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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

619 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Committee on privatization. Mr. Sihota –– 619

Lunch program in schools. Mr. Cashore –– 619

Mr. Clark

Funding of post-secondary education. Ms. Campbell –– 620

Committee on privatization. Mr. Sihota –– 620

Social housing. Ms. Marzari –– 620

Mr. Cashore

Hospice for AIDS victims. Mrs. Boone –– 621

Committee on privatization. Mr. Williams –– 621

Ministry of Highways subcontractors. Hon. L. Hanson replies to question –– 621

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987. Second reading

On the amendment

Hon. L. Hanson –– 621

Mr. G. Hanson –– 621

Division –– 625

On the main motion

Mr. S.D. Smith –– 625

Mr. Clark –– 627

Mr. Rabbitt –– 630

Mr. Miller –– 631

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 634

Mr. Lovick –– 635

Mr. Jacobsen –– 638

Mr. Sihota –– 640

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the members' gallery on the east side today is a very distinguished

gentleman who met with you earlier in the day and is meeting with me,

the Premier and other members of cabinet as the day progresses. I'd

like the House to welcome Mr. Rashed Saleern Khan, who is a counsellor

and charge d'affaires of Pakistan and who's now situated in Ottawa.

MR. BLENCOE :

In the precincts today, and in the gallery later on, we have a group of

seniors from the James Bay Lodge here in Victoria, in James Bay just to

the south of us. They will be listening and watching with interest, and

they are accompanied by Mr. Stein from the James Bay Lodge. Will the

House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery today are three representatives of the B.C. Recreation and Parks Association —

three hard-working volunteers: the president, Kevin Pike; the executive

director, Bill Webster; and the past president, Bob Vaughan. Would the

House please make these gentlemen welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL :

In the gallery today are students from grades 11 and 12 from Fraser

Academy in Vancouver, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. de Putter, and

I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. GRAN :

In the gallery today we have Dr. Jim Cunningham from Trinity Western

University and his wife Rita, who is a nurse at Langley Memorial

Hospital. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. JACOBSEN :

We have with us today Mayor Danny Griffin from Maple Ridge and Mr.

Jerry Sulina, the administrator from the district of Maple Ridge. Would

the House welcome them, please.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : In

the precincts today are the members of the Provincial Agricultural Land

Commission and also the executive of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association.

Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT :

Yesterday I had the great pleasure of introducing my youngest son;

today I have another son, Steven, with us in the precincts, and his

guest, Colleen Williams. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a constituent from the

great constituency of Comox, a resident of the town of Comox, Mrs.

Shirley Robb.

MR. R. FRASER : It's with great pleasure that I introduce the vice-president

of the Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia, a group that's

contributed much to the province. Would the House please welcome Frank Willis.

Oral Questions

COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION

MR. SIHOTA :

I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations, if he's in the House. Yesterday a task force was announced

that would be looking into the matter of privatization. The minister at

the time indicated in his press release that those who had participated

in the task force will be allowed to acquire corporations that are

privatized. The question is: does the minister consider it proper for

these people to use insider information to then turn around and acquire

enterprises that they recommend be privatized?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

It's an excellent question and, on behalf of the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers), I'll take it on notice.

LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

MR. CASHORE :

My question is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. During

the debate on his estimates, the minister made the rather disturbing

and shocking assertion — and I quote from Hansard — that:

"...the superintendent of child welfare is not an advocate for

children." Can the minister confirm that this unfortunate

misunderstanding of his department's responsibilities is the reason for

his failure to do anything other than review the problem of thousands

of B.C. children going to school hungry every day?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, the member is confusing two issues that are entirely

separate. Technically the statement is correct: the superintendent is

not an advocate for children.

MR. CASHORE : A

supplementary, Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Social Services

and Housing. The Premier has repeatedly assured us that the minister is

accumulating information on the extent of this crisis. Is the minister

planning to make a full report on this crisis to this assembly today?

If not, when will he stop studying this situation and start acting?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, the superintendent is there to administer the Family and

Child Service Act,

an act that is much misunderstood. If the member

would read the act, I'm sure he would understand what the

responsibilities are of the superintendent.

In answer to the second question — am I prepared to make a statement to the House on the situation today —

the answer is no. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and tell this

Legislature and the people of British Columbia that my staff have been

looking into this situation for quite some time. We are very aware of

the extent, the nature and the location of the problem, and in due

course we will be making recommendations to deal with it.

MR. CLARK :

A supplementary to the Minister of Social Services. The attitude of the

government, of the minister in particular, has prompted the Vancouver

School Board to keep secret the identities of hungry children for fear

they will be taken away. Has the minister decided to instruct his

officials

[ Page 620 ]

to stop intimidating educators and parents, and to deal with the real problem?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I am really surprised and shocked that the president of the largest

school board in British Columbia would not make contact with my

ministry to find out exactly what we do in this ministry and how we

function. It surprises me that he would make irresponsible statements,

such as he did make in regard to the operation of this ministry. I

think he has brought into disrepute the professional people in my

ministry and has cast a doubt on their abilities and their function. I

think before a president of a school board, an elected person, makes

statements like that, he or she should find out exactly how this

ministry functions.

MR. CLARK : Supplementary to the

minister. It is precisely because of the attitude and the comments of

the minister and the government that the school board has no

confidence. The questions that are being raised by social workers to

principals clearly indicate a trend towards apprehension, and that kind

of attitude on the side of the government. It is time now for the

minister to make a clear statement....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Would the member get to his question, please.

MR. CLARK :

Will the minister make a clear statement now that instructs school

boards across this province that they have no intention of dealing with

the problem by apprehension, but rather by introducing some kind of

school-based nutrition program?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, the professionals in my ministry have one goal in mind

when dealing with children and families: to keep the family unit

together. Statements made by the chairman of the Vancouver School Board

and others, including that member, that my professionals are

intimidating people and heading towards apprehension are completely

concocted and a figment of their imagination — done for purposes, I would suspect, other than the welfare of the children.

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MS. CAMPBELL :

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

and Job Training. It is some time since the minister dissolved the

Universities Council of British Columbia. Would the minister advise the

House as to what processes he has put in place or will be putting in

place to ensure the coordination of funding of our post-secondary

institutions?

HON. S. HAGEN : Mr. Speaker, that is a

very good question. The Universities Council was dissolved as of April

15, as a matter of fact. It is being replaced with the University

Advisory Council, which I have appointed; I will be announcing the

names shortly, probably this afternoon. It will be advising the

minister on university matters of any kind.

COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier. Yesterday

the government announced the formation of a committee on privatization. I'm

wondering if the Premier could kindly give this House an assurance that none

of the participants on that committee will be allowed to acquire any of the

entities or enterprises that are recommended for privatization.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, I can't.

MR. SIHOTA :

If the Premier cannot give us that assurance, can the Premier give us

an assurance instead that all of those who will be participating on the

task force will be required to file full disclosure statements

consistent with the act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, I can't.

MR. SIHOTA : A supplementary to the Premier. Under the provisions of

the Municipal Act, aldermen and members of municipal councils are immune from

entering into contracts that they can benefit from whilst they're on councils.

Ought the same principle not apply to those who are serving on this committee?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, these members have been sought out —

they're volunteers, they certainly have a great deal to offer the

province and the people of British Columbia, and at the end of the

assessment process, which the committee might be involved with, we

could potentially go to a tendering for the various things. It could be

privatized, but no decisions have been made in that regard, nor will

they be made for at least some time.

MR. SIHOTA : A

supplementary. Does the Premier see no conflict or potential conflict

in the fact that some of these people on this committee are going to be

setting prices for the sale of these corporations? Is it not in their

interest then to set the lowest price so they can turn around and

acquire it? Is it not a potential conflict for them to have access to

this insider information?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I

now, Mr. Speaker, appreciate why the questioning. Obviously the member

doesn't realize the intent of the committee. It's not the intent of the

committee to establish the price.

SOCIAL HOUSING

MS. MARZARI :

This question is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing.

Recently the minister made the announcement that in 1987 we would

develop 1,886 units for needy British Columbians. Now we've decided not

to go ahead with North Park on False Creek because it's not seen

somehow as commercially viable. Did the government or the department

develop plans for social housing units on the B.C. Place site? If so,

what is the status of those plans today?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : To the best of my knowledge and recollection, none of the units planned for this year were planned for that site.

MR. CASHORE :

Supplementary. In this United Nations International Year of Shelter for

the Homeless, governments throughout North America are recognizing the

problem and coming forward with some very imaginative programs for

[ Page

621 ]

those

who live in substandard housing. Why is this government refusing to

take action to provide decent, affordable shelter for the people who

need it, and why is this government refusing to put the construction

industry back on its feet with a major housing development on the B.C.

Place site?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Once again, the

member seems to mix two or three subjects into one question. The

responsibility for the B.C. Place site lies with another minister, so I

would recommend that he ask his questions of the appropriate minister.

We are building this year, as your own member just said, 1,886 social

housing units, the great majority of which are in the lower mainland.

They are built in the areas, of course, where the need is the greatest

and where the vacancy rate is the lowest.

The United Nations year of the homeless pertains mainly — and I have read some of the papers written on it —

to Third World countries. Even where it does overlap into

industrialized western countries, the problem is far greater in areas

other than in British Columbia.

HOSPICE FOR AIDS VICTIMS

MRS. BOONE :

My question is to the Minister of Health. On March 19 in this assembly,

the minister was asked about his intentions to build a hospice for AIDS

patients in Vancouver. At that time, you said you were considering it.

Has the minister completed his review, and are you making plans to

provide a hospice in Vancouver for AIDS victims?

HON. MR. DUECK : Yes, I did mention that we were considering it, and we are still looking around for a location. It's still under review.

COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION

MR. WILLIAMS :

Will the Premier not reconsider his previous answers in terms of the

insider information that will be available to this committee that will

not be available to other potential buyers for the Crown corporations?

Can the Premier assure us, with respect to B.C. Place and the

Enterprise Corporation, that the members of that board will not be

allowed to acquire any of the assets or land of B.C. Place either,

where the same conflict potential exists?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I can assure the hon. member that all things will be dealt with fairly and honestly.

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS SUBCONTRACTORS

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a question that was put to me

recently by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood)

regarding the hiring practices of certain contractors working on the

access road to the Alex Fraser Bridge.

I believe the hon. member tabled a copy of the form and it

contemplates a contractor/subcontractor relationship between the

contractors and an unnamed party. The form also provides for an

exclusion or a release for the contractors as it relates to any union

involvement or agreements that pertain to the second party. On the face

of the form there is nothing illegal about that arrangement, except if

it were determined that under the Labour Code or the Employment

Standards Act the second party to that agreement was in fact an

employee or had a dependent contractor relationship. If any persons who

have signed a form of that type have concern that they do fall into the

category of the employee or dependent contractor relationship, I would

suggest that they take that concern to the Labour Relations Board for a

determination of their status. Of course, the agreement would be null

and void if that were the determination.

Orders of the Day

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. L. HANSON : I rise to speak against the hoist motion.

Interjections.

HON. L. HANSON : Does that surprise you?

Bill 19 it's obvious that we have not chosen sides, either with labour

or management. We have recognized the public interest and the

democratic rights of the individual, and we believe those are keynotes

in Bill 19.

I believe the statement was made by

members of the opposition that the 1973 Code was introduced after

consensus was reached. I would suggest to members on the other side

that they refer to their research department and get some clippings

relating to the introduction of the 1973 Code. If they read those, they

will certainly see that no consensus was arrived at.

There

were also words said to the effect that the commissioner of the new

disputes resolution council was receiving too much money — too

much "pay" was the word, I believe. I would suggest to hon. members

that they get copies of the B.C. Federation of Labour and B.C. Business

Council presentations, because one of the concerns expressed in both

was that we did not recognize the importance of some of the positions

currently held by labour relations people and were thus not able to

attract the best people to those particular jobs. We have responded to

that by putting it in the legislation that the pay for that

commissioner is tied to a Supreme Court judge's stipend.

[2:30]

As a result of many briefs, we on this side of the House wish to

withdraw the compensation stabilization plan, the Essential Service

Disputes Act and the Public Sector Restraint Act. Any delay will delay

the withdrawal of those particularly onerous acts, as related to me by

many of the presenters.

I believe that government is

expected to act. I believe that delay will only emphasize uncertainty.

I believe that we must put mechanisms in place that are clear, so that

everyone understands the rules of the game and British Columbia can get

on with its growth, as it should. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to

the House and to members on the other side that there should be no

further delay. We should get on with the debate and thence into

committee, where we can deal with individual items piece by piece.

MR. G. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, as members know, we have had some substantial debate initiated by this side of the

[ Page 622 ]

House,

asking in our hoist motion that the government consider the

advisability of withdrawing this legislation for six months. This

motion was made in good faith, based on the concerns being expressed on

a daily basis throughout British Columbia.

As you know,

this piece of legislation takes us back well before the introduction of

the Labour Code of British Columbia in 1973, closer to the time around

1968 when Bill 33, the Mediation Commission Act, was introduced. The

net result of that 1968 legislation, which was ostensibly introduced to

create labour peace in the province — in much the same way as the

rhetoric of the government around this piece of legislation suggests it

was introduced to create labour peace and prosperity — was to increase the number of strikes in British Columbia by 500 percent.

are asking the government in this motion, we are imploring the

government, to take the time because of the size of this bill. This

bill has 75 clauses, each one of which individually has an impact on

various industrial unions, craft unions and public sector unions. In

fact, this bill impacts every aspect of work life in the province of

British Columbia.

Why would the government at the very start of its mandate — a government that went to the electorate in October 1986 and received a mandate —

be in such haste to alter and affect in every way, and in a negative

way, work life in our province? Mr. Speaker, each clause is so

far-reaching in its implications that we are only now finding out some

of the impacts that this language will have. It has only come to our

attention in the last number of hours and days that this bill will

actually have the same effect as Bill 3, introduced in 1983 in those

horrible months when the budget and the 26 bills were introduced here

in this House in the restraint package. Bill 3, which was one of those

26 bills, authorized the firing of workers in the public sector without

cause — in other words, firefighters, police officers, government

workers, teachers, people working directly for Crown corporations or

for the public service. The language was to authorize firing without

cause — to expedite restraint.

In spite of the opposition mounted on this side of the House —

and many members sitting in this House can recall the all-night

sittings, the travesty of sitting all night to ramrod legislation

through and to bring about such odious provisions as firing without

just cause — it is now brought to our attention that the net

result of

section 35 of Bill 19 will have exactly the same force and

effect as the firing without cause that was in Bill 3.

The

public, the organized workforce and the unorganized workforce of this

province have the right to express their concerns to the minister and

to this government. Yes, the minister held public meetings; but you

know, Mr. Speaker, when I read his report and when I see the philosophy

expressed in the minister's report of February 28, 1987 entitled,

"Labour Legislation Review: A Report of the Minister of Labour and

Consumer Services to the Premier of British Columbia," I see no

connection whatsoever between the philosophy expressed, the goals and

objectives that the new government was attempting to achieve, and the

provisions and the language of this bill.

Somehow, Mr.

Speaker, when the cabinet minister who was stewarding this bill went to

cabinet, he did not get support for the approach that he wanted to

take. It's clear in his report that he wanted a more consultative

approach between unions, business and government. It's in the interest

of all three parties to have stable, predictable and peaceful labour

relations in this province.

Let me read you a couple of the

paragraphs from his report, which laid out what the government was

attempting to achieve. I think that his comments were commendable, but

you'll see from my specific examples in the bill that there is no

connection whatsoever between the philosophy and the language

legislated and put before this House. He says on page 5:

"Any law, without the support or at least the acquiescence

of the majority of those whom it purports to affect, will inevitably be opposed,

and this opposition will guarantee, in this case, the failure of the larger

objective."

What he was saying is what is echoed throughout every modem industrial state that has sensible labour relations —

in Scandinavia and in Europe where they are much further ahead of us,

and where we were trying to catch up with the Labour Code. When the

Labour Code was introduced in 1973, yes, it was a tough time, and the

first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) was correct when

she pointed out that not everybody agreed at that point on the

implications of that Code. But you know, Mr. Speaker, the objective,

not only in philosophy but in the language of the bill, was to provide

a balance between workers and the employers, to provide some balance in

equal power so that they would be forced to negotiate at the table,

that there would be direction to seek agreement to negotiate on behalf

of the employees, and the employers' interests would be somewhat in

balance.

It's a delicate balance. It's a balance that's

being sought all over the modem world. When the balance was tipped as

it was in the Mediation Commission Act of 1968, no reasonable purpose

was achieved. What was achieved was industrial chaos. That is exactly

what we do not need in this province, Mr. Speaker. We want labour

peace; we want stability. We want job creation, We want investment. We

want rational economic policies and strategies. We want a modern

approach that involves workers in an industrial democracy. But what is

happening, Mr. Speaker, in this bill is a rolling back of the clock

from what was done in 1983, in the amendments to the Labour Code and

the Public Service Labour Relations Act, under Bill 3, and so on. Now

we've gone back to around 1968 under the Mediation Commission Act.

Mr.

Speaker, I had the Legislative Library do some clippings, because at

that time, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, we did not have a Hansard

in this House; we did not have a verbatim transcript of the proceedings

of this House; all we have are newspaper clippings. Looking through

that debate — which was led in opposition by a member of this side

of the House, a very fine member by the name of Rae Eddie, from New

Westminster — this side of the House pointed out that progressive

labour relations in this province would not be achieved. And their

arguments were borne out to be true. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that

the arguments we are making to the government, in imploring them to

withdraw this bill because of the negative impact it will have on our

economy and because of the lack of sufficient consultation with all

affected parties in the community, will have the same effect. This

province does not need that kind of disruption in our labour relations.

Mr.

Speaker, let me just read you a couple more comments from the Labour

minister's report. On page 4 he says: "...while these attitudes cannot

be created by legislation,

[ Page 623 ]

they

can be destroyed by legislation which does not allow the parties to

reasonably advance their own interests, or which subjects one party to

unfair or unequal treatment compared with the other." This is how the

minister summarizes the views of a widely encountered segment of

responsible opinion, both business, labour and ordinary people.

We're

hearing a lot about the Business Council of the province, the Business

Council and its president, Mr. Matkin. The Business Council is a

council of representatives of the very largest corporations and

industries in the province of British Columbia: the forest industries,

the mining industries, the railroads, and so on. It is a who's-who

list, in terms of the largest corporations in our province. As I said,

those individuals in the Business Council have one overriding interest

and that is to have predictability and stability in the economic

environment of British Columbia. They talk on a daily basis with

corporations all over the world that are interested in our products, in

investment here, and in doing business in the province of British

Columbia. They want stable labour relations, Mr. Speaker.

Internationally, the Business Council has a network that send signals

to each other on stability. They have sent, through the president, a

signal to the government that this legislation is a minefield that they

really don't need, and that the clauses within this bill harbour a

sense of foreboding.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour minister stated that he felt that the interested parties —

the labour movement, the business community and government.... Unless

there was widespread consensus and support for provisions of labour

legislation, it would not work. So why doesn't the government heed the

communication that is being expressed from this side of the House and

give the people of the province six months' breathing space, six

months' reflection, on this bill? And the various sections of it that

should be pulled out would be allowed to be pulled out at committee

stage of the bill.

Based on the reaction so far, Mr.

Speaker, does the government seriously argue that there is no danger of

disruption of relationships and that the longer-term investment climate

is being put at risk by this bill? The commission is similar in

structure to the days of the Mediation Commission of 1968-72, during

which levels of disruption due to lockouts and strikes went up 500

percent, compared to the period immediately preceding the passage of

that act.

Mr. Speaker, this minister has admitted in this

House that when you make strikes illegal, that doesn't mean you're

going to be without strikes. It just means that the strikes are outside

of the law, which makes them that much more dangerous. Labour

historians have shown us, even in recent history.... For example, when

the B. C. Ferry workers did not have the right to strike, we had job

action on the ferries. That just put the job action in a dangerous

situation outside of the domain of law. What the Labour Code did was to

codify the procedures of labour legislation to provide for a disputes

resolution procedure that would make things within the law. It is

dangerous when action occurs without the law. Members in this House are

lawmakers and must always advocate for action within the law. But for

anyone to assume that because the right to strike is withdrawn in law

we will not have strikes is foolish and is taking us down a road which

is fraught with danger.

[2:45]

I alluded

at the beginning of my remarks to only recently determining that

section 35 of this bill essentially reintroduces firing without cause.

Let me try to explain. Again, this is an extremely complex bill. I

would ask every member to refer to

section 35 of the bill. This refers

specifically to the public sector, because the amendment gives

statutory authority to the government or any body.

All

members of this House are aware that a municipality, a school board, or

any other statutory authority established by this House that has the

discretion to hire and fire staff, by

section 35, is given the

provision to override a collective agreement. What that means is it

just turns on its head what previously was in existence, that

collective agreements had in place the disputes resolution procedure:

what took place when an employee was suspended; what took place when an

employee was terminated or dismissed; and what rights that employee

had; what appeal through a grievance procedure and through arbitration

for reinstatement; or to have the burden of proof on the employer for

just cause. But what happens now is that any statutory authority that

can hire or fire can override collective agreements.

The net effect will be that all of the collective agreements that are in place —

say, for example, the hospital workers, the union of public employees,

the government's own employees, the professional employees, the nurses,

and so on.... The various school boards and boards that administer the

collective agreements, under the provisions of the proposed

section 35,

can override the collective agreement, and the gap between the expiry

of the collective agreement and this legislation coming in before the

expiration of the agreement means that the employees are at risk to

firing without cause. That is the legal opinion that has been obtained

on this section. I don't think that the government has thought this

through sufficiently. That is why we're moving this hoist.

Section

35 alone is one of the most dangerous provisions of this bill, because

it puts all public sector workers at risk from arbitrary actions of an

employer without just cause. In every modem society, certainly every

society under the umbrella of the United Nations— the industrial-labour relations community of the United Nations —

every employee is entitled to just cause for suspension and

termination. Otherwise what do we have? People arriving at night in a

black limousine, driving a nail into your door with a placard on it

saying: "Goodbye"?

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am upset about

this particular

section 35 is because as the debate leader for this

side of the House when Bill 3 came in, I had the responsibility for

speaking on that bill. As some members will recall, one morning, at

about 4 a.m., I had to speak for two hours straight on a hoist motion.

I was the last speaker on the hoist. Then we went into second reading

and I had to speak seven and a half hours in a row in opposition to

that bill. And now it's back in

section 35 of Bill 19. I'm very angry

about it. What right does this government have to do this kind of thing?

We've

implored this government to be rational, and we've been calm. But for

heaven's sake, what kind of industrial relations are we going to have

in this province if

section 35 of Bill 19 passes? I'll bet you that

most of those backbenchers sitting there receiving their scripted

speeches from Social Credit research aren't even aware of the

implications of

section 35.

The reason we have this

provision is that there's been inadequate consultation with all sectors

of our society. The labour movement is upset about it. So the

government says: "So what? They have a vested interest. It's just the

leadership." Mr. Speaker, it is ordinary British Columbians who

[ Page 624 ]

have

come together in free association in the trade union movement. British

Columbia has a long and noble history of ordinary people coming

together and seeking to better their working conditions — their

conditions of safety, their pay and their benefits. We've traditionally

had a large portion of the workforce organized into unions. This

government says that's a bad thing. This opposition, the New Democratic

Party, says individual rights are the rights of individuals to freely

associate themselves into a union to protect themselves and to benefit

themselves — for safe working conditions, for pay and for other

benefits. There has always been in British Columbia a direct spinoff of

those health and other benefits to the broader community, and the

people of British Columbia have always benefited from the strength of

working people to protect themselves from the relatively few

corporations that people work for in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, we have put forward a hoist motion to call on the government

to consider this bill six months hence. Our debate leader on this bill,

the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), is very well acquainted

with labour law, and has done a very fine job in this House

representing the opposition.

I would like to just touch on

a couple of clauses, Mr. Speaker. When people are in a work

environment.... Let's just say, for example, that the employer, for one

reason or another, has been abusing his employees, and those employees

decide in a free vote that they want to organize themselves into a

union. It was always accepted by the Labour Code, and by every other

modern jurisdiction in northern Europe or Scandinavia, that the

employer should not interfere with the democratic rights of employees

to assemble, to discuss and to decide democratically among themselves

if they wished to have a union. Now we have in this new bill a section,

called

section 5, which allows the employer to wage a campaign against

the presence of a union and indirectly intimidate the employees into

not joining a union. They have the audacity to call this a freedom-of

speech clause. This is a greatly expanded employer right. The old Code

took the view that the decision to join a union was a decision that the

employees took about their legal....

MR. REE : Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, my understanding is that we are on a

hoist motion to the main motion on the bill, and that subsequent to

that we get into committee for clause-by-clause study. My impression of

the speech by the hon. member from Victoria is that he's doing a

clause-by-clause study now and is possibly out of order.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the comment of the Whip, but I think he

realizes at the same time that the reason we are asking for

consideration of this bill six months hence is precisely the

ill-conceived language of the 78 clauses of Bill 19, one of which

directly affects the freedom of individuals to come together and

democratically decide that they want to form a union, without

interference and intimidation by an employer. That is precisely.... I

see the Premier following my debate, and he certainly is the one to

signal to the Minister of Labour that, yes, the persuasiveness of the

argument being put forward by the opposition, the 78 clauses and the

massive impact that each one of these clauses has on industrial

relations in the province of British Columbia.... He could certainly

indicate to the minister that this bill should be hoisted for six

months.

We'll likely have a fall sitting; it could be

referred to the labour, justice and intergovernmental affairs

committee. That committee, which is constituted with the Minister of

Labour and the debate leader from this side of the House, could hold

hearings around the province. We are certainly outvoted in that

committee by a six-to-three ratio— six government, three opposition —

but it would give the people of this province an opportunity to

understand and to be persuaded by the government side, if they can be

persuaded by the opposition members of that committee to call

witnesses, get the best possible testimony and ask the people of this

province to join with the government and the opposition in that

process, so that we could come together and have the best possible

industrial relations legislation anywhere in the western world. Why

not? If the best industrial relations legislation would bring about

peace and a definite role for business, labour and government, why

not? — to the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Let

me take another clause. The old Code looked at successor rights. This

government, in its attempt to deunionize the province — and that

seems to be the ultimate objective, to de-unionize rather than

stabilize industrial relations.... It was always deemed by the Labour

Code and the board that an employer shouldn't be allowed to skate

around the labour legislation and their obligations under it by setting

up dummy companies or altering the administrative structure in such a

way that they could pretend that it wasn't basically the same company.

But

what the successor rights in this legislation, which is

section 29....

The successor rights have been severely restricted by this amendment.

So rather than talking about the old Code, for example, provided that

the sale of a part of a business would be enough to attract successor

rights, as would the same person operating a similar business at the

same location or if a new operator took over a business following

bankruptcy.... All of these are gone. The language, which purports to

protect workers against an employer making "a deliberate attempt to

evade collective bargaining obligations," is absolutely a hollow

statement. "Deliberate" is new.

Now what can happen is that

an owner can have two companies, but the mere fact that there is a

separate superintendent administering them means that successor rights

are no longer in place. So what does that do? I would think that when a

person is looking at buying a business, and if a business has been

successful and is desirable in terms of purchase, in terms of the

acquisition of the company, then surely the employees who have invested

their livelihood in the success of that company have a stake in that

company.

[3:00]

HON. B.R. SMITH : Don't be so gloomy.

MR. G. HANSON :

The Attorney-General says: "Why so gloomy?" The gloom is that with this

legislation the government does not have any cars and will not listen

to the arguments being put forward by this side of the House in our

hoist motion, and the gloom is that this government is taking us on a

road that we don't have to go on, that we shouldn't be going on. We

want a government road which is laid out in consultation and which

provides stability through consultation with the labour movement, with

the business community, with effective community organizations; we

wouldn't then see this kind of legislation in this House.

[ Page 625 ]

The

government recently appointed a very, very able, competent individual

to the Public Service Commission of this province. This gentleman is

with the International Union of Operating Engineers. His name is Mr.

Fred Randall, a very highly regarded business manager for Local 115,

and he has written an extensive letter critiquing the bill which he

made available to all members of this House.

"As

the elected business manager of the International Union of Operating

Engineers, Local 115, representing 10,000 members in the province, I

have some serious concerns regarding the recently introduced

legislation.

"First of all, no one

understands it, including the press, who feed the information to the

public. The legislation should be put on hold until it is fully

understood by the public, the legislators who will vote on it and the

elected representatives of the workers of the province."

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to inform the member that his time is up. It is now time to put the question.

MR. G. HANSON :

In conclusion, as the last member on this side of the House to speak on

the hoist motion, I would just like to advise the House that every

member on this side has taken their place asking the government to

reconsider and have this bill considered six months hence. We implore

the government to do that.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

G. Hanson

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Stupich

Skelly

Boone

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

NAYS — 37

Brummet

Savage

L. Hanson

Dueck

Richmond

Michael

Parker

Pelton

Loenen

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Dirks

Mercier

Peterson

Veitch

McCarthy

Strachan

Vander Zalm

B.R. Smith

Couvelier

Davis

Johnston

R. Fraser

Weisgerber

Gran

Ree

Bruce

Serwa

Vant

Campbell

S.D. Smith

Jacobsen

Messmer

Huberts

Long

A. Fraser

On the main motion.

MR. S.D. SMITH :

It is with some pleasure that I get around now to the opportunity to

rise in support of the principles disclosed by Bill 19 and to speak

briefly about how I see those principles working.

As I

begin, I want to refer to a statement made this morning by the member

for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) in reference to the old mediation

services commission and the labourer industrial relations era of W.A.C.

Bennett’s government and that of Mr. Sands when he was the Deputy

Minister of Labour: "...I felt they were making wrong decisions.... In

fact, when I looked back at some of those times, I think that in many

cases they made the correct decisions." I suspect that many of the

people in this House who feel so strongly about some of the problems

they have apparently identified in connection with this bill will find

that the reflection the member for Rossland-Trail made today...that

down the road they too will be able to say that in many cases the

correct decisions were made.

I want to restrict my comments

in connection with the principles disclosed in this bill to a

discussion about the rights and responsibilities of the parties who are

involved in industrial relations, to a discussion about serving the

public interest instead of just the interest of the private parties who

are involved in industrial relations disputes, and about having

well-defined rules that are, yes, fair, and which tend to push the

parties towards settling their own disputes. Because, Mr. Speaker, in

the Kamloops constituency we felt a certain amount of frustration over

the last number of years at the seeming impotence of leaders to advance

the common will in the face of disputes that involved competing

single-issue, private groups. I refer you to some fairly recent

examples when I say that.

We had a dispute between the

Canadian Union of Public Employees and the OMMLRA just last fall. It

began as a strike in Penticton and advanced as a lockout through the

rest of the region. That dispute ended up being settled by an agreement

that could have been achieved by the parties on the day they went out.

And yet for five months the public was inconvenienced. People lost

their homes, their credit and the things they had worked for all their

lives. The third parties who were affected continuously felt as though

they were spectators in their own home, as two groups impacted on their

lives without regard for the common good.

[3:15]

In 1984 we had a pulp industry dispute which began as a dispute

between the companies and the unions involved in that industry, but

which very soon escalated into a dispute whereby the unions themselves

were brought into conflagration — one against the other — as

the picketing escalated from the place of employment at the pulp mills

and the pulp unions involved, to the Place of employment of the mill

workers who were involved with another union. We still feet the results

of that dispute, because there was enormous bitterness developed

between workers at that time. Once again, the public interest could not

be served, or would not be served, in the face of a dispute between two

parties.

But if those two examples don't interest you,

perhaps we should cast our minds further back to 1975 when, during the

fall of that year there was an enormous disruption in this province in

industrial relations. The issues went on and on, and more and more

people went out on strike or into lockout, and still others threatened

to go out, until ultimately the impact on society became so unbearable

that the Legislature was recalled and the government of the day passed

the most far-reaching, onerous legislation — forcing people to go back to work — that has ever been introduced in this province.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

[ Page 626 ]

Each case took place under the philosophy that threads its way through the present Labour Code —

namely, that it is the purpose of that Code primarily to achieve

harmonious relations between the parties. It is that seeming single

purpose of the Code which I believe results in a number of the problems

that the principles of this bill attempt to address.

Three

of the results of that philosophical underpinning to the Code are that

we tend, in labour relations in this province and in our industrial

relations community, to emphasize and demand our rights while we ignore

and diminish our responsibilities. We tend to conduct our industrial

relations in a kind of vacuum, somehow independent of society and

somehow without regard for the overall public interest. We tend to

disclose through that legislation the lack of a process— short of legislation itself — being made available to resolve differences before they hurt widespread, uninvolved parts of our society.

each case it also clearly showed that when society's public interest is

sufficiently adversely affected, government will intervene without

regard to political ideology, without regard to partisanship and

without regard to who happens to head the government of the day. Mr.

Speaker, if my friends in the opposition do not believe that, I urge

them to revisit the fall of 1975.

By resorting to

legislation as the only known process to resolve broad third party,

public interest disputes, we have achieved a number of unintended

consequences adverse to this province's interest which I believe are

being addressed by the principles contained in this bill. Those adverse

consequences include, among other things, that before we get to the

point of using the Legislature as the only tool to effect the public

interest in these disputes, we always have first an enormous strain, a

dislocation, rancour and political bad blood generated by the

dispute — all this before government feels compelled and justified

in calling the Legislature. Again I say, cast your mind to 1975 and the

fall of that year, just to underscore that point. Think back to the

kind of rancour, ill will and ill-tempered discussion that took place

that fall before the Premier of the day, David Barrett, was prepared to

do his duty and call this place into session to deal with the issues.

well, Madam Speaker, there is a cost to our internal economy and to

innocent third parties that results from that warfare being waged by

single-issue, private groups. That cost is real and it is growing each

time one of those disputes arises. There is a perception created among

our trading partners that as a society we are so cavalier about our

public responsibilities and our duty to be reliable suppliers that we

are prepared to stand by idly and let our society get hurt by the

private fights of individuals in an industrial relations dispute.

further consequence of that kind of a practice, that lack of a process

to deal with these issues, is that there is a diminished confidence by

investors, whom we need to have in order to create the jobs that we

want, because we appear to be powerless as a society in the face of

apparent war between privately led armies.

All of those

things are the consequence of having as your only process the recall of

the Legislature in order to deal with these broadly based, public

interest, third-party disputes. As this bill discloses in principle, we

need more and better and greater flexibility from our tools in order to

deal with the issues that underpin these disputes, in order for us to

get at them earlier in the process. Our record of dealing with these

disputes, I think everyone will admit, has not been good. We suffer

from our record. We have a responsibility therefore to try to improve

our record; and this bill, Madam Speaker, contains principles which

allow us to pursue that challenge.

The principles in this

bill direct us to broaden our scope when handling industrial relations.

Its principles challenge us to go beyond harmonious relations between

the parties and to address our responsibility to consider, among other

things, the public interest; to consider individuals and groups'

obligations as well as their rights; to consider that we live in a

competitive market economy; and to ensure that when adjudicating

industrial relations disputes, we attempt to make all efforts we can to

minimize the harmful effects industrial disputes can have on persons

not directly involved.

Madam Speaker, the principle of this

bill is nothing less than a demand to all of us to mature in our

relations by embracing the public good as tightly as we clutch our

private rights. This bill also provides the tools we need in order to

address that challenge. The principles of this bill include a process

by which the public interest can be addressed through prevention,

before a dispute escalates to the point where the blunt instrument— in terms of industrial relations — of legislation becomes the only tool available. The principles supporting this bill support the granting to a commissioner — Mr. Peck —

a veritable arsenal of tools that can be used to deal with issues

before all-out war is joined. Surely we ought to embrace that process

of prevention for industrial relations, just as most of us demand and

give speeches about prevention in relation to the delivery of health

care and services to people in need. I ask you, Madam Speaker— through you to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) —

why it is that some of the same people who consider preventive

medicine nirvana also believe that preventive dispute resolution will

inevitably be Armageddon.

The principles in this bill are

fair to both sides, and therefore apply equally to both parties

involved in a dispute. If the parties don't like the powers of the

commissioner, Mr. Peck, then the solution, it seems to me, is obvious:

solve your own disputes without him; do such a good job of industrial

relations between the parties that Mr. Peck becomes about as busy as

the Maytag repairman.

Madam Speaker, I am heartened to hear

both sides in our industrial relations community sound the alarm at the

principles underscoring the commissioner's powers, because it suggests

to me that when both parties recognize the same issues, they'll each

make an effort to avoid his intervention. This bill, in its principle,

will over time encourage the parties to self-resolution precisely

because they want to stay away from imposed settlements, as well they

should. I say that very cognizant of the risks. As the Minister of

Labour well knows, there are risks inherent in this kind of

legislation. I am mindful of the old mediation services and the

Mediation Commission Act, and I recognize that either or both of the

parties can destroy the process if they consciously choose to do

so — there can be no doubt about that.

I am also aware

that the public demands that each of us in this House leave behind our

defence of the status quo. Isn't it ironic to sit in this House and see

who today defends the status quo as strongly and deeply as they

attacked the very legislation they dispended not two years ago? Let us

leave behind our defence of the status quo, from whichever side we view

it.

[3:30]

[ Page 627 ]

The

public also demands that we embrace the opportunity to challenge

ourselves and seek improvement by making changes. They, the public

believe, will fairly represent their interest in the field of

industrial relations.

In closing, Madam Speaker, we all

talk about finding a better way. Each of us recognizes that there is

room to improve our industrial relations climate. None of us denies

that there is a negative perception abroad in respect of our industrial

relations record. Yet invariably we fail to take the risks, to accept

the challenges and to follow the steps that are needed to confront and

improve our own sorry record. The time is now to begin the process of

changing and improving, and the place for us to begin our contribution

towards that change and those improvements is right here in this House.

I would suggest to you that not one person who sits here now, or who

has sat in this place over the last 15 tumultuous years, can fail to

look into a mirror without thereby recognizing someone who has

contributed in some part to that record, be it small or large.

Let

us begin along the path to find the way to real, lasting, progressive

change by setting aside rhetoric, by leaving alone the temptation to

score political points and by dismissing our natural lack of resolve to

reach out and test ourselves. Instead, let us begin here to embrace the

change, the chance for improvement through change that is disclosed in

this bill by ensuring that the principles of this process are clearly

understood, and by making certain that the system that is developed

does not fail. May each of us understand that if this system fails to

succeed for the people of our province, none of us here will be able to

claim victory.

MR. CLARK : Before I begin, I would

like the House to make welcome a constituent of mine, a strong

supporter of the New Democratic Party in Vancouver East, Glen Anwick.

I thought I would try — although it is not in my nature — to

follow the kind of remarks that the member for North Island made just

before lunch, which I think has been the kind of debate we have seen by

some other members, including the member who spoke previously: that is,

as best I can, to try not to be partisan and use language in a

pejorative way, but to deal in a more rational way with what I think

are the various serious flaws in this legislation.

I think

the legislation really runs counter to the history of British Columbia

labour law and the history of law in the western world in terms of the

degree of government intervention. That in itself is not necessarily

bad, but in a minute I'll go through why I think it is. It represents,

I think, a kind of gamble, a very serious gamble with the way in which

we've conducted business in British Columbia and the way in which this

bill will attempt to shape the future of British Columbia. It's a

gamble because I think it's predicated on the belief that unions, and

to a lesser extent management, are the problem, a problem that must be

dealt with severely through this kind of state intervention. I think

that it's perceived that way because there is an attempt here to

emulate the Pacific Rim countries. I don't say that is an attempt for

us to move to a minimum wage economy, or anything else, but an attempt

to move in that kind of direction.

I think what Matkin said

about this is instructive. He said that that may well be the future of

British Columbia, that where we move to is increasingly a less

unionized society, and increasingly a small-scale society in terms of

small business and those other components being more significant than

they are today. That may in fact be desirable, in terms of the

government's perception. It may not be from my perception, but that may

well be the trend of western society. It may well be the trend in

British Columbia. The problem is — and this bill, I should say,

might be an attempt to deal with that new reality, to use a phrase that

was used a few years ago — of what the perception is in British

Columbia. But it's quite clear to me, and I think to Mr. Matkin, that

we're not there yet. We're not at this stage where there is a

significant degree of less unionization and more small businesses and

less of an influence.

So what do we do now, while we still

have a relatively highly unionized workforce in British Columbia? It's

a gamble because it implies then that we're moving in that direction

and that the government supports that and wants to expedite that kind

of process towards deunionization. I think not deunionization because

that's desired inherently or necessarily by the government, but because

they perceive that that's the direction that we're moving in and it's

the future of British Columbia to become more of a Pacific Rim province.

I think

it's a gamble because we're not there yet, if we're going to get there

at all. and that this bill then is predicated on a false assumption. It

doesn't deal with the reality in British Columbia today. I think, as

the member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) mentioned earlier, that the

heart of the legislation is very clear in

section 18 of the bill,

section 27 of the new act. What it says here is that:

"The council, having regard to the public interest as well

as the rights of individuals and the rights and obligations of the parties before

it and recognizing the desirability for employers and employees to achieve and

maintain good working conditions as participants in and beneficiaries of a competitive

market economy, shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or

imposed on it under this act so as to achieve the expeditious resolution of

labour disputes...."

I agree with the member for Kamloops that that indeed heralds a new approach

to labour relations and doesn't talk about harmonious labour relations between

the parties as the critical feature. Rather, it broadens it and says that the

critical feature is to have a competitive market economy in the world. That's

critical because, having some experience with the previous Code, that

section

of the act is really the guiding principle which courts use, and which the council

will now use to determine how different clauses and sections of the act will

be interpreted.

The

problem is, it seems to me, that you cannot legislate good labour

relations. Nor, for that matter, can you legislate or attempt to use

labour legislation to ensure a competitive economy in the world

marketplace. I think my colleague for North Island mentioned that as

well, that labour legislation is not a tool for economic stimulus or

economic direction. Clearly it sets a pattern and sets the framework

for the economy, in terms of how it functions, but it shouldn't be the

primary focus. Because again you cannot legislate a kind of consensus

among the parties. Good labour relations in a democracy depend upon

consensus. It depends upon a kind of mutual respect and trust between

the parties. It depends, I think, upon a kind of a level playing-field,

in terms of how the two parties can shape their labour relations.

a sense it's not a science. It's not something that the law can rigidly

impose upon the parties. I think that's what this attempts to do. It

attempts to deal with a . . . . It's perceived to be a real problem and

I think we all agree with the attempt to bring about more labour peace,

but it attempts to do it in a

[ Page 628 ]

way that leaves out the two components: the labour move merit and the management

side, who are the critical players in attempting to do that. In fact, what will

happen, it seems to me, is that this act will harden the positions of the

parties. We can go through that — and I intend to when we get to clause by-clause

reading — in terms of how that will harden. Many sections of the act really

inhibit collective bargaining, it seems to me, and promote a kind of reliance

on the govern merit to intervene, particularly with respect to the final mech

anism, arbitration. What collective bargaining means is that both sides trade

things off to attempt to achieve a compromise — in a sense, a consensus — between

the parties, one that both can live with. But if the final adjudicator is going

to look at the positions of the parties, then there is less incentive to do

that trade-off; in fact, there is an incentive to keep things on the table so

that they don't give them up now for fear of giving them up later.

I don't think it accomplishes the goal of promoting that kind of

expeditious resolution of disputes; in fact, it does the opposite. I

don't think the bill will work. It quite simply won't work, from my

experience. Every attempt throughout history to stifle collective

bargaining or to try to impose a government solution on individuals in

the collective bargaining process has led to more conflict.

I think

it's fundamentally a mistake to try to perceive labour relations...that

a government can step in through an institutional mechanism in

legislation to deal with the problems. The critical point that the

member for Kamloops missed in his argument, that even Dave Barrett and

the NDP government brought in legislation, is that that was dealt with

politically by politicians in this chamber. It wasn't dealt with in an

attempt to impose an institutional mechanism where we have one person

or one set bureaucracy that tries to deal with the problem.

This legislation stems from a form of lack of understanding or comprehension — I was going to say "ignorance," but I'm trying not to be pejorative. It really is a kind of ignorance — again, I don't mean that in a pejorative way —

or a kind of misunderstanding of the collective bargaining process. I

think it's a sort of small retailer's mentality. Again I'm trying not

be pejorative, but it really is that people with no understanding or no

experience with the kind of complex.... There needs to be an

understanding of how labour relations work in the real world and how

complex negotiations are dealt with.

Collective bargaining

works in 95 percent of the cases in British Columbia. I have

participated in a number of them, and I think it's actually quite an

exciting interplay of human relations. It really is a way in which both

parties can come to grips with their collective problems and deal with

them. In most cases— in fact, in 95 percent of the cases — it's

resolved. What this does is say that because of the 5 percent that

aren't resolved, we're going to try to impose a settlement or impose

some other kind of view— a bureaucratic view, in my view — to the settlement.

[3:45]

If you foist a settlement on the parties, then no one will be happy, neither

the management side nor the labour side. What happens now, of course, is that

frustration develops, but the lid is kept on because we know that collective

bargaining is coming up and there are many problems that could develop over

the course of the collective agreement. People wait until collective bargaining

takes place, and that's why we have reams of things on the table every time

negotiations take place. What happens now is that if settlements are foisted

upon the parties or laid onto the parties by some other agency, hen it means

that that frustration will continue to grow. You cannot legislate; you can't

say: "You can't be frustrated." You can't say that we're

going to stop frustration or this kind of unrest through labour legislation.

I think it was Kennedy who said that you can't legislate the hearts and

minds of men. I think that's very true. What this legislation fails to recognize

is that it is really dealing with human relations, which you have to set a broad

framework to deal with and not try to deal with them through any kind of state

intervention, at least state intervention across the board. State intervention

in my view should be the very last resort of a parliamentary democracy in dealing

with individual disputes, and shouldn't have the kind of across-the-board

approach which this legislation sort of adopts.

The

kind of approach that we see here really is reminiscent of the

Mediation Commission Act. That act didn't work, and I think for the

same reasons it won't work here. Again, it's a kind of gamble that it

will work without any comprehensive understanding of the way in which

collective bargaining takes place right now.

I want to deal

with a couple of the sort of broad implications of the bill. I

recognize that we'll get to that during the committee stage, but there

are some themes there that I think are worth exploring. The first thing

I want to just briefly touch on is the uncertainty and disarray in the

regulatory environment that I think clearly will happen with the

passage of this act. Speedy passage particularly will throw the whole

environment into a kind of disarray. The bill proposes to replace the

LRB with the new Industrial Relations Council and immediately makes all

cases now before the LRB the jurisdiction of the council. I think that

is clearly going to cause confusion, if not chaos, and no doubt, in my

view, more disruption.

What happens if you're a union or an

individual who is in the middle of a dispute and you no longer have the

remedies that you've been used to for 15 years? I think the remedy

which most trade unionists would adopt — not necessarily the leadership —

would be to deal with it in their own terms, which usually ends up

being wildcat strikes or those kinds of things. Certainly that's the

direction we're already hearing about from rank-and-file trade

unionists whom I've talked to, that they won't rely on.... In the past

they've relied on the Labour Relations Board in many cases to assist

the parties. We know the ground rules; they've already been

established. Because we know that there have been 15 years of

precedent, we know that certain things are acceptable and certain

things aren't.

When this new council takes place

immediately, then I think there's going to be a period of real

disruption. It's another argument for delaying the passage of the

legislation and having a chance to deal with it clause by clause in a

public forum, in terms of trying to get a handle on it so that all the

participants in the process of labour relations can get an

understanding of it at the very least and hopefully make

recommendations to change it.

We have 15 years' worth of

cases establishing precedent in British Columbia. Those cases have been

fought over; they've been appealed to the courts; they've been decided

upon in many cases. The very few cases which were won by trade unions

at the courts — the 10 or 15 significant ones that I have looked at — have all been amended in this legislation to basically favour the employers' position before the courts.

[ Page 629 ]

Now

it seems to me that we start over again with this new and I think very

unwieldy legislation to try to deal with it. We have a bureaucratic

structure which I find hard to believe will work, given my experience

anyway in the labour relations community. I think lawyers well do well

by the legislation; hundreds— a virtual army — of bureaucrats will have to be hired, given all of the functions delineated in the act.

I think that clearly this legislation is going to be a very expensive

proposition, at least in the short run and probably in the long run.

The bill, however, is a very sophisticated piece of legislation. I

think it's biased, as I said earlier, in favour of management, but it's

not biased in any ham-handed way; it's very sophisticated.

I'll

just give you an example of that, if you will look at

section 23 of the

bill, called the privative clause. I think the member for North Island

may have touched on this, but not being a lawyer, I read this and it

says very simply: "...a decision or order made by the council is final

and binding." Well, that sounded to me to be fairly reasonable; that

sounded good. This council has jurisdiction to hear labour relations

questions, so surely they're final and binding; that means that they've

removed it from the courts and given it to this council. But in fact,

the lawyers I've talked to tell me that that's the weakest privative

clause possible in a quasi-judicial forum like this. It's one that goes

against the trend in labour relations.

The first major

piece of legislation that had strong privative language was the Labour

Code brought in by the NDP government, and that was an attempt to deal

with the very real frustration of the courts intervening consistently

in labour relations matters. To a great extent, it gave the Labour

Relations Board significant power. Now this new council has been

substituted for that very strong clause, the weakest possible clause in

the labour relations field. I think it takes us backwards, in any

event. It means that every decision is open to appeal by the courts,

and in fact many decisions will be appealed. Given the strength of the

privative clause now and the number of court appeals and the escalation

of those appeals and the movement towards the courts, this clearly will

expedite that trend again to use the courts. This is extremely time

consuming, incredibly expensive and again will allow the problem to

fester and likely result in industrial disruption and unrest. It is

back to the days of court review of labour relations matters. The

courts don't, I think, have a very enviable record when it comes to

dealing with labour legislation - and I don't think that necessarily

says anything inherently bad about the courts; it's just that that's

the history, and I think that history, under this legislation, will be

repeated again.

Another example of how heavy-handed the

legislation is that, consistently, decisions made freely between the

parties won't be allowed. I want to spend a little time on this,

because I don't quite understand the rationale behind it.

Section 35 of

the bill says: "Where a provision of a collective agreement would, if

implemented, have the effect of preventing, or in any way limiting the

exercise by any person of a power, authority or discretion that is

conferred by

an act, that act prevails...." In other words, it makes

the act take precedence over collective agreements, and it makes any

act of the Legislature take precedence over the collective agreement.

is not a question, it seems to me, of whether you agree with things

like hot edicts or things that say you must buy your coveralls from

this manufacturer. I mean, you may say that the collective agreement

shouldn't do that, but the collective agreement was agreed to by the

parties. It was negotiated. The trade union gave something up in order

to get that clause included in their collective agreement. What right

does the government have to tell the parties that they cannot agree

mutually to buy their coveralls from a particular place? I don't

understand that. That's what the act says. The act says that you cannot

enter into any agreement that impacts on a third party. What permanent

public interest requires this kind of legislation that says that the

parties cannot agree amongst themselves to do something?

Worse

still, it's not just this act that says that; it says any act takes

precedence. That means that the Municipal Act, which gives discretion

to municipal managers to lay people off from the workforce, takes

precedence over contract language that prohibits it. So the two parties

negotiate hard and firm and fast and tough negotiations, the union

gives up their wage demand in order to get a clause in the collective

agreement that says you won't lay anybody off for the life of this

agreement, and this act says that that is now void. This act says that

other legislation, any legislation passed by government, takes

precedence over collective agreements mutually and freely agreed to

between the parties. How does that enhance stability in labour

relations harmony? How does it even enhance us getting to a competitive

economy?

I think this goes right through the act as well,

not just with respect to

section 35. That same section, of course, is

the clause that the member for North Island mentioned was the "without

just cause," because that

section in fact gives municipal managers the

right to lay off without any cause whatsoever, because that is what is

in the Municipal Act.

Section 9.1 of the act allows

contracting out, again overriding collective agreements. So contracts

that now contain provisions that stipulate that contracting out must be

to union companies, for example, will, after this act is passed, be

void. It seems to me that, again, you've got a situation where pulp

mills or other industrial agencies have had years of bargaining— trades

of trade-offs.... Every year everything is on the table, of course,

especially in this economy we see now. So every year the employer tries

to say: "We don't want to just hire union-only contractors; we want to

be free to hire non-union companies." And every year the union has to

give something up to get that right in the collective agreement. Both

sides agree to it; both sides freely sign the collective agreement.

There's a consensus that this clause is okay between the parties. Now

this act has a specific clause that says you cannot do that, and if

you've done that, then retroactively it strikes out, it seems to me,

those hard-won gains agreed to by employers. Now the government

specifically in this case, I think, takes the side of the employers.

Even though unions have given things up with respect to getting that in

the collective agreement, there is now a retroactive clause making that

particular

section void. Again, it's heavy-handed legislation that

voids collective agreements brought about jointly between the parties.

Exactly

the same kind of pattern prevails in

section 4.1. It's called

"Secondary boycott agreements prohibited." Let's take, for example, the

plumbers' and pipefitters' collective agreement, of which I have some

knowledge. They put sections 15:05, 15:06 and 15:07 in their

collective agreement in 1927, and believe me, in virtually every

negotiation the employer tries to get those three clauses taken out of

the collective agreement. Those clauses say that the construction

company that wants, for example, to build a pulp mill must

[ Page 630 ]

buy

its pipe from a fabrication plant unionized by the plumbers and

pipefitters. Now you may not like that. There may be some problems with

that for different people. But it is freely negotiated between the

parties that the construction company will use only union-fabricated

pipe. All of the pulp mills in this province were built under that

collective agreement, with no real problem. Most of the motivation for

including that clause is to try to ensure that the pipe is manufactured

in British Columbia and at a wage rate that makes it all competitive

within the same wage rate. This legislation says — again, retroactively —

that those clauses that have been included in every collective

agreement of Local 170 of the pipefitters' union will now be null and

void — struck out, erased from the collective agreement, even though both sides have agreed to them.

Just a couple of years ago they wanted to build the Skookumchuck pulp mill with Japanese-fabricated pipe —

70 percent. A tremendous number of jobs would have been lost, but

because of that clause in the collective agreement they were required

to buy pipe fabricated in British Columbia. If this act passes, I don't

think anything will prevent the loss of hundreds of pipe-fabricating

jobs to foreign companies. In fact, if you've looked recently at the

capital expenditures of pulp companies, because of the profits they're

making, for the first time in many years you're looking at significant

capital expansion in the pulp sector. So there's all this work waiting

to be done, and the companies will probably wait to see if this act

passes, because it will be a significant reduction. That may be what

the government wants, but it means that hundreds of jobs — if not, I suspect, close to a thousand — will be lost in the pipe-manufacturing industry in British Columbia.

[4:00]

Once again, even if you don't like that — even if I, or anybody else in this House has some problems with that —

what right does the government have to say that those parties who have

negotiated in a very tough environment, but who have mutually agreed to

include that in their collective agreement, shouldn't be allowed to do

that? Not only will they not be allowed to in the future, but it will

be retroactively struck from their collective agreement.

Section

137.96(l)(

b) instructs arbitrators to consider "the need to maintain an

appropriate relationship between occupations or classifications" on a

worksite. What does that mean? Arbitrators are now required by law to

look at the appropriateness of classifications and wage rates between

classifications within the same operation. What does that mean? It

means that any attempt to narrow the gap on behalf of the unions,

between women and men in the workforce, will potentially now not be

allowed. If it's different from the historic pattern, then arbitrators

are required by law to say that that's not allowed.

Let me

close by saying that, looking at this legislation, there are 93 changes

to the Labour Code. They are so complex and so dramatic— and, I think, in many cases are so radical —

that no one can possibly understand all of them. My colleague from

North Island made this point; I want to make it very strongly. I have

worked in the labour relations community for four or five years; my

father worked for 20 years before that. I understand, probably more

than most people in this House, the Labour Code and how it works. We

now have a bill that makes 93 changes to that Code. No one can possibly

understand the kind of nuances, the kind of changes that are going to

be wrought by this legislation.

There are so many changes that I don't think the government understands the impact of all of them.

How

can we vote on something...? How should we vote on something that we

don't fully understand? Shouldn't there be time to fully develop, to

fully digest, all of these changes and fully hash them out? Clearly, I

think saner heads should prevail, and that we should take some time— maybe not six months; the motion to hoist was defeated —

to put it to a parliamentary committee, to take it around the province,

to debate it, to look at the ramifications. I think some of them were

unintended by the government, not deliberate attempts to undermine

trade unions; I think some of them might have been, but some of them

probably weren't.

Clearly, because it's so complex, because

there are so many changes.... When they put them all together, they

have quite a devastating impact, and I don't think that was intended.

We should take some time, and not rush through this legislation —

take some time and put it to a committee. That's what I think should be

done with this legislation before we rush it through the House.

[Mr. Mercier in the chair.]

MR. RABBITT : Mr.

Speaker, today I rise in support of Bill 19 and the principle it puts

forward. One thing is very apparent: members on both sides of this

House, despite their party affiliation, want to see a marked

improvement in labour-management relations. The difference is in our

approach to attaining this goal. I wish to commend both the Minister of

Labour and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) on bringing

forward a reform package of new legislation that is dearly needed.

wish to speak today to the principle of Bill 19. This new legislation

will bring about long-term stability in the workplace in both the

public and private sectors. This is the stability that I have had

workers, housewives and the owners of small business tell me they must

have if their lives are not going to be continually tom apart. I have

had both union and non-union workers in my riding ask me to work as

hard as I have to see that this government brings about peace in the

workplace. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will set the format so that

this goal can be attained.

When the Premier decided that

the hon. member for Okanagan North was to be appointed to the cabinet

as the Minister of Labour, he gave the hon. member a very difficult

task. That task was to bring about labour legislation that, firstly,

was fair; and secondly, that would create long-term stability in the

British Columbia workforce. The minister is meeting this challenge, by

first canvassing the entire province and obtaining views, both oral and

written, from all sectors of our society. After considering all

submissions, the minister carefully and thoughtfully put together a

package that meets British Columbia's demands but still recognizes the

individual rights of workers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to an

article in the Vancouver Sun ,

dated Wednesday, February 25, 1987. It says: "Labour critic Colin

Gabelmann (North Island) said he hopes upcoming changes to the Labour

Code 'will realize that the objective isn't to meet the ideological

concerns of some people on the right in Social Credit."' The

article

continues: "Gabelmann said he hopes the changes will address the

question of ending prolonged strikes and lockouts on an equitable

basis." I suggest to this House that that is exactly what this

legislation does.

[ Page 631 ]

This

government is being accused of a power grab, and I ask you: is this so?

By guaranteeing individual members the right to speak out without fear

of reprisals from employers or unions? If that's the case, then yes, we

are guilty. If they mean by making unions more accountable to their

members, then again, yes, we are guilty. If they mean by giving

teachers the right to bargain and the right to strike under a union of

their choice, then again we are guilty. We are guilty of making both

employers and unions responsible for their actions, not only to one

another but also to the third party, the public— the people who have

been caught in the middle of conflict for far too long. The power grab

is not putting power into the hands of the government. The power grab

is putting power back into the hands of the workers, back into the

hands of the public via the courts of our lands, and I suggest this is

a good move.

I have served on both sides of

labour-management tables. I have negotiated for both labour and

management. Through my own experience I have learned that the present

legislation is not adequate in meeting the challenges of today. Changes

are required. I feel that over the years I have paid my dues. I have

earned the right to stand and speak in this House on the subject of

labour-management relations. As the head of Local 6523 of the United

Steelworkers of America, I saw the toll that a long strike took on my

members. As a truck-logger in the last IWA strike, I saw both union and

non-union workers suffer drastically. I am now in a position, as a

member of this House, as a member of this government, to try to assist,

to see that conditions that brought about these senseless conflicts

will change. I will stand in this House or in any forum in my

constituency to defend the legislation and the government that is

bringing it forth.

I do have a grave concern regarding

this particular labour legislation package. Some of the newspaper

headlines have been very reactionary. In the Province, April 3 of this

year: "Labour Talks Tough." In the Times-Colonist, April 3: "Labour Law

Will Spawn Disruption, Defiance." Following this, we hear remarks from

the opposition such as: "I am afraid what is happening is a punishment

of the BCTF for its activities in the past." Another quote: "It's

union-busting." I suggest that remarks such as these are totally

political and emotional and do not constructively add any value to this

debate. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I believe the union movement is

a very essential ingredient in our society, and I will not stand by and

see it destroyed. I will, however, see that the voices of many workers

in my riding are heard, and will strive to meet their many requirements.

I see it, my obligation to the teachers of our great province is to see

that they are granted their rights to bargain, including the right to

strike if necessary, and these are full bargaining rights under a union

of their choice. Let us make it very clear to the BCTF that my

obligation is to see that teachers get a fair shake, not to protect

specific organizations such as theirs. The BCTF has the same rights and

obligations as any other labour organization in our province. If they

want to represent all the teachers of this province, I suggest that

they go forward and organize the same as any other labour organization

would.

There may be some corporate leaders who are not

satisfied with the extent of the changes in this legislation, and there

may be some labour leaders who cannot live with these changes either.

To these dinosaurs I say this: get out and make way for a new

generation of workers and leaders in industry, in the labour movement

and in government who, with the help of this new labour legislation,

will lead our province into the next decade and the next century

successfully.

I suggest that when the dust has settled and

after this legislation has been passed by this assembly and has been in

force for a few years, it will be noted for bringing responsibility and

accountability to labour-management relations. This is a very complex

subject and this is a very complex labour package. I do not have all

the answers, and I can assure you the opposition does not have them

either. Let us hope that common sense will prevail and let's hope that

we can get on with the debate of Bill 19. Let us get into a

clause-by-clause debate in committee and let us clarify the intent and

the meaning of Bill 19. I can assure you, again from my personal

experience, that the more employment we can create through a positive

investor climate, the more opportunities our workers will have and the

easier for labour to bargain.

The time has come for

government to show leadership, and this government has. Let us all work

together to make British Columbia a better place to work and to live.

Let us bring together labour and management for the benefit of all.

[4:15]

MR. MILLER :

Like my colleague for Vancouver East, I'm also going to try to avoid a

strident speech and perhaps go over the same ground that's been covered

already and try to explain why we think it's critical that this bill

not come into law. In doing so I'm conscious of the fact that as I

listen to some speakers on the opposite side it seems to me that some

have given an indication of a willingness to listen and others have

not. Because we are debating this bill in this House, I think the

remarks of members opposite are pertinent to the bill and to their

feelings or intentions behind the bill.

I would like to

start off by referring to some remarks made by the second member for

Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) who I thought was straying somewhat into the

health care field but nonetheless did come back to the subject of this

piece of legislation. He talked about prevention as being very

important. I hope I don't offend anyone by suggesting that the best

prevention we could embark upon at this time is to put a condom on this

piece of legislation.

The first member for Vancouver-Point

Grey (Ms. Campbell) talked about the question of democracy. Democracy

in the workplace is a question that has been raised many times on the

opposite side of the House. The bill is designed to restore that

democracy in the workplace. Unfortunately she used an analogy to the

Soviet Union. Again, I'm referring to the kind of tenor of the comments

that are made all too often. We on this side of the House, and I think

people in the labour movement, hear themselves categorized in those

kinds of terms, that somehow because they are undemocratic it's just

like the Soviet Union. I can't help but recall that that member also

said, I believe during the run-up for the leadership of her party, that

"working people would find me just as boring as I find them." So I

question the relevance of her remarks given that kind of background.

AN HON. MEMBER : She didn't say that.

MR. MILLER :

I think she did say that and she may want to correct that on the

record. But again, a remark aimed at the nub of this bill, that's been

expressed on a number of occasions, is the desire, the attempt, or the

feeling that it's necessary to restore some semblance of democracy to

the workplace in terms of the individual workers relationship with

[ Page 632 ]

their

union, the fact that somehow they're being deprived of that democracy

or they are being manipulated in terms of trying to express their

wishes in that union.

I refer to the remarks of the second

member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers), who in his speech said that

when the condition of employment is holding a card in that union or

association, it is no surprise to any of us that they are afraid to

speak out. I have to say that I reject fundamentally what that member

was saying; he seemed to be saying that because the union existed,

because people had a union card in their pocket, that it followed that

those people were afraid to speak out.

It is that kind of

language, it seems to me, that does more to inflame the climate in this

province than to try to insist in bringing about what I think

essentially we all would like to see, and that is a level of harmony in

terms of labour management relations that would allow us to go on and

really deal with some of the essential issues in this province.

might say to that member, does holding a card in the Social Credit

Party make you afraid to speak out? Because you are a back-bencher in

that party, are you afraid to speak out? He would reject that. I am

certain he would reject that, and yet he wants to cast those stones at

members of unions and particularly at people, many of whom I know

personally, who have put in a great deal of time in terms of serving

the interests of their membership in an executive capacity at the trade

union level, whether that is locally or nationally.

There

are some other comments, but I want to move on to the remarks that I

had prepared. But I just think that it is worth considering that the

tone of what is said sometimes causes people to believe that there are

motives other than those that have been expressed by the government.

Mr.

Speaker, despite the warnings that have been issued with regard to this

bill from many quarters in British Columbia, not only the main

spokespeople for the trade union movement and the main spokespeople for

the employers groups but others as well, statements have been made by

the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and statements were made

by Mr. Walker of the Fraser Institute. Quite frankly, I most often

reject statements made by that person because I think his views are

somewhat archaic.

Nonetheless there has been a body of

criticism in this province surrounding this particular piece of

legislation. Whether or not the government is prepared to admit it at

this point, I suspect that they are starting to get some kind of

message in terms of the major objections that people have with regard

to this legislation.

Again, I want to return to what was

said in this House and to repeat my belief that all of us are here as

MLAs, as representatives of the people in our constituencies, to try to

do the best job we can, and that we clearly have a desire for some kind

of harmony in terms of labour relations. I return again to comments

that were made by the new Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker), I

think a particularly strident, a particularly vitriolic — and I hope I am not out of order when I say that, but that was my sense of the comments.... That is how I heard them —

inflammatory rhetoric directed against working people and their

associations, their unions. That person as a member of the cabinet of

this government would have me believe that their only interest is in

trying to bring about some labour peace.

I can't help but

contrast the remarks made by that minister with the much more

thoughtful remarks by the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) in

his maiden speech when he acknowledged, I believe, the role and the

contribution that labour unions have played in this province. Given

that member's background in the forest industry, I can't help but

wonder out loud whether or not the wisest choice was made for that

portfolio.

In any event, my remarks are aimed at those who

are prepared to listen. I think that that's fundamental, because it

brings into question the role of this Legislature, and that role is

being questioned by this piece of legislation.

One of the

fundamental flaws in the bill I think is the abrogation of the right of

this Legislature to an industrial relations commissioner. You know it's

been a point of pride, in my opinion, in western democracies that the

heavy hand of the state — if you like — should only be

exercised through legitimately elected assemblies. I've heard enough

members on the other side agree with that position, or at least pay lip

service to it, many times, and lots of those members have stood in

their places and talked about democracy— going back again to what I've

said about how according to the government spokesman and many of the

back-benchers who've spoken, one of the nubs of this bill is to restore

democracy. So it seems to me that there's a consciousness out there

about democracy. And it's somewhat surprising that I often find myself,

as a member of a social democratic party, defending the rights of

democracy to a greater extent, I think, than our parties are generally

given credit for.

Again, one of the remarks that was made

by a number of speakers on the other side with their consciousness

about democracy is that this bill will restore democracy in the

workplace. I take offence at that. I've said that I feel offended and

insulted by that kind of reference. I think that democracy exists now.

And what disturbs me is that despite all these people saying this, not

one member has cited one instance where that democracy does not exist.

The only reference that's been made is to some ballot boxes marked

"yes" or "no," and to the best of my recollection there was a situation

that did take place to that effect and I believe it was in the United

States during a presidential election or an election of a candidate for

one of the two parties. So despite the rhetoric and despite the

statements on the other side that this is to restore democracy, it

would be interesting to hear at least one instance where democracy has

been denied.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER :

And I'm glad to see that the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D.

Smith) has now been woken up and is going to search his law books for

as many references as he can find.

But as I said, Mr.

Speaker, if these members have this overwhelming preoccupation with the

restoration of democracy, why do they want to give up the legitimate

rights of this assembly? I guess I would also have to ask — without any reflection on the gentleman in question —

why Mr. Peck would want to assume it. I read a newspaper

article just

recently that outlined how bravely Mr. Peck's father fought for that

very principle, democracy.

AN HON. MEMBER : A hundred thousand reasons.

MR. MILLER : A hundred thousand reasons, my colleague from Nanaimo tells me —

and I think they're in dollar bills, are they? But surely some of the

members opposite can grasp the significance of this point. This House

and this

[ Page

633 ]

House

alone should determine if an industrial relations dispute has gone to

the point where it threatens the public good. We are the

representatives of the public. We were elected by the people of this

province to represent them, to air their views. No one else in this

province was elected to fulfill the role that we have.

What

happens at the federal level? I recall that when the grain handlers

occasionally get into a strike situation and the federal government

decides that that can damage the economy, they call the federal House

into session. They call the members into session, put it to the elected

members of that assembly and say: "Look, we think this is having a

detrimental effect on the public good; we propose that we legislate

these people back to work." It's debated and a bill is passed.

representatives, we have the opportunity to stand in our places and

either agree or disagree, and there are precedents in this province for

that. My own party, as government, undertook to do that. The party

opposite has undertaken to do that, and it's not something that is

taken lightly; it's something that's taken very seriously.

Mr.

Speaker, another item that disturbs me somewhat is our constant

portrayal as interventionists. Surely the thrust of this legislation is

very interventionist; it's statist legislation. I think it's continuing

a trend that really started about a dozen years ago, where more and

more the decisions that are fundamental to the public have been made

behind closed doors. They've been made in the cabinet chamber, they've

been made by unelected people, and it seems to me that that's a

disturbing trend if you look at the kind of suspicion that exists in

our society in terms of the role that politicians should play —

that we should be more and more out front and more and more prepared to

take responsibility for our actions rather than thrust them into the

hands of unelected people.

[4:30]

a way, Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling that this legislation is kind of

Bill Bennett's revenge. You know of the solidarity workers in the

streets of Vancouver and the kind of turmoil that existed in this

province as a result of some of the policies that were instituted by

that former Premier. I'm sure he must feel that he had to get even with

the labour movement.

I recall the former Premier displayed

a fair amount of interventionist characteristics himself when he rode

down from Kelowna in his red shirt and interfered in the marketplace,

denying the legitimate business interests of Mr. Sinclair and saying

B.C. is not for sale. Well, it was sold anyway, but I recall as a

worker in a pulp mill being somewhat amazed that a Premier would take

that kind of interventionist position in the free market. I was a bit

puzzled about it. I understood the politics of it, but I was puzzled.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER :

No, I'm not puzzled any more, Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Veitch). In any event, the legislation is very interventionist and very

statist, and I think that's another reason why it won't work.

Moving

on, Mr. Speaker, in terms of labour history I think there's a pretty

good reason why we've arrived at where we are today, and in some sense

I feel that we are making progress; but it's useful to examine the

history of the labour movement in terms of their struggle for some of

the things that we now take for granted.

Some of those things that we now take for granted were won after a terrible

struggle. I'm sure my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick),

being somewhat of a historian, could detail them much more eloquently than I,

but I recall from my reading where people died in the Haymarket riots in Chicago

in terms of achieving the eight hour day; where things like the Triangle Shirt

Waist factory highlighted in a shocking way the kind of conditions that existed

in factories and workplaces; miners in Colorado I believe fired on by the Pinkerton

men because they fought for union recognition. The unions were forged in that

element, and I think that that's very important in terms of trying to understand

their position and their reaction today to this kind of legislation.

It's significant that those gains that trade unions — our working men and women —

have won over the years really have been won in the face either of

legislation that particularly prohibited them from doing what they were

doing, or no legislation and an environment of some lawlessness. Yet

despite that, these people waged a terrific battle, and we all owe, I

think some members on the opposite side would agree, a tremendous debt

to the kind of effort that was put in in terms of where we are today.

It's important to restate the fact that that climate has shaped the

labour movement and the natural suspicion that they have when

governments bring in legislation that they see as trying to inhibit

their right to bargain collectively for their membership.

don't think this bill is a new solution; it's not innovative. Look

around at other parts of the country. Look at Australia, where they've

tried to reach accommodation in terms of a number of fronts— the

coalition of government, business and labour; perhaps we could say that

it's tripartite in nature. They've had some success in terms of meeting

that problem in their country. In the Scandinavian countries, worker

involvement and planning have created a forest industry that realizes

significantly more benefits to the economy than does ours. Western

Europe has its long tradition of workers on boards of directors— not

isolated workers, but part of what's happening, part of the economic

decision-making. Japan has its reliance on security of employment and

its insistence that managers assume more of a burden for bad decisions.

I'm

not suggesting that we have to go to other countries and copy what

they've done, but surely we have the ability to be innovative in our

own province, to come up with better solutions than restrictive labour

legislation. I think it's quite possible for us in British Columbia to

find our own solutions to industrial disputes. I think it's possible to

find our own solutions to 213,000 unemployed people in this province. I

think we can find our own solutions for 64,000 young men and women in

this province.... Can't we find our own solutions to hungry children in

our schools or food banks in our cities? Does the government have us

believe that the solution to these problems lies in interventionist

labour legislation that tips the balance in favour of management, in

favour of the employer? I don't think this legislation will do that job.

number of speakers on my side of the House have highlighted some

aspects of the legislation. I want to run over some of those as well

because I do think they are important.

Freedom of speech,

section 5. Here again we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

Somehow the government feels that through the legislation it's fair for

an employer to become involved in whether or not unions want to have a

union, or whether people in a particular workplace want to organize and

have a union. Certainly it should not come as a surprise to some

members that that process is indeed very,

[ Page 634 ]

very

difficult. I've never gone out on a drive to organize unorganized

workers, but I have talked to some people who attempted to do that. The

climate of fear that exists, par ticularly in some sections of our

economy, when people actually get together and start talking about "I'd

like to have a union," is incredible. It's true that despite

legislation that might exist to protect them, which says the employer

can't discriminate, people in our society have lost their jobs be cause

they proposed that. I know people who have lost their jobs.

This

legislation seeks to put into law the efforts of the employer to

interfere in that process. It's clear that the result will be that it

will be more difficult for working men and women in this province to

get together and organize into a trade union so that they can negotiate

collectively with their employer. No wonder the union movement is

saying there is an anti-union bias in the legislation.

Apprenticeships: it's an issue that I raised in my maiden speech. I had intended to raise it again —

not particularly under this legislation, but I will now because there

is a reference to apprenticeships in the legislation. I think it's a

particularly odious one because it will allow employers to take on

apprentices and not require those people to be members of the trade

union.

Now I think we have a problem in British

Columbia in terms of apprenticeship, and I also think that it is too

bad we do, because it is an excellent way for young people to acquire a

skill. Generally the jobs that go along with that are relatively

well-paying, and more importantly, I think, relatively meaningful. We

have not paid enough attention to putting more apprentices in place in

this province. I recall going to a conference that the former Minister

of Labour, Mr. Heinrich, organized in Richmond a few years ago, and I

was pleased at the direction that we seemed to be going at that time.

We recognized that there were significant shortfalls and that there

were benefits to getting a program into place. Unfortunately, nothing

came of it.

I read the comments of the present Minister of Labour in the newspaper the

other day, where he talked about looking at the possibility of a levy grant

system, and I thought to myself, I appreciate that and I would support that.

But I must say that I won't be able to support that kind of initiative if

this legislation remains the way it is now, where apprentices will not be part

of the trade union movement.

From my own knowledge of labour relations matters.... It is not as extensive

as that of many in this province, but I did play a fair role in my local union

in Prince Rupert, bargaining and resolving grievances, and I learned a fair

amount over the years. I learned that you can't always sit across the table

and shout at the employer, and neither can the employer always try to sit there

and gouge you when he thinks the opportunity is right. We used to have a couple

of sayings: that the worst thing you could do was shoot from the lip, because

generally that just inflamed the climate and didn't get anybody anywhere;

and that there had to be a commitment on the part of the parties to resolve

the problems. In terms of dealing with that collective agreement and problems

you get into when trying to interpret clauses and all the rest of it, fundamentally

underlying the whole relationship was this commitment to resolve. I have often

heard employers acknowledge that, in terms of a strict legal definition, whether

it is from a labour board or what, you can be right, but it doesn't solve

the problem.

That

is the other major point that we are trying to make on this side of the

House: that no amount of legislation.... If you refer to my earlier

remarks, where major gains were made really in the absence of

legislation, no amount of legislation of a restrictive nature will

improve the labour climate in British Columbia.

The efforts

that are underway currently, which I think are in some jeopardy as a

result of the introduction of Bill 19, should give all of us some cause

for optimism. The employers' council and the Federation of Labour, as a

result of last year's prolonged dispute in the forest industry, got

together in an attempt to show that they were concerned about that

aspect of business in B.C., and that there are other ways of meeting

the problems. I believe that if that process had been allowed to

develop on its own without the threat of this interventionist

legislation, it would have borne fruit for this province. But now that

that process has been undertaken by the government, there is a threat,

and I think it is a real threat.

It seems to me that the

clear signals are that a number of people don't like this legislation.

Just recently, going back to April 8 in the Times-Colonist ,

a number of people were quoted in terms of their attitude towards the

legislation. "Lorne Lacey, B.C. Chamber of Commerce president, said

that the chamber members 'seem supportive.' But there is concern over

'what appears to be the almost exclusive power' of the Industrial

Relations Council." Another spokesman, Michael Walker — we all know him, from the Fraser Institute —

"said he shared concerns about the 'intrusive elements' of the

legislation, questioning the appointment of a commissioner with wide

powers to intervene in a dispute."

[4:45]

Most recently, in yesterday's Province

it appears that here was a meeting between the Minister of Labour and

representatives of the employers' council where the employers' council

strongly stressed their objections to this legislation.

Summing

up, I think that getting on to second reading of his bill, the members

on this side of the House have tried to demonstrate in some pretty

clear and rational terms why there are fundamental flaws in this

legislation. We've cited specific instances where the legislation is

clearly discriminatory. There is a whole area that has yet to be dealt

with, in terms of his legislation being tested in the courts. I wonder,

given the kind of evidence that has been presented, why the government

would still want to proceed. The path ahead can only bring disunity and

disruption to this province.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : It's

certainly a pleasure for me to enter the debate on this very important

subject. If I had one suggestion to members on both sides of the House,

I suppose it would be this. Let's get on with the debate. Let's get on

with he legislation. Let's get on with the people's business in the

province of British Columbia. Let's give this bill a chance. Let's give

it a chance for 12 months; have a fresh look at it in 1988, and look at

the track record to see how we've done. Time will indeed be the test as

to whether the contents of the bill will succeed or fail.

There

are several things that I think of when I look at revisions to the

Labour Code. I certainly think of one as being he word "democracy." I

believe it's long past due that we should be democratizing the free

collective bargaining process. It's a fallacy with me that we have a

situation in the province of British Columbia today where a trade union

in the early stages of collective bargaining, before any serious

[ Page

635 ]

offers are placed on the table, can go to its

membership with a ballot with the following words: "Failing a

satisfactory settlement, do you authorize the negotiating committee to

call a strike?" Mr. Speaker, that's just not good enough in this day

and age. It's my view that it's the right of those trade union members

to have the final say on the final offer of the employer, whether they

accept that offer or reject it, giving their union the opportunity to

call a strike at that time. So I have no problem with that particular

section.

I will go on from there and say this. In all

my travels during election campaigns throughout my constituency, when I

talked to the craft union members.... Mr. Speaker, whether they're

right or wrong, there is a clear perception in the eyes of those craft

union members that all is not well in hiring-hall practices. I think

it's the responsibility of government to give those people the

assurance that all is well, as far as hiring-hall practices are

concerned.

One of the other things I've listened to the

trade unions talk about, particularly the industrial unions: they talk

about the forced and locked-in accreditation of employers. Once they're

in they can't get out; if only they could bargain with those people

independently and privately again, all would be well. Mr. Speaker, the

intent of this legislation is clear in that respect: it does give the

employers the option to opt out, and I would suggest that the unions

will have that opportunity to bargain with those employers. At least

the employers won't have that as an excuse any more for not leaving the

various associations across the province.

Mr. Speaker, if

there's one thing that stands out in the reports that we are getting

back from people who travel internationally, who are looking outside of

the province of British Columbia for that much-needed investment to

cause those jobs and economic activity, the one and single greatest

message.... The number one concern of 95 percent of the international

investors is the labour relations climate in British Columbia. I think

it's incumbent upon this government to bring in a new labour policy, a

new labour bill, to give the international investors the signal that we

have taken control of our own destiny in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, I would urge all members of the House to vote in favour of

this bill. Let's give it a fair chance. Let's give it a trial run for a

year; come back in a year from now and have a look at it.

MR. LOVICK :

To begin my remarks, I must confess that I stand here in some

amazement. It would seem to me that the Minister of Labour and the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) both ought

to welcome this opportunity to defend this piece of legislation,

pushing the clock to the absolute maximum. However, I discover, much to

my surprise, that the total elapsed time for both speakers seems to be

approximately ten minutes, and I wonder if indeed it is the case that

those individuals cannot in fact muster half an hour's worth of time to

try to find good reasons to support this legislation. I'm sure you can

understand my reasons for being suspicious, Mr. Speaker.

I am

horrified to hear myself starting my remarks this way, because I too

was resolved to be as conciliatory and understanding and pleasant and

non-confrontational as we have come to hear about in this House—

certainly in the last few days. However, I must again confess that I

find that rather difficult to do, partly and primarily, I should point

out, because the closer I look at this legislation, the more sinister

it seems to me is the purpose that animates, motivates and promotes it.

I shall have more to say on that point as I proceed, Mr. Speaker.

Let

me just begin, then, by making brief reference to a few of the comments

that I picked up from the other side of this chamber. I am always

suspicious when I hear any politician or person charged with making

decisions begin by using the old clich, "Let's get on with it; let's

get going," because even though that may sound like a summons to

action, even though that may well indeed suggest a kind of decisiveness

on the part of the speaker, what it also suggests and states to me is:

"I don't really want to think about this. I don't really want to debate

and discuss and reflect on the implications of this. Instead, let's get

on with it." Action is easy. It is reflection and common sense that are

more difficult to summon, I suggest.

I'm also worried when

I hear somebody saying: "Let's give it a chance. Time will be the

test." Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that if time will be the test,

we're really in trouble. I would like to think that intelligence and

rational analysis ought to be the test, rather than time. Surely we are

creatures of our own destiny, surely we all have the analytical and

intellectual abilities to examine this piece of legislation and

determine whether it does indeed make sense, whether it is indeed

desirable or rather whether it might be repugnant and dangerous.

When

I spoke for the first time in this House, Mr. Speaker, I recall that it

was on an amendment to the throne speech, as it happened, rather than

what is traditionally referred to as a maiden speech. One of the points

I made in the course of those remarks was to say to members opposite:

"Where are you guys?" I said that because it seemed to me that we had

not heard much from the government side of the House in response to the

questions my colleagues and I had posed. I would offer the same

observation today.

It seems to me that a number of points

have been offered from this side of the House, and they have not been

responded to. I'm sorry to hear that. We have now spent considerable

time trying to delay this bill, trying to persuade members on the

opposite side of the House that there were indeed good and obvious

reasons for holding back, for thinking seriously about this

legislation, for not trying to push it through precipitately. Sadly,

all of those reasons seems to have been ignored. Unfortunately, nobody

has been listening to what we have to say.

Our point in

making those comments and our central reason for arguing that the delay

was indeed desirable was just that this legislation was perceived to be

confrontational, combative and indeed inflammatory. We have stated that

again and again and again. Moreover, we have attempted to show why that

perception is held. The members opposite, of course, predictably have

said simply: "That's not true. This is not combative. This is not

confrontational. This is not inflammatory." Unfortunately, all of their

denials, all of their claims that this legislation has the opposite

intention, have been effectively undercut, if not downright

contradicted, by their actions.

For example, Mr. Speaker,

the first member for Kamloops, the Minister of Social Services (Hon.

Mr. Richmond), introduced a theme and restated the theme on many, many

occasions, a theme that has also been picked up by, I think, all of the

other speakers from the government side of the House. The theme which

indeed has a kind of centrality in the other side's argument is just

this: that this legislation, this bill, is being opposed not by the

workers, not by the rank and

[ Page 636 ]

file

members of the trade unions, but only by their leaders. Sounds

familiar, I am sure, to you, Mr. Speaker; you have heard it as often as

I. For example, the Minister of Tourism, as I said, had a regular

refrain in his remarks, and the refrain was "Cliff and the boys,"

referring of course to a fairly major and high official in the B.C.

Federation of Labour.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

What

I want to emphasize here is really a question: what message do you

think is being given to the B.C. Federation of Labour when you say

that? When you say to the rank and file of a trade union movement, "We

don't believe that you are really involved in this; rather, it's a

conspiracy on the part of the leadership; it's Cliff and the boys

taking over," what message are you giving them? Well, you're telling

them first of all that they're stupid. Second, you're telling them that

they are in fact not adult and intelligent enough to pay attention to

what's going on.

I would sugges