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)

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4657 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Builders' Lien Amendment Act (No 2), 1984 (Bill M205). Committee stage

Third reading –– 4657

Patients Property Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M206). Committee stage

Third reading –– 4657

Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M201). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4657

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places (Bill M203). Second reading

Mrs. Wallace –– 4657

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4658

Groundwater Regulation Act (Bill M204). Second reading

Mrs, Wallace –– 4659

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 4659

Labour Code Amendment Act (Bill 28). Second reading

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4660

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4661

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1984

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I see there are a large number

of visitors to our galleries today, and I'm sure that all members would

like to bid them a special and most cordial welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to bills, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill M205, Mr. Speaker.

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1984

The House in committee on Bill M205; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, in finishing this bill off, I would

like to take this opportunity to thank all hon. members on both sides

of the House for the support they've given my first private member's

bill. I would also like to thank all those who assisted me in preparing

and presenting the bill.

Having said that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved,

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the

member for Dewdney is fortunate in that he belongs to the government

party. If he belonged to the opposition, that bill wouldn't have had a

hope in Hades of getting through.

Bill M205, Builders Lien Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984, reported completed with amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill M206.

PATIENTS PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill M206; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, like my colleague from Dewdney (Mr.

Pelton), I'd like to thank the House and members for their support of

this bill. I move the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill M206, Patients Property Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M201.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

(continued)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until a later time.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is a

standing order — number 44, I believe — which obtained some notoriety

in the last session, last fall, with respect to the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett). Standing order 44 says that Mr. Speaker, if

he is of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of the debate is

an abuse of the rules, may, if he comes to that conclusion, put the

question or decline to put the question. I submit it is in abuse of the

rules. This has happened again. It's just a device on the part of the

government designed to prevent a debate and discussion about a bill

which will create employment in this province. All the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development is doing is obstructing the

orderly progress of legislation to create jobs. I submit Your Honour

may find that it is an abuse of the rules and thus decline to put the

question on that motion to adjourn the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has accepted

the motion from the member, and while the points raised by the member

could have some validity at another time, at this time the Chair cannot

concur with the point raised by the member.

Hon. members, the question is adjournment of debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on Bill M203. I adjourned the debate on behalf of the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING

IN PUBLIC PLACES

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE: Every year I try, and every year we get a

little closer. We have now had a precedent set in the acceptance of

private members' bills by this House. My colleague for Skeena has

indicated that, strangely, all private members' bills that are accepted

are introduced by private members on the government side of the House.

I would not

[ Page 4658 ]

want to have the authenticity or the veracity of my

colleague for Skeena put into question, but wouldn't it be nice if the

House did agree to accept a bill introduced by a member from the

opposition.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I came close once.

MRS. WALLACE: This bill has been written and rewritten until

I think the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the Premier and the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) would all

agree that it is in order. I know the Clerks would agree that it is in

order. It's an orderly bill, Mr. Speaker. Not only is it an orderly

bill; it's a good bill. Not only is it a good bill; it would be a

popular bill. It would be very popular with the public out there. It

would make that sagging government look good if they took this bill and

accepted it.

This bill has some very positive aspects. This bill has provisions

in it that would help reduce the budget of the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen). I notice the Minister of Health is not in the House, but

it would help him reduce his budget, because it would be a step in the

right direction toward reducing the horrendous health costs that are

attributable to smoking.

It has been estimated that the health costs for the average American

male who is a heavy smoker are $59,000 greater than for a non-smoker.

That's a pretty horrendous cost. It has also been proven without much

doubt that the breathing of second-hand smoke is just as harmful as

smoking. This would mean that a lot of the costs that are not now

directly attributed to smokers would be reduced.

[10:15]

I think another aspect is that the cost of smoking has been recognized by insurance

companies. Many insurance companies have higher premium rates for smokers than

for nonsmokers. The thing that comes to my mind is something that was published

in a medical journal not too long ago. A great many companies have come to the

conclusion that it is not in their best interests to have heavy smokers as employees.

The Xerox company did some studies in the United States, and they found that

the costs of replacing and retraining, and the health care costs, involved in

the instance of a top-level executive who suffered a premature death as a result

of heavy smoking were $166,000. Another company in the United States — the

name escapes me at the moment — had an employee who died as a result of heavy

smoking. This company carried their own insurance and were responsible for the

costs. The costs during the last eight months of that individual's life

for which that company was responsible were in excess of $30,000. Another company

did a study relative to the loss of productivity. This really should hit....

Where is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

? He's gone now, but the Premier is here. He likes to talk about productivity,

and so does the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland). It's been estimated

that an employee who is earning, say, $10 an hour, which is not a maximum wage

by any means.... Lost productivity as a result of the fact that that person

is a heavy smoker would amount to $1,250 per employee in one year. Now those

are some pretty startling statistics. Unfortunately, those monetary statistics

are probably the ones that are of more interest to that government, and that's

why I have stressed them. They are not the ones that are of the greatest interest

to me.

The ones that are of the greatest interest to me are the health

statistics, and they are very conclusive as well. Smoking is very bad

for you; smoking is also bad for people who do not smoke if they are

obliged to breathe in polluted atmosphere — and it is polluted

atmosphere. That's what this bill is all about. It's not asking for

anything that isn't already being carried out voluntarily by many Crown

corporations; B.C. Ferries, for example, have no-smoking areas in both

the lounge and the eating areas; many stores now have signs: "Thank You

for Not Smoking." That's probably more due to economic reasons than it

is to health reasons, because certainly people moving around where

merchandise is displayed and dropping ashes can cause damage to the

merchandise or start a fire. More fires are started by cigarettes lost

in chesterfields, probably, than by any other single cause. That's not

a statistic; that's just a thought. But I think that you would find

that a lot of fires are started as a result of careless smoking;

certainly insurance companies say so, and they have done some studies.

But it's the health reasons that concern me. I think it's time that

we took a step, and this would be a step forward. It's not a costly

thing; there are not going to be that many areas that are going to have

to spend any dollars. If a restaurant is too small, all they have to do

is simply post a sign on their window to say that this facility has no

no-smoking area. Then the customers know. It simply means that every

owner of a restaurant or public facility sets aside one area for

smokers and another area for non-smokers. It's very simple.

My colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) tells me that Burnaby

has such a bylaw. So it's not new; it's not really landmark

legislation. This bill is patterned basically after Minnesota

legislation which has been in effect for a long time. Toronto has had

it. Edmonton....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's a city, not a province.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, why not let B.C. be the first province? Minnesota is the first state; let B.C. be the first province.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm going to defend Lockstead's right.

MRS. WALLACE: The member for Mackenzie's (Mr Lockstead'

s) rights are defended in this bill, because he will have a right to smoke

in one area. But my rights are also defended, Mr. Minister, because I

will have a right to go into a public place, a restaurant, a public

meeting, wherever, and have my rights defended because I don't have to

breathe my colleague's smoke. Obviously I should quit while I'm ahead.

Hope springs eternal, Mr. Speaker, and maybe this is the year; maybe

1984 is the landmark year when we will, in this legislative chamber,

not only pass a bill that is acceptable to 90 percent of the public,

that is a step forward in preventive medicine, that is an economically

viable bill because it will in the long run be a step down the road

towards reducing health care costs but, even more than that, will be a

landmark in that the government accepts a private member's bill

introduced by a member of the opposition.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is probably correct in most of her debate and discussion, for a number of reasons.

[ Page

4659 ]

The concern I have I agree with what the member is speaking about

with respect to the health aspects — productivity and so on. I think it

would be unfortunate if it were necessary for a province to enforce

such legislation. We may be getting closer to the day when that may

happen. It is becoming more common, as the member mentioned, in private

corporations, institutions and municipalities, where they are taking

this subject on. Possibly that's the way it will evolve, and maybe at

some time it will reach the provincial level. I would hope that it

wouldn't be necessary to be applied at the provincial level.

It's very difficult to argue with the member's point of view.

Perhaps if the member brings it back at some other time, it might be

considered again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 30

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Strachan

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Brummet

Waterland

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 13

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Rose

Lockstead

Brown

D'Arcy

Wallace

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M204.

[10:30]

GROUNDWATER REGULATION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKERS: Order, please. I recognize the second member for Victoria on a point of order.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was left off.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that the recording

of the name was made, but the mention of it was not. I thank the member

for bringing that to the Chair's attention.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Returning to Bill M204, Groundwater Regulation Act, I adjourned the debate on behalf of the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: Again I thank the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

I'm like the fellow who kept beating his head against the stone wall, and

the reason he gave was that it felt so good when he stopped. Obviously, I don't

have enough sense to stop.

The groundwater bill is another one that I've introduced time after

time in this Legislature for the same reasons. They are still valid

today the same as they were the first time I introduced it. We haven't

had the opportunity to discuss this one at all in recent years, but the

reasons are still valid. There are no controls over groundwater. None

at all. I think the outstanding example that I came upon when I was

doing some research on this particular subject was the fact that two

neighbours in the United States somewhere got into a feud. I don't know

whether this was down in the Ozarks or just where it was where they

were a-feuding and a-fussing, but one neighbour had a well very close

to the other neighbour's line, and that was his source of water supply.

Because of the difference of opinion between these two neighbours, the

other neighbour brought in a drilling company, drilled a well on his

side of the line, had two trucks come in loaded with ordinary salt and

dumped it into the well, which, of course, absolutely ruined the other

neighbour's well.

That could happen in British Columbia, because there are no

controls. Fortunately, we don't have much feuding in British Columbia,

but there's nothing to stop it. The problem that occurs here time after

time is that someone in a fairly rural and unsettled area has a well,

which supplies his or her family's needs, and a settlement grows around

that person's home as the urban sprawl takes place. Other people drill

wells, and they get into the same aquifer, and nobody has enough water.

I'm sorry that I can't have some graphs in here, because if in fact the

first well has hit what they call a high point on the aquifer, at maybe

30 feet, and the other wells hit a lower point, at say 60 feet, then

those wells drain off the water from the high point, and the original

well — not always, but very often — goes dry, for no obvious reason.

It's happened often enough that there are a great many people very

concerned about it. The engineers of Saanich municipal council in 1980

— 1 know I'm going back a way, but the problems are still the same —

indicated that a letter from the water rights branch basically stated

that there was no licence in force with respect to groundwater.

It could be by proclamation of

section 4 of the Water Act, but that

would simply say that groundwater was covered by the Water Act. It

would leave any specific details strictly in the hands of the minister.

I don't know if that's the best way to go; I don't think it is the best

way to go. I think groundwater is quite a separate issue from surface

water. Groundwater as such should be regulated by entirely separate

legislation, because problems related to groundwater are entirely

different.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, it would be most interesting

to listen to the debate and the argument and maybe dispute some of the

claims made. However, under

section 66 of the standing orders, since

certain aspects of this bill call for expenditure of public money and

places an impost on the Crown, I have to bring to your attention that

the bill is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would concur with the observations of the minister, and I so rule.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 28.

[ Page 4660 ]

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure today

in taking my place to move second reading of Bill 28, the Labour Code

Amendment Act, 1984. This government believes that these practical and

even-handed adjustments in the legislation are particularly necessary

at this time to govern labour relations in this province. As an aside,

Mr. Speaker, as the months go on — particularly during this summer — it

will be seen that these amendments are part of an ongoing process that

this government has for laying a solid foundation for building our

economic recovery.

I sometimes find it difficult to understand some of the criticism

that has come forward about these amendments indicating that the

consultative process was not followed. These amendments have been a

very long time in the making, and they evolved from a lengthy and

ongoing process Of consultation between myself, senior officials of my

ministry and a broad cross-section of the people involved in the labour

relations process in this province — and others as well, including

private citizens who only have an interest. Mr. Speaker, we received

between 250 and 300 submissions on changes to the Labour Code. In my

time in government I know of no other matter which has gained the

attention of the public in the way in which this has.

It hardly seems necessary to say this, but I will anyway. The past

couple of years have been very difficult for our province and our

people. Like most of the rest of the western world, we were severely

jolted by the recession. Events have been dominated by our government's

efforts to bring us out of that recession and to encourage economic

recovery. It's no surprise that economic recovery within the continued

framework of restraint in government spending has been the paramount

issue as far as our administration is concerned. That means several

things — one of the most important being the need to keep our

industries and our manufacturers competitive and to promote and market

our goods around the world.

As we were formulating that strategy, and as we continue to

formulate that strategy, it became abundantly clear that if it was to

occur, it was essential that our labour relations process be stabilized

and that everyone involved, including the labour and business

community, rethink and re-evaluate their attitudes toward the kind of

industrial climate that exists within our province. That was essential,

Mr. Speaker, for a very good reason. The plain and unshakeable fact is

that the recession has brought a new reality in this province. It is a

reality in which the expectations and attitudes developed during the

fifties, sixties and the seventies of unlimited growth and unlimited

expansion — and I include unlimited government growth in spending — can

no longer be met. That new reality is here, and we can't duck under it

or run away from it. We either recognize it, accept it and adjust, or

we're determined to face a bleak future in terms of economic growth and

recovery in British Columbia. As far as I'm concerned, there is no

choice involved.

If our province is to meet those challenges and changes brought on by that

new reality, we first have to define what and where we are on the global scene

— and we can do that fairly quickly. Ours is basically an open economy, with

two-thirds of our wealth generated by our export trade. We compete in world markets,

where the competition is already fierce and destined to become even fiercer.

Our future success lies in meeting and beating that competition, and it won't

be easy.

I guess in some ways in the past the world may have beaten a path to

the door of our province during those golden years, but it's not longer

the case. There are no longer any automatic customers for our resources

and services. If we are not competitive, if we cannot demonstrate our

ability to deliver quality products on time and at an acceptable price,

our prospects are poor indeed. We have to convince investors — the

people whose capital generates expansion and jobs — and our resource

customers that we can do the job. We can't hope to do these things if

we ignore the reality within which we exist or cling to practices,

traditions and activities which are no longer valid in the world as it

exists today; that, again, includes the crucial area of labour

relations.

While changes to labour legislation cannot in themselves bring about

economic recovery, better and more stable labour management relations

will be crucial to the process. We have to show that we are dependable,

and we can't hope to accomplish this if our labour image is one of

continuing disputes and disruptions which threaten continuity of supply

or products or services; it is that simple.

There's more to all this than merely making changes in legislation.

We have to change our collective mindsets in terms of our relationships

within the province and how those internal relationships affect our

dealings with the people with whom we do business. We have to back off

from our traditional entrenched positions, from the them-versus-us

mentality of confrontation, because there isn't a them and us, there's

only us — all of us.

[10:45]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of Labour has the floor.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Interesting asides, Mr. Speaker, when

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) admits that his machine

successfully organizes all the demonstrations. I'm quite surprised at

that admission. But it's good for the public of British Columbia to

know.

Instead of the them-versus-us confrontational attitude, we must

venture into new areas where there is mutual recognition that we share

a common destiny and that the time is past for any segment of our

society to go it alone. Like it or not, in today's interdependent

society there is a linkage that we break only at our collective peril.

In my view, the dangers inherent in trying to stand still in a world

that is evolving and changing are far greater than any problems or

pitfalls that we will undoubtedly face in adapting and adjusting to

today's new reality.

The amendments that we're proposing to the Labour Code are practical

in terms of helping us come to grips with that reality and will be

welcomed by individual workers here in British Columbia. I say that

because I believe that the people who put in the hours for the

paycheques are in many cases a step ahead of those who lead them. They

know, sometimes as a direct result of painful personal experience, what

the reality is all about, and they want a better way of dealing with

it. They're not interested in trying to cope with all of their problems

by being called or picketed off the job. They are not interested in

becoming redundant because their employer can no longer compete in

those world markets.

[ Page

4661 ]

They're not interested in trying to resolve issues by confrontation

or by being pressured onto the streets to engage in activity that is

politically oriented. They know that what's happening in the community

today cannot be denied; those who think that it can are kidding

themselves and the people to whom they are accountable.

I know there's a very real sense of frustration out there among

working people. Sometimes it's almost a helplessness, that somehow they

don't always have the opportunity to have a meaningful say in events or

a voice in their own destiny; that too is addressed in these amendments

to the Labour Code.

These amendments give workers greater freedom to decide whether or

not they wish to belong to a trade union. Under these proposals unions

themselves will be required to maintain fair and reasonable conditions

of membership.

We are also taking the opportunity to ensure that major projects

such as Expo 86 will be built on time to welcome the world to British

Columbia. Those workers out there, for whom so many of us say we speak,

often feel alienated from the decision-making process as union members,

and angry when through no fault of their own they find themselves

denied the opportunity to go to work and earn a living for themselves

and their families. No fair-minded citizen in British Columbia would

find that kind of situation anything but unfair.

We essentially had two aims in mind in drafting the changes that are

before us today: to broaden the decision-making process for working

people and make it more democratic, and to try to encourage economic

recovery by allowing workers to share in the recovery's rewards. These

changes are extremely significant in terms of their potential for

bringing about more stability and fairness in the workplace of British

Columbians. I don't think anybody can deny that those two elements have

been sadly lacking, particularly in these recent months in our province.

During the process which led to the changes in the Code, I made it

clear that the entire area of labour relations was under scrutiny by my

ministry, and that the examination would focus, in the main, on just

who the labour relations system was serving, and why there seemed to be

a continued failure for it to function properly. The amendments won't

remedy all of the problems which exist, and no legislation can, because

many of the problems must be remedied by the free collective will of

the parties involved. But they are pragmatic and will help us tackle

the most immediate and pressing problems, the ones which clearly, if

allowed to fester and continue, could impede or slow our government's

efforts to bring about economic recovery for all of our people.

More importantly, I am convinced that they do reflect a consensus among workers,

managers and members of the general public. They were not developed in isolation

by bureaucrats or politicians isolated in a closet or ivory tower of some kind.

We listened to groups across the entire spectrum of our province's society,

and this legislation is a result of that listening. I think the amendments reflect

a fair, even-handed, middle course. They reflect, as well, the result of a deliberate

decision on our part to choose consensus and cooperation over confrontation.

In the long run I am also convinced that they will be given a fair trial by

all concerned, and that that fair trial will lead to much improved industrial

relations and a workforce which will at least feel that it now has a voice in

matters critical to its well-being.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in moving second reading.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, as all members of the assembly are

aware, last night we had the distinct pleasure of being hosted by the

British Columbia Association of Broadcasters. In the galleries today is

a member of that association, a fine broadcaster well known in the

Vancouver area. As well as being a fine radio man he is a superb

entertainer who has a great show and

an act which is quite creative and

at many times deals with political humour. I am sure that today he is

here honing his skills and probably writing some new lines for his

great act. I would like the House to welcome Bob Robertson.

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

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in our audience today is a

teacher-principal from the Burnaby School District with a group of

students from Burnaby, along with some students from Quebec who are

visiting the House. Mr. Speaker, could we bid them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Much of what the minister had to say in

introducing debate on Bill 28, the Labour Code Amendment Act, is in

fact an argument for not introducing the amendments. I would like to

deal one by one with the major elements of the comments made by the

minister, but first of all, just in general terms I would like to say

that what every citizen of British Columbia and what every member of

this Legislature wants, more than anything else in this province of

ours, is an ability to have a job and to make a good living, an

opportunity to participate in a community where life is fair, work is

plentiful and antagonisms and confrontation are kept to a minimum.

That's what we all want, Mr. Speaker. For the minister to imply, if not

say, that some elements of our community deliberately try to thwart

those objectives is simply wrong. We all want an economy that works,

one that is free and in which people have an opportunity to participate

in full measure.

I say in some sorrow, Mr. Speaker, that deliberately or not,

wittingly or unwittingly, the government has unfortunately chosen a

course in these amendments, and in its recent behaviour in respect of

labour-management relations, that does nothing more than inflame the

climate, create confrontation and make economic stability, development

and growth more difficult to achieve. The member for Kootenay (Mr.

Segarty) can say that's nonsense and the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) can say it's not true. That's fair. We'll

have a debate about that during the course of the discussion on Bill

28. But I find it curious, Mr. Speaker, that when the government chose

not to intervene in a political way prior to the construction of the

stadium at B.C. Place, chose not to inflame the community, chose not to

inflame workers, the workers and the people of this province

[ Page 4662 ]

were able to produce a magnificent building on budget and on time.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

For whatever reasons — and I believe they are political reasons

engendered by the Huey Long approach to politics, which means you

pander to public opinion; you read the opinion polls and see what

political advantage you can make of them — I believe that the

government has decided that in these difficult economic times, this is

a good time politically to bash labour. If that's the conclusion

they've reached — and it's obvious that they have reached that

conclusion — I understand why. They feel the politics of that are

useful for them. No consideration, Mr. Speaker, of whether or not those

activities will make economic development in this province more

difficult; no consideration as to whether projects that might well have

been completed without fuss or bother, on time and in budget, are now

endangered because of the overt and deliberate attempts on the part of

the government to foster hatred and confrontation.

Why else would the government not allow its chosen managers — the

people it has authorized to act on its behalf at Expo 86, for example —

to reach an agreement with their workers without government

interference? Why is it that this government, which cries at every

opportunity that the government should get off the backs of the people,

the government get out of this, get out of that, should get out of the

other thing, is so determined to involve itself as fully as it possibly

can — more so than in any other democratic state in the western world —

in the affairs of trade unions and in the affairs of workers? Why is it

that they feel they have to direct their management in places like Expo

86 to not reach an agreement that was there and available? Why else but

for political reasons? What's wrong with building Expo 86 the way we

built the stadium? It worked; it's beautiful; it was on budget and on

time. So too could Expo 86 have been developed and built. That's not

the government's choice, Mr. Speaker.

[11:00]

The minister talked — and I'll come in a moment to more detailed

comment on his comments — about the fact that these amendments, these

legislative changes, have been as the result of consultation by

everyone involved. I've spent the last 40 hours since the bill was

introduced talking to people in the industrial relations community and

to others in the community who have some particular areas of expertise

in respect of Labour Code matters: some directly in the labour

movement, some not, some lawyers, some others. Mr. Speaker, what I'm

finding without exception in virtually every case, in virtually every

detail in these amendments is bewilderment. The classic and common

response I'm receiving is: "I don't know what that means." These are

people who would have been consulted if what the minister told us had

been true, for the most part. They say: "We have not had time enough

yet to understand fully what these words mean, what those words mean."

I won't dwell on the fact that the legislative drafting is pathetic, as

has been the case often recently with legislative drafting. I don't blame

the drafters; I blame the cabinet committee on legislation for that. It has

been absolutely pathetic, because it is so often unclear as to its meaning.

But that's a side issue; that's an issue that needs to be dealt with

seriously at some other time.

More importantly, there are any number of important elements, half a

dozen really important elements, in this legislation, and I can't find

a consensus in the community about what they mean. And if I can't find

a consensus, tapping the resources that I have at my call, is it

possible that those people, including some who would have been involved

in the consultative process, weren't in fact consulted? The minister

appointed an advisory committee composed of five people, two of whom

were selected by the labour movement as a result of the Kelowna accord.

We're not told what they r ecommended to the minister; we're not

told what the discussions were. I'm not sure how much I can say about

what went on in that particular series of discussions before I run the

risk of breaking confidences. What kind of process of consultation is

it that has a consultative advisory committee about which we can't talk

in detail because we might be breaking confidences?

Mr. Speaker, what's wrong with taking the approach that the Manitoba

government has taken, for example, by introducing a White Paper on some

fundamental differences and changes they want to look at? But no, we've

been hit with a series of amendments, some anticipated — I refer there

to the definition of strike, an anticipated amendment to the Labour

Code, one that is relatively easy to deal with, even though, Mr.

Speaker, I must say that there has been some querying there about that

language and what it means. But I feel fairly confident in my own mind

that I can interpret that, and it means it's a fairly straightforward

amendment, and we'll get to that in committee when we deal with the

definition section.

But when you go through the rest of the sections, you deal

especially with three areas: the certification and decertification

processes; the issues relating to the economic projects, and the

cumbersome and artificial procedures developed there accomplish God

knows what, because it doesn't accomplish what the Premier stated would

be accomplished; and, thirdly, the area of secondary picketing. I have

described a number of possible scenarios to friends of mine who have

some day-to-day acquaintance with the Labour Code, and I've said to

them: "How will this new legislation affect this particular aspect of

secondary picketing? Would a certain activity be permitted?" The answer

is: "We don't know. We've looked at it and studied it; we don't know."

If there is that kind of response on these major changes, how can

the minister say there has been consultation? If in fact the response

to the legislation by half the people who are affected by it, the

workers, has been universally condemnatory, how can the minister say

he's had consultation? I heard the Employers' Council president say

that consultation doesn't mean you get what you want. Everybody knows

that. No one demands. But consultation at least means you know what

you're going to get, because you've been through a consultative process

and you've lost your argument.

How many discussions did the minister have with the officials of the

building trades about the particular wording of the economic

development project section? My guess is none. How many discussions did

the minister have with the small unions, which are involved on a daily

basis in organizing, about the ramifications of the new certification

procedures? My guess is none — I say "guess"; it's an informed guess.

The fact is, there was no consultation. If the minister means that he

received 200 or 300 letters and read them and then did something with

them, and that's consultation, then he and I have different

definitions

of the word "consultation."

[ Page

4663 ]

In fact, to get back to my opening comment, this bill was brought in

without consultation. It was brought in, in my view, without listening

to the advisory committee that was appointed, and brought in

deliberately to continue the Premier's agenda of fomenting industrial

unrest in this province so that further legislation can be brought in

to yet further trample on the trade union movement in this province.

I'll go back to my opening comments again. What we want on this side

of the House, what the public wants and what most people want — if not

the right-to-work employers who are influencing the government in its

policy deliberations — is economic cooperation. We want projects like

Expo to be finished on time and properly. We want other economic

projects to be started and to be developed. For that to happen, the

workers who build those projects — because they wouldn't happen without

them — need to feel that they are involved, that they have been

consulted, that they are part of the process of building this province,

and not to feel that they've been dragooned and forced into it, or to

feel like workers do in South Africa or the Soviet Union, where they

have no rights. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we have yet

reached that stage here in British Columbia, but from every indication

I can perceive from what the government says, they would like us to be

in that situation.

The minister says in his opening comments that we have to be

competitive. They'd love to be able to force people to work 50 hours a

week at $5 an hour, because then we might be competitive. We'd still be

five times over the hourly rate, but maybe because of our extra skills

and our extra use of machinery we might be competitive. The

implication, if not the statement, is clear. Government would prefer,

if it could, to regulate in its entirety what labour receives as

compensation, when they work, how they work, where they work and who

they work with, despite the rhetoric to the contrary.

I'm just going to quickly go through some of the things the minister

said: "The consultative process took a long time"; "broad cross-section

of advice" — Ian Stewart and Mr. Kerkhoff, and I wonder who else.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Fraser Institute.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, the Fraser Institute. If in fact there

was a broad cross-section of advice, how is it that the participants on

both sides of the table were surprised? And why do they still not know

how to interpret this legislation?

The minister then said: "Economic recovery is the paramount issue in

this province." We agree. Why, then, has the government embarked on a

series of strategies culminating — at this point, at least — in these

amendments that have deliberately stopped British Columbia from joining

the beginning of that economic recovery that can be seen in the rest of

the continent, outside of Alberta and British Columbia — interestingly,

Alberta and British Columbia, where we have the most repressive and

anti-labour governments? If the government were sincere in wanting

economic recovery, it would offer olive branches. It would consult. It

would not trash and thrash those people who it needs to assist in the

economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, the minister says we need to be competitive with the rest of the

world because we're a trading province. We agree. But how can you be competitive

when workers don't work at full capacity because they're browned off

and feel they're being forced into doing things they don't want to do?

To digress for a moment, how do you get full productivity in a pulp mill when

people know they're going to have an agreement imposed upon them? How are

we going to be competitive in the world — as the minister wants, and as we want

— if people feel they're being hammered at every turn in labour matters

in general as dealt with by this piece of legislation? You can use the 2-by-4;

you can drive that horse to the trough, and you can probably even force that

horse's mouth down to the water, but you can't force that horse to swallow

that drink of water. I know the government thinks you can, but in labour relations

that doesn't work. I continue to be astounded that the government thinks

that by arbitrariness, force, compulsion, government flat and cabinet edict

somehow workers will be more productive and therefore more competitive. It flies

in the face of all of the learning that should have been going on about labour

relations in North America.

[11:15]

The minister went on at some length in a rhetorical series of

comments about the workers' rights, the rights of the individual as

opposed to rights as part of a collective, and implying that an

individual who has failed to persuade the majority of his colleagues on

a course of action within a trade union somehow has more rights than

the majority. Members on this side of the House have long been in

favour of minority rights and have long protected those rights. But the

government itself would not pretend to govern on the basis of those

people in a minority who disagreed with them. They would say: "No, we

represent the majority of people. We were elected by the majority." So

too with trade unions. For the most part — and I'm prepared to say for

98 or 99 percent in this province if not in parts of the United States

— membership democracy obtains in local unions almost without

exception. The members who grumble to Social Credit about the treatment

that they might receive or the policies that might be developed by

local unions, are those same people who don't go to the meetings. When

you don't go to the meeting, it's the same as when you don't vote:

you've a hard time arguing about the policies that have been determined

by those who do participate. Democracy means that while the minority

rights are protected and not trampled upon, the majority has the right

to govern. We accept that principle in the province; we accept that

principle in this Legislature. Why should not that principle apply in

local unions?

The minister made a rhetorical speech that went far further than the

legislation itself — with one exception, if I'm reading the bill

correctly, which we'll deal with in committee in some stage. What he

did in his opening comments, loudly cheered by a full assembly, no

doubt asked, if not ordered, to be in attendance....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Some of us have eyes to see with and ears to hear with.

The minister talked at some length about the rights of the

individual worker. Those rights are protected in trade union

constitutions, without exception that I know of in this province; but

to be safe, I will say that no doubt it's not 100 percent. No doubt the

minister can find a union with an undemocratic constitution. But I

suspect that in finding one he will prove the case I'm making.

"Pressured onto the streets, " he said. He said workers were pressured

onto the streets. When he said it, I thought,

[ Page 4664 ]

well, I'm going to go after him for that, because

that's such apparent nonsense. Because it's such apparent nonsense it

doesn't even deserve a response.

"Workers denied the right to go to work by their unions." Workers

are being denied the right to go to work by this government and its economic

policies. Fully 17 or 18 percent of the workers in this province are being denied

the right to go to work because this government wants there to be unemployment

in this province so they can drive wages down and crush the trade union movement.

It's a deliberate policy of unemployment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Shame on you!

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not afraid to say those....

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder why the members are so sensitive. Why

else would the Premier go to Ottawa several years ago and argue for

higher interest rates? Why else would they embark on programs and

policies that, like their Tory government counterparts in the rest of

this province...?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for North Island has the floor. Kindly extend the courtesy due to him.

MR. GABELMANN: Why is it that only Manitoba has an improving

employment record and ours continues to suffer? It's because of the

economic policies of the government. Why else would the government want

high unemployment, except to accomplish the goals laid out by the

Minister of Labour when he said we have to become competitive? How do

you drive down wages in an economy? You create high unemployment,

that's how. For members on the other side to say "Be more intelligent"

or "That's nonsense" or "Don't be stupid...." They don't understand the

economic plan as enunciated by the Fraser Institute. That's what they

want. I'm prepared to grant that there are members on that side of the

House who don't understand the full agenda of the Fraser Institute.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is this the bill, or what are we debating?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the minister made a 15-minute

speech, and he didn't talk about the bill. I heard not one explanation

of any feature of the bill. He gave us an economic theory speech, no

doubt prepared by the influence at least of Walter Block and the Fraser

Institute.

I am a mouthpiece for the New Democratic Party, which, unlike the government

in power, believes that what we need in our society is cooperation, not confrontation.

I want to argue for the idea that you achieve cooperation through processes

of consultation, involvement and conciliation, not by arbitrary compulsive features

in labour relations. Why is it that in the last ten years labour relations,

while not perfect — the minister and I would agree that they could never be

perfect — have been improving? Why have we never gone back to the dark days

of the late sixties and the first two years of the seventies? Because there

has, for the most part, been a realization that the Labour Code — despite the

need to make changes here and there; no one quarrels with that — has been fair.

Not only has it been fair; it has been perceived to be fair. There are some

people who would deny others their democratic rights and who would argue that

the Labour Code isn't fair. But talk to the people who are involved with

the Labour Code daily, whether it's management, labour or that huge battery

of labour lawyers who are involved in processes relating to the Code. Ask them

whether or not there isn't a perception that the Code is fair.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What about the working people? You didn't mention them.

MR. GABELMANN: I talked about them: the working people as represented through their organizations in dealing with the Labour Code.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, once again, please grant the member for North Island the right to speak, as you shall all have yourselves.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I already made the point about

people wanting to work. God knows there are people who want to work

being denied that opportunity by the government because of its economic

policies. We've had that discussion.

One of the things the Minister of Labour does frequently and he

knows that I have some considerable sympathy for this point of view —

is talk about the need to reduce the legal processes and the huge

reliance on lawyers at every step in labour relations. One of the

ironies of this piece of legislation is that we are going to need more

labour lawyers than ever before in this province. My advice to any law

student at this stage would be to get into labour law because there is

going to be a huge field out there for them.

When you deal with the certification procedures alone, where maybe

30 out of 300 applications went to a vote in the last year.... I don't

know the exact numbers. Those are the numbers I've been given. I've not

checked them out to be sure that they're absolutely precise, but

they're in that range. When you deal with the fact that all 300 are now

going to have to go to a vote, that employers are now going to be able

to intervene and campaign, that employers are going to be able to hire

people specially to vote their way on voting day.... The minister looks

surprised. All he has to do is read his bill. When you look at those

aspects of this bill, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I wish the member would just shut up, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we sat for

some time very quietly and listened to what the Minister of Labour had

to say — his arguments in support of this bill. We now have our lead

speaker presenting arguments on the other side of the bill, and I would

ask the House and you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that he has the same

respect as was accorded to the Minister of Labour.

[ Page

4665 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Poor baby Colin.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll be delighted, Mr. Speaker, when the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) finally does go to London.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Unless, as the member said, he has been denied the opportunity that he thought he had because of his manners.

Back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that what that

section

and others are going to do is to make lawyers rich and involve yet more

lawyers in the process.

Any cursory understanding of how American labour law works, as

compared with Canadian labour law, because we've chosen two completely

different directions in respect of certifications and

decertifications.... Anyone who has even any cursory knowledge, as I

would hope the minister has, of those differences and that system

there, which we're now moving to in this bill, will know that on the

first hand you defeat the rights of a democratic majority to achieve

their goals, and on the second hand you make it so damned expensive for

small groups of people to be properly represented and to use the legal

processes that they can't use them. J.P. Stevens is the classic case of

that. The textile workers for years and years attempted to organize an

employer who had decided he didn't want unions, unlike the majority of

big employers, who recognize that there is some very real advantage to

them as employers in having the ability to deal collectively with their

employees as opposed to dealing with each of them individually. But

when you get a company like J.P. Stevens in the States, and no doubt

companies in British Columbia who have similar attitudes and values,

and given the opportunity to use the American approach, which we're now

moving to, you'll find that no matter how well organized, no matter the

size of the majority of the group attempting to receive certification,

that will be denied to them.

Mr. Speaker, it may be that as a matter of philosophy the government

would like workers not to organize. That comes through in various ways.

It comes through in the minister's speech when he talks about

individuals: making it clear that when individuals band together as a

group for purposes of collective bargaining, that's not as good as when

they operate independently, individually. When you have that kind of

attitude expressed by the government, no doubt some sectors of the

business community — not all, by any means — will decide to take that

cue from the government and go that extra step, and take every

opportunity to thwart the democratic desires of the majority of their

employees where and when that happens.

[11:30]

I recognize that the minister has a meeting to go to, and I accept

that. I won't make any further comment about that. I just say that so

that everybody recognizes that I know that, and it's okay.

Mr. Speaker, I think my caucus would agree that the green light can be waived for designated speaker purposes.

Mr. Speaker, in respect of a question such as the direction of the government

vis-a-vis the Labour Code, the Americanization of our labour law, I intend to

deal in some detail with that during committee stage. It's not appropriate

now. But I must say that between now and the opportunity that the government

has to bring in amendments to the bill, I hope those members of that caucus

who perhaps haven't thought about this issue will take an opportunity to

go to the library and borrow a book about labour relations called Reconcilable

Differences , written by Paul Weiler; a neutral — if ever there was a neutral

in this business — with some considerable experience, a man who got a labour

relations board underway which commanded the respect of everyone in the business.

It's a well-written and intelligent book, one with which I have some differences;

no doubt members on that side would have differences from a different perspective.

But it's an argument — a plea, in fact — for us in this country not to take

the American route, particularly in respect of the certification process. We

will have interminable wrangling; we will have immense legal bills; and ultimately,

in a majority of those cases we will have an unfair decision because of employer

interference — deliberately and often not deliberately.

I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that for some members of this House,

knowledge of that issue is unfortunately a bit scanty. What happens is

that you have a small plant — say 25 employees. At the present time, if

15 or so of those employees decide to join a union and so indicate by

signing a card and paying the initiation fee, Labour Relations Board

has the opportunity to automatically certify the union at that

particular plant or operation. Under the revisions in this bill, when

those same 15 people sign the cards.... And I would argue that they

cannot sign those cards without paying the full initiation fee of the

union and the full first month's dues, whatever they are. The minister

shook his head earlier when I made a quick reference to that point.

That's how I read the legislation, and that's how others read it.

Nevertheless, they still sign up and application is then made to the

Labour Relations Board for certification by the union on behalf of the

employees. The Labour Board, which is not required, as it is in Nova

Scotia, to order a vote within five days — no limit in effect — then

considers the application. Some days or weeks or possibly months later,

depending on the workload — which remember is going to be considerably

increased because of the need to conduct certification votes on every

occasion, and no doubt because of the argument that will entail as to

procedures — the Labour Relations Board, much busier and needing a much

larger staff than it did before, will then order a vote when it gets to

that application and when it has some staff free to conduct that vote.

In the meantime, the union business agent, the organizing committee or

the person who signed up the workers isn't there every day reassuring

those workers on the course of action they have taken and keeping them

informed as to their rights. But management is there every day. In the

case of a small outfit like this, it's probably the owner who's there —

if not every day, at least frequently. In casual conversation, quietly,

the owner or management says: "You know, this union stuff, it's just

going to make trouble. It would be so much better if we just kept it

the way it was. We might be threatened with loss of jobs if there's a

union here. More than that, if we have a union and I have to pay wages,

maybe they'll be too high and maybe I'll have to lay off, and maybe

I'll even have to close." Employers are....

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm telling the truth.

[ Page 4666 ]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It does. He says "maybe." Maybe that will be

the effect. That's the truth, because he doesn't know. Who's going to

prove whether he's telling the truth anyway, in respect to his

business, when he says: "Maybe I'll have to lay some people off"?

That kind of subtle pressure goes on every day, and in this particular example....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Shuswap (Mr. Michael) says:

"What does the organizer tell the people when he signs them up?" I

wonder what he told the workers when he signed them up.

MR. MICHAEL: The truth.

MR. GABELMANN: If that member told the truth when he was on organizing drives, he can be assured that so too do other union organizers.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I suspect from that interjection that perhaps that member didn't always....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: He discovered he could make a hell of a lot more money being on the other side, and so he did.

Back to this small operation of 25 employees, 15 of whom have signed

cards. No certification vote is ordered for some time to come. The

employer continues in his campaign to subtly, casually — not overtly;

no literature, just casual conversation over a cup of coffee or after

work over a beer — talk to the employees and cast some doubt in their

mind about their decision. Under American labour law in the federal

statutes, an employer can and does do that. In this case all that has

to happen is that three of those 15 people say: "Well, maybe the boss

is right; maybe the organizer is wrong. Maybe I'd better sign a

revocation slip." In the American situation the vote is taken and the

union loses as a result of employer interference. Do you know what's

even worse in the bill we're getting today? That can happen and much

more can happen, because between the date of the application being

filed — when those 15 out of 25 employees agree to join the union — and

the date some weeks or months later when the vote is ordered, the

employer can hire some new employees, and those new employees can vote.

So the employer says: "Aha, by intimidation and by working these people

over, I haven't been able to shake them. They're still committed to the

union, so I'm going to lose 15 or 10. How do I solve that? I'll go and

hire 10 more people who'll be working here on the date set for the

certification vote."

MR. MICHAEL: He can do that now.

MR. GABELMANN: We can't do that now. Mr. Speaker, for a guy who

pretends to be knowledgeable in this field, he should know better than that.

I'm talking about the rights of the employer under....

MR. REID: You're too cynical.

MR. GABELMANN: Maybe we are. Maybe there isn't an employer in

this province who would do what I'm suggesting. Maybe there isn't.

Let's assume there isn't. They're still given the right under the law.

Why? If they're not going to do it, why would they be given the right

under the law to do it?

Let me just continue with this example. The 25 employees are joined

by 10 new employees on voting day. Those ten new employees who are

hired for a day, for a week — for any period of time, as long as they

are working there on the date of the certification vote — are able to

vote. And of course the employer is going to make sure, when he hires

his new employees, that they're going to vote the right way. So the

certification vote is taken, with 35 people in the bargaining unit now,

not 25, and the vote is 20 to 15 against the union.

Mr. Speaker, this particular provision isn't a big deal at a pulp

mill with a thousand people that may have just been built and is now

ready for certification, because an employer would have some difficulty

in manipulating when you have such a large unit. But most of the

organizing in this province now takes place in the small service sector

of our economy. The organizing is being done by the small unions. The

pulp mills are organized; the sawmills are organized; the big factories

are organized. It's all done. What hasn't been organized in provincial

jursidiction, as in federal, are the small places: under federal

jurisdiction, the banks; under provincial jurisdiction, the small

manufacturing plants and offices. In those cases, a workforce of 25 is

not uncommon. What does the employer now have the opportunity to do?

Not only to follow the American model of employer interference — not

coercion or intimidation. Even though the employers have now been

exempted from the old

section 5 of the Code, which said that coercion

and intimidation shall not take place, the government now wants

intimidation and coercion to be illegal only in the case of trade

unions. Even so, if an employer did use coercion or intimidation, a

fair Labour Relations Board would no doubt rule that an unfair labour

practice and, theoretically, at least, would still have the right under

section 8 of the Code to impose a certification, even though the

imposition of a certification is now denied in an automatic way by

these changes.

But we're not talking about intimidation and coercion; we're just

talking about casual conversation about the worries that the owner or

the manager has about the viability of the particular operation. Will

that be declared an unfair labour practice? Not under this bill.

Therefore there will be no right of the board automatically to certify

as a result of employer interference — by itself a wrong direction.

Every expert in this country writing on this issue, back since 1948,

when Justice Rand was involved so intimately in labour matters, going

on through any number of other people from John Crispo to Paul Weiler

to many, many more, all have pleaded with Canadian lawmakers not to

follow that American example.

[11:45]

But you know, this government has decided to do that — to give full

rein to the British Columbia equivalent of the J.P. Stevenses. But more

than that, it has allowed for the voting unit to be carefully

constructed and designed on the day of voting by the employer.

If the government does not desire that approach in either of those

two respects, it should, before we get to committee stage, clarify that

legislation by full amendment. If that's in

[ Page

4667 ]

fact what they want to do, why didn't the minister

tell us that when he spoke? The minister made no reference whatsoever

to the procedures involved in certification; no reference whatsoever to

the intricacies of the secondary picketing section; no reference at all

in specifics to the question of the economic development projects. It's

a curious section, if I've ever seen one. The minister gave no

justification for the fact that the government has decided that cement

trucks on a construction job are no longer part of the construction

job. Why not? The minister didn't give us any explanation whatsoever

during the course of the introduction; not a word about any of the

details.

I wouldn't be asking for details that are more appropriate in

committee stage; I just want to know what the government means by this

legislation. I understand, I think, the definition of construction.

Other than for the automatic certification provision re building trades

union, I'm not quite sure why it's there. I understand, I think, what

the government intends by the

section relating to construction work,

but I don't understand why it's worded the way it is. What's the

motivation in saying that integral parts of a construction project are

no longer part of that construction project? Is that a backhanded way

of dealing with the affiliation clause? The minister didn't tell us.

And on and on throughout the bill — complicated, difficult sections.

There is no explanation at all from the minister as to what was

intended, what the implications will be, how it will work.

"Fair and reasonable conditions of membership." What does subsection

(4) mean? Before we get to it in committee, I think the minister should at least

tell us whether that

section means that in an organizing drive a union, in attempting

to sign people up so they can later apply for certification, in fact has to

charge, on the application form, the full first month's membership dues,

and the next month's and the next month's, until the certification vote

is taken, as well as the full initiation fee. Is that what that

section means?

Three of the four lawyers that I talked to think so. The minister didn't

bother to have the decency to tell this House what the case is.

You go on and on. In

section 5, why didn't the minister explain to us the

government's motivation in saying that multiple-employer bargaining units,

multiple-employer certifications, require the consent of every employer before

there can be multiple certification? Is that because in the pulp industry MacBlo

wants out and all the other pulp companies want to stay in? Is that what that's

for? If so, why? Is it the government's policy that in forced negotiations,

to pick one example, independence should be given every one of the membership

of COFI or FIR — in terms of the bargaining units and of the pulp and paper

labour relations bureau and FIR in the woods industry — in the forests and sawmills?

Those two bargaining agents for their member companies.... Is it the intent

of this

section to allow one of those companies — and I think of MacMillan Bloedel,

because I've heard some of their senior people saying that they would like

to be able to bargain independently...? Is it the intention of the government,

therefore, to say to the majority of the members of those particular organizations:

"Your rights are no longer protected, because one of the membership in

your group has decided that they do not want to participate in multiple-employer

collective bargaining"?

Has the government considered whether that's a good thing or a bad

thing? I'm not making a judgment. Maybe it's a good thing; maybe it's a

bad thing. But it's a major change of policy direction on the part of

the government. We didn't hear a word or a murmur or a hint from the

minister as to that particular

section —

section 5 amending

section 40

of the Code. Yet if I read this correctly — in the few hours I've had

to study the bill as compared to the year, at least, that the

minister's had — this is a fundamental change of policy direction in

British Columbia labour-management relations. For a long time there has

been a desire on the part of industry and unions and government — all

three — to achieve multiple-employer bargaining. That process was, with

nails torn out almost, achieved in the construction industry. It was

achieved with less difficulty in the forest industry. But without a

declaratory statement of any kind as to government intention, they

appear to wipe that out with this section, unless every single employer

in that particular industry chooses to participate in multiple-employer

bargaining. That's like saying — this is a slight exaggeration — that

for a government to do something, it has to have the support of every

single person affected by that action. That's absurd. Society can't

function that way.

But more importantly, I guess, if we are going to embark on a major

new direction in terms of labour-management bargaining in this

province.... Believe me, this is a major change. This House and this

province deserve more than I think they got from the minister. All that

I know of that the minister has ever said on this subject was in a TV

clip that I saw a few weeks ago in respect of some discussions being

held in the forest industry about the right of MacMillan Bloedel to

bargain independently from Crown Forest Industries, Canadian Forest

Products, Tahsis Co. or any of the rest. As I remember it, and I'm

obviously very much paraphrasing, in response to the TV interviewer's

question, the minister said: "I think negotiations should be as close

as possible between the employer and the employee." In other words, it

shouldn't be third-handed by having another body interposed into the

process, which you have in effect with FIR and the Pulp and Paper

Bureau.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not here making a comment about yes or no to that

question. All I'm saying is that that is a major policy direction,

which was embarked upon ten years ago in terms of attempting to achieve

employer councils. There was considerable discussion and lots of

opposition. But what we have snuck into the Code here, and not referred

to at all by the minister in his opening comments, is what I perceive

to be a fundamental change. Don't the participants in this business and

the public in this province have a right to have some explanation of

why? It will mean major changes. I'll leave that and deal with it in

more detail during committee stage on

section 5.

Mr. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada