1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

515 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Insurance (Captive Company) Act (Bill 21). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 515

Oral Questions

Lunch program in schools. Mr. Cashore –– 515

Mr. Rose

Medication cards for seniors. Ms. A. Hagen –– 516

Pharmacy dispensing fees. Ms. A. Hagen –– 517

Protest on Legislature lawn. Mr. Sihota –– 517

Ministry of Highways subcontractors. Hon. Mr. Michael replies to question –– 517

Tabling Documents –– 518

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

On the amendment

Mr. Lovick –– 518

Mr. Vant –– 527

Ms. A. Hagen –– 530

Mr. Chalmers –– 532

Mr. Jones –– 534

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 537

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

As one who was born in Holland, and like many other Canadians who

became citizens by choice, I still of course take great pride in my

heritage and roots. Therefore it gives me extreme pleasure today to

introduce to the House His Excellency Jan Breman, Ambassador of the

Netherlands, and Mrs. Breman, and also Mr. Theo van den Muijsenberg,

consul-general of the Netherlands from Vancouver. I would ask the House

to welcome them.

Also visiting in the House today, from the

constituency of Surrey-Newton, are a long-time friend and good

supporter, Mrs. Darlene Thornhill, and her grandson, Michael Spiglic,

who is here to see the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly and also

to have a short visit after.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Speaker,

on the floor of the House today we have a special visitor, my

predecessor, a former dean of this Legislature, Alex Macdonald. I'd

like the House to wish him a warm welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS :

In the gallery today we have Ian Bailey, Richard McRae, Don McKay and

Bob Wiens, three fantastic North Vancouver–Seymour constituents. Would

the House please make them welcome.

MR. KEMPF :

Somewhere in the galleries this afternoon is a long-time friend of

mine, another old logger from Omineca, Mr. Archie Strimbold.

Accompanying Archie this afternoon is Mr. Cyril Shelford. I'd ask the

House to make them both welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

On behalf of the government benches, may I associate myself with the

comments from the second member for Vancouver East in welcoming our

beloved and dear friend Alex Macdonald.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in welcoming to the Legislature Alderman

Mike Farnworth of Port Coquitlam, a very diligent and enlightened

alderman who works very hard for his citizens and for me.

MR. PELTON :

On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome

Mr. Richard Strachan of West Vancouver and his son Alex Strachan, who

is a political science student at Simon Fraser University.

MS. EDWARDS :

I would like to welcome two members from Kootenay riding, from the

Femie District Teachers' Association: the president, Pat Robertson, and

a member of the executive, Cliff Paluck, who is also the president of

the Elk Valley Health and Safety Protection Association. I hope the

House will join me in making them welcome.

MR. CASHORE : In the precincts today and in the Speaker's gallery

are 18 members of the outreach school, which is an alternative school for native

Indian young people, operated by the Vancouver School Board. Some of these young

people were here a few weeks ago, but they have returned today. This morning

they presented me with a wall hanging made in the tradition of a button blanket,

indicating that this ancient craft is alive and well among these young people.

I very deeply appreciate this presentation, and ask all of you to join me in

making them feel welcome here in our vicinity today.

[2:15]

MR. SIHOTA :

I'd like to ask the members of the Legislature to join me in welcoming

in the gallery today my constituency assistant, a resident of my

riding, Sheila McFarlane.

MR. REE : Today I'd like to

ask the House to welcome to Victoria and to this chamber a good friend

of mine, a good supporter from North Vancouver-Capilano, and one of the

renowned barristers and solicitors of the city of Vancouver. Would the

House please welcome Robert MacKay of the firm MacKay and Dwor.

MR. GABELMANN : I'd like the House to welcome a good friend of mine, Mr. Butch Leslie.

MR. LONG :

I would like the House to welcome two distinguished people from my

riding: Mayor Diane Strom of Gibsons and Mayor Bud Koch from Sechelt.

Introduction of Bills

INSURANCE (CAPTIVE COMPANY) ACT

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

a bill intituled Insurance (Captive Company) Act.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

This bill, the first of its kind in Canada, will have the effect of

allowing the incorporation of private captive insurance companies,

which will, we believe, add to the financial community's infrastructure

in the province. It is a facility; captive insurance companies are

organizations which have traditionally been licensed offshore in

tax-free havens elsewhere in the world. By virtue of recent national

government taxation changes, the tax incentive through location in

offshore shelters is no longer as paramount as it used to be. As a

consequence, it is possible for British Columbia to introduce this act

to allow the incorporation of these facilities, without at the same

time imposing any burden on the taxpayer in a general sense.

I'm very pleased to offer this bill for the House's consideration.

Bill

21 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

MR. CASHORE :

My question is for the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Richmond). On Monday the minister said, during debate on his

estimates, that the problem of hungry children is restricted to schools

in east Vancouver and does not appear to be surfacing

[ Page 516 ]

elsewhere. Will the minister table the data on which he bases that assertion?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I base that statement on the fact that the only cases that have come to

the attention of my ministry are from that area of the province. To

date we haven't had, to my knowledge, any complaints of that problem

surfacing elsewhere. I hasten to add that we have been on top of the

problem for several days now, and the ministry is monitoring it and

reporting to me on a daily basis.

MR. CASHORE : Thank

you for that answer. This supplementary is to the Premier. We have been

doing some checking, and our checking indicates that the problem is

endemic provincewide. Principals in Vancouver Centre,

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley and Esquimalt–Port Renfrew and in Port Moody

assure us that hundreds of children are hungry in our schools. Eighty

thousand children in B.C. are part of families receiving social

assistance. Will the Premier promise to include in his investigation of

this matter a comprehensive review of how many B.C. children are in

fact going without breakfasts and lunches on a provincewide basis?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member would like to provide this information

to me in writing, and I will have it then for the record. Also, if

there are complaints from principals at various schools, certainly we

would appreciate hearing from them. I think perhaps it is incumbent on

them to make this information known to the nearest office of our

Ministry of Social Services, because obviously we have concerned,

caring and able social workers who would very quickly attend to these

matters. If in fact we see in an area that there is an excessive amount

of such, or that it's chronically so, then obviously that office would

report it to the ministry as well, and the ministry would similarly

attend to the matter.

MR. CASHORE : Supplementary.

I'm sure that we also have caring and able principals who are

fulfilling their responsibilities thoroughly throughout the province.

The Premier told the media yesterday that this is not a problem of

inadequate welfare rates, but that there may be an alcoholic problem

involved. Why has the Premier chosen to impugn in this way the

reputation of the thousands and thousands of loving parents who are

struggling hard to feed their children?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Well, I think how governments provide for people in need is definitely

not only a reflection on government; it's also a reflection on the

people. I think that to suggest that all of this is somehow the fault

of inadequate welfare, or that somehow we all share a part of t this,

is not totally accurate. There are other reasons, as the principal I

spoke to pointed out, and as I think most knowledgeable people involved

with such matters would similarly confirm. There are social problems.

Oftentimes it's other than just a lack of money, and obviously this is

where our very good offices and social workers can fulfill an important

function by not waiting for some proposals such as we've seen here,

which would then in turn be considered by government and may lead to

some programs.

I think it's incumbent on all of us — the members, the principals, the

social workers — to immediately follow through on such situations and attend

to those individual circumstances. To simply give a blanket reason of inadequate

welfare being the cause of it all is not accurate. I don't think it's

fair to suggest that. It may be that such situations exist for a variety of

reasons, not only in British Columbia but elsewhere in Canada, in the U.S.A.

and in other countries throughout the world. We often see these sorts of problems,

and they are there for a variety of reasons. I am sure....

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

We can program all things to death. But certainly this needs to be

looked at, and it's being looked at very carefully by the ministry. I

am pleased that we're getting such good cooperation from principals,

from social workers and from the members across the way as well as the

members on this side.

MR. ROSE : The Premier has

suggested that because the problem is widespread there is perhaps no

solution to it, and that maybe we might....

AN HON. MEMBER : He didn't.

MR. ROSE :

Well, that's what he implied to me. I wonder if the minister is aware

of such things as the Head Start program in the United States, a

positive response to the problem of poverty. Has he ever considered

that one of the ways you can solve some of the problems of poverty is

to throw some money at it? Has he considered a food stamp program or a

Head Start program or a school nutrition program?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I did not confirm in any way that there is an epidemic, that we have a

massive problem across the province. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't

make such a statement unless I was absolutely sure of it. I wouldn't

even suggest there was that sort of problem unless I was absolutely

sure. To create that impression for those who are visiting, and for

those who follow the debates in the legislative chambers.... I think it

is irresponsible to create the impression that in this wonderful

province we have this massive problem without knowing whether in fact

it exists. To suggest, as is being suggested across the floor now, that

there are hundreds and hundreds of cases, and not being able to

document such or the reason and without having the information from our

Ministry of Social Services or the offices throughout the province, I

think, is irresponsible.

I'm aware of other programs. I'm

aware that programs do exist in different places, some perhaps more

effective than others. Definitely the whole of it is being looked at by

the ministry and if they perceive there to be a serious problem hat

can't be addressed from the local offices, then the minister will

report back to government.

MEDICATION CARDS FOR SENIORS

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, my question is about poverty and seniors. What

instructions has the Premier given to his Minister of Social Services

and Housing and the Minister of Health regarding "safe" cards —

cards to ensure that no senior citizens go without the medication that

they require for their essential health care?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, we in this great province of British Columbia are very fortunate to have

[ Page

517 ]

one of the best health care programs anywhere in the world. Not only do we

have one of the best health care programs anywhere in the world, but our people

are also very fortunate to have perhaps one of the best pharmacare programs

in existence anywhere in North America and possibly a model for places throughout

the world.

All

programs, regardless of how well they operate or of how proud we are or

what services they provide to our people, obviously need to be reviewed

from time to time. The recent review that took place with respect to

the Pharmacare program has no doubt made the program more responsible

and accountable to all people in British Columbia and at the same time

has provided the necessary protection to those who are on very limited

incomes in their senior years. We've provided the best of both. We've

provided a greater degree of accountability and the program has become

more responsible in turn. Therefore it's a much safer and more secure

program, At the same time, we've provided this protection for people at

the lowest income in this senior group. I think we should look at this

very positively and all take great pride in the wonderful programs we

provide to British Columbians.

PHARMACY DISPENSING FEES

MS. A. HAGEN :

To the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Yesterday a diabetic

senior, a person not on GAIN but with a limited income, was unable to

pay the new Pharmacare fee at a New Westminster pharmacy. Social

Services officials were contacted and were unable to help. Has the

minister decided to empower his officials in his ministry offices

throughout the province with the ability to assist seniors in these

sorts of emergencies when they require medication essential for their

life and well-being?

[2:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, we give a great deal of autonomy to the people in the

local offices in this ministry; in fact, we pride ourselves on having a

very decentralized ministry. If the member would give me the name of

the person involved, I will give her my pledge to look into it, and to

verify that the information is correct. This ministry never turns away

anybody who is truly in need. So I would appreciate it if the member

would give me the name and the office that the person went to. I will

personally verify the situation and give her a report back.

PROTEST ON LEGISLATURE LAWN

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The measure of a free and

democratic society is, of course, the extent to which we allow people

to protest. Will the Premier today instruct the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Veitch) to withdraw his instructions to remove the person who

is fasting in front of the Legislature in protest of the government's

uranium policies?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I've watched the tents on the

lawns of the parliament buildings for, I think, the last ten days to two weeks.

I've been out there three times. I've spoken to the people, I've

sat on the grass in front of their tent, I've listened to them, and I know

that their presentations Certainly they're not only entitled to them, but

also I respect them for that. They've got the message out. There comes a

time, however — and I think we've been extremely reasonable — when we need

to consider that British Columbians, not only in Victoria but regardless of

where they live, have a respect not only for law and that which is required

of people municipally as well as provincially but also for these beautiful buildings,

the lawns and the gardens, which are beautifully maintained at some considerable

cost to the taxpayer. They have pride in this; it represents the province to

them. To them it's the government, and it's certainly very important.

It's

a question of respect. It's a question of dignity. And I think British

Columbians everywhere would agree that those beautiful lawns were not

intended to be tent city or a campground. You know, we'll have a lot of

tourists and visitors here, and frankly, I think they should not be

faced with that. Nor should they be permitted to camp there, of course.

So I think that I have to say, on behalf of British Columbians, that

we've been very reasonable and patient. The message is out, and

certainly they have had that opportunity, but now the time has come

that we tell British Columbians: it is your property, it is a place of

respect and a place of dignity, and we won't allow the lawns of the

Parliament Buildings to be turned into a tent city.

MR. SPEAKER : Question period is over. The opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, a couple of times today I think that the questions from

the opposition were brief and succinct, and the responses, frustrating

the rules, tended to be rather lengthy. I think that we could do with

more precise answers and fewer peregrinations on the part of our

Premier. When he is asked a specific question, and he launches into

some sort of foggy diatribe, it offends the rules of the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition to recognize that if they have a specific question of a

specific ministry, which they did in all cases today, they ask the

question of the minister. A question asked to the Premier will be bound

to bring some latitude.

MR. SPEAKER : I might suggest

to both sides, as I have in the past, that they read standing order 47A

(b), which calls for not only answers but questions to be brief,

precise, without argument and without opinion. I think if all members

read that standing order, we may not have the same problem tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS SUBCONTRACTORS

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a question which I took as

notice earlier this week. The question was from the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), and contained the following

sentence: "Article 49 of the minister's standard construction agreement

limits the value of subcontracting work to 35 percent."

would like to read into the record a paragraph from

section 49:

"Generally approval will not be given to subcontract more than 35

percent of the money value of the original contract, except when the

specialty items and/or truck haul may constitute more than 35 percent

of the money value of the contract." I would ask the member to take

note of

[ Page 518 ]

that paragraph and the words "except when the specialty items and/or truck haul."

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for the year 1985.

Hon. B.R. Smith tabled the annual report of the corrections branch.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on the amendment to second reading of

Bill 19. I believe the second member for Nanaimo adjourned debate.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER : The second member for Nanaimo has one hour and 29 minutes remaining.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK :

1 believe, Mr. Speaker, that I now have one hour and 28 minutes. That

ought to be not quite enough time to delineate the problems that are

demonstrated clearly in the bill before us, and to try to convince even

the most intransigent members sitting opposite that they ought to

perhaps reconsider their course of action.

I want to start

my remarks by picking up on something that was alluded to by the

Premier in response to a question a few minutes ago, namely a reference

to what –– I believe I'm quoting –– was called "tent city." I thought it

might be appropriate now for me to give a little sense of history of

tent cities in British Columbia, especially because it is so completely

and totally relevant to the motion we are now debating. We are, after

all, asking the government to hoist this motion, to put it on the back

burner for six months, because we suggest this motion has the effect of

waving a red flag in front of the labour movement in this province.

The

point I want to make, and it's a rather elaborate argument, is that we

have got to guard against government being perceived as taking sides in

the debate. Sadly, it is the case that the government is perceived as

doing precisely that.

1 want to give a rather detailed

history lecture –– and I use my words "history lecture" advisedly to the

members opposite –– so they become clearly aware of why it is the labour

movement in this province looks upon government, especially that

government, with suspicion.

The example of a tent city in the summer of 1938 is a not-very-well-known phenomenon.

It was called, believe it or not, the On to Victoria Trek. Most Canadians know

all about the On to Ottawa Trek of 1935. They don't know, however, that

we had our own variant and version of that in this province. It began in the

city of Vancouver by the single unemployed, the transient unemployed who had,

frankly, been kicked around from one end of this country to the other, and who

were always given the same message by government: "We can perhaps do something

for families, but we can't do anything for single unemployables." Most

of these people called themselves "trade unionists." The government's

response, of course, was to suggest that they should spend their time in relief

camps, that they should become the 20-cents-a-day people. A number of those

people did that for a number of years. Finally, however, the frustration and

the hostility built up to such a point that there was the On to Ottawa Trek,

which, as we know, ended in Regina with the riots in the city of Regina, with

the RCMP on horseback clubbing people. We know that's what happened there,

but the movement didn't die in 1935. It carried on in the province of B.C.

What

happened was that a group of people occupied some public buildings in

the city of Vancouver: a hotel, a post office and the art gallery.

Eventually they were forcibly evicted from those buildings and, once

again, blood spilled in the streets. In our civilized, free, democratic

society we had behaviour on the part of the authorities that, quite

simply, by all objective measurements, was brutal. It also was

unprovoked. The record bears that out as well.

What

happened thereupon is that those unemployed workers took to the

streets, began to get organized and eventually found some flop-house

hotels in the city of Vancouver. There they organized a campaign....

MR. SPEAKER : The Attorney-General on a point of order

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I'm certainly enjoying the history lesson. I wonder when the member is

going to touch upon the founding of the Grange movement, which seems to

me to be equally relevant to the bill that he is speaking on. I just

don't find quite the relevance to the hoist motion. It's a very

interesting speech, though –– very interesting.

MR. LOVICK :

I appreciate the compliments from the Attorney-General. I think it's

marvelous to find out that he does indeed listen on occasion. Time

permitting, I am perfectly qualified and capable of dealing with the

Grange movement as well. Please, I don't want to appear to be

facetious, because I am indeed trying to build a case that I think is

an important case.

I want to suggest to you just this

point, namely that the history and the evidence in the province of

British Columbia has led workers to the inescapable conclusion that

government has taken sides –– is not the honest broker; is not the man

on the street that I referred to yesterday. I am sure, with the

patience and the forbearance of the members opposite, I will indeed be

able to demonstrate in very clear and concise terms as I proceed.

[2:45]

I was suggesting that what happened is that the workers in Vancouver

eventually decided that the only remedy they had was to take their

protest to Victoria. What they did then was to launch a very elaborate

campaign, part of which involved my constituency of Nanaimo, because

they sent the workers –– their army of the unemployed –– over on the ferry

and on the Princess boats at the time, over to Nanaimo and there, from

that point, I should say, they marched down the island to Victoria. It

was called the On to Victoria Trek.

The Premier at the

time refused to meet them. The only way they were able to get any

action was to take their protest to Beacon Hill Park, and there they

established a tent city. They established a tent city simply because

the province had effectively told them: "We have nowhere else for you."

The point, in case the Premier has missed it –– and I hope he's

listening on a squawk box somewhere –– is that that is precisely what

will happen when any group of individuals feels that its protest is not

being heard.

[ Page 519 ]

That's

what happened in 1938. That's what will happen on the legislative lawn,

because those individuals protesting the imposition of uranium mining

in B.C. are arguing that they will not otherwise be heard. That's the

lesson to be drawn: tent city alive and well in 1987, it would seem.

want to begin my substantive comments, the comments that I had planned

on this hoist motion, by doing what I think is absolutely necessary and

appropriate: namely, reminding the House of the nature of the amendment

on the one hand and, on the other hand, the purpose in moving the

amendment.

The nature of the amendment is not, I would

emphasize, to ask the government to give up its plans for a major

overhaul of the Code; rather, it is to ask the government to sit back

and let people examine that document very clearly for a period of six

months. It's a request for the government to be reasonable, to be

accommodating, to be considerate of other opinions. That is all it is.

Our purpose on this side of the House in moving this hoist motion is

not to be obstructionist, not to be obdurate, uncooperative or any such

thing. Rather, our purpose is to draw the attention of this government

to a crisis that is growing out there, outside this Legislature.

People

are concerned. People are meeting everywhere throughout this province

to say: "We will not tolerate this legislation. We will not put up with

what we perceive the government is attempting to do to us." We are

suggesting to this government that here is an opportunity for you to

demonstrate that you are in fact listening, that you are in fact paying

attention to the concerns of the people of this province. So I want to

emphasize again, then, that our purpose is very upfront; we make no

apologies for it. Indeed, a hoist motion is a venerable and ancient

practice in any House of Parliament in the western world.

It's

nothing for anybody to treat cynically or cavalierly; rather it's

something that ought to be treated with respect. Sadly, it would seem

that most members opposite have decided some time ago that they no

longer need to listen to any of the debate, and I fear that is a bad

practice. I certainly hope that this is aberrant rather than typical.

want, then, to start by reiterating the central points I was making

last time in the short period I had available to me, and I think it is

appropriate to restate the three or four main points I was making.

The

first one, as I've already touched on in my reference to the On To

Victoria Trek of 1938, is the fact that government is being perceived

as having taken sides. The crucial point to remember is that the

development of the western democracies, the western industrial

societies, has been one inexorably moving towards an accommodation,

where there were two recognized, legitimate players in the so-called

industrial relations system whose actions would be overseen and

mediated on by a third party called government. It necessarily follows,

if we are talking about a mediator, if we are talking about a third

party that does indeed oversee, that that party not be perceived to be

taking sides. If the party is perceived to be taking sides, then the

entire model self-destructs thereupon.

Our history, as I

have touched on, albeit briefly, demonstrates that workers throughout

this country have very good reason to be suspicious. From the

beginning, trade unions were regarded as criminal conspiracies. They

were simply considered to be incompatible with any kind of free

enterprise society. The stakes played were considered too high to allow

workers to organize, and the matters were held to be too important to

take chances on gentle remedies. The result, therefore, was a bloody

and violent history.

Let me give you just a couple of

examples of that. One of the most famous is from my own constituency,

Nanaimo, 1912 to 1914, when we had a problem in the coal-mines –– a

problem to do more than anything else with safety. A gas inspection

committee, legally entitled to exist by the provincial mine regulation

act, when it reported gas in the mines was suddenly dismissed. The

obvious conclusion the workers drew was that the two people on the

committee had been dismissed because they were union organizers.

point is that even if the government had right and reason to dismiss

those people, which as we know now it did not, the government did

not.... I should say that the Dunsmuir interest, the coal company

interest, had no difficulty whatsoever in getting the ear of

government. In fact, let me jump ahead. A very famous Canadian

historian by the name of Des Morton, who used to teach in the history

department at Royal Roads in Victoria and is now at the University of

Toronto.... One of Morton's early works, before he wrote some of

his absolutely classic works on Canadian labour, was something called

"Aid to the Civil Power." That's a phrase in law, or at least in an

earlier period of law, that referred to the power of civil authorities

to call for the government militia or the armed forces or the police.

What Morton demonstrated very clearly in this early work was that

government had never, in the history of this country, refused to grant

police or military help to any company that wanted to put an end to a

strike. I would suggest that that is a devastating indictment of our

industrial relations system in this country.

Morton's essay

held valid until World War II. Thank heaven, thank common sense and

thank sanity that we have got –– we thought –– beyond that point. We have

come rather to an accommodation, Mr. Speaker, in which everybody

assumes the two parties have a right to exist as legitimate entities,

as dignified beings. But now, sadly, it seems that those rights are

once again being called into question. That is certainly being

perceived by growing numbers of people in the province, and that is the

danger we are trying to guard against in moving the hoist motion.

Nanaimo,

then, was one example of government taking sides demonstrably on one

side rather than the other. A little further on, not many years

later.... I want to reassure all members opposite that I am not going

take you on a decade-by-decade stroll through Canadian history, but

there are a number of important, significant events you should be aware

of. Take the next major battle in Canadian history: Winnipeg, 1919, the

first general strike, called the Winnipeg General Strike. I'm sure you

all know the details, and I needn't sketch them out at any length.

Instead, what I want to do is again return to the theme. The theme I am

sketching out is that government was anything but that policeman on the

corner that John Stuart Mill so eloquently said government should be.

Instead, it was a player in the game.

What happened in

Winnipeg in 1919 is that the citizens' committee, which today we would

call the local chamber of commerce, simply went and asked for the

support of the RCMP and the militia and of course was granted that

right and was also given –– again to demonstrate my point –– another kind

of power. Another group of people were given special constable rights,

and guess who they were. They were the people paid for by Timothy

Eaton's stores. The government provided some troops and Timothy Eaton

provided

[ Page 520 ]

some

other troops, and that's how we dealt with that particular labour

dispute. There is no way, by any stretch of the imagination by any

fair-minded, rational, reasonable person, that one can look at that

event in our history and say: "Here is government being the mediator

between the two sides, the honest broker who will adjudicate the

respective claims of the two sides." Sadly, our history gives us

examples of quite the opposite. Estevan, Saskatchewan, 1931: the same

thing repeats itself.

As I say, Des Morton's case clearly

demonstrated that there were in excess of 30-odd cases, in each and

every one of which government simply responded to the wishes of the

owners of the mine or the mill or the factory or the logging show, or

whatever it may have been. There is a residue of bitterness in this

country, in short, that the trade union movement still carries, still

knows about. We as government today then surely must recognize that our

responsibility, perhaps above all else, is to show that we are not

taking sides, that we are impartial, that we will indeed play the role

as mediator between the two interest groups. Sadly, we have not done

that. Sadly, what the bill before us would seem to indicate is that we

are not prepared to show that that government will take upon itself

that clear, honest responsibility that it ought to take on.

The

second major reason which I sketched briefly last time had to do with

the simple fact that one of the major actors in the play called

industrial relations in this province is bound and determined and

resolved to fight. Those players will not quietly accept what is being

done to them.

I seem to be getting a signal of sorts.

MS. CAMPBELL : Mr. Speaker, I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. CAMPBELL :

Before I make the introduction, I'd like to express my appreciation to

the second member for Nanaimo for interrupting his speech and allowing

me to make this introduction. I'd like to draw to the attention of the

people sitting in the gallery, as well as of the members, that this

represents the very highest parliamentary tradition in courtesy in this

House.

I've been asked to make an introduction on behalf of

the members from Vancouver South, neither of whom is able to be in the

chamber today, and to ask the House to welcome a delegation of grade 11

students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in Vancouver and

their teacher, Mr. Goddard.

MR. L O VICK : Mr.

Speaker, I want also to thank the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey

for providing me that opportunity to have a drink of water.

left off at the point of introducing another major argument in support

of this hoist motion which I alluded to only briefly in my remarks

yesterday, and that was the simple contention that we cannot fairly, in

all honesty and conscience, proceed with this kind of significant

legislative initiative if one of the major players in the game is

totally disenchanted and indeed angry. That's just bad politics, if

nothing else. That's rather like trying to start a relationship between

man and woman that begins from the assumption that one of them will

forever be a slave to the other. It doesn't work. It effectively

undercuts and undermines and challenges the dignity of at least one, if

not both, of the partners. I would argue both of the partners in the

example I gave.

[3:00]

What

government has done with this particular piece of legislation –– which

it is apparently bound and determined to push through, come hell or

high water or other such stuff –– is simply confirm the suspicions of so

many. If the newly created B.C. Federation of Labour, which prides

itself on being reasonable and rational and cooperative, and if the new

government, which prides itself on being open and consultative and

cooperative and reasonable and rational –– if those two entities cannot

be friends, cannot have some kind of amicable relationship, what chance

then does any kind of legislation directly impacting on and affecting

those two parties have of succeeding? The answer –– I think it's pretty

clear –– is not very much.

I don't necessarily want to try

to suggest sinister motives on the part of the government in being so

convinced that it must proceed with this legislative initiative;

rather, what I want to suggest is that the government has perhaps got

itself into a position where any deviation, any departure, from the

predetermined and the assigned course will be perceived by its members

as a sign of weakness. And what a terribly sad development for this

province if that should be the case.

If we are in fact

going to declare war –– and certainly that's the perception –– on

organized labour, if we are in fact going to say to organized labour,

"You may be taking to the streets; you may be talking about protest

rallies and even, lord help us, general strikes and all of that stuff;

you may be telling us you can't live with that, but we're not hearing;

we're not responding to that, " if we respond, if we behave that way,

if we don't listen to what those people are actually telling us, how

then can we possibly have a harmonious labour climate after this issue

has settled itself, has shaken down?

The point clearly is

that you can't use the heavy hand of legislation to tell people to be

reasonable one to another. You simply can't do it. Look at the evidence

we have. Look at what happened for instance in a place such as

Australia when we decided to outlaw strikes. We said: "The problem

we've got here, friends, mates" –– thought I'd just give you a little

bit of 'stralian in passing, mates –– "is that there is too much dissent

and it's bad for the investment climate, and all that litany of sins

that we hear from the right. So what we'll do, how we'll solve the

problem, is we'll simply outlaw strikes." Well, guess what happened, of

course? When that was done, the level and the intensity of discord and

strife increased.

Look what happens in a statist kind of

society such as Poland when we decide that the trade union movement is

flexing its muscles too much and is taking more power unto itself than

it ought to have. Well, look what happens: you have the apparatus of

the state police, the army, the law and the entire society behind you,

but nevertheless the popular will, the will of the people, says: "We

will not be abused; we will not be mistreated; we will fight back."

Look then what happens in terms of the efficiency of the economy and

the happiness of the society.

There is surely a point all

of us must recognize when we know and accept without question that

government's duty is to be conciliator. This government began with a

marvelous pretence, at least, a marvelous perhaps open and genuine

effort to talk about consultation, but look what has happened the

moment that the pro forma part of the consultation is over.

[ Page 521 ]

The

moment that that has ended and the legislation comes down and one of

the major players in the game says, "This is not what we had in mind;

this is not what we discussed. We feel betrayed; we feel stabbed in the

back, " what does government say instead of: "All right, we understand

your predicament; we understand your situation; we will at least talk

about that"? Instead, government says: "No, we are bound and determined

to carry on with this legislation."

I submit –– and I've

used the metaphor before –– that that is analogous to waving the red

flag in front of the bull. It's unnecessary; it's a kind of macho

version of politics: "Well, we'll show you guys who's tough, boy. We'll

make sure we know who's running the affairs of this province." And the

point is: all that does is exacerbate and worsen the tensions between

the two sides. Most significantly, it's not necessary. It's just not

necessary.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

As I

mentioned in my comments the other day, we are dealing with a period in

our history when all of the players in the labour-management industrial

relations game have recognized that we must all get rid of our

stylized, historical posturing. We know that things have changed, and

we know that we must change our roles accordingly. But instead, then,

of being consonant and consistent with the plan to have a new approach,

to have consultation and open government, the moment one of the players

asks for the consultation, asks for a demonstration of the government's

good will, the rug is literally pulled out from under them; they're met

with a rejection. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is also not good

politics. That's simply not smart, among other things.

The

third reason that I touched on in my remarks last time had to do with

confusion. I know that I must have appeared to have been facetious

indeed in my various comments and in the quiz that I presented to

members of the government, asking them if anybody could indeed tell me

what was meant by the changes to the technological-change clause. But

as with all facetious comments, as with all ironic utterances, there is

some truth behind my observations and my questions.

I fear,

with all due deference and respect to the minister, to other cabinet

ministers and to other members of this government, that most people do

not indeed understand the details of the bill sufficiently to push it

through right now. It is a complex and difficult piece of work, one

that requires considerable study for one to make much sense of. It is

also a document that appears to have within it the capacity to, redraft

the entire labour map of this province. Surely, given the correctness

of that assumption, it is not at all unreasonable for us to say: "Wait

a minute, let's slow down the merry-go-round a little bit. Let's stop,

or at least slow down, the parade somewhat so we can have an

opportunity to find out what the bill actually means."

give an example of what I mean by the confusion that I think is indeed

out there concerning what this bill actually means. I want to quote a

friend of Her Majesty's government, who is a good trade unionist, one

who is usually regarded –– indeed, I would venture to say universally

regarded –– as intelligent, well-informed, sophisticated, moderate,

reasonable, credible, respectable, all of those things; a person who

has been appointed by this government to sit on two very important

commissions: (1) the Public Service Commission, and (2) the board of

governors of the British Columbia Institute of Technology. I'm

referring to Mr. Fred Randall, who is the business manager for the

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115.

Mr.

Randall is clearly –– and I think there's not much doubt or question of

this –– one of the most knowledgeable people in labour relations in this

province. Everybody regards and recognizes him as being one of the

"professionals" in the field, although he is not a lawyer. I see the

first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) revealing a

certain amazement at that point, that one can be a professional and

knowledgeable even if one is not a lawyer ––interesting to note.

Mr. Randall, in a letter to all elected representatives in this province, says,

I think very eloquently and effectively and certainly passionately, that the

problem is the complexity of the legislation. I assure you, Madam Speaker, I'm

not going to fall into the trap of simply reading great chunks of material into

the record; I will not do that. But what I would like to do is to quote you

just a paragraph of this. He says:

"As

the elected business manager of the International Union of Operating

Engineers, Local 115, rep resenting 10,000 members in the province, I

have some serious concerns regarding the recently introduced

legislation. First of all, no one understands it, including the press

who feed the information to the public. The legislation should be put

on hold until it is fully understood by the public, the legislators who

will vote on it, and the elected representatives of the workers."

This

is not some fringe person; this is not some kook. This is a person

whose bona fides, whose right to speak and to participate in this

discussion, is absolutely impeccable, beyond question, beyond challenge.

The

main contention of this submission –– which, I note in passing, is quite

lengthy and quite detailed and in fact could probably be made to last

20 minutes if I wanted to read it all, Madam Speaker –– is simply the

problem I quoted to you. Nobody understands it, and I think we on this

side of the House have demonstrated it in our few questions thus far –– that indeed nobody understands it, or if anybody does understand it,

they certainly are not answering any questions that indicate they

understand it. So I think that is a good argument as to why we should

put this bill on hold; why we should support this motion to hoist it

for six months.

Having touched on the need for a six-month

period, I come to the fourth point that I had just begun to elaborate

on in my remarks yesterday. That point is the indelicate –– some would

say indecent –– haste with which this bill is being presented to us.

Yesterday the question I challenged government members to answer was:

why this rush? Where is the current crisis? Show us, please, what is on

the horizon threatening to engulf us all and destroy our precious

bodily essences or some such thing.

That reference, I

should explain for everyone's sake, that was the line used by the

maniac general in Doctor Strangelove, who was convinced that above all

there was a world conspiracy to destroy his precious bodily essence.

That is why I used that term.

The question is, where is the

conspiracy? Where is the problem? The only answers we get from the

other side –– somewhat muted, I would note –– are two.

The

first one is that we have got to do something to encourage investment

in this province. Well, let me tell you a little bit about investment.

If we are talking about investment, and we are talking about the

climate where repressive

[ Page 522 ]

labour

legislation puts the clamps on trade unions, at least in such a way as

trade unions perceive they are being so threatened –– if we are talking

about regimes that do that, then we can certainly find all kinds of

them in the world that are going to be more attractive to investors.

The investment community is not looking for some kind of Third World

entity, some kind of primitive society in which we have one class of

owners and one class of powerful people, and the rest a kind of servant

population.

Above all, in every study I have ever

encountered about the investment climate in international terms, what

determines investment is the attractiveness of a location, given of

course the availability of the resources to begin with, which is the

starting point to consider in making investment decisions. But given

the resource, they talk about the attractiveness of the place to be. Do

you want to live there? Is it nice? Needless to say, we in British

Columbia have a tremendous advantage in that regard.

Why do

you think California became one of the great boom areas in the United

States? Partly because it is a nice place to live. Let's not forget

that. So it is with Florida, incidentally.

[3:15]

The first point, then, is simply a place that is nice to live. But

beyond that –– and, many would argue, more important and much beyond

that –– is the business of stability, What stability is defined as in

industrial relations textbooks, by those who know anything about the

field, is above all an environment in which we all know what the rules

are, We all know how the game is played, and we can plan accordingly,

because we recognize that this is, for example, a highly unionized

sector, and investors recognized long ago that there may be some

downsides for investors in putting their money in a highly organized

state or society or province, but there are also some tremendous

advantages. If you are producing goods in a highly organized sector,

what you do thereby is give yourself a comparative advantage to sell

those goods to other places that have highly organized sectors.

Workers

are not stupid. Workers know full well that the ideal situation for any

trade unionist is an international organization of workers, so money

and capital investment in goods cannot fly to one place where they can

get a better deal than another place. The solution is to have

international solidarity. Workers know that. They know that they need

to protect each other's interests, and they will therefore lobby

passionately to ensure that the goods and services they produce and the

equipment they buy to produce their own goods and services will come

from other sectors which are organized. So there's some basic hardball

economics in this too. We're not just talking about warm, fuzzy

feelings and bleeding-heartism. We're also talking about some good

old-fashioned economic self-interest.

The predicament, as I

say, would seem to be that we have manufactured some argument about the

crisis in investment dollars. I don't claim to be knowledgeable about

everything that's been written about the B.C. economy, but I do read a

little bit and know a little bit, and everything I've ever looked at in

the last five years tells me that we do not have a capital shortage in

B.C. We don't have an investment-dollar crisis. The dollars aren't

necessarily rushing elsewhere, with none left here. Rather, what we

have done, what seems to be the case –– and I think I'm basing this

example on something I read recently in the Central Credit Union

newsletter –– is that most of those dollars are going into the merger

and conglomeration process. That's where the higher rate of return is.

MR. CLARK : Corporate concentration.

MR. LOVICK :

Corporate concentration, as my colleague from Vancouver East correctly

points out. The issue, then, is not some kind of mythical notion that,

"By heaven, we must tighten up our labour legislation or else we won't

get those investment dollars, because those investment dollars have

gone elsewhere." That is simply so much twaddle. The fact of the matter

is that the dollars are here. They're just being directed into

different sectors. So there isn't that kind of crisis.

The

second reason adduced as to why we need, apparently, to have this

haste, why we must act on this bill right now, is something called the

public interest. Madam Speaker, as I reflect on that phrase, "the

public interest, " I am reminded of other phrases, such as "the

national interest" or "national security." If there has ever been a

phrase to conjure with, if there has ever been a phrase which has

hidden more sins and more abuses of human rights and more violations of

human dignity, I do not know what the phrase might be. The public

interest tends, sadly, to be construed to be whatever the individual

saying it says it is. The public interest will be cited by the enemies

of trade unions, who will say absolutely nothing about the flight of

capital from this province, if capital decides to go on strike. If, in

fact, interest rates in this province go down low enough, and American

interest rates are 2 percent higher, I would suggest to you that we

will be confronted with a problem that makes a general strike of labour

look like child's play, because then we will see a flight of capital

from this province. I would bet dollars to doughnuts, as sure as I'm

standing here before this House, that nobody on the other side of the

House is going to talk about a crisis challenging the public interest.

The public interest, sadly, seems to mean an interest that threatens my

own interest. If I am wrong in that argument, if I am in fact being

unfair, then I give this open, frank and entirely ingenuous invitation

to my colleagues on the other side of the House to demonstrate that to

me. I have a hunch there will not be any responses.

There

are occasions when all of us are frustrated and feel that we aren't

accomplishing as much as we would like to, and we feel that the

solution to our problem is somehow action. Frankly, it doesn't matter

very much what the action is, but we'll take action, and that way we'll

look as if we're in charge and know what we're doing. It is more

difficult, of course, on occasion to do nothing –– much more difficult.

The pressures, indeed, tend to be towards action, not to stall. There

are times, in short, when caution and care and circumspection are the

only reasonable course of activity.

The line that comes to

mind from Shakespeare, who is known to have the odd interesting

observation to present, of course, was one from Romeo and Juliet , if my

memory serves me. It is curious to me that I am using it in a

miscontext because it is so blatantly out of context. The line in Romeo

and Juliet –– and the suspense is building, I detect, right? I can see

members on the other side fidgeting.

The line comes from

Romeo and Julie t in which Friar Lawrence, who is a kind of mediator

father-confessor to the two young lovers, is trying to tell them, "Cool

it kids, you'll live to regret this, " and he offers them some advice

which, needless to say, they don't want to listen to because they

[ Page 523 ]

obviously

have their minds and bodies on other things. What happens, though, is

that Friar Lawrence offers them this great bit of political advice. He

says, and it's something we could live by, certainly in this

context.... Suspense, right? We've built to the point now where we are

all

indeed ready to appreciate a little Shakespeare, All right, he says to

them, "Wisely and slow, they stumble that run fast." [Applause.]

I hope Hansard will show that Shakespeare received applause.

MR. CRANDALL : You remember it was Shakespeare.

MR. LOVICK : Well put.

I'm wondering, Madam Speaker, about whether we do, indeed, have a quorum here. We do have a quorum?

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

All right, I shall simply carry on then. Do you know, I have just

looked at the clock and I discover that I have used a rather large

chunk of my allotted time, and I have thus far, I am afraid, only

summarized the points I was referring to yesterday. There are, I would

like to point out, however, some very compelling and powerful and

persuasive arguments yet to be adduced, and I would like to introduce

some of those now.

The first of those arguments is that the

decision to push forward with this bill, in opposition to our hoist

motion, in opposition to that growing chorus of opinion against this

bill, will not only cause the government problems with its own

constituents but will also do something else that is very sad and scary

too: namely, it will exacerbate and worsen the tension in this

legislative chamber. I think that there is something very, very serious

for us to note there. We, on this side of the House, have listened

again and again to references to "fresh start," "new beginnings,"

"we are not the same old gang; rather we want to talk; we want to

consult; we want, in short, to be colleagues in the legislative

enterprise. We want to work together; we want to do all of those good

things."

Think about this. First of all, guess what we on

this side of the House are likely to say if we perceive that in every

single situation where we have suggested or recommended an amendment or

a change of course by the government the response has been the same ––

instantly, peremptorily, dramatically no. This is a government that has

not listened to any amendments; indeed, has refused to debate all the

amendments we have presented thus far in this session. This is a

government that has made light of most of the comments and criticisms

we have offered, rather than dealing with the substance of our

allegations, the substance of our arguments.

[3:30]

This

is a government, in short, whose words we begin to question and wonder

if they actually mean anything. The words we are hearing are that yes,

we want to consult, yes, we want to talk, yes, we want to invite you to

engage in this dialogue with us. But the moment we ask for that

statement to be given form, given shape, given substance, then the

words disappear.

Let me dwell a little bit more on that

argument. The business of exacerbating the tension in this House is

something about which, I know, people in the gallery may well say: "Oh,

yes, here we are. We can see theatre here. We know that that gentleman

standing there speaking –– the second member for Nanaimo –– doesn't

really mean that. Instead, he's just playing a game to try

to embarrass this government." I want to suggest to those in the

gallery, Madam Speaker, plus all members assembled here, that a very

serious case is being presented right now. I want to stress that. The

point is that none of us in this chamber, I am sure, wants to live in

an acrimonious environment. Rather we would like to cooperate. We would

like to work on the assumption that while, to be sure, it is

government's right and job to govern, the government, by definition, also consists of an opposition –– an opposition that ought to be

consulted, and yes, perish the thought, even listened to sometimes.

However,

what has happened in this Legislature thus far is that there has not

been any evidence in fact, in substance, that this government is indeed

prepared to do that listening. Rather, all we get are great

protestations, great declarations that yes, we want to consult with

you; but when we ask, suddenly those protestations, those declarations

disappear like the morning dew.

I want to touch on another

reason I think this hoist motion deserves support. This reason is

simply that contrary, again, to what the minister has said, there has

not been any kind of full, frank, open consultation. He has gone

through the motions. He has conducted hearings throughout the province.

He has invited submissions from various interest groups throughout the

province. I commend the minister for that approach. The problem,

however, is that just when the mouse was about to bite the cheese, Mr.

Minister, the cheese was pulled away. Just when we were prepared to

say, "Right, we've had this consultation, we've had this discussion,

let's now see what that actually means," it was a chimera –– it

disappeared. The cheese was gone. The point of all that, of course, is

just that once again we have given reason to those people who are

becoming cynical, skeptical and disenchanted, to feel the way they do.

They are just beginning to wonder if in fact the words mean anything.

How many times, after all, can we be told that this is consultation,

can we be told that this is a fresh start, before we suddenly say,

please demonstrate to us that there is some substance here? I'm

suggesting to you that the people of this province are getting

perilously close to that point, Madam Speaker.

MR. SKELLY : I'm rising on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : What is your point of privilege?

MR. SKELLY :

Madam Speaker, a few minutes ago I witnessed people being forcibly

removed from the lawns of the parliament building by Sergeant-at-Arms

staff. Their property was taken from them –– tents, brief-cases,

personal property. On what authority was the Sergeant-at-Arms staff

operating, and who gave authority for the staff to use physical force?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I'll take your point of privilege on notice and reserve my decision.

MR. SKELLY :

Madam Speaker, this is an urgent matter, and a matter which reflects on

the privileges of all members of this House and all people in the

province who use the precincts in the parliament buildings and the

grounds around the buildings.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 524 ]

these people were loaned to the police force, then we should know that,

because this action reflects on all of the people in this Legislature

and on the institution of Parliament itself. We need to know

immediately under whose authority these people acted and who granted

them authority to use physical force.

MR. SPEAKER : I

want to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for bringing this

matter before the House. The Speaker asked for a full report from the

Sergeant-at-Arms when this matter was brought to his attention by the

member just a short time ago, and I will be prepared to bring back a

reply. The member did not make a motion, but I will certainly report to

the House at the earliest possible time.

MR. SKELLY :

I appreciate the Speaker's action. I did discuss the matter with the

Speaker, and I believe this is something that should be dealt with by

the Legislature and by the Speaker's office as quickly as possible. I

do not have a motion, but perhaps out of the Speaker's investigation we

will make a motion that will make sure that incidents like this, which

reflect on the traditions of this Parliament and the dignity and

privileges of members, will never happen in the future.

MR. ROSE :

I'm prepared to move the motion that the matter be referred to the

appropriate committee. Speaking just briefly to the motion, I think

today's incident undermines the whole respect for civil rights, the

rights of individuals, the rights of property, the right of protection

against massive force, the rights of their own private property and the

dignity of this institution. I hope that the appropriate committee –– Standing Orders, if that's the one, or the one that's most appropriate

to deal with the matter –– will make recommendations that will confirm

once and for all the line of authority in this Legislature. In most

legislatures it stems from the Speaker, down through the precincts and

the four comers of the property upon which the legislature sits.

would just like to add that I feel that in a democratic society such

mass abuse of force, the confiscation of private property, is

completely unacceptable and belongs in other than a democratic state.

MR. SPEAKER :

It's not appropriate to move the motion yet, hon. member, but once the

Speaker has ruled on the question of privilege made by the Leader of

the Opposition, the member may then want to put his motion. The Speaker

will attempt to answer the question of privilege as quickly as possible.

The second member for Nanaimo is still on the hoist motion.

On the amendment.

MR. LOVICK :

How painfully and sadly ironic, Mr. Speaker, when I have for some 90

minutes now been suggesting to this government that what you are doing

is helping to create that residue of bitterness, helping to exacerbate

the tension in the province, helping, in fact, to make people feel that

government is not an honest broker but is rather taking sides, that

this kind of thing should intervene to once again further convince

those people and inflame those feelings.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I find it difficult to pick up precisely where I left off, Madam Speaker,

after hearing that news. I do indeed look forward to a speedy

resolution of that question, as I'm sure must everybody else in this

House.

I was talking, prior to the interruption, about the

lack of consultation and suggesting that what made that lack of

consultation all the more poignant and painful and significant was the

fact that we had the claims on the one hand that this was a government

that was going to be different, that was going to listen, that was

going to consult; and on the other hand, we then had evidence that this

was not indeed the case. That's what makes the lack of consultation so

bitter and so painful to the people who are now protesting this

legislation.

You know, Madam Speaker, 1 haven't touched on

just how large that protest has become. I returned to my constituency

of Nanaimo last night, for example, and discovered that there was a

meeting in my community, almost spontaneous, of some 600-plus teachers.

Teachers in my community are frankly an apolitical group for the most

part. They don't go out to meetings. They, however, in response to

another bill before this Legislature –– which they see by the way as a

companion piece to Bill 19 –– felt the need to get together and to talk

about their concerns. They are upset.

I also learned last

night that there is a plan already afoot for a major rally in my

community to protest what is happening under the activities of Bill 19.

And do you know –– this is perhaps a significant point, certainly

relevant to the hoist motion –– what's important I think for us to

recognize is that the enunciated reason for the rally is to demonstrate

to the government that we are indeed unhappy because government's

response thus far has been to say that it is only the leaders of

organized labour who are unhappy; it's only the opposition in the

Legislature who's unhappy.

Don't you see, Madam Speaker, or

don't the members opposite see that what this government is doing is

inviting a kind of mass reaction, another kind of mass protest, because

the people perceive, and sadly they have reason to perceive, that this

government is not going to be convinced by anything we on this side of

the House say, is not going to be convinced by anything that the

officers of the B. C. Federation of Labour say, and therefore the

conclusion understandably, logically, will be drawn by those people

that they must then take their protest to the streets.

What

an awful admission. We who have evolved over time a marvelous society

and a marvelous system of government that provides us with the

mechanism to prevent that kind of behaviour are nonetheless thrown back

to that kind of behaviour. And it needn't be so. That's the tragedy of

it; that's the sad, sad irony of it.

I want to now touch on

another reason why 1 think this hoist motion is appropriate. The hoist

motion, again, I would remind everybody, is simply asking the

government to hold up that legislation for a period of some six months

so that people can indeed be given an opportunity to review and examine

it. That's all it's asking.

Another reason, I think, why we

want to suggest that that is the appropriate response, the appropriate

course of action, is just that the government has not yet given any

explanation of why this bill. There has been no detailed explanation or

statement about what the rationale is for this bill.

listened very carefully, Madam Speaker, to the minister in the House

the other day outlining the ostensible rationale for the bill, and I

have some training in listening ––you know, I'm not totally unadept at

doing that, and also listening

[ Page 525 ]

fairly

carefully and following complex argument. And I listened very

carefully, but again with all due deference, Madam Speaker, I didn't

hear anything that clarifies for me why this legislation, why now.

[3:45]

What is the reason we are talking about redrawing the industrial

relations map of this province? Why are we doing that? I've heard some

clichs; I've heard some lines to conjure with, some incantations. I've

heard all that kind of stuff, but I haven't heard much in the way of

substantive, solid argument. And certainly –– again I say this more with

regret and sadness than ire, Madam Speaker –– I've heard nothing on the

other side in the course of the debate to suggest: "These are the

reasons, and you people are missing the point" –– "you people" meaning

we on this side. I just haven't heard that. I think that any government

in any state in any society at any time has a clear obligation, a moral

obligation, if you will, to make perfectly clear –– I sound like Nixon,

don't I, when I use that line, Madam Speaker? –– why this legislation and

why this legislation now. That's what the rationale that accompanies

any bill introduced in this Legislature ought necessarily to provide.

Unfortunately, this one did not.

The problem, of course,

is that if the legislation does not provide us with that kind of

rationale or that kind of clear and particular statement, then –– and

it's no great surprise –– all of us begin to ask: "Why didn't it?" All

of us become suspicious. All of us become wary. All of us begin to

wonder whether in fact there is another agenda, whether there is

another set of reasons that animates and motivates the government. That

is a reasonable response. You don't have to be a cynic to respond that

way. Given that there is no good explanation that makes sense, and

given that most of us believe that people are causal beings and that we

do things for reasons, then obviously people are going to conclude that

there must be a reason. "You're not telling me the reason; what, then

is the reason?" That's bound to happen. So you can't blame the people

who are suspicious. You can't blame the people who are speculating and

offering other hypotheses to explain the behaviour.

For

example, is this haste –– what I've referred to earlier as this indecent

haste –– to push this bill through merely a matter of strategy and

tactics? Is this an effort to take advantage of the fact that I and so

many of my colleagues on this side of the House are relatively

inexperienced, and therefore perhaps will not be as astute and wise and

ept as we ought to be in examining that legislation?

MR. ROSE : I never heard of the word "ept."

MR. LOVICK :

Somebody obviously has not heard of the word "ept." It is indeed the

shorter form of "inept." On this side we should never question what

inept means, Madam Speaker. Clearly we know about ept; we have lots of

evidence of inept, indeed.

This legislation, as I suggest,

perhaps has another motive behind it. Think about the horrible set of

possibilities. For one: "What we want to do" –– says the government, in

this hypothesis I am building –– "is get this legislation through,

because we'll take advantage of those young punks over there who do not

comprehend the niceties of legalese, who don't know how to read bills,

who don't know all the parliamentary tricks. Therefore we'll catch them

napping."

MR. WILLIAMS : I think you should withdraw that.

MR. LOVICK :

That's an hypothesis and, frankly, one that on the basis of what we've

seen thus far doesn't seem to hold up very well, but may indeed have

been the case.

Look at some others. Is it the case that

this is a bill that the more we see, the more frightened of we will

become, the closer we look, the more ugly we will perceive to be? Is

that why we are saying: "Let us get this through before there is close

examination out there, outside this House, by people who are accustomed

to working with such legislation, who know about the cut and thrust of

labour-management relations" ? Why are we trying to push it through

without letting those people have an opportunity to talk about it? Why?

Again I suggest that the reasons for people being suspicious are indeed

valid. Their suspicions may be groundless, but their reasons for being

suspicious are very legitimate indeed.

I'm tempted, Madam

Speaker, to try to come up with a half a dozen other possible

speculations as to what the real agenda for this bill is. However, I

think that would be, to coin a phrase, eating the clock, and I will

therefore not engage in such stuff. Instead, I want to turn to another

good, solid, reasonable argument why I think this hoist motion is

appropriate and necessary at this time. The reason is so simple that it

amazes me, frankly, that I have to enunciate it here today. The reason

is simply that the opportunity to study and to examine a controversial

piece of legislation is always a guarantee that the legislation will be

improved thereby.

This is a complex area. We're not talking

about providing a better sewer to Mrs. McGillicuddy. We're talking here

about a complex issue. We're talking about the lives and hopes and

aspirations and means to survival of a very significant portion of our

population. It's an issue that literally is close to home, that cuts to

the bone and to the quick. It is an area, then, that necessarily will

generate powerful strong feelings. It is an area, then, that surely we

owe it to all of those people out there to examine closely, carefully

and painstakingly. It is not a time to fall into some foolish false

dichotomy and trap that says: "You've got to do it now or else." There

is no "or else." Six months, frankly, will not make any significant

difference as far as any of us on this side of the House can see.

Certainly we have had no evidence adduced to suggest that it would.

There

are certainly possibilities to fix up bits and pieces of the

legislation that this six-month period would provide us –– bits and

pieces of the legislation that right now, sadly, Madam Speaker, we

aren't even looking at. The reason we are not even looking at them is

that everyone is so preoccupied with the forest that we haven't had a

chance yet to look at the trees. Because we recognize that the

aggregate, the whole thing, is sufficiently scary, sufficiently

problematic, and has potential enough in itself to cause us anguish,

worry and concern, we have not yet taken a look at the elementary,

simple, mechanical things within the bill; and more importantly,

perhaps, nor does it appear that we will be given an opportunity to.

Let's

face it. If your House is burning down, that's not the time, as you are

trying to get out of the place, to suddenly worry about whether it is

cheque 311 or 312 in your chequebook. Our problem is that what we are

doing now is asking us all to deal with what we perceive to be a fire

of serious proportion, and we haven't had an opportunity yet to check

all those other things that are also as important, though not as clear

and pressing and urgent. That is another problem

[ Page 526 ]

with this legislation, and is why, I think, we would do well to again support this hoist motion.

Six months isn't really a lot of time in the world we live in.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK : Somebody says I could perhaps speak for six months. I certainly hope not.

The

last area I want to touch on is the economic effects. Isn't it

interesting that in this province at this time, given this government

and all the talk about a new economy, about the need to start a new

system, to grapple with "the realities of living in the 1980s" –– I

think I am quoting a chunk of the throne speech there, Madam Speaker ––

given that background, given that context, in the explanation of this

bill we didn't hear anything about an economic impact study? We didn't

hear anything about what this is going to mean. What does this

translate into?

We are talking about what I would fairly

call radical legislation, because "radical" is defined as any

significant departure from the status quo, any major move away from a

course of action, from a plan, from a means of functioning that has

been deemed to be adequate and acceptable in the past. When you

suddenly change the rules, when you suddenly say in this instance that

we are no longer going to have something called a labour relations

board, despite the fact that it has served us very well for some 12

years or more.... When you suddenly say that, then you have engaged

in radical politics.

That is what this legislation is. It

is radical legislation. I think there ought to be some kind of formula,

almost a mathematical theorem, that says that the speed with which you

approach legislation ought to be directly –– perhaps inversely ––

proportional to the seriousness of that legislation. I think that is

probably not a bad idea.

MR. WILLIAMS : Lovick's law.

MR. LOVICK : I like that –– Lovick's law, as the member for Vancouver East says.

think it is probably not, as I said, a bad idea, if in fact we are

talking about legislation that affects thousands and thousands of

people and has the capacity to literally redraw the social and the

economic map of this province, then surely, by all that's holy and all

that's commonsensical, we ought not to be so precipitate, we ought not

to be rushing. There isn't a case there, or at least there's certainly

not one I've heard.

I would like to know a little bit about

the economics of this case. I would like to know, for example, what the

impact is on the average wage packet if we introduce legislation of

this kind. We probably do have models for this legislation elsewhere ––

I hope. Good Lord, is it...? I suddenly had this terrible flash,

Madam Speaker, this insight, this fear: is it possible that this kind

of legislation has not been tried elsewhere? Is it possible that we are

simply experimenting and that the people of British Columbia will

become the white rats of the world, that we're going to test it out to

see if it works? Have there in fact been any studies? Have there been

any indications that these kinds of policies will (1) work as we

anticipate and suggest they will; and (2) not have deleterious,

devastating and debilitating effects? Is that in fact the case? Have we

demonstrated that? Certainly I haven't heard anything like that in any

of the so-called defences of the bill. I would like to know that.

[4:00]

1 would also like to know what this kind of legislation –– if in fact

it is the case that the B.C. Federation of Labour decides to say, "We

boycott this, we protest passionately and bitterly what you've done" ––

is going to do to our trading relationship with other provinces. Is it

not possible perhaps that we will discover that British Columbia has

become the pariah of the country, the place considered to be the

absolutely hands-off, bad place to deal with in this country, not to

mention other jurisdictions? I don't know whether the government has

any answers to that kind of question, but it seems to me that it has an

obligation to know the answers, and again, I have certainly seen no

evidence that it has in fact conducted any of those kinds of studies.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left? Ten? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

think I will try to simply summarize this argument. I think I have

enunciated a number of different points, but they have perhaps got lost

in the shuffle. I will proceed sufficiently slowly, Mr. Speaker, that

members opposite can take notes, should they wish. I am being

facetious. I think that goes with the turf after one has been on one's

feet for a while. I'm sure that is the case, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I must apologize for my difficulty in articulating the phrase

"Mr. Speaker." It's just that for the past hour there has been another

person in the chair, and I had finally become accustomed to saying

"Madam Speaker." So I hope I will indeed learn to say "Mr. Speaker"

again.

Let me, as I say, very quickly.... They are good

arguments, you know. We're not talking silly stuff; we're talking good

arguments.

The first argument I would present is that what

has happened here is that the government has clearly appeared to

violate the covenant, the social contract, whereby government stands

above or outside the participants in a dispute –– as a mediator, as an

honest broker. Government appears to have decided that that is not its

role. Rather, its role is to take sides, and that, I suggest, is a

regressive step, a step backwards.

The second argument I

would present –– and I don't know why I'm suddenly rushing through this,

Mr. Speaker –– is that it is simply bad politics, bad strategy, to try to

push something through when one of the major players in the game has

already given notice tantamount to: "Over our bruised and bleeding

bodies, you will." When we've been told that this means war, that this

is a policy they find offensive and insulting, one that violates the

contract they thought they had with this government.... Given those

signals, Mr. Speaker, any government ought to know that's the time to

be a little bit circumspect, a little bit clever, and pull back a

little from the threshold. I hope, for heaven's sake, that we are not

deciding to have a new kind of B.C. brinkmanship or some such thing.

That would seem to me a very bad step.

The point again, in

case it got lost in that brief outpouring, is that we are dealing with

a government that is bound, it seems, to push it through despite the

fact that roughly 50 percent of its constituency is saying: "Don't do

it."

The third reason why I think the hoist motion is appropriate is simply that there is indeed confusion surrounding just

[ Page 527 ]

what

this bill means, what it asks for. Yesterday I had some fun posing my

little quiz for parliamentarians, Unfortunately I didn't get any

answers to the quiz, which leads me to conclude –– protests of the

members opposite notwithstanding –– that they didn't have the answers,

and didn't know what was in the bill. Sadly, again I have had no

evidence whatsoever presented to me to move me to reconsider that

position or rethink that conclusion.

The fourth reason is

what I have referred to as the indecent haste of all of this, and the

failure of this government to provide us with reasons why it has to be

now. Why now? I called it before the Chicken Little syndrome, the

argument that the sky is falling. There has been no evidence or no

willingness, at least, to share with us on this side of the House the

evidence that's there, which leads me to believe there isn't any

evidence –– but nevertheless to say we must take these radical,

draconian steps to deal with this problem. I fear that we are dealing

rather with something that is a self-created mythology, and that's the

reason. It's a reason that doesn't have substance. That's why the haste.

also suggest some other reasons. My fifth reason, if anyone is keeping

score, is that the pushing forward of this bill now, rather than giving

us a little time –– some six months to consider, to weigh, to examine,

to reconsider –– will exacerbate the tension that is starting to build

between the two sides of this House. We would like to have an era of

cooperation, consultation and harmony between us, whatever our

disagreements. If, however, we are once more given the evidence that

the government is merely going through the motions of listening to us,

doesn't really pay any attention to our concerns, and doesn't

apparently much care that there are people out there who have become

convinced that what the government is doing is wrong - if indeed that's

the case, then clearly we on this side will perceive the government as

not quite what it said it would be. Rather, we will conclude that they

are indeed the same old gang with the same old approaches, attitudes

and, dare I say, disrespect for this side of the House.

That

kind of tension, that kind of incipient hostility, I think, does not

serve the people of this province well. I don't think it does any of us

any good. Unfortunately, however, the government seems minded to

encourage and abet that kind of attitude. How sad.

The next

reason I presented I called simply lack of real, meaningful

consultation. To be sure, we went through the motions; to be sure, it

looked as if we were actually interested in finding out what people

thought. I commended the minister for this in my remarks earlier; I

would do so again. But it becomes extremely difficult to commend the

minister for that kind of behaviour if we discover that the

consultation process is only a charade, that we put the report together

as if we had never consulted with anybody. That seems to be the

conclusion, given what we are hearing from people such as the teachers

and the B.C. Federation of Labour, because they have both concluded

that the government didn't listen to us; it did precisely the opposite

of what we wanted it to do.

The next reason is that there

has been no public explanation of why. We got, rather, some muted and,

frankly, not very explicit statements from the minister in the House

the other day when the bill was introduced, telling us why this bill

had to be introduced. But those statements, sadly, do not bear up to

any kind of close scrutiny or examination. And we don't find any good

reasons as to why.

I think I'm almost out of time, I understand, Mr. Speaker.

I could summarize –– I have just a couple of other arguments very

quickly. My penultimate argument was that this legislation would

benefit from the delay. If you want to create a better industrial

relations climate in this province, then for heaven's sake, I would

suggest, be smart enough to take advantage of the opportunity that all

the players in the game are giving you. We on this side of the House,

the B.C. Federation of Labour, the teachers and everybody else are

saying: "We're not declaring war; just talk to us, for heaven's sake.

Just talk to us." And it seems to me, frankly, not very bright not to

do that.

The last argument, of course, Mr. Speaker:

economic effects –– no examination, no evaluation, no explanation. All

things considered then, it seems to me the arguments are eminently

reasonable, fair and rational as to why this hoist motion should be

supported. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. VANT : Mr.

Speaker, I speak against this motion to hoist Bill 19, the Labour

Relations Reform Act of 1987, but I do recognize that the members

opposite probably wish to have this in 1988 or 1989.

I wish

to compliment the minister on this Bill 19, which definitely should not

be hoisted at this time. I believe it will bring a new degree of

stability in industrial relations in our province. It will issue in a

new era of labour relations in British Columbia. Indeed, I'm sure it

will be a benchmark, a landmark in this province, and it will bring a

positive and a peaceful era.

It is the product of open

consultation. It was not sprung, as some of the hon. members opposite

say, on the people of this province. Indeed, there were engraved

invitations inviting briefs, and as the Hon. minister said, he received

over 700 briefs.

Also, there were newspaper ads inviting

people to these meetings which were held throughout the province with

the Hon. minister, the Hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Dirks) and

the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen).

It was not

conceived in Alabama. Certain views prevailed as a result of all those

open consultations which began away back in January. Of course, the

concerns for the rights of the individual, for true democracy in the

workplace, have all been addressed in this Bill 19, which certainly

should not be hoisted at this time.

Opportunities for

choice are addressed: choice for the employees and the workers of our

province; choice for the employers –– an informed and a protected public

interest.

Bill 19 enables communication to take place. This

Bill 19 is very balanced in its approach. So the question I have,

especially for the Hon. members opposite is: why hoist the bill at this

time? After all, it is springtime. It's time to level the field of

industrial relations; to install the goal-posts; to swear in the

referee, who has to, yes, blow the whistle once in awhile, but not play

the game for the players; also to keep the spectators informed. Because

after all, when it comes to industrial relations in our province, the

general public has a heavy stake in what happens in industrial labour

relations.

[4:15]

Bill 19 should

not be hoisted at this time, because it presents a legislative package

that is fair and responsible and, I might add, very reasonable. Indeed,

when I study the actual legislation, "balanced" is the only word that

comes to my mind at this time to describe this bill. It's very balanced

for employers, unions, employees; the public will also gain from this

legislation.

[ Page 528 ]

The

hon. member for Victoria mentions Jim Matkin. I have a good memory, and

I know he bad something to do with the legislation back in 1973. If you

read the headlines –– and we do have some historical people here, like

the hon. second member for Nanaimo, who was bringing up a lot of

history in a very eloquent way –– the headlines in 1973 were very

similar to the headlines now. It seems that certain people in our

society automatically resist change in the status quo. Of course, as

has been said in this House in the last couple of days, there have been

many amendments to the Labour Code since 1973, so change is not new. I

believe sincerely that the public will gain from this legislation, even

though I recognize that the members opposite are not too prepared to

admit that.

I listened very patiently to the hon. second member for Nanaimo. I don't

mind him quoting Milton and Shakespeare and Luther, but like some of the other

members he seemed to be kind of a selective editor in referring to the newspapers.

I can assure Mr. Speaker and the members in this House, and all those in the

gallery at this time, that I am not going to selectively reach for a whole bunch

of articles that are very positive about this legislation; you can read the

newspapers for yourselves. But I urge you to read the actual legislation. Also,

we will look at the details at third reading, clause by clause. There

will be ample opportunity for probably very lengthy debate.

This

legislation, as I said earlier, is very balanced. It mentions, of

course, the employer's offer on the one hand and the union demand on

the other. This is what labour relations is all about. The legislation

is excellent in that it gives the opportunity for either side to vote

on the last position. We as a government have listened carefully to

views from unions and employers and ordinary citizens on this proposed

legislation. We have tried to fairly strike a balance.

I believe this bill will increase fairness and equity in the workplace and

ensure the democratic rights of all British Columbians. From my background as

a member of the boilermakers' union, I can speak from firsthand experience.

It would appear that yesterday the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller)

felt that somehow he had a monopoly on having concerns for the workers of this

province. I served as a job steward for the boilermakers' union on many

major con struction projects. I too was very concerned about safety on the job,

the camp, the working conditions in general. For sure, this legislation is not

out to destroy the labour move ment or the union movement. Indeed, when it comes

to trade unions, they are a pool of very skilled labour. But I must confess,

Mr. Speaker, that when I was a very young man I was fully trained at a vocational

school, and I had one heck of a time when I was trying to get on at these construction

jobs which were closed-shop, which were right up in the interior where I was

born and grew up. I had to come all the way to Vancouver to a union hall to

get through that closed-shop gate.

For a while, Mr. Speaker, I was in a catch-22 situation. I knew, because of

the policies of the W.A.C. Bennett government in the early sixties and early

seventies –– right through that era –– that there were all kinds of pulp mills

and oil refineries being constructed in the province, and they were all completely

closed-shop. All that work was going on, and I was told at the union gate that

I had to have a union card to get a job. I came down to a union hall in Vancouver,

and I was told: "Oh, you have to have a job before we can give you a permit

to get through the gate." So I had one heck of a time as a young, fully

trained tradesman.

Eventually,

of course, I got through that barrier; and yes, I joined the union, and

I've paid dues ever since. So I know something of what I'm talking

about.

But I can say that this legislation before us

incorporates a fundamental principle that is essential in a democracy

such as ours: the principle of individual rights and freedoms. Because

if you leave one person out, in a very real sense you have failed.

Protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual employee has

become a very important priority, not only in this province but in our

whole Canadian society, indeed since the Canadian Charter came into

being.

This proposed Industrial Relations Reform Act

recognizes and protects these rights in a number of ways, and that is

why it should not be hoisted at this time, Mr. Speaker. Also, the right

of freedom of speech is reinforced in

section 5 of Bill 19. The act

also provides some protection against automatic job loss by those who

express reasonable dissent on the part of the employee.

Also,

there's the vital importance of the secret ballot, which of course we

all take for granted in our general elections in this province. But the

importance of this cannot be overemphasized when it comes to labour

relations. I know that some trade unions in this province have mail

ballots for ratification of proposed collective agreements, and I've

been at many meetings where it's been simply a show of hands, and

there's been no opportunity for a secret ballot. But even in a mail-in

ballot, I notice that each and every envelope has a number on it. And

although it may not be occurring, it could occur that there is some

mechanism of identifying how a particular member of a union does vote,

even in those mail-in envelope ballots. So the secret ballot is upheld

in this bill.

Of course, the notion of freedom of

association is in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It, too,

is protected in Bill 19. I could go on, but the few members of the

opposition present at this time in the House look a little

uncomfortable.

AN HON. MEMBER : How many?

MR. VANT : Oh, there are now four of them.

But

we have to keep in mind the rights of the individual. For sure this

bill affects many aspects of our society. I believe that first and

foremost Bill 19 is concerned with the welfare of the workers. At

times, of course, we only hear in the media from the leaders of those

workers, but we should never keep out of our minds the concerns of the

workers themselves.

I believe, after carefully reading this

bill, that it removes alienation between the worker and the employer.

In a very real sense, it removes discrimination and it enhances trust

between people, no matter what space they find themselves in in this

realm of industrial relations.

The

ingredients, of course,

are manifold, and perhaps hat is why this bill is one that has to be

read. I would prefer to read the bill itself rather than to read what

other people have said about it, but the ingredients in the bill....

Yes, there is the commissioner. Yes, it appears he has quite a bit of

power, but he also has great responsibility to let free collective

bargaining take place. As I alluded to earlier, the referee should not

enter into the actual playing of the game on that field of labour

relations; yet the commissioner has to, at appropriate times, exercise

that power to protect the public interest.

The Industrial Relations Council will provide ongoing monitoring of the whole labour relations scene. The disputes

[ Page 529 ]

resolution

division has many significant roles to play, as does the other

ingredient, the industrial relations adjudication division. All these

elements will, I am confident, create the atmosphere for all of us to

prosper in this province. We should keep in mind that the labour

movement should never, ever attempt to kill the goose that lays the

golden egg, or we all suffer. Long strikes and prolonged lockouts do

not benefit anyone. There is great benefit in Bill 19 for the worker,

for the employer, for the unions, for the public interest. The role of

the commissioner, of course, is very critical, and his five-year

appointment should give long-term stability to this very important role

in enabling this bill to function as it is designed to do, to bring

about a peaceful labour relations climate.

[4:30]

Within

it, of course, the time-frames are essential. There is one situation

where 48 hours is mentioned, and 20 days and 28 days. This is in

contrast to the four and one half month IWA strike which cost us so

much. When I say "us," I mean the workers, the employers and indeed

this province. It was $500 million in lost wages and over $2 billion

lost to the whole provincial economy. With long strikes or long

lockouts everyone is a loser.

I'd like to mention a little

bit too about productivity. I remember about 23 years ago going on the

first job, once I finally got through that closed-shop gate at Prince

George Pulp. It was the first pulp mill to be built in that city. There

was this older fellow who, after I'd been on the job for three or four

days, came over to me and said he wanted to talk to me for a minute. He

said: "You know, I've been watching you the last few days." Being a

fairly new person on the job, I was rather nervous. I thought I was

really doing something wrong with the way I was doing the job. He said:

"You know, I've been watching you and you've been really working quite

hard and quite fast." I said: "Well, I'm enjoying my work and I'm being

very careful and the time is going quickly." I was being quite

productive.

He said: "Young man, you know you're being paid

by the hour, and the longer this job lasts the more money you and I

will make." I listened to what he had to say, but believe me I didn't

buy it because the reality of the world out there is that we have to

compete in a world market and productivity is indeed very essential.

But I say that we shouldn't be rushing too much because we have to be

safe and careful, especially on a construction job.

As a

government, we are not a sit-back government. We keep our promises.

Contrary to what the second hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) said,

this bill was based on consultation, and that consultation was not a

charade.

MR. BLENCOE : Tell senior citizens that.

MR. VANT :

I would speak about senior citizens, but I would be out of order

because I wouldn't be speaking to the motion to hoist Bill 19. I will

try to stay on track.

No, we are not in any kind of

indecent haste regarding this Bill 19. We are proceeding in a

reasonable, consultative manner. Indeed, tomorrow I am going to meet a

school chum of mine, Mr. Richard Cash, who happens to be the president

of the Quesnel District Teachers' Association. I am going to very

carefully explain to him the ramifications of Bill 19 and the companion

bill, Bill 20, which of course is the primary concern of that gentleman.

AN HON. MEMBER : Will you listen?

MR. VANT : I certainly will be listening and also explaining to him from the proposed legislation itself.

am also pleased with the amendment to

section 9, which provides for the

exemption from closed shop of apprentices and trainees. This amendment

recognizes the validity of closed-shop agreements, but makes an

exception in the case of an employer who wants to hire someone in an

apprenticeship or a training capacity. Let's open up those closed shop

gates for young people, so they don't have to suffer what I suffered

through some 23 years ago in Prince George. The employer will now be

free to hire a non-union member in such a training or apprenticeship

capacity, and that certainly is in line with the increased funding for

the JobTrac program. Of course, it's important to note that the union

may still require that apprentice or trainee to become a union member

after he or she is hired. This amendment in this Bill 19 simply allows

people to get their foot in the door without their lack of union

membership acting as a stumbling-block or a barrier in getting the

training and the on-the-job experience that they will need for the

future.

The industrial relations adjudication division

proposed in this bill will maintain the basic structure of the existing

Labour Relations Board. It consists of a vice-chairman and an equal

number of representatives of employers and employees and support staff.

This division, of course, will concentrate on adjudicating legal

issues. Its role will be somewhat narrower than that of the present

Labour Relations Board. For instance, owing to constructive criticisms

presented during these open hearings by both labour and management, the

resolution of interest disputes will not be part of this division's

responsibilities.

The new dispute resolution division will,

among other things, provide mediation assistance, monitor collective

bargaining and certainly help employers and unions to reach collective

agreements. This, by the way, was in line with proposals presented by

the B.C. Federation of Labour and other labour groups. Of course, this

division will be staffed by people skilled in the techniques of

resolving labour disputes.

For sure, this bill, which

should not be hoisted, is a problem-solving bill, and that to me is

very good news. Will this bill work? What we have doesn't work all that

well when you look at the statistics of man-days lost in this province

through labour disputes over the years.

So why not drop your motion to hoist this bill? Why not give this Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987, a chance?

I'd

like to say, too, that the powers of the commissioner as proposed in

this legislation are modified somewhat by the executive council and

even by this Legislative Assembly. If the executive council is involved

in settling a dispute in this province when the Legislature is not

sitting, when the Legislature does sit it too will have a look at that

settlement and that situation.

Surely the members opposite

believe in democracy to the point where they have faith in this

Legislature. So, contrary to what the second member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Clark) was saying yesterday afternoon, that commissioner's power

is modified by input from the executive council and from this

Legislative Assembly. So he is not indeed a czar or commissar, as some

of the members opposite keep mumbling in my ear.

AN HON. MEMBER : The member is not opposite; he's in that corner.

[ Page 530 ]

MR. VANT : Yes, over in the corner here; right.

I think that as we continue in this debate we should be very serious

about addressing the bill itself. There should be no obscure references

to Dr. Strangelove. I am sure that if the members would seriously read

the act itself, they might understand it. And so I want to say that,

overall, this bill should be passed, not post haste, but certainly not

six months down the road. After reasonable debate and reasonable third

reading, it should be passed, so that people will want to invest here,

to live here and raise their families, and to work here in a peaceful,

stable climate.

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

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT :

In the member's chamber today 1 am proud to have one of the mayors from

our beautiful constituency of Yale-Lillooet, a very capable lady, Her

Worship Joyce Harder. Would the House please give her a warm welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN :

It is my intent this afternoon to frame some comments on the

advisability of hoisting Bill 19 to a period six months from this time.

I would like to outline the points that I plan to make in the course of

my comments this afternoon. It has been most interesting to sit through

the long and intense presentation of my colleague the second member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) and to hear the comments from the second member

for Cariboo (Mr. Vant). 1 want to talk first of all about the issue of

policy which we are in fact making with this legislation. I want to

examine the climate in which this legislation is being presented and

will be debated. Because history very often helps to inform our wise

deliberations and wise conduct, I want to take a brief look at some

historical perspectives. And practicalities of the debate on this bill

are ones that we need to address. I think by that time, Mr. Speaker, my

time will probably be up.

I sat for a number of years on a

school board, which is a very small kind of legislative body compared

to this august place. But one of the things that 1 learned there, and

learned very well, is that when one is drafting public policy, one

needs to allow time and process for that to take place. One needs at

that time to put aside partisanship to some extent and to look at the

substance of the policy and the processes that are necessary in order

for it to be well crafted and to effectively serve the domain for which

it is intended.

We have before us, I think, in this bill

from this new government, their very first presentation of a major

policy initiative. I want to say, first of all, that I welcome that

process and that policy presentation. It's the responsibility of

government, and is in fact a process that needs to come early into our

deliberations. At the same time, I think all of us know that major

legislation, which Bill 19 is, is going to be with us for a long time.

When we're looking at legislation that proposes very significant

changes in the labour relations processes, and that potentially can

affect labour relations climate, it's clear that the time and the

deliberation we give to the development of that process is a very

important part of our work as legislators.

[4:45]

The

hoist motion, in my view, is put forward from that perspective. It is

put forward in an enabling way in order for us in this House to work

together to develop good policy in this particular field. There is no

question, in any of our experience about the development of good

policy, that that process involves consultation; the opportunity for

extensive input; the opportunity, in fact, to revise, in a process that

involves dialogue among the parties and between both sides of this

House. After all, policy is a goal. What we're talking about here is

not something that is going to be controlled by the strictures of the

laws that are encompassed in the legislation, controlled entirely by

the due processes that are contained in this legislation, because we're

talking about legislation that involves complex working relationships.

This

legislation sets forth some goals that the government obviously hopes

to achieve; but people will be required to make those goals in practice

and to make them achievable. There is no question that the interests of

all, both in terms of having their views on the legislation heard and

their input considered for reflection and revision, are an essential

part of the development of any good legislation.

One of the

things I decided to do, Mr. Speaker, in preparing for my consideration

of this hoist motion and my own deliberations on it, was to take a look

at some perspectives of people who have worked in this field: people

outside the political framework, but people who have an interest in a

public interest way, which is something the legislation addresses;

people who have an interest in having labour legislation work well in

this province. I found a most useful book in our library here which 1

would recommend to members on both sides of the House because it is, if

you like, a good book to sum up a lot of positions and ideas –– and

we're busy people –– and something we can read fairly readily. Called

The Labour Code of British Columbia in the 1980's, it's a compilation

of the speeches that were presented at the Pacific Institute of Law and

Public Policy in 1983 on the tenth anniversary of the passing of the

Labour Code in this House. From time to time I'm going to quote from

three past chair people of the Labour Relations Board, because I feel

that each of those people came to that position –– as we would hope that

future people to occupy that position will come –– from a perspective of

the public interest, but also with a great deal of knowledge, expertise

and commitment to good labour-employer relations within the province,

and with a sensitivity to the political aspects of these kinds of

relationships and the importance they have for the economy and the

working people of the province.

Mr. Don Munroe, one of those past chair people of the Labour Relations Board,

made this comment around the policy issue in a short

section headed "Obligations

of Government":

believe there is a solemn obligation on government, a broad obligation

to society, to make every effort to ensure that the labour legislation

of the day is in the essential interests of everyone. That five-word

phrase can be so quickly spoken that the significance of the individual

words may be overlooked. Let me repeat it: the essential interests of

everyone. That is not an easy obligation to discharge. It is asking

politicians to prefer policy over politics. But if it is not met, or at

least if there is a perception of failure to try to meet it, great

damage can result to the parties immediately affected, to the longevity

of respect for the rule of law generally and thus to society as a

whole."

[ Page 531 ]

are dealing with a matter of public interest, and we are looking at the

kinds of obligations that we have as legislators as we develop policy.

In my view, in order that the interests of all can be heard and

considered, and that they can have effect on this development of

policy, we need more time.

Let

us look just briefly at the

history of the legislation that was passed in 1973. That legislation, I

might note, was also legislation that was viewed, when first tabled in

the House, with some concern by the parties. I'll come back to talking

about some of those concerns in a moment when I talk about climate, but

I think we have to recognize that when we're dealing with change, we're

dealing with the concerns that people affected by our decisions will

have. That's a legitimate perspective of people in society, and in fact

an appropriate one. Their self-interest and their concern about their

own interests and working relationships are a paramount part of our

legislation working, once we get it passed.

When the

Legislative Assembly began to work on Bill 11 in 1973, the process was

a long and clearly signalled one. Six months before the legislation

came into the House, the then minister appointed a group of people –– I

think they've been called the Three Wise Men, or something of that

nature; they were three people who had expertise in the field of labour

law –– to go out into the community to listen. I want to acknowledge the

work of the Minister of Labour in going out into the community to

listen. That's an important part of a minister's work, and in no way do

I want to suggest that that is not the kind of thing the minister

should be doing. But the minister went out without any kind of

framework, without any kind of mandate, except that he wanted to hear

everyone's perspective. We have not seen the information that came to

him as background material for the legislation. We have no idea what

the balance and the bias was. It was not a process that went forward in

the context of legislation.

Contrast the process leading up

to Bill 11 in '73: six months, and something in the order of 110 briefs

developed and presented in open conference as well as in follow-up

input to the council who were advisory to the minister. Note, too, that

when that particular legislation came into the House, it came in with a

fairly long prospectus on the development of the legislative agenda for

its passage. It's my understanding that it sat in the House, through a

whole range of processes, for almost two months. There was concern,

controversy and reaction to that bill. But because the process had been

defined, because the process had been accountable and creditable, and

because it was open to a wide range of input, there developed around

the passage of that bill a consensus that was really quite unique and,

in fact, one that remains an exemplary kind of representation of what

can happen when major public policy is developed. We should be looking

to consensus insofar as that is available to us, and we should be

looking to canvass the issues very thoroughly and broadly before we

move to the kinds of decisions that are taken with the enshrining of

the bill in legislation.

The previous speaker –– with early

study of the bill, admittedly –– commented on apprenticeship and the

fact that, although an apprentice might work in a union operation

without joining that union, once he had completed his apprenticeship,

he must become a member of the union. If we read

section 9 of the act

we find that that person is in fact exempt from union membership,

having come in via this particular process.

As we go

through the legislation there are dozens of interrelationships. There

are many complexities that very significantly change the practice of

collective bargaining and change the potential for working

relationships between workers and employers. We need to have a good

deal of time to examine those clauses, to understand their implication,

to consider ways in which they will affect the labour relations work in

our province, and to consider the ways in which they will work.

There

is no question that the history of labour relations over the last ten

years has been founded on legislation that was very carefully crafted.

In that legislation a couple of principles were clearly enshrined: the

principle of collective bargaining; and the second one, which I think

is an important one to note, from the comments of Paul Weiler, the

first chairperson of the Labour Relations Board: "The Code reflected a

crucial value, the pursuit of labour peace within those units where

collective bargaining had been established. This objective was believed

to be important, not just for employers but also for the general

public, including unionized workers themselves."

So in that

goal was both the concern for the two parties — the employer and the

employee — and a concern for the public interest, as an essential

ingredient in that Code and its development. Every single one of those

chair people has said over and over again in their comments about

labour legislation that the important issue is one of balance; the

important issue is that when the government starts out with any reforms

that it plans to carry forward, it will remember how important it is to

have the support of the parties for the process. We will not

necessarily always have the support of the parties for the substance,

because that is the thrust of policy development, and not all people

will find satisfaction for their aspirations in that process. But the

commitment to the process, the respect for the process, the credibility

of that process, is the essential ingredient, without which our

legislation will not stand and will not achieve the results which all

of us recognize it is our responsibility to try to have it achieve.

Let's

look for a moment at the climate in which this legislation is

introduced. Let me comment again that the timing of the bill coming to

the House is an exciting one for a new government. It is their very

first significant piece of legislation, and I think I can accept their

concern that it go through a passage quickly so that the stamp of

having accomplished a major piece of legislation is something that they

can take credit for. But let's remember that in the election timetable,

and in the speeches of many people sitting in this House, there was a

commitment to a process and a commitment to improve relations between

various sectors in the world of work.

[5:00]

By what is done with this legislation, it seems to me, this

government may well he known. I've already expressed some concern on

other issues about the haste with which certain new initiatives have

gone through as they affect some of the social policies of this

government. There is already, 1 would submit, some concern in our body

politic about the willingness of this government to be open, to engage

in consultation, to ensure that there is due process. 1 think it is in

this government's interest to recognize that how it proceeds with this

bill will have a great deal to do with the way its legislative agenda

is achieved. It's a model time. It's a time for this government to show

how it is going to operate, and it seems to me that any haste, any

failure to consult, any failure to recognize the rights and the input

of people throughout the

[ Page 532 ]

province, will rebound against this government in many aspects of its broader legislative agenda.

number of my colleagues have spoken about the fact that at this time

there is significant labour peace in this province and rapprochement in

many ways between the parties of organized labour and the employer

groups — working relationships that they have voluntarily undertaken

and which they have commented about with considerable concern. There is

no doubt that both parties recognize the importance of a close working

relationship.

There is one labour-strife issue, the IWA

strike, which is obviously very much in the minds of people, but I

would submit that this legislation would not have assisted in that

particular strike. Existing legislation does pertain to skilled people

available to participate. What happened in that strike was that there

was intervention on many occasions without the kind of skilled

expertise that is available through our present Labour Code.

There

are practicalities, too, in moving very quickly with this legislation.

I've been in touch with my constituency, with people both from the

employer and the employee group. None of them has as yet seen the

legislation. When they do see it they're going to need to have time for

careful study and analysis. They need to have an opportunity to provide

input to us as we proceed with our debate. We are looking at very

radical changes in how we deal with labour relations in the province.

It is obviously worrisome to people in many sectors that there may be

unseemly haste, that there may not be time for thorough examination and

exploration of the issues. The hoist would allow for that process. It

would allow time for a standing committee of the House to meet, and it

would allow time for it to travel. Both sides of the House have

expressed support for that method of governing our affairs at this

particular time.

I want to quote from the words of one of

the labour leaders in my riding. I spoke to him today, and I thought he

spoke very wisely about the hoist motion, comparing it to very

immediate debate and passage of the legislation within the next two or

three weeks. I'm happy to name the person: Jess Succamore of CAIMAW. I

wrote down his comments, and I think I can fairly accurately quote what

Mr. Succamore had to say. He said:

"There seems to be some indecent haste to entrench into

law suspect legislation that h