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)

FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1741 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 1741

Private Members' Statements

Economic development in the interior. Mr. Chalmers –– 1741

Mr. Williams

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Game-fanning. Ms. Edwards –– 1743

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Offshore oil and gas. Ms. Smallwood –– 1745

Hon. Mr. Davis

Agriculture and free trade. Mr. De Jong –– 1747

Mr. Rose

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L.

Hanson) –– 1749

Mr. Jones

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Stupich

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we have introductions, I'm sure all hon.

members will join with me in a sincere expression of thanks to the

members of the fourth estate for last evening's interesting and

educational seminar on matters parliamentary. I should point out that,

while the debates of last evening were off the record, today's debates

will be recorded by Hansard .

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a

former member of this House, Mrs. Agnes Kripps, who is accompanied by

her husband Steve. I would ask this House to bid her a fond welcome.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, at the off-the-record event

yesterday evening there were a number of off-the-wall awards, including

one for the absent Minister of Forests, and I was asked to ensure

delivery. So I would ask the attendant to deliver this open-government

award to the Minister of Forests.

MR. VANT: From the great Cariboo constituency, where we're

trying to get more and more timber for our small operators, I'm very

pleased to introduce this morning Gian Singh Sandhu, who is president

of the World Sikh Organization, and also president of Khalsa

Enterprises, a thriving sawmill at Williams Lake. We also have some

directors of the World Sikh Organization with us in the members'

gallery this morning: Joginder Singh Sidhu of Surrey; Giani Joginder

Singh Bains of Chilliwack; and Mo Takhar from Terrace in the great

riding of Skeena. I know the House will join me in giving them a warm

welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the second

member for Cariboo in welcoming the gentlemen who are here with us

today. I know that the World Sikh Organization is having its convention

tomorrow and the day after at the Ross Street temple in Vancouver. We

on this side of the House — and I'm sure everybody else in the chamber

will agree with me — want to wish them a fine and outstanding

convention over the weekend.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like the House to join me in welcoming

two people from Cranbrook who are in the gallery today: the dean of

academic studies at my favourite college, East Kootenay Community

College, Larry Szalanski; and Barbara Szalanski, who is also an active

member of the Cranbrook community. Please join me in welcoming them

here.

HON. MR. PARKER: First may I thank my hon. colleague across the way for passing on that message — much appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today I'd like to introduce to you, and through

you to the House, friends from the northwest: Pat Connor from Kitimat, Bill

and Helene McRae and Mo Takhar from Terrace, and Garry Hubbard and Andy Burton

from Stewart. Would the House make them welcome, please.

Introduction of Bills

PENSION (TEACHERS) AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce this

bill, which will establish the early retirement program for teachers in

British Columbia, announced earlier by my colleague the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

Briefly, this bill introduces two early-retirement initiatives for

British Columbia teachers. The first is a window of opportunity for

teachers who are between the ages of 55 and 60 to retire on an

unreduced pension. This opportunity will be available to any teacher

who retires prior to June 30, 1989. The second initiative is the

introduction of a permanent, phased, early-retirement program, which

will provide teachers with the opportunity to reduce their work hours

during a period prior to retirement. During the transition period, the

teacher would receive income from the pension plan to partially offset

the reduction in pension earnings.

Mr. Speaker, these are two very positive changes to the Pension

(Teachers) Act, which will underscore the government's commitment to

revitalizing the teaching profession and provide opportunities for

younger qualified teachers to enter the workforce.

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, before calling members'

statements, I would ask leave of the House for the Select Standing

Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations to sit

while the House is sitting.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Flowing from that, Mr. Chalmers, who will

be making a member's statement, is on that committee. He is number 4 in

the list on our orders of the day, and I would ask that the arrangement

be changed and that Mr. Chalmers be number 1 and Mr. De Jong number 4

in members' statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

Private Members' Statements

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE INTERIOR

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of

being able to speak first so as to enable me to attend the meeting at

11 o'clock this morning.

I've chosen to talk about economic development this morning, and in

particular economic development in the interior of British Columbia.

This is extremely important to

[ Page 1742 ]

all of us in Okanagan South, as we have enjoyed

over the last number of years a very strong economic growth, and we are

looking forward to even greater times ahead. But with that flow some

problems as well. We have had some successes but also some problems

related to that, and it's some of those that I want to talk about today.

I've had some direct experience with economic development, Mr.

Speaker, because for five terms, prior to entering provincial politics,

I had the pleasure of acting as chairman of the economic development

commission for the central Okanagan area. In performing my duties with

that, I worked with many individuals who were working very hard to try

to attract new industry into our region. As a result, we have an

excellent base in all sectors of our economy: agriculture, tourism,

service industries and professionals, and manufacturing.

[10:15]

Perhaps the biggest asset that we have in that area is our people.

They come to the central Okanagan area for many reasons. Some of them

come because of the climate. Some may come because of the economic

opportunities that they see there. Some may come because they're

looking for a safe place to invest, coming from other countries. But

whatever the reason, they bring with them a wealth of ideas, skills,

talent and the capital necessary to start the wheels of commerce.

Confidence in the business community in our area has been on a

dramatic climb since the shock of the last recession. There are many

examples of that. I'll touch on just a few. Building statistics is one

area that will probably prove the point I'm trying to make. For the

year ending April 1986, some $17 million was invested in construction

in that region. For the year ending April 1987, some $31,400,000 was

invested in building starts. This is a marked improvement and again

points to the fact that confidence is building. Yesterday I had a

discussion with Mr. Dwight Browns, who is the economic development

commissioner for our region. He tells me that inquiries were up to 300

by the year ending May 1987. That's a 25 percent increase over the

previous year.

Let's discuss the tourism sector, for example. One major hotel in

the Kelowna area, the Lodge Motor Inn, just completed a $1.5 million

expansion. The Royal Anne Hotel, a downtown facility in Kelowna, is

closed down for three months to be completely refurbished. It's looking

forward to a lot of the new activity that's going to result from Expo

and other events that have taken place in British Columbia in recent

times. An 18-hole golf course is presently underway. A 9-hole extension

to an existing course and another 54 holes are being proposed for our

region.

In the manufacturing sector, just as one small example, a new

8,000-square-foot manufacturing plant is due to open July 1, and it

will be using our forest products and adding local labour before those

are sold abroad. Western Star Trucks, a heavy truck manufacturer in our

area, is an example that we all like to use because a number of years

ago, under a plan developed by the federal government and the

provincial government of that time, incentives were in place to attract

new industry into the area. White Motor Corp. established a heavy truck

plant which got to the point where over 500 employees are working

directly in that facility, and over 2,000 people are indirectly

employed. The company was taken over by a Canadian firm. The name was

changed to Western Star Trucks, and at this moment an expansion of over

$2 million is taking place to provide for their ability to double their

production to 27 trucks per day. Out of every truck that is sold, some

$30,000 stays in British Columbia. Last year that was in the order of

$62 million.

I use these examples just to establish the credibility of the

central Okanagan region, the fact that this activity is taking place

now. As I said earlier, we have had some problems in trying to attract

new industry to the region. Probably one of the most important ones —

and I don't want to dwell on it, because it is being discussed in the

House at the present time — is the labour situation. That has been a

major concern of new industries wanting to come in, particularly from

outside British Columbia. That is being addressed, of course, with Bill

19, and hopefully will be completed by the end of the month.

Another major problem in the area is our proximity to market. I

mentioned earlier that people want to live there because it is such a

desirable place to live. We have no trouble attracting and keeping a

good, strong workforce, because people want to live in the region. But

when somebody is interested in opening a manufacturing plant, they have

to be concerned about their proximity to market. So transportation is

extremely important, not only to the central Okanagan region but, I

would suggest, to all of the interior and to the northern part of this

province. We were delighted, of course, when just recently the Minister

of Transportation and Highways was able to announce that phase 3 of the

Coquihalla Highway will be completed by 1990. This has enabled many

people in our region to get on with their short- and long-term plans to

have new facilities established in our area.

There are some areas in which the government can give further

assistance, and that is in the accessing of markets. I know that the

Ministry of Economic Development has existing policies that have been a

great help to many companies in our area as well as other parts of

British Columbia. But there is perhaps more that could be done for the

people of the interior, and one small item.... Is my time up?

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, your time is up.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is certainly interesting to hear the member

for Okanagan South. No doubt there is a real need for greater

creativity. I don't think this government has shown it, in terms of

seniors and the opportunities for a growth industry of seniors retiring

in the southern interior. I don't think this government has seized that

opportunity. I don't think they have quite understood the tourism

potential of that valley either, or the threat to vineyards and

wineries and the like in that region — what the free-trade initiative

of the federal government supported by your government means in terms

of threatening the economy of the Okanagan Valley. We are on the edge

of a Napa Valley in the southern interior of British Columbia, and that

could be stopped dead in its tracks with the initiatives undertaken by

the feds, supported by your government — a threat to a $50 million

industry.

Beyond that, there should be concern about the other towns of the

southern interior. For all too long, Kelowna has been the focus of

economic activity by this administration, having had two Premiers from

that town. The cities that are being bypassed by your highway routes

are the towns of Kamloops, Salmon Arm and Penticton. That is a bypass

that reroutes the Trans-Canada Highway, in essence, through the city of

Kelowna. That hurts the other towns of the southern interior.

[ Page

1743 ]

There are other opportunities in the southern interior that this government

has not taken steps to develop. There is a surplus of chips in the southern

interior. There could well be a new pulp mill in the southeastern part of the

province. That is not undertaken; it is not being pursued. All of these things.

The furniture plant in Penticton could be expanded by a third today if they

had a wood supply; but because of your incredible wood-allocation methods, that

plant cannot be expanded.

These are just an indication of the range of opportunities in the

southeastern part of the province that could and should be pursued. But

you have a Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who is

short-sighted and sees only a limited range of things in the lower

mainland and Victoria. The Minister of Economic Development is immersed

in real estate deals, one after another, of questionable nature, and

she thinks that that is what economic development in B.C. is all about.

There is a long learning trend necessary on the part of that minister

and this government. We agree much work is needed in the southern

interior, but you are not going to get it under that minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we expect that kind of

diatribe from the first member for Vancouver East. It's a negativism

that comes from the opposition benches and does not add in any way to

the commitment that was made at the beginning of this session that we

should all work together, in terms of committing ourselves to doing the

best for the people of British Columbia. It certainly reflects the kind

of planning of the NDP.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the second member for Okanagan

South, who gave his presentation prior to that diatribe, does talk

about some of the things that can be done in the Okanagan and

otherwise. One of the things that we can do — which is one of the great

economic initiators for the Okanagan Valley — is the retirement

industry, which can be appreciated a lot more than it is. As far as

real estate development is concerned, and the member's comment about

only being concerned in the Ministry of Economic Development, the one

very special decision that was made, which I think will affect the

whole province, is that the government of British Columbia has decided,

and has made it a policy, that they will be getting out of the real

estate business to let the private sector bring their dollars to the

table. That statement has been very clearly made, and that message is

very clearly out. For the first member for Vancouver East to say

anything different is simply to be mischievous in his remarks.

In the Okanagan, as in all parts of this province, there are some

remarkable opportunities. Along with the members who come to me with

various ideas.... We are exploring those. We are doing so in

conjunction with the communities; we are doing so in conjunction with

small business; we are doing so in conjunction with economic

development officers throughout the province and with the members of

the Legislature throughout the province. We do have some remarkable

opportunities. I'm excited about those opportunities. I know that the

member from the South Okanagan, who has just taken his place, has

brought many ideas to me and will indeed in the future bring more.

I'm not negative; I'm positive about the opportunities, not only in the South Okanagan but all through this province.

MR. CHALMERS: I feel I must make a couple of comments about the rebuttal

made by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).

We talked about seniors, and the minister has covered that perhaps,

but I can say that many new facilities are presently being built for

the seniors. There are a number of new housing projects very eagerly

waited by the seniors that live there now and those who hope to come

and make their home in the Kelowna area and all of Okanagan South.

Some assistance has been given in many cases on some of the senior

citizens' complexes and housing projects that have been built. That

assistance has in fact come from this government as well as the federal

government.

The threats to the wine industry. I wish the time would allow me to

talk more about that, because it is one that affects our area very

much. I can assure the member for Vancouver East that the Minister of

Economic Development has had meetings recently with people from that

industry and the grape-growers of the area . and are working very hard

to see that they are protected in any way that they can be from the

threats of free trade and other areas of concern to them.

I must talk about the Coquihalla Highway. You said that because the

phase 3 was being built, the activity that's taking place there is

taking something away from Kamloops and other areas. I would suggest to

you, Mr. Member, that in fact it's going to help all of the areas in

the interior. There are going to be opportunities for circle tours and

all sorts of things taking place as a result of that. There will be a

lot of trade taking place between all of those communities in the

interior, and I for one, along with the members for Kamloops, am

looking forward to that activity.

I think the minister has covered it very well, some of the things

that are happening. We hope to talk more about that in the future.

MR. SIHOTA: I would like to have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are 29 grade 4

and 5 students hailing from the fine school of Macaulay Elementary,

which, needless to say, is situated in the wonderful riding of

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Joining the students is Mrs. Pollard, their

teacher. I would like to request the House to join me in welcoming them

here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to welcome Agnes Kripps, the former

member of the Legislature from Vancouver South, who has arrived here

like a BOLT out of the blue this morning, and her husband.

[10:30]

GAME-FARMING

MS. EDWARDS: We haven't had game-farming in British Columbia

until now, but we do have it now even though a large number of people

who know about it and who care about it are objecting to it still. One

of the groups that I talked to — one of the largest groups that objects

to game-farming — is the B.C. Wildlife Federation, which said in a

release on April 27 of this year that allowing game-ranching would

[ Page 1744 ]

result in "a serious risk to wildlife." The

federation said that by creating an inevitable rise in poaching of

wildlife for profit and a risk of spreading disease or parasites from

animals confined in commercial operations to those in the wild, the

move "makes a mockery of conservation programs."

This threat should be made as clear as possible to all of us before

we go any further. The case has been made most often and most

passionately by Dr. Valerius Geist, a professor at the University of

Calgary. He was originally a proponent of game-ranching or -farming,

and he is no longer that; he now opposes it. I've only a few minutes to

make part of the case that he has made so well.

Dr. Geist claims that the North American plenitude of wild game —

and compared to other parts of the world, we are indeed blessed —

depends on three factors. The first factor is when a market has been

absent for the meat and the sundry parts of game: when meat sales are

not allowed — and they haven't been so far, except on special permits

that were very rarely issued — and sundry parts were only from

permitted animals. Now the participants in game-farming and the

bureaucrats who support their efforts, all of them, are looking to

expansion of this in order to justify their investment.

The second factor on which our great fortune depends is the

allocation of benefits by law. In other words, the right to hunt the

game has been given to any citizen who could buy a licence, and it has

not been possible for anyone, no matter how wealthy, to purchase game

and then to own it. Wealth cannot buy game in this province — or could

not until now. What it results in is an historically rare example — and

I say historically because I'm talking about the world and where this

has happened before — of the general populace feeling that they own the

wildlife, and that in fact they are responsible for that wildlife.

The third factor that Dr. Geist puts forward is the idea that

wildlife is basically a subsistence food resource, not a commercial

food resource. It's also not a recreational resource; in other words, a

resource simply for the blood sport. This issue is not yet in question

at the level at which game-farming is being allowed in British

Columbia, but it could be if the whole business expands.

What is happening right now? Game-farming is being touted as a

superior means of creating food protein. We all know that a deer can

transform a tonne of hay into protein much more efficiently than a cow

or steer. But that requires that the predators of these animals have to

be curtailed or eliminated from a broad tract of land. Don't forget

that humans are also predators of game animals. In New Zealand, where

game-farming has become common, large tracts of public land have been

alienated to the public for the deer ranches that they are running

there. In British Columbia, where about 90 percent of our land is

Crown-owned, if there is any expansion of this game-farming idea it

would have to go onto Crown land, because there simply is not enough

private land to accommodate it.

Most insidious, however, is the market that game-farmers are now

going to be creating, mainly for meat, and also for sundry parts, the

most valuable of which are for medicinal and aphrodisiac purposes. It

also includes, of course, mounted horns, bearskin rugs and that kind of

thing. But as Dr. Geist says, when the meat of the wildlife species

becomes openly marketed and various parts of game fetch high prices,

criminal poachers begin to act. They've done so in every case we've

known throughout history, and their presence in British Columbia in

significant numbers, when we allow practically no meat sales, indicates

that it's quite probable that there would be an expansion of poaching

with the expansion of the market for game meat.

Poaching is inordinately difficult to control. The heyday of market

hunting in North America, which was up to 1918, when game meat sales

were outlawed across the continent, decimated our stocks, so that from

1886 to 1918 the United States government put members of the army into

Yellowstone Park to protect its borders against poaching. They were

there for all those years –– 32 years — and they guarded that game

preserve. In 1918, when across North America, because of the decimation

of the game population, the governments of the United States and Canada

outlawed the sale of game meat, Yellowstone Park proved a pool for the

game that had disappeared elsewhere, and had it not been protected by

the U.S. Army, that game wouldn't have been there.

To look at other places where poaching is something that needs to be

controlled and is relatively controlled, in Germany today — which is

really labelled one big game ranch by North Americans — they have

65,000 armed wildlife protectors for 85,000 square miles. These

protectors are armed and deputized to shoot to kill any suspected

poacher, and all they need in order to shoot a suspected poacher is a

justifiable doubt of their activities.

In British Columbia, for 366,000 square miles we have 104 field

officers right now. That doesn't at all compare to the 65,000 for

85,000 square miles. As for powers, our B.C. conservation officers have

been issued with arms, but they have not yet been given powers greater

than the regular police forces, as they have been in New Zealand.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, hon. member, your time has elapsed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, let me advise the first

member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) that leave has been

granted for the committee to sit. I just had a note here.

Now, game-farming. The member for Kootenay is obviously not aware of

the regulations and the position that has been taken by the ministry on

game-farming, which is probably why she used Alberta evidence for her

case, which is not appropriate in British Columbia.

About three weeks or maybe a month ago we did make an announcement

that in British Columbia we would allow game-farming of two species:

fallow deer, which is not indigenous to British Columbia, and bison,

which has actually been ranched and farmed for some time under permit.

We have had game-farming in British Columbia for some time: bison and

pheasant, for example; and aquaculture is a form of game-farming which

is permitted. So it's not a new thing. We've just expanded the species.

Fallow deer have been harvested.... As a matter of fact, there is

evidence from Egypt from 4,000 years ago. It's a Mediterranean animal

that has been harvested for some time in our history, and that will be

allowed.

I recognize that there is a concern about poaching, and I can advise

the House that there's a way to test for poaching. Genetically you can

look at meat from a fallow deer or a bison and identify it, and you can

also identify indigenous species, and we can control that. I should

advise the House as well that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is

very much involved

[ Page 1745 ]

in the business of administering game-farming and will be most attendant to the problems that may exist.

Another comment with respect to the member's evidence: one cannot

simply hunt in British Columbia by buying a licence. There's far more

to it than that. There's the hunting program, the CORE program, and

it's just not that easy. I would advise the member to study the

regulations of the Ministry of Environment and the wildlife

regulations, and then she'll have a better handle on her argument.

Further, I'll advise the House that with respect to game farming in

British Columbia — in our recent announcement — there's a 12-acre

minimum in place. It must be private land. We have no intention of

using Crown land for these purposes, and if you can imagine 12 acres

fenced to contain fallow deer, which are pretty excitable little

critters, that's an expensive proposition. So for anyone who is going

to get into this endeavour, they're going to have to make some sizeable

financial commitment and be well prepared for the costs involved.

We entered into this decision with some difficulty, but I'll advise

the member that a couple of weeks prior to the decision I met with the

B.C. Wildlife Federation executive. I told them of my plans. They

didn't all philosophically agree with me, but they appreciated the fact

that I had spoken with them, and we have appointed a game-farming

advisory board, which includes a member of the B.C. Wildlife

Federation, a member of the British Columbia SPCA, a member of the

deer-farming association of British Columbia, an official from my

ministry and an official from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. So

we think we have everything under control.

The concern is obviously that we're going to expand further into elk

and other indigenous species, and I can assure the House, Mr. Speaker,

that it would not be my intent as minister to allow that expansion.

With fallow deer and bison we have a very good control in place. We can

regulate it. We can track it and we can track the market. We can track

the activity, and we have not too much concern in doing that. We can

also do it within the budget of my ministry and the budget of the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food, in terms of having officials ensure

that whatever activity is going on is taking place in an appropriate

manner.

So I have no concern with the position of the government. I will

recognize the concern the member has with poaching, but that's a larger

concern that has to be addressed in another manner, which I'm doing. I

can assure the House that we entered into this decision after some

serious consideration, with much consultation, and I believe it was the

correct decision.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I would like to first

say that I think in a number of senses an ad hominem attack is probably

not appropriate in this case. However, I believe that because Dr. Geist

comes from Alberta does not mean that his projections are wrong. I have

used all the British Columbia figures in my examination.

I have consulted with members of your ministry and I'm well aware

that at the moment you are allowing very small farms, and you have many

rules connected with what you're allowing. However, every time I talk

to anyone about these farms, I say: "Why did you allow them?" They say:

"We allowed them because of the pressure from the number of people who

wanted them." And you say: "The government is responding to the

people." Right? Then we look ahead, and the next step, inevitably, is

that when the market gets bigger, more people will want to. And they

will say: "Does anybody want to grow elk now?" "Well, not yet." But

when they want to put elk onto ranches, or native deer, the pressure

will be on the government, and the government will respond to the

pressures. The minute you begin to serve the market that's there and

hope that that market will expand to return the investment on the

farms, you immediately have that trend going toward expansion of the

market, and you have the trend going to the pressure on the government.

I'm suggesting that the government should be well aware not only of

the problems of poaching, which we couldn't begin to address at the

moment even with these tests that we have for knowing whether or not

the game is native and what species it is, but we also could not deal

if any exotic species were brought in. There are some fears already

with game biologists that if any exotic species were brought in for

interbreeding, as they frequently are in game-farming and game-ranching

in other countries in the world, those animals would certainly breach a

fence somewhere. Now if they breach a fence there are possibilities for

the spread of disease. We have had considerable studies in the East

Kootenays, as you well know, on the spread of disease with our wild

sheep herds. They have discovered 26 separate diseases — parasites,

bacteria and so on — that could come from domestic sheep, and five or

six that could spread from domestic cattle. Were we to start studying

elk or deer or any of the other native species, there's no doubt that

that kind of disease would spread. The very act of confining and

putting together a number of animals makes stronger the threat of

disease among that group of animals.

I'm suggesting, Mr. Minister, not that what's being done right now

would necessarily be bad but that it's only the beginning, and it is

always seen as a beginning. What follows could be extremely dangerous.

It could be dangerous to this resource that we all feel we own and

protect. The wilderness brochure that you put out yourself says: "A

Land Fit for Wildlife Is a Land Fit for People." We want to preserve

that idea, which is the best defence against poaching.

[10:45]

OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS

MS. SMALLWOOD: My statement today is on the offshore oil and

gas negotiations that are going on between the province and the federal

government. I'd like to start by saying that my concerns are that

through these negotiations B.C. get its fair share; that all of the

work that is done be done to outline and deal with concerns that have

been expressed in the report filed in 1986.

The minister, through some of the questioning that I pursued

earlier. made comments about the acceptance of the recommendations in

that report. In some ways, through the publicity that was done in the

minister's statements, I, as well as many of the people in this

province, felt somewhat assured. It's the old "trust me, we'll take

care of it" routine. What I did over the last couple of days was to

take a look at the response and comments report which the province and

the federal officials went through and systematically agreed on, or

agreed on in principle, or rejected, and looked at the recommendations

and balanced them off the report.

Quite frankly, it raised some concerns for me. The initial report

weighted its recommendations very heavily on behalf of the people of

B.C. on the environmental concerns, on

[ Page 1746 ]

some of the socio-economic concerns. What it did

was systematically go through the process and recommend how the

government should deal with it. It did not recommend solutions; it made

no pretence to offer solutions to the problem. What it did instead was

recommend an ongoing process. There was a recommendation that both the

provincial and federal governments should get involved with this

process.

I am concerned at this point that some of those recommendations that

would weight the decision-making process more towards the local

communities and community involvement have not met with the enthusiasm

that the report suggested. In addition to that, I think that some of

the very important environmental concerns have been brushed over.

The specific concern that comes to mind is a recommendation that the

drilling not begin until we have the technical capacity to be able to

give six hours' notice of a fierce storm. We've seen on the east coast

that that has caused some very serious problems, and we've heard here

with the herring industry that they have had serious concern about that

and their inability to get out of the way of a pending storm. I am

concerned about that and hope that the ministry, through its

negotiations, will ensure that we have that capability before we

proceed.

There are several different aspects with regard to environmental

studies that I don't believe we have given enough credence to. What the

minister said in one of his press releases was that there will be

economic benefits to B.C. He talks about a package that he is working

on that will give several hundred million dollars from Ottawa to fund

infrastructure in B.C., including a science centre to study the

geophysics of the offshore region.

I would hope that those kinds of studies, that kind of facility,

those sorts of things would be in place long before we're actually

drilling offshore — or, for that matter, that most of those studies

would be in place before we get involved with seismic testing as well.

How can we, as a province, assure the people of B.C. that we are

dealing with compensation and litigation issues if we don't know what's

under there, if we don't have a very good assessment of what will be

disturbed?

Some of the recommendations coming from the report talk about

effects of seismic testing on fish larvae and the younger species in

the ocean. The recommendations or the agreements in the response

documents say that they don't believe that there will be significant

long-term problems. They acknowledge that there very well may be

short-term problems.

In addition — and it's very difficult, given this forum — it just

points out the importance, I believe, of this House having a full

debate, a full opportunity to look at the ramifications of such a

decision and at the recognition on the province's behalf that by

accepting the intent of the 1986 report they are accepting the intent

of an ongoing process. The government must recognize that the people of

this province have a lot at stake here; that this is an issue that has

to be dealt with, taking into consideration all of those concerns; that

we cannot allow a multinational corporation to stake thousands of acres

on the offshore without dealing with issues of land and sea claims;

that we cannot allow a multinational corporation to come into this

province and begin exploration or drilling without knowing exactly what

the possibilities are of loss to the people of this province.

We cannot, when we're dealing with compensation issues, deal with

existing laws. Environmental issues, especially when we're dealing with

issues of major impact to the environment, have got to be considered in

the light of the possibility of new laws. When we're dealing with

common property issues, we have to be assured that the liability that

the corporations take on for any damages deal with replacement issues,

and to deal with replacement we must know what is there. We cannot deal

solely....

I will look forward to the wrap-up, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The hon. member is quite right when she

refers to an ongoing process. We're learning all the time. We certainly

don't know all that we should know or indeed will know before drilling

begins.

Back in 1971, when the moratorium was brought in, there was the

prospect of drilling in the Strait of Georgia and Juan de Fuca Strait,

as well as Queen Charlotte Sound and Hecate Strait. There was also, in

those days, considerable concern about tanker movements up and down the

coast. In the intervening years we, collectively, at least around the

world, learned a good deal about the hazards of exploration, the

environmental problems and other problems relative to drilling, and

that knowledge is now making it possible to carry out some development

and possibly some drilling off the west coast.

There's information available from other parts of the world: from

the U.S. Gulf Coast and from the North Sea, where conditions are

somewhat akin to those in Queen Charlotte Sound. What we lack, however,

is a more intimate knowledge of our particular ecology and

environmental concerns here on the west coast. While they were

addressed during the joint federal-provincial hearings in 1984-85, they

are by no means completely understood, nor are all the measures in

place to look after possible problems.

Some large part of the federal funds available as a result of a Canada-B.C.

accord will be available for oceanographic studies, for studies relative to

the fishery and to the environment generally, and certainly relative to the

effects of seismic exploration and particularly drilling. We need to know more

about weather conditions: how far ahead we can reliably forecast storm difficulties

and so on. Some appreciable part of that federal money will be in support of

ongoing studies, not simply geophysical but also biological.

I could run through the 92 recommendations of the joint

federal-provincial report of last year, nearly all of which were

accepted by the Energy ministers. Refinements are necessary. There are

some areas that are not adequately covered off. Lead agencies haven't

finally been determined. But there must be a continuing sensitivity,

and the industry, whether it's Chevron or Petro-Canada, whoever is out

there, must abide by not only these recommendations, most of which have

been accepted, but others which will be developed over time.

There will be surveying, beginning perhaps next year. There won't be

any drilling for at least three years, by which time we'll know more

about the environment off our west coast. To repeat, the hon. member is

quite right: we'll be learning as we go along, We have to know a good

deal more about the environment out there. We certainly have to have

all the necessary measures to protect the environment in place.

[ Page 1747 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm pleased to hear the minister recognize

that ongoing process, and what I will be looking for is assurances that

all of those considerations have been met before any permitting of

exploration or drilling takes place. We have to have our homework done

beforehand. We cannot be in a situation of using, for instance, the

facility the federal government is talking about, the scientific

facility of assessing damage after it's happened. We must know what's

there so that we can more clearly understand what we've lost if there

are problems.

In addition, I will be looking for a tightening up of some of the

clauses. If you look at the 92 recommendations, something like 46 have

been agreed on in principle. When you look at the items that have been

agreed on in principle, it's pretty loose, and from my perspective,

very disconcerting.

In particular, when some of the process items, where the governments

have not been able to agree on issues of enforcement and intervener

funding, as an example.... That seems like a fundamental. The

government must ensure that they have a position on intervener funding

that will facilitate, as the initial '86 report indicates, not only the

sharing of information but the support of community groups in

understanding that information and the intervener funding that will

allow them to participate in an open public process, including the

introduction of expert testimony.

The minister, in some of the negotiations that have been agreed

upon, talks about an environmental control coordinating committee. The

recommendations say that this will be established, and that it will be

established by Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration and the British

Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. This is the

environment coordinating committee. The recommendations, for instance,

from the report itself outline the membership of the environmental

control committee, and this is the recommendation from the report: that

the committee be created under the authority of the federal and

provincial ministries of environment and include representation from

the Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon

regions, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the British Columbia

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and

Northern Development; and it then goes on to include Canada Oil and Gas

Lands Administration and the British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources.

That raises a real concern for me: that while the provincial and

federal governments have agreed on that committee, they have excluded

the ministries of Environment, both provincial and federal.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, hon. member, your time is complete.

[11:00]

AGRICULTURE AND FREE TRADE

MR. DE JONG: I would like to speak briefly this morning on

agriculture and free trade. The short time doesn't really give justice

to this big subject.

Our leaders in Ottawa, as well as across the border, have made some very eloquent statements, and I'd like to quote just a few.

Our Prime Minister said: "We want an agreement that ends the threat

to Canadian industry from the U.S. protectionists who harass and

restrict our exports through the misuse of trade remedy laws." He

further stated: "If the United States wants to increase access to our

market, if they truly want Canada to sign precedent-setting agreements

which could serve as a model for the world, then our desires must be

respected and accommodated; otherwise, there will be no deal. We are

given a choice. We can look forward and hope for the best." Well, hope

is just not enough. But he went on to say: "We can pretend to shelter

what we already have, while ignoring the realities of the world around

us" — a very true statement — "or we can look outwards confidently and

take the future into our own hands."

Equally eloquent statements were made by the President of the United

States when he visited Ottawa last spring. I'd just like to quote a few

of his comments: "Our free trade discussions here will be a model of

cooperation to the world, Mr. Prime Minister. This will be a pioneering

agreement worthy of pioneering people. "We salute you" — he was

speaking to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons and I pledge to

you now that for our part we shall commit ourselves and the resources

of our administration to good faith negotiations that will make this

visionary proposal a reality; and on this, the Canadian people and the

Members of Parliament have my word."

It would appear that both leaders have a common goal in mind: that

is, to expand trade on those commodities where both can be winners.

However, the Prime Minister also said: "Our goal is to help the

Canadian farmers by increasing the predictability and security of

access of export by the farm sector by ending the deeply destructive

subsidization of exports, while at the same time preserving our farm

support policies and the operation of our marketing boards." If indeed

this is a statement on which the Canadian farmer can depend, or at

least if the criteria of both being winners can be maintained, then

from an overall Canadian viewpoint, as I see it, the farmer can

probably survive. However, what did the President of the United States

do one month after his address to the House of Commons? He slapped an

import tax on all manufactured dairy products entering the United

States, while at the same time our Canadian government seems to be lax

in exercising the collection of duties on fresh milk which flows across

the border from the south into Canadian homes.

There was a farmer who had purchased an electric fencer across the

border. While farm equipment generally is excluded from excise duties

or import tax, the farmer was told that this item could be used for

other things than the enclosure of cattle, and therefore it was

taxable. You can just imagine the farmer's feeling, when the government

is not doing its job in collecting duties on the import of fresh milk.

There have also been many statements made as to job creation. Now if

the same thing is going to happen by expanded trade as has happened to

other subsidization programs which the federal government has initiated

over the years — I'm speaking particularly of the Windsor plant — then

perhaps technology will take over and the jobs may not be there as

expected.

There are really three or four basic things that the farmer is up

against in the free-trade issue: the area of technology, which can be

implemented in many other areas.... But the cattle and the land still

need his personal care. We have our taxation, because of severe social

servicing, and we have a problem obtaining long-term financing, which

is required to

[ Page 1748 ]

have a well-run, economical farming unit. That's

really where our problems lie, not only in free trade but also within

Canada, in competing with the other provinces.

MR. ROSE: I'm glad that the member for Central Fraser Valley

has raised this issue this morning, but I'm not sure which side of the

fence he came down on — other than that he perhaps might be suffering

from very painful wounds. He sounds to me like he came down on both

sides.

Whatever the case is, his concern is well warranted. The dangers of

free trade to the agricultural sector are immense. The problem with it,

as I see it, is that, sure, we can compete if there's a level

playing-field. But there's not going to be a level playing-field. Our

concern is that the Americans are going to give up their right to

protect their own producers. If anyone believes that, I think they're

sadly mistaken. They're going to do it.

So there's an ever-growing number of people in Canada who were once

interested in this. Remember, we've got 80 percent free trade now in

virtually everything, but they'll swamp us in terms of production in

agricultural commodities. Their surplus in milk alone is bigger than

our whole production — eggs, too. And it's in a few hands, usually

vertically integrated operations where they own the farms and they have

the eviscerators and all the things in chicken, and their own

transportation system, and the whole works. So people are really quite

concerned about this, and this government seems to be committed to it,

with the exceptions.... Well, the exceptions are so long, they

virtually cover everything.

But just to give you a few people who might not be so interested in

free trade from the.... It's like a garbage dump, you know: yes, we

need one, but not in my yard. We need free trade, but for the other

guy, not for our industry. Here is a list of a few of them: Canadian

Printing Industries, Canadian Council of Boat Manufacturers, Canadian

Independent Computer Services Association, Brewers' Association,

Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, Canadian Council of

Furniture Manufacturers, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Grocery Products

Manufacturers, Generic Drug Manufacturers, Canadian Conference of the

Arts, Graphic Arts Industries, Canadian Federation of Agriculture,

Rubber Association of Canada, Chicken Producers, Egg Producers — the

list goes on and on. So there is a great deal of concern.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association — they're an estimable

bunch; great free enterprisers, like my friend from Central Fraser

Valley there. He believes staunchly in free enterprise, but he also

belongs to a marketing board. A marketing board is a union for farmers;

that's what it is. We all believe in these things up to a point, and

that's really the problem. Here is the Canadian Manufacturers'

Association, that bastion of free enterprise: "We are very concerned

that the politicians will say, 'This is great. We'll have a free-trade

agreement, and everything will work out,' without realizing the full

implications for public policy and what they have to do for us to

survive in that environment." This is a quote from a man by the name of

Thibault. "If they don't realize that, we're going to have major, major

problems in the manufacturing sector. That message is starting to come

out much stronger from our members as they start to realize what all

this means."

Who wants it? Well, I think it's the bureaucrats who want it.

They're the people who really want it, and perhaps the Mulroney

government, which I assume is supported by my hon. friend from Fraser

Valley. If we have it in agriculture, then marketing boards and a lot

of other things are out the window. Marketing boards have been under a

lot of stress for some time. I've got a quote here going back some ten

years — and this is a very prominent person speaking here, in Kamloops:

"Government control and bureaucracy, and marketing boards in

particular, have resulted in the failure of businesses in B.C." That's

pretty strong stuff. "The concept of marketing boards is a 'pretty

rotten system."' It goes on to say: "There would be much more, better,

and cheaper produce and more employment if good growers competed with

everybody else."

MR. CLARK: Who said it?

MR. ROSE: Oh, I hate to tell you: our Premier, in Kamloops ten years ago.

Some people are really concerned about.... No, that's attitudinally

there, so you'd better watch that, because that's not very comforting.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, hon. member, your time is complete.

MR. DE JONG: I would have to disagree with the member of the

opposition about putting the marketing boards at the same level as a

union. I think that if the hon. member took the trouble to read the

Clyne report as to how the milk industry was put into a proper

marketing system, you would probably agree with me.

I think, though, that as a farming community we are quite distinct

from many other areas where free trade can probably enhance the economy

of this country as well as that of the United States. We are quite

different, in fact, from the resource industries, which are largely

government land-owned — there's some way of controlling and benefiting

as a country from the resource extractions — and of course there is the

matter of negotiations to take place. The fanner needs a certain amount

of land — substantial acreage — and there is no way that the government

will provide this for him. It's there for him to buy, and that's where,

in British Columbia particularly, the problem comes in. The land prices

are generally higher than they should be for agricultural purposes,

because all of our agricultural lands are really centred around the

urban areas throughout the province, with the exception of up in the

far north.

But in order to compete within our own country, I think we must

have, first of all, a fair deal within the Canadian market; we must

have the assurance of quality control if imports are to come into this

province, whether from other provinces or from outside this country;

and we must have long-term financing to support a farmer for a stable

economy and so he can depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased that our Premier, as well as other

western Premiers, has indicated similar concerns at the western

conference which was held in Humboldt, Saskatchewan, and I trust that

all of the members of this House will support not including agriculture

industry or any part thereof in our trade negotiations with the United

States.

[11:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know who the group of students are in the gallery; but welcome. It's nice to see you here.

[ Page 1749 ]

At the outset, I will advise the House — I neglected to do this last night — that we will be sitting Wednesday of next week.

I'll ask leave for committee on Bill 19.

Leave granted.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

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

section 62 as amended.

MR. JONES: I am pleased to take my place and say a few words

section 62 of Bill 19. At the outset, I would like to say that I

must hand it to the government, because this

section which purports to

protect the public interest, I think, is another example of how

brilliant the government is in terms of using language.

What we see in this

section is incredible intrusion by government

into the collective bargaining process, and we couch it in this

incredible language of protecting the public interest. There must be in

the Premier's office several word specialists that go around and

practise newspeak and doublethink and mutter "love is hate" and "war is

peace" and "good is bad" and "black is white" and are able to come up

with these incredible ways of wording bad practice and bad policy in

flowery language.

You have to admit it's appealing. When I think of protecting the

public interest, I think of Superman leaping tall buildings at a single

bound and rushing to the rescue of people in jeopardy, and that's the

exact opposite of what this legislation is doing. We've seen it in the

past. We've seen it with compensation stabilization. That was wage

controls, but we call it compensation stabilization.

We saw it in restraint, a policy in which we saw tremendous

cutbacks, a tremendous number of layoffs, a tremendous loss of programs

that the people need in this province, and yet we couched it in

language of restraint. We see another one coming. We see privatization.

We have a policy to sell off assets that the people have worked for and

the people have built up. We're going to sell those off probably to

friends of government, and we're going to couch that in a nice, catchy

little phrase,"privatization."

MR. S.D. SMITH: You oppose privatization?

MR. JONES: We'll get to that one. That's a bill before the House, and it would be out of order to discuss that at this time.

MR. S.D. SMITH: You're talking about it. Do you oppose it?

MR. JONES: We'll get to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just before we continue, the Chair

recognizes that

section 62 is a very complicated one indeed, but I

think we're going to have to devote ourselves more to ensuring that we

are really talking in relation to the points of

section 62.

The Chair noticed that you got into speaking about privatization,

which, really, the Chair finds very difficult to find relevant to this

section.

MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought you would

appreciate my point on the use of the language in the bill, the

language of protecting the public interest, as being a lot of

doublethink and newspeak.

Perhaps, though, we should embrace this idea of protecting the

public interest, because it's such a nice-sounding term. And perhaps we

should even expand on this. Perhaps we shouldn't just include contracts

between employees and employers. Maybe we should go even further with

protecting the public interest. Let's consider corporate contracts.

Certainly corporations in this province do all kinds of things that

impact on the public interest.

Probably the most important area, and the area that this side is

most concerned about, is jobs and employment in this province.

Unfortunately we're going in the wrong direction, and we're having to

debate these kinds of things rather than cooperatively developing

strategies for improving the climate in this province. Perhaps in

considering the public interest we should look at corporations and

corporate goofs.

If corporations make a mistake in costing, that costs those

corporations, and in order to survive they have to lay off employees.

We've seen a tremendous amount of laying off in this province. The

corporations do a variety of other things. Perhaps they don't properly

check out the credit of a foreign importer, and make mistakes that way;

it costs corporate profits, and employees have to be laid off as a

result. Perhaps they overestimate the demand for a commodity. That

causes impact on the public interest. and they have to lay off

employees. We've seen a tremendous amount of these kinds of things in

this province, and a tremendous number of workers laid off. We've seen

a variety of other things, particularly during the recession period,

where companies and corporations went to banks and borrowed heavily and

found they could not pay back those loans. We saw a tremendous number

of bankruptcies in this province. Again, those bankruptcies impacted on

the public interest and caused employees in this province to lose their

livelihood and end up on welfare. There were tremendous social and

health costs as a result.

Perhaps what we should do is have Ed Peck look into these kinds of

things in order to protect the public interest, as is indicated in

section 62 of this bill. Perhaps Ed Peck should monitor this corporate

decision-making. Maybe he should actually get into the boardrooms and

ask corporations to report regularly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that NDP policy?

MR. JONES: Sure it is.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to report to the Minister of Finance

and Corporate Relations all the decisions that these corporations make.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that NDP policy?

MR. JONES: This is showing how ludicrous this legislation is.

Perhaps it should be the duty of every corporation with over 50

employees to report daily all their borrowings and contractings. Ed

Peck, whose pay is two or three or four times

[ Page 1750 ]

that of an MLA, can really earn his salary by really getting into interfering in the marketplace in this province.

What I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that this government and

Socred governments in the past are not really interested in the public

interest and in protecting the public. They're interested in private

interest. We've seen many examples of that. My colleague the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has pointed out how this government

has not protected investors in the stock exchange in this province. I

believe the government is currently being sued by investors in the

Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative because they did not

monitor cooperatives properly.

I'm suggesting that this super-bureaucracy that's being set up to

monitor and report and intrude into one of the basic freedoms that we

have in this country, collective bargaining, is inappropriate and

ridiculous. What we're setting up is dispute resolution machinery of

the state. It seems to me that Mr. Peck is going to have to do the

dirty work of this government as a result of this machinery being set

up. As has been pointed out time and again, it's going to make

collective bargaining difficult if not impossible to work properly.

There is no trust on the part of this government to let the

marketplace, in terms of collective bargaining, work properly.

The minister, in his remarks yesterday, pointed out correctly that

95 percent of agreements are reached without any problems. He had to go

so far as to point to West Germany and Japan, which are certainly

different cultures from ours, in order to find statistics that were

perhaps more favourable in terms of a labour relations climate.

If we look at the actual state of conditions in this province.... I

refer to the Business Council of British Columbia and their view of the

climate at this time. They point out that the marketplace is working

properly, and that the trend at this time is to less adversarial

relationships between business and labour. They point out that recent

wage increases for unionized workers in this province have been

moderate. The size of the increase is more often related to the

economics of the individual firm, rather than the industry or national

patterns. They say that these positive developments mean that a poor

representation for labour relations may in part be more a reflection of

poor public relations than of reality. Business, labour, government and

media must attempt to give unexaggerated reports of existing problems

and work to build on the present trend of conflict reduction.

So what the Business Council of British Columbia is saying is that

it's a myth that we have this poor labour relations climate in this

province. I think it's in the interest of certain individuals in this

province to perpetuate that myth. It's not a reality. Rather than this

kind of legislation, which purports to protect the public interest, and

rather than the continuation of the myth that we have a negative

climate in terms of labour relations in this province, we need a

communication of the reality and a promotion of a more positive climate.

We've seen promises on the part of government. Certainly their

public relations machinery is in place. Promises of consultation and

decentralization, letting the marketplace work and getting the

government off the backs of business and industry.... All we see in

section 62 of this legislation is state intervention — Big Brother. A

labour relations czar is being established. I don't think the heavy

hand of government is what this province needs at this time; I think

this province needs a much more positive approach.

We had in the past the opportunity to intervene as a Legislature

when the public interest was not being served by labour relations in

this province. I honestly don't see why we need the kind of mechanism

that's being introduced at this time. Certainly we open this

Legislature every Monday of every week during a session. I don't see

why it's so difficult to open the Legislature at a time when there is a

dispute that the government does not feel is in the public interest. I

don't see why we need this kind of legislation at this time.

As Canadians and as British Columbians we're very proud of the

freedoms that we have in this province. One of those freedoms is the

fundamental right to strike. Nobody wants strikes, but I think we all

believe in having that fundamental right, and we believe in the free

collective bargaining process. We're losing that in this province as a

result of this legislation and this section.

[11:30]

The mindset of government views things in a slow, incremental way.

It's like a vise being slowly turned. Each turn isn't all that bad

compared to the previous one, but when you look at what we believe in

and at the directions we're going in, I think it's terrible and

dangerous. I don't see the kind of tolerance and trust on the part of

government that we need to make the labour relations climate work in

this province.

In fact, Bill 19 is a symbol of a kind of intolerance and mistrust.

We've also seen that a number of times in this session of the

Legislature. There are symbols of this session, and they're very

unfortunate ones. It goes from talking about trade with South Africa to

evictions on the lawn of the Legislature, to the closing of the prayer

room because of intolerance, to racist statements in this House, to the

kind of intolerance of teacher's opinions that we saw in Bill 20 and

the desire to fire and manage those employees. We see a litany of

intolerances and mistrusts in

section 62 of Bill 19, and the final one

we saw was thrown out of court the other day.

I guess the question is: what's next? What are the next turns of the

screw that continue the path we're going down in this province? I think

we've already reached a point where we've gone too far. I think it

behooves the government to move back, to be more tolerant, to be more

trustworthy of the kinds of processes that we have in this province

that haven't worked perfectly because human beings are involved in

those processes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. MILLER: I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that the

remarks of the member who was speaking, I think, were adding a lot to

the debate, and if he wanted to continue or conclude, I, for one, would

like to hear him.

MR. JONES: I would like to conclude, Mr. Chairman. I really

think we are on a dangerous course. Take the language in this bill,

which purports to protect the public interest but is in fact doing just

the opposite. It sounds so good, and it’s such a good public relations

package, but it is not what it purports to be. It's not protecting the

public interest; it's merely intruding in the collective bargaining

process. It's not the kind of thing we want.

I think I tried to show the ridiculous nature of this kind of

intrusion. We would not dare intrude into the corporate sector and

their decision-making process, in their contracting, in

[ Page 1751 ]

their business decisions. Yet government has no

hesitation in sticking its heavy hand into these day-to-day operations

of the private sector and the public sector in terms of their

bargaining. It is a dangerous road that we are going down. It's one

that is intruding in a fairly successful labour relations climate. I

think all that's needed is a recognition of that fact and a good

understanding, rather than believing in the myths about bad labour

relations in this province. I think it's time that the government

recognized this, that business and labour recognized this, that they

got together and stepped back from the brink we're on, and considered

the kind of damage that's going to be done, which is totally

antithetical to the goal of the government, and of everyone in British

Columbia, to produce a better labour relations climate, a better

climate for investment and a more prosperous British Columbia that we

all believe in.

I would suggest that

section 62 is doing just the opposite of what

British Columbians need at this time. I would hope that when this bill

is passed, the minister and the government seriously consider not

implementing this section.

MS. A. HAGEN: As we get seriously into debate on this very

major clause in bill, I find myself with a feeling of being in a time

warp. We've spent a lot of time on other sections of the bill, but this

is a very large section. When one compares it to the previous Labour

Code, which I've tried to do with each of the clauses that we've looked

at, one realizes what an expansion of the disputes resolution

section

of the Code this is.

When I speak of a time warp, I put myself in a context of about

seven or eight years, I think. I don't think there's any question that,

starting around the turn of the decade, in the late seventies and early

eighties, we saw very major economic changes in our province that had

an effect on employers, on business and industry, on employee groups —

organized or unorganized — and on government. We've come through some

very difficult and challenging times over that period of eight or nine

years. A lot of very significant things have happened to the parties

who must work in the economic and social climate of a period of

dramatic change. I could go on extensively about that, but much of that

has, I think, been canvassed. But I wanted to put my remarks this

morning in that context. When we look at this section, in my view, we

are looking at a

section that is attempting to deal with issues that in

many ways the parties have found ways and means of resolving.

A closer time warp takes us back to the dispute of last fall. At

that time we had a very major and very lengthy industrial dispute over

issues that are related to the kinds of changes that are taking place

in the province. We had our new Premier intervening in that dispute —

intervening without the assistance of those people who are skilled in

and knowledgeable about complex labour relations; and when he found

that he couldn't be effective with his personal intervention, putting

it back in some processes through which he hoped some resolution would

come. I think it's important to note that in that particular dispute

the resolution came from the parties. In fact, the intrusion into that

dispute lengthened it, rather than shortened it.

Now let's look at what has come out of the Premier's time warp and

the government's time warp, as they consider the events of the past

seven or eight years and look at the events of last fall. We have a

clause that produces a degree of complexity that absolutely boggles the

mind of even those people who are very concerned and that will expand

the role of industrial relations people, expand the work of lawyers,

and expand the kinds of concepts that government may be involved with.

I'm sure that others in my caucus have listed the processes, the

mediators. the arbitrators, the boards, the role of

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the role of the Legislature. We have

all looked at schema that are divergent, because no one has really

worked out all of the convolutions of the schemes that would have these

processes work.

As people have dealt with the substance of this clause, we have

heard over and over and over again why we don't need this kind of

legislation and why this legislation is intrusive, excessive, complex,

confusing, intimidating, contra-indicated. We are not going to see,

with this kind of process, improvements in labour-management relations,

and that point of view has come from every sector. It's come from the

fourth estate. It's come from management of every size and description

across the province. It's come from labour, it's come from working men

and women, it's come from people young and old.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think the point needs to be made over and over

again that this particular clause is not going to improve labour

relations in the province. I know many will say,"Give it a try; let's

see if it will work," but I think that reasonable people — people who

know something about that time warp and what has happened in the last

seven or eight years; people who are practitioners and observers of

labour relations — will remain convinced that this legislation is going

to plunge us into difficulty, and that this clause will be one of the

major factors.

I wanted simply to make that point again — not to belabour it,

because I think it has been made in second reading. I know it has been

made by every one of my colleagues in speaking to this particular

clause. I want, however, to look more specifically at one of the

mechanisms available, and at one of the promises that have been made in

the government's comments about this bill, one of the realities when

one looks at this clause in the context of that promise.

One of the things that we have been living with through the change

of the last number of years is the Compensation Stabilization

Commission, with its control of public sector wages. One of the

promises made — one of the commitments made through the whole process

of that legislation being in place — was that it would be sunsetted. In

fact, when the minister announced, in the details that went with the

tabling of this bill in the House.... He said that the Compensation

Stabilization Commission was no more. It continues to exist, and it

continues to exist in the clause that deals with one of the many

processes that may be invoked by the commissioner, clause 62; that is,

the process of interest arbitration and the factors that will be

considered in the implementation of that interest arbitration.

Also, throughout the philosophy of the bill, we have constantly had

brought to our attention the matter of public interest, and the fact

that the public interest will in some way guide the work of

Commissioner Peck, this person who has been accorded these powers as a

persona before the legislation is even passed. I want to take a look at

that particular clause in relation to people whom I know will be

affected by that clause. We need to, in this context, deal with the

privatization issue, which has been talked about, because in many

instances in that public sector, it already is privatized, if you like.

[ Page 1752 ]

There are all kinds of ways in which the government, through

contract, deals with services and programs that will be affected by

this kind of compensation stabilization perspective. I want to look at

some of the people in the health industry who will be affected. Many of

them are women, although they are not exclusively women. One of the

things that the Minister of Health does as part of his responsibility

for providing health care in the province is to let any number of

private contracts to people who provide for long-term care in nursing

homes and intermediate-care facilities, and to home support

associations that provide home support to people, working in their

homes. These people are underpaid. They are underpaid in relation to

one another, and they are underpaid in relation to those people who are

organized in the industry.

We have already canvassed that, Mr. Chairman, and I won't do so

again. This bill is going to make it more difficult for those people to

organize. But I'm going to assume that some of them are successful in

their attempts to organize, and recognize that some of them are already

party to collective agreements.

[11:45]

As I read this clause, which allows for the public interest to be

addressed in relation to the ability-to-pay argument, it appears that

this particular

section of the bill that we're debating is going to

have the impact of keeping these underpaid workers in that kind of a

pay ghetto for a very long period of time. The pay levels throughout

the industry in those private contracts are low. Home support workers,

for example, are paid something in the range of $6.50 an hour for their

work, in spite of the skills they are required to have to fulfil their

responsibilities. People in intermediate-care facilities are paid a

little bit better. They may be making $8 or $9 an hour.

Many of these people are the sole providers for their families. They

are widowed or single women, or they are single-parent persons. These

are people who have to be a part of the economic interest of our

society in order to have our shopkeepers working, our industry humming.

This particular legislation is going to guarantee not only that those

people will have great difficulty in organizing, but that even if they

are organizing, something called the public interest will keep their

wages depressed in relation to those that are available in other

sectors of the province.

In my particular community, a person who works in our pulp industry on a production

line on a job that is dirty and hard and demanding makes $14 an hour in a collective

agreement. That person is often a woman. I have watched them on those production

lines. But at least that person is paid well and has a good benefit package.

A woman who is not in that kind of an industry but working with one of the homemaking

agencies in my community is paid $6.50 an hour. If she's working in a long-term

care facility, she may be paid $8 or $9 an hour. Her work is long, arduous,

and it is often dirty too, because that is often the nature of that work. You

are working with people who are ill. You are working with people who need a

lot of care. You are working with people whom you have to lift and move around.

And you have to take a lot of responsibility, because you are not there doing

a mindless job; you are working with people. But those jobs, in the name of

public interest, already have been held down; in the name of the ability to

pay, those jobs already have been suppressed over the period of the Compensation

Stabilization Commission. I know, because we have tried to look at ways to have

those wages improved, and that has not happened.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation, which in its overall complexity will

make it difficult for people to organize and in this particular clause

will put the public interest and ability to pay at a premium over and

above fairness, over and above the economic interests of communities,

will have a tremendous effect. It will keep people who are already in

pay ghettos there. As we all know, during the last election the New

Democratic Party made pay equity an issue for our platform. This

particular legislation will forestall the implementation of pay equity,

and I would like first of all to ensure that it does not remain in this

legislation, a prospect that I think has little opportunity of being

realized because the government has obviously not listened to any of

the reasoned debate that has come from this side or from the community

about their concerns on this legislation. I am convinced also, because

this is in this legislation, that the government has no commitment to

that issue and no realization of the economic benefits that would

accrue in their concern about enhancing the economy of the province.

I'll conclude by noting that

section 137.96 will be, for the health

industry and for many women in the province, a page in legislation that

will add infamy to the history of this government's legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Kootenay.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister wanted to get up.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm sorry. I want to begin at least by quoting

some of the comments of the minister. I know I won't take his place,

but at least I will give him presence in what I have to say.

I want to get back, in addressing

section 62, to the idea of

consensus and how this

section will not allow the kind of

consensus-building that we're going to need for good labour relations

in the province. I go back again to the statement that the minister

made in the presentation with the results of the labour hearings that

he had. The Minister of Labour said: "Any law without the support or at

least the acquiescence of the majority of those whom it purports to

affect will inevitably be opposed, and this opposition will guarantee

the failure of the larger objective." I think it's very clear that

there is not as widespread a consensus in this province on the bill as

there should be. I think it's also very clear that

section 62 is one of

the sections on which that consensus has failed to become what we want

it to be.

The walkouts, the number of people that everyone recognizes who are

still in opposition to this bill.... Many of them are hung up on this

particular clause, the one that says that there will be a commissioner

with the powers that this commissioner will have. The reason they are

so opposed to the idea of having a commissioner with these kinds of

powers is that the very things he is able to do will prevent the

consensus-building in negotiation that ultimately makes contracts work.

Contracts work because the people on both sides of the bargaining table

are involved in working toward what they want. When somebody is

involved in reaching the terms of a contract, they are then committed

to those terms. Anybody knows that if a settlement is imposed by

someone outside, it's not one to which people are committed.

We could go over this time and time again, but anyone's experience will tell them that they do not care to do something

[ Page 1753 ]

just because somebody else told them to do it. In

this case, the amount of consensus-building that would come with

negotiating terms, where people put forward what they believe, and then

if they don't get exactly what they want they negotiate and they get

part of it and they accept that they're only going to get part of it

and accept the trade-off.... It is going to make a contract to which

both parties are committed. When you've got a situation where the two

sides of a negotiating situation are sitting there knowing that

somebody else is watching over their shoulder and that somebody else

can step in at any time and say,"I'll decide," they are not going to be

committed to that bargaining process in the way that makes good

contracts. That, to me, is the major issue of

section 62.

In support of the idea of consensus and cooperation, the minister

has talked about the Pacific Institute that was forming until this

legislation was introduced, and he talked about it as a forum for the

cooperative efforts of labour and management and potentially for

government as well in addressing their problems and developing

strategies for attracting increased investment to British Columbia.

That was well on its way, until this legislation was introduced. Now it

doesn't exist. However, the loss is greater than some of us recognize.

I'm going to quote the minister again: "The potential value of this

forum can hardly be overestimated." I think that forum could be brought

back if in fact the parties did not feel that they were going to be

overwhelmed by a particular individual in future industrial relations

negotiations. I think that it could, and I think that the value of that

kind of voluntary forum would be so great that it would add a great

deal to the aims that the minister, the Premier and the government put

forward as the reasons for this legislation: to increase investment, to

increase jobs and, in fact, to settle the labour relations situation in

the province. That would have done it far better. We have lost that

now. If this clause were to be taken away, it would go a long way

towards returning some trust in the possibility of negotiation on an

equal basis between the two groups.

The minister has also said a number of times that the greater the

degree of intervention, the higher the level of authority which must

exercise it. He has said that that is the reason he amended the bill,

so that some of the things the commissioner would previously have been

able to do now have to be approved by the minister before they are

done. I think that some of the things the commissioner is going to be

able to do are of extreme importance. I think that the minister has

only gone halfway. I wonder sometimes if the government recognizes that

it is not as high an authority in our system as the Legislature. The

government operates as an arm of the Legislature, and the Legislature

is the highest authority. What this particular clause does is take away

from the Legislature the kind of power that it had in the Code. No

longer does the Legislature have to be called into session for some of

the moves that it had to make before; it now can simply be told of them

by the government, the cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

after the action has been taken. That is a process by which a lower

level of authority is being used than was the case in the previous

legislation.

The minister said that he introduced this part, when he introduced

the amendments and stressed that in

section 62 the machinery being put

in place so that the minister would become aware of major strikes

coming up and threats of strikes.... I find that an insult to the

Legislature. I think there is no reason in the world why the minister

could not find some other ways. Other people who are interested in

industrial relations in this province can inform themselves of what

strikes are pending and threatened strikes. I reject that outright as a

reason to accept clause 62.

I have another general comment to make about

section 62. The

legislation was put together, and the person who is going to fill the

commissioner's position was named at the same time the bill was

introduced. It's been frequently said in the debate that the person who

has been named to be the first occupant of the commissioner's position

makes the whole thing reasonable. That is not the way good legislation

is drafted. Good legislation should be drafted so that the position is

a good position. Then it can be filled by any number of people. I think

that this legislation has clearly been drafted for a single person. I

think that we should at least hear some response on the possibility

that someone else might fill the commissioner's position, and that the

position is good in itself, quite apart from who in the world is going

to occupy the position. I think we deserve some answer to that before

we go any further with

section 62.

[12:00]

This

section is the one, as my colleague has just said.... I would

like to add my comment on this, without going into it in detail, simply

for emphasis. If this

section passes, the possibility for pay equity —

equal pay for work of equal value — is infinitely harder to achieve. I

think that that's unfair. I think that, ultimately, it works against

social progress.

This

section deals with a number of phrases that have not been

clearly defined and that will continue to give problems. If we go into

it with the kind of power left to the definition of "the public

interest," as it is used in this clause, and "ability to pay," the kind

of control that the legislation should have is not there. Those terms

are not clearly defined; they allow such a latitude of

interpretation

that they are not adequate to address the problems that we are likely

to have in our industrial relations.

My final comment, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the idea that the

argument that is made in support of this clause, as well as others, is

that the legislation needs to be there, but we probably will never use

it. In fact, it only has to deal with, at the most, 5 percent of labour

negotiations in the province. And I'll warrant you that it will be a

different percentage once this legislation goes in — far larger than

that. But supposing it were 5 percent.... It's supposed to be very

small, and we have this huge bureaucratic pattern put together for what

we should be working to make smaller. But it's going to be there. The

argument has been put forward, Mr. Chairman, that in fact it's like

loading a gun, but you need not shoot the gun. Might I suggest a more

apt analogy? It's as though some archer were putting the arrow to the

bow and pulling it. How long can he stand without letting the arrow go?

I think the danger should be considered in that regard as well, because

it's a better analogy to what's being done.

HON. L. HANSON: We've certainly had a far-ranging debate on

section 62. The debate has strayed from buses going over a cliff to

almost the start of World War III. There has been a lot of concern

mentioned that the powers of the commissioner are unprecedented and

that

section 62, the new Industrial Relations Council, is not a magic

potion. I think I would have to agree that it isn't a magic potion. I

don't think it was ever intended to be a magic potion. I think it was

intended to be a good, commonsense mechanism that will

[ Page 1754 ]

have the ability to facilitate labour relations and voluntary collective agreements.

All of the criticism that comes from the opposition members is

directed to the fact that immediately there is a dispute of any kind,

they make the assumption that the commissioner is going to get right

into the centre of it and order something to happen that will totally

disrupt the collective bargaining process. I think there was an

acknowledgment yesterday in some of the speeches that were made that

Mr. Peck is a very experienced, very knowledgeable and very respected

individual in the labour relations field. Then they went on to say that

they couldn't understand why Mr. Peck assumed the job. Well, I think

that the fact that it is acknowledged that he is a very knowledgeable

and experienced and well-respected individual in the field, and that he

has given an indication that he would accept the position when it's

created, certainly lends to the fact that a very knowledgeable person

respects the Industrial Relations Council concept, and feels that in

fact it will work. But I want to go back to the fact that the mandate

of the Industrial Relations Council commissioner and dispute resolution

division is to facilitate collective bargaining and to facilitate

dispute resolution. It's not to intervene if it would be detrimental to

a voluntary settlement.

There were suggestions that the IWA strike has been overstated — and

I guess that's an opinion that individuals are entitled to — and that

there is a price for democracy, and I believe that that's true also.

There was a suggestion that strikes will be outlawed. That's not true;

I don't agree. The overstatement of the IWA dispute.... I just wonder

how those people feel who, for no interrelation with the IWA strike as

a direct involvement, suffered business recession, bankruptcies. I

wonder how many individuals lost their homes and their cars and so on.

Is that overstating the impact of a strike such as that? I have some

difficulty in accepting that.

We haven't denied the ability of labour and management to freely and

voluntarily arrive at an agreement. I think there was a suggestion that

the amendments to

section 62, which have moved some of the

responsibilities of the commissioner to the minister.... There was a

suggestion that that means that it's now a matter of a phone call to

get permission, as opposed to Mr. Peck making up his own mind. That's

kind of sad to hear, because I as an individual treat the

responsibility of the Minister of Labour very seriously, and to suggest

that a telephone call asking for something as important as an

intervention in a dispute would be treated so lightly that it would be

an automatic yes offends me.

I believe there was a suggestion yesterday or today that we in

British Columbia should build our own economy, that we should not be

concerned with what happens in the rest of the world, that we should in

fact be able to internally deal with ourselves and only ourselves, and

that we could create a mini-economy here in British Columbia that would

have no effects, whatever happened in the rest of the world. It is so

hard to believe that anyone could believe that, or that we in the world

today, with communications and transportation the way they are, and

with British Columbia's economy as it is, could live within ourselves.

That absolutely amazes me. It astounds me, as a matter of fact.

It's interesting to hear the suggestion that, because our reputation

is a perception that it isn't in fact that bad, nothing should be done,

and we should just continue in the way we're going. There is a

suggestion that 95 percent of the collective agreements are arrived at

voluntarily. I accept that, but I point out that that 5 percent last

year cost us over three million worker-days, and that's very difficult

to equate to an insignificant concern.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you spread it over 15 years, what does it amount to?

HON. L. HANSON: It amounts to an awful lot.

It's interesting to hear the concerns that were just mentioned by

the last speaker on the building of consensus. And seeing as this has

been allowed before, I am sure it will be allowed again. This quote is

from the bible of labour relations, Reconcilable Differences ,

by Mr. Weiler, who is a very respected individual and has a reputation

that is well known. It is in reference to the Labour minister under the

NDP government, Mr. King, and the legislation that he was introducing.

It says:

"He was determined that his comprehensive new Labour

Code respond to the central concerns of employers as well as of unions,

to say nothing of the individual employee and the general public. That

attitude the federation could not stomach. The curbs on picketing and

the prospect of imposed councils were like a red flag to a bull. The

union movement vowed unending opposition. A number of NDP backbenchers

who were close to the federation broke ranks and voted against their

own government bill. But the government remained firm."

We believe that consensus will be built in support of Bill 19. We

will follow the example of the NDP in 1973, because we have a belief

that Bill 19 is and will be accepted as good legislation, and that it

will provide a message to the rest of the world that will make British

Columbia a better place to live in, not only by the resolution of

disputes as it may be necessary but also as it relates to investment

and the economy. We have the resolution necessary to ensure that the

bill is given the opportunity to work, and we believe that it should be

given the opportunity to work for the benefit of all British Columbians.

[12:15]

MS. MARZARI: The minister has just referred to having the

resolution necessary to see this bill passed into law. I would like to

suggest that the resolution may be there on the part of the minister

and on the part of the government side of the House. What is not there,

however — and it should be said again and again — is support from both

sides of the labour-management debate. Without that support, I doubt

very much whether all the resolution in the world is going to turn this

into good legislation.

Mr. Chairman, just as

section 18 establishes goals for this

legislation and sets as its primary goal and philosophy the

free-market, competitive economy, so

section 62 begins to elaborate on

and develop the strategies for achieving that goal. What we are looking

at here is basically the menu of services and commissions and

techniques which can be pulled out to be used by the commissioner of

industrial relations as he proceeds with his task.

Section 62 is the

techniques and strategies that put into practice the goals which we

have already debated as being unfair and unrealistic.

Mr. Minister, you suggested that

section 62 is a facilitating

section and that it facilitates harmonious labour-management relations.

I would suggest that it only facilitates your

[ Page 1755 ]

goal of a competitive market economy, which, when

it is coupled with the techniques and strategies, becomes completely

unrealizable, because the strategies and techniques will not make us

competitive in any market economy.

You say that

section 62 is non-intervention, yet we see complete

interference in the laws of the land and in the contracts between

labour and management that have evolved over many decades. I would

think that if you are looking at non-intervention, you would more

likely be looking at a model of involvement which would respect

existing contracts and conventions between two mature parties, that you

were truly looking at non-intervention and getting "off the backs of

labour and management" — that being your own language in the budget

speech — that we would be regarding labour and management as partners

with us in the enterprise of creating, as Mr. Leslie put it, a larger

economic pie, rather than aiding and abetting a disruptive argument and

fight over the returns from an ever-diminishing pie.

If we really believed in non-intervention, we wouldn't be using

language like "labour legislation," "labour disputes" and "labour

problems." As my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said

yesterday: "It takes two to tango." It takes two parties to create a

contract. It takes two parties to agree to a contract. And it takes two

mature parties to, over a long period of time, come to understand each

other, renovate, reform, redevelop that contract. We have done that in

B.C., and the fruits of our labour have been witnessed in the last 18

months.

You have chosen to bring in this new package of strategies and

techniques at the very time when things might have been looking more

hopeful. You have chosen an interventionist model. I mention this, and

I'd like to put this in the context of what it will look like for

perhaps a female-dominated union in the essential services component of

the labour force. I will use this example to try to help myself

understand what the logical outcomes might be of a group of women

organized to try to improve their lot in life, as they take on an

employer, and what Bill 19 and what

section 62 might do to them. I use,

for assistance in this analysis, an

article by Sharon Yandle recently

published in New Directions

magazine, using her example of the women's union at Windermere Central

Park Lodge in Vancouver in 1979. Ms. Yandle carefully goes through the

process of that particular strike and analyzes what it would look like

and what the outcome of that strike might have been had

section 62 been

brought in, had the commissioner been in effect then, had they been

declared an essential service.

It's a very careful balance that we've got now, very well thought

through; it perhaps needs some looking at, but it has grown and evolved

with the years, the process of mediation and the process of arbitration

that we've evolved over the last few years. The mediation process in an

essential services arbitration involves, I gather, both union and

management. In an essential service, basically the union gives up its

right to strike, obviously, but I gather that over the years a very

hard-fought-for concession has been that the union can — ought to — go

to arbitration if a dispute is looming. That is one of their options.

In fact, that's the option they accepted in return for giving up their

right to strike. It's a major trade-off on behalf of the unions in a

controlled strike situation. Under 62, that is now lost. The union and

the management side can mutually consent to go into arbitration. That

is the second thing they can do.

As I said, there is very little incentive for employers to agree to

go to mutual arbitration under Bill 19. My colleague from North Island

yesterday outlined some of those disincentives for employers to opt for

that solution. Employers under Bill 19 now have a situation where very

little inconvenience can be created for them by a union. For example, a

union is not able to strike, certainly under an essential services

jurisdiction, but it is not allowed to picket, not allowed to

secondarily picket, not allowed to boycott. Consequently, in a

situation such as the Windermere strike in '79, the commissioner —

assuming they're an essential service — will probably call in the

public interest inquiry board. If that happens, then a whole list of

other techniques comes into play.

The public interest inquiry board is set up and recom mends to both

sides, union and management. If the union doesn't accept the

recommendations of the public interest inquiry board, it goes to the

employees for a vote. The board is thereby interfering with the union's

mandate — not just inside a union-management dispute, but interfering

inside the union itself. If the employees say no under this provision,

nothing happens. There's no right to strike. The union employees have

to go back to work. There's no guarantee that collective

bargaining will recommence. In fact, that's what broke down in the

first place.

It strikes me that every way the union turns, they have a

disincentive to go to mutual mediation. They're not allowed to strike.

There is not one direction in which the union can turn here without

facing a wall of disincentives — "This is not allowed."

I mention this because essential services workers are going to be

influenced even more than workers in other sectors. There is no logical

outcome of this public interest inquiry procedure. They are going to be

in limbo there. I also mention it because, leaving mediation for a

moment and going towards arbitration, the arbitration procedures under

the essential services provisions basically lead us up a blind alley.

The Arbitration Act and the Essential Service Disputes Act, I gather,

don't apply, and we are faced once again with an arbitrator forced to

make a decision on the basis of the employer's ability to pay.

It's been suggested to me that this is not so much an antiunion

piece of legislation as an arbitrators' employment act. I gather that

in the past arbitrators have just walked away from this kind of

ability-to-pay situation and this ability-to-pay clause. We're going to

find that again. I gather Mr. Peck himself did. The ability-to-pay

clause completely repudiates community standards, employees' needs and

employers' needs. It undermines and kneecaps the arbitrators, not to

mention the workers — and not to mention the employers in some

instances.

Under the essential services clause, ability to pay once more rears

its head and becomes paramount. What women might go on strike for, what

women with low pay in an essential service industry, such as the health

industry, might go on strike for, what they might care about, such as

hours of work — because most women have two jobs, as you know —

such as maternity leave benefits, such as other benefits not even

related to pay, cannot be considered by an arbitrator. The only subject

on which an arbitrator can return an opinion is the ability to pay of

the employer; and the only appeal that can be taken against that

arbitrator's decision is an appeal on the basis that the arbitrator did

not address the ability to pay.

Throughout this particular analysis of essential services, and throughout

section 62, I would suggest to you that it's not

[ Page 1756 ]

a facilitating section; it only facilitates the

unrealistic goal that you set out in

section 18. It is a very

interventionist model, yet those of us who are trying to study it and

to read through it don't see the intervention leading anywhere but in a

direction to put down labour.

When I speak on behalf of women in the health industry — and 85

percent of those working the health industries are women — and when I

speak of the essential services workers.... And almost anybody can be

declared an essential service worker under this bill. When I speak of

those people, I'm saying that women are the most difficult to organize

to fight for their rights. Many of us know, from years of experience,

that helping women organize themselves to fight in the marketplace for

rights that should be legitimately theirs is a very difficult process.

But

section 62 makes it so easy to decertify and to disorganize those

women workers. It provides management and the commissioner with so many

techniques, so many strategies and disincentives, that one wonders what

will really happen to women employees in this province once this bill

is in effect.

[12:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I too want to add my voice to some of the

previous speakers in expressing concern over this particular section,

which is perceived to be the heart of the bill. I also want to sort of

focus on the government's intent, and again put a name and a face to

the people the government is really dealing with in this section.

I want to talk mainly about interest arbitration and who that's

going to affect. I'd like to frame my comments by reminding the Labour

minister of this session: the government coming in with its throne

speech; the budget; the comments that this government cares about

families, about the unborn child and about mom. The point of this

section is that when the government is talking about the ability to

pay, and in essence talking about CSP and the powers of the

commissioner, it is talking about limiting the possibilities that mom

has to ensure that she can have maternity leave; the rights of families

to have mom at home when they've got sick kids; the rights of dad,

perhaps, even to have paternity leave. This bill and the restrictive

rights on interest arbitration say that when that comes up before a

contract, it will be weighed against other benefits, and it either will

never get to that point or will come up against the barrier of ability

to pay.

I want to make a plea, and indeed to issue a challenge to this

government, that if you care about families, if you care about women,

if you care about children, you will stop trying to restrict the rights

of working people to bargain for those rights, because it has been

through the bargaining and the work that organized labour has done that

we in Canada have made some moves forward on issues like maternity

leave. It's been through the bargainings of different unions, through

Canada Post, that they got paid maternity leave. It has been through

the work of organized labour that we have begun to deal with some of

these significant issues that are of concern to families.

Indeed, the minister is not prepared to amend this particular

section. As we have pointed out to him time and time again — 60-some

sections ago — this bill is bad. It hurts people. The minister should

recognize that in this

section he is hurting families in this province.

I put the challenge out to the minister to bring in amendments that

will deal with pay equity, and recognize that 60 percent of the

families in this province would be below the poverty line if it weren't

for mom working. Large numbers of people in this province rely on that

second income in a family to be able to ensure that they can reasonably

raise their children. Deal with pay equity — that's a challenge to you.

Bring the wages of women in this province up — another challenge. Put

into legislation the rights for paid maternity and paternity leave. Put

into legislation the rights of working people to have time off to look

after their children. There are the challenges, Mr. Minister, and I'm

saying that this legislation, and in particular this clause — it's hard

for me to say,"in particular," because every clause is "in particular"

— should be withdrawn. The minister has to see the impact of this

particular

section on interest arbitration, and how it will affect the

families in this province. I look forward to hearing the minister's

response, and I will be anxious to get back up and talk a little bit

more on this issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 62 as amended, the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley continues. I would just suggest to the member

that I'm having a little trouble with relevancy here in what you're

saying. If you could try to explain to me the relevancy of what you're

saying to

section 62 as amended, we'd appreciate it very much.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Okay. First of all, I want to say how

disappointed I am that the minister didn't see fit to respond, and that

he doesn't care about families.

On the issue of interest arbitration, the point of that particular

section was that the ability to pay will be paramount. When we're

dealing with interest arbitration — and this will be issues of

financial compensation in a contract — often issues like maternity or

paternity leave and leave for sick children come under that category

because they are dollars and cents. The point that I tried to make to

the minister was that because it falls in that line of the balance

sheet, because it is a dollar item during those negotiations, they will

either be bartered away because of other significant concerns.... They

will have a lower priority because of the ability to pay. The unions

will only be able to secure a certain amount of financial contributions

to their members. Issues that are of importance to families will either

have to outweigh other significant issues, to get there in the first

place, or when they do get to the point of an arbitration, they will be

wiped off because of the ability to pay.

I bring to the minister's attention the fact that while we're

vast majority of those people are women, and the ability to pay is

established when the different ministries set out their budgets, so

that the bargaining will fall within an already agreed upon budget.

That in itself restricts the ability to pay and spells out the

financial benefits that those employees may get.

What we are seeing in the service sector, in government employees,

is that women historically — and certainly since the CSP was brought in

— have been restricted in their ability to improve their financial lot

in life. They have been systematically restricted in any attempt to

achieve parity with their brothers in the workplace. They have been

systematically restricted in their ability to seek benefits. I think

one of the earlier speakers talked about flexible work time. Those are

important things to families; they are important things to women who

have responsibilities for raising children.

[ Page 1757 ]

I'm sorry that the minister hasn't seen what the impact of this

legislation is. I think that all too often, when legislation is brought

into the House, the drafters of that legislation don't see the faces;

they don't see who it is really affecting and what the ramifications

are. It's really unfortunate that we're not able to have a debate about

who really is being affected, and whether that was the target group the

minister had in mind when he brought in this legislation.

We have talked extensively over the last couple of days about the

service sector and the impact that this legislation is going to have on

families and on women in this province. Keeping in mind that the

classic view of family, of mom staying at home looking after the kids,

is no longer the reality in this province, I made the point to the

minister that 60 percent of those families rely on that income.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we get more directly back onto 62 as amended, please, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Part of what would help me to do that is if

the minister would be good enough to respond to my comments about

whether or not this is the target group. Is this who he is trying to

affect when he is dealing with the issue of compensation? If the

minister would respond, I would be pleased to change tack, if I am

going in the wrong direction here.

HON. L. HANSON: I certainly find the member's comments very

interesting, but I have great difficulty relating them to

section 62.

She is touching on the labour standards code and things like that, and

I listened with great interest to her remarks, but I have great

difficulty relating them to

section 62. That is why I wasn't about to

respond.

But in answer to the one question, there is no target group in

section 62.

Anyone that would make that assumption is wrong. There isn't any target

group of any kind in

section 62.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I just want to ask one question of the

minister, and I know other people want to get on because of the time

restrictions here. Am I not correct in the points I am making when it

comes to issues of pay equity, maternity and paternity leave, leave for

sick children, and whether or not there will be difficulties in

bargaining those, given the fact that in an interest arbitration you

are restricting the outcome of that arbitration by including ability to

pay?

HON. L. HANSON: I guess I could make the very simple response

that any item of collective bargaining that is put on the table by

either side is still quite allowable. There really is no change. If

maternity leave is a very major issue with the bargaining unit in a

particular negotiation, then I am sure that will be a major issue that

they will attempt to achieve. There's no change in that.

MR. STUPICH: My thanks to the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood). I would expect that the

minister has not heard the last of this subject, but he can perhaps

wait until Monday to hear more.

[12:45]

I have not taken

part in the debate at committee stage to this

point, but I think I've learned a lot in listening to my colleagues.

There's perhaps one member in the House who has learned more than

anyone else, and that's the Minister of Labour. He has had to sit

through all of it, and he has listened to a lot of very good

presentations expressing our concerns and the concerns of other people

in the community about this legislation. But by our presentations

dealing with

section 62, which is the most important part of the bill —

that's why we're giving it this attention, and that's why I'm speaking

in this instance — we don't expect to defeat the section. We know that

the legislation stands or falls with this section, so certainly we

don't expect to defeat it. We are hoping, however, by the logic of our

presentation, to persuade the government at the very least not to

proceed with proclamation of this legislation and to give the

cooperation and consultation that was promised by the Premier. Give

those processes time to see whether or not they will do the job, which

we are convinced the legislation before us will not do for the people

of British Columbia. That's what we're hoping for. That's our objective.

The minister made a couple of comments in response to the previous

member who spoke, one of them being that there seemed to be an

assumption on this side of the House that the commissioner is going to

move into each and every dispute. Not so, Mr. Chairman: we don't assume

that. However, I recall during the war examples of communities where it

was reported that the Germans said they would shoot one in ten as a way

of getting revenge. The odds are nine out of ten against you being

shot, but I think the whole population would have done everything they

could to be elsewhere the morning that the shooting started.

It's like a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of every

negotiating team. They know the commissioner is not going to move in on

every situation, but they don't know but that they might be the one in

ten on which the commissioner is going to move in, and that has to

affect their bargaining. It's not free collective bargaining when you

know that someone who is not part of the process can move in from

outside and interfere at any time that particular person feels that he

or she wants to interfere. That's the danger of it: not that it's going

to happen in every case, but the concern in the minds of everyone that

it will happen in this particular case, the one that they're dealing

with at the moment.

He picked up a remark from one of the members on this side as

saying: "How can we believe that B.C." — and I'm paraphrasing — "can

prosper on its own?" We don't — not entirely — but we do believe that

B.C. could be doing better than we are doing. We think part of the

evidence in favour of supporting our belief, if you like, is the fact

that B.C. has done so badly compared to so many other Canadian

provinces — there is no question about that — and has been doing so

ever since the government decided to interfere to the extent that it

did in 1983, not with this particular legislation but with similar

procedures, setting up the compensation stabilization plan in the first

place. From then on B.C. started going badly downhill compared to, say,

Ontario and Quebec, with whom we used to be more or less on a par.

We've done so badly because of government intervention that there is a

feeling on our side of the House that had the government been positive

rather than negative for the last four or five years, B.C. might not

have done better than Ontario to this point but would certainly have

done a lot better than we have done in B.C. In the last four or five

years.

He once again brought up the IWA strike, and it's been brought up by

a lot of people. He said that there were over three million worker-days

lost. Possibly. We don't know that. The member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) dealt with that situation and pointed out that there was

more production

[ Page 1758 ]

in the forest industry than in any year ever

before, more profits made. In every instance except the lost working

days, we excelled in 1986 with respect to the forest industry. Had

those people been working all that time or had their jobs been open to

them during all of that time, they might very well have been laid off

because the companies couldn't get rid of the production. We don't

know. We don't know that there were three million worker-days lost.

Certainly it was a bad scene, and at least unemployment insurance would

have been coming in, but none of us can say how many worker-days were

lost, and, of course, we can't assess the blame for that either.

This

particular

section is one of the ones where this business of looking

after the public interest keeps coming up. I have to ask: how is it

looking after the public interest if it's attracting the kind of

attention to B.C. that we went through in 1983? We've been suffering

for it ever since and will be suffering for it again now in the minds

of many people. We've been trying to present evidence to prove our case

that this will be bad for British Columbia. The only evidence we have

is in the opinions of people who are experts, and every written opinion

that I've seen, and even uninformed opinion from people such as

columnists and editorial writers, is expressing concern about what the

government is doing with this legislation.

I have one report here from the Conference Board of Canada, an April

1987 report entitled "As The World Sees Us — Updating Foreign

Investors' Perceptions of Canada in a Changing World," by Duncan

McDowall. Mr. McDowall advises that there is no subset of data for

British Columbia. However, Mr. McDowall advised us that in the context

of Bills 19 and 20, his general conclusion held: once a negative

perception is acquired, it is extremely hard to shake.

The Premier, to console us, said that by the time of the next

election we wi