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, JUNE 9, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1655 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 1655

Oral Questions

Premier's promise of fresh start. Mr. Harcourt –– 1655

South Moresby national park reserve. Mr. Kempf –– 1656

Committee study of Bill 19. Mr. Harcourt –– 1656

South Moresby national park reserve. Mr. Kempf –– 1657

Committee study of Bill 19. Mr. Harcourt –– 1657

Mr. Gabelmann

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L.

Hanson) –– 1657

Mr. Miller

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Jansen

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lovick

Mr. R. Fraser

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today

are four gentlemen: Mr. Jim Pavich, Mr. Arno Reicher, Don Bell of

Safeway, and Don McIntosh. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my best wishes

and welcome to Don Bell, who was the mayor of the district of North

Vancouver when I was the MLA for North Vancouver-Seymour.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, can we add more accolades for Mr. Don

Bell? He's also a school trustee in the district of North Vancouver,

School District 44, a good supporter of mine and a campaign worker in

the last election.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it looks like the person to know

in the audience today is Mr. Don Bell. I'd like to recognize Mr. Don

Bell for his involvement with the Urban Transit Authority in helping to

make the decision to purchase the electric flyers that are creating all

the problems.

MR. SERWA: This afternoon I would like to introduce a

personal friend and supporter from the great constituency of Okanagan

South, an active community worker, a school trustee and, most of all, a

friend of Don Bell. Would the House please welcome Don McIntosh.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't want to leave Don out of that either.

Don has been a regular visitor to this place over the years, and many

of us have come to know him, and I welcome him as well.

Since it's Canada Safeway Day, I thought it would be appropriate to

have the House welcome Mr. Jon Squire, who was the trade union

representative who dealt with Canada Safeway and MacDonalds

Consolidated over many years. Jon is here to pay some attention to the

labour debate.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we

have Don Wood and his friend Grant Warner, young men from the lower

mainland, employed in the private sector and taking a day off to come

over here, visit Victoria and watch a good government doing a good job.

Would you please welcome them both.

MR. GUNO: This afternoon I have a message of congratulation.

Last Saturday Mr. James Gosnell, hereditary chief of the Nishgas and

president of the Nishga Tribal Council, became the first recipient of

the Spirit of Leadership award, presented by the B.C. Government

Employees' Union. This award was in recognition of Chief Gosnell's

outstanding contribution to the native community through his fight for

social justice and change. Since 1973 Mr. Gosnell has led the Nishgas

in their land claims struggle. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to

join me in congratulating this distinguished Indian leader on receiving

this fine award.

MR. JACOBSEN: From Meadow Ridge School today we have Sandy Heard, the

headmaster, and his wife; Frank Maisco, a teacher; and 17 students. Would the

House please welcome them.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, in the municipal precinct

this afternoon we have a close observer of the provincial political

scene, Mr. Ed Kisling. But more importantly, he is joined today by his

grandfather, who is visiting him from Scotland. some 70 years old, who

is most interested to see how we perform in the Legislative Assembly.

Would the House welcome Mr. Harry Connolly and Mr. Ed Kisling.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this

afternoon are two very good friends of mine, Mrs. Marianne Davidson of

Courtenay and Mary Gregory of Surrey. I would ask the House to make

them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today are a group

of adults from the Capital Mental Health Association, and they are

accompanied by two dedicated staff workers, Pat Vickers and Reta Mason.

Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to join with my

colleague from Dewdney in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Heard and the members

of Meadow Ridge independent school to the House today.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I hate clichs but it seems

appropriate for me to begin this by saying last but not least, given

these rather large numbers. I would ask the House to join me in

welcoming four different people, two of whom are from the constituency

of Cowichan-Malahat: Bonnie Oldershaw and John Waldin. Also it seems

appropriate in this chamber that is often referred to as a chamber of

outlaws for me to welcome my in-laws, my mother-in-law and

father-in-law, Bill and Mary Janis from the constituency of Oak Bay.

Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority for the year ending March 31, 1987.

Oral Questions

PREMIER'S PROMISE OF FRESH START

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier a

question about his election commitments, because when the Premier

called the election on September 24, 1986, he said: "Main Street

British Columbians want an end to partisan warfare. They want to set

aside the sectoral strife which has become the unhappy hallmark of

B.C." I want to know, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier has thrown out that

promise of a fresh start, or whether he thinks the insults and

inflammatory language of the last while will reduce strife and bring

about a fresh start.

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me

assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we have made great

progress in assuring that there's ample, or at least as much as

possible, public participation in all of the problems or all of the

questions or all of the things that are facing British Columbians.

We've had numerous meetings, and will continue to have throughout the

province, such as the town hall meetings, but also the committees

traveling and individuals attending meetings throughout the whole of

the province

[ Page 1656 ]

in order to receive ample input on various

questions from the people, regardless of where they live in British

Columbia. We intend to continue that process, to have open government

as much as we can possibly provide it, perhaps more so here than what

we see anywhere on the continent, and that is good.

I appreciate also that from time to time, because of pressures, we

unfortunately may not always act or react just exactly as we should.

When that happens, I guess it's regrettable, because as we've indicated

to the opposition, we want to work as people across from one another

for the common good of all British Columbians. That's not to say we'll

always agree, but certainly we want to work together — and we've

indicated that. We've provided, as you are aware, more money to the

opposition, especially in order to do a better job at research. That's

fair, and so it should be.

We've set up a committee to deal with all matters affecting members

of the House; and similarly we want to see, hopefully soon, the

committee system working as effectively as possible, and we intend to

work towards that end.

We are committed to open government. We are committed to try to work

as much as possible with members, regardless of where they are or what

their political affiliation. That's a democratic right we enjoy in this

country, and which we should treasure and encourage.

Hon. member, you made reference to an election campaign. I made a

number of commitments during that campaign, and I intend to keep them.

One of those too is that we should all strive together to assure that

we build for British Columbians a secure economy and that we take

whatever the initiatives — and however controversial they may be from

time to time — to assure that we provide for our people in this

province opportunities for secure employment and a diverse choice of

jobs.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is true. We have

improved the operation, the demeanor in the Legislature; we are working

on it. I think that is the Dr. Jekyll part of the Premier's

personality, and I wish that he would not perform like Mr. Hyde when he

gets on the airwaves outside of this Legislature. To be able to say

that and then to say that trade union leaders are wealthy and

ill-informed on Bill 19, that working people will be punished for

protesting Bill 19, and that the Leader of the Opposition is on a

phoney trip, is not what I would call keeping the promise of a fresh

start. Mr. Premier, are you going to tone down that kind of rhetoric,

not just inside this Legislature but with the people of British

Columbia outside of this Legislature, and bring about true cooperation

in this province?

SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK RESERVE

MR. KEMPF: I have a question to the Premier. Over three weeks

ago, the Premier said that British Columbia was 24 hours away from an

agreement with Ottawa with respect to a settlement on South Moresby.

Last week he said the agreement in principle had been reached. My

question: can the Premier share with this House that agreement in

principle?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad the question

was asked by the member for Omineca, because this has been troubling me

as I am sure it's been troubling everyone. We've had negotiations in

good faith with Ottawa for a number of weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Months.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Months. Certainly during the last

number of weeks especially we've seen considerable pressures from

people who find their livelihood working in the woods on the Queen

Charlottes and who see for themselves a great deal of uncertainty and

wish to have some answers.

In Ottawa, a week ago, we went over the figures and basically came

away with agreement in principle on what the figures were, though the

application of them we weren't too sure about. I have to say now,

however, that again today I'm not as certain as I was perhaps three or

four days ago, and there appears to be a little bit of backtracking. So

I intend to place a further call today or tomorrow to Ottawa — and

we've had these communications ongoing — in order to determine if we

really can't get this all pinned down once and for all.

Last week in Ottawa they assured us that they would have staff

people out here on Monday and Tuesday — that's yesterday and today — to

go over things and over the details. These people did not come. Instead

the message was that they were still preparing a paper for cabinet.

We've got to get on with this. We can't leave all that uncertainty

for the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands. I intend to pursue it,

hon. member, more today, or failing that, certainly tomorrow, and to

have an answer as quickly as possible; because Ottawa owes us, or owes

it to the people working on the Queen Charlottes especially, that we

get an answer soon.

MR. KEMPF: A supplementary question. The figure of $120

million has been suggested as a settlement with respect to the South

Moresby situation. Has the Premier decided on that figure?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's not as simple as that, Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. member. It's a little more complicated than that.

It also involves a number of third parties that obviously the federal

government would need to negotiate with.

One of the difficulties I have at the moment, quite frankly, is that

it's always historically been the job of the federal government in

establishing national parks to negotiate with third parties; and I

think that's been so throughout the whole of Canada. I get the

impression that perhaps we're becoming the exception in some respects

if we didn't negotiate hard in this regard, and certainly we don't want

to see that happen. The figures are not anything I can provide you with

now, but it's simply a lot more complex than the quote you've given us,

MR. KEMPF: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

COMMITTEE STUDY OF BILL 19

MR. HARCOURT: I have a supplementary question that I was

going to ask the Premier on my previous question. It will be very

short. I know how the Premier and his colleagues are interested in

making the committee system work, as the Premier has said, and a

provincewide poll says that threequarters of British Columbians agree

with the Premier. Mr. Premier, will you make a commitment to make the

committees work and refer Bill 19 to a committee, as the people of

British Columbia in the vast majority are asking?

[ Page

1657 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would like to respond to that

question, but in fairness to the hon. member for Omineca, perhaps I

should deal with a supplementary first.

SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK RESERVE

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier.

Given the fact that in excess of $36 million in economic activity is

generated yearly by logging Lyell Island, let alone the possibilities

on the rest of South Moresby, that's $1.62 billion in the rotation

period for Lyell Island alone. Given those facts, what has the Premier

decided to ask the federal government in payment for South Moresby?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the figures that we are

presently negotiating with the federal government obviously don't go as

far as to provide compensation forever in return for any logging lost.

We expect there will be further benefits that accrue to not only

British Columbians but the nation and perhaps the world in establishing

what would be a first-class world park.

I agree with the tone of the question, which would indicate that we

too as British Columbians are again being asked to make a sacrifice in

ensuring that a national park can be established. I think I can speak

for most British Columbians when I say that I believe the people would

be prepared to make some sacrifice in that regard. All we're saying to

the federal government is that we are prepared to make some sacrifice;

we recognize the sacrifice made by individuals presently employed

there, and the sacrifice of people who have holdings or interests on

South Moresby especially; we recognize that we'll not get repayment for

all of that resource which could return to the province a considerable

revenue over the years by way of stumpage or otherwise; but we do want

a fair deal. And I underline "fair." There's no need for the federal

government to try to squeeze this thing to the point where it's all

give on the part of British Columbia. It has to be at least reasonably

fair and fairly defensible.

COMMITTEE STUDY OF BILL 19

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier said that he wants the

committees of this Legislature to work. Almost three-quarters of

British Columbians have said they too would like to see the committees

work on Bill 19. Will the Premier refer Bill 19 to a committee of the

House for further study?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's in committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I need to

answer that; it seems that everyone here appears to have the answer already.

But may I repeat what I hear everybody here saying: it is in committee of the

House. And it's not just with a select group of the House but before the

whole of the House, and therefore everyone can attend these committee meetings.

I expect, hon. member, that you'll all be there in your place when committee

starts, hopefully in only a few minutes, and that you'll remain.

MR. GABELMANN: Given the importance of the subject matter in

Bil1 19, and given the importance of the debate that's now been going

on for two weeks in this House, I wonder if the Premier would agree

that his participation in this debate on occasion would also be

worthwhile. We have yet to see him in this House during this debate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that above all the Premier is a good listener.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 19.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

section 39.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 39 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, as usual I mostly hear from the

back bench on the other side, "Aye," but very little else when it comes

to debate on these.... We occasionally get a glimpse into the thinking

that some members have when some of the back-benchers do stand up, as

occurred just before the lunch break. The member for Columbia River

(Mr. Crandall) clearly stated his opinion that people don't need

protection from technological change, that it is not an issue in this

province and that there is nothing for anybody to worry about.

I want to ask the minister what kind of work was undertaken by his

ministry with regard to this subject. Before lunch I raised a number of

issues that I thought were attendant on the issue of tech change: the

displacement of workers; programs, that I believe are non-existent, for

retraining assistance to those workers. I would like the minister to

perhaps outline to the House the kind of work that his ministry has

done regarding this issue, the impact of tech change on unemployment in

British Columbia — perhaps profiles that he or his ministry may have

done with respect to the kinds of workers who are displaced. Are they

the older workers? Do they have difficulty in getting retraining? I

would like him to briefly outline some of the programs that he has

fostered in his ministry to deal with the problem of displaced workers

— for example, early retirement....

[2:30]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could I just interrupt for a

second? Could we please have order in the House so that the Minister of

Labour can hear the member who is currently speaking.

MR. MILLER: It is a bit surprising, Madam Chairman, that all

this side discussion is going on, given the responses we received in

question period with regard to the committee.

Just to restate the last part, are there any programs that his ministry or, indeed, the government may have developed

[ Page 1658 ]

with respect to assisting people who are caught in

the squeeze? I am speaking particularly about programs for early

retirement, programs for work-sharing and shorter work weeks, pension

reform — anything of that nature that will give me some indication that

the ministry has not simply dealt with the issue of tech change in an

isolated manner, and brought in a clause or a definition that is more

restrictive than the one that already exists under current legislation,

which, in my opinion, doesn't really go far enough to address the

problem.

HON. L. HANSON: I'm sure the member opposite realizes that

training programs and those sorts of initiatives have been transferred

from my ministry to the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen),

and I think it appropriate that he answer that question at some point.

We have spent some time, if you will, looking at the impact of

technological change in British Columbia. It certainly has been a

factor in some cases of unemployment, because of advances and

improvements in production procedures. But we believe that the issue of

unemployment in British Columbia is more related to a difficult economy

than to technological change, although there is no doubt that in some

instances it can be related to that. In most of the discussions I've

had with various labour organizations, they have suggested that in the

majority of cases technological change has been negotiated, to the best

of the employer's and the employees' ability, to minimize the effects

in each particular case where a recognizable difficulty arose. There is

no doubt that some technological change — advancement in manufacturing

procedures and so on — has been the cause of some disruption in the

workplace. In most cases the negotiations that go on between the

employer and his trade union have attempted to deal with those

difficulties as they relate to loss of employment, retraining or

restructuring into another position.

What we're dealing with here is, first of all, a requirement for

notice in case of technological change, which we think is a

considerable improvement. In

section 41 — and I believe we agreed that

we're addressing all three in the one debate — we have put on paper

what we see as true technological change. There were charges earlier

that it has to do with contracting out, but in our view it bears no

relationship to the contracting out issue; they're two very different

issues. In a number of the contracts where there have been negotiations

into technological change, they've been very adequately dealt with to

ensure that the minimum effect on the employee is laid out within the

negotiated contract.

MR. MILLER: Given that answer, then, I'll go back and restate

the question I asked initially: that is, given the further restrictions

that you are now placing on the definition, the narrowness that you

have put on it, would that not in fact act as an impediment when it

comes to a trade union and negotiating with the company for protection?

There are employees who previously would have been taken care of — or

could have been taken care of — by the trade union negotiating with the

employer; but now that you have narrowed the definition, you have

excluded that group of employees, who are in fact left in limbo. Again

I ask you why you would want to bring in a clause that would create

that situation, that would exclude people, that would take away their

protection or the opportunity for the trade union to negotiate some

protection on their behalf. Why do you want to take them out of it?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I don't agree that we've taken

that away. I think the ability to negotiate the collective agreement as

it relates to changes in the workplace is still there and still well

entrenched in the legislation. It's interesting to note that in all of

our discussions with the B.C. Fed and various labour organizations as

to this

section of the Code, no concern was identified that it was a

problem to organized labour.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad to see that the Premier is in the House.

I guess he's burning a little bit. In fact, the matter came up during

question period; now that he's going to be here, it would be nice to

see the Premier get into the debate and talk a little bit about

technological change. It would be interesting for all of us in this

House to know what the Premier's concerns are about technological

change, and whether or not he sees the provisions within the proposed

legislation and the sections that we're debating — for the information

of the Premier, we're debating sections 39, 40 and 41 — as dealing with

the complex issue of technological change. I'm sure that all members of

the House, including the Premier, would agree with me that

technological change is certainly one of the most difficult issues

facing society today. We are seeing a massive acceleration of

technology, and the capability of that technology is overwhelming. As a

function of that, there has been an increased displacement of workers

in all occupations. An increasing number of workers are being declared

redundant. Accordingly, there is a need to deal with not just the

social problem of that, but also the economic problem vis--vis how

it's dealt with in collective agreements between management and labour.

It seems to me, at least as a philosophical position — and I would

hope, Madam Chairman, that the Premier and other members of the House

would not disagree with this philosophical position — that if one is

going to set up a tribunal to adjudicate on matters of technological

change and to determine whether or not the technological change is

legitimate or not, pursuant to the provisions of the act and collective

agreements, i.e. that there are some circumstances where an employer

will use technological change as a way not only to increase

productivity, which is fine, but also as a way to displace and remove

workers and avoid obligations under a collective agreement.... That is

what historically we have tried to prevent through the provisions of

the Labour Code and previous collective agreements. It therefore seems

to me important that tribunals have a fair bit of leeway in determining

whether or not the provisions of collective agreements have been

violated.

There should be broad and liberal language within the legislation to

ensure that a full and comprehensive inquiry can be made to make sure

that the actions of the employer are legitimate, not illegitimate.

That, I think, invites a definition of technological change which is

broad. I think all of us on both sides of this House understand that

technological change is not simply the introduction of new machinery or

equipment. Technological change can be achieved in many other ways —

for example, through the consolidation of operations; the acquisition

of one operation by an employer to displace workers in another field;

and for those.... The Premier says he's a good listener, so I suspect

that he listened earlier on to the debate which took place with respect

to British Columbia Telephone Co. and the way in which it has

[ Page 1659 ]

utilized and could have utilized the provisions of

technological change to displace workers without any cost, under the

proposed wording here in this section.

So I would like to hear from not just the Minister of Labour but the

Premier whether or not he agrees in principle that the definition of

technological change should be broad and expansive, so that a

commission — in this case the Industrial Relations Council, if this

legislation is passed — can have broad and extensive powers to

investigate. Does the Premier think that technological change

should...? And if he doesn't, you know.... The Premier is here, and of

course we don't get a chance all that often to hear from him. I know

that I'm bypassing the Minister of Labour, but it would be interesting

to see whether or not the Premier agrees with the philosophical point

of view that technological change can be accomplished in ways other

than simply the introduction of machinery and equipment. I think it

would be of benefit to all members of the House to hear what the

Premier's got to say. If he doesn't want to get up, I'll continue on

and talk about a couple of other points, but I think that he should

embellish the House on this matter a bit.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Madam Chairman, I just want to make a few general observations about what was spoken of in general by the member opposite.

Really, technological change has probably provided us with a higher

standard of living in this part of the world, or for that matter

probably throughout the whole of the world, than anything else. It's

technological change that has given us the standard of living that

we're enjoying today. So we shouldn't — and I'm sure the member agrees

— discourage technological change.

We've seen over the years where it has become a problem with respect

to an agreement. The unions and management have been, from experience,

reasonable and things have worked out extremely well, and hopefully it

will continue that way. But we as legislators can't begin to spell out

what is or what isn't technological change, and I concur with the

member in that observation as well. Nor can you somehow establish a

committee to rule on this.

I think what we must do — and hopefully we can all agree upon that —

is that we need to provide in our province an opportunity for industry

to diversify, for us to see new opportunities develop in the

manufacturing sector, in high tech, in mid-tech, so that in fact people

will have that opportunity to benefit from technological change. With a

diversity that we're wanting to develop and seeing already beginning to

develop in British Columbia, we can provide a higher standard of living

for people, we can certainly compete in the world marketplace, and we

can provide the sort of security of employment that all people should

be entitled to.

[2:45]

MR. SIHOTA: Those are interesting and very general words but

not very generous, from the point of view of the Premier, as they

pertain to the legislation that we're dealing with here.

Madam Chairman, everybody would agree that technological change is

necessary to bring about productivity. But the Premier says that

technological change cannot be defined. He obviously hasn't taken the

time to read the legislation, because the legislation endeavours to do

precisely that: to define what technological change is, and when it is,

given that definition, that the board should intervene.

The government may say — the Premier may certainly say — that we

want to get government off the backs of people; but if he's taken the

time to read the provisions of the legislation that's before this

House, the Premier would understand that the legislation now goes to

the point where, under

section 40, I believe, it allows for ministerial

consent. So it's not a case of getting it off the backs of people.

The only issue is how it is that you turn around and provide people

with the type of protection and job security that the Premier says he

wants to provide for these people. It would be interesting to hear what

the Premier philosophically feels about this. It seems to me that what

the Premier is saying philosophically already in this House is a

departure from what the Minister of Labour is trying to implement in

this legislation.

It may be very clever on the part of the Premier, or at least he may

think it to be clever, to try to talk in general terms about

technological change. But how would the Premier define technological

change? What does he consider technological change to be? Upon what

basis would he consider it to be appropriate for the minister to

withhold his consent or to grant his consent in cases of technological

change? Or does the Premier feel that all these matters are above and

beyond him and not matters of consideration for him? It would be

interesting for members of this House to hear a little bit more about

what the Premier has to say, not in general terms about technological

change, but how it pertains to collective agreements.

I hope the Premier is now reading the definition of technological

change and realizes that indeed, yes, a definition of technological

change has been provided in this act, much as it is under the current

Labour Code. Given the fact that it is defined, perhaps the Premier

could indicate to this House what flaws he sees in the original

definition. It's not good enough for the Premier simply to make some

general comments. We on this side of the House would like to see full,

active and intelligent participation from the Premier with respect to

these sections –– 39, 40 and 4 1. We don't want to hear just general

comments, but something specific as it relates to the sections in

question; something specific in terms of when it is and on what terms

"technological change" ought to pass and in what terms the provisions

of the collective agreement should apply.

Regrettably, I have to attend an interview, so I'm going to leave it

to my colleagues. But I hope when I return in about 20 minutes' time

the Premier will be in the middle of embellishing his views on

technological change, as to how it relates to collective agreements,

instead of providing us with the general comments that he has.

Madam Chairman, for the time being those are my comments on the matter.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know. Is the Premier going to speak, or

is he trying to conduct his office business in the Legislature on the

pretext that he's here during the course of debate?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. Those comments are out of order.

MR. JANSEN: Madam Chairman, the members opposite have talked about the problems of technological change.

[ Page 1660 ]

They are indeed problems of society. I don't think

a day goes by when we don't pick up the newspaper or hear a radio

broadcast talking about the modernization of a company or an upgrading

of a particular firm. It happens regularly.

Companies recognize that in order for them to be competitive and to

supply jobs, they must go through a modernization program. They must

upgrade their equipment regularly. Not only will that provide more

jobs, Madam Chairman, but it also gives employee satisfaction, in that

employees could be assigned more productive tasks than some of the

mundane duties that automation fulfils.

In our tour throughout the province, we heard the need for us to

address the problems of technological change. Time and time again the

unions brought forward the position. People employed in the workplace

brought forward positions requesting this government to address the

needs of technological change. It is a problem in their society; it is

a need that we have to address.

I'm a little concerned that perhaps the members opposite are not

really reading the sections and understanding what the intent is. We

have expanded the definition of technological change. We've added the

words "method or procedure," so not only is it the manner, it's also

the method or procedure. We have expanded and gone beyond the scope of

what was normally defined in the Labour Code in 1973. We've also added

sections that would include the intervention of the minister.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'm having some difficulty understanding.... I'm sorry the member

left who had the great dissertation. I'm concerned that we are not

really concentrating on the intent of the legislation, understanding

it, but we seem to be wandering in our debates. I'm wondering if we

could concentrate on these sections, and through constructive debate

resolve the differences and understand the problems.

We're talking about the definition of technological change. I have

been involved in employee-employer relations, and technological change

is probably the most difficult thing to define in specific terms.

Section 41 defines technological change as "a change in the manner,

method or procedure in which the employer carries on his work." That is

perhaps the most general term that one could use. Yet the members

opposite are making statements that our definition has become more

constrictive.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation and the changes

being put forward in this House expand the definition of technological

change and will assist the union movement, and assist unions in

negotiating agreements dealing with this very difficult issue.

We've also heard that employees are displaced as a result of

technological change. I have through my own company, and through my own

business career, seen much technological change. Many times — in fact,

all times — I have experienced that it has been advantageous to the

company or to the concern, has assisted the employees in being more

productive, has given more job satisfaction and has assisted the

company or the concern to be more productive and more efficient in its

work methods.

Usually, as the member here indicated, we find that firms add people

to the payroll rather than reduce people from the payroll. So I sit

here in the House, I listen to the debate, and I appeal to the members

opposite to become specific in their concerns — to talk, rather than in

generalities, about the specific sections that concern them, and to

read them in the context of the 1973 Labour Code.

Perhaps you don't have a copy of the old Labour Code. Take it; the

Minister of Labour can supply you with a copy of that Labour Code.

Maybe you could compare that to Bill 19, add to it, and understand

that, indeed, we are assisting and expanding and helping to understand

the original intent. I hope that we will carry on with constructive

debate and conclude the discussion on these particular sections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: First of all, clarification from the Chair that we are still debating the three sections at one time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was the agreement made this morning, hon. member, and it still stands.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to also make the comment that I won't

be responding to the previous speaker, but there are members on this

side who are anxious to do so, so I am hoping that the previous speaker

will stay.

I would like pursue the comment made earlier by the member in

addressing his concerns to the Premier. If the Premier would be good

enough to follow up on some of those concerns, I'd like to elaborate a

little bit on them. What we heard earlier from the Minister of Labour

is that, first of all, he agrees that there are some implications of

tech change that relate directly to the downturn in our economy. What

he is saying is that among the large numbers of people that are

unemployed in this province, there are many who will never go back to

their jobs. They will never go back to their jobs because their jobs

don't exist anymore.

Several years ago in this province the numbers were something like

3,000 people in the forest industry that had been displaced because of

technological change. In addition to that, in the previous year we saw

a situation where there was a prolonged strike in this province, and

the forest industry was again in a situation of being able to keep the

production levels up while employing not only 3,000 fewer people due to

that technological change, but 1,400 fewer people due to that

management-labour dispute.

I'm very sorry that the Premier has seen fit to leave the House.

Perhaps it's because the press gallery is no longer peeking over the

partition there paying attention to whether or not the Premier is in

this House. So I will direct my comments, instead of to the Premier, to

the Labour minister and ask him to tell us if indeed he acknowledges

that there is an impact on the economy due to technological change. If

there are larger numbers of people unemployed because of technological

advances, why it is that the minister saw fit to delete from the

previous Labour Code provisions for retraining and severance pay?

Those two items in particular will begin to address the issues of

distribution of income. They will begin to deal with the issues at

hand, where we have people unemployed in this province receiving no

income and no benefit after giving long years of hard work, and a

company or a whole industry reaping extra profit because of their

ability to do away with those jobs.

HON. L. HANSON: I'm not sure if I understood you correctly.

You're suggesting that in the legislation before there was a

requirement for retraining and so on? I don't think that's....

[ Page 1661 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, minister. Did you want clarification? The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In the Labour Code,

section 74, in the first

subsection, it deals with the provisions. There are three subsections:

(a), (

b) and (c). Of those provisions, it talks about notice by an

employer of intention to introduce technological change, opportunities

for retraining or transfer of employees, and severance wages of

employees displaced by technological change. Those are the provisions

I'm referring to.

HON. L. HANSON: Thank you very much for that clarification. I'd like to point out that the original wording in the Code said:

"...of all disputes relating to adjustment to technological

change, which may include provisions for (

a) notice by an employer of intention

to introduce technological change; (

b) opportunities for retraining or transfer

of employees; and (

c) severance wages of employees displaced by the technological

change, or another method agreed to of all disputes relating to adjustment to

technological change."

I don't think that was ever interpreted as saying that there was a

requirement for a certain period or a certain amount of wages. Those

were left to the discretion of the bargaining committees as they

negotiated their agreements. The definition of technological change

usually triggered a provision in the agreement, quite often an

arbitration provision. What we're saying here is that there's a

requirement to give notice to the employees in the case — the nature of

the change, etc., and you've all read that as it's laid out here.

[3:00]

There's no reason why the parties can't still put into their

agreement whatever they consider to be relevant to technological change

— in other words, notice, pay, retraining, or whatever the case may be.

In the definition of technological change, we've spelled out what we

believe the board should use for its basis of interpreting the

definition. That's not to say that if there are layoffs for lack of

work or whatever the case may be, those items are not to be negotiated

into the contract between the employer and the employees. We're not

dealing with that issue. There's no reason why that shouldn't be

negotiated and the parties encouraged to do that voluntarily on their

own.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Further clarification in the context of the

total bill. It has been recognized in earlier debate that what this

bill does is make it more difficult for unions to negotiate contracts,

because all of the power for them to negotiate has been essentially

taken away by this bill. What you are telling us on this particular

section on technological change is that the government's participation

in this process eliminates the government's option to instruct or

suggest to the two bodies that they involve themselves in training or

severance negotiations. The government, by deleting that, is now saying

the issue is that the employer will give notice. The government is more

or less saying: "You don't have to train these people. You don't have

any obligation to these people. You don't have any obligation to share

the profits that you will make in introducing technological change by

dealing with a severance package." Quite clearly, and the point has to

be made, the previous bill was extremely weak and did not give enough

attention to these issues, but the government is further watering down

the situation by saying that you don't have to deal with any of that:

the only thing that you deal with is notice. What the government is

doing is facilitating the laying off of workers in this province. Would

the minister like to make comment?

HON. L. HANSON: My comment will be very short. I don't agree with that

interpretation at all.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to ask the minister a further

question about the contract clauses that are already negotiated in this

province with regard to technological change. Several speakers spoke

earlier about the impact of technological change on the industrial

sector in this province. They talked about the fight that unions have

had to put contract language in place to deal with the impact of

technological change in their workplace. There has been a lot of work

done by the trade union movement in this province analyzing that impact

and trying to deal in a meaningful way with the impact of technological

change.

Can the minister tell us if existing contracts will be influenced by

sections 39 to 41? Will existing contracts that have been negotiated be

affected by this legislation?

HON. L. HANSON: I would point out that the provision in the old Code still remains.

"This

section does not apply to an employer and a bargaining

agent who are bound by a collective agreement where the collective agreement

contains provisions that (

a) are intended to assist employees by a technological

change to adjust to the effects of the technological change, and (

b) specify

that this

section does not apply, during the term of the collective agreement,

to the employer and the bargaining agent."

So ones that are already negotiated are....

MS. SMALLWOOD: Again, on a point of clarification, my

understanding through legal advice is that if there is no mention in

those contract clauses that those contracts are superior, indeed this

bill will take precedence, and that because there was no hint that Bill

19 was even on the horizon or that these changes were on the horizon,

there is nowhere in tech-change clauses in this province where it is

specified that those clauses will have precedence over other

legislation. If that is so, would the minister not agree that in

essence what he is doing is wiping out all the history and all the work

that union-management negotiating teams have done on issues of tech

change in this province?

HON. L. HANSON: The answer is no. The number of agreements

that have tech-change employment security in them now — as a percent —

is 69, and they cover 78 percent of the employees. I think what we are

saying in here is that there is no disagreement with those negotiated

agreements between management and labour. They will stay in place. They

won't disappear.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If I understand the minister's comment

correctly, he did not say that this bill would take precedence. He said

that there is no conflict between existing clauses and this bill. Is

the minister saying that all of the tech-change clauses that are now in

place in this province are compatible with this legislation, that they

are the same, that they don't provide additional protection in any way?

[ Page 1662 ]

HON. L. HANSON: Really, I don't see any problem. I mentioned

earlier that subsection (4) — "This...does not apply to an employer and

a bargaining agent who are bound by a collective agreement" — will be

gradually phased in to the contracts. But I don't see a conflict there

at all.

MR. GABELMANN: Just for a moment — because I know the member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) wants to have a debate with the member

for, I think, Chilliwack — I want to go back to 74(3), using the Code

numbers, just to see if I can clarify it, because I am not sure that I

understood that the minister understood the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley. It says: "This

section does not apply" — and

this is what the minister was saying, I think — "to an employer and a

bargaining agent who are bound by a collective agreement where the

collective agreement contains provisions that (

a) are intended to

assist employees...and (

b) specify that this

section does not apply,

during the term of the collective agreement...." How can any collective

agreement in British Columbia now in existence specify that this

section does not apply, when this

section does not exist? I think that

is part of the question, at least.

HON. L. HANSON: But it will exist; the law will come into effect.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, what happens if you are in the

first year of a five-year agreement? You have to wait for four years

before you can negotiate language to protect yourself. That's

theoretical; there aren't many five-year agreements around anymore. But

theoretically that is a potential. But more typically you may be in the

middle of a three-year agreement. Presumably this

section is proclaimed

in the summer sometime. You've got a year and a half left on your

agreement. How, if the employer is not keen on reopening the agreement

voluntarily in the middle of its term, do you get a specification that

this

section does not apply? You can't, so you've got a gap.

So the least we can expect in respect of these changes is that the

minister would agree that no proclamation would take place of these

sections until everyone out there has had an opportunity to negotiate

language based on the new law. That would be a minimum requirement that

I think we would expect from the minister in terms of assurance.

MR. MILLER: I don't want this issue to be forgotten. We'll

come back to it, because I think it's.... It may not be a major issue,

but it's certainly a matter that has to be clarified for those

companies and unions that currently have contracts dealing with

technological change, because clearly the act, as the minister is

proposing, would state that unless the contract has language that

exempts them from the provisions of the act, the act applies. So that's

an issue that has to be dealt with.

Getting back to the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen) in terms of

his, I thought, reasoned — or at least reasonably stated — position,

and his contention that in fact the amendments broaden the definition,

I'd like first of all to attempt to show that they don't. And if the

member was making his statement in support of the bill, based on his

belief that the act indeed broadened the definition, I would hope that

the member, if I can convince him that that's not the case, would not

support this

section of the bill, because in my opinion it narrows.

When you're dealing with three sections, although they are linked —

in fact, inextricably linked.... I'll get to how that happened, too, in

terms of arbitration and the new powers that the minister wants to put

in, in terms of him becoming the person who decides whether or not a

matter under 76(

l) can proceed to arbitration. But dealing first with

the definition of tech change, the existing wording is in two parts, as

is the new; I'll read the old part first:

"(

a) the introduction by an employer of a change in

his work, undertaking or business, or a change in his equipment or

material from the equipment or material previously used by the employer

in his work, undertaking or business; or

"(

b) a change in the manner an employer carries on his

work, undertaking or business related to the introduction of that

equipment or material."

The new definition specifically narrows the question to the introduction of material or equipment:

"(

a) the introduction by an employer into his work, undertaking

or business of equipment or material of a different nature or kind than that

previously used by the employer in that work, undertaking or business...."

Now I get to the clause that the member for

Chilliwack cited in defence of his contention that the clause expands

the definition of tech change, and that's under (b). This is what he

said:

"...a change in the manner, method or procedure...."

Without reading on, he interpreted that to be an expansive definition. Well, read on:

"...in which the employer carries on his work,

undertaking or business that is related to the introduction of that

equipment or material."

Now I think it's fairly clear that the change being proposed is

narrower; it's more restrictive in terms of defining what technological

change is. My contention is that the Eurocan decision, which the

minister claims to know nothing about but which is an important

decision.... The board essentially decided that in the Eurocan pulp

mill, where they closed down the wood room and started to bring the

fibre in in the form of chips, that constituted a technological change.

Under the new definition, the council would not be able to draw that

interpretation.

[3:15]

That brings us over to the other sections that we're debating. Where

a matter is in dispute — that is, where there is a dispute about

technological change, including whether or not technological change has

taken place — that matter can be referred to an arbitration board. The

arbitration board has to look at the whole history of what other

arbitration boards have done in deciding those questions; it has to

look at the change in wording. Therefore that arbitration board has had

its scope narrowed in terms of dealing with whether or not

technological change has taken place.

Further, under

section 77 of the legislation, it used to read: "The

arbitration board under

section 76(

l) may recommend the minister

appoint a special officer under

Part 7 to resolve the matter, or, in

its sole discretion...." The arbitration board, in its sole discretion,

had the power to order that the parties commence collective bargaining

on an issue. That has been changed. The "sole discretion" of the

arbitration board has been removed and replaced with "with the written

consent of the minister." So we're no longer saying

[ Page 1663 ]

that an arbitration board, duly constituted under

the act and dealing with a matter of importance to the parties, that

used to have the power to simply order the parties to commence

collective bargaining.... That's been taken away from the arbitration

board. Now it requires the written consent of the minister.

I hope that I've been able to.... We haven't yet resolved the

question of the implementation or the opting out, if you like, of the

clause as it applies to current contracts. Certainly my feeling is that

when government introduces standards — for example, the employment

standards branch — in terms of minimum wages, minimum conditions,

holidays and all the rest of it, they should always be considered a

benchmark. I understand the government has even moved away from that,

and it seems to me that the resolve of that issue is that this be a

benchmark. In other words, if a company and a union have a clause that

is substandard to the clause that the minister is proposing, this

clause should apply, and if they have one that's superior, then their

own should apply. That seems to me a better way of working it out, but

I understand the government has moved away from that principle with

respect to the labour standards act and may not want to embrace it with

regard to this.

Anyway, I've tried to cover the ground; I've tried to show the

member for Chilliwack where I quite honestly feel.... And I think it's

irrefutable. The evidence that we have from other sources, who are

familiar with these matters and have dealt extensively in these

jurisdictions, specifically cites the Eurocan case as being the kind of

main reference that should be used in deciding whether or not the

changes are good or bad, or expansive or in fact narrowing. That

advice, to me, is that the proposal narrows the definition.

Therefore, given the weight of evidence that exists — and the member

may want to satisfy his own curiosity in that regard; he may want to

consult those references that I have cited — would he not agree, if the

intent of the proposed amendment is to narrow rather than broaden, and

he stood and defended it on the basis that it expanded, that it

broadened, that he would equally do well to stand in his place and

oppose it on the basis that it doesn't do what he thought it would?

MR. JANSEN: I thank the member opposite for his good

explanation, in one sense, in regard to

section 41. I guess the problem

that I have, and where this side of the House is somewhat different

from the general approach on the other side of the House, is one of

looking at things in a positive way. The member who spoke before — the

member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) — made a statement

that we have taken the power to negotiate agreements away from unions.

A statement like that reflects the general philosophy, unfortunately,

of the other side of the House. As a result, Mr. Chairman, they are

looking at these sections with coloured glasses that do not have the

words "positive thinking" inscribed in their context.

Mr. Chairman, I read

section 41(

b) in a far different manner than

the member who just spoke. I look at it from the context that

technological change.... If every member of this House were asked to

define what technological change is, I think we would get every member

providing a different definition. It's a difficult subject, and it's

one that we have to apply rational thinking to in order to derive a

good legislative proposal. Indeed, Bill 19 does that.

But

section 41(

b) talks about the introduction of that equipment or

material as being the instigating factor in looking at technological

change, and it talks also about "the manner, method or procedure....

related to the introduction of that equipment or material." I fail to

understand how, by looking at that section, one can have a different

perspective than to assume that technological change results, on the

basis of the introduction of equipment or material. That is the only

way, Mr. Chairman, that that particular change could happen in the

workplace.

To reiterate my position, I appreciate very much the different

viewpoint expressed by members of the opposite side, but certainly

recognize that my definition and the one shared by this side of the

House looks at

section 41(

b) in a constructive way, and recognizes that

from the employees' standpoint, this is indeed a good

section to have

in Bill 19.

MR. MILLER: We're slowly, slowly wading into this section; maybe we'll get to the other side and we'll all understand it a little better.

I want to cite for the member who talks about looking at the world

through glasses of one hue or another.... Of course, coming from Prince

Rupert, we tend to rely on the naked eye. We don't really have any use

for those sunscreens, whether they're rose-coloured or whatever. I want

to cite a reference from a firm that, I presume, looks at the world

through the same colour of glasses that the member does: the law firm

of Russell and DuMoulin, who I believe share your political views and

do have a bit more experience when it comes to dealing with the issue

at hand.

In an explanatory note.... I'll read it. "The provisions in the Code

dealing with technological change, sections 74 through 78, have been

extensively amended by sections 39 to 41 of Bill 19." It goes on at

some length:

"The definition of technological change in

section 78 of

the Code has been narrowed from that which previously existed, as interpreted

in Eurocan Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. and the Canadian Paperworkers' Union,

Local 398, 1983, 2 CLRBR , (NS) 292. A technological change no longer applies

to any introduction by an employer of a change in his work, undertaking or business,

and is now restricted to a change in the employer's work, undertaking or

business related to the introduction of equipment or material of a different

nature or kind than that previously used by the employer."

Mr. Member, that is an irrefutable reference, which says that you're wrong,

from a source that agrees with your politics 100 percent.

I again put the question: if you honestly stood up and supported

this on the basis that it was expansive.... Never mind the political

rhetoric about sunglasses, or anything else, or about being positive or

negative; I think we can throw that kind of rhetoric out of this

debate, since there was some reference earlier to this committee stage

being the place where we really get into the meat of the proposed

changes. Certainly on our side of the House we've tried to do that. I

suppose that any time you stand and question what is being proposed, it

may be fairly easy for some members on the opposite side to very

simplistically characterize that as negative. I choose to think that

we're doing our job; that we're honestly trying to dig out the true

intent, the impact and the implications of all of these changes. It's

for that reason that I'm reluctant to simply say that, well, you know,

people don't

[ Page 1664 ]

want to listen, and therefore I'm not going to put

any arguments. I'll continue to try to make the arguments. I think I've

made them again logically.

The reference that I've cited clearly backs me up: the proposed

change is narrowing. Why we want to narrow the opportunity to protect

workers in this province who are going to be displaced, or may be

displaced, by technological change I don't know. I've yet to hear a

plausible, logical explanation from any source on the other side as to

why we want to be more restrictive. I would be happy if someone would

stand up and say why they want to do it, other than that we have a

difference of opinion.

I'm prepared to sit and hopefully listen to some constructive

reasons on the other side. If indeed this committee stage serves any

purpose, and we're simply not sitting here protecting our political

biases, but we're prepared to engage in honest debate, I'd love to hear

it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm beginning to understand a little of the

frustration some of my colleagues have undergone in the last week. I

find it incredibly frustrating and a little aggravating, to say the

least, when we don't get responses to genuine questions, questions that

are at the basis of the whole meaning of these three clauses. In

addition to that, the Premier, who is out throughout the province

speaking to reporters and on radio and TV and stirring up trouble,

hasn't even got the decency to stay here and answer any questions

either.

I want to continue questioning the Labour minister on the issue of

the effect on existing technological-change contracts. This issue is

not a small issue. In particular it is certainly not a small issue to

the women of this province. What we have seen here in this province is

the trade union movement trying to deal with the impact of

technological change in the workforce, trying to learn about this new

wave of industrial activity, trying to understand its impact on an

international basis. I say that because technological change is not a

local, regional or provincial issue; this is an issue that is affecting

every place on this planet. All of the work that has gone on over this

long period of time to develop technological-change clauses in the

contracts, to negotiate them, to come to agreements, all of the work

that has been disrupted because, as the minister says, he acknowledges

that technological change has caused disruption in this province, is

going to be wiped out by

section 39, which specifically says that if in

those technological-change clauses they do not indicate that they are

superior, that they take precedence, that indeed Bill 19 — this clause

— will take precedence. What that means to the women of this province

is that technological change will now hit the service sector harder

than it has hit the industrial sector, by numbers alone, and we will

not have the benefit of all of that work that has gone on.

[3:30]

The only way we will reap the benefit of the work that the trade

union movement has undergone is if they, by some fluke under Bill 19,

can renegotiate and protect the clauses that they already have in

place. What I am saying to the minister is that Bill 19 makes it

impossible for them to do that. They no longer have the tools to do the

job. They no longer can go through that process that is necessary to

negotiate those clauses back again.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

So again, that will mean to the women in the service sector that

they're going to have to start at square one. They're going to have to

start not only at square one but with an increased handicap, because

they will not have the tools either. They will not be able

to fight the fight that their brothers fought in the industrial

unions.

I'd like to hear from the minister, because he has said that he

recognizes that technological change does have significant impact on

this province. I'd like to understand why it is that, number one, he's

wiping out all of the other negotiated clauses on technological change.

I'd like to understand why he chooses notice instead of severance

negotiations and training. For me, those issues make it incredibly

clear that on balance in this clause the minister is out there to help

create unemployment.

HON. L. HANSON: I do have some difficulty in understanding.

If there is an existing agreement that says, as an example, 120 days'

notice is required, that won't be struck out by this legislation in

terms of technological change. If there is an agreement in place, and

if you are referring to subsection (4), there is certainly nothing

wrong with a letter of understanding that in fact does specify that

this

section does not apply. I really fail to.... I just can't

visualize in my mind the dire predictions that you are making as a

result of this.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It was very difficult to hear the minister's

comments. Did the minister just say that he does not understand how I

can draw the conclusion that technological clauses will be wiped out?

That was the minister's point, was it? Was that what the minister said?

Yes? Okay. If I can draw the minister's attention to

section 39(4)(b).

There it says — I'll start with (4): "This

section does not apply to an

employer and a bargaining agent who are bound by a collective agreement

where the collective agreement contains provisions that" — and then on

to (b) — "specify that this

section does not apply, during the term of

the collective agreement, to the employer and the bargaining agent."

How is it possible that any negotiated technological-change clause

in this province could specify that? They never knew that this clause

in Bill 19 was coming? If they did not specify it, then, the way I read

this, it says that this

section of the act, this amendment, will

prevail; this

section will overrule existing clauses.

HON. L. HANSON: Well, I guess I confuse very easily, Mr.

Chairman. I think that if you are reading (4), it says: "This

section

does not apply to an employer" — does not apply to an employer — "and a

bargaining agent who are bound by a collective agreement where the

collective agreement contains provisions that (

a) are intended to

assist employees affected by technological change to adjust to the

effects of the technological change, and (

b) specify that this

section

does not apply, during the term of the collective agreement...." You

can't go right to (b), because they are conjunctive.

MR. SIHOTA: I am just trying to resolve this apparent lack of

communication, because there are certain other things that I want to

talk about. But as I read that section, I think the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley does have a point. Like I have said in the

past, I don't always have a monopoly on being right, nor do I expect

the minister does either on

[ Page 1665 ]

these matters. That is why I am always hopeful of amendments.

Subsections (4)(

a) and (

b) are linked together by the word "and,"

and therefore you must satisfy both (

a) and (

b) in order to work around

the legislation, if I can put it that way. Let's assume for the sake of

argument that there is no problem with (a); (

b) says that the

collective agreement must specify that

section 39 of this legislation

does not apply. What the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley is saying

is that it would have been impossible for anybody when they were

drafting up their collective agreement to contemplate that this

legislation would be coming before the House; therefore they would not

have been able to draft in a reference to

section 39 in order to

satisfy clause (4)(b), unless there is a saving provision elsewhere.

There may well be a saving provision. I guess really the question

is: is there or is there not a saving provision? If there isn't, then I

don't quite understand how it is that parties, during the course of

their negotiations, could have specified that

section 39 of this

legislation doesn't pass, because they would not have known that this

legislation and that

section were forthcoming. The real question is: is

there a saving clause in there? I must confess I just picked up the

point now from the member. I haven't had a chance to read sections 40

and 41 with this question in mind. Perhaps the minister could address

that issue and just tell us where there is a saving provision.

HON. L. HANSON: I think the answer to that is that a very simple memorandum of agreement would cover the issue, if the two parties agree.

MR. SIHOTA: I agree; that's the simple answer to the

question, in that the parties would have to sit down and agree between

themselves to draft an agreement to amend the agreement — or memo of

understanding. I agree with that. There is no doubt about that, so long

as the will is there on the part of both parties to do that.

But then, I think, the point just made by the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) technically stands, within the

language of the section. Until that type of a memorandum of agreement

was drafted, the technological change provisions in every collective

agreement would be void. Does the minister agree that technically the

member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley is quite correct in making that

point? If she is, then I want to deal with the question of the

memorandum of agreement and whether or not one could rationally expect

the parties to draft it in light of the fact that this may tilt the

balance. But I'll leave it at that, I think, for the benefit of the

member, because I don't want to step in and take away the point that

she was making. Would the minister agree that technically she is quite

correct, in that it would void every agreement until such time as a

separate memorandum of agreement was executed — or a contract?

HON. L. HANSON: No, I don't agree that technically she is

correct. What I have difficulty understanding is what the problem

really is as between an existing agreement and the

section 39

provision. If I had some example.... Are you suggesting there are

clauses that are so much better than this that they wouldn't be

accepted? I think that they are covered by this.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think that the point has been made, and I'm

going to take it that the minister has agreed that, indeed, I was

correct technically, that this could be the situation, because the last

response the minister gave was that he couldn't understand how a

contract out there might be better than this one, and therefore he

didn't understand where there could be a problem.

MR. R. FRASER: That's not what he said.

MS. SMALLWOOD: That most certainly is what he said. I think

the point is. whether it is better or not, that the government, by its

actions here, is wiping out all the technological change contracts,

Even if we're talking about a memorandum of agreement here, they're

still in a situation influenced by Bill 19, whereby the balance of

power has changed significantly. Standing here, I cannot understand why

any employer in this province would negotiate in good faith.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess I want to just drive this point home,

just to add to what the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley just said.

I don't think there could possibly be any dispute, in light of the

language and the answer the minister has given, that, technically

speaking, every agreement is void, because it may satisfy (4) and

(4)(

a) but it won't satisfy (4)(

b) until, as the minister says — and

unless, as I say — a memorandum of agreement is executed.

But that, then, raises the next question. Why would someone who

benefits from this legislative....? If I'm wrong — and I see people

over there nodding as if I'm wrong — could someone please explain to me

where I am wrong in that

interpretation? Is it not correct that

technically every agreement would be void because there is no way they

could have specified that this

section does not apply? Perhaps the

minister could explain where it is that we're wrong. As I said, there

may be a saving provision, and I confessed earlier on that I hadn't

gone through sections 39, 40 and 41 with a mind to address this issue;

but technically I can't see how anybody could specify that this

section

39 does not apply, because they would not have known it existed.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R.

Fraser) — who is not in his seat — is quite correct in saying that it

doesn't apply, in that subsection (4)(

b) does not apply; therefore

section 39, the language in here, does apply. The problem that

raises.... If I were party to an agreement — without saying if I was an

employer or an employee; the member for Vancouver South should know

that I have played both roles — and I stood to benefit from this

section 39, I'm not too sure I'd want to sign that memorandum of

agreement, which the minister says is necessary to breathe life into

clause 39(b).

I see everybody nodding as if I and the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley are wrong, and perhaps they could point out

where it is. I see the minister's advisers are underlining sections for

him, so I'll try to find the same ones. Would the minister please tell

us where it is that one gets around that? I think a simple saving

clause would do.

Is the minister not prepared to answer that? Or is he simply agreeing that we're right?

[3:45]

[ Page 1666 ]

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we can sit here and argue this

for the next two days on that technical point. My advisers tell me that

that isn't true. You tell me that it is true. I believe that it's a

non-issue, and that the jurisprudence of the board will deal with

situations like that in a fair and reasonable manner, looking at the

intent of the section.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to point out to the minister what a

non-issue this is. The minister earlier told us that the reason he has

deleted issues of training and severance pay is because the government

shouldn't be involved in this, but that the employer and the union

should negotiate those issues, and that he had all the confidence in

the two bodies that they would do this. If the minister has wiped out

all of the technological-change clauses that now exist in this

province, he has wiped out any provisions for training, any provisions

for severance pay, and I'm sure the list is much longer than what is

right before us now.

MR. LOVICK: It seems, Mr. Chairman, that the minister chooses

to take a vow of silence on occasion, and perhaps for the reason that

he finds our language inflammatory, or some such thing. So let me try

this in a lower-key way. Will the minister agree with us that the only

way that people who have existing tech-change contracts and benefits in

those tech-change contracts freely negotiated with their employers can

have those things preserved intact is by signing a new memorandum of

agreement or a contract, because of clause (4)(b)? Will he agree with

that conclusion?

Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm detecting the minister is saying no, we are

in error. Well, that's the fundamental point, Mr. Chairman, because we

are suggesting we are not in error. We are simply reading plain

(

a) is a word that says "and," and the word "and" says that all

contracts must indeed specify that this

section does not apply during

the term of.... Wait a second. Have I got the right spot?

AN HON. MEMBER: (4)(b).

MR. LOVICK: Yes, (4)(b): "...does not apply, during the term

of the collective agreement, to the employer and the bargaining agent."

Again, this

section does not now exist in all those contracts. How then

can it be otherwise than to say that every contract that has a

tech-change agreement has to get a memorandum of agreement to accept

the wording and the legislation of the new law? Logically it can't be

otherwise. And you may choose to call that a technicality, Mr.

Minister, but I assure you that my colleagues and I are going to

continue to pose that question, or a variant of it, until we get an

answer, because clearly this does precisely what my colleague the

member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has called "wiping out" all those

other tech-change agreements. Now that may be language that offends the

minister, but the reality is that none of those contracts have any

impact or force in law, given (4)(b), and unless and until we can have

a very clear description that we are in error and that somehow we lack

here and continue to make that point.

I hope I have explained the concern that we have, and I hope the minister will indeed respond to that concern.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister knows that I and several others on

this side of the House, and on that side of the House, have gone

through this debate right from the beginning, and I think today is sort

of indicative of what often occurs. We saw this morning a number of

sections go through fairly quickly, and I think that things were fairly

cool. They were probably kind of hot yesterday when we wrapped up at 6

o'clock. Thankfully we don't have night sittings, because I think

things would just get hotter. But we took a break yesterday, everything

cooled down, we started off this morning and we started to work through

various sections, and I think it's fair to say that we managed to work

through those sections fairly quickly. Toward the end of the morning we

got on to this

section and, as the debate in this

section has gone on

since 11 o'clock this morning, things have got hotter and hotter and

we're once again following the same pattern that we seemed to be

following every other day, that by 6 o'clock things are fairly hot in

here.

I think both of us agree that that's not necessarily the way it

should be. And I think both of us agree that I'm perhaps the worst

person to be standing up and saying that, because I've been known more

than once to show my frustration on these sections. But again, if you

want to talk about the psychology of this debate, we're just going

through again that very process. The reason why things get somewhat

ill-tempered in here, and the reason why people get a little

frustrated.... I really want to emphasize the point that our leader was

making a little earlier on during question period about trying to

change the tone of debate in this Legislature.

I don't think it's any threat to the minister to admit that yes,

technically there appears to be an error here. I don't think that the

whole government is going to fall on an acknowledgment that perhaps

there's been an error here. I don't think anybody looks at it that way.

But when someone is in the middle of making a point, as the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley was about 25 or 30 minutes ago when we went

off on this tangent, and the making of that point is interrupted by a

disagreement over an assumption, in this case whether or not all

technological-change clauses are deemed to be void by the wording of

this section, and when that assumption is called into question, she

tried to explain how it was that she arrived at that conclusion.

I don't necessarily need to defend the member, and please don't

interpret my comments that way. But the point was that we then try to

explain how it was that that assumption was arrived at. That assumption

was arrived at by simply reading the

section in a commonsense way and

then asking the minister whether that

interpretation was correct or

not. When we started the debate on this, and when I first entered it, I

made the point that I acknowledged that I don't always have the

monopoly on being right all the time, nor does the minister. I'm sure

that's going to surprise our learned House Leader, who is now in shock

after hearing that comment.

All we're asking is that the minister acknowledge that yes, in this

case, the opposition has a point; that if you read this section, it

renders every technological-change clause void, because it cannot

possibly.... If I was an employer last year, representing my law

office, and I entered into a collective agreement with my employees,

and we had a tech-change clause in there, there's no way that I would

have known that this bill was going to be introduced and this

section

was going to be here. If I had a crystal ball that was exact enough to

predict the government was going to bring down Bill 19, it certainly

would not have been precise enough to say that

section 39 would have

existed in this language, nor would it have been precise enough to say

that "pursuant to

[ Page 1667 ]

subsection (4)(

b) of

section 39, the employer and

the employee herewith agree that the said

section does not apply." We

would not have contemplated that type of section. In light of the fact

that we would not have contemplated it, then clearly, given the wording

of this section, this

section would not have applied. Therefore we

would have been caught by the language of the act, as opposed to the

language of our collective agreement that we negotiated.

Like I said, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley surely doesn't

need to be defended by me, and I'm not trying to do that. But I think

she was in the middle of making a point. Her assumption was called into

question, and all we're asking is that the minister acknowledge that.

It's not the kind of point that's going to bring down the government,

but it will certainly bring down the temperature in here. If the

minister will just acknowledge yes, we are wrong in our

interpretation

of it; or alternatively, if he could point to a savings clause, which

proves that the

interpretation we're putting forward is incorrect. But

if it isn't, will the minister agree that given the way in which this

section is worded, that it is impossible for any collective agreement

to have contemplated this

section and hence, every collective agreement

that has a tech-change clause in it is rendered void because of the

wording of this section.

The answer to that is that either the government amend the

legislation to say that all tech-change clauses in force at the time of

the passing of this legislation stand and are not affected by this

legislation until such time as a new agreement is drafted, or it can

say "until such time that the parties sign a memorandum of agreement

pursuant to this act." All we're asking for is just to cool down the

temperature in here a bit and to get on with the debate so we don't

spend another two and a half hours on this. It's just an agreement from

the minister that the assumption that was being made here was quite

correct, and if not, could he explain kindly where it is that the

legislation proves out that we're wrong? I don't think that's a

complicated matter. I don't think the first member for Vancouver South

has to answer it; we're looking to the minister for some direction on

that. We don't need a commercial break yet. Let's get this thing solved

and then the minister can go for a.... Well, I'll leave it at that.

MR. R. FRASER: I choose to enter the debate at this point,

thank you very much. And I don't agree with your

interpretation of the

act at all. If you have a

section that.... First of all, I think you

answered your own question. Unless you had a crystal ball and perceived

it to be coming down in this exact form, then you wouldn't have written

it in. Unless you want to talk about double negatives, and all that

sort of thing.... You said the clause does not apply unless you’ve

written something that says it does not apply, and if you didn't write

it in that it does not apply, then it does apply. You're looking at it

from the wrong side.

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: If you have written in that it does not apply,

which you couldn't have done, then it does. So you looked at it from

the wrong side of the coin. You could say anything you like in the

first half of it, but you have to say it does not apply, and unless you

knew it was going to be there, you couldn't have made the argument.

Therefore you've defeated your own argument with your own discussion.

MR. SIHOTA: Will the minister answer the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. L. HANSON: You weren't even going to give me an opportunity, eh?

I've listened to the very reasoned debate and the temperature hasn't

got out of hand, I don't think. Certainly it hasn't from my point of

view. You know, their suggestions that this provision will void

agreements covering opportunities for retraining or severance and so

on.... I don't agree that it does.

Section 39, which amends 74,

provides at that subsection (4) level that the

section does not apply

where there is a collective agreement that contains two provisions: an

agreement with a provision to assist employees affected by

technological change; and an agreement that specifies the

section does

not apply. Therefore the clause relates to future bargaining, not

existing collective agreements, because it's only future agreements

that can reference the bill and exempt the employer and union from the

section.

The current clauses in collective agreements are not invalidated.

There is no provision in the bill that alienates the many

technological-change clauses that are now in effect. A memorandum of

understanding, as I mentioned earlier, can be negotiated at any time to

add to or modify a collective agreement respecting any issue, including

technological change. So I don't think that the blank statement that is

given that it voids those clauses is true, and I think it will be

proven in the application of the bill.

[4:00]

MR. GABELMANN: I thought I detected in that answer an

agreement with some of the points that are being made on this side — at

least a partial agreement, if not a full agreement. I'm not sure I

connected all the words clearly enough in my head in terms of listening

to what the minister just said, but it seems to me he agreed, in

effect. that unless the memorandum of agreement is signed or a

collective agreement is rewritten that specifies that this

section does

not apply, then this

section does apply. If he didn't say that....

Let me just stop there, before we proceed. (4)(b): "This

section does not apply" —

and you need to skip words when you read these kind of things — "where

the collective agreement contains provisions that are intended to

assist...and specify that this

section does not apply...." Therefore,

failing that wording — and every collective agreement in British

Columbia today fails that wording. No one has that wording, because

this

section didn't exist. So no collective agreement in British

Columbia today has a specification contained within it that this

section does not apply. Therefore this

section does apply. Right? And

if this

section applies, it supersedes the collective agreement. I

wonder if the minister would agree with that so far.

HON. L. HANSON: No, I can't. I think the clause relates to future bargaining, not existing collective agreements, and....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does it say that?

HON. L. HANSON: Well, it's because only future agreements can reference the bill.

[ Page 1668 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Well, we agree now. We agree about something.

We agree that no collective agreement in British Columbia has this

(4)(

b) reference in it. It's obvious, but it seems we now agree,

because they can't: it never existed.

If there is no specification that the

section does not apply, would the minister agree that it does apply?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN:

Section 74 of the new act will apply if there is no specification that it does not apply, right?

MR. LOVICK: We're all struggling here, as is obvious,

wondering who ought to pursue this line of questioning. Again, I'm not

sure the temperature is rising, but certainly there is some frustration

manifest. Will the minister answer this question: do he and his

advisers see a change in wording, then, to (a), where we separate the

two clauses not by the word "and" but by the word "or"? Does that

change the intent of this section?

HON. L. HANSON: We can't accept that.

MR. LOVICK: All right, but you are not prepared, however, to

go along with what we tell you: namely, that it is precisely that word

that makes us draw the conclusion that, yes, indeed, this will have the

effect of — to use someone else's terminology — wiping out all existing

tech-change agreements. If that is not the intention, if you are trying

to suggest that what we are telling you is not the case, then why will

you not accept that simple change? What is wrong with that change? How

does it otherwise interfere with and detract from the intention of your

legislation?

HON. L. HANSON: You know, I still don't accept the fact that

it does negate those agreements. Very clearly to me, it relates to the

future bargaining, not to the existing collective agreements.

MR. LOVICK: Okay, but separate the two then.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Sometimes I think in all of this.... Certainly

it was my misgiving, when entering into this debate as a layperson, as

a person that's not a specialist in labour relations, as a person that

hasn't been involved with either the old Labour Code or the

negotiations process that goes on in this province; nor am I a lawyer,

nor am I a specialist in labour law.... But when it comes down to

reading black and white, I can read black and white just as well as

anyone. I think that what we have to do is recognize that when we are

making laws in this House, it is incumbent upon us to make those laws

as clear as possible and in such a way that any layperson reading them

can understand the intent.

I read this section, and word for word — and it has been read time

and time again — there is only one

interpretation. My colleague asked

you if you would consider there would be any difference in replacing

"and" with "or," and you said you could not accept that amendment. What

you are doing by saying that is saying that that would substantially

change the intent of this section.

Therefore I can only deduce that you are agreeing that this

subsection (

b) says that for a clause in a contract to stand on

technological change, it must specify that it takes precedence, If it

doesn't specify, it does not. Therefore — and I challenge anyone in

this House to read these words and come out with any other

interpretation — we are in a situation where every technological-change

clause in B.C. has just been wiped out.

So I want to point out again and bring this back home, that what in

essence has happened here is that the trade union movement, through the

industrial unions in this province, has negotiated language into the

contracts to deal with issues such as severance, training and

contracting out, as they apply to technological change. All of those

things have to be renegotiated. Again, I point out that the next sector

in this province on the line on the issue of technological change is

the service sector, and the majority of people in the service sector

are women.

So it's really interesting, and I think that part of what is

important here is to name the people that we're dealing with, to put

into perspective what is really happening with this act. Again, we

implore you: if you are saying that this only pertains to future

negotiations, then put that down in black and white. Amend this

section

and spell it out. I don't believe it's going to be very much help to

those people who have yet to negotiate tech-change clauses, but at

least it allows the technological-change clauses to stand in contracts

that exist now. If you truly believe that that's the situation, then

that's certainly the challenge to you.

Will the minister respond? Will the minister amend this clause to spell out that it only pertains to future negotiations?

HON. L. HANSON : No, I will not, because as I said

earlier, it does relate to future.... We're only talking about the

notice provision; we're not talking about 40 and 41 as it relates to

that.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't agree with the minister when he says that

subsection (4) applies only to notice. If that was the case, then

subsection (4) would not have read "this section." It would have had

language to the effect that subsection (2) does not apply. Here we are

getting into legal drafting. I know he's got experts who are far more

skilled at it than I am — or should be.

Subsection (4) says,"This

section does not apply." It does not say

that subsection (2), which is the notice section, shall not apply. You must

read it with the

section in mind, not just subsection (2). Therefore it goes

back to

section 74(l), which talks about: "A collective agreement entered

after this Act" — which I take it would mean the Labour Code that is already

in force — "comes into force shall contain provisions for final and conclusive

settlement without stoppage of work, by arbitration or another method agreed

to by the parties, of all disputes relating to adjustment to technological change."

Therefore, if you have an agreement to defer all disputes relating to technological

change — as it's defined by arbitration — then this

section will not apply

if you've got another way of dealing with it pursuant to subsection (4).

That's the only possible reading. I agree with the minister, because the

first thought I had was, maybe this is a minor point because it only relates

back to notice. But as you think about it — and I would hope the minister agrees

with me here — it doesn't relate back to notice. If it only related back

to notice, it would have said that subsection (2) does not apply; but it says:

[ Page 1669 ]

"This

section does not apply." So that means subsections (1), (2) and (3). I think the minister will see that.

I want the minister to listen to this, and I don't mean that in a

derogatory way: by trying to defend what I think is a

section that

should not be defended — or cannot be defended — the minister has now

raised another issue. The minister says that the legislation that's

before us, as it pertains to

section 39, will apply only to future

agreements, not to current agreements. So the obvious question to the

minister, if he's listening, is this: is he saying that the act, this

Bill 19, will not apply to existing agreements; that it will only

apply to future agreements? Would he care to explain how that

interpretation applies only to

section 39 but not to all of the other

provisions? Could the minister tell us whether he has now taken the

quantum leap and is telling us that this act, if it's passed, will

apply only to future agreements and not existing ones? Is that the

minister's argument?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The member from Vancouver South is telling me to

read it tonight. Nobody could read it with the type of contorted logic

that the member tried to apply to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was probably written by a lawyer.

MR. SIHOTA: He's right: it probably was written by a lawyer. As a lawyer, I can tell you there's only one way it reads.

Again to the minister, given the fact that he's already said with

respect to this

section that this

section only applies to future

agreements, not current ones, is the minister saying that all the other

provisions of this act will apply only to future agreements, not to

current ones?

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Is that what the minister is saying? Yes? The minister wants me to repeat it. I'll repeat it.

The minister has said that the way in which he interprets this

section is that it applies only to future agreements, not to existing

agreements. That was the explanation the minister gave. Having said

that, is the minister then saying that the entire act — all of Bill 19

— applies only to future agreements, not to current agreements? If not,

could he explain why he would apply that

interpretation in the case of

section 39 and not with respect to all other sections? So if one wants

to take the logic of what the minister is saying, it seems to me that

the only conclusion of that is that Bill 19 will only apply to future

agreements. Is that the conclusion the minister is drawing?

HON. L. HANSON: No, that's absolutely not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that the reference here that specifies that this

section

does not apply is a very specific reference to this

section and that

because it would be impossible to have that wording in agreements prior

to this section, it refers to future agreements. That's very logical.

MR. SIHOTA: It doesn't say that, Mr. Minister. It doesn't say

that within the act, and it doesn't say that within the section. What

you're saying is you're hoping the Industrial Relations Council will

come to that conclusion. There's one very easy way for you to get them

to arrive at that conclusion, and that is to acknowledge that the word

"and" ought to be replaced with the word "or" and that the point that's

being made here on this side of the House is quite valid. If you admit

that, then we'll get on with the debate.

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like the leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN: We have a large group visiting us today, Mr.

Chairman, from the Fraserview Elementary School in Mission. There are

two teachers, Mr. Ray Jung and Mr. Frank Dunham. There are 49 students

and 15 adults with them. Would you please give them a warm welcome.

MR. LOVICK: I'm frankly devastated, Mr. Chairman, to discover

that the minister is not going to respond to any of those questions,

though they've been variously cast by a number of different people on a

rather protracted and continuous basis for the last hour. I think

that's sad, especially because of the fact that yesterday, to his

everlasting credit, what the minister did was acknowledge that the

points we were making on this side of the House were indeed valid and

took them away with a view to rewriting two clauses. What we're

suggesting here is precisely the same kind of thing. The predicament is

language, apparently. We're suggesting that the minister can indeed

solve this problem by simply giving us direct and specific assurances

that the intention of this particular bill — this particular section;

namely,

section 39 — is not to do away with existing tech-change

agreements that have been freely and fairly negotiated. However, when

we ask for the simple reassurance of that — and I tried to pose the

question by focusing on just one word — we get what I can only call

"stonewalling" as a response.

Let me try it once again. The predicament we're drawing the

minister's attention to is that those two clauses — namely, (4)(

a) and

(4)(b) — very clearly refer to two different time-frames. Clause (

a) refers to agreements that have already been negotiated — existing

provisions. Those are things of the past, they're done. Clause (b), on

the other hand, can of necessity refer only to future considerations,

simply because it deals specifically with Bill 19, which does not yet

have the force of law, until such time as it is indeed passed through

this Legislature.

We're suggesting that to yoke those two together, to put the past

and the future together, has the effect, then, of making them one, and

has the effect, then, of imposing the future consideration on what used

to be the past and what used to be accepted as given and safe in the

past but is now in jeopardy simply because of being yoked to the

provision of Bill 19.

We're saying that the remedy to that particular predicament is to

simply provide us with assurances that that is not the case and that

there is no intention to yoke the two together. The remedy I suggested

was to simply replace the word "and" with the word "or." Unfortunately,

when I posed that question the minister seemed to respond by saying

that that would not be compatible with the intent of the bill. We

therefore conclude — I think quite fairly, Mr. Chairman — that

obviously the intent of the bill is precisely what my colleague the

member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms.

[ Page 1670 ]

Smallwood) has been saying: namely, to do away with existing tech-change provisions.

I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that we're restating the same question,

but I think we have an obligation to continue to restate that question

until we get some kind of answer. The only solution, the only other

measure that suggests itself to me, if we can't get an answer to that,

is for me to regale and entertain this House with at least a half-hour

speech, which I'm quite prepared to do but would rather not. I'd much

rather have an answer to the question.

There is a consultation in motion. Yes, it seems indeed that the

minister wants some time to see what's happening in terms of his

consultation. Let me just suggest, then, that the reason — and I think

it's worth making the point for the record — that we are as concerned

about tech change as we are is that it is precisely that area that puts

the most pressure on the nature of our economy and on the lives of men

and women working in that economy. If there is any single threat to the

continued livelihood and sense of security of people in this province,

it is surely technological change. Of course, we can all argue the old

story that ever since, to use a line from a poem, the first flint was

flaked — which means, of course, ever since we discovered fire and what

technology is — the problem has been a-building. The trouble is that

tech change is now advancing at an accelerating rate and,

understandably, every worker is therefore concerned about what that

means to him or her.

Specifically, the reason workers in this province will be concerned

about this clause is that every economic forecast that's been written

in the last ten years or more has stated very clearly that the new

economy, the post-industrial economy — whatever we choose to call it —

will be preeminently concerned with the service sector. The area most

directly impacted by tech change is — surprise, surprise — the service

sector. The result, therefore, is that this issue is charged with some

emotion and with some stakes, if you like, that are perceived to be

high enough that individuals are prepared to go to the wall to defend

what they perceive to be their legitimate interests. Therefore I can

with some confidence offer the case that we feel strongly about this

issue, that it is important, and that it's not merely a technical

matter.

But I see I'm preempting the time of my colleague, the member for

Prince Rupert, who also wants to add something to this, so I shall

defer.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of

debate over what in the total scheme of the bill itself is a relatively

minor matter, and I suppose the solution lies in two directions. The

minister could direct that companies and unions that have a clause in

their collective agreement respecting this matter should reopen that

contract and negotiate a memorandum of understanding with respect to

the legislation. Or perhaps an easier solution would be that the same

clause that's used in the Employment Standards Act be applied to the

application of this clause. The Employment Standards Act, as the

minister must be aware, simply states that where a collective agreement

contains a clause with respect to a certain matter, the clause in the

Employment Standards Act covering the same ground doesn't apply, and,

conversely, where a contract between an employer and a trade union does

not contain a provision respecting a certain matter that's contained in

the Employment Standards Act, then it does apply. That would cover

every situation — the simple application of

section 2 of the Employment

Standards Act in terms of its applicability to situations where

contracts already exist. I don't know if the minister has anything

worked out over there, but I'll take a chance and sit down.

Well, I'll just read some of the wording or cite some of the

examples from the Employment Standards Act to back up my contention.

That would probably be the easiest way to resolve this little impasse

and allow us to get on to some other sections of the bill.

First of all,

section 2(

l) reads: "Subject to subsection (2), a

requirement of or made under this Act is a minimum requirement, and an

agreement to waive such a requirement, not being an agreement referred

to in subsection (2), is void."

Then under 2(2): "Where a collective agreement contains any

provision respecting a matter set out in Column I of the following

table, the Part of this Act set out opposite that matter in Column 2

does not apply in respect of employment pursuant to that collective

agreement."

In the table that's laid out under subsection (2), under column 1

the matters are listed: for example, hours of work or overtime; annual

vacation or vacation pay; termination of employment or layoff; and

maternity or pregnancy leave. Under column 2 are defined the various

sections of the Employment Standards Act that do not apply where in

fact they are covered by a collective agreement.

Surely that's a device that's used to allow existing contracts to be

maintained, at the same time as the minister is proposing to amend the

current provisions of the Labour Code that apply to situations where

contracts do not exist. Now if the minister is prepared to respond to

that, I'll take my place, but it seems to me a relatively

straightforward way of resolving that.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I want to summarize, just as a result of some conversations not recorded by Hansard ,

what I now think the

section probably means, to see whether the

minister would agree. Then we can perhaps move on. But before I do,

just a small digression. If we were in a standing committee or a

parliamentary committee, we could quiz directly, on the record,

professionals, legal advisers, deputies and others who would be able to

assist us, and in that case may possibly have saved ourselves a couple

of hours of debate — just an illustration of why another process is

more useful in a complicated bill.

I want, if I can — I haven't had time to make notes on this, but

just off the top of my head — to clarify what I think we're talking

about here. If collective agreements contain provisions relating to

technological change in terms of notice and other provisions, when this

act comes into force and this

section is proclaimed, both the

section

and the collective agreement will be in force and the minimum required

by one or the other is what prevails. In other words, if for example —

and this is an example that we chatted about — the collective agreement

calls for 120 days' notice and the act calls for 90 days' notice, then

the collective agreement prevails and 120 days' notice is required —

with that particular provision.

[4:30]

So if there is conflict — and I'm going to say this carefully

because I'm not absolutely certain about this — between the collective

agreement provisions and the statute in

section 74, then the minimum

requirement is the one that is superior.

MR. MILLER: The superior requirement.

[ Page 1671 ]

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sorry, you're right. The superior requirement is the one that's required.

So in some instances the law might supersede the collective

agreement in this respect, and in some instances the collective

agreement might supersede the law. I think that's what we understand

about this. I guess what we would like is an assurance from the

minister, in his own words, that that's in fact what is intended, so if

there's ever any debate in the future about this, we can have clear

from the minister.... We may have had it clear over the last few hours,

but let's do it again, if you have done it: a clear statement from the

minister as to what his understanding of this

section is. To summarize,

I believe now that it does not wipe out or void a collective agreement

provision. Subsequently, if a collective agreement does contain a

specification, as outlined in (4)(b), then the statute no longer

applies; but in the meantime, both the statute and the collective

agreement apply.

HON. L. HANSON: I thank you for that very lucid

summary.

Certainly it was never the intention of the legislation to void any

collective agreements. I concur wholeheartedly with your summation, in

that the minimum requirement is the.... Or at least, I should say,

whichever is the maximum in an existing collective agreement.... If it

is greater than the requirement here, it certainly would take force and

still be in effect.

MR. LOVICK: Believe me, I want to do nothing to jeopardize

the accord. All right? I am a little concerned, however, about what I

could call the rather indeterminate quality of language we're talking

about. When we talk about a superior agreement, or a longer agreement,

or whatever, I don't have any difficulty with that, if we're talking

about something like a measurable amount: the number of days' notice,

or some such thing. I'm sure the minister would agree that's

straightforward.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Can we assume that that principle of the superior agreement,

however, also extends to things such as those items earlier referred to

by my colleague from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley; for instance, things

like severance packages, training provisions — in other words, benefits

that workers may well have negotiated in a given collective agreement

to improve their condition in the event of being laid off as a result

of tech change? Is that principle also extendable into those areas,

assuming particular collective agreements that deal specifically with

those kinds of matters? The minister is nodding assent, and therefore

we can conclude that that general principle of the superior of the

agreements will obtain. Okay. Thank you.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to also add my words of thanks for

the clarification, but at the same time assure the minister that I

still oppose this

section and the bill in its entirety.

Let me also go back to a definition of tech change. We have

established, I believe, that the definition of tech change has been

narrowed. Again, I want to frame my comments in what I understand to be

the reality that we're facing for the future: that while tech change in

its early introduction in this province, and just about anywhere else

that you look, has affected the industrial sector, it has done the next

step from automating. It has put in place computers that have totally

replaced jobs. Again, I would remind the minister that we're looking at

over 3,000 previous employees in the forestry industry alone who are

now unemployed and who will never get their jobs back, because their

jobs don't exist.

I want to remind the minister that what we're talking about here is

that this government, through its throne speech and the budget, talked

about the new sector in our economy that would provide jobs being the

service sector. What we are seeing is that the service sector is the

next to undergo significant technological change, and what we're

talking about here is the information age. We're talking about the need

for a broad definition of technological change. While the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) talked about contracting out and how it will

affect the production of chips and that broad issue, what we're talking

about with contracting out in the information age is that all of the

services in this province can ultimately be dealt with from a city like

New York, for instance; all of the information services can be dealt

with completely outside of this province. That is the reality of the

technology that we're dealing with. When we're talking about

contracting out, when we're dealing with the service sector and talking

about data centres, for instance, in banks, we are just a generation

away from being able to lay off everyone in those data centres and run

it solely from head office, even if the head office isn't here in B.C.

So if the minister can't understand that we need a broad definition

of tech change that would take into consideration differences in the

way work is organized in contracting-out issues, then I think we're in

real trouble. I'd like the minister to comment on the definition of

tech change and allow us to get back into that debate.

HON. L. HANSON: I understand the concern of the member

opposite, but I have some difficulty in accepting under the terminology

or the heading of tech change the contracting-out concept. As I said

earlier, it was interesting that in all of the various discussions we

had with labour interests, tech change was never even mentioned in the

sense of contracting out.

As we said earlier, consolidation is difficult to relate to the

terminology of tech change. Most collective agreements have some

arrangements in them for retraining or replacement or moving expenses

or whatever, if it's a simple consolidation. But if consolidation comes

about as a result of tech change, the Industrial Relations Council will

certainly see that and see the requirement in their determination of

what is tech change.

I do accept your concern respecting technological change in the

industrial age. But technology in information systems is an issue far

beyond Bill 19. Our definition will be satisfactory, we believe. If we

need a different one in the future we will change it; so will all other

jurisdictions. I do understand your concern, and I do accept it. In

terms of definition of technological change, there is a little....

I don't think the gathering together that you were concerned about

can be interpreted as technological change unless it is related to a

change in equipment or technological change. We have to recognize that

as the years go by and organizations change and requirements change and

so on, sometimes there is a requirement for consolidation that doesn't

have anything to do with technological change. I think that's the

difference. But I do respect your concern.

[ Page 1672 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Because the issue we're dealing with here is

technological change, because indeed what we're dealing with is the

change of systems, of the way work is organized.... These are the

minister's own words I'm using. We're dealing with the hardware and the

software; we're dealing with new technologies.

Let me just sort of walk through this process. What we saw in the

Industrial Revolution was a whole reorganization of work. We saw that

the fundamental way people did work changed. We saw people on assembly

lines rather than working in their homes or in workshops. What we're

seeing now with technological change is another whole reorganization of

work.

It's the difference of whether we need telephone operators out in

Pouce Coupe answering the phone and knowing everybody in the community.

When somebody phones up and wants to speak to Jake, the telephone

operator knows where to get Jake. What we're seeing is a gradual,

generational change in technology, and that gradual change that I talk

about has been speeded up significantly. We have seen more changes in

the last five years than we saw in 50 years during the Industrial

Revolution.

When the minister says that he thinks this definition deals with

technology in a broad enough way, he does not recognize that technology

is much bigger than that. What it deals with is the ability.... Because

of the technology, because of the on-line information services now

available, we can take a whole bank of data.... The information stored

there is beyond conception. It used to take rooms, buildings, to deal

with all of that information. Now they can enter it into a computer

that takes up no more space than our own clothes closet. The

generations of technology are changing so rapidly that we no longer

need to place those facilities around the province. We now have the

technological capability of having one of those systems to deal not

only with this whole room of information, but indeed all of the

information in the province — for banking. That is technological

change. It is because we now have a new generation of technology that

has the ability to deal with all of that information. I have taken.

that one step further, to suggest that soon it will not just be a

matter of a piece of technology being able to deal with all of the

information services in a province for a company, but indeed the next

generation is such that it could be centralized further to a facility

maybe in Ontario, maybe in New York.

Clearly those are technological changes. By restricting the

definition of technology and not giving the working people of this

province the tools necessary to deal with these significant changes,

the minister, with this act, is allowing corporations to continue to

make a profit, while increasing the burden on the people of this

province who are privileged enough to still have a job and increasing

the burden of growing numbers of unemployed people.

[4:45]

The minister must recognize that by simply defining technological

change he in no way takes into consideration what is on the

drawing-boards in the service sector, the major employment sector in

our society, according to the minister and his own government. If the

minister would like to make a comment on the definition, I still don't

have clear, quite frankly, what we are talking about. When we began to

canvass this particular section, the minister was prepared to talk

about software, systems organization and the way that work is

organized. He seems to have backed up from that position, so perhaps

the minister could restate the definition for us at this time.

HON. L. HANSON: I understand the concerns of the member who

just spoke. I don't have any difficulty in understanding those

concerns, and I think that those concerns are very well dealt with in

the definition of technological change. I think that tech change is

something we have to view as a challenge rather than a threat. There is

no question that over the long haul tech change is coming on us very

rapidly. Tech change will eventually, over a longer period of time,

create more employment opportunities as we get further into it. The

definition as it is laid out in the act is very clear. The member

opposite was dealing with the computer and its ability to put together

information related to a banking system or something, and suggesting

that that was done manually before. There is no question in my mind

that that is a technological change; I agree 100 percent with her. But

I think it is very well defined in the act.

I realize it's an area that we are going to see more of. Every time

somebody invents something new, that new item allows them to invent

something new as a result. So I understand it's coming on us very

quickly, and it's been shown to us in a number of ways, but that

doesn't.... The description of technological change in the act really

does define it very adequately.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before anything more is said,

the Chair feels the definition of technology has been fairly well

canvassed over the last few hours. I'd also like to remind the members

about relevancy — not wanting to stifle debate, but if we could just

keep it in mind.

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think that the comment was an unfortunate comment. In a way what it does is underscore the importance of this issue.

While the minister has said that he understands the concern that I

have outlined, at the same time he has said that it is necessary to

limit the definition — that the previous definition was too broad. The

points I was making were to clarify that what we need is a broader

definition, not a narrower definition, and that what we're up against

here is a situation.... The minister and other members have made

comments that technological change is an opportunity we should embrace.

Let me assure the minister that indeed I do embrace the technological

changes. The technologies that have been made available to all of us