1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4669 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

High school graduation requirements. Mr. Rose –– 4669

Sale by BCBC of government buildings. Mr. Cocke –– 4670

High school graduation requirements. Mr. Rose –– 4670

Late payments from Ministry of Human Resources. Mr. Blencoe –– 4670

Investment in province's economy. Mr. Howard –– 4671

Tabling Documents –– 4671

Police treatment of accident victim. Hon. Mr. Smith replies –– 4671

Labour Code Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 28). Second reading

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4672

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4676

Mr. Howard –– 4679

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4682

Mr. Lockstead –– 4684

Mr. Kempf –– 4687

Mr. Lauk –– 4689

Mr. R. Fraser –– 4692

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1984

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have on the floor of the

House this afternoon three ministers from western Canada: Hon. Connie

Osterman, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs from Alberta; Hon.

Rick Folk, Minister of Culture and Recreation from Saskatchewan; and

Hon. Larry Desjardins, Minister of Fitness, Recreation and Sport from

Manitoba. These ministers are all shareholders of the Western Canada

Lottery Foundation and will be meeting with the British Columbia

shareholders this afternoon, shortly after the question period. I'd

like the members to welcome them here today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to

join with me in congratulating the Kamloops Oilers junior hockey team

for winning the western Canadian championship last night. I know that

all members will like to wish the team well as they continue on to

Kitchener, Ontario, to bring home the Memorial Cup to Kamloops.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on the grounds today is the largest band ever

assembled on the legislative grounds; the band is the Sacramento Union

Academy orchestra with 90 members and their choir consisting of 75

members. I would like the Legislature to welcome them to the precincts.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two young gentlemen

who are enjoying a bicycle tour of the province: Philip Charrier from

Ottawa and Peter Moliner from Sherbrooke, Quebec, both former Pages in

the House of Commons. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for

Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) and the second member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Mr. Mowat), I'd like to welcome from sunny Surrey the Squire

of Surrey, Tom Andersen. Would the House bid him welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this is lottery day in British

Columbia. I'd also like to introduce in the gallery the chairman of the

Western Canada Lottery Foundation and a group of directors from western

Canada.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to withdraw Notice No. 2 standing in my name on Orders of the Day .

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS

MR. ROSE: My question is directed to the Minister of

Education, and it concerns the new high-school graduation requirements.

The schools have not yet been provided with any information that I know

of to enable them to counsel grade 9 students who are going to be asked

to make lifetime career choices in their early teens. In light of the

representations made to the minister already about this problem, will

he see fit to delay possible implementation of any new regime until

1985?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the White Paper on proposed curriculum

changes makes reference to the fact that there will not be implementation until

September 1985. It's now within the document. I might also suggest that

those forums that are now being conducted throughout the province are well received

in most communities. I might also suggest that the constructive criticism which

is coming in is most helpful; all of it will be taken into consideration.

Yesterday I met with superintendents from the lower mainland–Fraser

Valley portion. Interestingly enough, I thought that if this particular

question was of some concern to the superintendents, being the

educational leaders within each of their respective districts, that

matter would have been raised; it wasn't. They were aware that we put

our thrust for this change for September 1985. Any changes incorporated

within that document will take place then and not before then. As far

as the item of children in grade 9 making career choices at that age,

we're not asking for that at all. They're making elections in the

schools right now; everybody is saying that there isn't any streaming.

The fact of the matter is that there is.

MR. ROSE: That particular answer is extremely interesting.

I'd be interested to know whether he believes that in order to qualify

for grade 11 and 12, the non-elective courses that are going to be

increased.... Does he not agree that students in grade 9 have to make

those decisions because of prerequisites required by those grade 11 and

12 courses? The prerequisite will be given in grade 10.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Many of the courses being taken by

students in grade 10 are in fact prerequisites for those they'll take

in grades 11 and/or 12. Our concern for September 1985, and why we have

it out now, is that they will at least have some idea of what may be

coming down the pipe. In the course selection in grade 10, if somebody

in any event — I don't understand why there should be such alarm for

those who are going into grade 10. It really hasn't come back yet. I'll

find out more about this, if the member is that concerned, as a result

of the forums now being conducted in the province. The purpose of those

forums is to see exactly what the people think about it.

MR. ROSE: I would be reassured if I were convinced that these

are not merely forums for consultation and that nothing will result

from the briefs that have been submitted. We all know that it's not

just this member who's concerned about it. We know that the Vancouver

School Board has been concerned about it; they've had a brief. The

superintendents of the province have been concerned about it. The

concern is not limited just to this side of the House. I'd like to know

how the minister plans to address the problems of a curriculum change

of a massive nature which everybody says is underfunded, delayed

planning, and also no adequate counselling to prepare students for the

changes.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: How do I correlate your remarks with the comments I listened to last night in a forum?

MR. ROSE: Where?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In the Fraser Valley.

[ Page 4670 ]

MR. ROSE: You were in Abbotsford last night? That's not my information.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In a number of places.

The opening comments were: "We agree with what you are doing. The

thrust is right. But we have a couple of suggestions for you." That's

fine, and we're picking this up throughout the province. That's why it

was called a White Paper, a discussion paper.

MR. ROSE: When I first asked the minister whether he planned

to have discussions, he hadn't even considered it until I asked him.

Was the minister in Abbotsford last night hearing discussions on these

briefs? That's what he intimated by "in the Fraser Valley." My

information is that he wasn't in Abbotsford last night; that he sent a

couple of his acolytes along to take the flak.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Acolyte? It's a religious term.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I guess we've got a new name for our civil service. I'm not sure. They'll be pleased. We'll relay that to them.

MR. ROSE: Were you in Abbotsford?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I met with the superintendents from the

valley yesterday afternoon starting at about quarter to three; after

that I met with the school board, at which time I discussed the brief,

which was one of the briefs presented at the forum. I was not at

Abbotsford school at the time the forum was conducted...

MR. ROSE: No. You're damned right you weren't.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: ...but I was there to receive the brief

from the school district — one of them — that was put forth. I've also

had a full report of what went on at the forum last night.

MR. COCKE: I have a question I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Filler question.

SALE BY BCBC OF GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS

MR. COCKE: A filler question for the Provincial Secretary. He couldn't answer a question, in any event, so it must be a filler question.

In the vicinity of the Legislature precincts there has sprouted a

small forest of real estate signs. The minister, through B.C. Buildings

Corporation, is unloading some 20 or more properties around the

precincts — properties that were acquired. Why is the government

dumping all the properties at this time onto a depressed real estate

market?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a very interesting question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now listen to the answer.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's one that I'm sure involves a certain

degree of investigation, and one I'll have to discuss with officials of

the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I'll bring the information back to the

House at the very earliest opportunity.

MR. LAUK: Can you do it before the buildings are sold?

MR. COCKE: While the minister is speaking to the B.C.

Buildings Corporation, he might mention to them that since W.A.C.

Bennett and successive governments have acquired properties in the

precinct area as part of a comprehensive development plan.... Why has

the B.C. Buildings Corporation abandoned the process, which was very

desirable, was thought to be desirable and has been thought desirable

for years? What's going on, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll take that question as notice and bring the answer back to the member to satisfy his curiosity at the earliest opportunity.

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam-Moody.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A filler question.

MR. ROSE: Actually it's a question, but also a kind of

question of privilege. It may be just to clarify. The minister said he

wasn't going to implement this until '85. Right here in his guide, he

says: "Revised graduation requirements will begin as an implementation

pattern in September of '84. Students entering grade 10 at this time

will make grade 10 course selections which will qualify them for the

new curriculum organization." It simply means that they have to be

counselled in grade 9, which is what I'm asking you about. Either

you've misled us or I've misunderstood you. I'd like you to have the

chance to clarify it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the curriculum proposals are

for grades 11 and 12. We understand that. We wanted the material out so

that they would have some idea When you make reference to the matter of

counselling, it should be that the people involved in counselling

students have some idea of the direction in which the government is

moving. They make a number of selections going out of grade 9 into

grade 10 right now; we know that. I don't think there's any argument

about it. In September 1985 they will have some idea. I think it was

only fair that we let people know. The response we're getting from the

field has been very good.

[2:15]

LATE PAYMENTS FROM

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Premier of the

province. All across this province there are hundreds of organizations

that are not receiving government funds, essential funds —

organizations contracted to the MHR in day care and other essential

areas. They're up to six weeks late with cheques. Their financial

future has been jeopardized by

[ Page

4671 ]

this government. I want to know: is the government so completely short of funds

— has this government squandered so much money, gone into so much debt — that

it has to make desperate attempts to threaten the financial stability of these

organizations?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair regrets that the question cannot be put because it is out of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

INVESTMENT IN PROVINCE'S ECONOMY

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is on an extended junket to Europe, I

wonder if I could direct a question to the Premier. Inasmuch as the

principal point in the 1983 budget was that it was designed to attract

investment into British Columbia, can the Premier tell us what factors

were contained in that budget that caused a decline in 1983 of some

$815 million in investment money in the province over the year before?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The international recession, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Inasmuch as the force of the budget of this year — which hasn't yet

been concluded so far as the examination of estimates is concerned —

was also designed to attract investment into British Columbia, can the

Premier tell us what factors are contained in this year's budget that

caused a further $539 million of decline in projected investment in

British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the budgetary proposals

of the government were to attract business investment over time. Now if

the member fully under....

MR. LAUK: Over time?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, over time, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

One of the factors in our budgeting that will attract business and

industry is the containment of the cost of government that will not

carry future tax implications that would not only not attract new

investment but would make it unattractive for business and industry to

stay here. This government's success at implementing this program is

being watched carefully and being appreciated by those who wish to make

future investment decisions.

The member for Skeena asked the question as if turning investment on

and off was as simple as dealing with a water faucet. Unfortunately

investment decisions aren't made on that basis, nor are they

accelerated in a difficult economic climate, except when they can see

long-term strategies of economic planning on which they can base their

investment decisions.

Mr. Speaker, the budgets that the Minister of Finance has presented have been

responsible budgets, particularly compared with many other jurisdictions, and

are appreciated by those who will make those decisions. But that is just one

of the factors that have gone into the budget. Other areas will attract business,

particularly in that part of the budget that deals with the Ministry of Industry

and Small Business Development and the very statement the member made as part

of posing the question — that is, our international marketing strategy — in

which he was by statement implying that he was critical that the Minister of

Finance was in Europe at this very time encouraging investment in this province,

speaking to the financial institutions.

Those are just some of the factors that went into the budget. If the

member would care to follow up, I would be pleased to give a number of

other factors to assist him in his own party's finally coming up with

some economic proposals that at least will let the people of British

Columbia think they're sincere when they take their places in this

Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Tourism for the year ended March 31, 1984.

POLICE TREATMENT OF ACCIDENT VICTIM

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 1984, the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) asked me a question about the Harvey Jack

case and the proposed meeting between various native groups on

Vancouver Island and the staff of the RCMP. I want to respond to that

question and advise her that the meeting, which had been planned for

about a month, took place yesterday in Comox and was attended by

Assistant Commissioner Wilson of the RCMP, the subdivision commanders

of the RCMP on the Island, most of the RCMP detachment commanders and

senior officials from my ministry. Also in attendance were the tribal

council chiefs of Vancouver Island. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Bob

Warren, the president of the United Native Nations Victoria local, who

planned this meeting with the RCMP officials.

It was an excellent meeting. It addressed the concerns that the

native community had not only about the Harvey Jack case but also about

the perceived treatment of native people by the police and before the

courts in the province. I understand that it was a frank meeting and

that in the future regular consultative meetings are going to take

place, and another meeting of this kind will be scheduled. I understand

that a number of the questions were addressed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has been advised by the

second member for Victoria that he has a matter to raise under standing

order 35.

MR. BLENCOE: I indeed rise under standing order 35 to ask

leave to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of

urgent public importance. The matter relates to the late payment of

agencies contracted to the Ministry of Human Resources. I understand

that there are now other agencies and departments of this government

who are not issuing cheques — like legal aid. Many agencies have not

received their government funds for April and May of this year. This

has created enormous financial difficulties, forcing many of these

agencies to borrow funds to continue operating, and for some, the

layoff of staff. This matter has been raised twice in this House in

question period this week, but many agencies have still not received

their provincial funds. The matter is of extreme public importance and

must be rectified immediately to take care of present and future

payments. I would urge that you consider this a matter of extreme and

urgent public importance.

[ Page 4672 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. member, the Chair will undertake

to review the matter and bring a response back to the House at the

earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, if I might have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: From the delightful city of Kelowna and the

great riding of Okanagan South we have the manager of CKIQ, Mr. Walter

Gray. Nice to see you here.

I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

(continued)

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: I too would like to welcome Walter Gray,

someone I've known for some years as well. I'm sure Walter would have

been particularly delighted with the changes earlier this session in

the Constitution Act.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: It went over everybody's head, I think, Mr. Speaker — well, not everybody's.

In picking up the debate on the Labour Code amendments, Bill 28, I

want first of all to continue discussing the whole question of

multiple-employer certifications and to clarify what I think will be a

wrong

interpretation of my remarks. Upon reading this morning's Blues,

I saw that I had indicated some concern about

section 5 of the bill in

respect of multiple-employer bargaining. The way that should have been

stated, to be more accurate than the way I did state it, would be to

talk about this with respect to future government policy signalled by

the changes in

section 5, and also by the changes the minister hinted

at when he was quoted following some discussions by some of the forest

companies about their unhappiness with collective bargaining through

the Pulp and Paper Industrial Relations Bureau, and the desire on the

part of some of them to bargain independently. I recognize that this

particular series of amendments that we're dealing with today does not

deal directly with the accreditation of employers' organizations,

section 59 of the Code, but rather deals with other sections relating

to applications by trade unions for certification in situations where

there is more than one employer.

My concern, which I did not express in the way I would like to have expressed

it, is as follows. The hint contained in that particular amendment, together

with the comments of the minister on the airwaves and the response of the Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who applauded the kind of direction of the

possible elimination of accreditation, causes some concern, not necessarily

from the point of view of the policy direction but from the fact that clearly

some discussions are going on behind closed doors now about that particular

move. I just want to say to the government, and to the Minister of Labour in

particular, that the idea that a majority of the employers involved in that

particular industry should be able to determine whether or not there is accreditation

is a sound one, and the idea that an individual employer can opt out is not.

That intent is clearly signalled and indicated in a more narrow area in the

amendment to

section 40 of the Code. So I wanted to clarify that before the

minister gets up and tells me that I'm all wrong in how I've interpreted

section 5 in the amendments. If he said that based on the precise words I used,

he would have been right.

Clearly in debating this Code the details of the sections in terms

of their impact on the industrial relations community are best left to

committee, and I had indicated that earlier. Nevertheless, it seems to

me there are a number of principles contained. I had begun the process

of going through this bill in respect of those principles, and I want

to continue to do that before I resume my seat.

I dealt with the question of certification in some detail, without

getting into the nitty-gritty. For example, I left out the fact that

under this proposed series of amendments we will not have the

opportunity, as happens in Nova Scotia.... I would ask the minister,

when he does respond in second reading on this bill, to give some

indication as to his views on the Nova Scotia legislation in respect of

the five-day period in which certification votes are required to take

place. I ask him what will happen, in his view, without that particular

limitation, inasmuch as the field is wide open now to lawyers to get

involved in asking for delays of various kinds. Certification votes, in

many cases, will take place a long time after the date of application

is filed with the board, thereby making it very difficult for trade

union organization. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is now

virtually impossible, given an intransigent employer, for a new trade

union to be certified in an area that was previously unorganized — I

stress the words "given an intransigent employer." Many employers —

certainly progressive employers are included in this — are happy to

have trade unions in their workplace, because it makes the whole

question of dealing with the workers far easier and more civilized. As

I said, most of the major, big, progressive employers prefer collective

bargaining to individual bargaining.

[2:30]

Having said that, I would like the minister to tell me why he is

introducing legislation that, in effect, will preclude the opportunity

for people to join unions if their employer doesn't want them to.

That's a fact as a result of this legislation. I've outlined some of

the reasons why: there is the opportunity for employer interference;

there is the opportunity for the employer to stack the representation

vote; there is the opportunity for legal challenges to be made on the

part of the employer which can delay the vote to a time when the

bargaining unit is more appropriate to the employer's desires — there

are a variety of other techniques involved in that particular approach.

Furthermore, it creates incredible difficulties for building trades

or for construction organizing. I'll tell you why: on the surface it

appears as though the government has been generous and magnanimous in

creating a special

section for construction organizing.

Section 8 of

this bill will establish a new

section 45 of the Labour Code. On the

surface of it the contractor can begin work on a project, and union

organizers

[ Page 4673 ]

can go in and sign up 55 percent of the workers and

automatically obtain a certification, if everything is in order.

Unfortunately, most construction jobs — particularly now, with the

definition sections the way they are — will have been finished before

(

a) the organizing drive is finished, (

b) the application is filed, and

(

c) the labour board has had time to award the certification, if

everything was in order. Most construction jobs will be over.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I can say that. It's a fact. Take any bridge

being built in my riding — there aren't very many of them,

unfortunately, at the moment. Nevertheless, if you take a bridge being

built, and if you take the time which each particular trade spends on

that job, it's not long. Given the fact there are no time limits for

the Labour Relations Board to deal with the application, in many

instances — not in every one, I didn't say that — the job will be

nearly over by the time the certification is approved. Then the

certification falls apart the moment that job is completed.

The other and even more important problem with this is that if a

building trades union wants to obtain a more permanent form of

certification with a construction company, they have to go through the

other section. They have to go through what will be

section 43 of the

act, presumably the same one under which the industrial unions are now

being invited to make representations for applications. In that case we

are going to run into incredible difficulties in determining the

appropriate bargaining unit. As a result of the changes in the

definition, we're going to have arguments about whether it's an

appropriate application. Whenever

section 73(

l) is imposed, there will

be total confusion. As a result of this legislation, if a trade union,

under this proposed amendment, gains certification for one part of that

contractor's operation, it will then be denied the opportunity to

organize in any other part of that particular operation. I don't

believe that was the intent in drafting this legislation, but it

certainly is the effect. So I think some very careful consideration

needs to be paid to the certification procedures.

The minister was off to his meeting earlier this morning when I

talked about moving to this American model which I find totally

inappropriate for Canadian labour law. I trust he recognizes that when

you have the opportunity for the so-called rogue employers to fight

union drives, in the way that J.P. Stevens did, and the ensuing

industrial unrest, the ensuing uncertainty in the community and the bad

feelings that then develop as a result of bad relations between labour

and management, that does no good whatsoever for the economy. That does

no good whatsoever for industrial harmony and progress. This

legislation, in that respect, allows for that odious southern-U.S.

practice to come into Canadian labour law.

Moving to another topic, the whole question of the economic

development projects, the minister has said frequently that he is

opposed to right to work. Mr. Speaker,

section 73(

l) is right to work

in the building trades. Let's talk about what right to work is. Right

to work means that an individual can go to work alongside a union

worker and work for less money. It means you are able to go in....

Right to work in an industrial situation would be as follows. You've

got a guy on a green chain pulling lumber, working under an IWA-FIR

contract....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me finish the sentence. You've got a guy

doing that, working for $12-something, or whatever the rate is, plus

benefits and being protected by the collective agreement. Right to work

would allow that employer to bring in somebody else to take that job,

or to work beside that individual for a lower rate of pay outside the

collective agreement. Right to work means being able to work in a job,

are called for in that contract. People say, "I have the right to go to

work in that plant," and the employer says: "I have the right to hire

this person and I can determine an individual agreement." I know that

"right to work" has a whole variety of meanings, but that is one of the

essential and, as far as I'm concerned, most important meanings of that

term. It means "right to work for less."

Right to work laws go further and allow for an entire plant to be

composed of people who are no longer in a union, all working at

different rates. What are we going to have at Expo if it's declared an

economic development project? We're going to have people doing the same

work at different rates of pay for the same employer, Expo Corporation

or whatever it's called. The fact is that Expo Corporation hires

contractors to do some of the work, but the employer is Expo. People

will be working alongside other people at a lower and/or a different

rate — not just in wages but in terms of security. If that isn't right

to work in the classic definition, I don't know what is. If the

minister wants to argue technicalities about whether it's precisely

right to work, the fact is that it sure opens the barn door.

What this legislation does is finally accept the wishes of the

Social Credit Party, despite the valiant efforts of the cabinet — even

though the Premier stays in the corridor during those debates on

occasion — and despite the valiant efforts of....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The time Allan Williams was fighting that battle on the floor, the Premier was in the corridor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. GABELMANN: It may be nonsense, but it's true. The fact

is, this is right to work. The rank-and-file Socreds, the Kerkhoffs and

the anti-union employers have gotten their way from this government.

What is wrong, Mr. Speaker, with honouring the traditions that have

been developed in this province, time-honoured traditions which have

worked well, traditions which have allowed the dams in this province to

be built on time without industrial unrest, traditions which allowed

that stadium to be built on time?

What the government is doing is taking advantage of bad economic

times, incurred by the economists whom they listen to, the Friedmans

and the Walter Blocks of the world — the Fraser Institute.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't know what these inane interjections are, but they are nothing more than inanities.

[ Page 4674 ]

Section 73(

l) of the Code, as amended by

section 13 of this bill,

has to be read in conjunction with 83(3) of the Code. It is a curious

situation. What it means....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not Expo legislation. I heard the Premier

several times talking about the fact that legislation was going to be

brought into this Legislature to make sure that Expo was built. This

has nothing to do with that. You know, the leaders in South Africa and

the Soviet Union can teach this Premier something about how to get

projects built on time. It's called slave labour, and that's what he

wants to do.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That's precisely what you're doing when you deny people their rights. You're doing exactly what those countries have done.

Mr. Speaker, what this

section does is allow cabinet — not some

independent agency but the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as I read it

— to declare any part of any construction project — and subdivide any

part within that part, if it so chooses — an economic development

project. There is nothing wrong, as I read it, to pick up on the

minister's quotes in the Globe and Mail about the Tasmanian

pavilion, with saying that the painting of that particular pavilion is

an economic development project. You could do that.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It doesn't matter what you intend to do; it

matters what you say. I wish we could be reasonable, but when we're

presented in this House with legislation as ambiguous, as badly written

— either badly written or deliberately vague and ambiguous, allowing

for any variety of activities.... Any construction project in this

province can be declared an economic development project — no

guidelines about its importance or about anything else. "Special

economic importance" — what does that mean? It means whatever the

government wants it to mean.

But let me get back to my point. The Premier has been screaming

around this province about bringing in legislation and making sure Expo

is built on time, despite the fact that the corporation and the unions

agreed to do it. But he wouldn't let them. Then he says: "I'm going to

bring in legislation to make that happen." This doesn't do it. The CLRA

building trades agreement expires, they go on a legal strike, and it

lasts six months, let's say. Nothing happens at Expo. This legislation

doesn't deal with it.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't say you did; I said the Premier did.

Mr. Speaker, what the legislation does is in a sense far more odious. It gives

the cabinet a clout to say to any construction union in this province on any

construction project now or in the future in this province: "You step out

of line, you do anything we don't like, and we'll declare you an economic

development project. Then your non-affiliation clause doesn't apply. Not

only does your non-affiliation clause not apply; neither does your right to

strike on health and safety grounds" — the way it's written. That's

how sloppily written the legislation is, as far as I can read. This

section

refers to 83(3) in its entirety, not simply to the amendment of 83(3), and

83(3) is a much broader section. This

section says to building trades workers,

if they're working on an economic development project: "You must continue

to work even though you know that crane is going to fall down on you."

And if you don't think that's true, read the lousy drafting that's

been done.

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I read it. It refers to the entire 83(3).

Section 83(3) is amended by adding, not by renumbering. Unless you

declare them a special economic project.... The minister laughs. The

minister is saying to me, as he said to the Globe and Mail

reporter, that the Tasmanian pavilion could be declared a special

economic development project. But under this legislation, so too could

the painting part of that building. When that happens, the affiliation

clause is out the window. I think what the government wanted to do —

odious as it is — was to be able to say that a work stoppage on the

Tasmanian pavilion couldn't stop work on the Polish pavilion. That's

what they wanted to say, but it's not what they say in the legislation.

We'll get into that in more detail during discussion in committee stage.

The picketing

section is equally woolly. I'm going to leave comment

about the details of it until later. But I want to say to the minister

and the government that what they have done by this

section is to

ensure that strikes that might ordinarily be resolved quickly will last

longer. One of the reasons a strike or lockout can be ended quickly is

that there is severe economic pressure on the parties involved. That's

when you get resolution: when the workers start to hurt or when the

companies start to hurt. One of the ways you get resolution is by

ensuring that the particular product or service is not able to be

supplied by an ally or by the same company elsewhere. The way this

section is written leaves that wide open. In addition to that, one

labour lawyer suggested to me that if, for example, a pulp mill were on

strike and a construction project was going on inside that pulp mill,

the primary picketing of the pulp mill would be considered as secondary

picketing in respect of the construction project inside the pulp mill.

How do you exert economic pressure, which is what the strike-lockout

provisions in collective bargaining are all about, if you're denied the

right to do it? While there is discomfort, economic pain and all the

rest of it as a result of strikes and lockouts, this

section will make

it worse rather than fixing it. Unions and companies in the service and

small manufacturing sectors of our economy will be particularly hard

hit. I predict that as a result of this

section any operation which is

scabbed will never have the strike resolved, because there cannot be

the economic pressure imposed upon that employer with the limitations

in this section. We'll deal with that in more detail later on.

I want to wrap up my comments in general by talking about the

important issues involved in this legislation. Apart from the

day-to-day penalties imposed upon ordinary people, the overwhelming

impact is to delay even further British Columbia's opportunity to join

in whatever economic recovery is developing in North America. For the

government to have policies that say to one segment of our society, "We

do not want you to be involved in governing your own lives; we

[ Page 4675 ]

do not want you to feel that we're treating you

fairly; we do not want you to be involved in the overall progress of

this province; we want to cast you out, leave you outside of the

equation, while we and the small non-union businesses continue to run

this province and tell you what to do," will guarantee that we will not

have the industrial peace and harmony that we all want.

If the government was serious about developing a climate in this

province that allowed for harmony in industrial relations, they would

not take advice from those people who are inciting hatred and

disharmony out there — the Kerkhoffs of the world. That's where their

advice comes from in this bill. If the government was serious about

trying to generate some economic recovery in this province, they

wouldn't just talk about being competitive; they would talk about how

to become competitive. You become competitive when you have a willing

and productive workforce working in cooperation with their employers

and in harmony with their government. But when you bring in legislation

like this which says to the unorganized workers who want to join

unions: "That's finished, people. By the way we designed this law we're

no longer going to allow you, except in the odd, occasional or unusual

circumstance, to join a union anymore...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MR. GABELMANN: That's a fact. I'm going to have to go through

it again. The certification procedures are to make sure that workers

cannot get organized in this province. If the government believed

anything different, they wouldn't allow the employers to stack the

vote, as they do under this section. They wouldn't allow the employers

to influence the vote. They wouldn't allow the Labour Relations Board

to delay the taking of the vote, and they wouldn't allow the lawyers to

get involved as they will as a result of this legislation. What the

government is signaling to those small, non-union, anti-union companies

in this province is that they're going to make this province just like

Alabama, whether the rest of us like it or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GABELMANN: That's right. You introduce the concept of

right to work in

section 73; you introduce the American concept of

certification in those sections. What other message is being delivered

to the people of this province, and why? There is an ideological agenda

designed partly in the back bench, but even more so by people like

those people employed at the Fraser Institute: an ideological agenda to

change the face of this province. If you can't quite make it like

Taiwan, the Philippines and the Sri Lankan free trade zones that you'd

like to make it, where a dollar a day is a good wage, you'll go at

least halfway and get it to be like Alabama, Tennessee and Louisiana.

MR. REID: Garbage, garbage, garbage.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not garbage, Mr. Speaker. There is a

deliberate attempt on the part of the government to incite workers in

this province so that the government can yet again bring in more

repressive and anti-labour legislation. What we need at this time more

than any other time is cooperation. [Applause.) The members applaud

cooperation.

MR. REID: Stay on that tack and we'll stay with you.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Now you understand.

MR. GABELMANN: My whole tack has been that what we need in

this province is cooperation and harmony. You do not get cooperation in

labour-management relations when you bring in legislation without

consultation. What consultation is there when at five after six some

leaders of the industrial community are invited to see the results of

the minister's consultation in a bill introduced at 6 o'clock, and it

is so different from anything they envisioned that they don't even know

what half of it means? It says to me, Mr. Speaker, that if you don't

know what the words in a bill mean, then you haven't had much to say

about what went into it.

As I said before, consultation and cooperation do not necessarily

mean that those being consulted and cooperated with get their way. No

one argues that. There is a give and take involved, but what give and

take is involved here? How many small local unions — who are the ones

who are really affected — were in the minister's office talking to him

about certification processes? How many small plants and industries

were also in the minister's office talking about how the certification

process works in that area? I don't know how many of the business

people were in, but I do know that none of the small unions were in,

and they are the ones who are hurt by this.

Those people out there in the service industries in particular, and

in the small manufacturing industries, who so desperately need the

opportunity to organize, were not consulted about this bill. The

building trades were not consulted about the construction sections. And

on and on it goes. What's important in labour-management relations is

that there be cooperation. The back-benchers applaud that, and the

minister spouts it in his opening speech, but why say it and applaud it

if you don't do it?

MR. REID: Cooperation takes two parties.

MR. GABELMANN: It sometimes takes more than two parties, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that when the Manitoba government

decided it wanted to think about new directions in labour relations, it

didn't have an advisory committee bound to secrecy and not able to say

what its recommendations were, which were accepted and which weren't,

and which components of the advisory committee recommended different

things. It didn't do that. It didn't bring in a bill saying what the

final nature of the labour relations act in that province was going to

be. What did it do? It used a White Paper. What's wrong with that?

During question period today there were questions to the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) about the White Paper relating to

curriculum. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) talked about it

being democratic to have a White Paper. What's wrong with a White Paper

on labour relations?

MR. REID: That's what Bill 28 is.

MR. GABELMANN: Oh, I'm told that Bill 28 is a White Paper.

I'm delighted to hear that. It doesn't say so, and it's not written

that way, but I'm delighted to know that it's a White Paper, because it

means that following debate it doesn't

[ Page 4676 ]

become law; it's just a discussion paper. I'm delighted to hear that.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not only a black paper, it's a black day

I don't know how to say it any more clearly than this. What this

province so desperately needs now is not to have a government that

deliberately pits non-union worker against union worker, that

deliberately incites fear and hatred on the part of some sectors of our

society, and deliberately foments mistrust among major segments of our

economy. What we need at this time is a plan, a program, a course of

action that involves everybody in the community who wants to

participate in making this province great again. You don't do that by

bringing in blatantly anti-labour, pro-management legislation of this

kind — at least, not without first having gone through a consultative

process which might teach you something.

[3:00]

The minister claims to have gone through a consultative process. It

didn't teach him a damn thing. This minister in the hallways is an

affable gentleman, and I enjoy having chats with him, but he is an

absolute disaster as a Labour minister. Any time there is a difficult

dispute, he can't solve it. He doesn't know how to get involved in

appropriate ways to bring resolution. He has to resort, as he did in

the pulp industry, to legislative action. When he has a difficulty in

the question of industrial relations, he doesn't know how to solve it,

except by bringing in heavy-hammer legislation designed to meet the

needs of the right-wing community in Langley. It doesn't meet the needs

of this province. It doesn't do a damn thing to bring economic harmony

and economic progress. It doesn't do anything to make sure that there's

peace in construction. It doesn't do anything to make sure that poor

people working in low-paying jobs have the opportunity to be organized.

It doesn't do anything for those workers in up to 1,500 construction

companies who, because of the recession imposed by this government,

haven't worked for two years, whose collective agreements will be

thrown out and who will therefore become non-union.

What kind of impartial legislation is this that every step of the

way takes a hammer blow at one side and not the other? What kind of

government is it that says, "We want a government that stays out of

people's lives, a government that stays out of the marketplace, we want

to privatize everything, we don't even want to regulate violent

pornography, just leave that to the individuals involved," and then

brings in legislation interfering directly in the way trade unions

conduct their business? Why is it that when it comes to business, the

government says hands off, and when it comes to labour it's hands right

in? Why is it that when it comes to consumer affairs in this province

and companies ripping off consumers, the government gets rid of its

staff, weakens its legislation and does nothing? Labour, on the other

hand, is the whipping boy. That's fair enough. The government may have

been elected on a policy to represent management and not workers. They

can then bring in laws representing management and not workers, but

they'd better remember that when they do that, they're doing untold

damage to the economy. When they do that, they are making sure that

production won't be as high as it should be.

They're making sure that there will be more strikes and lockouts and more

unrest, because when there is suspicion — a feeling that you're being treated

unfairly — you react, sometimes, irrationally. But quite often you react rationally,

and you do your best to defend your position. As a result of that, you often

have situations in which the best for the whole community isn't happening.

If the government really believed in what it says when amending the

Labour Code — about which there's no quarrel; changes should be made to

legislation — they would go through the process.... They would sit down

with the big employers and with the little employers. They would sit

down with all the trade unions and representatives of people in other

areas so that everybody was involved, every interest and point of view

expressed.

When that process is over, people will say: "I may not have gotten

what I want but, by God, at least I had a chance to argue my case, and

I did get this even though I didn't get that. As a result, I'll live

with it for a time, and maybe we'll have another chance another day to

case. That's what happens in collective bargaining every day. Nobody

goes away from the bargaining table happy. They go away having given

something up and having gained something in exchange. They go away

committed to the conclusion of the process. Nobody goes away from the

conclusion of this process committed to it, because they weren't

involved in it.

What's the result? The result is yet further damage to our economy.

Why the government is interested in doing that is beyond me, except

that when I listen carefully to the minister talking about being

competitive with markets in other parts of the world, I then know that

what he wants to be able to do is drive down wages and working

conditions in this province so they're at the same level as the ones in

those parts of the world that they so like: Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong,

the free-trade zones in Sri Lanka, etc. They know they can't quite get

away with that, so they'll settle for Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana,

right-to-work and a smashed trade union movement, because that's their

objective.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I rise to support the legislation put

before this House by the Minister of Labour, so well thought out and so

well discussed with interested members of the community not only over

the last few months or the last year but for some time, with people

having an opportunity to speak to government.

I reject a number of the things said by the member for North Island.

I'm embarrassed for him and I'm embarrassed for his party that he is

the official spokesman on this matter and on labour matters in this

House. What he says is no longer a personal opinion which he expressed

years ago when he was a back-bench member of the New Democratic Party

when it was government and voted against his party. At that time I knew

he spoke as an individual, but today he's taking the official line, and

what he says he is saying on behalf of all of the members on that side,

including the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who has taken a

different tack — or at least was taking a different tack — from that of

his party in his bid to try to modernize, change and soften it, and

make it more representative of the broad community in our province,

rather than a narrow, confined representation for only a few if they

ever get to government.

In fact, the implication just recently was that government should

negotiate legislation as contracts are negotiated in the private

sector, whether they be business or industrial relations contracts. I

reject that. Governments are elected to do what's

[ Page 4677 ]

right. Because that member represents a party that

now negotiates its policies for support, it no longer has a clear idea

of what is right and wrong. It no longer has a clear idea of what its

job is in this House in representing all citizens — not only when you

become government, but when you become the opposition as well. What is

right is not negotiable with power groups in this province from the

right or the left, or from business or labour. Government is supposed

to be for all of the people, and that is what the minister and this

government have done in bringing in amendments.

The member suggests that it should have been a White Paper, that

there should have been more discussion than the months and years that

went into discussion — and, yes, the advisory committee. I remind him

to look back. The most sweeping changes ever made to industrial

relations and the Labour Code were made without that consultation and

without a White Paper by a party, which that member belongs to, which

was government — the New Democratic Party.

Over the last few days I've taken the opportunity to review the

headlines of that time, and to review the stories and the editorials.

That member has a selective memory to go along with a very poor view of

how governments and parties should act. Mr. Speaker, this legislation

is for all of the people. The member made the statement that this takes

away rights. This legislation does not take away rights. Rights are

given under the Charter for everyone. Those tools for bargaining that

the member talks about are given legislatively; they're not rights.

What is legislatively given can be legislatively adjusted. In that

member's mind and that party's mind, tools and tactics now become

rights.

The Minister of Labour heard from many parties in this province that

secondary picketing was affecting not only other labour union members

with valid contracts, but affecting the rights and economic well-being

of individuals and communities. Do you mean that the member and that

party stand for the right of one union, such as in the recent case with

the pulp workers? That they could close off jobs for IWA members who

had negotiated a legally valid collective agreement to go to work? Is

he saying today that that should be the standard, and that some people

who are union members can at any given time, having no

part in the

dispute and no benefit to gain, be made unwilling victims because of

secondary picketing? Does he believe that our ferry workers, who have

not caused a disruption in our ferry service in years, and when they

have a legally valid collective agreement, can take the abuse and be

shut off the job by others in public employ who wish to use them and

inconvenience the public as part of their bargaining, causing ferry

workers to lose a day's pay? Does he believe that that is right, that

that is a right and is part of what he calls a sane industrial

relations climate that inspires confidence? Does that inspire

confidence from labour union members? Does it inspire confidence from

investors? Does it inspire confidence from communities such as

Mackenzie, which felt the full impact when those events took place

earlier this year? Not at all.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The people of British Columbia, union and non-union, management and non-management, professionals....

There are a lot of people in this province who don't fall into the

easy categories that the member for North Island defines; he attacks

some and defends one on behalf of his party in this debate. He suggests

that this government, by doing these things, is legislating for one

segment of society. Nonsense! His very argument is for a very narrow

segment of society. He speaks of workers as though all those who work

in this province chose to be covered by a collective agreement. He

speaks of others as if all management were the same, and all business —

large and small — and professionals and others were the same; yet it is

not so. People of British Columbia will be very interested to read how

he views this province in his very narrow definition of us against them

— the us being those to whom he is committed to legislate, both in

opposition and if he ever became government, to the detriment of the

many. That type of viewpoint will not serve the interests of British

Columbia, nor does it serve the interests of a calm and capable

industrial relations climate in which we can keep on and get on with

the building of our economy in what will be a more competitive world.

The Minister of Labour brought in these changes to calm the waters so

that people did not have to fear the type of disruptions that have

taken place. He did it not just to create a climate for new jobs but to

let the IWA workers know that when they have a valid collective

agreement, they can stay on the job in this province.

[3:15]

The member for North Island talks about his view of the just

society. Well, it's just for a very few who have purchased that

viewpoint with donations, to the detriment of all others who should be

represented in this Legislature. The Minister of Labour has done an

outstanding job in trying to clear up some areas in which difficulties

have became apparent to every British Columbian, almost without

exception, except those few faces that sit in this Legislature across

from us on a random basis, and a few others who feel in jeopardy

because their positions are based and maintained on them causing

conflict, creating confusion and attacking. This legislation attacks no

one; it protects the many in this province.

That member should well remember when he was in the New Democratic

Party government and they brought down legislation. Maybe he didn't

feel the sense of responsibility you have to feel as government, but I

remember the headlines and I reviewed them again. There were the same

spokesmen — or the people speaking from the same positions; some of

them are retired now — saying that there would be disruptions in the

future because of the upheaval of this new legislation. It's the same

thing we're hearing now from that member. Yet this legislation is

designed to prevent that from happening and to try to bring some

security to IWA members so that when they have a collective agreement

that's valid, they can't be shut out of their jobs by a dispute in

which they are not a party. That's an important part of this

legislation. I don't see how that member can argue with this type of

simple democracy: voting procedures for members on certification and

decertification. I leave it for the public to decide that somehow the

votes of the majority are sinister or too expensive, and that a

democracy would be too expensive in his view — when it suits his

purpose and that of the party. He is the main speaker in enunciating

their views on how this province would be conducted had they been

elected last May.

I would like to deal with some of the other areas where, in

attempting to make his point, he has made our point. I've tried to get

the quotes. He talks about the fact that the government hasn't

recognized the collective agreements of the building trades. What we

have done is allow them to have work in Expo once it's declared an

economic site, to have their clauses dealing with the job they get.

Whether it's a $10 million building or a $50 million building, we're

suggesting

[ Page 4678 ]

that that building shall be a project, such as the

stadium, which he uses as an example of what should take place. The

stadium was a single contract. It was carried out by a union firm, and

that is exactly what will take place on the Expo site.

The Expo site is 165 acres, larger than almost every downtown area

in this province — every main street in British Columbia is smaller

than that site. The member is suggesting that where there are a number

of different contracts put out for tender, downtowns everywhere should

be called a common site. What we are saying with Expo and in this

legislation is that there will be a lot of bids. A lot of single

projects will be taking place over 165 acres. Where a union company

wins the job, it gets the job and all of the parts of it and traditions

based on the job will be honoured. Where a non-union firm gets the job,

the same thing will take place. That open bidding can take place, as

the public should expect. The public expect the market factor, which

has hurt them in a recession, will start to work for them sooner or

later in lower prices, which means lower taxes and lower costs.

The member suggests that it is this government that is interfering

with the contracts, interfering with what takes place at Expo, and that

we have an intrusive government. In fact, that is not what we are

doing; that is what the member is suggesting be done. He's suggesting

that the government — or someone under the government's direction —

intrude in the marketplace to set a pricing factor that is higher than

the market presently can afford to pay or is paying in the open, free,

competitive bidding that is taking place around this province. That is

exactly what that member is suggesting. He is suggesting the same sort

of heavy-handed big government they have always stood for and which we

faced in this province between 1972 and 1975. He doesn't recognize the

market, he doesn't recognize that there can be benefits from a market,

and he doesn't recognize that there should be adjustments. He tries to

make the argument that while most British Columbians have suffered

during the recession, as have most Canadians, and as have most

Americans, Swedes, Norwegians and people from other countries, some

people should be protected.

Now I am a great supporter of our building tradesmen. They have

built our projects in this province, and where they got competitive

bids they've done it well. They've built up a wage structure that in

better times did allow them to make that money. It was competitive;

people felt that they could pay it at those times. The inflationary

psychology encouraged people to accept higher costs because they felt

they would be higher in the future. But when the reality set in, people

no longer had the inflation psychology, and now they go for value. I

don't begrudge anyone in that climate getting as much for their labour

as they could or people making as much in the way of profits that were

fair. But today, when every other person in our society has in many

cases to face layoffs, unemployment and reductions or to reduce their

expectation or their demands in the market because nobody is there to

purchase it....

But that some privileged few — not everyone — could maintain costs,

fees and charges that were built up in an economy that does not exist

today, that is not fair.

Much as I admire the working men and women that may work in the

trades of this province and be unionized, they themselves would

recognize that they don't want special status; they just want it to be

fair. We have not asked anyone nor provided for anyone to do anything

that isn't normal, fair and equitable in British Columbia. Particularly

when things have been difficult, and where you have so many unemployed,

to deny anyone — by creating special status at Expo — whether they work

with their hands or their skills or are a small owner, a small builder,

a small company or large one.... To deny them an opportunity is somehow

unjust. To me it provides great difficulty how those who would advocate

such a position can offer themselves as compassionate and fair people.

They want to leave most British Columbians with a monopoly on hardship

and others with a monopoly on privilege.

This government could not accept that. I can't accept it in good

times and I certainly can't accept it in tough times. As government we

will rise or fall, be elected or defeated, on the fairness of this

proposal. The day we have to purchase support by offering privilege to

one group of British Columbians over all others in order to get support

and financing is the day we no longer deserve to be government. That's

why some will never be government again in this province.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not deal with wide-ranging new

concepts. What it does is come down to dealing with some very basic

flaws that have shown up in our system and some very basic

opportunities that by far the largest majority of the people of British

Columbia support. They support them because they're fair and they will

work equitably for everyone. The Minister of Labour has done so as part

of our economic package of trying to do what is fair and what will

bring economic stability to assist us in trying to keep people working

and get people working again through investment, through

competitiveness and, above all, through applying the simple rules of

democracy that we expect in this House and on the hustings...to take

place in the workplace as well.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, how anyone — unless they have a very

narrow view that only those they choose to think they represent are

right and only they should be represented — could oppose this

legislation or argue against it. To me it is unarguable on any basis

for that opposition to oppose what the Minister of Labour has proposed.

It is positive. It will help. There are those who don't want it to

help. There are those to whom dissent or having the right to political

strikes are more important than seeing the province work. I was quite

surprised to see the change in the definition of strike criticized —

that political strikes will not be considered as part of the economy in

the workplace. That's the same definition they have in other

legislation across this country. To somehow suggest that we are out of

step with the rest of the country is wrong; what we are doing is

getting in step. I think the public will decide. Had they seen the type

of disruptions in other parts of this country, the way political

strikes were allowed to take place as part of the solution, or do they

see the fact that that hasn't taken place as justification for us

getting in step with the rest of the country? I would leave it up to

the people of British Columbia to make that judgment. Again, along with

the logic, justice and rightness of what the minister has presented, to

me his case is unarguable for those who would oppose.

I support this legislation. I urge all fair-minded people in the

opposition — those who are questioning the status of their party, what

it has become and whether that party has a relevant place in the

British Columbia of tomorrow, a debate that's been taken onto the

hustings by those who seek to lead that party and either change it in

order to have a role in this province in the future or keep it on the

tack that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) expressed for

them today,

[ Page

4679 ]

the tack that will lead them to oblivion.... I ask

them to stand up and not only vote for legislation that is right but

make a statement that you want your party to have some relevancy in

this province in the future.

[3:30]

MR. HOWARD: I do regret that the Premier saw fit to engage at great length in a personal attack against the member for North Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! A personal attack!

MR. HOWARD: Yes, indeed, a personal attack. The statement of

the Premier's was filled with innuendo and smear and distortion of what

the member for North Island said. The member for North Island put

forward the rational, carefully thought out idea of a White Paper on

legislation of this nature. That was taken by the Premier and twisted

into the word "negotiate." All the member for North Island said was:

"Why don't we have a White Paper put forward? If a White Paper on the

part of this government was good enough for education, why isn't it

good enough for labour-management relations in this province?" That's

all he said. In his discussion about relationships between labour and

management in this province, the Premier looked continuously at the

past. The Premier may think that the future of this province is in the

past, but we don't. The future of this province rests in fair-minded

and decent-minded people attempting to do something for the future.

There's an almost classic definition of what fascism is: it is that

philosophy that declares that intrusions into fundamental rights are

safeguards. It's the philosophy that says the state is always

benevolent, even when it puts on the cloak of a dictator. It's a

philosophy that says that when freedoms and rights are taken away, they

are taken away with regret. It's a philosophy that says lies are

truths. After listening to the Premier, I can understand clearly why he

felt disposed to make the statement he made a month or so ago

classifying the unemployed people in British Columbia as "bad British

Columbians."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. HOWARD: I've got the statement of the Premier on tape. If you want to hear it, I'll bring it into the chamber and you can listen to it.

There is great rhetoric on the government side, great clichés, great

statements with not much objective substance to them. It seems to me

that they substitute rhetoric for concept, principle or ideas. It's the

public relations game of dealing with matters of some substance.

What we're dealing with here is basically power. Let's not kid ourselves.

We're talking about the power to control, dominate, centralize and intrude

upon rights and freedoms. Anybody who has any semblance of understanding or

feeling about working people, whether it's in this province or any other

part of the world, knows full well that working people are basically powerless.

We know that in this province power resides in two elements only. One is government,

and that's power that is continuous, power that is financed by the extraction

of money from taxpayers — from working-class people. The other form of power

is corporate power — and that's continuous. Corporate power has all of the

attributes of the human being except a soul. It even transcends the normal lifespan

of three score and ten, or whatever it might happen to be at any given time.

We are talking in this particular bill about power.

We are also talking about the necessity of having a revival of

economic activities. That seems to be the purpose of the bill. Apart

from tinkering with some of the administrative mechanisms — making them

worse, more cumbersome and difficult than they are now — the newly

declared fundamental thing seems to be a revival of our economic

activities. The record of this government and its philosophy with

respect to the economy and job creation is extremely dismal. The

budgets that were referred to during question period pose some

questions to us.

Let's look at what creates economic activity and lays the groundwork

for job creation. Why is it that there has been a surge of economic

activity in the United States of America, and in British Columbia a

continuous decline since this government was re-elected in 1983? Ask

yourselves why that is so. What contributes to that economic activity?

One of the fundamental parts of it relates to the movement of capital

in and out of a country, and the amount of capital that is available

within a country or province, or within an area within a province. The

amount of capital available to invest in plant, equipment and

modernization — new plant or repairs — is what creates employment. The

reason that economic activity in the United States, our neighbour to

the south, has been so dramatically on the upswing while ours has been

going down is that the United States, as a result of deliberate policy,

saw retention within that nation of capital, of investment money. By

contrast, as a direct result of the policies of this government — which

doesn't exist right at the moment, if you look at the treasury benches;

not a single cabinet minister anywhere in sight in the chamber, but

that's their business if they're not interested in discussing economic

activities — as a direct result of the absent, almost abdicated

government, capital movement from British Columbia has been net

outward. There has been less capital available for investment in

British Columbia as a result of this government's activity.

Let's look at some figures to substantiate more than just to

declare. You'll find here a distinct contrast between the approach that

we take to economic matters and that of the Premier. The Premier is

intent on smearing and attacking people; we're intent on putting

forward positive ideas about what can be done. We look to other lands

and countries for examples of how they do it there, which is more than

I can say for this government. The figures for 1983 — the year for

which I have figures available; they may be available on a quarterly

basis into 1984, but I don't have them — point out that capital moving

out of the United States plummeted from $118 billion to $38 billion.

The net result of all of this capital injection of extra money into the

U.S. was $53 billion extra in 1983 than was the case in 1982. That $53

billion net surplus of extra capital investment money was available to

create jobs in the United States.

What happened in British Columbia? In the first place, the

provincial government, which should be caring for the lot of all people

in British Columbia, doesn't do a single iota of research into capital

flow in and out of the province. The information is available, but in

terms of collecting it, analyzing it and relating it, there's not a bit

of interest. Out of every dollar of gross provincial product in British

Columbia, and those figures are available from the ministry of Industry

and

[ Page 4680 ]

Small Business Development, 25 cents goes out of

the country — it's lost. That's a net figure that relates to gross

provincial product, the purchase of imports, the outward distribution

of dividends and debt-service charges and the like. Twenty-five cents

out of every dollar that we produce in this province goes out of the

province someplace else to create jobs someplace else. That's what this

government does. That's what this government believes in: they believe

in creating jobs in the United States; they believe in creating jobs in

Japan; they believe in creating jobs anywhere else in the world but

British Columbia. If there's any designation about a "bad British

Columbian," it's got to apply to this government, because they don't

have faith in the prospects of this province. They don't have faith in

the ability and the desirability of the people in this province to work

and create wealth and provide for themselves and their families. It's a

government that has a miserable record in that regard.

Even the much-touted Vancouver Stock Exchange, discussed from time

to time as being the vehicle for the raising of venture capital, the

mechanism through which investors say: "I have a few dollars in my

savings someplace or another and I'll invest it through the Vancouver

Stock Exchange.... That money invested through the Vancouver Stock

Exchange in rights issues or new stock issues or whatever the case

might be, you would think, because it is the Vancouver Stock Exchange,

would be here creating jobs for British Columbians. The business

reporter for the Vancouver Province , in January of this year,

made an examination of all the statements of material facts — all of

the prospectuses. He made a survey as to how much money was raised in

new capital through the Vancouver Stock Exchange last year. The amount

raised was $133.9 million. That's not a great deal when you think in

terms of the billions of dollars to which I just referred in the United

States; nonetheless, $133.9 million. Eighty percent of that money

raised on the Vancouver Stock Exchange went outside of the province,

and 50 percent of that went south to the United States to promote

development in the United States. How are you going to create and

promote jobs in B.C. when you have the official government policy that

says: "Money in this province available for investment should go

outside of the province to the United States or anywhere else in the

world but not in British Columbia"?

When the Premier classified the unemployed as "bad British

Columbians," he should have been talking about himself being a bad

British Columbian with that kind of record. He's got the unmitigated

gall to come into this House — him and the Minister of Labour betwixt

and between them — and make, by sneering and by innuendo, personal

castigating attacks on members of the opposition. The temperament of

the Premier's speech indicates how little faith he's got in his own

legislation. There's not a word from him about the necessity of job

creation. Not a word from him about industrial development. Not a word

from him about the fact that with his endorsement, 80 percent of the

money raised on the Vancouver Stock Exchange goes outside to create

jobs elsewhere. Not a word from him about the fact that 25 cents of

every dollar of GPP goes outside to create jobs elsewhere. That's what

we need to have in terms of the promotion and enhancement of the

potential for harmonious labour-management relationships. We need to

attempt to do something in a positive way to create jobs and employment

in this province, not to be negative and on the attack all the time, as

the Premier is.

[3:45]

We talk about cooperation and consultation as being valuable factors

not only in our relationships in this chamber but in our relationships

in society. We talk about the need for cooperation and consultation in

the development of law. Cooperation, someone said a while ago, takes

two people. Somebody else interrupted and said it maybe takes more than

two. It depends on how many personalities or groups are involved in it.

Yes, cooperation takes more than one person, and that's exactly the

point I want to make. When you engage in an activity of cooperation,

you've got to have the expectation that your input in that cooperative

discussion, debate or activity will result in some acceptance of your

ideas. Cooperation is not a one-way street. When we talk of

consultation in terms of preliminaries, again there has to be the

expectation — the very process of consultation almost demands that

there is an expectation — on the part of the people with whom you are

consulting that they will see some of their ideas realized in the final

documents produced as a result of consulting. I don't say all; I say

some. That's what cooperation and consultation is all about. It is not

the one-way street that this government seems to enjoy engaging in all

the time.

We want to have, in our labour-management relations, the spirit of

cooperation. Historically, the very force of the law in North America

stemmed from a decision made sometime in the 1930s by the late

President Roosevelt in dealing with labour-management relations in that

country, and Canada adopted that concept at the beginning of the Second

World War. At the end of the war, various provinces, because the

jurisdiction was provincial insofar as non-federal activities were

concerned, adopted again the principle contained in that early Franklin

Roosevelt concept of labour-management relations. The force of the law

speaks a great deal about collective bargaining in good faith. It

doesn't talk about cooperation, but about collective bargaining in good

faith. I think that declaration in the law is honoured more in the

breach than in the observance. Collective bargaining in good faith

seems to be a strange kind of factor when it comes to actual collective

bargaining; nonetheless, it's there.

What exists is confrontation. Let's make no bones about this. Those

who are married to the capitalist system, who think it's the greatest

thing that ever existed in terms of economic activity, and who pay

attention to the forces that are there within the capitalist system,

should appreciate that labour-management relations under the laws of

this land basically function on the same principle. The activity of the

certified bargaining agent — whatever it might be — is to look at the

employer with whom they are engaging in collective bargaining and....

They are following the tried and true capitalist principle which says:

"Let's get everything that we possibly can out of this set of

negotiations." That's all they're doing. That's the marketplace. If

there is a breakdown, if the expectations of management or labour in

this structure are not met to their satisfaction, generally only one

course of action — two, I would think — is available to each side. On

management's side the course of action is a lockout, or signing the

contract on the terms of the collective bargaining agent. A lockout is

what took place in the pulp and paper industry. With respect to the

members of the collective bargaining agent, if there's dissatisfaction

with the final position available to them, their only recourse is to

sign that final position and accept it, or end up on strike. Either

way, lockout or strike, it's confrontation.

[ Page

4681 ]

This government has made no attempt whatever even to recognize the

fact that the last-resort approach, strike or lockout, is probably

outmoded; yet it's the only one available. The government has made no

attempt whatever to find or to see if there is an alternative to that,

except by way of intrusive legislation, taking away rights, putting the

heavy hand of government into the mechanism and saying: "Do it this

way." Look at the pulp and paper bill that we passed a while ago. That

was an indicator of the government's limited perception of what's

necessary.

If we don't have a free and open consultative and cooperative

approach with respect to the law of this province relating to

labour-management relations, then we are never going to find the

alternative, if there is an alternative. Blindly accepting

confrontation as the only thing available will mean that it will be the

only thing that will function; in the final analysis there will be

difficulties if no suitable alternatives are sought.

I'm not the only person who talks about labour-management

cooperation. A number of industrialists have commented in the last few

months — I have some here — about certain things that may need to be

done. One of them is Robert Bandeen, who was the Canadian National

Railways president, I believe; he's now chairman and president of Crown

Life Insurance Co. He said in February or March of this year that

business and industry, labour and government must work together to

achieve national goals; the Canadian public will insist upon it. All we

have to do is substitute provincial goals, because that's the

jurisdiction within which we are discussing matters at the moment. I

agree with Robert Bandeen. This bill does not satisfy that gentleman's

presentation. This bill does not lay any groundwork for business and

industry and labour and government working together to achieve

provincial goals. These are not my words; these are other people's

words.

I know the minister had great thoughts and support for the idea of

work-sharing a while ago. In this House we classified it as a

misery-sharing and were laughed at.

Let's see what Carl E. Beigie, vice-president and chief economist

for Dominion Securities Ames, has to say about work-sharing. This is

from an

article he wrote: "Finally a brief comment on work-sharing.

Over the decades the average hours worked in some industries have

declined because technological progress improved productivity enough to

allow the same — in fact much higher — annual earnings for many fewer

hours on the job.... Therefore work-sharing has often effectively

translated into unemployment-sharing." Those are not my words; they are

the words of a very respected economist.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'll pick one or two others that are of a similar tone. I think I

have one from Brian Mulroney, no less. There are quite a number of

them; admittedly I am being selective.

This is John Stoik, president and chief executive officer of Gulf

Canada. He said: "In developing a range of adjustment policies Canada"

— these are at the national level; you can readily put British Columbia

in there as a substitute word — "needs to devise a mechanism of

consultation and cooperation between government, business and labour."

Those are statements by very learned people — even one, as I said, by Brian

Mulroney. At one time he was the president and chief executive officer of Iron

Ore Co. of Canada. I think, as a matter of fact, he wrote in that capacity,

but he had a similar kind of declaration about the need for cooperative solutions

to our problems. It fails to meet that test.

If there is any validity to the concept of cooperation, and there

is; if there is any substance to or acceptance of the principle of

cooperation.... You must remember that one of the fundamental

principles of the New Democratic Party is the cooperative approach to

doing things, not the confrontational approach; the cooperative

approach of people themselves trying to do things for themselves and

not being ordered to do it by big government. If there is any hope

whatever of cooperation being the order of the day, then I submit that

what the minister must do is put this bill to one side and establish a

mechanism for cooperation.

One of the members — the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) I

believe it was — called this bill a White Paper. If the minister wants

to withdraw the bill from the House and say it's a White Paper, we'll

listen to ideas about it and revise it. That would be fine. That would

be paying respect to the principle of cooperation if the minister did

that. If he wants to just leave it on the order paper and not proceed

further with it, it doesn't really matter. If he wants to issue a

different or an additional paper called a White Paper about the broader

perception and concept of labour-management relations, we'll go along

with that. If he wants to use the Committee on Labour and Justice, I

believe it is, to listen to and to participate with the elements in

society that are engaged in collective bargaining and are faced with

collective bargaining mechanisms, that's fine with us.

If the technique and the avenue used to get that spirit of

cooperation working and functioning — whatever that avenue is — leads

in the direction of the cooperative spirit, we'll go along with that.

We're not married to one procedure or mechanism over the other. We're

here in this Legislature to represent. It's part of the oath of the

office that each of us took when we became MLAs. It's part of the

concept within our emotion about matters of this nature, and other

matters of a public nature, that we are here to protect and to preserve

the public position and the public integrity and not become slaves to

one segment or another. Regretfully, if the bill is to be proceeded

with and come to a conclusion on its second reading, we will have no

choice but to vote against it — no choice whatever.

[4:00]

If the minister wants to move in the direction of cooperation and

consultation in an attempt to find agreeable middle grounds, common

grounds that will promote labour-management harmony in this province,

then our course of action might be different. But the bill in its

present form, its present philosophy, its present principle, which is

the heavy hand of government intruding upon the rights of people in

this province without regard whatever to the principle of cooperation

and consultation, fails miserably.

It's on that basis that we would need to vote against it. It does

nothing whatever to promote additional jobs in this province. It does

nothing whatever to promote the value-added concept. It does nothing

whatever to deal with the thousands and thousands of people in this

province — most of them young — who have been out of work for months

and years on end as a direct result of the budgetary policies of this

government. It does nothing to offer any hope to them that they have a

chance — many of them with young families — to find a job and work at

it and earn a decent living for themselves and their family, put

clothes on their kids or buy the books and send them through school. It

does nothing

[ Page 4682 ]

whatever to deal with those fundamental questions,

and it's because of that that there is no choice but to vote contrary

to the bill.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has about ten minutes left.

MR. HOWARD: I'll gladly yield my place to the Attorney-General, who is late coming in.

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank my friend opposite for the tumultuous

applause and also the member for Skeena for winding up his remarks ten

minutes short of his allotted time.

I enjoyed the speech of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

as well. But the comments that I've heard on Bill 28 in the last day or

two make me wonder whether any of the people commenting on it have read

the bill. The bill, as I understand it, is a bill to attempt to redress

the balance and to bring about a Labour Code which contains some

equilibrium, a Labour Code which is not just a trade union protection

act, as the old Labour Code was seen by some, but a Labour Code which

protects the rights of management, trade unions, workers and the

public. The great forgotten segment in the field of labour relations in

this province for many years was the public. The Labour Relations

Board, worthy body that it was, peopled by serious practitioners,

dominated by labour lawyers, mostly contended between big management

and big unions. Often it did not deal with the concerns of individual

workers — union democracy and membership — and certainly not of the

public.

To try and redress that balance, the minister has changed the

definition of a strike so that we won't be able to have in this

province any more political demonstrations, demonstrations for some

noble higher purpose, demonstrations that are believed to be authorized

by some higher being, which allow people to lay down their tools, walk

off their jobs, leave their classrooms, come out in protest and say

that they are somehow not violating the law of the province, not

violating their collective agreements, not interfering with the rights,

as so often they were doing, of other people who have lawful labour

contracts and who wish to work.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member for Victoria asks if we are in

Poland. Well, I wondered last fall, when I saw some of these so-called

political strikes, if they weren't in Poland, because that's exactly

what it seemed — that they were in Poland.

In any event, it is not right and it is not fitting in this province

if you have people exercising and asserting rights based not on

contracts that are negotiated, based not on the Labour Code, but based

on some higher being which asserts the right to political protest. That

is not part of our law; that is not legitimate dissent; that is not

freedom of speech. That is licence for anarchy. The minister in his

bill has defined a strike. It's not a wild departure from our Canadian

experience. It's not a radical piece of legislation in its definition

of a strike. It's basically the definition that's been in Ontario

labour legislation all these years. It makes it clear that you can only

strike lawfully.... Any kind of cessation of work or slowdown or study

group or political love-in or sit-in is a strike. It's not something

else. That's one thing that this minister's done and I commend him for

it.

Then there's democracy in the workplace. What does that consist of?

Well, it consists, first of all, of making it clear that the trade

unions, who have many rights under the Labour Code and other labour

laws of this province — and have had for years and indeed should have,

because there were many times in the past when they represented workers

who were oppressed in various sweatshop industries and in other

industries where management was insensitive and not interested in their

plight; so they were given a number of rights....

One of the rights they were given was the right to organize. They

need the right to organize. But what has happened? During the last

decade, the right of a union to organize and to certify has become a

paramount, overriding right and obsessive preoccupation with the Labour

Relations Board. The fastest thing that the Labour Relations Board did

was certify a group of people who wished to join a trade union; the

slowest thing that the Labour Relations Board did was decertify a trade

union which had long since ceased to represent the wishes of its

workers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: That's based on a number of years of

experience in dealing with the Labour Relations Board, which I had, and

in observing them and reading their judgments. I do not think that they

gave enough attention to the rights of people to decertify, but they

gave a heck of a lot of attention to the desire of union organizers to

obtain certification.

Now let's see what this radical change is that's been brought about

here. It is now said that there shall be a representation vote; a

representation vote will take place prior to certification. That is a

horrendous departure, isn't it, Mr. Speaker — that there's going to be

a vote? But the Minister of Labour has, I think, acknowledged that in

at least one industry — that is, construction — the needs and problems

of the workforce there are considerably different, with shifting

personnel, single-project work and the vagaries of the workplace. He

has built into the certification change provisions a fast-track

certification provision for construction, so that it will be lawful and

appropriate for a union organizer to organize a construction union on

the basis of the membership slips and, having obtained 55 percent, to

get instant certification. It will also be open to that same union to

organize by way of a vote; or they could organize on the fast track,

start their project, and then they could go the vote route and get a

permanent certification.

I am going to have considerable mirth, Mr. Speaker, when I see the

lawyers who represent clients on the other side of this House going to

court and arguing, as they will no doubt do, that these certification

provisions, which give the democratic right to workers to vote on

representation votes, are contrary to the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms of Canada, because they deny workers the right to be certified

without a vote. That will indeed stretch all the talents and loquacity

of a Mr. Laxton and a Mr. Baigent when they go before the board and the

courts to make that argument. It is fair certification for the

construction industry fast track; it's certification with a

representation vote.

The other horrendous change is that certification shall not be

forever. It won't be eternal. It won't last for dynasties.

Certification will expire if certain things happen. For a fast-

[ Page

4683 ]

track construction certification, it will end with

the project. For the certification of a company which has not been

doing business or employing people for two years, that shell of a

company will not have hung around its neck a dormant certification for

decades; it will expire after two years. Surely that's fair. Look at

all the companies in the present economy in North America that have not

done business for the last 18 months or two years. They will have to be

organized afresh, and I say that that is fair as well.

Another horrendous change which is complained of is that it now

becomes prohibited for a union to take disciplinary action against one

of its members "because that member has decided that they're not going

to participate in some unlawful activity." What does that mean? I'll

tell you what it means. It means that when we had illegal work

stoppages last year on the part of teachers in this province, who left

their classrooms for the higher purpose of solidarity — illegally, and

did it repeatedly.... When that occurs, and when teachers do not agree

with breaking the law and do not agree with the Kuehn leadership but

decide that they are going to enter the classroom and teach, and when

you have members of other unions like CUPE — secretaries and aides who

work with the handicapped in schools — and they, perish the thought,

are going to obey the law and cross an illegal picket line and go to

work, they can't be disciplined and put through some Mickey Mouse

kangaroo court afterwards for violating some tenet of the union. That

will not be allowed. I am sure it will be argued that that violates the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Boy, I sure wouldn't want that brief if

I were a labour lawyer.

The other provisions in here that have to do with secondary

picketing are provisions which don't outlaw secondary picketing but

permit it, with an order of the Labour Relations Board for an ally. But

they stop the kind of secondary picketing that we've had in this

province and the abuses associated with it. These were never more

clearly illustrated than when the two pulp unions were locked out, and

they picketed and attempted to picket the mills which were certified by

members of the IWA, which prevented those IWA members from going to

work under their lawful collective agreements, and produced and

stimulated violence, ill feeling and a state of siege in towns like

Mackenzie and others. That is being prevented. My goodness, I suppose

that is a further violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This bill makes all the participants in the labour relations field —

management, unions and employees — more accountable and responsible.

Secondary picketing being limited, as this bill does, is something that

will be supported and welcomed by the overwhelming public in this

province. Also, it is supported by a lot of trade union members from

one end of this province to the other, and don't ever mistake that it

isn't.

Another thing that this excellent bill does is to limit and alter a doctrine

espoused by the Labour Relations Board but not enshrined in statutory law: a

doctrine of the common site, a doctrine that if a certified union in one of

the building trades unions works on a job on a major site, like Duke Point or

Expo, they somehow receive the right under the law, going with their certification,

to picket other jobs on some other remote part of the site, and to close those

other jobs down not just on the basis that the job may be a non-union labour

job but on the basis of their non-affiliation clauses. They can refuse to work

on their jobsite on the basis that on another neighbouring jobsite there's

a non-affiliate union working.

[4:15]

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, we've had examples of that, where the

CBRT or some other union that is not affiliated with the building

trades may come to do a delivery on a site and bring supplies on, and

then we have a laying down of tools on the unionized building trades

jobsite, enforcing the non-affiliation clauses. That is the kind of

reactionary, restrictive, medieval provision in our law in this

province that has crept in. It's crept in through contracts. I fully

agree that these were freely entered into, supposedly, between

construction companies and the building trades unions. But do we want

those clauses to go forward in the 1980s, the time of economic

redevelopment, when we so desperately need projects in this province?

Do we want those clauses to prevent, as they will, and to stifle the

development of economic activity at Expo? Do we want it to be possible

for a union working on a pavilion to close down the work on another

pavilion maybe half a mile away, or do we wish unionized workers to lay

down their tools because they are protesting about non-affiliate labour

on another part of the site? No, we don't.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't want to.

HON. MR. SMITH: They don't want to either. It is not

necessary to use those clauses to exercise union security either, and

don't let anyone tell you in this debate that union security has been

destroyed by this bill, because it has not. The bill very carefully

preserves the right of the non-affiliation clauses, if they're

negotiated, but to be used only on the project that that union is

working on. If on their own project some non-affiliate or non-union

labour comes on, then they can exercise those clauses. That's the only

place they'll be able to exercise them if the area is designated as an

economic development zone. It's a reasonable approach. This is not

heavy-handed legislation. This is legislation that protects the public

interest.

I noticed that Mr. Weiler was quoted yesterday in the Globe and Mail ,

having made some statements in Vancouver on the legislation. Mr. Weiler

was a highly distinguished first chairman of the Labour Relations Board

under the Labour Code. He was chairman from 1973 to 1978. He was the

darling of the left, and he was the guru of the labour relations

industry. Articulate, intelligent and powerful as he was, he had a

particular point of view. His point of view was that the greatest

happiness and stability in labour relations came about by massive and

total collectivization. But yesterday Mr. Weiler, if you notice his

remarks as they were reported, very carefully said that while he didn't

think that introducing legislation at this time was a very good idea

and that it was confrontational, he did not believe that this

legislation did very much to alter the balance adversely, one side

against the other. He thought it was fair.

MR. REID: Even he thought it was fair.

HON. MR. SMITH: That's right. I had many differences with Mr.

Weiler in my day as a labour practitioner, and we used to argue those

differences out, not always in board hearings — he always had the last

say there — but on the tennis court after we played. We didn't agree on

a lot of things, but in recent years when I have read the writings of

Paul Weiler and looked at his new book and listened to him,

[ Page 4684 ]

he's changed. He knows now that you cannot have

political strikes. You cannot have abuses of some of those rights that

took place. You have to have greater stability.

The importance of this legislation is that if we're going to have

economic recovery in this province, attract industry from abroad, and

get high technology and manufacturing and other industries to come in

here, we're only going to get them if we have modern labour

legislation, not if we have legislation that encrusts and enshrines

rights that materialized in legislation 10 and 15 years ago; rights

which, imbedded in legislation, really encourage unions to become

old-fashioned and outmoded, to do things in their own ways, to not

modernize, not become productive, not get rid of their featherbedding,

not get rid of all the things they were used to. They've got to move —

as we've all got to move — into the eighties, and find better and more

efficient ways of doing things; have part-time people working

sometimes, not always full-time people; have flexible shifts; have

people working on the basis of productivity and profit-sharing. You

can't do these things on the basis of a labour regime that was

encrusted in the early seventies and enshrined in the old Labour Code,

which really wasn't the old Labour Code but was the trade union

protection act. It has to be changed. Changes have to occur.

None of these changes is put forward in a punitive, confrontational

way. If they're taken that way, we can only assume that the great

reactionaries in British Columbia in the 1980s are really the trade

union leaders who are resisting this, and the NDP who are supporting

them because they haven't got the wits to study the matter and

understand it. We have to change. We have to do things differently —

economically and in labour relations. We've got to move forward. There

are not reactionaries on this side, I can assure you. My friend the

Minister of Labour is a forward-looking, progressive character who

understands economic development. Look at him! He knows, as he wears

his other hat as chairman of the economic development committee of

cabinet, as he travels abroad to help sell coal, as he works on these

economic projects, that you can't be a labour minister and be the

protector of the status quo and the past; that things have got to

change. This is the start of change, the harbinger of the future.

Support the bill. I call on you over there to throw away the old ways

and do things differently. You've got a great chance.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I gladly take my place in this debate in

second reading to oppose this bill. It's really hard to know where to

start on a massive piece of legislation like this, there are so many

facets to it. And it's bad legislation, legislation that was not

required in the province at this time. I was going to respond to some

of the remarks made by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), but I

really didn't find too much to respond to. Perhaps just one item — he

talked about abuses in the labour movement. For goodness' sake, in any

organization that you can possibly imagine — big business, banking,

certain churches from time to time; yes, believe it or not, even

government agencies — from time to time abuses are uncovered. Nobody's

that pure. Certainly from time to time there have been abuses in the

labour movement, and this bill will not stop those kinds of things from

happening. From time to time there are perhaps abuses here in this

Legislature, or abuses of ministerial spending of public funds for

worldwide travel. Some people would consider that kind of thing an

abuse. Nobody's perfect, and there's always room for improvement.

But that's not what we're here to talk about today. The government

has given, as the reason for bringing in this legislation, the economic

situation in the province, that in fact these are difficult times and

we need this legislation. The Premier said during his presentation, and

I made a note of it, that we need this type of legislation so that

these projects can proceed and taxes and prices can be reduced in this

province. With a couple of minor exceptions, I would like somebody to

tell me when prices or taxes in this province or this country have ever

been reduced. The only example I can think of was when the present

government reduced the sales tax prior to a provincial election. After

the provincial election, they brought the sales tax back to where it

was in the first place. That was a political move. If anybody in this

province believes that bringing in legislation like this is going to

reduce taxes, costs and prices, they're living in a dream world, I can

tell you that right now.

I believe this government has embarked upon a deliberate strategy to

cast working people and labour in a bad light in this province. They

are succeeding. At the present time there are a number of ordinary

people, voters, people in the street, whatever.... The deliberate

strategy of this government — and they've been successful in their

strategy — has been to blame all of the economic ills of this province

on labour bosses and working people. That, of course, is nonsense, Mr.

Speaker; you know it and I know it. But a lot of people out there at

the present time don't blame the multinationals; they don't blame

federal government policies; they don't blame the banks; they don't

blame provincial government policies. They're blaming all of the

economic ills of our present recession — depression, if you're not

working — on the working people of this province. That is complete

nonsense. In fact, this government is largely responsible for the

economic ills that we're suffering today. When I'm talking about

economics like this, I believe I'm speaking within the confines of the

bill, Mr. Speaker, as did the Premier and other speakers, because the

government in bringing in this piece of legislation tied it into the

economic situation of the province. I'm blaming this government, as I

have probably in previous speeches, at least to a large part, for the

economic ills of the province today.

[4:30]

You must admit, Mr. Speaker, that our province has the highest rate

of unemployment of any province in Canada, with the possible exception

of Newfoundland. I'm sure the point has been made many times in this

House over the last several months that while other provinces, some

slowly and some more quickly, are recovering from the economic

recession, this province is not. On the financial page of one of the

major newspapers the other day, one of the leading economists predicted

that we would not be out of this recession by 1986; in fact, we're

possibly looking at 1990 because of the policy actions taken by this

government in terms of economic recovery.

This government has laid off or is in the process of laying off

nearly 25 percent of all government employees under the guise of

restraint; maybe rightfully so for some of them. On this side of the

House we feel that a number of agencies should not have been

terminated, as you know, Mr. Speaker, but I'll get into that in a

minute. When you lay off 10,000 or 15,000 public servants — I forget

the exact figure — it's not only taking that money out of the economy

that these people earn but also taking that tax base away from the

provincial and federal governments. You're also hurting

[ Page 4685 ]

business in the smaller communities all over this

province. How this bill is going to solve this problem, as suggested by

a number of government speakers, I don't know. But when you take that

money out of the economy, those people have a great deal less money to

spend in local businesses in their communities. In turn we have this

very high rate of bankruptcies — the highest bankruptcy rate, I

believe, in all of Canada, if the information is correct in this

bulletin I received just a day or two ago. As I said, I largely blame

this government for the economic ills of this province and the fact

that we're in this economic recession. We are not about to pull out of

it very quickly, and if this government has a strategy or policy, it's

keeping it pretty well hidden.

People who have had years and years of experience in

labour-management relations — the Attorney-General discussed Mr. Weiler

a few minutes ago — are opposed to this kind of legislation primarily

because it affects the very delicate balance in labour-management

relationships in this province. What we had under the Labour Code of

this province, Mr. Speaker, was a system that worked fairly well. It

wasn't perfect, but it was good enough that at least seven of the other

ten provinces of Canada have brought in similar legislation, and 26

states in the United States of America, as well as states in Australia

and New Zealand, have more or less used the Labour Code of British

Columbia as brought in by the New Democratic Party in 1973 under the

next Premier of this province, Bill King.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, is that right?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, that's just my view. I'm going to have a vote at the convention, and you never know your luck.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious bill and I don't want to deal

with it too lightly. That bill was good and it was working well — not

perfectly, but well. But you know, Mr. Speaker, since 1976 the record

in labour relations of this government has been the most abysmal in

Canada. This government has been chipping away at labour legislation,

not only the Labour Code — and there have been previous amendments to

the Labour Code before this House, rammed through this House....

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you remember 1975?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I remember it. Mr. Speaker, I'd be very

pleased to respond to the questions being posed by the members

opposite, although they don't have the floor. That's fair enough — I

occasionally interject myself.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'll talk about '75, but I was attempting to make a point at the

present time, and that is that this government has continually chipped

away at progressive labour legislation in this province and purposely

brought about this confrontation in labour management. No, no, you

have. Mr. Speaker, the member interjects, but I want to tell you that

this government has deliberately brought about labour-management

disruptions in this province so that they could bring in legislation

like this so that they could get a large proportion of the people of

British Columbia in a position where they would blame all of the

economic ills of this province on the labour movement.

The net result of all of this is the type of legislation we have before us here today.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He asked me about secondary picketing on the

ferry service. The present Labour Code, because we still have the

Labour Code in effect here in British Columbia — I'm going to answer

that member's question, if I can — is still in effect and will be until

these amendments are rammed through this House. In any event, the

present Labour Code allows for secondary picketing situations and for

the people within the Labour Relations Board to deal with those

situations in a very impartial way.

I'm addressing the Chair, although I'm looking at you. I'll change

my view. I'll take a look at the Attorney-General for a while.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the law was there for those situations

and was applied equally and fairly by an impartial Labour Relations

Board. This legislation that we're talking about now will remove that

right of the Labour Relations Board. It's exactly as if the provincial

government would pass laws in this House restricting judges in the

courts of British Columbia to perform their duties as judges

efficiently and impartially, and that's the kind of thing we're facing

here in many of these amendments that we have before us today. It's the

same thing.

The member, I don't think, has read the previous Labour Code that

was in effect, a Labour Code that will not really be meaningful after

these amendments are pushed through this House.

Further, Mr. Speaker, this government has fallen into the habit,

particularly since the last election.... Prior to the election the

government ran on a platform which was pretty clear. People understood

it and voted for this government. The Social Credit Party received 49

percent of the vote. Our party received 45 percent, which was a pretty

good percentage as well, but they are the government on 49 percent of

the vote. It was based on the platform that they put before the people

prior to the May 5, 1983, election. Yet as soon as they were elected in

June of last year, a whole host of legislation was brought in by this

government that was not discussed during the election campaign, never

mentioned on the campaign trail or prior. They made arbitrary decisions

as if they knew exactly what everybody wanted. But they were wrong, and

they found that out very quickly. They did back down a bit, but not

much.

One of the bad habits, Mr. Speaker, that this government has fallen

into is that when they start picking on people and groups, they start

on the weakest in our society.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They do. Yes, those least able to defend

themselves. Let me name a few of those groups, Mr. Speaker: human

rights and other services for groups lacking political and economic

power; tenants' rights in relation to landlords; the representatives

and advocates for abused children and families. They're all down the

tube. The enforcement of consumer protection law serving unorganized

consumers is gone. What are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to

muster outside on the lawn and get 30,000 people? Of course not! That's

impossible. Supplements to students from lower-income unemployed

families are gone.

[ Page 4686 ]

Marginal small business operators were dependent on cancelled

lending programs. Associations dependent on public funding, such as

Status of Women, transition houses, senior day centres, are all gone.

What do we expect? Fifty thousand seniors out there because they have

taken away many of the services to senior citizens? Not likely, but

those are the kinds of groups that this government is picking on.

The $50 a month to the handicapped, which the minister at one point

in this House during question period, after weeks of questioning, said

she would reintroduce. She hasn't yet, and that was many months ago.

That $50 to the handicapped has not been replaced, even though the

minister did say it would be. What's $50? Probably most members spend

this much on dinner once a week, and that's okay. I'm not knocking

that, but $50 to a handicapped person on Mincome, who has to pay light,

utility, rent and is trying to have a bit of independence, is a great

deal of money. And the list goes on. We've been through that so often

in this House, but I just wanted to remind the government that these

are the kinds of groups they're picking on, and now on a larger scale.

I must admit the government has been very crafty: they have built up

public opinion. They applied a strategy, and it has worked. I would say

about at least 55 or 56 percent of the public of British Columbia —

isn't that the figure you've in your polls, Mr. Minister? — would at

least initially approve of this legislation.

[4:45]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's 62 percent? I believed the figure was 56

in your poll. In any event, Mr. Chairman, the government knew when it

brought in this legislation that a large proportion of the public would

agree with the government, maybe not with every clause of the bill but

with the general thrust of the bill at this time, thinking that it will

make it easier for somebody to get a job. It won't, because the jobs

aren't there. We have about 17 percent unemployment in this province at

the present time, but certainly in some areas it's very much higher. As

a matter of fact, last week my MP and myself spent five days in the

smaller communities on the northern coast of British Columbia, and we

went to every Indian band. It's horrendous! Bella Coola has 64 percent

unemployment in one band alone. We discussed at length with them, and

with many other groups in the area, potential job creation, assistance

for various projects and those kinds of things, but where do you go to

get a job? At one point in my area, the Powell River region, we had an

unemployment rate of 36 percent; it's down to about 31 percent overall

at the present time. The real unemployment rate is horrendously high

and should be unacceptable, and this government should be doing

something now, developing an employment strategy not only for the

unemployed but to assist everybody in the community. We have put

forward a number of alternatives at least to address ourselves to these

problems....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Here's the minister for Ocean Falls entering the House; he's talking already, and he's hardly in the door.

We have put forward a great number; every member on this side of the

House has put forward a number of positive alternative policies and

suggestions. This government won't listen, because the only people they

listen to are the Fraser Institute and Mr. Michael Friedman.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's Milton Friedman.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's the guy.

AN HON. MEMBER: They walk in the same shoes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, Michael Walker and Milton Friedman.

I want to spend a couple of minutes discussing a paper put forward

by Mr. Spector and worked on by a couple of deputy ministers not too

long ago. It's very difficult to know exactly what the Social Credit

government's strategy is, because they really do not produce too many

documents, and when they do they're full of clichés and these kinds of

things, so it's very difficult to get a handle on them. Maybe they have

no economic strategy. Maybe they're operating by the seat of their

pants. If they have an economic strategy, it's a disaster.

But there was a recent document entitled "Provincial Economic

Development Program" circulated to deputy ministers on April 4, 1984,

by Mr. Spector, deputy to the Premier, and David Emerson of Finance.

Here's the jargon they used; I'll just translate. I won't go through

the whole thing. There are literally pages of it. But one or two

sections do deal, in a sense, with the bill we have before us, because

they deal with labour and working people as a force in the economy.