he said that he would accept that to

some degree. He said that there had to be a change in attitudes, and he

said that attitudinal change cannot be created by legislation, but he

said it can be destroyed by legislation — that's on page 4. He made

that very clear: this was a problem that was going to have to be dealt

with, and he was treading a very fine line.

[3:45]

He ended up by suggesting that in fact he was taking a middle

ground, and he said both legislative and attitudinal changes are

required to accomplish the necessary improvements. And he said that

there are no panaceas or simple solutions, that removing the right to

strike does not eliminate strikes. He went on to indicate that this

whole business, which would have to be analyzed into a number of

directions and a number of ways to approach the problem.... So it's

very clear from this report, this review, that was presented by Mr.

Hanson that he understood that there were many difficulties and that

those difficulties were very severe.

He named in particular some problems that we all know happen

to us and complicate the way our lives go as we go along. He said that

the communication process is a difficult one. He said: "Communication

is not a process which can be easily mandated by legislation." He

pointed out — in a number of occasions but in particular one spot —

that we must avoid the problem that appearances may differ from the

reality. I mention that because this is such a simple issue — you know,

to recognize the complexity of it. It's so simple that, as I say, we

know that when somebody says to a spouse, "Your dinner is ready, " that

spouse could read a million meanings into that simple statement. Did

the statement really mean, "All right, now I've done all the work; you

can come and eat it," or did it mean, "Now you can go ahead and eat

your dinner; I have a whole lot more work to do," or did it mean...?

MR. MESSMER : Who would think that?

MS. EDWARDS : Any woman, I think, whose

husband cooked her dinner might think that.

So I think that.... "You can stop doing what you like.

Here is an offer of the best that I can give you." It means any number

of those things to the person who receives the message. That, of

course, as anybody who knows anything about communications knows, is

very different from any number of messages that might have been meant

by the person who sent the message. So when we get legislation that

tells somebody to say, "Our offer is on the table, " we know that this

communication problem has not been licked and cannot be licked, as Mr.

Hanson says, by legislation.

He says that any law without the support of the majority will

be opposed, and the larger objective will fail. Actually he says: "Any

law without the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the majority

of those whom it purports to affect will inevitably be opposed." I

think that this indicates very clearly that there are some major

dangers. I don't think the government can say that they have in fact

addressed this issue and that they know they have majority support or

acquiescence in this province, because the initial responses have not

shown that people in the province support or acquiesce in the

legislation.

There are other problems, and I wonder if these have been

addressed. I certainly can't imagine that this one is not going to be.... This is just an example. A recommendation on

[ Page 592 ]

page 22 of the report says: "Distinct and separate divisions

of a corporation should be treated as separate employers for picketing

purposes." Picketing, of course, occurs if there is a labour dispute.

Now that may be very clear for labour legislation in this province, but

my experience on unemployment insurance boards of referees indicates

that it will create untold problems with that legislation. In fact, I

wonder if there has been any sort of coordination, or any sort of look

at other legislation that's been brought in. I think we should be sure

that that kind of coordination, that sort of look ahead, has been done.

One of the more interesting things about the way the bill was

brought in is that the Minister of Labour said "on a regular basis,"

and I think it's fair to say that one hopes this is true, believes it

to be true that Mr. Hanson wanted a fairer, more stable workplace. He

uses the words "fairness," "mutually agreed upon," "government's

desire to establish nonconfrontational climate" and "equitably." All

these words come in. The interesting part about fairness is that

fairness doesn't count for anything unless it's perceived to be fair by

both sides arguing about fairness. Again, there is that great

communication problem. If the minister wants that kind of perception,

wants people to know and believe that the legislation is fair, we've

got to look at a few of the spots where there seem to be a few gaps.

First of all, there are a number of recommendations made in

the labour legislation review put forward by Mr. Hanson — and perhaps

they come into the legislation — which

indicate that it's not as easy

as it might seem to avoid confrontation, and that in fact, appearances

may differ from reality. It says: "Although recognizing that

appearances may differ from the reality of the bargaining process, the

possibility of slipping in a major confrontation without serious

attempts having between made to resolve the dispute is perhaps too

easy...." I would like to suggest that it's just as easy to slip into a

major confrontation with legislation that has not been taken to the

public as it might be under any labour code that doesn't have the right

words to prevent people slipping into confrontation.

In the same part of the review the role of government in the

process of collective bargaining is referred to as "an area to which

considerable thought has been given and about which a series of

recommendations are made." One has to guess who gave that

consideration. To my way of thinking, it only means that the ministry

and the minister did it. If, in fact, somebody outside the ministry did

it, I think we need to know that that happened, and we need to know who

added to the considerations mentioned in this review.

There's another example of this. In recommendation No. 9 of

the review, which, as I say, we assume should be the original basis for

the legislation, the comment is made that the Code should emphasize

that every person has a freedom to express his — it doesn't say his or

her, but I assume it means his or her — views. If that is the case, I'm

not sure why every person should not have the freedom to express his or

her views now that the legislation has been brought out and now that we

see what this new labour legislation is.

There is another problem with credibility which occurs

following a comment about the problems that were faced by Mr. Hanson in

putting forward his review, and he said he wanted to.... The

recommendations are intended to strengthen the rights of individuals

within unions without weakening union security. If that is Mr. Hanson's

recommendation and that is his intent, I would suggest that he should

check out whether the unions — the people who are going to know whether

union solidarity lasts or not — perceive that that is the case as well.

I think that probably he would want to do that, and a six-month

extension would allow him to consult.

Also in the review there is a statement that Mr. Hanson

recommended the extension of collective bargaining rights for teachers,

and I believe that it has been said a number of times by the government

that they believe they have done this. The teachers have said very

directly and very clearly that they do not believe that to be true. I

think that there should be some consultation over this, because there

doesn't seem to be any doubt in the minds of teachers that that

intention — if it were truly the intention — has been achieved. So that

leaves us with a bit of a credibility gap, Mr. Speaker.

We have some problems with statements such as the one about

pickets being limited: "Picketing must be restricted to limit the

economic impact on the province and to protect the legitimate rights of

third parties." I think there are a number of people who might wonder

if there were not other reasons that should be considered if one were

to take such a serious and significant step as to limit picketing. The

minister says in his review that the arbitration process should be

improved as far as cost is concerned and as far as time is concerned.

Many of the people who have read the legislation — the bill anyway —

assume that the arbitration process will be made longer and more

costly, so perhaps that goal will not be achieved.

Perhaps as important as any is the idea of whether or not

legislative change was believed to be what we needed, or whether we

needed a different kind of change. In order to look at that, I think we

should go to

chapter 4 in the review. It says: "Confrontation and its

results...was an area where most individuals and organizations felt

positive steps could be taken, primarily outside of the area of

legislative amendment." Now that's interesting, to suggest that that

was where the changes should have come, and this was in the review.

So we can look further on in the review and see if that ever

appeared again. Under the

section on the construction industry, and Mr.

Hanson's comment that the construction, industry must be viewed as the

area where the greatest differences were apparent, he said: "This

report recommends a vehicle for an in-depth analysis of this complex

industry, one which can offer a comprehensive solution, particularly if

actively supported by the various interest groups within the industry."

So this report itself suggests that there be a careful analysis of

overall ramifications — not legislation,

In fact, recommendation 43 says:

"The often unique problems of the

construction industry should not be addressed by legislation at this

time, but should be referred as soon as possible to an industrial

inquiry commission, which should be required within a reasonably short

time-frame, and after full consultation with all affected parties, to

make a report with recommendations as to how the problems of the

industry might best be resolved by legislative or other means, having

always in mind the overall public interest."

Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if in fact the overall

public interest would have been served by delaying any legislative

change as it relates to the construction industry, there is a major

credibility gap between what the review recommended and what the bill

actually came out with.

What it does besides, Mr. Speaker, is make us all wonder who

is defining the public interest, because the public interest — I would

hate to be considered to be speaking in a narrow

[ Page 593 ]

sense — needs to be defined. Nowhere in the legislation or the

recommendations do I see a real definition of public interest. The

credibility gap goes along with that, because those comments have

certainly been made.

[4:00]

We have to look a little further to some of the things that

Mr. Hanson said were happening, really improving the way things were

happening and the kind of thing that has happened with the introduction

of this bill, because it was suggested that we needed some kind of

labour-management forum which would seek to combat the negative image

which attaches to our province in the eyes of foreigners and Canadians

alike. The basic purpose of this forum was to be to pursue an improved

investment climate and so on and so forth. Five goals were set out as

the objectives of this group that was visualized, and this was expected

by the minister to bring together the people who are responsible for

our industrial relations climate, and in fact to improve the climate

that surrounds industrial relations in British Columbia.

There was some indication that there was going to be progress

toward a Pacific institute of industrial relations. That was going

ahead until such time as the bill was introduced, and it is not going

ahead now. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of counteraction

to something that was going ahead is something that should be

addressed. It is obviously not going to be addressed if we are going

ahead full-scale, pell-mell, as fast as possible with Bill 19. But it

should be addressed, and it is not being, because of the way the bill

has been introduced.

MR. MESSMER : Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in

favour of the bill and against the hoisting motion.

I am proud that our government recognizes that changes in

industrial relations in British Columbia need to be reflected in the

new act — changes which did not just take place overnight but started in

the boom days of the 1970s. It seems that labour and management have

not adjusted to the economic realities of the eighties. Neither side

has been able to agree among themselves that adjustments and

compromises are necessary. The result has been that the workers of this

province have suffered.

In the last several years, it is individual workers who have

been the most concerned about the direction labour relations have been

taking. We have heard their concerns, and I believe we are responding

to them. Because of the changing labour climate our province has been

experiencing, these modifications are necessary, and in fact have been

requested by the people in our province: employees, employers and the

working people.

It has been said repeatedly by the opposition that the public

was not given an opportunity for input into these changes or the

amendments being presented to the House. Mr. Speaker, I believe this to

be untrue. As we all went around and campaigned before the election, it

was the number one priority. Since that time, the minister has set up a

task force which went around the province of British Columbia, hearing

once again from the employers, the employees, the unions and the

management people; and the same thing has come home, it is true.

The people have spoken, and we have responded. I believe that

we have taken a leadership role in bringing before this House labour

legislation more in line with labour reality. The existing Labour Code

has outgrown its usefulness and has resulted in clear examples of

abuse. The new Industrial Relations Reform Act will increase the democratic rights of

workers throughout the province. It will also serve to further protect

the public interest and the innocent parties. It is my belief that

those who are the heads of unions and management organizations have

sometimes abused the powers given to them by their respective members.

Mr. Speaker, it is all too often that the workers themselves

pay the penalty for the union reps' political games. We have heard

their concerns time and time again, most recently I believe as the

minister travelled around this province. In this bill we have responded

to the concerns of the workers, the often-ignored silent majority. We

are protecting workers' rights, rights that have been slowly eroded

over the years by the sometimes irresponsible actions of labour and

management representatives.

Labour negotiations used to involve representatives from both

sides sitting down and discussing the issues of the contract. If all

else failed, they had the option to strike or to lock out. Today,

almost the opposite is true. Strikes and lockouts occur before the

negotiating process has even begun. So much for bargaining in good

faith; so much for looking after the interest of the rights of the

workers, Strike votes are taken prior to negotiation, prior to final

position, prior to telling the workers what the demands or offers of

management are. Unions prepare well in advance to have long lists of

unsettled grievances, and these are to be used as bargaining tools. The

demands on both sides are long in number.

What often happens is that a union will not pursue a worker's

grievance through the normal channels — the example is the arbitration

process — but will wait until it's time to negotiate a contract before

bringing up the grievances as a lever. It seems to have become the name

of the game; therefore this bill seeks to address that problem.

This legislation addresses all of the above issues and

emphasizes the negotiating process. It is also my belief that the

interests of the public have been too often ignored, even injured,

during labour bargaining conflicts. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour

has presented a bill which I believe should be supported by all members

of this House, regardless of political affiliation.

This bill will also ensure the workers that there is a greater

fairness in the democratic voting system. This bill will prevent

strikes or lockouts while a collective agreement is in place. It also

bans strike and lockout votes prior to good-faith bargaining. This will

prevent undue and unfair leverage prior to bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will protect the workers in the

province of British Columbia. They will no longer be used as pawns by

either labour or management in our labour negotiations. In the past few

days, during the debate of the estimates of the Minister of Social

Services and Housing, the opposition members have related to some

individual hardship cases. In the case of labour disputes, we could

describe at length the extreme unnecessary cases of hardship caused not

by the lack of demand for the product but by the role of demand at the

bargaining table under contract negotiations.

During protracted labour disputes it is the public interest

that suffers the most. These disputes accomplish little for the parties

involved and have a detrimental effect on the province as a whole. Too

often when a labour dispute takes place, it has been common practice to

attempt to harass those not directly involved, the so-called innocent

third parties. In the past it's been easy to define a third party as an

ally to the employer,

[ Page 594 ]

and this has allowed picketing activities to take place, to

cause hardship to innocent third parties, all in the hope of attracting

media attention and placing undue economic pressure on the struck

employer.

This new act will clearly protect the rights of the innocent

third parties, individual employees and the public interest. It will

bring about long-term stability in industrial relations in British

Columbia, and in turn make this province an even more attractive place

in which to invest and do business.

Private and public organizations and their employees also

suffer hardship; it takes years to recover from the financial losses

that result from such disputes. Some employers never do

recover, ending in lost customers, lost sales, and

ultimately, in some cases,

to bankruptcy. The employees also lose. After years of working they

find themselves unemployed, looking to start all over again, and when

an agreement is finally reached in some cases and work is resumed, it

may take years for the trust among the parties to be renewed. Even with

pay increases, employees rarely recover the wages lost during a

dispute. Businesses — and we all know this — cannot compete

effectively,

and workers cannot work productively without an understanding and

appreciation of each other's position and the dynamics of their

relationship to a competitive economy. Mr. Speaker, changes are

necessary. They're necessary in order to reduce the hardships that

happen during a labour dispute. The bill helps us in this case by

providing for a 40-day cooling-off period, as well as other methods of

ensuring that a dispute has every opportunity to be settled.

Mr. Speaker, labour disputes arise from the lack of give and

take in the collective bargaining process. If permitted, the collective

bargaining system can work. I think we all know that. It can promote

cooperation and understanding during the terms of the collective

agreement. This bill will perfect the collective bargaining system to

better reach its potential and to function effectively.

Investors inside and outside of British Columbia have always

perceived in the last few years that we have had long and

non-productive strikes and lockouts in British Columbia, creating a

climate that is not attractive to long-term investment. The message

very often heard by this government from potential investors and trade

partners is the reluctance to make British Columbia a home for their

investment capital, due to that reputation. Mr. Speaker, we need those

investors to create the jobs, to assist us to build new enterprises, to

contribute to the steady growth and diversification of our economy.

Economic recovery is more than words. It means more meaningful jobs for

the unemployed. It helps to preserve the social benefits we now enjoy.

We have to have a better way, and I believe that this bill provides

that way.

MR. GUNO : Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to

rise in joining my colleagues in supporting this hoist motion, and I

just want, first of all, to say that I've worked in various fields. I

started off as a cannery worker and was a member of the union then. I

fished commercially for three years, and I was a member of the union

then. Later on I worked for five years in the pulp mill in Prince

Rupert and belonged to a union. I then moved up the ladder of life and

became a civil servant, and I was a union member then. And what always

struck me was the wonderful mechanism we call collective bargaining. I

suggest that this bill is going to be the death knell to that important

social mechanism.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to state, first of all, that I agree with my colleagues

in labelling this bill as a radical, complex and really totally

unnecessary response to a rather imagined threat. If we're talking

about good industrial relations, we should recognize the fact that

those kinds of relations depend on consensus. It means that a voluntary

collective agreement is always to be a consensus document — something

that both sides can live with. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this

principle has been forgotten in drafting this bill.

[4:15]

I would suggest that we have to recognize the fact that the

process is a delicate one as two parties move to an agreement. In fact

the 1973 Labour Code, which our party introduced, incorporated this

concept. This bill, I would suggest, injects the long arm of the

government and the courts into labour matters on a fairly regular basis.

The government speakers have talked about protecting the

public interest. I think it's worthwhile to examine exactly what we

mean by the public interest. I would suggest that this bill actually

does the opposite — that it jeopardizes the public interest — in that

it will not be served, or will be poorly served, if the result is more

chaotic labour relations. In fact, I think this was recognized by Jim

Matkin of the Business Council, who has stated that the recent forestry

dispute would have lasted a lot longer if this bill had been in place.

So even the main business spokesmen have damned this bill with faint

praise.

If we were to adopt this bill, the dispute resolution

mechanism would be compulsory. Collective bargaining will be inhibited

by such a process, in that the parties will be reluctant to engage in

the kind of give-and-take that's so necessary in resolving labour

disputes. So I would urge the members to support this hoist motion.

We talk about setting a good investment climate in British

Columbia. This bill, in creating a poor bargaining climate, would make

B.C. even less attractive to investment and to creating new jobs. I

think the. mechanism of collective bargaining depends on both sides

being able to be relatively equal in terms of the collective bargaining

process. What this bill does is shift the balance of the bargaining

system in favour of management. I further suggest that the public

interest will be harmed by the fact that the government will be

involved in more disputes, both public and private sector. What usually

results from this involvement is that it unnecessarily lengthens them,

and if the government is going to be involved anyway, there is less

incentive for the parties to bargain and try to resolve their problems

together.

The government speakers have often talked about reducing the

government's intervention in the private sector. In fact, the

government talked about it in the throne speech. I think this bill is

contrary to that stated position, in that it will significantly

increase the role of government in collective bargaining. I would

repeat — and support the speakers on this side of the House — that this

is a radical bill. It gives to a non-accountable, non-elected person

the unusually broad powers that are usually exercised by the

legislators, cabinet or a minister. The bill is so complex that it will

take years for the courts to work out just what it means. So we're

starting off again now at square one, virtually eliminating years and

years of jurisprudence. The government, I would suggest, should have

built on the emerging consensus that was starting to become a reality

between the major players — that is, the

[ Page 595 ]

Business Council and the B.C. Federation of Labour — rather than

start off on a radically new group.

In terms of Mr. Peck's powers, I would suggest that they are

un-Canadian. No legislatures have given this kind of power to a public

servant. I'd like to read an excerpt from the Canadian Parliamentary

Review spring edition, an

article by John Uhr entitled

"Executive-Legislative Relations: Learning from Locke." John Locke, of

course, is one of the founders of modem constitutionalism, and talks, I

think, in a very significant way about the limitations of legislatures:

"The law must not confer on appointed

officials unfettered discretions that require individuals 'to obey at

pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of officials' sudden

thoughts, or unrestrained, and till that moment unknown wills without

having any measures set down which may guide and justify their

actions.' In addition, the legislature shall not delegate its power to

others, for the people have themselves delegated their power to it as

'being only to make laws and not to make legislators."'

So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we do appreciate the

limits of what we can do in this House.

This bill, as I have stated before, favours non-union

employers over their unionized competition in that it will create miles

of red tape for the unionized contractors, contrary to the throne

speech, which pledged to cut the red tape. I would suggest that this

particular bill — if passed, and if we don't support the motion to

hoist — would help firms break their union. Successive rights have been

clearly weakened; hot declarations are made ineffective; non-union

apprentices can be hired in the construction industry even when there

are unemployed, more senior apprentices available at the union hiring

hall. I would suggest that that would infringe on workers' rights.

The government speakers have stated that there is no

double-breasting in this bill, but I would suggest that contrary to the

minister's statement on the first reading, double-breasting is there in

the unionized construction companies being able to run a non-union

subsidiary.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that Bill 19 should be hoisted

because it guarantees to destroy the stability that we have today. We

have a chance today to be different, to be creative, to build a new,

alternative economy which would create jobs and create a more positive

atmosphere. Bill 19, I would suggest, goes in the opposite direction,

because as I mentioned before, the structure of the Legislature puts

the role and powers of elected legislators into the hands of one person

who is not infallible and not accountable to the public for decisions

made and actions taken.

It would destroy free collective bargaining, because no one

will know what the rules will be from day to day. In other words, we

will be faced with further hurdles and ladders: mediators,

fact-finders, public interest inquiry branch, the whole series of hoops

that would have to be overcome. It would wipe out all the major

jurisprudence that is so fundamental to current labour rules. In other

words, it would be just an open field now. No one will know or have any

kind of way to conduct the bargaining process.

Mr. Speaker, I would also suggest that this bill will cause

more confrontation, because it will not be able to prevent disputes.

Contrary to the claims of the government speaker, I would suggest that

B.C. does not lead Canada in terms of labour disputes.

We talk about consultation, and yet labour briefs, except for

the certification vote within ten days.... Not a single labour

point appears in Bill 19. The Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) talked

about evidence. I would suggest that if they want to substantiate the

justification for this bill, they make public all the briefs that were

submitted.

This process, in calling for the hoist, would allow labour and

employers to come up with a process or a new bill that can be designed

in true consultation and build a consensus that has support of both

parties.

I would suggest that the government, in introducing this, has

conned the public. They've been disingenuous in terms of talk about

consultation but ignoring many of the submissions that were made. If

true consultation is to be a reality, it should be a consensus-building

exercise. Here we have the unions opposed; employers are not supporting

the bill. That would suggest it would increase confrontation. In other

words, I would suggest that the government do what you say.

Consultation is not asking for input from interested parties and just

picking the ideas that the government likes. It has to be broad-ranged,

taking into account the diversity of views that are presented.

As I stated, the double-breasting provisions will certainly

cause confrontation. So I would urge that we hoist this bill.

Labour legislation should be designed to provide a balance so

that the parties can resolve their differences expeditiously. If that

balance is tilted to one party, then what will result is frustration

and strife. If labour will not participate in the dispute resolutions,

then it can't function as an impartial body. No bona fide labour

appointee, and labour will have very little trust in the whole

mechanism. If they don't, then we will have differences that will only

be settled on picket lines.

Mr. Speaker, in urging the members to support the hoist motion

1 would suggest that dispute settlement cannot be imposed and still

expect parties to resolve their differences in a way that they will

accept. It will take years to repair the conflict that will inevitably

result when the parties lose the belief that there is a balance in the

playing-field. You can't legislate good will and cooperation. It takes

years to rebuild what it takes minutes to destroy. I would urge members

to support the hoist motion.

MR. PETERSON : Mr. Speaker, the hoist motion

that the members of the opposition have brought before us is little

more then a stalling tactic. Members of the opposition like to see

themselves as being progressive in their outlook, yet by attempting to

hoist this bill they're trying to block a bill that is both necessary

and timely. This bill brings labour legislation in line with the

reality of today's economic climate and labour relations as they

presently exist.

[4:30]

This bill is concerned with the rights of the individual and

the protection of the public interest. It was developed on the

principle of fairness and equality. This is a fairness and equality

that differs from the NDP conception. Our government believes in

fairness and equality for everyone. When it comes to labour relations,

it appears to me that the NDP adheres to the Orwellian concept that

some are more equal than others. The NDP is trying to uphold a status

quo that in fact no longer exists. In the past decade a great many

changes have occurred in our economy, our labour environment and our

approach to individual and collective rights. The amendment put forth

by the hon. members of the opposition neither

[ Page 596 ]

member of the opposition neither addresses these changes nor attempts to meet the needs and the

concerns of the majority of British Columbians. The changing times have

made the existing Labour Code almost useless. It simply does not work.

We can ill afford to sit by and watch as bitter labour disputes cripple

B.C.'s economy and destroy the livelihoods and sense of self-worth of

individual workers, simply because two parties are too stubborn to

negotiate in good faith.

The new industrial relations act will assist the parties

involved to reach an agreement that benefits the workers and the

public. It is high time the members of the opposition realize that the

demands and concerns of labour leaders are sometimes very different

from those of the rank and file. Those in labour's hierarchy have often

been there for a number of years; as a result, they occasionally lose

touch with the members they represent. The members of the opposition

have lost touch too. We've seen the results of the NDP's lack of

management of labour relations in this province. If my memory serves me

correctly, B.C. was in labour chaos during the years '72 to '75. The

government was completely out of touch with labour, management and the

concerns of the public. Obviously, as this hoist motion demonstrates,

the NDP is still out of touch and, I would add, confused as to what

their policies towards labour-management relations really are.

With this in mind, I'm not surprised to see that the party's

chief spokesman on labour is none other than the member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann). This is more than ironic, when one considers

the position that the hon. member took in 1975, when his NDP government

forced, by statutory edict, trade union members back to work. Based on

his past views on labour policy, which were divergent from that of this

party, can we view his statements on Bill 19 as those of his party or

those of his previous employer, the B.C. Federation of Labour? The main

problem with the NDP is that no one ever knows — and neither do the

members of the party opposite, for that matter — on whose behalf an NDP

member is speaking. For instance, as Alex Macdonald pointed out in his

book, My Dear Legs : "Too often we in the NDP say what we think our

labour friends want us to say and clam up about what we think our

labour friends don't want us to say."

The Industrial Relations Reform Act is designed to avoid the

chaos and confusion that paralyzed our province between 1973 and 1975

under the NDP administration. This act develops mechanisms for dispute

resolution that will help to avoid the direct government intervention

into labour relations that was made so infamous by the NDP government.

For example, three times in 14 months that government legislated

workers back to their jobs, ostensibly to protect the public interest.

It is ironic that the opposition is criticizing our government for

addressing the issue of public interest, when as a government

themselves the NDP went to such extremes to protect that so-called

interest.

This Industrial Relations Reform Act will strengthen the

negotiation and collective bargaining process; consequently, I must

oppose the hoist motion that we are debating. If members opposite were

realistic in their analysis of the Industrial Relations Reform Act,

they would do likewise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Chair recognizes the

member for Alberni.

MR. SKELLY : It's been a long time since I

heard the statement "the member for Alberni, " but I intend to say a

lot more about Alberni in the House, Mr. Speaker, than I've been able

to in the past little while.

I was going to quote a book written by a Social Crediter, but

I couldn't find one.

AN HON. MEMBER : Remember A plus B?

MR. SKELLY : I was thinking of quoting from

Major Douglas, but some of that is banned under current federal

legislation because of certain races that it mentioned. But I'm always

pleased when it's obvious that Social Credit members have read books

written by the intelligent, witty and capable Alex Macdonald. I can

suggest many other books he might read that might provide him with some

good advice and information.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said that the NDP has simply

moved a hoist motion in order to delay the passage of this legislation

in the House. I want to remind that member, because he is a rookie

member, that hoist motions are not lightly considered by the

opposition. That's been the case in the past, and it's the case with

this opposition as well. In my career in this Legislative Assembly,

which spans 15 years, I can recall only 12 to 15 times, out of well

over 1,000 bills, when the opposition felt it so important that the

government take the opportunity to reconsider the principles they were

presenting in legislation that the opposition took the important and

considered step of moving a hoist motion. That is the case with this

hoist motion which New Democratic Party members have moved in the House.

This is a responsible opposition. We do not take this kind of

motion lightly. We do not take this kind of legislation lightly, Mr.

Member. We would like to see the government, this Legislature and all

of the people of this province have a certain amount of time to

consider this legislation because of what we and many groups out there

perceive to be the serious implications of this legislation for the

economy, social relationships and industrial relations in British

Columbia.

The Premier felt it was very important, when he was elected at

Whistler to be Premier of this province a very few months ago, to

convey an image to the people of this province that the leopard had

changed his spots, and that far from being the kind of minister he was

before, who brought chaos and confrontation to ministries such as Human

Resources, Education and Municipal Affairs, he was going to be a

Premier who was going to be consultative, was going to work with the

opposition, work with the various groups in society that appeared to be

at odds with each other, and try to bring them together to resolve the

problems they and the people of British Columbia were experiencing. The

people of this province clearly took the Premier at his word. They felt

that the leopard had changed his spots and that he was going to operate

in a way which was far more consultative and cooperative, far more

designed to create harmony and peace in this province, rather than

dissension, disputes and the kinds of problems we've experienced in the

past.

I believe that the Premier's reaction to this motion puts the

lie to the Premier's assertion that he is a changed man. He has an

opportunity during the debate on the hoist of this legislation to

consider a six months' delay in debating this legislation in second

reading, and to consider a new, more effective process of consultation

— more effective with the parties involved, more effective with the

people of British Columbia and far more effective with the members of

the opposition

[ Page 597 ]

who, as Mr. Speaker knows, represent 823,000 of our citizens,

almost 43 percent of the electors in the province. That's a very

significant group of people in British Columbia, a substantial group

coming from all walks of life in this province — from business, labour,

the academic community, agriculture. We do not take our duties lightly.

We do not take this kind of motion lightly. We are concerned about the

Premier's reaction to our suggestions which would create mechanisms for

more consultation in the Legislature, consultation which we feel would

improve the kind of bill that we're discussing today.

The Premier's response is important. What's happened to date

is not very promising. The first day we came into the Legislature we

made a motion amending a standard motion that is brought into this

House on opening day, suggesting that Mr. Premier set up an additional

select standing committee of the House that could deal with some of the

difficult economic problems that are facing this province. That

committee may have dealt with the issue of labour relations and how it

affects, say, investment in the province of British Columbia, or

consumer demand in the province of British Columbia.

The Premier had an opportunity on day one of the meeting of

this Legislature to accede to a simple opposition request to set up a

select standing committee. The Premier, as is typical, refused, and

that is an example of the Premier's reaction to this amendment designed

to hoist the bill to give legislators an opportunity to consider its

contents for another six months.

Another example of the Premier's reaction to democratic

dissent was seen on the grounds of the Legislature recently.

AN HON. MEMBER : Order, order.

MR. SKELLY : Mr. Speaker, I am relating this

strictly to the hoist, and I can understand why the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) might feel a little antsy about discussion

of this issue in which he has been directly responsible and on which he

has been dodging questions in the House.

The point of this is . . . .

HON. MR. VEITCH : On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, this hon. member just got through saying that he spent 15

years off and on in this Legislative Assembly. I suggest he is skating

very closely to the wind. He is canvassing material that has previously

been dealt with by this House.

MR. SKELLY : On the same point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I will ignore the point of order. I don't think it was really

a point of order, in any case.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER : That is for the Chair to

decide, hon. member. Would you continue speaking to the hoist motion?

MR. SKELLY : I will accept that as a

decision.

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the response that the

government has made to the hoist motion, and how it is comparable to

the response and to the Premier's action in terms of other

opportunities that he has had to consult and to deal on a consultative

and cooperative basis with the people of this province.

At every opportunity, he has ignored establishing a mechanism

or a process of consultation. When people have come to him to express

their viewpoint, he has expressed very little tolerance with their

viewpoint, and in some cases has brutally dismissed them from the

precincts of the Legislature, using the instrumentality of the

Provincial Secretary.

That, Mr. Speaker, gives us in the opposition some concern.

Does the Premier really believe in consultation? Is this leopard really

going to change his spots? Are we really going to have an opportunity

to work with each other in this Legislature on a cooperative,

face-to-face consultative basis, or is that a fiction which the Premier

tried to convey to the people of this province during the last

election, simply to get himself elected so that he could ram this kind

of legislation down the throats of the people of British Columbia? It

is becoming more and more clear as we proceed through this debate on

the hoist motion that that is exactly the attitude the Premier has

adopted.

We have taken a look at the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Our

research people have reviewed it. We have consulted with experts around

the province and experts outside the province, and we feel that this

legislation is extremely dangerous to peaceful industrial relations in

the province of British Columbia.

We also feel that the so-called process of consultation that

preceded the introduction of this legislation was very definitely a

flawed process. You simply cannot have a minister travelling around the

province to various communities hearing briefs at large without giving

sufficient weight to the major players in the process: those on the

management side who are given the responsibility by their companies or

their enterprises with labour management relations, and those on the

trade union side who have the same obligation imposed on them by their

members.

We feel that that process of consultation was flawed. In fact, I

think it could be justly and accurately stated that the process was

simply a show designed to cover this legislation, which had already

been drafted prior to the Minister of Labour going on the trail and

putting on what really amounted to a cover and a show. The Minister of

Labour was acting as a shill for the Premier,

whereas this legislation

had already been drafted, had already been in the works prior to that

so-called process of consultation, which was completely inadequate and

completely unfair. I think that the minister should have been ashamed

of the part that he played in providing that cover for the legislative

process.

Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? Because this legislation bears

a very strong resemblance to other legislation and legislative ideas

that have been presented in extreme rightwing governments across Canada

and around North America, legislation based on an idea of weakening the

trade union movement and, in fact, of doing away with the trade union

movement altogether. Those extremist governments and the organizations

that back them and provide them with information believe unions are an

infringement on the free market economy and should he done away with

entirely so that the market can determine the price of labour by

dividing workers and having them at each other's throats.

That's exactly the view that some organizations have taken,

such as the Fraser Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and one labour

relations law firm in this province, Jordan and Gall, who have been

long-time advisers to the government. I was looking in the public

accounts for the years between 1981 and 1985, and during that time

Jordan and Gall, which adopts

[ Page 598 ]

the same kind of labour relations theories as the Fraser

Institute and the Heritage Foundation — an ultra-conservative