1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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, MAY 11, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4693 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Labour Code Amendment Act (Bill 28). Second reading

Mr. R. Fraser –– 4693

Mr. Nicolson –– 4693

Mr. Michael –– 4696

Mr. Cocke –– 4698

Mr. Campbell –– 4702

Ms. Sanford –– 4705

FRIDAY, MAY 11, 1984

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the

Hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), I would

very much like to introduce to the assembly Mrs. Ann McKenzie, formerly

of Quesnel and now living in Waterloo, Ontario. I would also mention,

Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. McKenzie was the landlady to Mr. Brian Rowbottom

when he first entered government service, and he's now with the

Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today it's my

pleasure to introduce a group of young Canadians from Sir Winston

Churchill High School in Montreal, Quebec. These students are being

hosted by Prince of Wales Secondary School in Vancouver. Recently a

group of students from Vancouver were in Montreal and were hosted by

the Sir Winston Churchill High School group. This is a band from

Montreal accompanied by their leader, Mr. Don Garrett; their chaperones

are Giselle Bazerqui, Julie Bilsker, Mario Caron and the president of

the Prince of Wales band association, Mr. Allan Nicholson. I would ask

the House to make them most welcome to British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

(continued)

MR. R. FRASER: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, it is my

pleasure to join in this debate to tell everybody in the province and

everybody in the House how I support this bill, and how much I support

this bill. I compliment the minister on coming down with a bill that is

fair, when indeed the temptation to go one way or the other must have

been overwhelming at times. It appears that there is something in that

bill for everybody — both sides at least — and certainly for the

working men and women in the province of British Columbia.

There's no doubt about the fact that some will look for flaws, and some

will make most of any changes they see for their own interest and not for the

interest of the general public. But it is my fond hope that everybody out there

who sees the bill and reads the bill will indeed look for ways to make the bill

work. That's the whole foundation of this government as I see it. Certainly

some aspects of the bill that I am particularly fond of are the changes to the

rules with respect to secondary picketing. I can recall some years ago when

a union was secondary picketing the B.C. Ferries, at the inconvenience of every

single member of the public, and it was my feeling at the time that the management

of that company and the leaders of the union could certainly fight on their

own territory, for they were both big enough and powerful enough to do that.

As I've said before, I'm very fond of the changes with respect to the

rules regarding secondary picketing. I would certainly agree with secondary

picketing as it affects employees who are being treated unfairly, but I think

it should be restricted to the parties involved and not involve other people.

The same philosophy and understanding was given to the pulpworkers with respect

to the IWA last summer, and I know that members of the IWA, and probably the

pulp unions at some future date, would support this idea.

Those members on the other side of the House who claim to be the

sole defenders of the labour movement are wrong. Those of us over here

are defending the rights of unions, management and, in particular, the

working people of the province. Some would use provocation, some would

suggest there will be frustration, some would impute motives not there.

But not for me. I have great faith in the people of British Columbia,

and I know they will make it work. Indeed, my faith in the minister is

reinforced by my strong belief that if some new minor changes have to

be made to make the legislation even better, then those small changes

will be made. So if we hear something good here, we'll put it in — I

have no doubt about that.

One of the other aspects of the changes that I really like has to do

with successor rights. Certainly when a business changes hands, the new

owner expects to keep the existing customers; but he has no right to

those customers. He must continue to win them. In the same light, I

suggest that unions should work hard to keep their members. I would not

grant them the right in perpetuity to ownership — if you want to put it

that way — of those people who are working. Indeed, it is my belief

that unions and management will be more responsive to the working men

and women of the province, because they will have to make sure they're

doing their job correctly, and I can endorse that idea wholeheartedly.

As I see this bill, it is a demonstration of democracy in the

workplace. In fact, the secret ballot, long the symbol of a free and

democratic society, is espoused in this bill. Every working man and

woman in this province who wishes to change his or her mind has the

right to do that. I can endorse everything in that bill with respect to

the changes that we're making. The secret ballot on certification or

decertification makes me feel very happy for everybody who is involved

in it, whether they're on the union or on the management side –– I have

no doubt whatsoever that both parties will be more responsive to the

needs, wants and desires of the working people.

I want to see working men and women having their rights. Those out

in the community who were watching us here yesterday, today and perhaps

Monday, those who read the bill carefully, will understand that it is

fair to all. That, Mr. Speaker, is something that I want to see us do

always,

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill is probably the dumbest

economic move that this government could possibly make at this time.

This move is not welcomed by small business in British Columbia, which

is reeling from the effects of the confrontation that this government

has been been undergoing as a direct policy for the past three years.

This is the result of a government that hasn't been able to balance the

books since the current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) took over

in the 1979-80 fiscal year. This is a government that has been spending

more money than it has been able to collect in taxes since the 1979-80

fiscal year, and in order to cover up their bungling as fiscal

mismanagers this government has sought seriatim various groups in the

[ Page 4694 ]

province about which there might be some

misconception and toward which there might be some ill-conceived

hostility. Rather than try to clarify, inform, educate and elevate the

level of debate about some very complex issues, while we're going

through very complex economic times, the government has resorted to the

basest of motives, and it has sought to provocate, to confuse and to

instil hatred and hostility between the victims of their economic

bungling and society as a whole.

[10:15]

This bill is founded on questionnaires put out in the Martin

Goldfarb polls seeking the soft underbelly of any group. It's a

search-and-destroy mission. Look for hostility toward teachers. Look

for hostility toward doctors, and if the doctors aren't coming up too

well — if their pulse is a little low in terms of the feelings of the

public — this government seeks them out, makes them the target of

hostility, brings in some kind of a provocative act or embarks upon a

provocative program and tries to turn public opinion against them for

the moment. The government then turns toward the teaching profession,

and there again tries to promote hostility. In this bill, having last

year taken on public service employees and, I suppose, their union,

it's now taking on the private sector employees, more or less, with

this act of provocation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Some parts of this bill are not going to have a great effect,

technically speaking, one way or another, but they are meant to

inflame. They are meant as a slap in the face, as

an act of defiance

against democratic principles within labour unions. Other aspects of

this bill are going to have very profound effects. But the most

profound effect of this bill is that it continues to paint British

Columbia as a province in which there is no economic growth; in which,

while other parts of the country are experiencing recovery, British

Columbia, already number ten out of ten in economic growth, already at

the bottom when it should be at the top, is going to continue along

this path of seeking, rather than to rectify the underlying problems,

to find excuses. It is going to look for victims. It is going to look

for people to whom we can vent our hatred. It reminds me of some of the

more far-out science fiction novels I may have read. There was one I

recall that involved public hating, where everyone focused their

energies toward hating one person or a group as a punishment, and the

sum of all of that psychic power would lead to a total destruction. It

seems that we could learn a lesson from that. That's what this bill is

about.

Mr. Speaker, this bill — the changes in decertification, for

instance — is not wanted by the labour movement, and I'll tell you that

it's not wanted by responsible management. I'm darned sure that

Cominco, with what they've gone through and having met on several

occasions with top management of Cominco, certainly don't welcome the

kind of destabilizing effect brought about by the chaos that is going

to result from the new decertification provisions.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: It's not management's decision. Read the bill,

my friend. The decision there is going to be between people who are

raiding.... Mr. Speaker, I must be on a roll; I've been generating so

much cross-comment from the other side of the floor, A few, after

having hurled a few choice epithets at me, have left the House. If

that's the effect that this speech is having, I guess I should keep on

going, because that certainly is, I think, the problem.

I think the reason that some of those members are upset by the words

that I'm having to say on this particular bill is because it really

does strike at the heart of the matter. The people who are really even

more threatened than labour by this bill are small business people.

I've been talking with retail people in Vancouver, retail people here

in Victoria and back in Nelson-Creston and they want to get on with

recovery. They do not want another confrontation in this province.

This government and its Goldfarb polls — one can easily produce the

Goldfarb polls with the questions that are asked. They are asking

questions about people's perceptions of labour and people's perceptions

of educators and people's perceptions of doctors and of public

servants. They are looking — and it's very obvious from the polls — for

the basic hostilities, the kinds of hostilities upon which really

racism, bigotry, all of the things that one would seek to prevent in a

human rights code.... I know that we're not on the Human Rights Code,

Mr. Speaker, but those are the types of motives that are being examined

by the government. It might be laudable to look at people's attitudes

towards certain questions such as that if it were the government's

intention to educate, to clarify, to make people have more

understanding of others' points of view, rather than pitting one

against the other. They are trying to pit the unorganized worker

against the organized worker, rather than trying to have both sides

understand the point of view of the others. The government is very

happy to see a strong reaction from organized labour, because they want

to see a strong reaction from the unorganized. They want to see a

confrontation; certainly they want to see a war of words, if it does

not come to something even worse than that.

One problem in British Columbia is stagflation, and this bill does

nothing to rectify that. The problem of stagflation is the fact that

when you add the index of inflation and the index of unemployment....

Even if inflation has come down somewhat, it's only come down at the

expense of unemployment. If you add the two of those together it's

probably higher than it's ever been, even though inflation is somewhat

lower than it has been of recent date. It's only come down at the cost

of that other index. That is the thing that we should be trying to

address, not trying to scapegoat, and not creating a hammer with a

whole bunch of different innovations in this bill.

Many of these things have been tried before, and they failed. I can

remember the previous Social Credit government and its Bill 33, the

Mediation Commission Act. It was

an act which they never did bother to

implement. They brought it in, and it served its purpose. It inflamed

people; it got people all upset about organized labour. The government

never was stupid enough to actually implement the provisions of that

act or make use of it, although they had opportunities where it would

have applied. The purpose of that act was to inflame and set British

Columbian against British Columbian. I remember when for a year the

government took the compulsory check-off dues away from teachers; then

it was brought back at the request of all the teachers, the school

boards, and just about everyone else. It was the cure for which there

was no disease.

This act seeks to impose rules and regulations on one democratic set

of organizations. Democracy means that there is a freedom and a

responsibility vested within that group,

[ Page

4695 ]

regardless of the fact that people might make mistakes. Democracy is the freedom

to make mistakes, not to be supervised by some external force. This bill takes

away democracy and takes away democratic responsibility from trade unions. I'm

sure the government would not condone our doing the same thing to other organizations,

whether they be societies, fraternal orders or other groups that flourish in

our democratic society, yet it singles out trade unions for this kind of treatment.

I think this is the most destabilizing, threatening thing to our economy. When

I mainstreet, whether in Vancouver or Victoria, and go into various shops and

strike up conversations, I'm amazed at the number of people.... I don't

expect to find support for the New Democratic Party there. In fact, when they

wish me and my party well, I don't think it is so much that they are specifically

wishing my party well, but because of the frustration and the dashed expectations

with this government, they are saying that they don't like what has been

happening since the last election. They don't like this unbridled attack

on group after group. That is the essence of this bill: the singling out of

various groups for attack for the purpose of deflecting attention from the economic

inadequacies of this government.

I can remember former Ministers of Labour under this current Social

Credit administration who would stand up in the House and brag about

the labour-management peace, the lack of industrial strife, the lack of

illegal work stoppages and the drop in the number of work-days lost in

this province. What did that result from? It resulted from the current

Labour Code administered as it had been since it was brought in in 1973

or 1974. It created a fairness. When that Code was brought in, it was

not brought in as a reaction to the old Labour Code amendments, the old

Bill 48 and Bill 42 and Bill 33 and the other old labour bills that

were taken away. In other words, when Bill King brought in that bill,

he and the cabinet — and I don't believe I was a part of that

government at the time; I guess I was at the end when that current Code

was brought in — decided that the purpose was that there would not be a

total swing of the pendulum to the other extreme; that we would stop

that pendulum in the middle; that we would not rectify bad labour

legislation by bringing in bad management legislation. So that Code did

bring to British Columbia an unprecedented era of labour-management

peace and a reduction in tensions. It brought something that Labour

ministers, like Alan Williams, would get up in the House and brag about

and take some credit for. Even though he didn't bring in that

particular Code, he certainly defended that Code against erosion. For

that he certainly deserves credit.

[10:30]

What are we seeking to do? We're seeking to upset that balance. What is

realized is that we're warned in one of the very early issues of Sir Erskine

May, written by Sir Erskine May himself, that parliament is supreme but subject

to the willingness of the people to obey — in other words, to accept the rulings

of parliament. There have certainly been things done which.... Well, we can

pass any kind of a law we want to in here, within the keepings of our own jurisdiction.

We can't pass laws dealing with national defence, for instance, which is

not within our jurisdiction, but we can certainly pass things dealing with labour

law, education and health care. We can pass almost anything that we want, but

we must think about the public. It is, after all, a very important part of parliament.

We have a responsibility to the public not to try to exploit its weakness or

to try to exploit division; with the public we have a responsibility to bring

British Columbians together.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking against civil

disobedience. I am talking about a government that would use Martin

Goldfarb polls to incite the basest instincts of the populace, rather

than trying to enhance understanding. I'm saying that any government

that incites and invites civil disobedience is irresponsible, a

disgrace to the whole concept of parliament and what has been won for

the people.

I suppose that again one of the overriding problems with this bill

is that it does not even define the limits of the power that is being

given to the cabinet, in terms of designating what an economic

development project is and what the limits are. We've heard various

explanations given and they range all over the ballpark, but it isn't

spelled out. One of the principles of this bill is that the bill simply

is not clear. It extends extraordinary power without a clear definition

of the limits of that power, so it becomes almost unlimited in certain

areas.

The minister may take offence at my quoting Sir Erskine May when I

talk about the most eminent parliamentary authority, but if the

minister would ever read back to about the ninth edition he would see

that even in the days when the franchise was not extended to women —

and maybe not even to people without land at that time in Great Britain

— there was nevertheless that recognition of the rights of the people

in terms of those who were the guardians of parliament at that time.

We can pass laws about picketing and we can become more and more

restrictive about rights to picket; but if a picket line goes up,

whether legal or illegal according to the most current piece of

legislation, there are people who just won't cross that line. They

won't cross that line because it is as thoroughly ingrained in them as

religious belief is ingrained in many people. It is

an act of

conscience, and when people are faced with

an act of conscience, I

think there is the very real chance that some of these laws which we

are attempting to put in here will be found just as invalid as laws

that were passed in Quebec, which said that Jehovah's Witnesses

couldn't distribute literature on the streets of Montreal. That act was

found invalid; it was found to go against, in that case, religious

belief very clearly spelled out, and to be beyond the jurisdiction of

the provincial parliament. Laws can be found to err, and now that we

have human rights in Canada, a great deal of this legislation could be

found to go beyond the rights of a provincial parliament to legislate

in labour matters. It could be found to violate the rights of citizens

of Canada.

I would welcome the actions of a Social Credit government that would

get on with taking positive measures to fulfil the expectations of

people who were told before the last election that if the Socreds were

re-elected they would all have jobs. If the Socreds had fulfilled that

promise, I would gladly stay in opposition for the rest of my political

life. If we had returned to reasonable levels of unemployment, instead

of having the highest levels of unemployment in the country, if in my

riding the policies of this government had reduced, as promised, levels

of unemployment from about 20 percent at the time, instead of

increasing them to 25 percent or even beyond — perhaps 40 percent in

the Nelson area — I would gladly stay in opposition for the rest of my

political career.

[ Page 4696 ]

They haven't done that, and bringing in this piece of legislation is

clearly a signal to the people of British Columbia that this provincial

government has no economic plan; that they are willing to accept high

levels of unemployment, willing to do anything to keep themselves in

power. They will leave no stone unturned in terms of trying to find

groups toward which hostility can be directed in order to draw

attention away from the government.

This government will go the extra mile; this government will work 24

hours a day; this government will make every sacrifice that it can to

find another scapegoat. It isn't just people in the New Democratic

Party that have reached this conclusion. What I am bringing to this

House is a message from administrators, from fairly large corporation

presidents and vice-presidents, from store-owners, from wholesalers,

from companies that are closing down their operations in British

Columbia and consolidating to places like Calgary or back to Toronto,

to people who have given up waiting for this government to get on with

building and pulling people together.

When I was Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker, I realized that there

was a tremendous confrontation among various groups who had very common

goals and objectives. I sought to bring them together. I brought

together at the same table people like Henry Block and Bruce Yorke;

people like your good friend Tom Goode and Harry Rankin and Mike

Harcourt and the late Alvin Narod and people from the labour movement

like Mr. Roy Gautier and other people such as that. I brought together

people who were interested in housing from different points of view, to

concentrate on the commonality of their interest rather than their

differences. That's what we should be doing in this province.

This government is concentrating on the differences that divide

people. It is blowing those differences out of proportion with this

kind of

an act, rather than looking at the commonality of interest. If

ever there was opportunity in British Columbia, it is today. If ever

there was opportunity, if ever there was a time when labour and

management and small business were all on the same side, it is today.

But this government is trying to drive and keep those wedges between

them because they know that their political fortunes, their very

narrow, selfish interest is more within the wedges that divide small

business and management and big business and labour and the unorganized

and church groups and senior citizens and everyone else. That huge mass

of people, that young unemployed person who never even had a job and

has been out in that workforce for two or three years now and that

other large group, those professionals, all of those engineers who are

unemployed, recorded by the B.C. Association of Professional

Engineers.... They've got about 15 percent of those people in their

middle years — those years that should be the best earning years —

unemployed.

There are two things we can do. We can try to make those people

resent their position and focus that hostility toward organized labour,

which happens to be the group of today. It was put to me by an

administrator that what the government is doing.... We get very tired

of this, and I'm sure that people of German extraction must get very

tired of this kind of analogy, but he said that the private sector,

organized labour — and this was an administrator on the other side, a

person who sits opposite labour and tries to reach collective

agreements with them — are the Jews of the moment in this government's

oppression, as teachers and doctors were in very recent times. That was

his choice of words. I don't say that to offend anybody or try to

create any kind of hostility towards many good citizens of British

Columbia who are of German ethnic origin, but that analogy is one that

I guess is so compelling that people cannot help but see it. There very

well might be one or two good points in this act, but this is not the

time to bring it in. This is the time in which we should be, as I say,

Mr. Speaker, looking for the glue to bind the broken pieces of British

Columbia together. We should not be seeking to force it apart any

further. That is why I am absolutely and totally opposed to this piece

of legislation.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to support this

legislation, Bill 28 –– I wish to compliment the Minister of Labour and

the Premier and indeed the cabinet and the government for the great

amount of work that went into preparing this very comprehensive piece

of legislation.

It's certainly a very large step, one of the cornerstones of

economic recovery in this province to put our house in order regarding

the Labour Code in British Columbia, and I think that when all of the

words are said and the chaff is sorted out, the people of the province

of British Columbia will agree by a very large majority that this is

indeed a very good piece of legislation.

[10:45]

During the election campaign I recollect this government and candidates and

our Premier promising the people of British Columbia that there would be revisions

to the Labour Code, that those revisions would give equity to the question of

certification and decertification, and that they would bring in legislation

to democratize the free collective bargaining process. As I read this bill,

I find this government meeting those commitments.

When I look at legislation in the workplace, what I look for is

fairness and equity. When I look at the amendments to the Code that

Bill 28 proposes, I see fairness and equity. I see the new legislation

banning political strikes. I ask you: what is fair and equitable, in

the eyes of a small businessman or an innocent worker working on a

production line, where a group of people can get together in Ottawa or

in Vancouver and make a decision that that business shall lose a day's

production and those workers a day's wages? I think it is a very good

move, and I support that particular

section of the legislation.

Regarding certification and decertification, the 45 percent figure

remains. If 45 percent of the workers in a group decide they would like

to join a union, then all this legislation does is say that there shall

be a secret democratic vote held to decide whether the majority of

workers wish to join that union. It shall be completely free of any

coercion or intimidation. The vote shall be secret, and it shall be

supervised. I would suggest that by certifying a union in this way, the

union, on becoming certified, will be very solidly established because

the employer will know from the onset, if that vote is 5 I percent or

more, that the union has the clear support of the majority of workers

in the workforce.

Regarding the aspects dealing with secondary picketing, it has been

said on this floor already, and I will not take a lot of time on this,

that all we have to do is look back in the very short history of this

province at the tens and hundreds and millions of dollars lost by

stoppages imposed on unionized workers with a valid collective

agreement by unionized workers who were in a dispute with another

employer. I refer, of course, to the pulp dispute and the tens of

thousands of man-hours lost by the members of the IWA in the province

of British Columbia. This type of legislation is long overdue. It

[ Page

4697 ]

is completely and absolutely 100 percent wrong to permit unions, on their whim,

to take off throughout the province shutting down employers holus-bolus without

first going to the Labour Relations Board and getting a clearance for that secondary

picketing. I'm not saying that secondary picketing is wrong in all instances.

There are certainly times when secondary picketing should be permitted, and

this legislation provides for that. It is purely and simply putting the onus

on the union to put their case before the Labour Relations Board and get permission

beforehand. I support the legislation 100 percent.

I wonder if the second member for Vancouver thinks that the Premier

of this province indeed staged this entire event so that he could bring

about some changes to the Labour Code. I think his statements on the

floor of this assembly yesterday were somewhat irresponsible in

accusing the Premier of this province of going out and stirring up

issues for the sake of making some amendments to a Labour Code that he

indeed promised the people of British Columbia during the last election

campaign he would make.

Regarding the

section of Bill 28 dealing with economic development

projects, there is no doubt whatsoever that this is zeroing in on the

Expo site. How anyone looking at the size of that site — some 168 acres

— could suggest that fairness and equity should not provide that that

site be a mixed site must have a mixed-up mind. I notice that even one

of the leadership candidates of the NDP, Mr. Vickers, has come out in

support of non-union companies having freedom to bid on government

projects. I compliment and congratulate him on his stand, although I

think he may pay dearly for it in the election campaign for the

leadership a week from this weekend.

I wonder what happened to the old slogan in the labour movement of

"Let's go out and organize the unorganized." It seems to me that if we

have a case such as Expo, with 10 or 15 percent of the projects being

done by non-union people, perhaps the craft union leaders should get

off their butts and go out and convince those people to join the union,

as they do in industrial unions across this province and across this

country and across this continent. I would suggest to you that they are

looking for the easy way out whereby they can sit back in their offices

and give easy directions and sweep in large groups of workers without

going out and doing any work. If there's a non-union contractor on a

project, go out and sign up the crew and apply for certification.

Another

section has to do with the two-year closure. If a company

has a certification and is closed down for two years, it can apply at

the end of that two-year period for its certification to be removed. In

view of the fact that employees have not been working for that company

for two years, and there are no seniority benefits left in the

agreement, I have a hard time arguing against that section. I feel it's

fair.

Another

section deals with the question of construction certifications where

a small operator has an opportunity to bid on a job on a one-shot basis. He

can become certified, he can have a collective agreement, but that self-destructs

at the end of that particular project. I find it completely unfair to have any

suggestion whatsoever that that small employer should be tied to a certification

and collective agreement for the rest of time, when he has to go back to his

home community and compete with other operators who do not have union certifications

and union collective agreements and all the benefits that they provide. I think

what you're really doing then is legislating him out of business, and I

don't think that's equitable.

Another

section of the proposed amendments to the act has to do with

the question of unions not being permitted to penalize members for

refusing to break the law. That

section is long overdue in the province

of British Columbia. All we have to do is look at the Stephen Craig

case, some of the cases in this community of Victoria, and look at some

of the actions taken against teachers throughout the province. I'm very

proud the government came to grips with this in this particular

section

of the act and made it an illegal act to penalize people for refusing

to break the law.

Interjection.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MICHAEL: I didn't say they were.

Another thing that's going to be tidied up in this legislation are

variable initiation fees. It will eliminate unfair leverage and perhaps

an element of coercion. The new system will create a better feeling — a

true feeling of solidarity. When workers join a union, they will either

all be charged $5, $10, $20 or $100, or they will all be given

dispensation at the same time. I don't think that it's equitable for a

union to have the leverage of going to an unorganized group and saying:

"If you join the union today, it's going to cost you a $1 initiation

fee. But if you don't join today — and you're going to have to join

after we get our certification and agreement — it's going to cost you

$100." I think there is an element there that has to be removed, and

I'm very happy to see that tidied up in this bill. I consider it fair

and equitable legislation.

I've listened to the people across the floor debating this particular bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're merchants of fear.

MR. MICHAEL: They are indeed merchants of fear. They set

themselves up as the sole friends of labour in the province of British

Columbia. They accuse us of only representing management. If the count

that I see is correct, we have 35 members on this side of the House and

they have 22. At the last count that I took, management people in the

province of British Columbia were outnumbered by labour by about ten to

one. If we are not getting a large chunk of that labour vote, how come

we got 35 and they got 22? I think if you go back in history to the

early fifties, when this party first came into being in the province,

you will find that since that time membership in trade unions in the

province has increased in the neighbourhood of 450 percent. We have

some of the best contracts and the best benefits of any province or

state in North America. We on this side of the House are very proud of

that.

I look at my own constituency, and I feel that I represent a very

large

section of unionized workers. If it weren't for the unionized

workers' support, I wouldn't be sitting in this Legislature today. I've

got hundreds of loggers in my constituency. I've got hundreds of

sawmill workers — seven large sawmills in my constituency. There are

two large plywood plants, hundreds of teachers –– 35 schools in all —

several liquor stores fully unionized, five hospitals which are fully

unionized, six municipalities which are fully unionized, three regional

districts, and government workers in the Forest

[ Page 4698 ]

Service. I've got the largest hydro dam project in

my constituency. At the time of the election there were somewhere

between 1,600 and 1,800 unionized workers in my constituency. We have a

very large and fully unionized mine, railway workers by the hundreds,

social workers, telephone workers, linemen, post offices, teamsters,

rock and tunnel workers. It's a very heavily unionized constituency,

but I believe the people in my constituency voted for me because they

could see our government advocating fair and equitable policies.

I have not been backward in coming forward to assist unions when

asked to do so. Within about ten days after my election a large

restaurant in the city of Revelstoke was caught in a very unfortunate

strike. It gave me a great deal of pride to go in there and meet with

the picketers, the union business agent and the employers, and within a

matter of hours we had those workers back to work. We are indeed

friends of labour.

It somewhat disappoints me, though, when I listen to members on the

other side of the House talking about the lack of cooperation and

communication. I'd like to ask the members opposite to do some homework

and find out when any labour union in the province of British Columbia,

since 1975, has invited our Minister of Labour to be a guest speaker at

a convention. Check the records and find out when any labour union with

certification in the province of British Columbia invited our Premier

to address one of their conventions. When they talk about cooperation

and communication, I have a very difficult time. When they say those

words, looking at the evidence and the facts I see hypocrisy. If they

want better relations and better communication, I would suggest they

ask their friends in the labour movement to open up those doors and

permit our leaders to meet with them, permit some input, a two-way

communication.

[11:00]

We heard some words yesterday from the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) about leading a horse to water. My suggestion is that you

can lead a horse to water but you can't make him vote NDP. You can take

his views, siphon off large chunks for political purposes, but when he

enters the polling booth the chickens come home to roost. We know we're

getting a large part of that labour vote out there; we know we're

getting it because we're doing the right things.

I'm somewhat confused, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps when we can get into

cross-examining the minister, we can clear up some of the items brought

up by the member for North Island, such as who votes on certifications

and the numbers that vote when certification votes take place. I have

some disagreement with some of the things he said yesterday. Hopefully

we can clear that up during the questions on that particular reading.

I was somewhat surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear the member for North

Island talk about his

interpretation of the right to work. I was very

surprised indeed. If he tells those kinds of stories on the floor of

the Legislative Assembly, he must be peddling that stuff to the workers

in trade unions across the province of British Columbia. In my view,

again the words "merchants of fear" properly describe some of the words

put forward by that member.

Interjections.

MR. MICHAEL: Read Hansard .

There were some words said on the floor yesterday, Mr. Speaker,

about the coming NDP leadership convention and the fact that 280 voting

delegates out of 1,100 are from the trade union movement. Let me tell

you, Mr. Speaker — perhaps a little "Trivial Pursuit." How many members

from the trade union movement do you think would be in attendance on

that weekend if they were voting for a Premier of the province of

British Columbia? I'll tell you the answer to that: it would be as many

as necessary to win.

MR. BLENCOE: Tell the truth.

MR. MICHAEL: Read your constitution.

If we are going to have true recovery in this province, we must have

responsibility, accountability and teamwork. We must not have headlines

stating: "Longshoremen Reject Destuffing Clause." We shouldn't have NDP

leadership candidates stating: "We've got to keep Solidarity angry."

That's not the way for accountability, responsibility and teamwork.

MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if I could have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: I'll be brief. Hon. members and Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to welcome Brock Anderson and the chaperones and

the students from Quinson Elementary School in my riding of Prince

George.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we have just been treated to an

examination of this bill in second reading by a person who surprises

me, to say the least. He is a person who should know better. He is a

person who had dealt with the Labour Code and labour matters for many,

many years of his working life. That person knows it has been difficult

in this province for a number of years to organize working people

because of the coercion that is out there at all times. To now remove

the element of protection of the worker....

Somehow or other when we get into this House and we debate trade

union matters and organized-labour matters, we forget that what we're

talking about is the protection of the rights of working people from

oppressive employers, and that is what is now being taken away in this

piece of proposed legislation. I don't read this bill as something that

is complementary to our economic development. I see this bill as trying

to create in British Columbia the Alabama of Canada. That's precisely

what I see here when you talk about economic development: it's a

situation where you try to make working people live in squalor in order

that the province or its industry may be made competitive. For God's

sake, what are we thinking of?

This is the most regressive piece of legislation that we've ever

seen, in its application to labour. The former Social Credit

government, prior to 1972, had a fair reputation. We can remember the

numbers — Bill 33, Bill 41 and the rest of them — and they were bad

enough. But this bill takes us back to those days — and worse, in some

instances.

MR. LAUK: Were those the days when Cliff was against the legislation?

MR. COCKE: Those were the days when that member was arguing vehemently that it was unfair.

He talked about a number of things. He complimented the Premier and the Minister of Labour for all of their late nights

[ Page 4699 ]

and their hard work spent on developing this piece

of legislation — the marvellous work that they've done. They have

already outraged the sector that we most need in this province: that

is, the trade union people who can assist in a proper partnership in

economic development here. We have not seen any move on the part of

this government to get economic recovery, other than following the

stupid advice of the Fraser Institute.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Of course you're in touch with them every day, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. SMITH: Every morning.

MR. COCKE: I know that you are. Of course you are, because

you follow their stupid philosophy that has taken this province from a

have province to a have-not province. How any government worth its salt

could have taken us down so far, so fast, is almost beyond belief. Here

we are now contending with Newfoundland for the greatest number of

people unemployed in this country. We're worse than any jurisdiction in

the United States other than Alabama, and this is a government that is

now bringing in repressive labour legislation and saying that they

require it for economic development. They've driven us into the ground

with them.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I have noted, however. They are very generous

with themselves, very generous indeed: high-flyers, lovely expense accounts,

staff coming out of their ears — when you talk about personal staff. The cutbacks,

however, come where it affects human needs and human services in this province.

Now, on the backs of working people, we're saying we must become competitive,

and the only way we can become competitive is to bring in legislation that is

going to make it more difficult to organize workers; more difficult for them

to receive fair play; more difficult in every way to have harmonious labour-management

negotiations. It is creating a terrible climate.

Somebody on that side yesterday referred to Australia. I wish they

would look at Australia and the Australian experience. The Australian

experience was as follows. They had relatively reasonable — for that

day — labour-management rules and legislation, and then along came very

heavy, repressive labour legislation. It outraged workers. They

outlawed strikes, they did this, they did that. All it did was create a

situation in that country whereby they had more person hours lost than

they had ever had before in their history. In those days we were

relatively bad, but they made us look good. That's what repressive

labour legislation does.

As the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said, it is feudal. Now what is feudal about this?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The meeting at 9:30 went fine. It's interesting to

me, you know, that when we meet with the Employers' Council, it's not

noted. When we meet with COFI, it's not noted. When we meet with the

trade union leaders, all of a sudden it's: "How did the meeting go?"

The trade union leaders have met with that government too, and it did

them no good. They promised consultation, and what did they get for

their trouble? No consultation, and a piece of legislation that opens

up with the whole question of making disharmony out of potential

harmony.

Mr. Speaker, let's examine some aspects of this bill. In the first

place, it's interesting........ I'd like to contrast one aspect,

because the former speaker tried to contrast this particular area.

Let's contrast the area of coercion. Now we have a situation whereby

there cannot be coercion by a trade union, or by its leadership, of

working people. That also appeared in our Labour Code. The thing that

happens here however, is that management has been excluded from that.

Management can coerce, but the trade union business agent or whoever

must not by law. Even-handed indeed!

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It's nonsense, he says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the bill.

MR. COCKE: Read the bill! It would be interesting if you read

it maybe twice. As a matter of fact, this is such a poor piece of

draftsmanship that you have to read it about fifty times to try to make

sense out of it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Marvellous! Get the Code and read it in tandem. How else can you possibly read a bill?

The fact of the matter is that the present statute includes

management in terms of coercion, intimidation, etc. But oh, no, not any

longer. They're making it easy for their friends.

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Murray Pezim might have drafted it, but I doubt it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I am deadly serious, Madam Member, when I say that

this bill is nothing more or less than divide and-conquer, making it

difficult to organize — and that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

Michael) knows it's difficult enough to organize, to help people help

themselves. And they're making it increasingly difficult with this

bill, almost impossible in some instances. Fair and reasonable

conditions for membership indeed! It is nothing short of divide and

conquer.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the incompleteness, about "remove

management;" they even remove management from remedy. If you look at

the

section dealing with remedies, they eliminate management — the

employer — from that particular area of the bill. Why? To again make it

virtually impossible to deal fairly and squarely, as that Minister of

Labour says he is trying to do. It is totally undemocratic, yet that's

the word that comes out all the time from that side. Every member of

that government and its supporters seem to indicate that somehow this

piece of legislation provides democracy.

MR. MICHAEL: No more secret votes.

MR. COCKE: Let's talk about secret votes. Let's talk about any kind of votes. What about a set-up, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 4700 ]

that disfranchises union members and permits only

non-union members to vote? A great set-up, Mr. Speaker, and yet that is

included. The Minister of Labour looks totally puzzled. I'd be puzzled

if I were him, if I didn't know my bill any better than he obviously

does. Or is he just acting? It makes it difficult in every way, shape

and form.

Mr. Speaker, why has the Premier decided that the Kerkhoffs of this

world should dominate the workplace of this world? I would like to send

somebody out with a camera to take a look at some of the work that

those non-union construction companies do. There's a couple of examples

I can show you right here in the capital city. Take a look at it; take

a picture of it, for crying out loud. That's the kind of work we're

encouraging? Not on your life. There has been a tradition in this

province of good solid construction. There has been a good tradition in

this province of cooperation in developing apprentices to learn trades,

to come up through the ranks and then succeed those who taught them, in

providing decent, good solid construction. Do you see any of that in

the non-union developments? Of course not. You see substandard work. Is

that the objective of a totally substandard government, a government

that cannot look after the economic affairs of this province and is now

reaching out into the community, making damned sure that it's not going

to work either? It is a sickening scene.

History tells you every day that when there's this kind of

government interference, you create nothing but chaos. Can't that

history get through to this group? How can they even envisage a piece

of repressive legislation creating harmony? This is a government that

says they want to get government out of people's business, and then

they turn over some government enterprises to their friends.

Privatizing, they call it. But oh no, they'll get into the lives of

workers. They have no shame in that. What are they talking about — less

government? This is more government. This is repressive government.

The way they've got these vote situations set up now, it's going to

take a nice long time before you can get the LRB, unless it's staffed

up to the nines; and I can't see them staffing any unit except their

own offices with significant increases of staff. But it would take a

very significant increase in staff to get the vote within months. By

that time there's all sorts of opportunity for coercion on the part of

the employer.

Mr. Speaker, I say this, understanding at the same time that many

employers don't want this. There are many thoughtful employers in this

province who say: "What the hell are you doing to labour relations in

British Columbia? We don't need this kind of stupid legislation. We

don't need to outrage people. Why aren't we heading for harmony?"

Confrontation is the name of the game. We had 26 bills in the last

session creating confrontation across the board.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Human rights, all of them.

Mr. Speaker, these bills do nothing more or less than create that lack of harmony, and who needs that?

I also want to make clear, because I note that there are a few

construction unions represented in the gallery today.... The member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) said something about a Vickers'

statement, the leadership candidate.

MR. MICHAEL: That's your man.

MR. COCKE: That's right; that's the person I'm supporting. I

also happen to know what he said. He said the building trades had

agreed that the fair wages practices would be the way it should be

done. He agreed to that. That was his statement, and it was a statement

that the building trades have made over and over again. They have been

quite prepared to negotiate, and they've indicated that over and over

again. What do they get for their trouble? This. I can't believe it!

They are bending over backwards for management, bending over backwards

in every way, shape and form. But do you know where they really bend

over? I want everybody to listen to this very carefully, because

section 13, which deals with economic development projects — which is

to be a laugh a second — is aimed not only at Expo and the 160 acres

that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke talks about; that

section could

be aimed at any project under the sun, and I predict it will be. That's

a

section that never should be in a bill.

To talk about economic development projects, when all you're going

to do is create havoc with this kind of legislation, you have to have

something other than brains in your head, because it is not economic.

I'm not saying this because of the way I read it, I'm saying this

because everybody I've talked to who happens to be involved in this

particular area tells me that this is their way of understanding the

bill. Economic indeed. All this in the name of progress? I suggest to

you, no progress whatsoever comes out of repressive legislation. The

Minister of Labour has been talking tough for years. Certainly there

was an anticipation of questionable labour legislation. There was a

draft circulated last year — I forget whether it was 35, 36 or 52 —

that was probably even worse than this. I sometimes suspect that what

they do is try to modify feelings by doing something somewhat less, but

this is not really less. This is just very bad news for everyone.

Let's think about the economic development situation. You think that by putting up wire fences around....

What's that member standing for? Are you on a point of order?

MR. CAMPBELL: No, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make an introduction.

MR. COCKE: In the middle of a speech, Mr. Speaker? I'm sure

he can do that at the end of my few remarks. I will not yield the

floor. If any of our members ever stood to interrupt one of your

speeches I would be very surprised.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's get on with Bill 28, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss for a moment or two

this whole question of economic development. In that very badly worded

section — I suspect one of the reasons for the bad drafting is to open

up even further the holes created by this legislation — we see a

situation where we put up wire fences around certain aspects of a

project, and we say, "This is for you and that's for the others," and

so on. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you very clearly that that could have

been remedied in negotiation with the building trades. They made offers

over and over again. This government showed its total lack of integrity

by not sitting down and properly negotiating that site. They bent over

backwards in order to provide that that site could go ahead. I heard

Chuck McVeigh the other day on the radio. He works for the Construction

Labour Relations Association. He said that he's opposed to this kind

[ Page 4701 ]

of situation because it could have been brought about by proper negotiation. Now we've created forever blocs of antagonists.

Why do we need to do that, when there could have been friendly

relations on that or on other sites? It is not exclusive to that

particular site. It can be used anywhere, on any site. All that does is

whittle away at those organizations that have organized workers within

them. This is nothing less than union-busting. That may sound good and

ring well in somebody's ears, but I'll tell you that not one of us in

this Legislative Assembly and not one of us out there in the community

would be living the affluent life had it not been for the fight put on

by organized labour right from the 1800s until today. All they ask is

that people get their fair share of what is being produced, a fair

share of the riches being created by the hands and minds of the

workers. Sure, negotiations can be tough, but that's what it's all

about.

[11:30]

We live in a democracy. We value freedom, and they want to take it

away. They do take it away at every opportunity they get. They're doing

it here. They've done it in every other piece of legislation that they

have proposed in the last while. This is what they think can make a

better province, but historically it cannot; historically it does not.

All it does is create further animosity and further outrage. When parts

of this bill are couched in words like "economic development," in a

labour bill, that's really doing it, isn't it? But you can't hide the

direction by titles. The only way that you can create harmony is to

have some sort of agreement that there is a fair and equitable piece of

legislation before us.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I heard somebody say: "Get off your butts and

organize." You'll sure have to get off your butt and organize on this

one. It's making it very difficult.

I want to say that we had very little time to organize our thoughts

around this bill. It was introduced the day before yesterday and was

first brought up for debate yesterday. Here we are with the most

significant changes in the Labour Code, in labour law, in this

province, and that's the way it's treated. Any time in the past when

significant legislation has been proposed there has always been a good

deal of time given to the opposition to have at least some

consultation. This morning afforded us our first meeting with a number

of people who are directly affected by this particular piece of

legislation. If the government had any kind of ethics, common sense and

decency, at least a week would have been left between first reading and

second reading of this bill — a minimum of one week. Forcing it down

the opposition's throat and forcing it down working people's throat is

their way to get the job done. I don't see the government showing any

signs of decent behaviour in this respect. They waited until the Human

Rights Bill was debated and out of the way, and then they brought in

this one. That was because they were worried that somebody might get a

chance to organize people's thinking around this piece of legislation.

I suggest to you that this bill has been put here purposefully to

antagonize people one against the other. What a time to do it — when

the province is at its lowest point in history since the last

Depression. Economic development is happening across the country at a

far better rate than in British Columbia. There are more people out of

work here than we've seen in recent history. Particularly young people

need some protection, help and training.

But they decide that this is an advantageous time to bring in a

piece of legislation that does what this does. They brought it in

because they know that people out there are desperate. People who are

charged with the responsibility of feeding a family and trying to live

on this government's welfare, which is outrageous, are grasping. They

will work for anything that will provide them more food on the table.

That's why this government chose this particular economic climate as a

time that they could get away with bringing in this kind of bill.

But what the people had better understand is that once you destroy

something, how do you put it back together? How do you put back the

protection of working people's rights? Once they have opted, by virtue

of their economic situation, to work outside the house of labour, it

will be very difficult. How long would it take, my dear colleagues and

friends, for Alabama to get into the twentieth century, much less get

up to the 1980s? Repression. Hostility. Work for nothing?

Let's talk about economic development for a second and think about

it. I think about Vancouver Plywood plant in Vancouver closing down;

Mac-Blo is closing it down — great corporate citizen. This province has

enriched that outfit to the extent of multi-billions of dollars, and

the money they've made here they've taken out. They've invested it in

Alabama, the southern United States and other areas where you can pay

rock-bottom wages. And then they turn on us — the very people who built

this tremendously strong economic unit, and the very people who made

them their money — and said: "Goodbye, we don't need you any more.

We've going to close down this archaic plant. We'll move to our new

luxury plant down South where we can get people working for virtually

nothing." This is what happens.

What we should be doing here is enhancing this situation and not

detracting from it. The Premier had an opportunity to do that very

thing. The member from Shuswap said that he wasn't grandstanding. He

has had this carefully planned for months. Certainly during his

campaign he danced all around the labour issue. It was this member from

Shuswap who at that time was doing most of the talking about what he

felt should be produced in terms of changes in the Labour Code. The

Premier danced all around everything; he didn't make anything clear at

that time.

This whole question, as the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

said, is a total charade. It has been an absolute charade up to and

including that breathtaking time when we were waiting for the report to

come down from Jim Pattison to the Premier, to advise him as to whether

or not we can go ahead with Expo. Jimmy comes running over here with

his sheaf of papers, and he says: "Mr. Premier, no, you shouldn't go

ahead with it. We can't come to a conclusion. We can't negotiate a

settlement." The Premier then has to go to bed and think about it. Then

he says: "We'll be brave. We're going to try it anyway. We'll go on

with it. There's too much invested in it." It's all a charade to set

the atmosphere for the kinds of things that have happened; they've been

setting the stage.

I'm not suggesting for one second to those who might be listening to

me that the man is particularly bright. As a matter of fact, I think

quite the opposite. The fact of the matter is that he has people around

him who are strategists, and this is a deliberate strategy. There's no

question about it in my mind.

[ Page 4702 ]

It's a strategy to accomplish what should never be accomplished.

It's a strategy that would do exactly what his guru Michael Walker

tells him is the thing to do.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) says: "Oh,

well, we don't talk to them every day." You don't have to talk to

Michael Walker every day. You could learn everything that Michael

Walker knows in three hours — the most stupid archaic economic theories

that one has ever heard of. The whole western world has been ruined by

the Milton Friedmans, who have captured every right-wing mind in the

western world. Look at those right-wing minds. Look at where Margaret

Thatcher has taken Great Britain; look at where Ronald Reagan has taken

the United States. They are the most stupid, irrelevant bunch, yet

they've managed to do it. They have managed to wreck the western

economies, except those economies that told them to go and chase

themselves. Those economies are doing far better.

Anyway, this bill is going to hurt the economics of this province.

This bill is going to hurt the working people of this province. This

bill is taking away the protection that the average working person

needs. Individually it's very difficult for one to negotiate with an

employer; collectively you can. Anyone who tries to say to me that

there's something wrong with trade unionism is going to have a darn

good argument. As far as I'm concerned, this society, this country,

owes most of its success to the fact that we have had workers organized

in our country and in our province. A strong trade union movement is

absolutely essential to the economy. Take a look at the other aspects

of the Alabama economy. Every aspect of it is down in the drain. Every

aspect of those right-to-work states is at the low end of the economic

scale. Look at the well-organized areas in this western world, and what

do you find? You find far more equity, richer economies and just a very

much better place to be.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the red light is on. I'm sorry that I can't

bend your ear any longer, but I have one little message for you: I'm

totally and unalterably opposed to this piece of absolutely inadequate,

rotten, poor legislation.

[11:45]

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to make an

introduction. It is my pleasure to introduce a longtime friend of mine

from the Coquitlam area, Mr. Herb Radis, and a very close friend of

mine, a person with whom I have been associated with 18 years in the

Canadian Paraplegic Association, the director of administration

services, Mary Lou Takasaki. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. CAMPBELL: Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce two people from Vernon, Bill and Shirl Lahowy. They are

long-time residents of Vernon, and for these outstanding citizens of

our city I would ask this House to give them a welcome.

Now on to Bill 28. Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to improve the

climate of labour relations in British Columbia. Make no doubt about

it. We've had the other type of labour negotiations; we've had the

other type of labour climate, as we've just gone through in nine weeks

of pulp mill lockout strikes. Many of these people wished to go back,

but they were denied the right. But that wasn't the only part. These

people didn't only interrupt the marketplace of the pulp, but they also

went to the IWA mills time after time, secondary picketing to their

very own union brothers. Where is the brotherhood when you're shutting

down your brothers out of employment and out of jobs? That is wrong,

and I'm very glad that this bill is going to take a look and is going

to alter secondary picketing except under very special circumstances.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Another thing about this bill is certification or decertification —

55 percent vote either way by secret ballot. That's the one thing that

I really feel is probably the most important thing in this bill. I am

amazed at the opposition sitting across the way when they talk about

human rights day after day. Where are the rights of the people who are

in their very union to vote by secret ballot? Surely through all

democracy secret ballot has been the way to go. Secret ballot has been

the accepted principle in democracy, and the very people who fight for

human rights wish to deny the people the very effort that democracy is

based on, the very principle that democracy is based on. These

opposition would deny that to the people.

Mr. Speaker, surely the people have a right to obey the law, to

cross the picket line to go to work. We have a group of union leaders

who are instructing their people to disobey the law of the land and not

to cross that picket line. When you've got an opposition sitting across

here who support this thinking, who encourage people to disobey the

law, I wonder where this province is going to. How could they possibly

ask people to disobey the law of the land and call themselves upholders

of human rights? It amazes me how they can sit there day after day and

promote that and then, in the next breath, go right around and instruct

their people to disobey the law.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about intimidation. That's what human rights

is all about: to stop intimidation. But who are the greatest

intimidators? If you go back to last year's walkout strike by the

teachers, some of the teachers who crossed the picket line have been

harassed ever since by their Teachers' Federation. It's amazing. The

same people who wish to uphold human rights are the same people who

wish to violate the human rights. That's one of the things about the

changes in this labour law; this is going to be corrected and stopped.

That's why I'm amazed that these people across here, when they talk

about this new piece of labour legislation which is going to enshrine

human rights in labour law, are opposed to it. Talk about hypocrisy,

Mr. Speaker. That's hypocrisy in the ultimate, that is.

The employer if he has been closed down or does close down for two

years, will be able to decertify. He will be able to decertify and go

back to work. Now can there be anything wrong, after you've been closed

down for two years, with decertifying and going back to work? If he's

going bankrupt, is there anything wrong with actually being closed down

for two years to decertify and go back to work? If he's going bankrupt,

is there anything the matter with his waiting that two years and then

going back to work? Surely not. Surely he must have some rights as

well. We talk about rights; surely the man who puts up the dollars must

also have some rights. He must have the right to earn a profit so he

can pay those wages. That's got to be his right. He has to be able to

make a profit so that he can pay the taxes to support this Legislature

[ Page 4703 ]

and the social programs this government has embarked upon and is embarking upon. Surely he's entitled to that right.

This new labour law will allow the employers the right to talk to

their employees during negotiations. It's only fair. It's long past

due. When was it ever right that the man who signs the paycheque can't

even speak to the people who work for him? Imagine! He has been

disallowed to speak to his very own employees. Do you call that human

rights? I'm glad this gallery's getting full; I'm glad the people are

sitting here today to listen to this labour legislation. I'm pleased,

because I'm sure the people sitting in this gallery realize that if

they were working for a company and their boss had something to explain

to them, they would want him to go down and talk to them. They would

want him to explain what's going on, instead of the union way of

keeping the boss isolated over here so that they can foment trouble and

the workers are not able to ask the boss, directly, questions

pertaining to their employment and their very livelihood. I'm glad

there are people here in this gallery to listen to this, so that when

they go back home they'll be able to say that this government is in

favour of human rights. In fact, this government is the advocate of

human rights. This government is going to take the yoke off the workers

of this province and allow them to be free. That's what this labour law

is all about.

When we talk about the secondary picketing of other industries which

are not on strike, and closing other industries down to exert pressure

on the employer as well as the government and the employees in the

other plants who are not on strike, how wrong can that be?

AN HON. MEMBER: Completely wrong.

MR. CAMPBELL: Completely wrong — you're absolutely right.

This should have been changed long ago. This is long past due, Mr.

Speaker. I'm pleased that this minister has brought forward a bill

that's going to correct some of these wrongs that have been in place

for many years. They should have been replaced long ago, but

fortunately they're going to be changed now.

I hear talk across the way about increasing legal costs. How could

it increase legal costs when today they can go out on secondary picket

and every time they do it that employer has to hire lawyers to go to

the Labour Relations Board? It takes perhaps three days to get the

cease-and-desist order....

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Well, I'm really speaking to the people out

there who have the grit under their fingernails and the callouses, and

know how to work.

Is it right that that man should be closed down for three days while

he goes and gets his cease-and-desist order from the Labour Relations

Board? No. Why should a man have to go to court every time to maintain

his rights? Surely, under this new regulation, the onus will be on the

union to go to the Labour Relations Board and obtain permission before

they picket. Before they commit an illegal act they will have to obtain

permission — and then it won't be an illegal act. It's about time the

onus was placed on these people. It's long past time.

MR. BLENCOE: Alabama, here we come.

MR. CAMPBELL: These people talk about Alabama. They want the

special rights for the few, for their friends in the labour movement.

They talk about help for the young people, but if he can't get into the

union: "Sorry, my young friend, there is no job for you today." Special

treatment for their friends — that's what it's all about on the NDP

side. That's what it's always been about on that side over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do the labour leaders want?

MR. CAMPBELL: What do the labour leaders say? Yes, the labour

leaders were over this morning to give them their version of it and to

tell them what to say, because we know that this party over here is a

party of the labour bosses. When the labour bosses holler, they don't

ask how high to jump, they just leap. I would hope that when the new

leader of that party is picked, whoever he may be, he would reconsider

the position they've taken over the past years and say: "This party is

going to be for improvement in British Columbia. This is going to be a

positive party that is going to assist this government in the economic

development of this great province. This party is going to assist

employers to create more employment within this province." There's

going to be a climate and an atmosphere here that's going to encourage

investment in our province and encourage more industry to settle here.

If we don't have that climate within British Columbia to entice

investors to come here with their plants and industries, to employ our

people.... We could have the highest union rates in the world, we could

have $100 an hour and everybody unemployed. On this side we believe

that's not the answer.

High wages today, more unemployment tomorrow, higher wages the next

day, greater unemployment. Every time they want more wages, more

businesses go bankrupt and more people are unemployed. They say they

represent the working people. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this

party is the party of the working people and the little people of this

province. This party is trying to help those people. This is the party

that's trying to create stability within this province. When that man

goes out and buys a house, has a mortgage to pay, has his job, and his

wife and family to take care of, he wants some stability. We believe

he's entitled to some stability so that he can make his mortgage

payments and live a decent and respectable life on a decent income in

this province, rather than be unemployed and forced out by exorbitant

wage demands, and by secondary picketing and all that has gone with it

over the years.

I believe that when we talk about designated projects and certainly

we're looking at Expo — this government would be remiss to close down

Expo because of union problems. They couldn't proceed with 9,200

potential construction jobs on that site during the next 18 months,

with 9,200 people going back to work. This government is endeavouring

to put people back to work. We cannot allow labour leaders to dictate

to the government, which is the people out there. The people sitting in

the gallery are entitled to jobs, and this government is determined to

provide them.

During Expo there will be 27,000 people working there. Many of these

young people in the galleries will be finished school in two and a half

years, or they will be in high school or university, and will be out

looking for jobs. They will be able to say: "I'm glad this government

stood up, didn't back down to them, and said that Expo will go ahead."

That's why this party is a party of young people, middle-aged people,

[ Page 4704 ]

senior citizens, working people, business people,

all the people of this province; that's what this party represents, and

that's what we're going to continue to represent.

Expo will bring approximately $3 billion into the economy of British

Columbia in 1986. We cannot afford to lose this type of revenue. There

will be a ripple effect throughout all industries: the hotel industry,

the motel industry, the gas station business.

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, I'm glad you said, "Even in the Okanagan,"

because we anticipate getting many of these tourists. Of the 27 million

people who are going to attend this great exposition, if 10 or 15

percent of those people decide to come to the Okanagan, or to the north

end of Vancouver Island, or to Victoria....

[12:00]

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Maybe these people over here don't welcome

those tourists. They are sitting over there laughing, as if it's a big

joke when you talk about the tourists coming here. I want to tell you

that that's no joke. Those are good, hard dollars in the economy. If

they don't want them over here, the people of the Okanagan want them.

We want them bad, and we're prepared to work to get them. Any time they

don't wish those tourists to travel over here, all they've got to do is

talk to chambers of commerce in the interior; they welcome those people

with open arms. They're getting prepared for that great year 1986, when

these people are going to be coming in. They're going to be fighting

hard for that tourist business. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

these representatives from lower Vancouver Island over here have a duty

to the people within their area — even if they disagree with them — to

encourage the tourists to come here, because they have unemployment in

their area and they have a duty to bring the tourists over here to help

lessen the unemployment. I don't think the members over there can deny

they have a duty, because they are also elected people; they are

elected to represent their people.

AN HON. MEMBER: All they do is laugh.

MR. CAMPBELL: I know they laugh. They think it's a joke. That

first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) thinks it's a joke to talk about

bringing tourists over here, but that's very serious business. I am

sure that the students going to the University of Victoria think that

that's very serious business, because a lot of their employment will be

gained in 1986 through Expo. So it's not a laughing matter, it's a very

serious matter, and I hope that these members over here will take this

message to heart.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I want to say about this bill: I don't

believe it went far enough. I believe that in this bill there should have been

the final offer made to the employees and then the strike vote should have been

taken by secret ballot after the final offer was made. To go in before negotiations

start and ask for a strike vote, to try and scuttle negotiations and ask for

a strike vote before you have even had an offer put on the table, to say before

you even know the boss's offer, "Give us a strike vote so we can negotiate"

— what kind of way of negotiation is that? If they don't believe that their

workers will reject it, why do they want the strike vote early? They ask the

worker for a mandate to strike before they even know.... Why? Because they

don't believe in human rights, that's why. That's why they want

it: because they want to have it tied up before they start.

Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that this bill would have contained that: after

the final offer was made, they would then take that offer to their workers and

let them vote on it. That's what democracy is all about. That's what

workers' rights are all about. That's what democracy in the workplace

is all about. How would these people in the gallery like it if they were asked

to give a strike vote before they even knew what the final offer was — what

any offer was — before negotiations had started? Imagine, asking for a strike

vote before negotiations have even commenced, because we "need it to bargain."

That's the epitome of human rights, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation thinks of the public. After

all, the public has also got to be concerned. They have got to be

concerned with the labour legislation in this province and their

rights. Certainly the people who are not on the job have a right. I

think of the people who wish to ride the buses today. They have a right

to have transportation provided them until that union calls a strike

and goes out instead of an interruption of services that inconveniences

the public at large. People are getting in excess of $16 to $17 an hour

and they inconvenience the unemployed; they're inconveniencing the

senior citizens. Surely the public at large out there are entitled to

different treatment than that from people who have a steady, secure job

at a subsidized rate from the government — a government which is all

the people. Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't create wealth; it

spends wealth; this government only spends what the taxpayers send in.

But when we subsidize these buses, we're asking the taxpayers — the

citizens in Prince George, Peace River, in the Okanagan and in the

Kootenays — to subsidize this bus system in the lower mainland, which

has slowed down, inconveniencing the public down here. If that's

democracy, if that's human rights, then we need to review the human

rights bill again.

Mr. Speaker, much more could be said about this. I don't wish to

keep going, because I know these people can digest only so much at a

time, and I believe that I have elaborated about as much as they will

be able to digest in one sitting. When the next speaker gets up to

speak, we'll know whether he's really been listening, whether he has

digested or whether I already spoke too long and he missed the point.

With that I'd just like to say that I support this great bill. I

support the minister who drew it up; I wish he had made a couple of

other changes; however, we'll have to settle for this at this time.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon

I've got a group of students down from the Pemberton Secondary School.

They've travelled all the way here to visit Victoria; they're staying

here tonight. With them are Dan Williams, their teacher, Leslie Muir,

one of their chaperones, and Brian Lester, their driver. I'd like the

House to welcome all these students from Pemberton.

[ Page 4705 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting that we are

spending our time this morning talking about this piece of legislation,

which is going to make it nearly impossible for the trade union

movement in this province to continue to exist, when at the same time

we've had the release of the unemployment statistics for British

Columbia. It's a clever tactic, and it's also part of the overall

package of this government in terms of trying to divert attention away

from the real problems this government has created and from the serious

problems that exist in this province by bringing in legislation which

is union-bashing.

We have out in our community some 220,000 desperate people who are

without work, many of whom have not been able to find work for more

than two or three years. We have many desperate families who are at

this stage looking only for a job; that's all they want, a job in this

province. We've heard from the member for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell)

who suggests that this bill is somehow going to create work. He is

absolutely wrong; it does not create one job. We still have 220,000

people out of work. The rate of unemployment in British Columbia is

still going up, while in the rest of Canada it's going down. Those are

the issues this government is trying to cover up with legislation of

this type. The government is creating confrontation and little fires

all over the place so that the people of the province will have their

attention diverted away from the very serious problem that so many of

our people face. On Vancouver Island, for instance, people in the

building trades are now facing an unemployment rate, in some cases, of

well over 60 percent. That's not addressed in this bill. I hope the

member for Okanagan North reviews this legislation and recognizes that

this legislation does not create one job, in his constituency or

anywhere else.

In the last ten months this government has destroyed 90,000 jobs in

this province. They've disappeared because of the economic policies,

the lack of interest and the right-wing philosophy that they've been

following deliberately creating the economic chaos that we're in right

now. We have this legislation before us, but no proposals whatsoever to

reinstate those 90,000 jobs that they've destroyed in the last ten 10

months; no proposals whatsoever to put to work the 220,000 people who

are out of work, people who are lining up at food banks and soup

kitchens, the people who are desperate to try to keep their families

together. There's none of that, not a word from those government

members, just more and more of the same: destroy the trade union

movement.

These people are so biased against the trade union movement that you

can quite often hear in their voices and see on their faces the hatred

that they harbour within them toward that trade union movement. I've

never seen it before in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, but it is here

in this particular group of people. It keeps coming out and being

displayed in the words of those members as they get up to speak. They

don't recognize the history of the trade union movement in this

province. They don't recognize that if it were not for the

organizational work and sacrifices made by the workers in this

province, throughout its history, sometimes resulting in loss of

life.... People have given their lives to try to have some kind of

decent working conditions in this province. They don't recognize any of

that history or they would realize that the standard of living that we

enjoy in this province today as a society is directly related to that

early work and those early sacrifices made by people who were

determined that they were not going to be trampled upon by major

corporations, who were determined that they were not going to live with

substandard wages and substandard safety and working conditions of all

kinds. There's nothing that some of these people in the back-bench

would like better than to have a situation where people have no rights

at all in the workplace. That would make them very happy, and it's

displayed time and time again in the speeches made by this bunch. They

want wages reduced. They want the standard of living of working people

reduced.

[12:15]

They don't want employers spending money on improving safety

conditions — it costs money. They're interested in profits and

protecting their friends in the corporate sector. That's where their

interests are, and that's what we're hearing in speech after speech

coming from the back-benchers, who have all been ordered to speak on

this particular legislation. We haven't heard from them for months on

all the other legislation, but we know they've been ordered to speak on

this. They're all getting up.

We heard yesterday from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who

complained that we were not defending the trade union movement. He got

up and said: "We" — speaking on behalf of the Social Credit Party —

"don't have to defend workers — you do." What he means is: "We speak

for the corporate sector; you get up and speak for the workers." I'm

very happy to be standing up here speaking on behalf of the working

people of this province today. That's my job, said the member for

Omineca. It's not his job.

MRS. JOHNSTON: It's everybody's job.

MS. SANFORD: I'm quoting from his speech of yesterday. Maybe you weren't here.

We are seeing here today the changes to the Labour Code, which, as I

have pointed out, are a very damaging set of changes in terms of the

survival of the trade union movement in this province. But it's only

part of the direction that this government has been on for a long, long

time. We have received a copy of legislation that was prepared back in

1981. It was never introduced into the House. It may be introduced yet,

although maybe with this legislation it won't be necessary. It was

called the technology assistance act. It had been proposed, and we were

able to obtain a copy before it was actually introduced into the

Legislature. It ensured that in certain technical sites, as designated

by the cabinet, the Labour Code would not apply. People who worked in

certain areas would not be covered by the Labour Code under this

particular technology assistance act. Therefore you can pay them what

you want. You don't have to worry about all of the provisions of people

banding together and bargaining for basic working conditions and basic

salaries and basic pensions and basic coverage under health provisions

and dental programs. They are only carrying out what they have embarked

upon for a long time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Many of the members on that side of the House — or at least some of

them — have been critical of the minister because it's taken him this

long to do it. These people are very biased against organized workers.

They're very biased against the whole process which gives working

people any rights whatsoever.

Interjections.

[ Page 4706 ]

MS. SANFORD: I'm talking about the right to organize, and I'm

talking about your attitude about the trade union movement. The

non-union people are not going to have the opportunity under this

legislation to have a union represent their rights, because the

certification process is going to be so difficult in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is 55 percent difficult?

MS. SANFORD: I think it's clear by the comments made by the

people sitting across the floor of the House that they really don't

understand the extent of this particular piece of legislation. They

don't understand how difficult it is going to be in the future to

organize those people who are not now organized. Not only is it going

to be difficult for the trade union movement to survive under this

legislation; it's a piece of legislation designed to destroy that trade

union movement, I think the minister knows it. Certainly the cabinet

knows it. The back bench may not be as well informed; I understand they

are often not informed about things that are taking place.

This is another example of this government's betrayal of the people

of this province so that they can better take care of their friends. We

had some assurances about the Residential Tenancy Act: that there would

be consultation, changes, that it would be a fair piece of legislation.

We had the same assurances about the Human Rights Act: that there would

be consultation, people would be listened to. We had the same

assurances for this particular change to the Labour Code of British

Columbia: that people would be consulted and listened to. In each and

every case the government has proceeded on its merry way; in the case

of the Labour Code, the way that was established some years ago in the

document which, never introduced into the House, had the same intent as

this piece of legislation. "Let's designate areas in this province,"

said the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) in this piece of legislation which prohibits the application of

the laws of the province. We heard a lot from the member for Okanagan

North (Mr. Campbell) about the laws of the province. Because it suits

their purposes, this government wants to set up areas in this province

where the laws of the province don't apply. They can better take care

of their friends if working people do not have the opportunity for any

say at all in their wages, working conditions, pensions and health

benefits.

The sad thing about all this is that it is a very deliberate ploy by

government. We have all those people out there who want nothing more

than to get a job. There are 75,000 people between the ages of 15 and

24 desperate for a job, and what's the government doing? Bringing in

legislation which will cripple the trade union movement. It's not

dealing with any of these problems. Everything that this government

does makes this problem of unemployment worse. Month after month the

figures go up. Month after month people hope desperately that there

will be some sort of economic recovery. The government does nothing,

except to make the situation worse by bringing in legislation designed

to ensure that working people will not be able to have any say. They

will find it difficult to even survive as a trade union.

What the government doesn't seem to realize....

Maybe it does realize this. I haven't quite got it straight in my own mind

whether the government does realize it and is proceeding in this direction anyway,

or whether it simply does not realize that if you treat people fairly they will

respond in a fair way. If you ask people to consult, if you consult with them

in a fair way, listen to their concerns and incorporate some of their concerns,

then people will feel they've been dealt with fairly. But when you betray

them time after time after time — and that's what this government is doing

again in this piece of legislation — then people cannot be expected to respond

in a fair way either. As a result of these amendments today, Mr. Speaker, we're

going to have a lot of chaos around the whole area of certification and decertification.

We're going to have a lot of confrontation, because people realize that

in this particular piece of legislation they're not being treated fairly.

There is nothing fair about this legislation.

In the future people are going to be far less willing to consult

when they have made the effort, they have tried, they've presented

their views, and are ignored, trampled over and betrayed time and time

again. You cannot expect them to continue to try to work with

government to come up with the best solution for their problems. One

thing about it though: based on the history of the trade union movement

and the fact that workers are not going to sit back forever and be

trampled upon, that this legislation will be very harmful to those

people who are now certified in this province, who exist as trade

unions.... Many of those unionists are going to disappear, but because

they are being trampled upon, because they are being dealt with in an

unfair way, they will come back and be stronger than they were before.

That's the history of people who are oppressed, and they're being

oppressed with this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was here ten years ago when the Labour Code was first

introduced. The minister responsible was given a lot of criticism at

the time. Interestingly enough, it did not come from the employers'

groups as much as from the trade union movement at the time, because

they expected that the pendulum would swing from a very right-wing,

anti-union-attitude stance — pieces of legislation like the infamous

Bill 33, which was introduced by the government prior to 1972 and never

passed — to the other side, where trade unionists would be able to be

certified without difficulty, where they would have no problem

whatsoever in obtaining what they saw they had been denied for so long

under anti-union legislation. The Labour Code that was introduced was

even-handed and fair. That does not mean there were not changes that

had to be made from time to time in that Labour Code. Everyone

recognizes that. But it was fair, even-handed legislation.

[12:30]

Even Bill Hamilton of the Employers' Council complimented the then Minister

of Labour on the fine work he had done in establishing a whole new approach

to industrial relations in this province. It was Bill Hamilton who said at the

time: "We now have an opportunity to have some fair collective bargaining

take place in this province." He recognized the fairness of the legislation.

He recognized that it was evenhanded. Paul Weiler, the first chairman of the

Labour Relations Board, and an expert in the field of industrial relations,

saw it as a fair piece of legislation at that time. Today it is Paul Weiler

who is saying that these amendments swing the pendulum so far in the direction

of anti-unionism, union-busting, union destruction, that what will probably

happen is that in the future the pendulum will have to swing the other way.

It's going to be more difficult for people who wish to achieve certification.

When the minister introduced this piece of legislation, he took the high ground and made no reference at all to the

[ Page 4707 ]

provisions of this bill, but talked about economic

development, recovery, employment. In fact, every reason that he gave

for the introduction of that bill was a reason for withdrawing the

bill. The minister made no reference whatsoever to the reason he felt

that it had to be more difficult in this province to become certified.

Why did he change those provisions? Was he worried that the trade union

movement would get too big? Was he worried that the 44 percent of the

workforce in 1974 had grown so much in ten years that he had to bring

in provisions to ensure that it was much harder to become certified? In

that ten-year period there has not been a rapid growth in the trade

union movement. The percentage of people who are organized is virtually

the same as in 1974, so it can't be that the minister was worried that

more and more people would become certified. We know that government

generally does not look kindly on the trade union movement. He gave no

indication at all why that change was necessary. Therefore we can only

come to one conclusion: they want to ensure that no one else in this

province becomes certified, and they want to make sure at the same

time, through the decertification provisions in this labour amendment

bill, that more and more people will no longer belong to a trade union

in this province.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Should workers not have that choice?

MS. SANFORD: The first member for Surrey is asking if workers

should not have that choice. All right. What we have now, Mr. Speaker,

is a situation where if, in a plant that is not certified, a trade

union signs up 55 percent of the people in the plant, a vote must be

taken. But that vote is not taken the following day. It could be

sometime down the road before the Labour Relations Board is able to set

a date on which the vote will actually be taken. Before, if at least 55

percent of the people had signed a union card, that was good enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you afraid of the vote?

MS. SANFORD: Just be patient; I'm going to explain that.

It seems to me that if 55 percent of the people at the plant have

signed up and said, "Yes, I want to join this union, I'm prepared to

pay my union dues, and I want to become part of a bargaining unit,"

then the Labour Relations Board, quite rightly, could say: "Okay, there

are 55 percent of the workers, we will grant the certification." But

now they have to have a vote and, as I say, that vote does not take

place the day after the cards are signed; that vote takes place

sometime down the road, depending on the agenda of the Labour Relations

Board, how busy they are and how easily they can set up a vote. But in

the meantime that employer can bring whomever he wishes onto that plant

floor and increase the number of people who are working at the

particular plant, because on the day the vote is taken everyone working

at the plant votes.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The minister says that's not true. Well, I

should really find the

section and quote it for him, because that's

what the legislation says.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That is what the legislation says. They can

bring in people, and it's the number of people who are employed on the

day of the vote. The minister said nothing about this in the

introduction; he now disagrees. He also disagrees with the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), who also indicated that somewhat the

same provisions would apply; so there's obviously a difference in

interpretation over there. Again this points out the drafting problems

of this bill. But it reads pretty clearly that an employer will be able

to do that. Certainly the employer will be able, during the period of

time when the employees at his plant are deciding whether or not to

sign a union card, to say: "If you sign that card, I'll fire you."

He'll be able to say that, because there's nothing now that prevents

him from coercing, intimidating and speaking to his employees during

that period of time when they are attempting to become certified.

If the minister introduces the bill one day — and there's no doubt

that the whole area of labour legislation is a complex area — and

expects the members on this side of the House within 36 hours to be

able to analyze the bill, get feedback on the

interpretation of various

sections of a very badly drafted bill, and come in and make speeches on

a bill....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The minister suggests we should have the weekend

in which to consider it. Would the minister accept an adjournment

of...? Oh, I see. All right.

It seems to me that in an area as complex as labour relations, the

minister should, in his introduction to the bill, tell us some of the

provisions of the bill. Doesn't that make sense to you? Surely the

minister recognizes that if they're going to debate a bill as complex

as a Labour Code amendment bill within 36 hours of its introduction,

then the least the minister could do would be to outline what he sees

that the bill provides. I expect we're going to have a lot of work for

lawyers in this province as a result of this legislation, because there

will be a lot of disagreement on the

interpretation of various sections.

Secondary picketing. My colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

mentioned yesterday that the one thing we.... Oh, the minister is

leaving; he's taking his lunch. Is he going to be back, Mr. House

Leader, or do you wish to...?

interjection.

MS. SANFORD: When the minister leaves with his lunch and his briefcase, Mr. Speaker, one can assume that he has left for the day?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Would you like to declare a recess, Mr. Speaker, until...?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, carry on.

MS. SANFORD: In other words, the House Leader is telling us

that the minister has gone for the day. You're going to take notes for

him, are you? I guess the minister had to catch a plane somewhere.

[ Page 4708 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, could we please continue with the debate.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the people from the back bench who have spoken on this bill have misinterpreted....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I'd be very pleased if the minister comes back. As a matter of fact, I could talk about other things until he gets back.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the rules of order require that

we speak to the bill, not to the whereabouts of any particular person.

I would suggest that we continue the debate on Bill 28.

MS. SANFORD: There was another

section that I wanted to talk

about. The minister was shaking his head the other day when the member

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was raising this issue. I don't know

whether he's going to agree with me or not, but I agree with the member

for North Island in the

interpretation of this particular section: that

is, that if people are considering becoming a member of a trade union,

they sign a card that they will have to pay the full initiation fee and

the full membership fee for however long a period of time it takes for

the vote to be held by the Labour Relations Board. That's the

interpretation of the member for North Island, based on some

information that he has, and he's had some legal people looking at this

bill as well. It says that the variable fees will no longer be allowed.

So that means that people who are joining a trade union will certainly

be discouraged by the fact that they have to put out the total

initiation fee at the outset and pay the total membership fee until

such time as the vote is taken. I'd appreciate getting some information

on that as well.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not bring about economic recovery. It

will not create one job in the province. This bill will make it more

difficult for working people to become certified and have some say

about their working conditions, wages, pensions and health benefits.

This bill is typical of the attacks the government has made on

low-income people and working people. It is a betrayal of the trust

that the trade union thought they had. They thought they had an

agreement that there would be consultation and that any changes to the

Labour Code would be made very carefully. This bill upsets the balance

totally. It is an unfair bill which is going to make it very difficult

for the trade union movement to survive in this province. This bill,

because it is unfair and a betrayal, is inviting confrontation from

people who are concerned about the economic situation in this province

and about the fact that there is so much unemployment. This is a bill

which gives the government more power so that they can better take care

of their friends. In this piece of legislation they will be trampling

on the rights of workers. By these amendments they will ensure that

fewer people are certified in this province. They will probably drive

down wages as a result of this. Perhaps we'll get to the stage where we

have a situation similar to that in Alabama, as mentioned many times. I

hope it doesn't quite become an Indonesia in B.C., but that's what

they're setting out to do, wittingly or unwittingly; the former, I

suspect.

This bill is a betrayal. We're very much opposed to it. We will work

and continue to speak against this kind of legislation, which is yet

another example of the kind of betrayal that this government is capable

of.

[12:45]

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:46 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada