1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, No. 3

[ Page 3821 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

J. Pullinger: I had the pleasure today of having lunch and visiting with three bright and capable young ambassadors from Lake Cowichan, and their chaperon. In the gallery today we have Rachel Hoole, who is the Lady of the Lake from Lake Cowichan; Kim McCormick, who is the first princess; and Julie Waite, who is the second princess. With them is their chaperon, Marie Bergstrom. Would the House please help me make them very welcome.

F. Gingell: In the gallery today I see Mr. Bill Dennison from Delta. He is a longtime community volunteer worker and activist. I ask this House to please make him welcome.

N. Lortie: I also see a longtime political ally and friend in the gallery, in the guise of Bill Dennison. So on behalf of this side, would the House please make him doubly welcome.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to ask the House to extend warm congratulations to Washington State Governor-Elect Mike Lowry. I'm sure every member of this assembly appreciates the excellent working relationship that has existed between the government of British Columbia and the state of Washington and its Governors. Indeed, it would seem to me to be an ideal opportunity to invite the Governors not only of Washington but also Oregon, Idaho and Alaska to come to British Columbia, to come to this Legislature and address us directly. I would encourage the Premier to extend that invitation.

L. Reid: I am delighted today to welcome to the legislative precinct Marsali MacIver. Marsali has done an outstanding job in terms of coordinating the Voyageur '92 program, and I would ask the House to make her welcome.

Oral Questions

BUDGET DEFICIT FORECAST

G. Wilson: Desspite record tax and fee increases, all levelled against the people of British Columbia and putting them in a much more difficult financial situation than they were this time last year, we now learn that in spite of a record $1.8 billion deficit tabled, the finances of this province are going to be further impugned by a $500 million overexpenditure -- half a billion dollars. Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether or not he has any idea of what this fiscal incompetence and irresponsibility of the government has cost the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I would like to clarify that there are a range of forecasts under very different assumptions. I think the one the member is referring to is about a $2.4 billion deficit. Last year's deficit, which we inherited from the previous administration, was also $2.4 billion. But that assumes no new measures to control spending, and that assumption is incorrect. We are taking action now to bring the deficit in line. It will be significantly below that projection.

I want to remind the members of the House that almost every week a member of the Liberal Party stands up and demands more money for Cassiar Mining, more money for Westar Mining, more money for doctors and for every other special interest group in this province. If we took their advice, we'd be in very serious trouble.

G. Wilson: It's interesting that a year into their mandate this government is still trying to pass the buck. What the minister doesn't realize is that with their spending habits, there are no more bucks left to pass to the former government, I'll tell you.

This is the Finance minister who says: "I think it's simple to balance the budget in British Columbia -- absolutely one of the easiest things that I could imagine doing." The additional deficit that we have just learned about is going to cost every man, woman and child in this province an additional $800 in debt. Can this Finance minister tell us where he went wrong if it was so simple to balance the budget in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: It's pretty clear that the member is referring to the fact that it would have been very simple to balance the budget two years ago in the middle of a commodity price boom when things were doing well in British Columbia. Because of profligate spending from the previous administration -- they ran huge deficits when times were good -- we're facing the consequences today.

But I want to make it clear that the major change in our forecast is a revenue shortfall from the federal government. Our share of personal income tax and corporate income tax is down significantly, because economic growth is down; and the estimates we received from the federal government a couple of weeks ago are significantly down. My understanding is that they're down in every province in Canada. But I want to assure members of the House again that we are taking action now to bring the deficit down below that forecast, as close as we possibly can to the budgeted numbers.

G. Wilson: That answer, I think, explains why we're in such a financial mess. There are simply no more bucks to be passed. This minister has not only failed himself, failed his government and failed British Columbia....

My question to the Premier of the province is: how deep does the failure of this Finance minister have to go? How much must the people of British Columbia have to absorb before this Premier recognizes the total fiscal incompetence of this Finance minister, takes action and replaces him with someone who is going to have a better economic strategy for British Columbia?

[2:15]

[ Page 3822 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like to assure this House that I have full confidence in the Minister of Finance and the job he's doing. He is dealing with very, very difficult times indeed across this country of ours. He's dealing with them well within our election commitments of capping and reducing the deficit and of getting our spending priorities right. We are sticking to our election priorities, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who, two days before the last election, tore up his election commitments and his budget projections. So we're prepared to keep our election commitments.

GAIN REGULATIONS

FOR SINGLE PARENTS

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. Nearly a year ago the minister quietly amended the GAIN Act regulations to exclude single parents from the definition of employable persons. Can the minister confirm that single parents on income assistance, with children up to 18 years of age, are no longer required to seek employment?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The particular policy you're referring to was referred to as forced employment. The previous administration required a single parent with an infant of six months to go out and look for employment, regardless of their circumstances, at the threat of losing income assistance. We felt that was punitive, and that there needed to be a recognition that families knew best about what their circumstances were. We continue to support single parents, as we do all of our clients, in reaching their financial goals, and that may mean employment and training initiatives.

R. Neufeld: I was not talking about infants; I was talking about 18-year-olds. Obviously she didn't want to answer that. This policy has a price tag, and I suppose the minister thinks she can afford it, because I understand she just paid for 90 of her staff members to attend a retreat at the Hills Health and Guest Ranch in 108 Mile House.

Can the minister advise the House how many GAIN recipients have been affected by the new policy, and what the cost of this measure has been to date?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd be happy to get those numbers and bring them back to the House. I'll take the question on notice.

LOST OR STOLEN WELFARE CHEQUES

R. Neufeld: A new question to the same minister. The minister has also ordered that lost and stolen welfare cheques will now be automatically paid, no questions asked, with no requirement to report the incident to the RCMP. Can the minister explain why she is ignoring the RCMP's stated concerns about the dramatic increase in welfare fraud, and why she is turning her back on B.C. taxpayers by loosening the rules and turning a blind eye to welfare fraud?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I think it is very easy to stand up in this House and make statements that are totally incorrect. This side of the House is interested in being accountable and in being clear on what our policies are.

As for our relationship with the RCMP, whether it happens to be in Surrey or any other jurisdiction in this province, we have a very strong and close working relationship, and we'll continue to enhance that and ask for their advice on the best way to administer issues around fraud, lost cash or lost cheques. We have protocols in place with the RCMP and with each of our offices.

The particular incident that the member refers to has to do with a request, a very strong statement, on my behalf that we expect all people on income assistance and/or in this province to be treated the same and that we objected very strongly to different treatment by the RCMP for people on income assistance.

INFLUENCE OF FEDERAL NDP

ON PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier about the outrageous statements made by NDP MP Ian Waddell. He is quoted in the Vancouver Sun today as saying that the unpopularity of the Barrett government in B.C. contributed to a loss of federal NDP seats in 1974. He said that the B.C. government should delay any unpopular decisions until after the next federal election. Since when does Ian Waddell dictate B.C. government policy? Who's in charge -- Audrey McLaughlin, Dave Barrett or Ian Waddell?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! The member will need to more directly relate his question to the responsibility of the Premier and this government.

W. Hurd: Is the Premier going to take the advice of his kindred spirit in Ottawa and delay the unpopular decisions of this government?

The Speaker: Does the member for Surrey-White Rock have another question?

W. Hurd: Yes, I do, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

W. Hurd: With an answer like that, all I can say is that it's a lucky thing we don't have more than one made-in-B.C. party like the B.C. Liberal Party.

We had the spectacle on the Sunshine Coast of federal MP Ray Skelly threatening this government with hiring doctors from outside the province. Perhaps the Premier can commit to the people of this province that at his convention this weekend he will demand that decisions be made in this province instead of by Mr. Barrett and other members of the federal NDP caucus.

[ Page 3823 ]

PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF LEVELS

F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The size of the government bureaucracy has ballooned during your administration from 28,000 to just under 30,000. In view of the current financial situation, if the government does reverse itself and start reducing staff levels, will you guarantee that layoffs will be done on the basis of seniority, whether they be bureaucrats or order-in-council appointees?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the assumption behind the question is incorrect. What happened with the previous administration is that they had some fictitious FTE controls, which were exposed by the Peat Marwick report as yet again deceiving the public....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order. I regret I must interrupt the minister, but again the Chair cannot hear the answers to questions and sometimes cannot hear the questions. I ask hon. members to stay silent so that all members can hear questions and answers.

Hon. G. Clark: The Peat Marwick report clearly identified that the FTE count was a fiction and that there were a large number of shadow FTEs. It's an inappropriate and incorrect assumption to make that there has been a ballooning of the total number of people in the public sector. Yes, there are some contract workers who are now counted as FTEs. Frankly, it's really the expenditure that counts.

But I want to give the member some assurance that as we review savings initiatives by ministry, we will be doing so to get the best and most efficient use of tax dollars. If that results in changes in programs, it will be done on the basis of priorities that we think British Columbians hold. That will be the decision made, if it has any implication for public sector employees.

DUPLICATION IN GOVERNMENT

F. Gingell: To the same minister. We have such commissions as the new B.C. Energy Council, at a cost to taxpayers of over $2 million, which performs exactly the same functions as the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and also Powerex of B.C. Hydro. Before the minister starts to reduce support services to the needy, will he commit to rid this province of extravagant duplications that seem to have no other purpose than rewarding their friends?

Hon. G. Clark: We're obviously very concerned about any waste and duplication that may exist in government. We are reviewing every program to see if it is in fact a cause for such concern. Of course, it's one of the reasons that we had such hope, in the constitutional process, that we could eliminate some areas of federal jurisdiction and end the overlap between federal and provincial governments. That work is still underway at finance ministers' meetings; it was underway earlier this week at western finance ministers' meetings.

Waste and duplication is the number one priority of this administration for cost-cutting, and I can assure you that over the coming weeks there'll be some decisions made which I think will give all members some comfort that efficiency gains and cost savings will be made, with the least impact on those who need the services the most.

EXPENDITURES BY

MINISTRY OF WOMEN'S EQUALITY

Hon. P. Priddy: I rise in response to a question that was taken on notice for me on Monday. As all of us know, including the leader of the official opposition and the House Leader of the official opposition, for government to review its performance, to review the work it has done and to plan better for the future and ensure that the public -- in this case, the women and children in British Columbia -- is well served, we must review the impact of our work on people in British Columbia.

As a new ministry with responsibility for 5,000 new child care spaces, and a provincial strategy for stopping the violence and supporting 150 community projects, it is vital that this ministry works closely and consults with other ministries, as well as having a strong working relationship with women's groups in the province. As we planned this day, we were very conscious of sharing accommodations and keeping all costs to a minimum. The costs were approximately $80 per person.

In response to the second part of the question -- which was not taken on notice but which I will respond to, hon. Speaker -- the House Leader asked about a particular ice-breaking exercise that was part of the day. I can assure the member that the entire planning day and the review of the impact of the work of this government on behalf of women in this province will be of benefit to future programs in this province.

Hon. A. Petter tabled the audited financial statement of the Provincial Capital Commission for the fiscal year 1991-92.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 84.

[2:30]

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

(continued)

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 19

Cowie

Reid

Wilson

Tyabji

Farrell-Collins

Gingell

Warnke

Stephens

Hanson

Weisgerber

K. Jones

Jarvis

Chisholm

Dalton

Hurd

Anderson

Symons

Fox

Neufeld

[ Page 3824 ]

NAYS -- 35

Petter

Marzari

Boone

Sihota

Priddy

Cashore

Barlee

Charbonneau

Lortie

Lali

Giesbrecht

Smallwood

Hagen

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Clark

Cull

Zirnhelt

Blencoe

Perry

Pullinger

Copping

Lovick

Ramsey

Evans

O'Neill

Doyle

Hartley

Krog

Randall

Garden

Kasper

Brewin

Janssen

Miller

J. Tyabji: By leave I ask to move a motion of substitution to a standing committee.

Leave granted.

J. Tyabji: I move that Mr. D. Symons be substituted for Mr. G. Farrell-Collins as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Motion approved.

On the main motion.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to take my place in this debate to speak to the approval in principal of the bill. I would like to start by saying that what I attempt to do here is respond to arguments from some quarters that the new labour relations code is unfair because it denies workers the right to vote on union certification. I will respond to that argument that it will hurt B.C.'s competitiveness as a place to invest.

We reviewed industrial relations legislation with an eye to implementing a long-term strategy that will deal with stability and cooperation in the workplace. Our new code redresses the inequities of the past. It deals with today's labour relations problems and meets the challenges of the future.

One of the first questions we had to deal with when drafting the legislation was whether or not the status quo was an option. There are some who said that no changes were necessary. However, after our panel of three business and labour specialists had studied almost 500 briefs submitted by the public during seven months of hearings across the province, the conclusion was that some changes were both appropriate and practical, because it was clear that growth and economic diversification could not occur for British Columbia without a balanced labour code.

All parties, labour and management, must endorse the code, or it's not worth the paper it's printed on. It's as simple as that. This is especially true in the 1990s, as globalization of trade and investment and new technologies push businesses to remain competitive. The code is designed for the challenges ahead. Our panel of specialists told us that collective representation of employees by trade unions continues to be a socially desirable institution. Their report said on page 11: "Collective bargaining must be seen by employees and by employers as being relevant to and supportive of the kind of workplace which employees and employers seek today."

I'm convinced that the new labour code will help improve business performance in the following ways: by emphasizing cooperation to plan workplace adjustment and mid-contract consultation; by promoting mediation instead of arbitration, which will achieve outcomes better suited to the specific circumstances of the individual workplace; and by ensuring the employer's right to communicate with employees respecting the employees' business.

When we appointed the panel of special advisers to conduct our consultative process, we gave them this mandate: first, to give us a code that's fair, equitable, balanced and flexible to meet today's needs of business and labour; second, to give us a code that will help foster harmony, trust and cooperation in labour relations; third, to give us a flexible, enlightened labour code which can address the needs of the twenty-first century, when we will be faced with unremitting technological changes in a fiercely competitive global market; fourth, to give us a code that honestly reflects the views of all stakeholders in the labour relations field.

I strongly believe that the panel of special advisers gave us exactly what we asked for. The code addresses the needs and concerns of working people and of small, medium and large businesses across the province. The process of consultation has been unprecedented. This is a credit to the panel of special advisers -- Mr. Vince Ready, Mr. John Baigent and Mr. Tom Roper -- who deliberated for over seven months, visited 11 communities and heard from workers and employers in order to review our labour relations.

The three special advisers were actually a subcommittee of a larger panel made up of nine members from labour and business, including small and medium-sized businesses. As I said earlier, they received almost 500 submissions and had extensive public meetings in all parts of British Columbia. We understand that there were over 70 submissions from small businesses that were addressed in their deliberations. I think it is generally agreed by leaders in business and labour and by the media that the process of consultation in B.C. has been neither adversarial nor confrontational.

Even our sharpest critics in the media have had to admit that we've done a pretty good job. They tell us it has been a cooperative process that had balanced leadership, that it canvassed opinion through multilateral consultations and that it reached decisions by consensus. Even though I'm extremely pleased with what this consultation process has produced, there are still some who would take issue with parts of the new code.

Let us look a little closer at some of the concerns that have been expressed since the code was made public. As I've said many times, the government of British Columbia is determined to provide a positive climate for the growth of small business. In that context, I would like to respond to opponents who question the lack of a secret ballot vote in union certification drives where 55 percent or more of employees are signed up as members of a union. They say it is a denial of one of

[ Page 3825 ]

the fundamental principles for working British Columbians -- that is, the right to vote on union certification. All the new code does on this point is to bring B.C. into line with most other Canadian governments. In fact, seven other provincial governments have this provision in their legislation. It also brings B.C. back to where it was before Bill Vander Zalm revised our labour code in 1984, and I don't recall it being a problem before that time.

However, after mandatory voting was introduced in 1984, charges of unfair labour practices in this province increased by more than 100 percent. This was also true in British Columbia before 1984. The new code will create a reasonable practice, because there is no doubt as to the majority choice. At the same time, if the majority wishes are not beyond doubt, then the new legislation does require a vote. If less than 55 percent of workers have joined the union, then a secret ballot must be held. I believe that's fair. When a clear majority signs up, there's no vote. When it's close call, there's a secret ballot.

Most labour and business leaders agree that when the will of the majority of workers is clear, certification votes are disruptive. They can spoil a labour-management relationship from the start and can lead to illegal interference with workers' rights. They also undercut our economic productivity, something we simply cannot afford. Restoring the certification process which existed before 1984, thus bringing B.C. into line with most other Canadian provinces, will enable B.C. workers and employers to concentrate on being productive and on creating wealth rather than being bogged down in unnecessary labour disputes, and that's what this legislation is all about.

Investors will note that the positive elements in the code will lead to fewer labour disputes and more cooperation. Some of these elements in the bill are as follows. It provides for mediation at the request of either party, and more mediation resources will be made available. This will result in speedier resolution of disputes. It requires a collective agreement provision on joint consultation to address technological change, work reorganization and productivity. I would point out that this is absolutely essential to having some flexibility in making day-to-day and month-to-month adjustments that were not foreseen when a collective agreement was signed.

Free speech is protected so that employers retain the right to communicate with employees on workplace issues. However, it must be truthful and cannot be acrimonious. I think it cuts both ways: it seems to me that both the employees and the employers have to be dealing with each other with a measure of good faith, and they have to be dealing with the truth.

It would seem to me that in the case of a sign-up of 55 percent, if an employer was not being proactive in talking about the pros and cons of changing the workplace in different ways and dealing up front with the need for collective bargaining rights.... If an employer isn't aware, and there's a sign-up of 55 percent, he probably needs to have an organized workforce because he obviously would be out of touch with what's going on. I think the 55 percent is safe, and I think small business can rest assured that the scales have not been tipped out of balance in this case.

The minister can appoint a special mediator at any time during a collective bargaining dispute when the public interest is affected, and I think that's important. The minister can establish industry advisory councils to improve labour relation matters in that industry. I think that as we evolve we will see a new culture of labour-management relations and a new political and economic culture dealing with this matter in British Columbia. We will be moving towards mediation and away from confrontation by being proactive around matters of productivity and workplace organization.

In establishing advisory councils, the minister, it seems to me, has an opportunity to have consultation to monitor what's going on in the legislation, and if amendments need to be made -- as we know they frequently have to -- they can be made with consultation having taken place.

I think you will find that these positive elements will not only bring an end to confrontation but will also bring long-term stability and the cooperation we need to attract investment to British Columbia.

There is one last important element of the code that will help B.C. business to cope with the changes taking place in the global economy. Under the code it is envisaged that the actual performance of the legislation will be reviewed as deemed appropriate. By means of such a review the minister will be kept informed of the impact of the changes that we have introduced. So while we set in law some new provisions, the minister can revise that law as necessary in the years to come. This in turn will give us the kind of flexibility we need to adapt quickly to new situations that arise in the twenty-first century economy.

[2:45]

In formulating the code we had to be completely balanced and flexible, and we have achieved this with the new code. You can listen to what columnist Valerie Casselton wrote in her Vancouver Sun column on September 18. She has been covering the labour scene in the paper for many years.

This is what she said: "But it cannot be overstated that this process of labour law reform" -- in B.C. -- "is the envy of the country, and this achievement by the advisers is nothing short of historic." Then, after reviewing the Labour Relations Code, the same journalist said in her column of October 30: "We know business is happy.... This is not a law that future governments will repeal." In a column in the Vancouver Sun on October 31 Judy Lindsay summed it up best when she said: "...I will be surprised if it" -- the code -- "looms especially large in investors' decisions."

I can tell the House most assuredly that when the Premier and myself were questioned on a trip overseas to Japan shortly after we were elected, we assured Asian investors that we were undertaking a process that would be fair and that would come up with balanced legislation. They weren't concerned. There's obviously some concern until the legislation is tabled, but in my view we have met most of the concerns of international investors. Above all they want stability, and they can

[ Page 3826 ]

live with this because in their own jurisdictions they live with similar labour codes to the one we have.

The capacity to make changes and have adequate flexibility through adjustment mechanisms are the major features of the code. They are essential to maintain our competitiveness today, and the changes introduced in this legislation are designed to help employers and employees work together to deal with issues of common concern. Our goal is to improve the industrial relations climate and enhance our competitiveness. I think that's the intention, and that will be the effect of the legislation.

J. Dalton: I am pleased to add some remarks on second reading of Bill 84. I want to review a bit of the history leading up to the proposed legislation. We're, of course, hopeful over here that it will not become legislation, but I think we have to be realistic.

In 1973 British Columbia witnessed some significant and major changes to labour law. Of course, that came in under the previous NDP regime. We seem to go in 20-year cycles with this socialist government. Hopefully, 20 years from now we're not going to do it again, but we'll have to see. In 1973 the Labour Code was introduced and brought into effect. As I say, that was an NDP proposal. The Barrett government was voted out in '75 -- that's also interesting, as an aside. The Premier only lasted for three years.

Obviously he had the idea that he could go to the people after three years of his mandate, so I'm inviting this government to perhaps think of that. In '75 the NDP were out; the Socreds were voted back in. As the member for Richmond-Steveston commented previously, predictably we get into this ding-dong effect. So here we went from the ding to the dong, and the dong was Bill 19.

F. Garden: What's your plan?

J. Dalton: When we take over, we will advise you. You will not even be in opposition, no doubt, but you can tune in.

The Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair.

J. Dalton: I will be sure to do so.

Bill 19 was brought in under the Social Credit government. Today we are in the process of repealing Bill 19, which was entitled the Industrial Relations Act. It's also interesting that we've flip-flopped back and forth with the names of the legislation. Now we are dealing with Bill 84. We've gone from pre-'73, which was the Labour Relations Act, and changed the title, along with the government, to the Labour Code; and then another change of government and the Industrial Relations Act; and now another change of government, and we have the bill entitled the Labour Relations Code. I don't know what significance there is between

an act and a code, but perhaps there is some when you consider the Criminal Code. It has a certain implication, and maybe we could read something into the Labour Relations Code of a similar nature.

Here We Are Again: '73 revisited. It's not a very happy prospect. What we have is a new title to the labour legislation, but old concepts. What we have is a new Premier and old ideas. Nothing much has changed, has it, in 20 years? I ask this House: what possible benefit have we derived from this back-to-the-future process?

An Hon. Member: None.

J. Dalton: An hon. member suggests none. I have a little more to add to that, but none is basically the answer.

This back-to-the-future process creates employment for the panelists who produce new position papers. Of course, we finally did get the position paper from the labour law review panel, although, as I commented last week in this House, some members had a great deal of difficulty in getting hold of copies of it. It's interesting how readily we were all able to get copies of the accord and how very difficult it was to get copies of this green document that I see some members have with them today.

This back-to-the-future process also creates endless opportunities for labour lawyers, who can kick the new legislation around when and if it becomes law. It's similar in a way to the Charter of Rights. It's going to open up a whole new field of endeavour for labour lawyers in this case. There's no question about that. Any time you bring in major legislation and major change, the legal profession will use it. I wouldn't suggest they will use it to their advantage; but they will use it in the best interests of their clients.

That is going to cause some compounding difficulties and certainly some delay in the process. I would presume that this government believes labour legislation should provide harmonious relationships, and speedy solutions if those relationships break down. I'm suggesting to this House that those speedy solutions will not be readily available once you introduce significant changes to an important area of law such as this one.

This bill will allow every special interest group to lobby for change. We've already seen some of it in this bill. However, I would indicate to the House that there are probably many things we don't see in the bill, or which perhaps are so subtle and almost insidious in nature that you have to look two or three times before they leap off the page. I can tell you, I've read this bill several times from cover to cover -- I'm wondering how many government members have done that

-- and every time I pick it up I find something else that I have trouble with.

This bill will mean that many more forests will fall in order to produce the endless documents generated by wholesale changes -- including, of course, the labour law review paper itself, and the endless discussions, essays and documents that come out of such a significant change. Although I presume that our media friends have left for the afternoon, I would add that the media will have yet another issue to editorialize on. Already we've seen many columns and editorial comment on the new labour bill.

[ Page 3827 ]

Let Me Ask: what does it not do? What is not evidenced in this legislation? What I would suggest to the House is that we do not see a balanced atmosphere for harmonious labour relations. We have a lot of buzzwords floating around from people like Ken Georgetti, and we hear that this act is intended to -- and will, in fact -- achieve harmonious labour relations. But I doubt very much that this will be the case.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: I hear a member opposite commenting on Bill 19. Of course Bill 19 is history. Bill 19 is, in fact, the Industrial Relations Act, the act which will be replaced if this Bill 84 goes through. I suppose it's typical for the government side to want to rehash old things. For example, every time the Finance minister gets up in question period, he has to point the accusing finger of blame at the previous regime. I don't want to talk about the previous regime; I want to talk about what this government is doing with Bill 84 and why I'm so concerned about it.

I would suggest that Bill 84 does not treat labour issues fairly or objectively. Ideally what you should have in labour relations is a level playing field. I presume that you people, whether you are sports-minded or not, can understand a level planning field. Any time you tip it either way.... We could perhaps say that it was tipped unfairly in one direction with Bill 19 -- although we're not talking about that. Now, however, I'm very concerned that it is tipped the other way, in favour of labour. That is only going to invite more of the very thing that this bill is presumably intended to prevent, and that is disruption in the labour area.

D. Symons: Are you suggesting they're unbalanced?

J. Dalton: It perhaps could be suggested that the government is unbalanced, but I think, more importantly, it's the bill that is unbalanced. However, the bill was created by the government.

I would add something else that this bill does not do: it does not create an environment of economic confidence. What do we read in the local Victoria newspaper today? We read that this government's budget is overrun by 30 percent above projections. You can't blame that on the previous regime, hon. Speaker. Tomorrow will be the first anniversary of the swearing in of the cabinet of this government -- one year later. Are we still going to be casting back to the previous regime? I should think not. There is certainly a lack of economic confidence in this province, and that is well documented. I may be making some comments later on that particular issue.

What we have in Bill 84 is a major refocusing on labour relations in this province. As one looks through the viewfinder, one sees that the picture is out of focus; it is very blurred, very fuzzy. Forget all the things you read that suggest it looks great or that it's not as insidious as we expected it to be, or whatever. That, quite frankly, is wrong. Very well-respected people, whom I will be quoting later, have commented that the picture certainly is fuzzy; in fact, probably even more than fuzzy: the picture is definitely wrong. We have a very wrong-sighted view of labour relations through Bill 84.

I ask this house: what is wrong with the picture? Let me make some basic observations on some fundamental issues that appear in this bill, which are going to unfairly tip the balance and will not create harmonious relations, as intended, but will create unharmonious relations -- a real potential for disruption in the labour relations field.

I would like to make some comments about the provision in the bill dealing with certification. As many members have commented, there is a provision in the bill that a 55 percent sign-up on union cards will automatically create a union -- no questions asked. It's an interesting way to create an organization. I suggest that this provision will result in intimidation and coercion to sign up. That is always a potential. Other members have commented on this and, to be fair, other members have also commented on employers sometimes using the same tactics for other reasons.

Well, that is true, and I would hope that this House is not going to put through a bill that invites any element of coercion and intimidation, whether it be management, labour or just the person on the street. We certainly don't need that. [Applause.] Well, I'm glad that I have some support for that statement, hon. Speaker. Perhaps it's the same members who voted against the motion the other day, against the majority of the government side.

[3:00]

Let's talk reality for a moment, hon. Speaker. Quite frankly, many people sign -- I was about to say "almost anything." I guess I'm guilty, and I'm sure everyone in this House is. How many times, for example, have you gone to pick up a parcel at the bus depot or some similar place, where they give you a standard receipt form and say: "Please sign it"? You dutifully sign it, and you take the parcel home -- maybe it's your Christmas present from your Aunt Tilly -- and open it up under the Christmas tree, and the thing's in tatters and shambles and broken beyond recognition. Do you know what you signed?

You obviously didn't read it, or didn't understand it, but you signed away your right to take action, because you said you received the package in good condition. Unless you have x-ray vision like Superman, how were you to know that you received it in good condition? That's just one example. Let me get a little more political perhaps.

How many people sign petitions...?

Interjections.

J. Dalton: Heaven forbid, not in this House!

Hon. Speaker, how many people sign petitions before they actually understand the issue involved? I've done that. I can recall not too long ago in the Lions Gate Hospital when I was doing my citizenly duty in giving blood, somebody came up with a petition on health care. I must confess -- and I'm an honest person -- that I don't know exactly what the issue was, but it was something that concerned me as an MLA and as a citizen, and I said: "Sure, I'll sign that." I signed it and

[ Page 3828 ]

then I said, "Oh, okay. I believe in the basic concept, having read it. I had a little trouble with it, but you can leave my signature on it." Well, I don't know that a potential union member would be able to read the union card or think of the implications behind it and then say: "Wait a minute. I'd like to cross my name out."

F. Garden: Some members are more intelligent.

J. Dalton: I hear members opposite speaking of intelligence. Well, yes, all people have some measure of intelligence, no question. By saying that I -- like all of us -- have a tendency to sign almost anything under certain conditions, I'm not suggesting a lack of intelligence. I am suggesting that it's almost a factor of human nature: sign and then say, "Oh, okay. Well, I can live with it," or not. People get into real disaster situations. They sign mortgages, and I've heard of people signing wills not even understanding that it was a will, let alone what the document contained. It does happen, hon. Speaker.

However, perhaps a little more to the point on this certification issue is that signing a union card is a relatively easy action and probably something that people don't truly think of the implications of until after the fact. This is where the 55 percent provision kicks in. Those people, whether they wished it or not.... How many people in the union movement are going to understand all of the implications of Bill 84? They are going to realize after the fact that suddenly they are members of a trade union. I'm not saying that's bad. I am a member of a trade union. I negotiated for a trade union.

I was the vice-president of a trade union. And just today I was speaking with the president of this very trade union, the Langara Faculty Association. I can tell you that I'm in constant contact with my colleagues at Langara, because I share the same concerns they have about labour relations. I do not stand in this House and say that these features in the bill are necessarily bad because I'm not in support of unions. I have been a union member for 19 years.

I am proud of the accomplishments that the Langara Faculty Association has achieved over those years, and I'm proud of the fact that I was actively involved in that association.

Why should we even invite the situation where -- with no secret ballot, no vote, no opportunity to say yes or no, as we do in this House -- suddenly you've signed up 55 percent and have achieved an instant trade union? It's almost like add water and you've got a union. No democracy. Later I have some comments about the new democracy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I regret that I am interrupting the member. I will remind members of the House that everyone will have an opportunity to enter into the debate, but at this time the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano has the floor.

J. Dalton: Quite right. One at a time, please.

The implications of joining this club, in effect -- and a union is not dissimilar to a club -- without realizing it are interesting, at least, and could very well be dangerous. I certainly wouldn't want to find myself a member of a union if I didn't truly understand that the card I was signing might lead to that consequence. I would like to have the chance to say yea or nay to joining. As I told you in this House, I am a member of a trade union. I voluntarily signed the card, but I knew what I was getting into before I did.

What has happened to the basic concept of a free and secret vote before the formation of such an important organization? Of course, with the new democracy party this basic concept doesn't exist. The procedure now is to sign, give away your individual rights and join the collective.

Let me make some comments about this new democracy party. What are the elements that we see evidenced in this bill? The rights of the collective and not individual rights are demonstrated in Bill 84. No voting; just sign up. Take away the vote, which is the basic right of any potential union member -- I would hope. We see some rather interesting social engineering projects in Bill 84. That's all part of the new democracy that we have evidenced in this bill. I would suggest that there's some element of featherbedding, and that's a term that I'm sure the members opposite will understand.

That's part of a new democracy. I will not pursue that particular topic any longer, because I'm sure somebody is about to jump up and accuse me of making unfair comments about the New Democratic Party.

Let me also comment on another very fundamental element in this bill dealing with essential services. The Industrial Relations Act -- Bill 19, if you wish -- contains a provision dealing with essential services. Any "threat to the economy of the province or to the health, safety or welfare of the residents or to the provision of educational services" in British Columbia is covered by essential services. Whether it be implemented or not, those are the areas described in the Industrial Relations Act. What do we see in Bill 84? The only provision is for: "...health, safety or welfare."

What message does the public receive from the omission of educational services from the new legislation? I stand now in particular as the Education critic. What implication for education itself is in that omission? I would suggest that obviously education is no longer essential in the eyes of this government. I would add that that is certainly the feeling of the BCTF, the BCSTA and the students and the parents of this province, and I think we might see some indication of that on Saturday of this week in downtown Vancouver.

I have covered two of the fundamental elements about which I am terribly concerned in this bill. Let me now focus on some of the particulars in the bill itself, because, of course, there are things other than the absence of a free vote and the essential service designation.

For example, the definition of employee in Bill 84 is somewhat different from the previous legislation. Let me put it this way. The new definition removes the exemption for persons employed in a confidential planning or advisory position in the development of management policy for the employer. I will not comment any further than that, but I think it is very

[ Page 3829 ]

significant that something that was in the previous legislation is missing in the new bill.

I'm suggesting to this House that it is one of the examples of something sort of subtly snuck in there without people giving it proper thought or understanding. It is one of many examples. Every time I pick the bill up and look through it I find something else in which, when you compare it to Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Act, something has gone astray or slipped through the cracks, whether it be omitted, as in this case, or added, as in other cases.

That's one particular issue that I'm concerned with. Secondary boycotts is another feature of this bill that I wish to comment on. Let me make this observation about secondary boycotts. The new code, Bill 84.... It will, of course, not be a code or

an act or whatever you wish to call it until it's passed in this House. We're hopeful that that will not happen. The new code restores the freedom to negotiate in a collective agreement terms that would permit secondary boycotts. If such terms are negotiated, employees may not use or handle products of the struck employer and can require that the dealings of an employer be restricted to unionized companies. I needn't comment that there are dangerous implications in that.

What message are we sending out to business -- that you'd better get prepared to deal with only union products and union firms and companies? Well, we have one example in this province that I'm aware of where some significant elected official has chosen to hire non-union people on a particular project. I'm wondering whether the secondary boycott provision would ultimately end up in people having no choice but to deal only with union products and companies. That's a very limiting effect. I can assure this House that if you wish to stifle the economy, investment and enterprise, that's probably an excellent way of doing it.

There's another provision dealing with compulsory joint consultation committees. This is a very interesting provision in the new bill -- compulsory joint consultation committees. There may be mixed opinions on this, and I guess we should cast this one out to a squad of lawyers -- and we'd end up with 50 different opinions.

But the particular concern I have with this one is dealing with the possibility that management of a company -- whether that be union or non-union, but ultimately every company will probably be unionized the way we're headed -- should be in the hands of the people who have invested, have taken the risk and are running the plant, whether it be an office, a college or what have you. I don't think that of itself is significant.

This provision in the new bill will invite co-management of any industrial or business enterprise. Let me make this clear. I have no quarrel with employees being actively involved in working conditions and any other thing that is of paramount interest to the effective operation of a business or industry. But I certainly take issue with the potential of employees stepping into a management function and saying: "We don't like the way you're running it, so we'll set up a joint committee. Now this is the way we're going to run it."

The employees don't have the risk and the investment element on the line. Why should they be given the opportunity to have co-management committees, which could be very disruptive and would discourage investment in this province? I doubt that many people who are thinking of investing in British Columbia would be very excited to hear about this joint consultation committee that could be set up.

[3:15]

The Minister of Economic Development made comments about foreign investment and about people in Japan, who he says are happy with this. Well, whether they've read it or not, I don't know. I suspect that the investment community in Japan would not be happy with that concept.

One other element in this bill that I wish to comment on deals with replacement workers. I heard an interesting viewpoint expressed by the lawyer on staff at the B.C. School Trustees' Association. This is somebody who's trained in the law and has a particular focus on education -- that field of government endeavour which is no longer essential. Replacement workers, "whether paid or not" -- that's what replacement workers are by definition in the bill.... That would exclude volunteers such as parents -- I'm thinking of the operation of school districts in the case of a strike, work stoppage or slowdown.

My wife volunteers in my children's elementary school when she has an opportunity, and if I wasn't here, I would be doing the same. By that definition, this would prevent any volunteer from crossing into the school to try and help with....

What are we going to do if a strike hits a school district and replacement workers are not allowed to cross, including volunteers and parents? We could have a situation where children are caught behind a picket line, and nobody's allowed to get into the school to look after them in some form of day care. So those are particular points that I draw to the attention of this House.

Hon. Speaker, I have a motion to amend the motion before the House for second reading of Bill 84. I wish to read this motion: "After the word

'that,' substitute 'this House declines to give second reading to Bill 84 for the reason that the bill, in principle, erodes fundamental individual rights of workers and employers'."

The Speaker: Hon. member, could you send the motion to the Chair. I will allow debate on the amendment motion while the Chair considers it.

I regret, hon. member, that your time had expired at the time the motion was moved. And having spoken on the main motion and having moved the amendment motion, the member is already deemed to have spoken on the amendment motion.

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of the amendment that this bill not be read a second time for the reason that it does erode the individual rights of the people who will be affected directly by this bill.

As I mentioned yesterday in the House, we of the opposition have received numerous complaints from

[ Page 3830 ]

the people of the province that they do not have adequate time to respond to the provisions of the bill.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I hear someone saying: "Name names." I wish that the government benches had had more members on them yesterday to hear that I not only named names but read specific passages from a number of letters that we have received from union workers, small business owners, medium-sized business owners and basically from the general public, who are extremely concerned that their democratic rights are being eroded and that this sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the province.

Hon. Speaker, we tried very forcefully to convince this government to see reason in the debate on this bill and to follow the lead of other governments and other parliamentary institutions by making use of the select standing committee. Unfortunately, this government did not see fit to take that reasoned advice, and so we have no choice left but to move the amendment that it not be read a second time for the reasons that we've indicated.

There are things.... For example, there are provisions for co-management -- which I talked about yesterday when I tried unsuccessfully to convince the government to allow the bill to go to a select standing committee -- which force employers to put together a committee that takes the employees and the employer and legislates a 60-day period for notice from the employer to the employee on any changes being made in policy or practice. These are provisions that represent a complete lack of understanding of how businesses function.

Unfortunately, the provision for this bill to operate within the terms of a competitive market economy was removed. And when they removed the competitive market economy concept from the bill, what they did was allow us to go into an economic free fall. The provision for this committee that forces the employers to give 60 days' notice, first of all, sets a tone of antagonism, because it presupposes that an employer isn't going to consult with the employees.

Well, anyone who has operated a business -- and I wonder how many members on that side have -- and anybody who understands efficient management, good profit margins and good employee-employer relationships, will know that any employer who wants to be able to maximize his or her competitive advantage has to have a good relationship with the employees. This is particularly so in small and medium-sized businesses, which are a major component of our economy.

They will also be severely negatively impacted by provisions in the bill such as the adjustment plan provision, which forces employers into a situation where they are handcuffed before they can adjust to the market and before they can adjust to the changes in the economy that we face on a daily basis. Before they introduce a measure, policy, practice or change, they have to give 60 days' notice, and then they have to go to their employees and put this committee together for an adjustment plan.

First of all, any employer....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I keep hearing the hon. member saying: "Only if they're unionized." We know that in

section 2 of this bill it specifically says that the purpose of the labour legislation is to promote and encourage unionization. So we're presupposing that once this bill is forced through the House we will have a proliferation of unionization, that we will have more and more organizing and that small and medium-sized businesses will be operating under the rules of the bill.

So if we want to go back to what I was talking about.... I hope you guys can follow me on this. I hope I'm not going too fast for you. We are definitely talking about companies with unionized workers, because that's what the bill is all about.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I'm being advised that I should speak in fewer syllables. I'll try to keep my words as simple as possible.

When we go back to the 60-day provision -- and yes, we are dealing with unionized workers -- it is going to strap any employer. As I mentioned in the House yesterday for those of you who say "Name names" -- and obviously you weren't here -- any employer that is going to be looking to this.... Let's deal with someone in the juice industry who wants to introduce new packaging or a new way of marketing their product. Now, by law, because this government has an innate hostility to businesses, the employer must strike a committee, give 60 days' notice and have a big discussion before changing their marketing, packaging or whatever they'd like to do.

What I don't understand is that if this government understood how business operated, they would realize that if it was necessary for the employees to be participating in the marketing or packaging change, they would be brought in, and if it was not relevant to the maximization of profit or the proper functioning of the company, they would not be brought in. The employer might have to react quickly to a changing market, and that obviously is something that has completely escaped the government members.

I would like to encourage the government very strongly to reconsider what they are trying to do by forcing this legislation through the House, and to reconsider what they are trying to do in making this

an act overnight. Basically, that's what we're faced with. We didn't get the consensus report that we were promised. We have no regulations to look at in terms of the regulations referred to in this bill. There are no draft regulations tabled. Instead, we have 92 pages of legislation, much of which has to be amended if business is to function effectively in B.C., and we have this government forcing this through second reading, trying to get it through as quickly as possible. It doesn't make any sense, which is why the opposition felt that the only responsible measure we could take was to introduce an amendment that it not be read a second time.

[ Page 3831 ]

I don't understand why this government has presupposed an inherent antagonism between employers and employees. That's everywhere in this bill. We've got imposed agreements. In the event that they can't come to a first collective agreement, there is to be an arbitrator appointed who will impose an agreement. I don't understand how they expect businesses to function effectively, given that kind of climate, and then they remove the bargaining chip of the replacement workers.

We've talked about parallelism in this bill and the fact that certification.... You can have 55 percent cards and no vote; for decertification, you have to have a vote. That doesn't make sense; it's not balanced. When we look at the way they impose collective agreements, we know that everything in here is weighted towards the union.

We know, for example, that there is very little parallelism in terms of the way this bill has been changed, looking at the

section dealing with how a member of the union can go to the board and talk about discriminatory versus unreasonable decisions. This is something that we haven't talked about much in this House. Individual rights are being eroded in this bill. The old act used to read that a union member could go to the board and say that the decision of the union was not reasonable. For example, there could have been fees levied or actions taken, and if it were deemed to be unreasonable, that was enough for them to be able to go to the board.

Now the wording is "discriminatory." In order for it to be discriminatory, it has to be something that can be defined as going against one member and not another. That means that if the union decides to increase the fees far beyond what would be considered reasonable, there's no recourse for the members to do anything. I don't think the government understands the reasoning.

N. Lortie: Is there any difference?

J. Tyabji: If there is no difference, why would you change the wording from "unreasonable" to "discriminatory"? Discriminatory is a much narrower definition. You are eroding the rights of union members.

When we talk about discrimination, we can talk about the fact that this bill allows 55 percent for automatic certification. I'll give you an example in the construction industry. I'll talk about what this government is doing to the small towns around the province and how displaced workers who are unionized are having to seek work in non-union companies. Because of this bill, the fact that they have a union card outside of that company becomes a liability for that individual.

If that individual goes to a non-union company and the employer knows that the individual is carrying a card, that employer is definitely not going to allow 55 percent of his or her employees to be carrying cards. That non-union employer could become unionized overnight unless that employer is keeping track. At 45 percent that employer goes to a vote. That's totally unreasonable.

[3:30]

Companies will be scrambling after this bill is passed just to continue being competitive and able to operate in a climate where they have no replacement workers. They've lost that bargaining chip. If they have labour unrest, they will have to settle. They will have no other choice. All of a sudden a non-union company will be saying: "If you're carrying a union card, I don't know if I should hire you, because if my non-union company ends up with 45 percent of employees holding union cards, I'm going to be in a vote.

If I have 55 percent, I'm going to be in a union." They're going to say, "I don't want to do that," because the provisions in this bill regarding unionized contracts is so horrendous that the companies will be going out of their way to make sure they do not have people who are carrying cards. That is a liability for those individuals.

It's just another slap at the people who are being displaced in small towns because resource industries are shutting down. They're leaving the small towns to try to find work. Now they find that because they were a resource industry worker and the resource industries are unionized, their card is a liability in a non-union company. That's just not fair.

This government is discriminating against the very people it pretends to be representing in this House. It's because of provisions like that that this opposition cannot possibly allow the bill to go through. We will do everything in our power not only to stall it but to try to convince this government that they have to do some very serious amending in the committee stage -- if it does get to the committee stage -- before this bill will allow the economy to be viable.

There's one provision in this bill that really hasn't received enough attention in the House. That provision is the new powers of the minister as the bill outlines them. All of a sudden this goes from being

an act where labour standards are being enforced, and we have a labour board.... We know that we now have a labour board with a commissioner who is partisan, so right away that completely changes the flavour of the way the board functions. We have new powers for this minister, so that no longer are any decisions that come out of this act going to be considered arm's length from him. In the end, the minister is not only responsible but also is empowered to interfere.

If you can imagine this: in the event of there being something under question, we're talking about the minister himself being able to walk into any area where a dispute is taking place -- land, ship vessel, vehicle, aircraft or other means of conveyance or transport, or a factory workshop -- during regular working hours. He could go in and decide: "I really need this in order to make my decision as to what the outcome of this labour unrest should be." This bill not only gives the minister the power but it also changes the entire direction of labour relations.

That in itself would not be disturbing if it weren't for the mind-set that went into writing this bill, which was: we must protect the unions. It does not protect the workers. As I've outlined, it discriminates against workers, it erodes the individual rights of workers, it takes away the ability for a secret ballot and it discriminates against union card-carrying workers who would like to choose to work in a non-union shop.

[ Page 3832 ]

Because it actually states in this bill that the purpose of it is to promote and encourage unionization, we know exactly where this government is coming from. Every single provision in here erodes the rights of individual workers and basically wraps enough red tape around businesses that they will have a very difficult time being competitive in B.C.

The opposition is watching this with great dismay. We have had a number of discussions with people in the business community who are very worried. They're worried about things like secondary boycotting, which is another fundamental freedom being removed: the freedom to choose; the freedom to choose what you put on your shelf if you're a retail owner. You have a small store, maybe you have a unionized shop, and you're carrying goods from places that are not unionized. Why shouldn't you? It's a free economy.

But under this bill there could be a grievance filed and all of a sudden you would have to pull everything off the shelf unless it's from a unionized store. You could be a small retail worker, maybe you have a small union shop, and somebody comes in and says: "Look at all this stuff you have on the shelves; it's not from a unionized business." Therefore you pull it off or you make sure that business gets unionized. That is undemocratic. That is fundamentally wrong, and it should be removed from this bill.

I think it's extremely unfortunate that this government does not understand the implications of removing the ability to hire replacement workers on the ability of a small-or medium-sized business to continue to operate. We know that a big business can weather a month or two of labour unrest -- not very well, and they don't like to see the red ink. They would much rather have that extra bargaining chip on the table, but they can survive. This bill virtually ensures that small and medium-sized business will not be able to negotiate with the capacity to have any power or bargaining ability at the table.

As soon as there is labour unrest, they sit down with their union and say: "We've got labour unrest. What can we do? We cannot strike." A small and medium-sized business cannot strike if they can't have replacement workers. They will have to shut down.

We have looked at examples in other provinces like Quebec, where we know that there is certainly very little incidence of strikes, because every time they strike, the businesses shut down. In this economy, with the kind of direction that we're seeing from this government, when that business closes its doors, those doors are closed for good. All you're doing is increasing the market share for businesses that are not the small and medium-sized businesses but are the bigger businesses.

Hon. Speaker, I support big business, just as I support small and medium-sized business. But I understand that fundamental to the health of the economy is the health of the small and medium-sized businesses. This bill is going to make them extremely unhealthy, because they can no longer negotiate with any ability to settle in their favour. Every time they get pushed to the wall, they have to cave in, because that's in the bill. There's no doubt in my mind that if you take it to the logical extension, eventually the businesses will be left with no other recourse than to negotiate themselves out of business.

Eventually every time they go to the table they'll be pushed into a smaller and smaller profit margin with less and less ability to be competitive. That inability to be competitive will force businesses to close their doors, and then the jobs are gone. We know that most of the jobs in the province rest with the small and medium-sized businesses.

I think it is extremely unfortunate that this government said that it represented the rights of workers and individuals, which it doesn't. Unfortunately, the 48-point election platform campaign hasn't been ripped up by this government. They've taken one, two, three shots at it. Every day in the House we see promises broken. One of the promises made was that this government would stand up for small and medium-sized business. This bill is a blatant defiance of that commitment, because not only is small and medium-sized business very poorly served by this bill, but eventually you will see many closing down, and that will be a very sad day for B.C.

F. Garden: The sky is falling.

J. Tyabji: I heard a member say that the sky is falling. I would like to remind this House that after the budget was tabled by this government, we stood on the opposition side urging them not to take a hostile approach to business, but to work cooperatively with them and recognize that any good employer will strive for good relationships with their employees. Anybody who understands business is going to recognize that to have maximum profit, you have to work with your employees. They didn't listen.

We are urging them to reconsider this bill. I hope that the consequences of them not listening to us on budget day will not be as severe as the consequences of them not listening to us during this debate, because today in this House we know the consequences of them not listening to us on the budget, and that's a half a billion dollar overrun. My prediction is that if they don't listen to us on the bill, the consequences will be much more severe than that. It will be much more difficult to bring these businesses back to life once they've closed down than it would be to recover that half billion dollars.

We see a downward spiral happening with this government. We see the hostility that they have toward employers, and that they cater to the union elite. That's what this bill caters to: not the union workers, not the union members, but the union elite, the friends and insiders -- the people who are on the inside circle who supported this government during the election.

We have numerous letters from union workers saying that they don't support this bill. They don't want this bill; they don't support it; and we urge this government not to bring it in.

F. Garden: Table them.

J. Tyabji: I would be happy to table those letters. In fact, I read many of them into the record yesterday. I

[ Page 3833 ]

will definitely make copies of them, and I will commit to this House that I will table those letters here on my next opportunity to stand in the House. I welcome that suggestion from the government member. I hope that he will commit to me that he will take the time to read those letters, because if he does, he may learn that the working people and the small and medium-sized business of this province do not support this bill.

The consequences and impact of this bill will be much more severe than what we've seen with their budget, even though the budget is bringing down the resource industries and leading to a fleeing of foreign capital investment from the province. The legislation we've had before the House is scaring investment away; and yet this bill will be responsible for small and medium-sized businesses doing business in other parts of the country.

This bill will add another layer to the interprovincial trade barriers that are already crippling us and eroding our competitive advantage. When you take into account the taxation levels and the legislation we have in this province, and now this new bill, we will be less able to compete in this global economy than we were before. Any good British Columbian who wants to be able to continue to do business may end up being forced just slightly to the other side, whether it be the Alberta border or the American border, and to move their business out of the province.

I find that unfortunate in the extreme, and I urge this government to reconsider what they're doing, to stand up in this House and have the dignity and the courage to say: "We were wrong. We will amend it. We will make amends with business, and we will try to get the economy of this province on the right track." That's why I support this amendment.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, while I don't want to single out any hon. member, there has been a growing trend during the past few days for members, during the course of debate, to comment on the presence or absence of other members in the House. I do want to remind members that it is not our practice to make comments on the presence or absence or deportment of other members. I ask members to remember that in their comments during debate.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to the amendment.

Hon. Speaker, there is growing resistance in British Columbia to Bill 84. There is resistance from those organizations that originally were somewhat lukewarm in their criticism of the bill. But as they have an opportunity to examine the legislation, as they have an opportunity to examine the implications of the various sections of the bill, we find more and more groups and individuals and organizations willing to stand up and speak out against Bill 84.

Indeed we're hearing now from the Business Council of B.C., from the coalition of restaurant owners, from the coalition of small business, from the chambers of commerce and others. There is a great deal of concern, and rightfully so, in British Columbia about Bill 84 and its impact on workers and employers in this province.

I am pleased to support this amendment, because if it is fortunate enough to succeed, it would have the effect of sending the legislation back to be redrawn. But at the very least, the debate around the amendment will give us an opportunity to give British Columbians another chance to examine in more detail this legislation and the implications of this legislation.

I was disappointed, hon. Speaker, that when the Social Credit caucus raised the hoist motion, when I raised the hoist motion here last week, it wasn't supported by the Liberal Party. That's unfortunate. But they have since put forward two amendments, and we are pleased to take the opportunity to support them. Because the purpose here is not who tables the amendment first, but whether the amendment is a good amendment and whether the amendment meets the needs of British Columbians. That's the test as to whether or not you should support an amendment.

[3:45]

With that, I will take the time I have today to speak in support of this amendment. As the amendment suggests, the bill does erode the individual rights of workers and employers. That's a serious infringement. It's an infringement on the kinds of things that are important to Canadians and to British Columbians. Our fundamental individual rights are probably the most precious part of our democratic system, but in this bill we see a growing trend toward reinforcing the collective at the cost of the individual. Individual rights are eroded in order to strengthen collective rights. That is fundamentally opposed to all the things that I believe in.

I believe, first and foremost, that individual rights must be protected. But as we examine this legislation, we see the rights of the individual sacrificed to collective rights time and time again. The individual no longer has a right to vote on certification. There is no democratic principle more fundamental than the opportunity to go to a place where no one can see you mark your ballot and vote on an issue -- whether it be on a referendum to change the constitution, to elect a Member of Parliament, Member of the Legislative Assembly or municipal officer, to join a union or to certify your employer. That is a very basic principle, and it's undermined by this legislation.

We also see the rights of the individual worker and employer threatened by the secondary boycott provisions in this legislation. We see an opportunity for big business and large labour unions to get together and sign a collective agreement that requires anyone doing business with that group to be unionized. It's fair for us to expect, given the track record of this NDP government, that kind of provision in the next BCGEU contract.

The ultimate logical extension of that is that British Columbians, for the first time in many years, would have to unionize in order to do business with their own government and to access their own tax dollars -- whether or not the employer wanted his shop unionized or his three, four, half dozen or ten dozen workers wanted to unionize.

That is a fundamental undermining of individual rights. Freedom of contract, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs says. That is the philosophical difference

be-

[ Page 3834 ]

tween the NDP and the Social Credit Party, at least. We don't believe that two parties should be able to decide something that fundamentally and profoundly affects third parties which don't have any say.

The minister raises his eyebrows, and so he should. He is involved in an undertaking that involves two parties, and he is leaving out the third parties -- the people who are going to be affected. He doesn't apply that principle in Aboriginal Affairs. And if he does apply that principle in Aboriginal Affairs, why not apply it to labour relations?

You can't have it both ways. It's fundamental and it's basic. It's so very basic that I'm amazed we have to debate it in this House. But we are. As the minister says, there's a freedom of contract. But if we extend that to the government unions -- and it appears to me that it will be -- then we are going to have top-down union organization on an unprecedented scale. We are going to see small businesses simply resign themselves, with their employees, perhaps both of them seeing absolutely no benefit other than the continued opportunity to deal with their own government and to access their own tax dollars. Hon.

Speaker, that's wrong. It's basically wrong and it's one of the biggest flaws in this legislation. It takes away basic freedoms. I don't understand how ministers opposite can brag that they consult with third parties on one issue but still believe that third parties whose livelihoods -- whose very livelihoods -- may well depend on these decisions should not have an opportunity to involve themselves. Hon. Speaker, that was what Bill 19 talked about when it referred to the public interest, the interest of those parties affected but not directly involved in negotiations.

If there is one good reason for this House to turn down this legislation, it is around the issue of secondary boycotts. Indeed, if there is one reason for small and medium-sized businesses and the people who work for those businesses and in those businesses to get together and resist this legislation, I can't think of a better one. This is the key and this is the fundamental part of this legislation. This is the most onerous part of this legislation. Indeed, for that one reason alone this bill should be turned down; it should be voted down in this House.

But we know it isn't going to be, as we look around the House and as we look around at the members studiously studying their papers. We know that they have already made up their minds. We know that this debate is something that is not going to be heard with receptive ears. We're not going to have an open mind on this issue. Indeed....

C. Evans: We're listening, brother. We're listening.

J. Weisgerber: We'll see when you vote how well you listen.

Hon. Speaker, there are many, many good reasons. Through this legislation runs the thread: the denial of individual rights for the benefit of collective rights. And it is as much a difference of philosophy between the two sides of the House as it is an integral part of this legislation. I don't like this legislation, I don't like Bill 84. I believe Bill 84 turns back time.

I did like Bill 19. I thought that the five years of prosperity in British Columbia -- the unprecedented five years of prosperity in British Columbia -- was the single most salient point about Bill 19. They were years when the economy grew at an unprecedented rate, when unemployment was the lowest in the country, while British Columbia was creating almost half of the new jobs in the country, when our tax rates were the second lowest in Canada. Those were not indeed a result only of Bill 19, but Bill 19 and the climate that it fostered contributed to that.

The fewest possible lost worker days and an investment confidence that saw British Columbia as a fair place to invest, a place where capital and labour were treated fairly, where the government was not seen as an instrument of trade unions, where indeed governments did not believe that their responsibility was to foster certification.

If there's any doubt, hon. Speaker, about the intent of this government, we have only to look -- as I enjoy doing so much -- back to the debate on Bill 19 and to read the things that the members of the present government said in opposition. On April 7, 1987, the now-Attorney General, the member for North Island, said: "If you had 95 percent of the people in this province organized, you wouldn't have any poverty...." Can you believe that?

Can you really believe that someone would say: "If you had 95 percent of the people in this province organized, you wouldn't have any poverty, because the wealth would be shared by the mechanism of collective bargaining"? Hon. Speaker, I'm not making this stuff up; this is in Hansard . Anyone who wants to read it, to examine it for themselves, will be able to find it on page 479.

That same minister, who was then an opposition member, said: "Trade unionism, in its most fundamental way, is the best element for redistribution of wealth in society...." That tells us volumes about the intent and the thinking that went into Bill 84, because this member is one of the most influential members in cabinet. This is an individual who has a profound influence on this government, particularly in the area of labour legislation.

Indeed, that same member went on to say on June 11, 1987, in this House: "...those of us who view the advent and the strength of the labour movement as the single most important element in our society to redistribute society's wealth...." So he believed it on April 7, and he still was very much convinced of that fact on June 11 of the same year. "Wealth has begun to be distributed in our society, not in a fair manner yet, but increasingly moving in that direction. It has only happened because of the strength of trade unions."

I raise those quotes for the purpose of demonstrating to British Columbians that we do not have a government that sees itself as a neutral balance between the trade union movement and the business community. Indeed, that's what you should expect of your government. Clearly, by the statements of the members who have substantial influence in this government, they see their role as being something entirely different. When you consider those, and when you consider the implications of Bill 84 and the implications and intent of secondary boycotts, you understand quite clearly

[ Page 3835 ]

where we are heading in this province should this legislation pass.

For those reasons we should take as much time as possible, as much time as we can garner as opposition, to talk about the shortcomings of this legislation -- and they are many. We should give the individuals and organizations which are going to be impacted by this legislation an opportunity to consider what is before us today, an opportunity to speak up and let their MLAs know what they think about Bill 84. As that happens, we will see a growing resistance in this province to this piece of legislation.

I have no doubt that as that resistance grows, there will be opportunities for us to amend the legislation, perhaps to at least remove the most onerous clauses. That will happen, though, only if we have a concerted effort by individuals, workers and employers who come to recognize the implications of this legislation.

[4:00]

We will continue to delay this legislation. We will raise hoists, and we will put forward amendments, because they will serve us two ways. They will give us an opportunity to again discuss the shortcomings of the legislation, and they will give the business community, the workers and employers, an opportunity to learn more, day by day, about this legislation. As I see the resistance grow, I am convinced that the more people understand about this bill, the more likely they are to oppose it.

It reminds me a little bit of the Charlottetown accord. When it was first tabled and we had the initial sales pitch from the Yes side, a fairly significant number of Canadians and British Columbians indicated that they would support it. But as the debate continued and the shortcomings of that document were discussed publicly, a growing number decided that they would vote against it -- to the degree that British Columbians voted seven to three against this bill. In my own constituency more than 75 percent of the people who came out and voted on that issue voted against it.

I suspect you would get a similar result if you had the courage to take this bill out and allow my constituents to consider it and vote on it. As a matter of fact, I don't think the government could get 23.6 percent of the people in my constituency to support this bill. As a matter of fact, I would challenge them to try, but I know they won't.

As we examine this bill beyond the most basic flaws -- the denial of democratic rights and the denial of the right to vote on certification but the requirement that you vote on decertification -- we look at the implications of secondary boycotts for the unorganized small business sector in this province, at the restrictions on management to fill jobs during a strike, at the narrowing of the number of people who will be exempted from union membership, and we see a continuing pressure on the employer. We see the scales tipping in favour of organized labour.

The government has an obligation to maintain a balance. The government has failed miserably with this legislation. Put another way, it has succeeded far beyond what many of its supporters might have hoped or thought. This legislation includes almost all of the provisions put forward by the B.C. Fed in 1990.

There has been talk about consultation. I find it too large a coincidence to accept that two years after the B.C. Fed made its submission, 95 percent of the recommendations wind up in the legislation. There is more than a coincidence there. So we see a piece of legislation that's not fair. It's not balanced, and it will not serve the interests of British Columbians well.

I'm not going to quote the hysterical kinds of predictions that the NDP made when they were in opposition and we were debating Bill 19. I'm going to avoid making those kinds of predictions myself, because I don't know whether our economy is resilient enough to withstand this legislation or not. I am absolutely confident that our economy would be stronger and more vibrant without it -- I have no doubt about that at all -- but I have a great deal of confidence in the people and the investment community in British Columbia. They will prosper regardless of -- in spite of -- this legislation.

That in itself is not a good enough reason to pass legislation. As it sits, this legislation attacks the basic rights and freedoms of individual workers and employers, and that's fundamentally and basically wrong.

For that reason, if not for the other host of reasons, this legislation should be turned down. We should send it back. We should ask them to try again. We should ask the government to come forward with more balanced legislation if it feels an overwhelming need to bring in a change to the labour code in order to fulfil some promises that it made during the election and before. If the government feels that obligation, then it may want to fulfil it -- although it's broken almost every other promise it made. Why it would feel any huge motivation to live up to this promise is somewhat puzzling to me.

We know that there is a very strong relationship among the B.C. Federation of Labour, Ken Georgetti, the Premier and the NDP. No one will deny that. Everyone recognizes that it exists. Therein lies the answer to why this promise would be kept and a promise like the one for a cancer clinic in Kamloops would be so quickly forgotten. Indeed, if I were to go through the list of broken promises, I would have to suggest myself as the designated speaker in order to get a couple of hours here. I'm not going to do that.

I'm going to speak in the half-hour I have available as a member and stay away from the temptation to talk about broken promises. That wouldn't be in line with this amendment, and I wouldn't want to do that.

I think a number of things about this legislation bear repeating, because it has such fundamental flaws. For labour legislation in 1992 to suggest that education is not essential is unbelievable to me. To suggest that somehow parents, students and teachers should have anticipated this change to the labour code and should have made presentations anticipating these changes is unreasonable. No one in their wildest imagination, having been invited to make submissions on labour legislation to a group of people, would have thought that they had better go out and tell them that education is essential. It's not reasonable. It's not something that a

[ Page 3836 ]

normal person would do. Only after the legislation is tabled could that kind of response reasonably be expected.

For that reason among others, it would be useful, proper and right to set this legislation aside for a while, whether we hoist it for six months, refer it to a committee or, as this amendment suggests, turn it down altogether. Any one of those would suit the needs of British Columbians. Given six months and an opportunity to discuss this legislation in a committee, I'm convinced that there would be an overwhelming outcry from British Columbians opposed to this legislation.

I feel very strongly that there has not been consultation with the public -- John Q. Public, Jane T. Public or whatever you want to call them. There has been consultation only with special interest groups. That's the consultation we've had today. It's perhaps useful that those groups have been able to come to a consensus. It's certainly not proper to exclude the majority of people who don't find themselves in either of those two camps, but who are affected by labour legislation in British Columbia.

We have only to look back at the IWA strike in 1986, in which most of British Columbia shut down for a period of months. There was enormous hardship on those third parties. People with small businesses were forced to lay off people and close their businesses, because the industry in their towns shut down and the workers weren't spending any more money. That was the motivation for the recognition of public interest in Bill 19, so clearly demonstrated in 1986 during that prolonged strike.

The impact on people who are not a direct party to the strike motivated good changes to the code that should have been left in the code. For that reason, the individual rights of British Columbians are under attack by this legislation, and this amendment should pass.

For a few minutes more I will look at this bill through the prism of this amendment to see how it falls short of protecting individual rights. Indeed, the changes affecting religious objection to union membership are, again, another fundamental attack on the basic rights and freedoms that British Columbians have come to expect. That's not acceptable. That was an issue that was decided in the Supreme Court, and because the trade union movement didn't like the decision, they convinced the government to pass legislation that would overturn a decision freely reached by the Supreme Court.

In almost every

section of this bill we see an impediment to individual rights in favour of collective rights. That's wrong, and that's why I am opposed to this legislation and in support of this amendment. I can assure you, when the time comes, I will be standing to vote in favour of the amendment.

L. Reid: As the member for West Vancouver-Capilano moved, the position of the official opposition at this time is to decline to give second reading to Bill 84 for the reason that "the bill, in principle, erodes fundamental individual rights of workers and employers." This amendment speaks very strongly to the position of liberalism, which stands for the promotion of individual rights and freedoms in this country and in this province. We do not see that reflected in Bill 84.

My concern today continues to be that I do not believe that women in this province will be well served by Bill 84. I made reference yesterday to a comment made by Ken Georgetti, the B.C. Federation of Labour president. He believes that women are being shut out by the new bill's lack of sectoral certification. This is an issue for the official opposition, because we do not believe that this is the way to go. We believe that women should be receiving support from this administration in terms of their campaign promise of pay equity and a commitment to employment standards in this province. None of those possible vehicles are reflected in this piece of legislation.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Again women are not being well served. The commitment of the official opposition is that women need to be served. As I stated yesterday and as I strongly believe, 52 percent of a population is not an interest group. You cannot have women in this province and country marginalized by legislation that does not work in their best interests. Mr. Georgetti's response is an interesting one, but it is not the answer to the question; it is not a viable option.

Sectoral certification would simply diminish the rights of small and middle-sized businesses in the province, and those, frankly, are the businesses that are now being put forward by women. A great percentage of small business enterprise in this province is managed -- put forward, founded, created -- by women entrepreneurs. We need to recognize that, without allowing this piece of legislation to take away the gains they have made. If you consider the discussion on employment standards, they may indeed be able to take a look at how we treat day care workers and nannies in this province.

[4:15]

What we have before us today is not the answer. This government had a commitment to women. They state publicly, repeatedly, at every opportunity, that they fundamentally believe in the rights of women. Bill 84 does not address any of those concerns. So today we still have day care workers wondering what their future holds. We have women who work as domestics and as nannies wondering what their future holds. That is the group of women who looked to this government for some kind of concrete action, some kind of sense that we were indeed moving forward.

The same women truly believed that they would receive justice on the pay equity question. They truly believed that at some point this government would come forward and follow through on a commitment. It was not a vague commitment; it was very clear. It was a fundamental commitment from the female ministers of the Crown to support the needs and the interests of women in British Columbia. There is no mistake about that. We have heard this government repeatedly take credit for programs they intend to put in place and for commitments they intend to make.

I appreciate that, but I think women need more at this time than some commitment

[ Page 3837 ]

that may come forward in the future. They are looking for concrete action.

I made the point yesterday; I continue to make the point today. Ken Georgetti is finding fault with it. He is saying that the needs of women are not being met. Women will continue to be disadvantaged in this province. I think that is a significant statement. It is a quote from Ken Georgetti that women are not being well served. That is an issue for me, and I find it interesting that someone who continues to be supportive of this government and has worked closely with this government on a number of issues cannot even stand up and say this is a good piece of legislation for women in this province.

That is an issue that we have not seen addressed. We need to see some plans put in place, and we need to have this government stand up and say what they intend to do for women in this province, because it is not reflected in the piece of legislation we have before us today.

It's a huge concern for us, and I hope it's a huge concern for the Minister of Women's Equality, because that individual has spoken very sincerely in this chamber on the need to put in place pay equity, in fair and decent legislation. I have not heard her stand up and say that it is her goal to continue to disfranchise women in this province. Yet by standing behind Bill 84, that is in fact the message that is going out loud and clear to British Columbia women.

We are continuing to stand behind the motion today that suggests we need to ensure that this bill does not go forward at this time because it compromises individual rights. Women have individual rights in this province. Women do not have increased rights or positive rights under Bill 84. That is a huge question for us, and it is a question that we need to begin to recognize. Unless this piece of legislation is amended in some detail, I'm not convinced that this government will have gone any distance in terms of realizing the commitments they made to British Columbia's women.

We talked yesterday about labour law changes under the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. They have a lot of difficulties in terms of where this particular piece of legislation will put people at the end of the day. They certainly speak very clearly on automatic union certification without a vote, let alone a secret ballot. That's an issue for them.

These are our constituents. These people have a voice and a right to be heard. They speak about strict limits on your rights as an employer to communicate with your employees. I don't believe it's prudent to put legislation in place that restricts communication. We are moving into an advancing age of technology -- hopefully an advancing age of effective communication.

Secondary boycotting would force a company to unionize, because the supplier's union contract says so. Liberalism speaks to the fundamental individual rights of citizens -- people who live, work and contribute to the economy. This bill severely impacts their ability to continue to do business in British Columbia.

We had a member earlier on in this session who suggested that as an NDP government they were doing everything in their power to move business south of the border. This bill is continuing to send the message that British Columbia is not a decent place to do business. That is an issue for the Liberal opposition, because we strongly believe that a job creation strategy and some sense of economic stability is what keeps business working and productive. They are not getting that message.

We have a major concern with industry wide certification that would force all companies in a sector to operate under a single agreement regardless of a company's individual situation. Once you move to blanket statements or bald generalizations, you are comprising individual rights. Fundamentally that is what a democracy stands for. Just having returned from a Commonwealth conference, I know that individual rights is the focus of a democratic institution. We have carried that forward in this country. Many countries around this globe believe strongly in individual rights. Many countries would not hold up Bill 84 and say that it respects individual rights.

We made some points yesterday regarding the expansion of picketing rights beyond a certified operation and legislation that would limit a company's ability to operate during a labour dispute. The most salient point is the one that if businesses are forced to shut their doors, taxpayers will be hit with the higher bills for unemployment. That's a given; that's a known eventuality. If you continue to downsize the numbers of jobs available to British Columbians, you will be paying out increasing dollars in unemployment benefits. That is not a complex concept.

The government will the lose tax money it needs for health care, education and social programs. Is that the way to build a strong economy and create jobs? The Liberal opposition is not convinced that that is the way to proceed.

In the history I've had with this administration, there is a complete and utter lack of consultation. We know that contracts and agreements work because people freely and openly consult. I have not had that experience as the Health critic. That is the concern.

We all know that for any labour law to work, all parties must truly be satisfied with both the reform process and the law it creates. There has to be some sense that people are doing a decent job and are working in the best interests of their constituents. There are many British Columbians today who would stand up and say: "This is not in my best interest." When that number continues to grow, this government has an obligation and a responsibility to sit down, renegotiate and work it through one more time.

I do not believe that any government can continue to be as high-handed in terms of what they're prepared to lay on the public at large. It's paternalistic. It's a system we believed we had put behind us many years ago. Frankly, it's offensive to women.

Small and medium-sized business is not asking for special treatment -- only that its voice be heard and that their individual situations be taken into account. That is what all British Columbians are asking for when they choose to do business with the government. I do not believe that that message is being heard by this government because consultation certainly is lacking. I believe consultation is not something this government understands very well at all.

[ Page 3838 ]

The Liberal opposition believes in this province. We believe in its future. We believe in a long-range plan, some kind of economic stability for this province and some kind of job-creation strategy. We don't see it in Bill 84, or anywhere. We will continue to demand that the government communicate openly and work together with all parties to ensure that the new labour law is a fair one. It has to be fair for all. It cannot be fair for select groups in a society.

That is the issue before us today, the issue that I referred to yesterday when I said that a new piece of labour legislation cannot be a one-size-fits-all proposition. It is fundamental to the dilemma we have today facing British Columbians. They do not believe that their individual rights are being recognized.

They do not believe that they can continue to have individual rights under Bill 84, and for a government to stand in a Commonwealth country and suggest that they have some understanding of democratic process at the same time as they are putting forward legislation that removes individual rights is a huge problem and a huge hypocritical stance, in my view.

A number of businesses and agencies are having tremendous difficulty with the imposition of this particular piece of legislation. Pearce Industries Ltd, which is a wire rope and rigging supply industry in my riding, is very clear and straightforward in terms of its position. It states in a letter of October 21, 1992: "The passing of this legislation would guarantee closure of our operation and the unemployment of 20 people." This is exactly the point I am speaking to today. Twenty people in a small business are not going to be well served by this piece of legislation.

Small business and medium-sized business cannot be treated the same as big business, big labour. It simply does not make sense, and it's a complete lack of regard for where we wish to go in terms of respecting individual rights.

Sertex Plumbing B.C. Ltd, which is also a British Columbia-based business, has tremendous difficulty. They believe that small business has a tremendous role to play in providing and promoting small business development and in providing jobs in this province. I quote: "We strongly believe that this was achieved" -- and they're talking about job creation -- "by an enlightened attitude by both management and workers who understand that success and prosperity is a mutual goal." It is fundamental to the understanding of this entire exercise that it has to be a mutual goal.

"For these reasons we are strongly opposed to any changes in the labour laws which may compromise our livelihood and that of our valued employees. In particular, we opposed the following proposals: elimination of a certification vote; elimination of" -- what they consider to be -- "employer free speech; secondary boycotts; first-contract arbitration.

"In closing, we believe that the proposals noted will impose conditions which will only lead to a return to confrontation between unions and management in British Columbia. It has taken many years to improve labour relations to the point where both investor and worker are confident in the future of this province. Please do not destroy all of this good work.

"Sincerely,

"Sertex Plumbing B.C. Ltd."

We have a business in this province which believes that they must come before this government to lay out how they will be negatively impacted. That is absolutely their right, but they must have some message that this government is listening, that this government is prepared to act, that it's prepared to move forward on this question.

Quite honestly, the considerations and the complaints coming forward from this piece of legislation are very consistent. People take issue with the same sections. As reasonable legislators, we need to come forward and be prepared to take a look at those sections. Again, the amendment before you is that we not go forward at this time, because we believe that this bill compromises individual rights.

There are companies and people currently doing business, contributing to the economic stability and providing jobs to British Columbians who have sincere difficulty with particular sections. I think it's incumbent upon us as legislators to provide a forum in order that the difficulties of this particular piece of legislation can be worked out. You will see the Liberal opposition come forward with amendment after amendment, because these people are our constituents and are British Columbians who have a commitment to this province.

They have a belief that this government, this enterprise that we tend to call a democracy, will work in their best interests. We need to convince them that is indeed so, and they will see us stand very firmly on their behalf over the coming weeks and months.

Another business that I would like to suggest has made some excellent points is Parkwood Construction. They have written in the very same tone as Sertex Plumbing and have suggested that an enlightened attitude is what makes for decent labour negotiation, for decent consultation. They are looking for vehicles to assist them in labour dispute resolution. This legislation does not allow for that. We have a Minister of Labour who holds up Bill 84, waves it around and suggests that it will put an end to violence on the picket line. People who work directly in industry only find that to be an interesting comment.

They want to see some legitimate dispute resolution mechanisms in place. Bill 84 does not look at that. It somehow assumes compliance, and we'll just motor forward.

[4:30]

People who have invested in terms of creating a small business are, frankly, the entrepreneurs, the risk-takers, in this province. There aren't many tremendous risk-takers reflected in this government, people who are willing to put their commitment behind small business and take another look at this particular piece of legislation. At the end of the day, it does disfranchise small and medium-sized business.

We need to applaud people who are prepared to take some risks with their dollars, their time and the sacrifices they put in place with their families so they can commit countless thousands of hours to starting and maintaining a business. They do that because they have some commitment to their employees, the people whom they have brought on and have put into some kind of working situation. They are prepared to spend night after night ensuring that small business in this province has a

[ Page 3839 ]

strong foothold and continues to prosper. We need to recognize that. We need to put in place legislation that allows them some comfort zone in terms of continuing to do business and starting new business enterprises in this province.

Again, to speak as the Women's Equality critic, we need to recognize at the outset that the majority of small businesses which are started in this province are started by women. We cannot suggest that we are supporting women and that we have a commitment to them if we're not prepared to put in place some kind of legislative framework that allows them a certain comfort zone and a certain opportunity to do business without having tremendous confrontation laid at their door.

I do not believe that you can assume compliance. As the Liberal opposition, we are looking for some vehicles for dispute resolution mechanisms to be contained in this document. It has to go beyond the notion of whether or not unions can meet the needs of all their employees or all the people who are currently at work in this province. We have to move beyond that discussion and into the realm of where many British Columbians are currently working. Bill 84 has not done that.

I'd like to turn to Actes Construction Engineering. They wrote on October 19, 1992:

"I read with dismay the NDP's decision to reconvene the Legislature in late October to allow new labour legislation to be quickly enacted. It is indeed disappointing to see a government, whose election platform was" fair, representative government, "capitulate to the pressure of a minority group of large union bosses by hurriedly enacting poorly proposed and researched changes to our labour legislation. What is the rush?"

They go on to say that our current labour laws, although not liked by all, have created some stability. These individuals are not suggesting that we stay with old labour legislation, but they are asking what the rush is. Why is it not prudent to take this piece of legislation to the public domain to ask people's opinion and to give the impression that you are truly listening?

"You can be assured that enactment of even one of the new NDP labour proposals will create massive disruption and havoc within our present labour situation.

"Actes Construction is one of those small to medium-sized companies that undertakes 90 percent of all of the business in this province." -- that's a fact, hon. Speaker -- "we provide as a group the bulk of the current employment for people in the province, and provide the majority of new employment opportunities in this province. We are also a part of the construction industry, which is one of the largest employer groups in B.C. Actes is also one of those businesses which the NDP government must, by virtue of its elected mandate to govern fairly for all in the province, ensure that our interests are fairly represented."

This is a company that has such serious concerns with this piece of legislation that they fear for the livelihood of their company. That is reflected in the documents I have brought with me today, and this is only a fraction of the documents that have come to the official opposition.

Actes Construction continues:

"As an open-shop general contractor, we work on the principles of fair pay and benefits, in return for a reasonable day's work. We are able to communicate with our employees directly to let them know about up-and-coming opportunities, new projects, new...prospects and discuss with them issues that affect their future. The proposed NDP labour legislation will prevent us from doing that, which is contrary to the rights of free and democratic speech so clearly enshrined in Canada's constitution."

There are individuals who believe Bill 84 is unconstitutional. That cannot be the message that the government in British Columbia wishes to put out. If it is, we have some serious questions about where this government is going in terms of the fallout from Bill 84. We have not yet seen a significant job creation strategy or an economic strategy for this province. This company recognizes that and is quickly losing faith that its interests are being well represented.

I'll leave you with a question. "The NDP are proposing to eliminate the secret certification vote and to replace it with automatic certification." They ask an interesting question: "Are the NDP also proposing that the next federal or provincial election be carried out on the same basis?" I think it's an excellent question, and I certainly await the outcome.

We have a situation that is coming to us tomorrow, and this is reported in the Windsor Star by Richard Brennan from Toronto: "The New Democratic Party government's labour law reform -- including a ban on replacement workers during strikes and lockouts and a provision making it easier for workers to organize -- is scheduled to be passed Thursday, after 18 months of bitter debate." This is what will happen tomorrow in Ontario. This does not suggest that what is happening in British Columbia in the form of Bill 84 will be a much more positive exercise. Again, Richard Brennan of the Windsor Star suggested yesterday:

"'People are losing...confidence in the future of this province.' A recession is not the time to

'bring in something that kicks business in the teeth'."

It's an issue. I don't believe it's something that we have considered for this province. If there are provinces in this country currently in recession, you can appreciate that other provinces will at some point be in the same predicament. If they believe that the tenets of their labour legislation are not serving their residents or constituents well and if they're suggesting that it is a timed event in terms of being in a recession, perhaps that's something this government needs to take a look at. We're not beating the recession by putting it in place first if we proceed with Bill 84.

I believe that we will be contributing to a recession in this province. We will be contributing to unemployment and a lack of comfort and economic stability in this province. That is a huge issue, and it is one that the Liberal opposition is not comfortable with.

We have spoken long and hard in this Legislature on the need for consultation -- the need to seek input and ask peoples' opinions. This government has not done a good job of listening. People do not believe they've been consulted. We have other issues on the fore today. Health care in this province is rampant with difficulty and labour disputes. We do not have any sense that this government understands negotiation or consultation. I believe that is reflected in the document you have

[ Page 3840 ]

before you today. Somehow there is justification, on behalf of government members, that you can disregard individual rights of British Columbians. That is not a position that is shared by the Liberal opposition.

To return to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, they spoke very strongly on women-owned businesses having that much more work to do and having to work that much harder, because when women decide to enter business, they often don't have the same opportunities or bring the same experiences to bear. They conclude that as a result financial returns are often marginal for these women. This puts women at risk for a double hit under this legislation.

Women's risks will be increased by the fact that other pre-existing gender barriers mean that their businesses are likely to stay small and their financial returns marginal. Clearly the smaller the business, the less likely it will be able to operate under Bill 84. By putting small business out of business, this legislation will close the doors of opportunity for many women.

The government seems to be ignoring its own rhetoric about creating role models for women in society. With systemic discrimination still rampant in the corporate sector, one of the few opportunities many women have to achieve success on their own terms is by becoming self-employed. But perhaps small business won't go bankrupt as a result of this legislation. Maybe they'll try to keep their heads above water by laying off staff -- what a strategy for job creation.

Earlier this year the Ministry of Women's Equality and the Ministry of Economic Development issued a report profiling women in business in British Columbia. The report made frequent reference to the additional financial barriers faced by women when starting a small business. It listed difficulty obtaining capital as the number one barrier for women wanting to get a business started and for those hoping to expand. Major changes are urgently required to assist women in overcoming the barriers facing small business, and increasing the cost of getting started and operating is not one of them.

Again, this piece of legislation is not going to work in the best interests of women. That is the message that the Liberal opposition has been hearing from many, many women in this province. They do not believe that they are being well served by this government. That is the message that we continue to receive. The message we continue to send back to those women is that this Liberal opposition will stand firmly behind supporting women, whether they choose to work in the home or to become self-employed; and that no piece of legislation would ever come forward under a Liberal government that would disfranchise women in the province of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I am rising today to oppose this amendment, of course. Due to my absence from the Legislature this afternoon, this amendment has just come to my attention, and I must say that I am very dismayed about it. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that it's being incorporated into this debate: individual rights versus the collective rights that our government is introducing in here.

I'd like to bring the attention of the members opposite to the record of our government in this area already. We brought in amendments to protect individual rights in the area of the Human Rights Code, some of which they opposed in the debate. We are examining changes in employment standards to protect the individual rights of people. We brought in freedom-of-information legislation that is world class and that will protect individual rights in British Columbia. We are funding advocates in the area of social services to protect individual rights.

We are examining changes to our health care system -- implementing the document closer to home -- to give greater individual choices within our health care delivery system. It is ridiculous to suggest that our government is not protecting individual rights, and I am thoroughly opposed to this amendment.

I do want to say, though, that I am absolutely delighted with the piece of legislation that we are introducing in the form of the Labour Relations Code. It is an exemplary piece of fair and balanced legislation