1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

553 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Protest on legislature lawn. Hon. Mr. Witch –– 554

Mr. Skelly

Oral Questions

Teacher-government relations. Mr. Jones –– 555

Lunch program in schools. Mr. Clark –– 556

Soviet submarines in local waters. Mr. G. Hanson –– 556

Protest on legislature lawn. Mr. Sihota –– 556

1987 tourist information. Mr. Chalmers –– 557

Protest on legislature lawn. Mr. Sihota –– 557

Ministerial Statement

Tribute to opposition leader. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 557

Mr. Skelly

Presenting Petitions –– 558

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

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 558

Ms. Smallwood –– 560

Mr. Huberts –– 562

Mr. Sihota –– 564

Mr. Dirks –– 568

Mr. Barnes –– 568

Mr. De Jong –– 571

Mr. Stupich –– 572

Mr. Crandall –– 576

Mr. Cashore –– 578

Select standing and special committees (members list) –– 578

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Speaker, in the precincts this afternoon we have Mayor Alex Stuart

of Ladysmith, as well as councillor Max Settler from the Nanaimo Indian

band, whom I had the pleasure of meeting with earlier today. I would

ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. JONES :

I have the great honour to introduce some distinguished visitors to

this province and to this Legislature. Although they are visitors, they

are watching very closely the proceedings of this chamber.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce Frank Garrity, president of the

Canadian Teachers' Federation and past president of the Saskatchewan

Teachers' Federation; Sheena Hanley, president-designate of the

Canadian Teachers' Federation, from Quebec; Gerry Cooke, who is

president of the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, from Saskatoon;

John Fauteux, first vice-president of the Ontario Teachers' Federation,

from Toronto; Peter Murphy, coordinator of the teacher welfare

from Toronto; Jim Head, vice-president of the Ontario Secondary School

Teachers' Federation, also from Toronto; Harvey Weiner, president of

the Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers from Quebec, who

resides in Montreal; Jim Ross, president of the Prince Edward Island

Teachers' Federation, from Charlottetown; Roger Grimes, president of

the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, from St. John's; Allan

McDonald, president of the Northwest Territories Teachers' Association,

from Yellowknife; Paul Nugent, president of the Yukon Teachers'

Association, from Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory; Bert Haratty, past

president of the New Brunswick Teachers' Federation, from St. John;

Rose Marie Cool, past president of the New Brunswick Teachers'

Federation, from Bathurst; Karen Willis, president of the Nova Scotia

Teachers' Union, from Halifax; and from Winnipeg, Wally Pindera, who is

general secretary of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. I hope the House

will join with me in bidding them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the members' gallery is an educational administrator of great renown

from the riding of Burnaby-Willingdon, Mr. Stanley French, who works in

the Vancouver school system. I'd ask this House to bid him welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are grade 10 and 11 students from

Crofton House School for Girls in Vancouver, accompanied by their

teacher, Mr. Mennie. I would ask the House to join me in bidding them a

warm welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I know we're all

extending our welcome to the teachers who are visiting here today. I

too had a fine discussion with an excellent teacher and good friend,

Mr. Ken Walach, president of the Richmond Teachers' Association, who is

in the galleries today. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS : In the gallery this afternoon are long-time community-minded

citizens Patrick and Rosemary Alley from North Vancouver. Would members welcome

them.

MR. ROSE :

In the gallery today is Jacquie Boyer from the BCTF, who is helping the

Canadian Teachers' Federation delegation find its way around this maze

of buildings, along with Kim Manning, who is also originally from

Coquitlam in my riding, and was an intern here, I believe, two years

ago.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, I would like to

welcome to the House today Mr. Jim Cameron, executive assistant to Hon.

Gerald Merrithew, Canada's Minister of State for Forestry.

MR. GUNO :

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mrs. Rose Charlie, a long-time

president of the B.C. Indian Homemakers' Association. I would ask the

House to join me in welcoming her.

MR. PETERSON : In

your gallery today are four members of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture I had the pleasure of meeting with. I'd like to introduce

Mr. Edgar Smith, Mr. Bill Brederhof, Mr. Ian Christianson, Mr. Brian

Edwards, and would the House join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

MR. BLENCOE :

In the gallery today is a constituent of mine and of the first member

for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), a determined young man, a man who has

been indicating to the government and the people of British Columbia

that he is opposed to uranium mining in the province of British

Columbia. I would like the House to welcome Mr. Lloyd Hart.

MR. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House from the jewel of the

Fraser Valley, the wonderful constituency of Chilliwack, Mr. Bill

Coombes, the president of the B.C. Association of Broadcasters. Please

make him welcome.

MR. VANT : It gives me great

pleasure to introduce some very fine friends from the southern part of

our great Cariboo constituency: Mr. Ken Callaghan from Green Lake,

Bonnie L'Heureux from 70 Mile House, Vera Brundage from Clinton and

Linda Krupp from Watch Lake. Also, Mr. Speaker, from Rick Hansen's home

town of Williams Lake, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a large

group of students from the Anne Stevenson Junior Secondary School.

They're all grade 10 students and their teachers are Mr. Dick Schut and

Mr. Cal Dey. I know the House will give them a royal welcome.

MR. WEISGERBER :

I'd like to introduce two groups of people today. From the city of

Dawson Creek, the mayor, Bob Trail, and his administrator, Harald

Hansen. Also from Dawson Creek, chairman of Peace River–Laird Regional

District, Bob Petrick, and his administrator, Moray Stewart.

Also

in the gallery today are four more members of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture visiting the members today: Mr. Jay Hill, Mr. Jim Collins,

Mr. Ken Cameron and Mr. Geoff Bodman. Would you please make them

welcome.

[2:15]

MR. PELTON : Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I would like to ask the House to welcome here today Mrs. Espronce

[ Page 554 ]

Webster from West Vancouver and Mr. Patrick McGowan from Richmond.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Occasionally when legislation comes to the House there is a contrary

opinion on how it has been drafted or written, but we've never had a

major problem with the major drafting, and with that said I'd like the

House to send sincere best wishes to Allan Roger, our former chief

legislative counsel, who has taken a brand-new, exciting position in

the Crown colony of Hong Kong and will be leaving us shortly. Could I

ask members to send him off in fine parliamentary style.

Ministerial Statement

PROTEST ON LEGISLATURE LAWN

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. I wish to

reiterate the government's position expressed in the House yesterday by

the hon. Premier on the matter of tents and similar structures being

erected on the grounds of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly.

The grounds surrounding this assembly are owned by the Crown in the

right of the province of British Columbia, administered by the

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services. They are

entrusted to the government of the province of British Columbia to be

used on behalf of all people of British Columbia.

We are

fortunate in having one of the most attractive legislative precincts in

the whole of Canada. The lawns and gardens surrounding this building

are a delight to behold, and we as the government intend to take steps

to ensure that they remain in that condition. The Premier stated

yesterday that the lawns of the Legislature are not going to become a

tent city. It is incumbent upon government to ensure that the rights of

all citizens are protected, and to this end we will exercise our duty.

lot of loose words have been bandied about, suggesting that this

represents a restriction on lawful assembly. Nothing could be further

from the truth. The right to lawful assembly, in my view, does not

carry with it the right to set up habitation in tents on the front lawn

of this legislative structure. Lawful assembly and trespass, which is

what these tents and other structures are, are diametrically opposite

to each other. We may have many rights in this province but, without

being flippant, in no statute have I ever seen a right to tent on the

front lawn of the Legislative Assembly. We as government are not

opposed to legitimate dissent. It's part of the democratic process; we

hope that that continues, and we know it will. That is a part of the

democratic process. And we will simply not allow the precincts of this

building to become a campground, Mr. Speaker, for any group whatsoever,

from whatever segment of society.

MR. SKELLY : We thank you for the statement made by the Provincial Secretary.

The position that's taken by the New Democratic Party . . I can recall a

time a few years ago when the Mining Association of British Columbia set up

tents all over the front lawn of the Legislature; the appearance left something

to be desired. In considering the issue, it was felt that the people of the

province had a grievance against the Crown and wanted to demonstrate that grievance

in the only way that they felt was available to them and that the government

should not interfere with their right of free assembly.

I can

understand that the government sometimes feels embarrassed, and that

the buildings may look a little bit cluttered, but that is the price of

freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of dissent in a

democratic society. There are ways of avoiding the kinds of

demonstrations that take place on the lawns of the parliament

buildings: that is, the government acting truthfully, in a

consultative, cooperative and listening way with the people who make

those presentations out there, throughout the province of British

Columbia. The government not only has to listen and to consult but they

have to give a certain amount of weight to what they hear out there

when they're making their decisions. The people who came to the lawns

of the parliament buildings — whether they brought tents or briefcases,

or whatever — were concerned about an arbitrary decision that was

made behind the closed doors of government. They did what every citizen

in a democratic parliamentary system has a right to do: and that's to

come to the capital in Victoria — possibly a city far remote from the areas where they live —

and to demonstrate to the legislators here, because we are the

important people here. We represent those people outside, not the

government. But those people have a right to come to the capital to

express their concern with the decisions made by the government.

I say, it may sometimes be inconvenient; it may sometimes even appear

messy; it may sometimes offend the sensibilities of gardeners and even

some government members; but those people have the right to come to the

corridors of power and to make their wishes known.

But I

agree, I was offended by the fact of seeing our Sergeant-at-Arms

personnel being used by the government to remove people physically, and

in fact at some points using excessive physical force to remove those

people from the lawns of the parliament buildings without telling those

people under what authority they were acting, without acquainting them

with the statutes which the government felt they were violating.

They

were doing exactly what is contrary to the British system of justice.

If we want this building to be respected and if we want this system to

be respected, then it has to treat its citizens with respect and it has

to treat their views with respect. We are not here to represent the

fine furnishings and the imposing buildings and the beautiful gardens

and the beautiful flowers and the possibility of this being a tourist

attraction. We're not here to represent all those things; we are here

to represent the citizens of this province who have a democratic right

to express their concerns and to express their dissent to what the

government and the Legislative Assembly is doing.

I do hope

that when the Provincial Secretary is considering ways, or when this

special committee is considering ways, of managing the precincts, they

give full thought to the fact that this building, its grounds and the

people who occupy this building — the government and the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia — will remain fully accessible to the people of this province, whether they agree with the government or not.

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. members, yesterday afternoon the hon. Leader of the Opposition

rose under the provisions of standing order 26 relating to a matter of

privilege, and described recent events which had taken place on the

lawn in the front of the legislative building. First, I wish to thank

the

[ Page

555 ]

hon. member for his courtesy in advising the Chair of this matter prior to

his raising it in the House.

Hon. members will appreciate that privilege belongs to members of the Legislature

individually and collectively. The individual privileges are freedom of speech

in debate and freedom from arrest. The collective privileges are: access to

the Crown, the right to provide for its due composition, the right to regulate

its own proceedings, the power to punish for contempt, the power to summon witnesses

and those privileges enumerated in the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of parliament are rights which are — and I stress this —

absolutely necessary for the due execution of its power. They are

enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its

functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members, and by

each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its

own authority and dignity.

The question the Chair must

address is whether or not the privileges enumerated above have been

breached by the actions described by the hon. Leader of the Opposition

yesterday. The Chair must also observe that the Speaker's jurisdiction

in British Columbia has never been clearly defined. The problems

relating thereto were placed before this House and a report filed under

the Legislative Procedure Review Act in 1984. On page 41 of that report

it was recommended that the legislative precinct be defined as the land

and buildings bounded by Belleville, Government, Superior and Menzies

Streets, and further recommended that the definition be included in an

act establishing a board of internal economy. The Chair feels that the

matter raised yesterday by the hon. Leader of the Opposition could have

been examined by such a board, and experience in other jurisdictions of

the Commonwealth lends support to that conclusion.

The

right to demonstrate and protest are integral parts of a parliamentary

democracy. The question the Chair, and indeed this assembly, must

address is whether or not they wish to circumscribe limits to these

rights, particularly when the actions in question directly impact upon

the precinct of this Legislative Assembly. The Speaker is, and will

remain, the servant of this assembly, but is placed in an invidious

position when the extent of his jurisdiction remains uncertain. It is

hoped that the Premier's statement relating to the formation of a board

of internal economy will hasten the resolution of many of these

uncertainties. The matter raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition

has brought into sharp focus these jurisdictional problems. But the

matter described does not, under the authorities, qualify as a prima

facie breach of privilege.

For the further assistance of

all members, I refer them to a comprehensive treatment of this matter

contained in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by Joseph Maingot; Sir

Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, nineteenth edition, page 92; and

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition, page 11.

The Chair must make a further comment in relation to a fresh incident reported

by the hon. Leader of the Opposition during this morning's sitting, which,

as the Chair understands it, amounted to a repeat of yesterday's incident

on the lawn of the Legislative Assembly. As a result of this last-mentioned

incident, the Speaker has issued instructions to the Sergeant-at-Arms that neither

he nor any of his staff are to become involved in the forcible removal of persons

or articles from the grounds of the Legislative Buildings. These instructions

will remain in place until the Chair has been given different instructions by

this House or by a duly constituted board of internal economy.

Let

me emphasize that this in no way derogates from the Chair's

acknowledged responsibility for security matters within the walls of

the legislative building, which will continue in accordance with the

standing orders of this House and well-established custom and usage.

[2:30]

Oral Questions

TEACHER-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

MR. JONES :

I would like to ask a question of the Premier. Given the climate of

anxiety that exists in the education community in this province today,

and given the goal that's been expressed very strongly on both sides of

this House of undisrupted education services for the students of this

province, can the Premier give this House any indication of a

conciliatory attitude by this government toward reasoned argument that

could be presented on the part of teachers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Repeat the part of the question....

MR. JONES : Can the Premier give us any indication of a conciliatory attitude toward reasoned argument presented on the part of teachers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, all things we do are reasoned, and certainly we have given

ample opportunity for meetings, for the necessary input into all of the

proposals we bring forth. I am sure that there is great support for

this type of approach, and we intend to continue with it throughout the

whole of the province.

MR. JONES : I will try the question again, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER :

The member might realize that he is treading very closely, unless it is

a matter of urgency... that it is a matter that is before the House.

MR. JONES :

What I was looking for in the question, Mr. Premier, was some

indication of conciliation, which I believe is needed in this province

at this time. I was looking for a conciliatory attitude from all

parties concerned with this dispute at this time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, frankly, I don't follow the line of questioning too well, unfortunately.

think we may have some disagreement. There are those who view what is

being proposed differently from how it is viewed by us on this side of

the House, representing British Columbians.... Frankly, I don't see a

dispute. I think there are a lot of people throughout the whole of the

province who totally agree with the approach that is being taken by the

government that represents them.

MR. JONES : A

supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Certainly Premiers of

provinces of Canada are an august body of people, and our Premier has

indicated in the past the desire for consultation and for making phone

calls.

[ Page 556 ]

I'm

wondering if it is possible that the Premier has decided to consult the

former Premier of Ontario, Mr. Davis, or the former Premier of Alberta,

Mr. Lougheed, who may be able to give the Premier some helpful advice

on current matters.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, neither Mr. Mulroney, nor Mr. Broadbent, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Bourassa, or Mr. Getty — it doesn't matter how much I respect and love these gentlemen — are going to be running the affairs of the province of British Columbia.

LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

MR. CLARK :

I have a question for the Premier. The Vancouver School Board has

investigated the matter of hungry children in the schools, and they've

determined that the problem is in fact widespread and not isolated to

one or two schools, as the Premier seems to have indicated, and needs

to set up now a school-based lunch program to deal with it. The

chairman of the school board has indicated that he's doing this because

he hopes it will spur the government to act. Has the Premier decided

now, in light of the school board's unilateral action, to ask his

minister to conduct a comprehensive, provincewide survey of the problem

with a view to setting up a school-based nutrition program provincewide?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I commend the action of the school board or the school or

the principal or the parents or the parents' group for taking action

where they see there is a problem. Certainly it's recognized that we

all have a role to play, from the parents right through. What I've said

in the past, however, is that we're not about to adopt massive programs

for the whole of the province, but that obviously if there's a problem

we wish to address it and to address it properly. I'm very pleased that

our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) and the Minister of Social

Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) are looking at this problem in

an appropriate manner through the offices and through the use of their

good people within the ministries, and we'll be hearing from them

further in future.

SOVIET SUBMARINES IN LOCAL WATERS

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations. It's with respect to some very disturbing information that

Canada's security may have been breached routinely by the Soviet Union,

having submarines coming through the Juan de Fuca Strait. Mr. Speaker,

my question to the minister is: what action has the minister taken with

respect to these very serious and dangerous allegations that the Soviet

Union has come through tracking Trident missile submarines?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

I'm delighted that the member and I have both had the opportunity to

read the same newspaper. Having said that, I will advise the member

that in due course I will be in consultation with the Minister of

National Defence, who has responsibility over our national defence, and

that includes the Juan de Fuca Strait.

MR. G. HANSON : A new question. As the minister is aware, the Bangor

Trident submarine base is a central target in terms of east-west military relations.

Each U.S. Trident nuclear submarine carries 24 intercontinental ballistic missiles

with 192 nuclear warheads. Has this government pressed the federal government

to ensure that the sea-launch cruise missiles are included in arms control talks

between the United States and the Soviet Union?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

I detected a question in there, but I am not sure that the member....

The member assumes that I am aware of the priorities of the Soviet

Union in terms of their targets. You may have some access to that type

of information, but I don't.

MR. G. HANSON : You

know, the minister may find that amusing, but there are many people in

this world who are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear

weapons. Bangor, Washington, is not that far away from my own

community — in fact, from any point in British Columbia. I think

it's shameful that he is frivolous about these kinds of things, and

we're asking for him to press the federal government for these to be

included in arms control talks. That is not a frivolous question. Has

he decided to do that?

HON. MR. ROGERS : I was being

frivolous about something which perhaps should have been brought up

during my estimates but certainly wasn't a question worthy of question

period. There was, however, a glimmer of question in your statement,

and the answer is no, but I'll take it under consideration.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, given the attitude of the minister, I'd just like to ask

him if he still owns shares via Forrest Investments in Helix

Laboratories, which does the control systems for cruise missiles; or

has he divested himself of those shares?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order.

PROTEST ON LEGISLATURE LAWN

MR. SIHOTA :

My question is to the Premier. Yesterday during the course of questions

I asked him on the protest outside, the Premier said that in his view

municipal and provincial laws may have been violated. Could he tell the

House which laws were indeed violated that allowed the government to

take the action that it did yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I will defer to the Attorney-General.

MR. SIHOTA : I ask the same question of the Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

First of all, Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, if I was to go in his

front yard and set up a tent and he owned that yard, I would have the

property right to remove his tent from that yard. This property is

owned by the Queen in the right of the province of British Columbia,

and there is a right to remove structures and overnight tents. There

may not be a right to remove people coming to exercise freedom of

speech, but that's not what we're doing.

There is also a

right, pursuant to

section 41(

l) of the Criminal Code, to peacefully

remove people who refuse to leave real property at the request of those

who own it; and if you don't leave when you're requested to leave by

someone

[ Page 557 ]

exercising his property rights, then you're deemed to commit an assault.

So there's ample common law and criminal law to remove people who want to

turn the lawns of the parliament buildings into a campsite.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the people on the lawn own

the lawn, not the government. Nor were the provisions of the Criminal

Code applied. And let me tell the Attorney-General that the Trespass

Act. . . .

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Question.

MR. SIHOTA : I'll ask the question then. The Trespass Act allows

for the removal of people from property but not property from property, and

I would draw that matter to the attention of the Attorney-General.

My question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Did the Premier seek the prior

approval of the Speaker before ordering the Sergeant-at-Arms staff to remove

the tents from the lawns of the Legislature? Was that prior approval of the

Speaker obtained yesterday and today?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order.

1987 TOURIST INFORMATION

MR. CHALMERS :

Mr. Speaker, as everyone in this House knows full well that tourism is

extremely important to this province, and because many small business

people are right at this moment trying to make plans for the summer

months, could the Minister of Tourism share with us any information as

to what those people might expect in this year's tourism that might

help in making their plans?

HON. MR. REID : Mr.

Speaker, as the minister responsible for sun and all good things in

British Columbia, I want to make certain that all members of this House

and all people in the province get the true story of what's happening

to the economy as a result of tourism influx into British Columbia in

1987. In response to that good question from that member, some of the

great things that are happening.... There are business people out there

who want to know if the positive mood that this government has is

catching on — are people coming back because of the good mood, the good attitude — so

I want to tell you some numbers. Rogers Pass, for instance, is bringing

38 percent more tourists into British Columbia from that

section of

Canada than at any other time in our history.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Would the minister please take his seat. It is question period, Mr.

Minister. A question can be given to you that can lead you .... Members

of this House might be very interested in the information that you

have, and it might be well to table that information so that all

members could benefit.

HON. MR. REID : In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I take your direction. I will table the information for the courtesy of the House.

PROTEST ON LEGISLATURE LAWN

MR. SIHOTA :

Back to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Did the Premier, on his own

authority, ask the Sergeant-at-Arms staff to remove the tents from the

steps of the Legislature yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA :

Then on whose authority were the issues given to the Sergeant-at-Arms

staff to remove the tents from the lawns of the Legislature yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Responsibility for this is with the Provincial Secretary, and the matter was referred o him.

MR. SIHOTA : Did the Premier refer the matter then to the Provincial Secretary and instruct him to issue the orders?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, Mr. Speaker.

Ministerial Statement

TRIBUTE TO OPPOSITION LEADER

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a brief statement.

suppose today is the last day for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Skelly) to be the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to take this

opportunity to express, on behalf of those of us on this side and

certainly on behalf, I am sure, of British Columbians everywhere, our

appreciation for the effort which has been put forth during the years

by the Leader of the Opposition in the chamber and outside of the

chamber.

I appreciate that we've not always agreed, I

suppose. On most matters we've disagreed. But I certainly have a great

respect for the Leader of the Opposition, for the job that he has done.

I was involved with the Leader of the Opposition in the campaign, and I

must say that throughout it he was a gentleman and I was certainly

appreciative of that as well.

I know that he has put forth

a tremendous effort on behalf of all British Columbians in his role,

and I think I can speak for everyone when I say we are appreciative of

a fine job done over the years by the Leader of the Opposition, and we

wish him well.

[2:45]

MR. SKELLY :

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Premier and

the members of the Legislature for the kind tribute they have paid to

me after my short tenure as Leader of the Opposition over the last

three years.

I can truthfully say that I have enjoyed every

minute of it. It has given me an opportunity to meet with many fine

people of all political persuasions in all parts of the province and in

fact people engaged in public life in many parts of the world. I think

it has been a terrific experience for me and certainly a terrific

experience for my family. I want to express my appreciation to all

members of the Legislature on all sides of the House who were of

assistance to me when I was Leader of the Opposition, and also to the

staff people and the people in the precincts who help us every day in

any number of ways to make this job a lot easier than it otherwise

might be, and to

[ Page 558 ]

thank

the people of British Columbia, who are always prepared to sit down and

listen to your arguments, and look at your arguments, and test them and

possibly even in some cases support them. Hopefully, more of that will

happen in the future.

I also want to thank this Premier for

the way he has conducted himself, both during the election campaign and

since, because I think that gains have been made, Mr. Speaker, in this

Legislature. Even though the election did not turn out as we had hoped

on this side, certainly some gains have been made. We've been talking

in the Legislature today about things like a bureau of internal economy

and the Premier's courtesies in inviting the Leader of the Opposition

and opposition debate leaders to attend first ministers' conferences.

While we don't always agree on the presentations made at those

conferences, I think it's important that both sides of the House are

allowed to participate.

I'm going to be around for a few

years yet. I'm not leaving these hallowed precincts yet, and I look

forward to working with all of you over the next two years, although I

have indicated that I will not be contesting the election in Alberni

next time around.

I would like to introduce someone in the

gallery today, my wife Alexandra Skelly, who has been supporting me

through this whole effort over the last 15 years. Unfortunately my

children are not here today — Susan, who is 13 years old; and Robbie, who is 11 —

but they've spent all of their lives in a political family. My daughter

was born at the Western Premiers' Conference in Calgary; my son was

born during sessions of the Legislative Assembly. I managed to rush

over to Victoria General just as he was being born, and then to come

back and to be able to make a speech in the assembly. So they've

committed their lives to a pretty intense political career, and I'd

like to thank them for all the support they've given me.

One

of the reasons that I will not be seeking the election in Alberni next

time around is that I think that over the next six years or so I'm

going to turn it around a little bit and pay back the debt that I owe

to them, by supporting them as they go through adolescence and high

school. I'm going to try to be as much support to them over the next

few years as they have been to me.

Again, thank you to the

Premier and thank you to the House for your kind words and for the

tribute. I'll look forward to working with you and against you over the

next few years.

Presenting Petitions

MR. JONES : Mr. Speaker, I seek the floor to present a petition.

MR. SPEAKER : Proceed.

MR. JONES :

Mr. Speaker, this petition comes from approximately 300 residents of

Vernon, practically all of them teachers, and I'm presenting it on

their behalf. These teachers are from the Vernon area and make a vital

contribution to the well-being of their communities. These teachers are

both professionals and employees. They are vitally concerned about the

future of education in this province, and they are all members of the

B.C. Teachers' Federation and want the right to remain that way. The

petition states:

"To the hon. the Legislative

Assembly of the province of British Columbia in legislature assembled,

the petition of the undersigned on behalf of 299 residents and teachers

in the city of Vernon states that they are concerned about aspects of

Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987, and Bill 20, the

Teaching Profession Act, and the precipitate action of the government

in forcing this legislation through the hon. House without the openness

and consultation which the Premier promised.

"They are concerned that the government is destroying the

B.C. Teachers' Federation, that the government has removed security from

teachers and is arbitrarily taking away such things as earned sick leave. Your

petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House delay consideration of

Bill 19 and 20 to allow for appropriate consultation with the BCTF and other

groups with an interest in education. Dated this 9th day of April, 1987."

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. REID :

I am pleased to take my place to speak in opposition to the hoist of

Bill 19, and I am interested in the comments of the Leader of the

Opposition. I was surprised that his final closing comment was that he

was going to finally cross the floor because we were doing all the

things that are right in the province, and he was agreeing with all the

things we are doing. So I'm surprised he's not deciding to do that

today, but probably in the very near future.

With respect

to Bill 19, it is to bring about a process of open government and

democracy in the workplace in the province of British Columbia. For the

first time, it will inject fair play into both labour and management

for the labour negotiation process in British Columbia. I think it can

be emphasized quite strongly by virtue of the comments made by the

Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) when he said

that since 1973 the Labour Code has been amended 16 times, and in those

16 amendments not all parties were pleased and not all parties were

offended.

The process which is required today in the

province of British Columbia indicates to us that this is a

problem-solving bill, and it indicates quite strongly that there are no

simple solutions. The trade unions have asked and called for quicker

response to decertification. This bill does provide that. It is

designed to create and establish a new climate of labour relations in

the province of British Columbia — long, long overdue.

guess the most important point of all, one that I don't think can be

emphasized strongly enough and often enough, is that we have to make

British Columbia a place that's very attractive to the investors that

are just on the periphery of British Columbia. They have told us in

record numbers that they want to come here, they want to be part of a

growing population, a positive province, a positive attitude, and the

only fears they have . . . .

[ Page 559 ]

MR. WILLIAMS : Name them.

HON. MR. REID : Do you want me to name them? I've got a list of them here. Do you want me to name them? Anyway, I've got a list.

The most important aspect of the bill is to help the economy create more jobs.

MR. WILLIAMS : Can't even name one.

HON. MR. REID :

We're transferring one from your corporation over to B.C. Hydro; that's

one of the good ones. Labour relations improvements in the province of

British Columbia, as I said earlier, are long overdue. We have reams

and reams of letters and recommendations from corporations and

industries that have shown a tentative interest in coming to British

Columbia but have had to withdraw because of the labour climate in the

province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID :

If you will pay attention, I'll tell you something. There was a study

conducted in 1985 of 14 major cities in North America, with 22

corporations, two banks, two industrial associations, one economic

development coordinator, one trade commissioner; and the surprising

number — to the opposition, pay attention — was that 95 percent of those people surveyed advised that labour problems in British Columbia — surprise, surprise —

are the most negative aspect of the investment climate, and that in a

number of cases was the sole reason for not relocating here.

That

tells us, if we're listening not only to our own people who conducted a

survey as an around-the-province team, a qualified team listening to

every community of the province, listening to all the problems of the

labour climate out there after the worst economic strike to ever affect

the province of British Columbia, costing us more than $100 million of

income which we would have loved to put into social services in the

province of British Columbia, had that not happened. . . . That forced

us to listen to all those things being offered to our study committee

and told us that there are some changes drastically needed in labour

relations in the province of British Columbia; and as you know full

well, nobody listens better than this Premier and this government to

what our people, all the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia,

want as a result.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID : There are no simple solutions. When I say there are no simple solutions — the simple solutions that those members on the opposite side offer constantly —

we are convinced that the labour climate in British Columbia requires

more democracy on the part of the employee, more democracy in the

workplace, a right to have free certification and decertification with

the same right of a private and secret vote that is in fact a total

secret vote; an opportunity before certification for the members to

discuss with the management as well as with the fellows with baseball

bats whether in fact....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID :

I want to make sure I don't miss a point from over there, so I will

slow down. As a matter of fact, the labour climate in the province of

British Columbia, as has been indicated to us by all major investors in

the world.... And that's the people we listen to because the economy of

the province of British Columbia is destined to be resolved by

investment and employment. If you people on the other side are

convinced that employment is in fact a way to survive in the province

of British Columbia, then we first of all must address those questions

which continue to harass the province in its opportunity to get ahead

with further employment. It takes investment by primarily the private

sector to draw in employment to pay the bills, but also money from

other sources in the world which is intent on coming here providing

this province can offer, which we do with Bill 19, a proper labour

climate which offers fairness to both the workplace and to management.

MR. WILLIAMS : What if it doesn't work?

HON. MR. REID :

If it doesn't work, this government listens. We will correct anything

that shows up in 20 years from now, because that's how long it's going

to take. This is such a perfect bill, it will take so much time for a

loose end of this to come out. The loose end is over there, and when

this bill is made law, you fellows will be so convinced that you should

be on this side. There will be so many good things happening in the

province of British Columbia that you will wonder why you ever opposed

anything in this bill that was being offered. I find it difficult to

believe that there is really even one line in this new bill, after all

the work that's gone into it by my colleague the Labour minister and

all of the people of the province who offered him suggestions on how to

improve the labour climate in British Columbia, with a brand-new Labour

minister who was listening to nobody, no pre-conceived notions....

[3:00]

He went out there and with what he found out, boy, did he have some

answers. He put them all down and he called it Bill 19, and he's

brought it in here and asked us to look at it. It was so great we

wanted to advance it and we were hoping, before your convention this

weekend, that you'd stand in this House and agree to support it, vote

for it, and go to your convention with already a positive mood to give

to a brand-new leader as to how to get this province on a roll and to

be a partner in developing the economy of the province of British

Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

As the

Minister of Tourism, I can tell you that the economy of the province

and the people I'm speaking to, who are sitting on their wallets at the

moment waiting to spend in the development of tourism in British

Columbia . . . won't come here, won't come onto the shores of British

Columbia because there's a possibility that we will withdraw this bill

and send it back out. Look, we sent the Labour minister around the

province for months listening to the people out there; he got all the

answers. We're convinced; it's so fine-tuned that we're surprised that

you don't want to vote on it today. As a matter of fact, I think we

could get consensus to vote on it today if you were convinced as a

result of my arguments that really there is nothing to oppose.

So you know your hoist motion is frivolous; you should withdraw it; we should get on to the business of the day, vote

[ Page 560 ]

for

the resolution, take it to your convention, convince your delegates out

there how great things are in the province of British Columbia and how

the economy is going to be turned around, and why things — like up in the community of Trail — are going to be so much better now that the labour climate has been improved and....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID :

Well, the member there from Trail knows how the confrontation has been

up there, and this will smooth out all the problems that that member's

had.

AN HON. MEMBER : Vancouver East.

HON. MR. REID :

Vancouver East. You can go home to your own community and hold your

shoulders high and be proud of representing the province, because

you've got something that works. You've got something that's going to

attract tourists into the community of Victoria, where this member is

begging for the economy to be improved. Mr. Member, we've got your

answer right here. Your economy in Victoria will just .... Don't leave;

I'm going to tell you more. It's going to be so great that you're going

to wonder why you're not a Socred. Because you'd like to take credit

for it but you won't be able to if you don't change your mind today or

tomorrow.

So I tell you, my colleagues, this bill is meant.

It's a good-news bill; it's one that we've waited a long time for. It

has to do with fair play, democracy, expansion of economy, creation of

jobs — that little coined phrase that we give you to use, although

we are the ones who bring it about. You can use it, but you've got to

agree with us sometimes. If you're going to create jobs, you've

actually got to believe in that. And to believe in it, you've got to

have fair play, democracy in the labour place and labour peace. And the

way to have fair play and labour peace is to vote....

AN HON. MEMBER : For any price.

HON. MR. REID :

No, not for any price. No, it's for equality in the workplace for both

management and labour. So, my colleagues, repent, repent. Withdraw this

ridiculous hoist motion; go back to the original bill and vote for it,

and go to your convention with a clean conscience. Thank you very much.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm afraid that's going to be a difficult act to follow —

difficult, Mr. Speaker, because I'd like to talk about some of my

concerns, and my concerns I think are serious ones. And it's a

difficult act to follow because I don't intend to try to sell anything

to the people of B. C. I intend to go out and ask the people of B. C.

what their concerns are. I think that perhaps it's appropriate for the

previous speaker, given that his background is one of salesmanship, to

continue to try to sell a product, to sell the government's

program — the government's package, as it has been described.

However, I would like to speak to the hoist motion; I'd like to speak

to our appeal to this government to delay the rush, to delay their

intent to push this package through, and instead to take a deliberate

line with the province and people of B. C. and go out and explore what

this bill really means.

I have some really grave concerns,

when we talk about this bill in the House. I'm concerned that none of

us, whether on the government side or on the opposition side, truly

understand the depth of the impact that this legislation will have on

this province. I understand that the Minister of Labour has gone out

and talked to people in this province about what their ideas about the

legislation could be. However, in no way has the government actually

gone out and asked for support. Again and again we have heard the

concerns of labour leaders and business leaders — big business, small business — that this legislation will not cause labour peace, management peace, will not encourage investment in this province.

guess my concern as a new member in this House is that there's an awful

lot of talk, of rhetoric, and yet we are not seeing the commitment to

that rhetoric, to open consultation — the kinds of rhetoric we

have heard for the last six months. This, I think, is a really good

test. It concerns me that constantly in the last few weeks we find

speakers getting up and saying again and again: "This is a good test."

This government and these speakers on the government side constantly

and incessantly fail the test to consult. Again I will make an

impassioned plea to this government to support the hoist, to support

consultation, indeed to acknowledge the reality of what is going on

outside of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I will not talk about

the substance of the bill itself. I haven't had the opportunity of

actually looking at the bill clause by clause. I have not had the

opportunity to avail myself of legal advice. I have not had the

opportunity to speak to the different sectors in our province to

realize the full magnitude of this legislation. What I will speak to,

and what I would like the opportunity to talk a little bit about, is

what we are facing here in this province, and indeed what Canada and

perhaps the whole of North America is facing.

We are on the

cutting edge of significant change in our industrialized society. We

are on the cutting edge of a revolution that perhaps has not been seen

in our society for at least a hundred years, perhaps longer. I'm

talking about the technological revolution that our society is

undergoing. Our society is undergoing such significant change that our

government in turn has an opportunity to show some leadership. I am

concerned that this government is either totally oblivious to this

technological revolution that is going on, or — perhaps even worse — facilitating a direction that this province does not want to undertake.

would take you, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps some of the members in this

House back to the throne speech debate, where there was discussion

about the ongoing unemployment in this province and the fact that the

majority of jobs in this province in the years to come will be in the

service sector. Those facts are not a reflection of a market downturn;

they are not a reflection of some kind of a boom and bust that we have

seen historically in this province or in Canada. I believe strongly

that what we're seeing is a reflection of the impact of technological

change.

Several times in this House speakers have referred

to the management dispute, the problems within the forest industry that

we have witnessed in the last year. If you look at the number of people

employed in the forest industry over the last few years, at the

productivity and, indeed, at the profits made over the last few years,

that does not reflect an economic downturn. What that reflects is the

technological change in our forest industry. The increase in

productivity is in direct relationship to automation, and indeed to the

commitment of

[ Page 561 ]

the

working people in that sector to make it work. By repeatedly saying

there's a labour problem out there, that we have to get this province

back on its feet again and pointing at the management dispute in the

forest sector, this government is undermining the relationship the

working people had with their companies. They are totally disregarding

the realities out there. They are totally ignoring the fact that the

companies are making record profits. And they're making them because of

their ability to automate their workplace, because of their ability to

reduce through attrition the number of people in their workforce. I

think that that is a really good indicator. I think that that is

significant. It is a significant issue, and it is significant in that

this legislation that we are talking about has not begun to address

those significant realities in our society. We have got to, if indeed

the issue is one of management-labour peace. If indeed there is a

commitment out there to getting this province back on the road, to

looking for new ways, to being able to resolve problems, we have got to

grapple with the problem — and indeed I perceive it as a challenge — of technological change in our society.

All

of the indicators, all of the studies that have been done over the last

few years, indicate that the growth in employment, not only in our

province but in North America — perhaps in all industrialized countries —

is in the service sector. They have gone as far as to suggest that by

1990 the growth in the service sector will have increased, so that up

to 70 percent of the workforce will be in service-sector or

service-related industries. I'm sorry that the Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mr. Reid) has left, because, quite frankly, that indicates that

his ministry, the Tourism ministry, will be one of the major employers.

However, Mr. Speaker, without dealing with the impact of technological

change, without dealing with the fact that the major impact of

technological change will be in the service sector, we cannot move

forward. Indeed, if we are committed to getting this province back on

the road again with this legislation, we cannot make the next step in

economic development in this province.... Without acknowledging the

major impact that technological change is going to have on our society,

any step that we take will be a faulty one.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of work done in the last few years

with community groups, with small business groups, with municipal

organizations, with unions, with corporations. Again and again the

message comes back, whether it's a federal task force on the economy,

whether it's communities themselves taking the initiative to try to get

their communities back on the road again . . . . There have been many

initiatives to try to deal collectively with reaching a remedy,

reaching some kind of community peace, some kind of community

direction. I am concerned that all of that work has not been

represented. I am concerned that some of those major directions that

have been undertaken have not been acknowledged. I believe that it is

incumbent upon this House to take advantage of that work, to take this

legislation out, to listen to what people have to say, and to come back

to this House with a document that truly represents the collective

wisdom of our province. I believe that we've already had enough

indicators from the public that there are grave concerns.

a new member in this House, I am not only concerned; indeed, I am

frightened by the direction that this government is taking. I am

concerned that what we are seeing, with protests around areas that are

very dear to me, will be played out in the weeks to come with many of

the different sectors in our province. I believe that if this House, if

this government, refuses to listen, then we are doomed to that kind of

heightened anxiety. I believe all of us are well aware of what has gone

on in the last three our four years in this province, and I don't think

any of us want to relive that. If this House and the government do not

listen to the pleas of the opposition for consultation, if this

government does not listen to the concerns expressed by labour leaders,

by community groups, by small business and big business alike, then

regardless of the government's sales pitch, regardless of the Premier's

references and calls for the business community to get behind this bill

to help him stave off the pink pickets, and regardless of what kind of

pitch this government can make, there will be no change. The people of

British Columbia are not stupid. They will be heard. If this government

does not hear them when they speak civilly to them and does not listen

to reason or to information, Mr. Speaker, I believe that more desperate

stances will be taken. As a new member of this House, I don't want to

be in the position that I have found myself in in the last couple of

days.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on the hoist motion. I am

asking for the government to acknowledge that there are negative

aspects and to acknowledge the realities that we are undergoing some

significant change in this province, that we will continue to face

massive unemployment unless we take a different direction, and that the

direction cannot be a simplistic one. The government has talked about

its labour legislation as a package that you can't take out of context

with the rest of their program. Indeed, we on the opposition benches

have not heard what the government's package is, other than positive

thinking and a sales pitch for the business community to get behind

them to stave off the pink pickets.

I as a member of the

opposition would like to understand. I would like them to explain to

us. I would like to have the opportunity of dealing with this

legislation as a fully informed member of this House, and that has not

happened so far.

Mr. Speaker, we have in this House

undergone a process of looking at the government's budget and beginning

to understand what the government is talking about when they talk about

the employment statistics and their concern over that. I think one of

the comments made by one of the leaders of business in our community

also expressed a concern that what we are seeing here is a foreign

bill — a foreign ideology. I believe one of the previous speakers

talked of concern about legislation coming in from Alabama, and there

has certainly been a reflection of that in the public's concerns

expressed as well.

I think that it would behoove this

House, beyond going out there and talking to people, to take a look at

the impacts of technological change, not purely automation but also the

impacts of the international scene — the push of this province to

bring in secondary industries, to encourage investment from the Pacific

Rim, and to compete within the international market. I am concerned

that what this legislation is doing is putting this province on the

international scene, competing fully with countries of the Third World,

with the kinds of assembly-line workers who get $1 or $2 an hour for

their work, with no health and safety or union protection. I believe

that that kind of debate has to be brought to the consideration.... We

need to look broadly at the implications. I don't believe that taking

rights away from organized working people of this province is going to

lead either to labour peace,

[ Page 562 ]

to management peace, or indeed is going to make our climate any better for investors.

have spent a considerable amount of time taking a look at what indeed

is happening with some of the technological, high-tech industries in

Silicon Valley or some of the other leaders in the high-tech

industries. What I'm seeing is that it is of international scope, that

many of those industries that have their head offices in either Silicon

Valley or on the east coast are industries that ship out their work.

They look for the best advantage. They look for advantages in the

labour market; they look to the Third World countries for reduced

labour. Certainly that has been the case in the past five to ten years.

Ironically,

what those leading industries are saying is that that no longer is the

advantage to them. They no longer are looking for that reduced labour

rate. Indeed, what they're looking for — and this reflects what some of

the members on the other side have been saying — is a climate that

they can be assured is stable, a climate that they can be assured has a

good educational base; that they have the resources, indeed the brain

power, that can allow their international corporations to prosper.

believe that what we're seeing with this package does not support what

these industries are looking for. Indeed, if we are going to be on that

cutting edge, if we're going to be in a situation where we can move

forward — and I'm hesitant to say compete — internationally, and

if we can assure a stable economy, what the best tack would be is one

of building consensus. What we need is leadership from this government,

as I said, that acknowledges the realities that we face out there, that

takes that courageous stand and goes out and tries to build consensus,

so that it is not a sole government, a sole political perspective, an

individual, but instead is a consensus, the province moving forward.

believe that takes time, and I believe that we have that time. This is

a new government. This is the first session of this House. We could

easily undertake a program that is a program of consensus-building,

that involves not only management, as has been, I believe, proven to be

the bias of this government, but includes all working people of this

province, big business and small business, as well as community groups;

one that allows people who care about their future, their community's

future and the future of their children to participate in this new

reality that indeed we will be facing.

We're in a situation

in B.C. that I believe is just beginning to come to the consciousness

of the citizens of our province, where parents are grappling with what

this new reality will mean to their children, where we have young

adults who are looking for work and realizing there's no place for

them. This has everything to do with the direction our province takes,

not only in superficially trying to deal with management problems and

labour relations; it has everything to do with the definition of

work, the definition of the workplace. It has everything to do with

education, with the support that is needed for part-time workers, the

support that a government could lend to the security of working people

in providing pensions, in providing a reduced work week at the same pay

and in playing a role in health and safety in this province.

The

ramifications of the new reality that we are facing are awesome. It

touches us in every aspect of our lives, and I believe that this

government would be derelict if it did not begin to try to grapple with

this. This is a very serious problem and, indeed, this could be an

opportunity for a government not only to provide leadership but to take

up the challenge. I think for us not to take up that challenge, not to

recognize that there is significant change out there, is selling the

next generation short.

As a new member in this House, I

welcome the opportunity of trying to meet the challenges of change. I

welcome the opportunity of rolling up my sleeves and doing the work

that is necessary. I realize that what I'm outlining here is an

enormous task. I've begun that task by trying to make myself aware of

the situations that we're facing. I don't, for a moment, profess to be

an expert either on labour legislation or, indeed, on the impacts of

technological change. I do know enough to know that this is not the

right tack. I do know that without dealing with the new realities, we

are making a grave error.

[3:30]

I can't say strongly enough how

important it is for this House, not solely the members of the

government or a committee that is hand-picked by the Minister of Labour

and Consumer Services, to get behind the building of a consensus in

this province. It's a big job, but it's a tremendous challenge with

tremendous rewards. We could set the stage; we could be the example for

every other jurisdiction in North America by acknowledging that we are

on the cutting edge of change, by acknowledging that our society is

undergoing tremendous tensions, by not exacerbating those tensions but

supporting community groups, by supporting small business, by

supporting every working person in this province, by supporting

schools, by recognizing that children — our next generation — have tremendous pressures on them. We could provide the leadership.

This

House could undertake a project that would lead us into the next

generation, that would set the stage for a rewarding experience for our

young people. I think this is a tremendous challenge, a tremendous

opportunity, and I think that for this government to ignore this hoist

motion, to ignore the realities that are going on out in the province,

to instead belittle any attempt to deal seriously with the impacts of

the change, to continue with the rhetoric of a fresh start, to continue

with the rhetoric of salesmanship, is missing that chance.

think it's a challenge that I would like to put out to this government,

a challenge that I'm hoping some of the leaders on the government side

will take up. I'm hoping they will support this hoist motion and will

undertake the opportunities that are out there. I am hoping that these

opportunities don't pass us by.

MR. HUBERTS : Mr. Speaker, I want to speak against the hoist motion, and I want to speak strongly in favour of Bill 19.

Our

forefathers must have had a tremendous ability to look into the future,

because they recognized that there would be such negative things in

this room that they built these strong pillars so that this building

would continue to stand. I am just happy to stand here today to be

somebody who would be on the positive side.

The Minister of

Labour never said that this would be a panacea. He never said that this

would be the answer to everything. What he said was that it would deal

with the problems that we have at hand, and that is precisely what this

bill is doing. He has gone throughout the province; he has spoken to

numerous people. Everyone had an opportunity to be there, including the

opposition, and they weren't there —

[ Page 563 ]

they

were late again as usual. He spoke to them, he got 700 oral and written

submissions, and he said: "I am going to deal with these problems. What

do you recommend? I am ready to do whatever is necessary."

have nothing but praise for the Minister of Labour. Everything about

this bill is positive, and yet they want us to wait. Wait for what?

There are some people who get on with the job, and there are others who

sit on the job. The Industrial Relations Reform Act strengthens

democracy — that's what we all want, isn't it? — in the

workplace. It recognizes the rights of both employers and employees,

both important. Just as important, this act recognizes the protection

of the interests of the public.

For far too long

individuals, families and communities have become hostages in labour

disputes. While both parties in a labour dispute are concerned with

their own well-being, often neither group has any concerns for the

innocent or for the interests of the public. The end result is that

innocent bystanders suffer significant hardship. For examples, we just

have to look back. One of the prime results is the loss to the

provincial economy. Every single British Columbian is involved because

of the loss to the province. During protracted disputes, millions of

dollars are lost forever, never to be recouped. Why? Because two

parties refuse to compromise. If we look at the IWA strike — and it should be recent enough in the opposition's mind, but they seem to have forgotten it already —

millions of dollars were lost, thousands of people were out of work.

The result was misery, suffering and loss, and they want six more

months of that in the future. I am therefore very pleased to see that

our government will take major steps in ensuring that the rights of

innocent third parties and the public at large are protected. There is

no reason that those people who are not directly involved in the labour

dispute should have to endure financial hardships.

Mr.

Speaker, clarification on rules on informational picketing and the

limiting of picketing activity to the employer's main area of operation

are also two welcome and overdue measures. These measures, too, will

ensure that the rights of the innocent third party and of the public

are protected. Innocent third parties will no longer have to worry

about the threat of secondary picketing.

Another positive

feature of this new act that I strongly support is the fact that

strikes and lockouts will be prevented during the period that a

collective agreement is in place. And this act provides additional

means of redress other than job stoppages.

The banning of

strikes prior to good-faith bargaining is a positive step, another

reason to get on with this legislation. I believe it is important that

parties engage in discussion. A business cannot expect to be

competitive, nor can workers be expected to be productive, without

dialogue between the two. Through the process of consultation,

employees and employers can reach agreements that are fair and

equitable to both sides. Both groups must realize that there must be

give and take. A work stoppage should be a measure of the last resort,

and far too often it is the measure of the first resort. I am confident

that under this new act labour stoppages will be less frequent, and

that will be good for British Columbia.

The provision for

the establishment of a 40-day cooling-off period is another positive

thing. Under the new act, the two parties involved in a labour dispute

will be allowed to settle their differences through the process of

bargaining.

This 40-day cooling-off period provides an

additional opportunity for negotiation to take place. Moreover, it will

prevent needless financial loss to both employers and employees.

believe the new Industrial Relations Council will prove to be an

effective mediating body. This council will encourage mediation efforts

between parties — notice the word "encourage." The new council

will also have the power to intervene in disputes when disputes

escalate to the point that the public at large suffers. While it

possesses great powers, I am confident the Industrial Relations Council

will act in an impartial and responsible manner. Not only does this act

take into account the interests of the public, it recognizes democratic

rights, and that's what we're here for: to recognize democratic rights

of individual workers and employees.

Yes, our party and our

government are very concerned about the working man. It ensures that

individual workers and employees are free to voice their opinions

without fear of retaliation or reprisal from either the employer or the

union.

Interjections.

MR. HUBERTS : Yes,

member from Victoria, we are very concerned about our women; we are

particularly concerned about your women. Yet the opposition like to

keep it this way; they'd like ten more years of strife. If they can

stall it, that's what they would prefer to do.

The

provision providing for voting results to be tallied only after all

balloting is completed is also a move that I welcome. This provision of

the act will ensure that each member's ballot is of significance.

I'm

also pleased to see that this act takes into consideration the issue of

technological change. In this ever-changing world, it is inevitable

that technological change will take place. Our government has shown its

concern for individual workers by ensuring that employees receive 90

days' notice of technological change from their employers. In addition,

under this act employees receive full details of the impact of this

change.

This act will be of benefit to those most in need

of employment: our youth. If you recall, during the throne speech we

continued to hear from the opposition: "What about our youth?" Now

we're talking about youth, and yet they want to stall things for six

months. Employers will be allowed to hire apprentices irrespective of

union hiring practices. This will help provide training opportunities

and meaningful employment for our youth.

I believe the

Industrial Relations Reform Act will prove to be instrumental in

attracting even more business to British Columbia by creating a

positive climate of investment. We heard it in the throne speech, and

we've heard the Premier speak about it before. He has been to Holland,

West Germany, England. There are thousands of people who want to invest

in British Columbia, but they have one concern, and that's our labour

instability. The other concern probably would be that the opposition

would stay opposition, and I can appreciate their concern.

Our

province requires this investment so as to increase employment, to

diversify our economy and further enhance economic development.

Economic development is more than just buzzwords; it ensures that there

are greater economic opportunities for all British Columbians. The

riding that I represent, Saanich and the Islands, has great economic

potential, particularly in the field of light manufacturing and high

tech. My constituency offers significant opportunities to

[ Page 564 ]

potential

investors. With the more stable labour climate that the industrial

relations act will bring, I'm confident that investment in our province

will increase and in turn further enhance employment opportunities.

part of this emphasis on economic development, I am pleased that our

government will establish a productivity centre. This centre will be

used to study and advance more productive enterprise in all sectors of

our province. Our province has tremendous economic potential, but

because of our reputation for labour strife we have not always

attracted the investment that we should and could have. A stable labour

climate is necessary in order to further economic development in this

province.

Sometimes I wonder why the opposition is against

this bill so much. Or is it that they're afraid it might work; is that

their concern? We must inform potential investors that British Columbia

is a good place to invest, and one way of doing this is by having a

stable and productive workforce. This industrial relations act removes

the shackles that far too long have restricted economic growth in our

province. We continually hear about a cooperative spirit. We have a

cooperative spirit; we are listening, but we want to hear something

with substance. We don't want to continue hearing about quotes from the

Sun and the Province when you've been given $100,000 to do some research. Give us some research; give us some substance.

[3:45]

In closing, I believe this legislation is reasonable and equitable,

and that it will provide a blueprint for a stable and prosperous labour

climate in British Columbia. I believe the Industrial Relations Reform

Act will help in providing longterm stability in our province, and in

turn will make British Columbia an even more desirable place to live

and to work.

MR. SIHOTA : In particular I appreciate the applause from the

other side; I guess I must be making my point over there somehow.

Hopefully it will be there after I finish my speech this afternoon, and

hopefully they will have seen the light by the time I'm finished.

Mr. Speaker, to no one's

surprise I am going to speak in favour of the hoist motion. I am going

to be doing so for a lot of reasons. I am glad to see that the minister

is in the House today, in light of the fact that he is the one

responsible for the introduction of this bill. I don't know if he is

responsible for the full drafting of the bill.

I am going

to be talking a little later about a book that is really a textbook

when it comes down to labour law matters, in my view. It is a

well-written work on labour law. It is called Reconcilable Differences ,

and it was written by the former chairperson of the Labour Relations

Board, Paul Weiler, who had the opportunity not only to bring in the

provisions of the previous Labour Code but to serve under both

administrations in implementing the provisions. I guess that should

really be the current Labour Code, because of course we have not yet

passed the legislation before the House, and hopefully we won't. I

think if one were to go back in retrospect and read what he had to say,

good and bad, about the previous Labour Code, a lot can be learned, and

we can put a lot in perspective with respect to where we are going now

with the legislation before the House today that we are going to be

speaking on.

However, I am not going to start off by

talking about the provisions of the old Labour Code, nor the comments

of Mr. Weiler. I am going to do that a little bit later.

First

of all, I am going to talk about a matter that I am sure.... I opened

my comments by talking a little bit about the cooperation or the joint

applause that came across, and I am sure that everybody here in the

House agrees that we have got a fundamental responsibility to ensure

that there is ongoing and substantial economic development in this

province. Often the difference of opinion is really found in the way

one goes about achieving that economic development, and as it relates

to the legislation before us, how an instrument such as the Labour Code

or labour legislation can be utilized to achieve the type of economic

development that we all want to see in this province.

I guess

the thrust of my submissions is going to be that the provisions that

are before the House.... I will say this at the outset: some of them I

can live with, and there are others that I can't, in all fairness. The

some that I can't live with are ones that are worthy of review, and

subsequently warrant a re-examination of the material that is before

the House right now, and hence the support for a six-month hoist on the

bill and a thorough re-examination of it.

I say that

because I really do think that we all recognize that the Labour Code,

or labour legislation as it sits before us now, is very basic to this

province. I think we all recognize that in order to bring about the

type of economic development that I referred to earlier, we have got to

have a harmonious labour relations climate. The trick of the trade, it

seems to me, is to be able to draft legislation that does its best to

ensure a harmonious labour relations climate in the province —

something that both management and labour can live with, something that

government can be proud of and something that keeps the field level, as

they say in the business, to ensure that there is no undue favouritism

between one of the bargaining powers in labour law matters and the

other. That is really the challenge. Therefore it seems to me that the

appropriate thing to do at this stage of the game is to take the

legislation that the government has introduced in the House and put it

in front of the public and invite response, in much the same way that

the government members went around the province and asked for input on

the matters of the labour legislation.

I note that the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) says: "Sure we did." I know

that you did. But I think the view that ought to be embraced now is the

view that says: look, we went around the province and listened to what

the people had to say. We tried to come up with legislation that

achieves that very delicate balance I talked about a minute ago, in

terms of keeping the playing-field level. Do you think we've done it?

And if you haven't, where do you think we've gone wrong, and let's talk

about it. In other words, a White Paper approach to the legislation,

instead of simply trying to go through .... I won't call it a charade,

because I will impute an honest intention on the part of the members of

the committee and the Minister of Labour.

Going through the

exercise of listening to people, and then turning around and

introducing labour legislation, and then being bent on putting it

through the House, is not consistent with the hearing process that led

up to the introduction of the legislation that's before the House. It

seems to me it would be far more consistent if we did engage in a

consultative process. As I said earlier, I think all of us are

interested in making sure that the legislation is fair and decent to

all people, and that includes people in the unionized sector, the

non-unionized sector, business and government.

There is a view that causes me some concern, and that relates to the way in which the legislation before the House is

[ Page 565 ]

being

dealt with. There is obviously a desire on the part of the government

to move quickly with the introduction and then the passage of the

labour legislation we've got before us in the House today. That's

evident from the comments that the Premier has made before and after

the legislation was introduced in the House. He said, if my memory is

not mistaken, that he wanted to proceed with this as quickly as

possible. In my view, that's unfortunate, given what one is trying to

achieve with labour legislation.

I think it's fair to say

that we all want to put an end to confrontation in this province, in

particular labour-management confrontation. The question, of course, is

whether or not this legislation does it. It is, in my view, evident

that those within the field who are involved with and touched directly

by the provisions of labour legislation . . . . From what I read in the

newspapers it seems to me there is a view among them — and I know all

the members opposite have heard it so I don't want to attempt to quote

it, not at this stage in any event — that this labour legislation

does not result in that level playing-field we're talking about. It

doesn't, and if you don't have that level playing-field, then you're

inviting the very thing that's happening today outside the steps of the

Legislature. You have a constituent group in society upset about Bill

19 — let alone Bill 20 — and you have the types of comments

that are coming from the mouths of labour leaders in this province and

from some of the business leaders in this province.

Other

people read the newspapers besides those of us who spend time in the

Legislature, and they read about what's happening in British Columbia.

They read about that in Toronto, New York and Hong Kong. If the intent

of the legislation that was introduced before the House was to create

the impression in the business community.... The members opposite say

that that's who they're trying to appeal to, in terms of coming here

and investing. Well, what they're reading now is that the business

community in this province have some very substantial concerns about

the provisions of this legislation. I say that we don't want to send a

signal to them that says this Legislature, particularly the members

opposite in the government, want to ram this legislation through and

keep the taste of chaos that now surrounds this piece of legislation.

Hence,

of course, the motion to delay this bill for six months, to try to come

back with a revamped model of the legislation. If you want to send a

signal to them that you want economic development in this province —

sure, as I said at the outset, we can have another debate at some other

time as to how you achieve that economic development — if you want

to send a signal that B.C. is a good place to invest in, that the

labour climate in this province is a healthy one, and that

relationships between government, business and labour are indeed at a

historic, positive level, it seems to me that you've got to pull this

bill out, redraft it and introduce it in a fashion that takes into

account the outcries of business and labour — and certainly, to

the extent it's warranted, the outcries from this side of the House as

well. I appeal to the members opposite, simply on the basis of the

desire to bring about cogent economic development in this province. . .

. Aside from everything else, take a look at the impressions and the

messages that are going out there.

I'm sure all of you —

and I know that, being a representative for Esquimalt, I have the

ability, which some of you here don't share, to go every day into my

riding . . . . The basic impression is that this labour legislation is

causing chaos. People don't understand the complexities of it. They

don't always understand the niceties of legislation, and they don't

understand the legalities of legislation, which I'll talk about a

little bit later on. But they do understand that there is not a

unanimous reaction to the legislation, and that causes them concern,

because I think they, like everybody in this House, want to see

economic development; they want to see people investing in this

province. I can tell you that if I were to invest in this province . .

. . And I certainly had clients when I was practising law who wanted

to, and one of the things they always asked about was labour-management

relationships.

Therefore it seems to me prudent, in light

of our desire to achieve that economic development and in light of our

own recognition of the need for harmonious labour-management relations

in this province, to vote in favour of the motion that's on the floor

right now, to delay the passage of this bill for a period of six

months, with the hope that the minister will see fit to come back a

second time with legislation that adequately deals with the concerns of

all the parties.

I want to say, in addition to that,

that I have some other concerns about the legislation that's before the

House that I think ought to be brought to the attention of the minister

at this stage of the game, and which, in my view, also warrant a

further delay of six months in the introduction and the passage of the

bill. I know that not all members of this House are familiar with and

versed in legal matters, but I do want to try to quickly cover one

legal concern that rises to the forefront. When I review the provisions

of the bill, in particular the role of the commissioner, Mr. Peck, or

whoever it's going to be, that, needless to say, causes me a lot of

concern.

I would hope that the Minister of Labour is

familiar with

section 96 of the British North America Act, which of

course is the constitution, which defines the various powers of the

provincial government and the federal government. It sets out in very

basic terms what it is that a province can do and what the federal

government can do. Unfortunately, people in my profession have used

that sometimes to complicate and grey what I think is a relatively

straightforward document, in terms of appropriate powers.

Section

96 of the British North America Act talks about the powers of the

judiciary and says that it is within the purview of the federal

government to make judicial appointments. A question always arises,

when you are dealing with legislation of this nature, as to whether or

not the powers provided to a particular individual or entity within the

legislation are similar to the powers that are given to the courts. If

the powers provided to the entity — let's say, in this case, the commissioner —

are similar or akin to powers that are given to the courts, then the

courts have said: "Well, that's a

section 96 matter, and therefore it

is within the purview of the federal government, not the provincial

government, to appoint or to grant these judicial powers to the

commissioner." To that extent, that portion of the legislation is

deemed to be diseased, or ultra vires, in legal lingo. The question

here is whether or not

section 96 of the constitution, of the British

North America Act, is offended by the provisions that appoint the

commissioner.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence in this, because it seems

to me that the argument I'm about to build speaks in itself of a reason

to delay it. Because I think there is a basic flaw, from a legal point

of view, within this legislation, aside

[ Page 566 ]

from all of the other ones that my colleagues have talked about over and over again.

There is a fair bit of case law on it. I think that some members of this Legislature may be well advised to refer to — and may have already heard about —

a case that came down in 1980 entitled "Concerned Citizens of B.C.,

Albert Head Ratepayers' Association and Colwood Ratepayers' Association

v. Capital Regional District." Admittedly, all this sprung from my riding, but I wasn't a member of the Legislature at the time.

But

in any event, the provisions of

section 12 of the Pollution Control Act

were reviewed, and whether or not the powers provided under the

Pollution Control Act both to the cabinet and to the administrator of

that legislation were ultra vires, and whether or not the powers

provided therein were consistent with the powers of a court judge. The

courts held, in that case, that the legislation was ultra vires, and

that indeed the powers prescribed there were clearly powers that were

consistent with a

section 96 function, which is accorded only to the

federal government, not to the provincial government.

The

question then, of course, is: in taking a look at that decision, how do

you reconcile it? I'm not going to go through and quote the entire

decision or anything like that. How do you reconcile that with the

powers that are provided to the commissioner in the legislation that's

before us? The commissioner, it seems to me, has several powers that

are consistent with the powers that are accorded to judges. That's the

first test. When the courts look at

section 96 matters, that's the

first thing they take a look at. They say, if I can actually quote

directly from one of the decisions: "One must determine whether the

impugned power or jurisdiction conforms to the powers or jurisdiction

exercised by superior, district or county courts at the time of

Confederation. If it does not, then there is no breach of

section 96;

if it does, then one must consider step two...." And then it goes to

step two and three.

Let's take a look at the powers in this

legislation that are provided to the commissioner. The commissioner has

the ability to determine whether or not the public interest is

threatened. Of all of the powers that are given, that is the power, in

my view — and there are others, but certainly in my view —

that most accurately and closely resembles the powers provided to

judges. Judges are asked to make decisions all the time on matters of

public interest: whether it is advisable in the public interest, for

example, to issue a particular injunction, or to provide a particular

remedy. I want to say to the Minister of Labour that if he looks at the

cases . . . . I've cited one case, and there are several others that I

don't want to cite which I'm sure the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R.

Smith) will know about, because these are matters that all of us who

are involved in constitutional affairs understand. If you take a look

at the decisions and you compare that with the power provided to the

commissioner to determine what is or isn't in the public interest,

those powers are awfully close, if not totally overlapping. I use that

language with an abundance of caution, because it is quite easy to say

that they do totally overlap. But that aside, there is a tremendous

overlap between

section 96 powers given to judges and the ability of

the commissioner to make a public interest ruling.

I say to

the minister: take a look at that section, consult with your

solicitors, and let us know whether, in their humble opinion, there is

a violation of

section 96 or if indeed there is an issue as to whether

there is a violation of

section 96.

HON. L. HANSON : You should read it again.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA :

If the minister is saying to me that there is legal advice that he's

got on the matter, then that's great. I'd like to know what the

jurisprudence says. But I want the minister to understand that there

have been at least two cases that I'm aware of that are hallmarks in

this area, which have challenged similar powers, admittedly without

success, of labour boards with respect to inconsistency with the powers

under

section 96 of the Constitution Act. There is, of course, the

landmark decision of the Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan in the

Saskatchewanv. John East Iron Works case, and then of course there is Tornko v. the Labour Relations Board of Nova Scotia, which is a 1975 decision. Since then the law has changed substantially.

The

minister says: "I don't think we've got a problem there." I think that

you do, and I think that it's worth taking a second look at. Certainly

that provision in itself . . . . I promised to be a little bit

different when I talked. The potential concern there is certainly

worthy of taking a look at this bill a second time and delaying passage

for another six months. The worst thing from the minister's point of

view, if I may suggest that, would be this: if the legislation were to

be passed and then the first thing that happened right after that is

that you've got a

section 96 problem on your hands in that somebody has

taken the matter to the courts. Then there is the issue of every

decision made in the interim being potentially flawed, and that for

every matter that comes before the commissioner, Mr. Peck, there is an

argument with respect to

section 96. That in itself will allow every

matter to be appealed to the courts. Because the government by its own

doing in the legislation has allowed easier access to the courts, it

will delay a lot of decisions being made because of a

section 96 issue.

I'm

saying that aside from the political arguments that you've heard from

this side, and aside from the arguments that you've heard from the

labour and business and management people in this province, it's not in

the government's interest to pass this legislation in light of that

potential violation of

section 96. It would seem to me that the last

thing the government would want to do is to pass this legislation and

find itself in that kind of a problem.

Madam Speaker, I've

talked, first of all, about the need for all of us to work together in

terms of appropriate economic development, and the impression that this

legislation leaves, and hence the need to delay it on that ground.

There is, of course, the need to take a second look at this

legislation, as I mentioned earlier, under the provisions of the

Constitution Act.

There has been a lot of discussion within

the chamber about the other provisions of the legislation. There have

been a lot of comments made in a number of areas. There have been a lot

of comments made about arbitration. There have been a lot of comments

made about democracy in the workplace. There have been a lot of

comments made about mediation, about innocent third parties, and a lot

of comments about the ability or the right of an employer to speak to

employees during the certification process. Those, it seems to me, are

the fundamental issues that are dividing us across

[ Page 567 ]

the floor: the extent which the labour legislation that's before the House interferes with those "rights" — the individual rights versus the group rights.

see that my time has gone faster than I had anticipated, so I want to

talk about some of these things. I said at the outset that I was going

to draw the minister's attention to the matter of Mr. Weiler's work: Reconcilable Differences .

There has been a lot of talk about the fact that unions in this

province are not democratic, that the operations of unions in this

province — their business and their affairs — are not conducted in the most democratic of fashions; hence, some of the changes to the Labour Code.

I want to quote from something that Mr. Weiler said, for the reference of the minister. It's on page 33 of the book Reconcilable Differences .

I think the words are important, because they are not words uttered by

someone who has an interest at stake; not someone from the labour

community, the business community, or indeed anyone who represents a

particular political party. They come from someone who has had

experience over the years of adjudicating on labour law matters.

Speaking on democracy in trade unions, he says:

"There

are few institutions as democratic as the typical Canadian union, as

accountable to their constituents, whether one considers the

corporation, the university, the professional association, or even our

political parties and governments. Employees choose by majority verdict

whether they want union representation. They often have the opportunity

to vote in favour of a rival, raiding union. They elect the officers

who exercise authority in the local union and send delegates to

conventions which select national officers. More important, it is the

employees themselves, not these officials, who make many of the key

decisions in their collective bargaining regime: to ratify contract

settlements, to authorize strike action, to raise their union dues,

often to discipline individual members, and occasionally even to set

the salaries of their officers."

Here's a chap that has

studied, been involved in and conducted the affairs of labour relations

across this country, and he says there are few institutions in society

that are as democratic as trade unions. Later on in the book he talks

about the particular attributes of democracy within British Columbia

trade unions

So that's one thing. Secondly — and I

remember that the member who spoke before me commented on this to some

extent, so I thought maybe I'd quote this provision as well. Here again

we have someone who is unbiased in this matter. We've heard a lot of

chatter in this Legislature about whether or not employers should have

the ability to talk to employees while a certification vote is being

considered or is underway. In other words, do they have the ability to

say: "Hey look, if you do this, I'm going to go broke"? That's the

argument that flows from the other side. Obviously you know what our

position is on that. You've heard from the other members. But let's

take a look at someone who is unbiased.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : My position is consistent with Mr. Weiler's here, Mr. Provincial Secretary. I quote Mr. Weiler:

have always found it incongruous that the employer should be given a

central role in the representation play, even if its campaign is

perfectly legal, without a whisper of economic coercion of the

employees. Suppose the employer simply mounts a sophisticated Madison

Avenue kind of electioneering, complete with highly paid lawyers,

consultants, psychological survey teams, perhaps even films. Is that

consistent with what collective bargaining is all about?

"In

making up their minds about union representation, the employees are

really choosing how they will deal with their employer, how they will

participate in settling and improving their terms of employment. The

employer and employees have an inherent conflict of interest in that

topic. Clearly the employer is affected by the employees' judgment

about whether they will be represented by a trade union. Yet surely

that collective employee choice should be as off-limits to the employer

as the employer's choice of a vice-president of industrial relations is

off-limits to the employees."

Now you've heard several of

the members on our side of the House talk about that principle, and you

have heard it said in terms that I think are fairly put — I am

trying to be fair in my presentation here today, which I am sure some

of you will say is unusual; I see only one head nodding, so I am sure

that it reinforces my belief that only some of you think that way —

but obviously couched in some terms that can fairly be described as

rhetoric. But here is someone who has looked at the matter, who

examined the situation as it stood in 1968, as it stood in 1972, in

1977 before he left — yes, if the member opposite didn't realize, I am quoting from Paul Weiler — and then looks back and reflects on the matter.

One other quote that I think is of particular importance — I must confess I

had several others, but of particular importance I think on the issues that

we are debating here — has to do with the matter of mediation. The government

has talked over and over and over again about the need for mediation in these

matters.

What

did Mr. Weiler have to say? He talks about Social Credit policy in this

section of the book; it appears on page 8. He was talking about the

Social Credit government and its policy at the time with respect to

mediation, and then subsequently the new NDP administration and the

approach taken by the party opposite with respect to the introduction

of the Labour Code at that time.

[4:15]

"That

quiet message did not forestall the fierce struggle for the soul of

Social Credit labour policy. The big unionized employers, those

represented by the Employers' Council," — it is interesting to hear what he has to say now —

"had been happy with the overall drift of the Labour Code. While they

wanted some refinements, some changes in emphasis, they did not want to

return to the old days of the labour injunction and the Mediation

Commission."

The Employers' Council was saying it then,

Madam Speaker, and they are saying it now. They didn't want it. I see

that unfortunately my time is up, and it is regrettable that I didn't

get to talk a little bit about what Mr. Weiler had to say about final

offer. I think the minister would be well advised to look at that,

particularly pages 230 and 67, and page 66 about limiting the right to

strike. I will leave it at those two matters because I do feel the

pressure of time here, except to say that there is therefore (1) an

economic argument, an economic development argument, that warrants

[ Page 568 ]

delay;

(2) a constitutional issue that warrants delay; and (3) the opinions of

an independent person who has gone through the matter of the Labour

Code and who says: "Look, some of the things that are being introduced

in there now in retrospect don't make sense." He wrote this book

somewhere in 1980, of course. They just don't make sense. So for those

three reasons, I implore the minister to support this motion and to

take a second look at the legislation, and let's introduce something

that levels the playing-field.

MR. DIRKS : I am a

little confused here this afternoon. I was under the impression that we

were debating a motion to hoist. Under that motion, we are simply

talking about time and delaying for six months. I didn't know that we

were debating the bill itself or articles of that bill.

find this whole debate that is going on rather insulting because the

only thing that I have heard is that there hasn’t been time for input.

As part of that committee, let me tell you, Madam Speaker, there was

input. There was great input, and I find the remarks by the loyal

opposition not only insult that review commission that went around, but

the tremendous number of people who spent a lot of time and energy in

preparing briefs, in meeting with us at weird times of the day and

night. Tell the people up at Dawson Creek who came to present their

briefs at 9 o'clock at night that they weren't given a chance for input

or that that input isn't important. Or the people in Vernon. You laugh,

and it's amazing.

I heard the previous speaker

talking about the greatness of the review committee. I was surprised

that a party that keeps priding itself as the only party that

speaks for the people never once mentioned the fact that those people

did work hard to present briefs to this committee. I guess they

criticize, Madam Speaker, because to the best of my knowledge we didn't

receive one oral presentation from a member opposite, and I can't

remember seeing too many of them in the audience. Therefore I can

understand their frustration. Somehow, today and yesterday and the day

before, they're very aware of what's going on in the newspapers, but

they failed to see all the advertisement that went out about that

review, or they were just too busy for input.

I submit that the opportunity was there — nine

locations, and there were no restrictions. We didn't say you had to be

a certain colour or belong to a certain philosophy in order to appear

in front of the committee. We sat there and listened, and we paid

attention. You'll see that embodied in the legislation. How can they

criticize when they were not there? How can they criticize when they

were not part of that process?

And if changes are needed in this bill, why do we delay that debate by this

hoist motion? Delay will simply bring confusion. Time and time again throughout

this province — and it didn't matter whether the presentation was from labour,

organized or unorganized, or whether it was from management — the need for action

was stressed. Can the loyal opposition honestly tell me that they want to see

the disruptions that we've had in our labour market continue through this

year by stalling this debate? We need action. The system we had was not working.

The failure of that system to work last year, even in the forest industry, we're

feeling today.

We need some action. We need to get on with debating the bill. That's where

the changes can occur. But all we're debating on is time, and time is something

that I think is running out. We need to get on with the debate of the bill.

Brevity is the soul of wit, and I haven't heard it from the other side.

Madam Speaker, I speak against the motion to hoist.

MR. BARNES : Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in the opposition in supporting the motion to hoist Bill 19.

must say that the member who just took his seat seeks to leave the

impression that sufficient input has been taken with respect to the

bill before us. However, I don't think the member would disagree with

the suggestion that now that the bill is before us we're finding that

very little in it reflects the requests of those petitioners who made

their cases in advance of the introduction of the bill. So it's only

logical that now that we have the bill, which really should have been

in the form of a White Paper, perhaps, or at the very least subjected

to the scrutiny of one of the standing committees in order for us to

familiarize ourselves with the contents of the bill . . . . I'm sure

that the members of the House will recall the attempts of the Leader of

the Opposition when this session opened, suggesting that additional

committees be struck in order to deal with matters such as this, and

the Premier suggesting that any matter that the House felt was

contentious or of such a nature that more time was required could be

submitted to some of the committees that were going to be approved by

the House. I think this is what we're saying.

The member is

quite right that we're not really here to debate the content of the

bill, because for one thing we're not that conversant with the content

of the bill. The bill has been introduced, the government has committed

itself to pushing it through, and there is speculation among some of us

that the government will allow us to discuss the bill for a certain

length of time and then we're going to be faced with yet another

exercise of awesome power by that government when it invokes its

mandate by using closure. So we've got problems in this House in a

number of very serious ways.

The bill has been discussed at

some length by our very able Labour critic and by others in the House

with extensive experience in labour matters. So when I think about the

comments that have been made by experts in the field — in the industrial field —

on the side of management as well as of the working unionists, who

themselves are saying that the bill is very complex and that it's of

such a nature that they're just not sure what's going on . . . .

They're having to use general expressions and are reacting to the bill

in terms of appearances and perceptions. The perceptions, rightly or

wrongly, Madam Speaker, are the things that we're dealing with. Let's

face it, the government is bringing this bill in while knowing full

well that there hasn't been sufficient time to digest it, but knowing

the situation in this province and how the government has been able to

use with great skill and adeptness the political science, of smoke and

mirrors. It knows the tricks. It knows how to get public opinion, and

it knows that people's memories are short, and it knows that no matter

how much opposition we put up, a headline or two.... You let things

cool off and you carry on.

But I want to say, as an

opposition member looking at the bill on the basis of perceptions, on

the basis of appearances, on the basis of tradition and of the things

that we're familiar with — not as an expert, but perhaps more like

those people who are going to be reading their papers and trying to

figure out what's going on here anyway — that what's really going

on is that the government is making a major grab for confiscation of

the whole collective bargaining process. Those are my terms. I say

"confiscation" because it is taking over a democratic process —

cumbersome, awkward and frustrating though it is. They are now going to

expedite that process by putting serious limitations on the so-called

principle of

[ Page 569 ]

consensus.

Consensus, to most democratically minded people who respect this

process, means that we arrive at a resolution to matters of difference

where there are considerably different points of view, and that at some

point there is a cutoff by mutual consent, and that in that atmosphere

we know that the democratic process still prevails and gives us the

security to know that when decisions are made and we sign our names on

a resolution, what we are doing is committing ourselves to the duration

of that agreement for whatever length of time, and we are bound by it.

Now that is a democratic process; that's due process; that is the thing

that gives us confidence in one another even though we have dissenting

points of view, and that's what should be happening now.

the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Dirks) pointed out quite rightly,

we're talking about time. We're not really talking about the stuff of

the bill or the essential elements in the bill. We're talking about

time so that we can understand what it is we are trying to vote on —

and I can assure you, that is not clear in the minds of even the

experts, let alone those of us here in the House who are desirous of

trying to do our jobs and who respect and represent the different

points of view among our constituents.

[4:30]

So what's the difference? What has the government decided to do to

replace the democratic process? The fellow we all know very well, Mr.

Ed Peck, who was the chief behind the compensation stabilization

program for a number of years and who had at that time the awesome

powers of imposing controls on wage increases and having the ability to

act arbitrarily . . . . We now find that he is going to be the new

Industrial Relations Council head, which is even more awesome.

fact, the magnitude of this is still beyond most of us. I can suggest

to you, though, Madam Speaker, that when you sit down at the bargaining

table you don't like to feel that there is a hammer of Thor over your

head. I don't think any of us would like that. To suggest to people who

are going to exercise their fair and equal democratic rights that

somebody in the back room is saying: "If you don't come to an agreement

in the specified time, we're going to impose an agreement on you"....

That should be by mutual agreement; that should not be by force. It's

so fundamentally simple. That's the perception out there, and that's

what we're saying. I don't think that the Legislature should be giving

powers like that to one individual, in any event.

It's

analogous, in my view, to the Premier saying that we've been very

patient in trying to encourage the protesters on the precinct lawns to

leave, that they've made their point. And if they don't leave after a

certain time, then we feel that we've done our best and we can now ....

I know, Madam Speaker, that this is digressing a little bit, but I'm

going to get back on the time element. The comparison I'm trying to

make is that just because government gets frustrated, just because we

get frustrated with the democratic process, nonetheless the democratic

process is our salvation. That's my point. the law is still the law,

and it's only by the rule of law that we can function in a democratic

society — no other way, not by personal points of view or shortcuts or using leverage or, in this case, as I've said, by using smoke and mirrors and deception.

Madam

Speaker, I'm very discouraged, quite frankly, to have to take this

step, because I feel it has been a long time since we've sat, in the

first place, and we've got a lot of work to do. Asking for this hoist

is not because it's something that I feel would be necessary had we had

a different process, a different system, or if the government had for

instance been inclined to realize that there was going to be this kind

of backlash. In fairness and in keeping with the Premier's promises,

especially in the last campaign, that we would have an open government

and that consultation and cooperation would be the rule, the government

should have come forward in a more cooperative frame of mind. In fact,

there was speculation before Bill 19 and 20 were introduced that they

were going to be a problem for the community, and the Premier suggested

that he himself thought there might be quite a bit of conflict; he

thought there might be come contention and some concern. We had no idea

that what he was getting ready to do was undermine the whole collective

bargaining process to this extent.

We've had some pretty

harsh words passed back and forth across the floor with respect to the

government's ulterior motives. I haven't got a crystal ball; I don't

know what the government's motives are. But perceptions are

perceptions, and it does appear, Madam Speaker, that the government

intends to take away the clout and ability of the unionized worker. It

appears that way. It appears that way because the government is now

saying, for instance, that employers can now have subsidiary operations

that will be non-union,

whereas in the past, if you had unionized

operation, then you respected all related activities with respect to

your operation.

This "double-breasting" is a term that I'm

becoming familiar with. What it reminds me of is the old sleeper play.

I have to try to use analogies that people can understand. Those of you

who have played a little football know what the old sleeper play was.

They had to outlaw it.

AN HON. MEMBER : Tell us what it was.

MR. BARNES :

The sleeper play was when you never let . . . . The whole game of

football, in the first place, is deception, Madam Speaker. There are

parallels that you can draw between the smoke and mirrors of the

political process and the military game of football. The old sleeper

play is this: you have a scrimmage play; all the players run all over,

they go down the field, and one of the players very quietly goes near

the sideline, lies down and inconspicuously hides. Everybody goes back

to the huddle, they call another play, up jumps this player who never

came back to the huddle and slips away and grabs a pass for a

touchdown. "Oh, well, didn't you see him?" — something like that. That type of stuff was outlawed because it wasn't fair. It was a trick, that's all it was.

Now

what you're doing with this double-breasting is very similar. You're

allowing a unionized business to be able.... For instance, I'm just

asking . . . Remember, I'm lay; I don't know about these things. I'm

trying to learn. This is why we need some time, so we can understand

what the heck's going on. What would happen if I were a unionized shop

and my employees decided to strike? What could I do? Would I be free to

start up another business somewhere else, put all my assets and

resources in that business and avoid the losses? Could I keep paying

myself a salary through a subsidiary? How much could I do? Someone is

shaking his head over there, but I wonder about that. I think we need

time to make absolutely sure, because the experts are not sure about

this. This is the kind of thing that bothers me.

[ Page 570 ]

I must

comment on the fact that the government has been desperately trying to

find something that works. I think what's happening now is that the

government is under a lot of panic; they've got to do something and now

they're getting rough. They've tried everything.

In the

early 1980s times started getting bad for the government. The

government came in in 1983 with what we called the dirty dozen, firing

about 600 public employees. We thought we had a dirty dozen with the

first six pieces of legislation that came in, but we found out that

there were extra pieces, so the "dirty dozen" tag didn't last long. But

for the first 12, they were awesome enough. We went all the way up to

something like 28 or 30 pieces of legislation in July of '83. You know,

all that legislation did was show how ideologically committed the

government was to taking control. It still believes in the concept that

governing means doing it with power and determination; not through

cooperation, but through a kind of purely executive dictatorship.

Harsh

words, but you know as well as I know that your leader, the Premier, is

a man who operates best by himself. He does not operate through

consultation; there's no example of it. In fact, he couldn't even get

along when he was a minister under Bill Bennett. He couldn't get along

with him, because he called those guys gutless. They didn't want to

support his new planning strategies for the province. He wanted to

introduce all kinds of new ways of centralizing control under his

ministry when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

we still have the same personality. We have a guy who is a master at

rhetoric, an absolute master, a great communicator. Whether there is

any substance in what he says is academic. The point is that it works

for the time. He is the type of guy who understands the media and how

it works. Two-second clips, that is all that matters. Hit them with it

today, forget about it for tomorrow; that's another day. This is why he

can stand up there and make all kinds of promises, and this is why it

soaks in so slowly that the public is dealing with somebody who is not

committed to the things that he is saying. But he knows that by saying

them, using the right language at the right time, he is going to be

able to get by for the day, and that is really what it is all about.

That is what you think is going to happen with this legislation.

You

believe that after you give us a little time to debate . . . . You

notice all the talk is on the opposition side. You have interspersed

the odd member from the back bench standing up, making a two- or

three-minute prepared speech — nothing impassioned, no great

desire to save the economy and put people back to work. You don't get

the feeling that there is a whole lot of champing at the bit. There is

a lot that the management are out there waiting for this legislation,

so they can raise the revenue for the province; that people are beating

down the borders of the province to get in here to invest their money.

We don't see any of that. There is no real commitment other than the

fact that the government is going to put labour in its place. It is

going to go blindly on with the strategy that makes very little sense.

This is my perception of what t