1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1453 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions –– 1453

Private Members' Statements

Adoption registries. Mr. Bruce –– 1453

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Cashore

Deregulation of the transportation industry. Mr. Miller –– 1455

Hon. Mr. Michael

B.C. forest industry monopoly. Mr. Kempf –– 1457

Hon. Mr. Parker

Mr. Williams

Family and child services. Mr. Cashore –– 1458

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1461

Mr. Gabelmann

Division

Mr. Miller

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

Appendix –– 1471

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair]

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If May 29 is your birthday, you are

intuitive, a natural character analyst in psychology. You actually

learn through teaching. The more you share, the more you gain. This is

remarkable. Would the House please join with me in extending many happy

returns to the Premier.

I have one more announcement to make to the House. Would the House

please join me in wishing our very, very best to the Attorney-General

(Hon. B.R. Smith), who will be married tomorrow.

MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are two people

I would like to introduce to the House. Mr. Stuart Lang is president of

Crestbrook Forest Industries in Cranbrook. With him is Alan G.

Thompson, director of Crestbrook Forest Industries, and chairman of the

board and chief executive officer of Brink Hudson and Lefever in

Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: I can only assume that my invitation to the Attorney-General's wedding is in the mail.

On behalf of my colleague for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota),

who cannot be here today, I would like to introduce some grade 11

students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary School, accompanied by their

teacher, Don Taylor. Will the House please make the students welcome.

MR. BRUCE: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome and

acknowledge probably one of the most dynamic and responsible reporters

in the Cowichan Valley — I don't say that simply because he's here to

do a story on me, on a day in the life of an MLA — Mr. Mark Brett, from

the Citizen newspaper in the Cowichan Valley.

Presenting Petitions

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here that I'd

like to present. It represents the same sentiment that has been put

forward in a petition presented to the Vernon city council. This

petition was signed by over 6,000 people in the Okanagan.

Has the Speaker given leave?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Go ahead.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to read the petition, which is signed by both Mr. Wayne McGrath and Mr. Lorne Adamson.

"To the hon. Legislative Assembly of the province of British

Columbia...the petition of the undersigned, residents of the North Okanagan

re gional district, and president of the Save Our Lakes Society, which has in

excess of 2,000 members, state that we are concerned about the purity of the

water of Okanagan Lake and the proposal for a deep sewage outfall, with its

potential for pollution. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon.

House request that the government of British Columbia impose a one-year moratorium

on the city of Vernon's proposed sewage outfall into Okanagan Lake. Such

a moratorium would provide the time necessary to properly assess the environmental

and economic advantages of alternative effluent disposal methods."

[10:15]

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

ADOPTION REGISTRIES

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about what

I consider a very serious matter, and one that I thinks offers a fair

amount of compassion from this House as a legislature, as a vehicle in

which change can occur, and from the point of view of making a very

clear statement to the people of B.C. about the need for adoption

registries. In the province of B.C. today there are many who have been

adopted and do not know who their birth parents are. Currently we don't

have a government system affording the opportunity for siblings to be

able to find out, if they wish, the identity and the whereabouts of

their birth parents.

There are two such programs that could be implemented if we were to

look at it: a passive registry and an active registry. A passive

registry is one in which the adoptees register and the parents

register, and if they both so choose, they can get together. In the

active, the agency would actually seek out the other parent or sibling

and bring both parties together.

I think it's important when we talk about this type of program that

we understand the human element associated with it. It's not just

another piece of legislation or action that government can take.

There's the very real meaning of this particular endeavour, when

parents are looking for their children, who perhaps for reasons past

they had to put up for adoption, or vice versa when children are

looking for their birth parents.

The best way to state this case would probably be to relay to you

some comments that were made to me by a constituent of mine who spent a

great deal of time searching for her son, after having years ago had to

put this young fellow up for adoption. It's not without a great deal of

thought that she wrote this letter to me, making this statement public

and sharing it with you.

I would just like to read a few comments, if I may, on what it means

to a birth parent and what it means to a child. I would like to quote a

portion here:

"This son of mine, whom I loved more dearly than

anyone can ever know, was the subject of nearly a lifetime of pain and

anxiety and the root of many periods of deep depression. A baby born of

love and hope to two young people deeply in love, but whose union the

public refused to accept. A baby who the authorities and powers that be

insisted would be better off with another set of parents — parents who,

because they were older and more settled, but mainly because their skin

was the same colour, were seen to provide a better future for the

infant whose father's

[ Page 1454 ]

only crime was to be born an East Indian in a country which had

not yet accepted racial equality.

"The saddest thing of all was to learn that he was not

legally adopted until a year later. Barely three weeks after I was

forced to sign the papers, his distraught father secretly came back to

me and asked if we could go together to see our son in his foster home.

We had been promised, by what is now called the Department of Human

Resources, that the baby would be kept in a foster home for one year to

give us time to convince our fathers....that no strangers, no matter

how much they loved him, could give him the love and contentment his

real parents could.

"As we talked" — the mother and the son — "those

first few days and nights, I learned of a fate more cruel than even my

own. Even after his father and I married and produced five more

beautiful children, the ache and knowledge that one was missing

continued to grow. His four brothers and one sister shared that pain.

They knew they had another brother and longed to find him. But

cruellest of all pains was the one he bore: the dread that he had been

cast away like a dirty sock, and that even if he ever did locate his

birth mother, she would reject him. A rejection was the one thing....he

could not handle. To see a grown man cry, his body wracked with sobs as

he confessed how he longed to be reunited with his natural mother but

was so dreadfully afraid of rejection. And in our case, for him to

learn after 35 years and ten months that he was literally torn from my

arms, and that his loneliness and longing had been shared by both his

natural parents all these years, has prompted me to make our story

public.

"Fortunately, he, like me, had heard of the Canadian

Adoptees Reform Association, a non-profit organization in Vancouver who

worked tirelessly and for no pay keeping a current register of names of

mothers who long to find the child they were forced to give away,

hoping that one day that child, now grown, will contact them and ask,

as my son did: 'Is my mother registered here?' The joy he must have

experienced to learn that not only his mother but his father, too, had

been waiting for years for him to ask and to learn that not only does

he have a mother, a father, four brothers and a sister, but that his

father has had his name tattooed on his arm, a reminder of the love for

his firstborn he has carried next to his heart all his adult life.

"Surely no one but a birth mother or an adoptee can

understand the pain and the need for a properly organized and

legitimate reunion registry, one where only if the two parties so wish

will the reunion take place. If a birth mother wishes to remain

anonymous, she needn't feel threatened, as the only names on the

register would be put there by the mother or father who do desire a

reunion."

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just wish to make a few remarks to the

member and thank him for his very touching dissertation. I don't want

to take a lot of time; I know that the member from the opposition

wishes to speak.

It became apparent to me last fall that our adoption legislation was

terribly out of date and had not been changed since 1920, so I invited

all concerned citizens of the province to send in their thoughts on an

adoption registry. The response was overwhelming, and we received many

touching letters and stories such as the one just read by the member.

So on that basis I instructed staff to draft the appropriate

legislation, which has been done. The legislation is nearly ready for

introduction to the House. In fact, I should be introducing it here

within the next couple of weeks. I am sure that it will be greeted

enthusiastically by everyone, and within a matter of two or three weeks

we will have an adoption registry in place in the province of British

Columbia.

So once again I thank the member for the compassion he has shown and

for bringing this story to the House, and I would just assure him and

every member of the House and all of your constituents that within two

or three weeks we will have an adoption registry in place.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to congratulate both the member for

Cowichan-Malahat and the Minister of Social Services and Housing. I

think this is a very important day with this announcement being made

that legislation will soon be forthcoming.

One of the first things I did when I was appointed the spokesperson

on Social Services and Housing was meet with the minister, and we

agreed on a number of things at that time. One of the things we agreed

on was that there are some issues where public dialogue and mutual

input are far more beneficial than the traditional adversarial

approaches. I am pleased he has acknowledged that British Columbia is

one of the last jurisdictions to get to the point of revising the

adoption laws.

I am an adoptive parent, and I have had a great deal of interest in

this subject over the years. After having that meeting with the

minister, I wrote to our local newspapers on this subject and invited

response, and I have received an overwhelming number of phone calls and

letters from people, all of whom have stories that would touch our

hearts in the way that the letter that was read touched our hearts this

morning.

I would like to make a couple of suggestions, however, in the brief

time that I have. One is that when the legislation is brought forward —

while I do know and appreciate that there has been dialogue prior to

the drafting of the legislation — I would encourage the minister in the

process of introducing the legislation to give time for response from

such organizations as the Indian Homemakers' Association of British

Columbia, other native Indian groups, Parent Finders, the Canadian

Adoptees Reform Association and those people who have taken such an

interest, because of obvious concerns. Sometimes they are medical

concerns; sometimes they are concerns about what they are going to look

like when they grow up. Often they are the concerns that are born of

curiosity.

I would like to say that I am very much appreciative of the report

of Dean Ralph Garber of Ontario. I understand that Dean Garber's report

has been reviewed in the development of the legislation. I think that

there are some very good recommendations in that.

I think that there is a particular concern with regard to native

Indian adoptions, and I believe it would be appropriate to support the

moratorium that has been proposed by the B.C. Association of Social

Workers. There is a clause now in the Family and Child Service Act that

ensures that at the time of child apprehension, the band manager and

the band chief would be notified.

[ Page

1455 ]

Since the adoption legislation is going to be changed, this would be an appropriate

time to also write in a clause that would ensure that at the time of adoption,

the Indian band manager and chief would also be notified. I would hope that

such a clause would be within the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is a term that comes to mind that I think is for

me very helpful as we think about this. It's not very many years ago

that in the common parlance in our language there was the term

"illegitimate child." I am so pleased that this House in the past has

seen fit to purge the legislation of that kind of language. I think it

was at the time of going through a process of being involved in

adoption that I became aware of just how vicious and horrendous such

language could be that would be entrenched in law.

I think that when we go through the process that is involved with an

adoption, we are going through a birthing process in a societal sense.

I think that this is one way in which we participate in giving birth,

when a child comes into a home, and when we develop laws that are more

appropriate for the situation that people experience in their lives at

a given time.

I would like to conclude with this point. In the throne speech there

is a wording that would suggest that what is favoured is a passive

registry. I have taken that

interpretation from the reading of the

words in the throne speech, and I would just say that the response that

I have received is very heavily weighted toward a more active kind of a

registry. I would conclude on that note.

[10:30]

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, may I say I very much appreciate the

very positive remarks of this House this morning, and the fact that we

all share and understand, perhaps in a little bit better way than what

we have in the past, the feelings that some people may be faced with in

trying to find their siblings and other family members. It is extremely

important that in our society the strength of the family is improved.

It is that family unit which really is the overall aspect of what makes

our societies a strong one.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of this House to make a short introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: Before I make that introduction, I would just like

to relate to you one last paragraph of the letter that was written to

me by this lady that I am going to introduce. She says to me:

"I had never experienced the joy of holding my

firstborn infant son, and he had never known the contentment of his

real mother's arms. This was the first time I had ever put my son to

bed. He was 35 years old, and for me, after 35 years and 10 months of

heartache and longing, I enjoyed the wonderful experience of taking my

beautiful firstborn to the bedroom and tucked him in with the loving

words: 'Sleep now, my son, and we will talk some more tomorrow.'

"We had talked, cried and held each other until 5:15

a.m. while we relived all the pain and suffering of nearly 36 years of

wondering if we would ever be together again."

I would like you to welcome this lady to the House, Mr. Speaker and members,

one who represents many others who would hope that legislation such as this

would be forthcoming, Mrs. Joan Mayo.

DEREGULATION OF THE

TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY

MR. MILLER: My topic is deregulation of the transportation

industry, which is obviously a topic of significant concern to

Canadians and to British Columbians, and also a very detailed one. In

the time allotted today, perhaps the best I can do is present a bit of

an overview on the issue: how we've developed our current system, and

some of the things that are happening which I think we should be

concerned about, or alarmed about, in terms of what happens in the

future.

First, transportation in all its various forms has been used as a

significant development tool in our vast and sparsely populated

country. Certainly British Columbia required the transcontinental

railway as a term of union — the railway linking British Columbia to

the rest of the country. Traditionally in Canada and in British

Columbia we have used the Crown corporation route as one of the means

of using transportation as a development tool — Air Canada, the CNR, in

British Columbia the B.C. Railway....

MR. ROSE: They're Crown corporations.

MR. MILLER: That's right, Crown corporations. That was along

with a system of regulation that promoted the development of

infrastructure and also ensured that realistic and equitable rate

structures existed. Obviously no single enterprises at various stages

in our development history were capable of coming up with the capital

required to build that infrastructure. For that reason, governments of

the day — and even today — saw that as a necessary thing for the

government to be involved with: through the Crown corporations, as I've

stated.

As well, through that system we have ensured stable service to the

smaller communities, the more remote communities, that otherwise may

have been ignored in terms of the kind of service we all require,

whether that be rail, air, sea or whatever. Quite frankly, again going

back to the use of Crown corporations, quite often a private concern

would simply not serve a particular market because it was uneconomic.

Under the system that we have developed, we have traded off a strictly

free market system for one that restricted competition — not

completely, but there were certainly restrictions placed on

competition. However, the trade-off was seen to be a reasonable one in

terms of benefits that accrued to the country, particularly in terms of

the use of transportation as a development tool. Also, that regulation

— or that lack of competition, if you like, and regulation of sometimes

a monopoly situation — again afforded protection for consumers in the

smaller and more remote communities of this country and this province.

Just some quick examples of the work that is still going on through

the Canadian Transport Commission, one of which came up in this House

recently. I'll deal with that first of all, and tie it in with the

second one. It's the proposed abandonment by the CNR of some branch

lines on the E&N.

In response to that request by the E&N to abandon, the Minister

of Transportation in British Columbia has filed an intervention under

the rules and regulations of the Canadian Transport Commission. If the

current legislation before the

[ Page 1456 ]

federal Parliament doesn't pass, presumably that

will be heard and a rule or an order issued by the Canadian Transport

Commission, as they have done with regard to the request by CNR to

abandon their rail passenger service between Prince Rupert and Jasper.

That request was taken under consideration by the Transport Commission.

In their recent ruling — and it's important that we understand the

nature of the ruling — they issued two orders: first, that Via Rail and

the Canadian National Railway company shall not discontinue operation

of the said passenger train service; secondly, that prior to April 19

they had to post their tariff rates, and all the rest of that.

But in arriving at the decision, the Transport Commission states

that the said passenger train service is uneconomic and is likely to

continue to be uneconomic. It seems to me that that's a very important

point to make when we talk about the system of regulation of

transportation that we have in this country, and the protection that it

offers to consumers and communities. We are now proposing to make some

fairly massive changes in that system. I suppose some of the rationale

is that the need does not exist that originally existed in our country

— that our transportation systems have grown up, that they're more

sophisticated now and that now is the time to simply....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: How much time? Two minutes? Well, I told you, Mr. Speaker, I could only present an overview, and I haven't even started yet.

They're suggesting that we now start to change that thing. One of

the danger points I think we should be quite cognizant of is that we

will lose, under the reverse onus provisions of the proposed changes,

the opportunity that the minister has availed himself of, of applying

to the Canadian Transport Commission to ask them to intervene in CN's

request to abandon. We'll lose that very important protection that we

have grown accustomed to.

We have seen in other jurisdictions, and increasingly in Canada,

where when regulation disappears, monopoly does appear. For example, in

Canada we've gone to really only two major domestic airlines, where we

had many before. This is a prelude to deregulation. In British Columbia

we've seen in the trucking industry.... A recent letter I received from

a trucking company indicates that we're seeing more and more the

consolidation of the independent companies into single companies,

because they feel that under a deregulated atmosphere, the small

companies can't survive. In other words, the trend in business seems to

be the opposite of what deregulation is purporting to bring about.

It's interesting that the B.C. Motor Transport Association and the

independent trucking companies in this province — the B.C. Motor

Transport Association represents some 400 companies, 9,000 jobs and

$700 million worth of business — are vigorously opposed to these kinds

of moves.

One last point — and the trucking companies do make it — is that the

jobs that we've developed in the transportation industry are good,

well-paying jobs, and where we've seen deregulation come in, we've seen

those jobs changed to non-union, poorly paying jobs, along with a lot

of bankruptcies in the business sector.

Again, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many things that have yet to be raised in regard to this issue, but I'll leave it at that.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the

member opposite that it's a very deep subject, and certainly not one

that can be covered in any depth in a short 15-minute member's

statement. Hopefully we can be looking forward in this assembly to

further discussions as the session evolves.

The word "deregulation," as used in the federal context, is perhaps

a misnomer, because in my view a lot of the things that I read coming

out of Ottawa are not so much deregulation as re-regulation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I agree with the member regarding his

concerns about small communities. He didn't mention transportation

fares for passengers, but I certainly would include that. This minister

is certainly concerned about the small communities and transportation

for them as it applies to buses, and I assure the member that....

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to apologize for the elitists opposite, in their comments.

Mr. Speaker, regarding the safety aspects of the deregulation, I can

assure the member opposite that the federal government and the

ministers of transportation and highways, in western Canada at least,

are certainly working hand in hand to see that a proper national safety

code is brought into effect. We expect that to be brought into effect

on January 1, 1989, and hopefully that will prevent the situation that

evolved in the United States when deregulation was brought about there.

I can assure the member that the minister is very concerned about

deregulation. We intend to tread very lightly, to communicate with all

interested parties, with communities — particularly the small

communities in British Columbia — and with the industry. I disagree

with what the member said about certain associations being strongly

opposed. There is some opposition, but to use the words "strongly

opposed" I don't think is correct. I think that people are prepared to

sit down and discuss it and debate it in a logical manner, and

hopefully when the legislation is brought in in British Columbia it

will dovetail and fit in with the federal government's so that we have

a standard national safety code applicable to all provinces, so that

transport, when crossing borders, will not be subject to one rule on

one side of the border and another rule on the other side. Hopefully,

when we look at deregulation in general, we will have a consensus

across the Dominion of Canada so that the rules will be applied

equitably to all those involved in the very important transport

industry.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, we don't have the time to get into any depth

of debate today, but I look forward to embarking on further discussions

as the session evolves.

MR. MILLER: I acknowledge the comments of the minister, and I

appreciate his recognition of concern about the way we're heading. I

believe in competition. I think that in an atmosphere where it's

possible for competition to exist, that it indeed offers protection for

consumers; it offers, I think, a system where business is required to

be efficient. It doesn't always work; sometimes the people who pay the

heaviest price, as we've seen in the United States, are those well

paying jobs that I talked about, and that could be a negative impact. I

think that sometimes members on the opposite side don't really consider

that to be a negative.

Certainly government, having assumed the role of a regulator, also has a responsibility to ensure that the regulations

[ Page 1457 ]

do not allow stagnation, that the regulations are looked at from

time to time, that perhaps the industry needs shaking up from time to

time to ensure that they are using new technology, that they are

efficient, that they're not simply taking the licence that they have to

operate and not really trying to improve their operation. We have that

responsibility. Therefore I think the appropriate word is

re-regulation, and if we toss the word deregulation away, we'd be a lot

better off.

[10:45]

With regard to trucking safety, I deliberately didn't raise that

issue in my remarks, because I do believe that there is some good work

being done in Canada to head off the kind of situation that developed

in the United States. I do disagree with the minister, however, on the

dates of implementation, and there is some concern. There is a recent

report of the allparty federal transport committee. The transcript of

the meeting in Vancouver was just made available to me yesterday. I

note that Mr. Jackman of the motor vehicle department indicates that

all aspects of the national safety thing will be in effect in 1991. So

there is some concern about a time-lag between the passage of Bills

C-18 and C-19 at the federal level and the final implementation or

putting into place of all of the features of the safety program. But I

do say that I think that the safety program will probably be a good one

when it is implemented.

Just to conclude, seeing as how this is a very controversial

subject, and looking at the way in which it was handled on the federal

level through the transport committee, it seems entirely appropriate to

me, Mr. Speaker, that given the concerns expressed by the unions and by

the trucking industry in general and given the acknowledgment of the

minister that this is an area that could involve some dispute,

certainly the vehicle of an all-party committee, a transport committee

of this House, would be an appropriate means of investigating this

issue prior to the introduction of legislation.

B.C. FOREST INDUSTRY MONOPOLY

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to speak this morning about

an area that has been of real concern to me for a great number of

years: the plight of the small entrepreneur in British Columbia's

forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, the forest resource in this province has for several

decades now been controlled by the large multinational giants. This

situation began back in the 1940s and has escalated until today, when

less than 7 percent of the total annual allowable cut in this province

is in the hands of the little guy — less than 7 percent in both the

small business enterprise and woodlot programs. Less than 7 percent of

the total resource ever goes on the auction block, and because of that,

as British Columbians, we have no idea what that resource is really

worth.

Our forests are being, I believe, wasted and given away, and we

simply stand by and watch it happen with apparent unconcern. The

prophecy of Mr. H.R. MacMillan, speaking before the Sloan commission in

the forties, has come true. I quote Mr. MacMillan, who said, when

addressing that commission:

"A few companies would acquire control and form a monopoly.

It will be managed by bureaucrats, fixers with a penthouse viewpoint, who, never

having had rain in their lunch-buckets, would abuse the forests. Public interest

would be victimized because the vigorous citizen business needed to provide

the efficiency of competition would be denied logs and thereby prevented from

penetration of the market."

He went on to say:

"We will be wasteful when we have excess timber, and when

the pulp and paper people get hold of my company, it will he like a blight on

the prairie wheat. They do not understand the forest."

All of these things have come true. Ninety-three percent of the

forest land in British Columbia is in the stranglehold of these large

multinational forest monopolies — a disgraceful situation. Where does

that leave the ordinary British Columbian? Out in the cold, starving,

fighting over a few paltry cubic metres of timber — less than 7 percent

of the total annual allowable cut of this province.

Even that does not satisfy the ravenous appetite of the monopolies.

Even much of that, through surrogate bidding, is wrenched from the

grasp of the small logger and trucker and mill operator. The faceless

giants who control our timber from outside our boundaries want it all.

They want it all, even that 7 percent. They control the timber and the

price, leaving absolutely no opportunity whatsoever for those hanging

by their fingernails in the industry now or those trying, as British

Columbians, to avail themselves of what is supposed to be their

resource.

Horrendous amounts of wood are being wasted. Sawlog material is

being made into pulp. Our good timber is virtually disappearing before

our eyes, and we, the people of British Columbia, see absolutely no

return for that timber. We not only get nothing for it, we pay, through

situations such as

section 88, to have it taken.

What does this mean for the future of British Columbia? I'll tell

you what it means. It will mean the demise of not only our small

business people in the forest industry, but, as well, total communities

are at risk. At this very moment in communities throughout this

province, and particularly in the northern two-thirds of British

Columbia, monstrous, highly automated, what I call spaghetti factories

are literally gobbling up the very best timber that this province can

offer.

What will happen when that good wood is gone? When that good wood is

gone, when that wood that is left is no longer sought after by world

markets, I'll tell you what will happen. Those large monopolies will be

gone also. What do they care about small communities in British

Columbia? What do they care about people? If they cared about them,

they wouldn't have driven them out of their own resource in the first

place. They're here for good timber and good times, and the

multimillions of dollars which that returns to their well-filled

pockets. It's a disaster of monumental proportions, which, unless

turned around, will in fact be the very demise of this province's

economy, as the forest industry makes up 55 percent of that economy.

As surely as it has meant the demise of the small operator in the

industry, it will mean the demise of those small communities of which I

speak. It's meant the demise of the small entrepreneur, and it will

surely, if allowed to continue, mean the demise of the forest industry

in British Columbia.

HON. MR. PARKER: The small business enterprise program is a

key part of forest management in British Columbia and will continue to

he so, and it will be increased when and where it's possible. I might

point out that it may be 7 percent today, but a few months ago it was

only 7 percent as well.

[ Page 1458 ]

The comment was that the industry is only here for the good times,

and the member mentioned Mr. MacMillan — who commenced his enterprise

in 1916, so I guess he's only been here for 80 years of good times; he

hasn't stuck it through the Depression and his company didn't manage to

struggle through the recession of the eighties. They're only here for

the good times,

A lot of the communities in this province were established by the

forest industry, and as the forest industry matures and consolidates we

see communities like Prince George, Mackenzie. We see growth in the

community of Hazelton; we see stability in the community of Smithers;

we see stability in the community of Bums Lake, and so on. We see all

kinds of opportunities. You're only limited by your imagination in the

forest industry in British Columbia. Look at the opportunities seized

by the employees of Evans Products in Golden in moving together as a

group of employees and acquiring the plywood plant and sawmill there,

and continuing employment, and seizing a good opportunity for

themselves as small entrepreneurs to carry on in the forest industry.

The forest industry is a dynamic environment and there is change

every day, but in that change we will continue to remember the small

business operator. And it's not just the people the member alluded to;

it's also all those who service the industry and the logging

contractors — everybody who makes up the fabric of the industry. We

represent all of them from the big to the small, and we'll continue to

administer the resource of this province in a judicious and fair manner.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to hear the former

Minister of Forests saying some of these things we've heard today. I

think it's what happens when one reflects after holding high office,

and I hope some of those goals were there when he held that office.

Nevertheless, we've had, both under his tenure and this minister's

tenure, an approach that has not been generous in terms of the small

business program. There have been tree-farm licences granted under the

former minister's tenure where there was indeed only 7 percent

allocated for the small business program — I would make that note at

this point.

We're now teaming, out of reports like the Prince George TSA report

and the rest of it, what really is happening within this industry in

terms of a misallocation; in terms of an inadequate stumpage system; in

terms of people who have become instant millionaires by generous,

inadequate policies; in terms of allowing overcutting in the central

areas around the main community. It is gross mismanagement where

foresters or bureaucrats have allowed the lines to be redrawn to

pretend that there has been good forestry practice when there has been

anything but — the Prince George region with a 40-kilommter — long

clearcut, the biggest in North America.

HON. MR. PARKER: Sanitation cut.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sanitation cut; it's a sanitary corridor 40

kilometres long. Try and sell that to any grade 6 environmental

student, Mr. Minister.

He talks about it being dynamic. It's closed. It's a closed industry

where new players are not allowed; they are forbidden. The member for

Omineca is absolutely right; you have to be a millionaire to buy in.

And if you want the details, bring on your estimates right away, Mr.

Minister, in terms of having to be a millionaire to buy in on public

timber that was already stolen from us.

But if you want to talk about a dynamic industry, we were in

Penticton just a week ago and we saw a small plant of about 100

employees producing furniture for Ikea — furniture, at last, being

produced in British Columbia. Do you know their only constraint, Mr.

Speaker? Their only constraint is the lack of wood in a wood-rich

province. They have to go to little bush mills because the people

you've allocated wood to don't provide it for them — they can't be

bothered. And it's turning out valuable material worth over $3,000 a

thousand, compared to your spaghetti factories that turn out the $200

2-by-4s — not dynamism at all.

Mr. Minister, bring on your estimates. Bring on your estimates and let's give you an education.

[11:00]

MR. KEMPF: Certainly we are going to be talking a lot more about this in the minister's estimates in the weeks and months ahead.

I just want to relate to what was said yesterday in question period

by the Premier. I think it summed it all up when he said: "I am sure,

with the fact that the forest industry generally now is doing extremely

well." The forest industry has always done extremely well in British

Columbia, but the people haven't done extremely well because of that

industry. Sure, it provides jobs. You bet it provides jobs, but not

half as many jobs as would be provided if that resource were fairly

distributed among the people of this province.

Successive administrations, ministers and Premiers have virtually

taken their orders from the multinational corporations in the forest

industry of this province. Why, Mr. Speaker? We talk of conflict of

interest in this chamber and in this province. What kind of conflict of

interest was it when the monopoly provided their man to come over from

Vancouver, to take on the job as deputy minister, to write the new

Forest Act and then to go back to the COFI offices in Vancouver.

We talk of conflict of interest; we talk of sharing. We talk of the

possibility everywhere of giving the small guy a chance — less than 7

percent of the annual allowable cut in the province in the hands of

British Columbians. It is disgraceful. The only thing the entrepreneur

is limited by — and the member said it — is the lack of a raw material

to log or to saw, because it is in the grasp of offshore,

multinational, monopolistic corporations.

Mr. Speaker, it has to end. You can change as many Forests ministers

as you like. But I will tell you it's got to end, because the people —

that's the reason we will talk about it more in estimates — have got to

realize that there is no free enterprise in the forest industry of

British Columbia. There hasn't been for 40 years, and it's got to

change. The people of this province have to be able to derive some

benefit. Those corporations are stealing from this province an

estimated $1 billion a year.

We don't have to have a deficit. We don't have to raise taxes on

property. We don't have to raise all those other taxes, as was done in

the budget. We need only get our fair share from the forest industry.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICES

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to handle myself in a way that recognizes that the anger just

[ Page

1459 ]

expressed is an anger that I too feel. Very precisely the issue I want to talk

about today, the fact that the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Richmond) and his ministry are hamstrung, is directly related to the message

that we've just been hearing in the previous statements and debate: that

the squandering of resources and the unfair distribution of the fruits of resources

is being used as an excuse to deprive this province of adequate, fair and reasonable

social policy. It is high time that we recognized that sound social policy is

sound economics, and that all of these issues are interconnected.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a situation in this province where it is very clear

that family and child services are in disarray. They are in disarray, and we

have the tragic scenario of the minister having to try, with all the ability

he can muster — and he has a lot of ability in public relations — to some how

carry that off and be the spokesperson for a government that really does not

care about doing anything creative through that particular ministry and has

not cared about that for quite some time.

I would like to think that the spirit of consultation that has been

evidenced through the adoption registry issue could permeate the entire

ministry, because if that were the case, there could be some hope. I am

referring to the issue of the firing of Andrew Armitage and the

statements that he has been making.

I want to make it very clear that what we are hearing from Mr. Armitage is

not isolated. We only have to think back to the legacy of the Social Credit

government in this province.

Go back to the 1960s, when Ruby McKay, through frustration over not

being allowed to perform her assigned responsibilities, left; and then

to the late 1970s, when Vic Belknap, a person who was second to none in

terms of qualifications to be addressing issues with regard to children

and families, was shuffled aside after he had produced an exemplary

report that would bring this province up to date with regard to family

and child services.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is an attitudinal problem: behave like an ostrich

with its head in the sand and not face the problems that are obviously there.

And the problem is at the ministerial and cabinet level. I find it extremely

frustrat ing when we raise questions — legitimate questions — and the answers

are turned around in such a way that it's made to look as though we are

criticizing the staff, the people who labour within that ministry and without

the kind of support that enables them to fulfill their professional training

and to serve the people of this province in the way they are capable of doing

but are prevented from doing because of the restric tions and the closed-mind

attitude that exists within that ministry.

Mr. Armitage stated that he worked for change, and the minister had the unmitigated

gall to say that Mr. Armitage never raised those issues within that ministry.

I would like to ask that minister how he knows that. How does he know that that

public servant never raised those issues within that minis try? And how could

he ever in conscience be a member of a cabinet that would participate in a government

that would hire somebody who didn't have a reputation for raising is sues?

Surely when Mr. Nielsen stood in this Legislature and in glowing terms announced

the hiring of Andrew Armitage, he was talking about somebody who was going to

bring into that ministry a dimension that was sadly lacking; a dimension that

was needed; a dimension that would look at the needs of children and recognize

the need for advocacy; somebody who would stand up for children and bring a

breath of fresh air into this province.

When this decent, fine man who has been fired gets to the point of

making public statements that might be helpful if you would stop and

listen to them, this is what is said: "He never said this while he was

in that job." How, in any kind of conscience, can that statement be

made about that individual? And how blatantly unfair it is, not only to

that individual but to the people of this province, and especially to

the voiceless ones in many instances — the children.

Mr. Speaker, we have a sad problem on our hands, and it is a problem

of philosophy. I would like to say that the minister, to his credit,

has I think been very straightforward during the estimates in

saying....He was not straightforward on everything, but he was

straightforward in admitting that the philosophy of his ministry is one

of crisis intervention. Therefore we have a situation here that's quite

special because we have two philosophies standing side by side: one

says that crisis intervention is the role of that ministry, and one

says that the preventive approach is the moral approach, he

compassionate approach. And it's the economically sound approach,

because if we don't look at these issues on a ten-year basis when we're

looking at bottom-line financial statements, we will continue to be

hoodwinked by the minimal savings that are made in a year such as 1983.

We're then left with the cat-and-mouse game that fires family

support workers — more than 200 of them. Mike Tytherleigh said in the Province

the other day that that was one of the worst things ever done in the

name of restraint. We have the firing of those workers, the downgrading

of child services, and what happens a few years later? This year in the

throne speech and in the budget we hear that families have suddenly

become important again, and a few dollars are put back.

My time is up, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The one statement that the member made

that I could agree with is his last one, when he said his time was up.

I think that's about the only thing he said that in all conscience I

can agree with.

To take his comments from the top as best I can, when he says that

family and child services, to use his words, are in disarray in this

province, he is not correct. I think this government is doing a good

job with regard to families and children. It's a top priority of this

government. To say, to use his words, that we do not care about

families and children is unacceptable.

We do not have an attitudinal problem. As he pointed out, it's mentioned

by the Premier right in the throne speech that he top priorities in this ministry

are families and children.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We take a very, very strong view about the

family and children in this province, and do everything we can to keep

the family unit together. It's a top priority. There are times, and I

am sure Mr. Armitage and that member know, when it's impossible to

reunite children with heir families. When we have to apprehend a child

for his or her safety because they've been half beaten to death, it is

impossible to put that child back into a family setting at that

particular time.

To say that we are a crisis intervention ministry is absoutely correct. I said it in my estimates, and I'll say it again.

[ Page 1460 ]

Sure, we plan for the long term. That's why I've taken the social

policy committee of cabinet around this province to hear from the

front-line workers who deliver the service and who know best where we

should be heading in the years to come. But we have to be a crisis

intervention ministry.

I wonder if the member realizes that many times when we do intervene

it's at 2 o'clock in the morning or midnight, when the police have

called the emergency services and a social worker has to attend. You

can't plan for that, Mr. Member. You must be a crisis intervention

facility, and we are. And we do an excellent job of it, I might add. I

have nothing but praise for the staff in the ministry. The staff, under

duress many times, and in very difficult circumstances, make some very

difficult decisions, and most of the time they make the right decision.

I was correct, Mr. Member, when I said that Mr. Armitage never

mentioned these issues to me. I didn't say that he didn't bring them up

within the ministry; he may have. My information is that he did not. I

don't like to stand in this House and pick on one certain individual. I

find it against my style, and I don't wish to pick on Mr. Armitage. But

suffice it to say that Mr. Armitage is no longer in his position in the

ministry, and not because of his views on child apprehension or family

and child services. That's not the reason he's no longer with this

ministry.

The person who has been appointed to take his place is doing an

exemplary job. She has been in the ministry and in that position

before. As a matter of fact, she was doing much of the job before she

got it officially. So I would commend to the member that maybe he

should introduce himself to the new superintendent of family and child

services. Her name is Leslie Arnold. Go over and meet her and have a

talk with her, and I am sure that you will be as impressed as I am with

her credentials and her attitude toward families and children.

For him to stand in this House and say that this government doesn't

care about families or children is totally unacceptable. I find it

repulsive, and I can't find strong enough terms to condemn those

statements. To say, also, that I wasn't straightforward in my

estimates.... I find that a personal affront. I answered every question

as succinctly and as accurately as possible. Sometimes I answered the

same question several times, and I am sure the Minister of Labour and

Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) knows what I am talking about, when

the same question is asked 15 or 20 times.

In answer to the member's statement that I wasn't straightforward on

everything, I'd like him to let me know what I wasn't straightforward

on, and maybe I can straighten the record out for him.

We do plan for the long term in this ministry. I am sure the member

knows that. That is why, again, we are, with the social policy

committee of cabinet, planning for the next five or ten years: to do

the very best we can for those who are less fortunate than ourselves.

[11:15]

MR. CASHORE: I think we saw some good examples there about

the very thing I was referring to: we make comments pertaining to the

philosophy within the ministry, and it's turned around to make it look

as though we're attacking people like Leslie Arnold. That's not the

case. Leslie Arnold has a very solid reputation; I have a great deal of

admiration for her.

The question that concerns me is: is she going to be in the same

bind that so many social workers are in in this province, where they

are denied the opportunity to fulfill their vocational potential and to

serve the people to the best of their ability? Now you may not think

that's true, but I think it is true. I think once Mr. Armitage got into

his job, he was gagged. I think he was there for window dressing. When

he made suggestions, I don't think that creative process was allowed to

develop and allowed to result in the kinds of improvements that were

needed in this province.

What we see there is simply a microcosm of what is happening

throughout the ministry. Social workers also are gagged. If you talk to

people who know social workers — and they are afraid to say this

publicly, but they say it privately — they are experiencing burnout. It

is not so much because of calls in the middle of night that he referred

to that you can't comment on — and I understand you can't comment on

that — but it is because they are overworked and because their work has

been downgraded, so that they are not functioning as social workers but

as administrators.

It is because there is a whole mindset within that ministry that is

really detrimental and harmful. Why not for a moment back off and think

it over and look at the kinds of things that Mr. Armitage is saying?

Just as Mr. Armitage has been gagged and social workers have been

gagged, I want to know why, when I was in Chilliwack this past week to

meet with community service workers, the person who organized the event

told me that people from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing

were not allowed to be there. The simple purpose was for me as a member

of the opposition to be there and hear their concerns, but there was,

in effect, a gag order. They were not to talk to members of the

opposition in that type of a setting unless they had permission from

above.

I would like to know who is issuing gag orders such as this. I am

not saying, by the way, that they are not allowed to talk to us in any

circumstances. We get very good cooperation in the constituency office

work that we do. I want to make it very clear. I don't want you to put

those words in my mouth. I am not saying that. But I am saying there is

a climate of fear out there, and it is very destructive.

I think that what we are seeing with Mr. Armitage is just the tip of

the iceberg. It is high time that we take a new approach to services

for children within this province. One of the things that we are

intending to do is to put forward a children's bill of rights and to

use that as a beginning to a kind of dialogue that will invite public

response.

I would like to conclude by saying that we should listen to what Andrew Armitage has to say. His credentials are very good.

MR. ROSE: I suppose we can call this a point of order, but it is actually a point of compliment, Mr. Speaker.

When the rules reform committee chaired by Your Honour introduced —

or invented, if you like — standing order 25A, it was an attempt to get

away from the set pieces and give people an opportunity to debate and

to bring constituency concerns or public concerns by the private member

to the floor of the House.

It was invented also to give people a chance that they might not

ordinarily have in question period or any other time to discuss matters

with ministers. This morning, to my knowledge, is the first time it has

ever happened that four ministers have been present to comment and

respond to

[ Page

1461 ]

issues raised. I think that is a very good record, and this is the first occasion that rule 25A has worked perfectly.

I would like to say on behalf of the opposition how pleased we are

that the ministers are respecting this particular session. It works

well only if the ministers respect it. I congratulate them for being

here.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I just hope you will provide

me the same latitude to comment on what the opposition House Leader

did. I commend him for his remarks, because I can remember the last

time we had an exchange over how private members' statements should

work. I too thought this morning they worked very well. I want to thank

the Chair for the latitude you allowed me to respond to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat so that we could get a dialogue going here. I think it

is working as it should, thank you very much.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Further, Mr. Speaker, while we are passing

out compliments, although a lot of members might not agree with the

intent of Bill 19, I would like to congratulate and thank legislative

counsel for the consolidated copy. With a bill like this, having this

type of printing done for the benefit of the House is very good. You've

got a consolidated copy in your book with amendments in it, yes. So my

compliments to legislative counsel for preparation of this consolidated

copy.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

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

On the amendment to

section 8.

MR. GABELMANN: The House Leader and I were talking about two

different things. The useful thing that we have is the consolidation of

the Labour Code and the Bill 19 amendments. That's what has made it

easier to follow this debate. What the legislative counsel has done is

of value, but not quite so much.

Madam Chair, I think it's important this morning, in starting out,

to go through in some detail what has happened with the amendment

introduced yesterday afternoon at 2:30, because for one reason or

another there have been gross misrepresentations about what that

amendment will do.

Just to cite a couple that I know of on my own account, the 7:30

radio news on CBC this morning was completely inaccurate. They totally

misunderstood the intent of this amendment. The column in the Times-Colonist

this morning, by Jim Hume, also totally misunderstood and,

unfortunately, misrepresented the intent of this particular section. No

doubt other news outlets have similarly made this error.

The error is not of their making, Madam Chair; the error is of the Premier's

making. The Premier, following the cabinet meeting on Wednesday night, and again

on Thursday, suggested to members of the media that the amendment was needed

because trade union members who did not want to participate in a walkout on

Monday were facing disciplinary action from their unions, and therefore the

amendment was required. The amendment was required, he suggested — and much

of the media appears to have agreed — in order to allow for those people who

did not agree with the majority in their union, who wanted to go to work in

an unimpeded way without suffering penalty from their union.

It's unfortunate that the Premier does not know, or chooses not to

acknowledge, the law in this province. In 1984 this Legislature passed

amendments to

section 5 of the Labour Code. It's important, I think, to

remind members, because it's totally on the point of this amendment.

Section 5 of the Code, since 1984, and unchanged by this legislation

we're debating, is the "fair and reasonable conditions of membership"

clause. It says, in part:"' Unlawful industrial action' means

industrial action that is prohibited by order by or under this Act. No

trade union shall expel, suspend or impose a penalty on a member, or

refuse membership..." or do a whole bunch of other things as a result

of members' refusing to go along with the union request that they

honour such a walkout as is proposed on Monday. The law is clear and

specific. It is not legal for trade unions to discipline, harass or do

anything to members who do not go along with the leadership.

I made that point yesterday afternoon in response to the member for

Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), when he stood up and asked the question

about the phone call he'd had from a former constituent who, he said,

was being harassed or threatened with possible disciplinary action by

his union if he went to work on Monday. The minister agreed, I believe,

with my answer to that member, which was that

section 5 is available.

Yet we have the Premier going around the province all day yesterday and

the previous evening following cabinet, saying that an amendment.... He

didn't talk about the amendment until after 2:30 yesterday, but he said

that some action was necessary in order to curb this incredible power

that unions apparently have to discipline people who don't go along

with their wishes. It ain't so. It's just not the case.

When we have a difficult situation in labour relations, an inflamed

situation already, it's really unfortunate that the Premier would go

around and inflame the situation even more by — I'll have to be careful

about the rules here — either knowingly or unknowingly telling the

people things that are not quite factual. I won't say that it's

misrepresentation, because I think I'd probably be called to order for

that. But it certainly is inappropriate for the Premier of this

province to misrepresent the law of this province and to use that

misrepresentation as a mechanism to further inflame an already inflamed

situation caused by the Premier. What is it that the Premier wants?

Does he want more editorials like the one in the Globe and Mail this morning, so that the whole international business community, which reads the Globe and Mail ,

can know about our great labour-relations climate in this province? Is

that what the Premier wants? Madam Chair, that's the first point.

1 think it's important to talk calmly about what this amendment will

do. In order to do that, I think it's important to review what can

happen now. At the present time, under the law in this province, an

employer or a trade union or the Labour Relations Board on its own

motion can seek a declaratory opinion; the board can on it own motion

issue a declaratory opinion. That's available now. It's also available

for the board, if it chooses, to file such a declaratory opinion in the

[ Page 1462 ]

Supreme Court. That's

section 30, if my memory is correct, of the Code.

[11:30]

There have been attempts to get anticipatory declarations. The case

that I can refer to is Better Value. The board refused, under the

existing law, to order a declaratory opinion. That was appealed through

to the appeal court, and the appeal court upheld the view — as I

understand it — of the Labour Relations Board. So under the present

law, an employer, a trade union or the board can issue a declaratory

opinion, but not an anticipatory declaratory motion or declaration.

That's my understanding of the law as it stands today.

What these changes — and we cannot consider just one change in

isolation, because you have to run through all of the changes that tie

in together with it.... The new situation will be that any person can

ask the Industrial Relations Council for a declaratory opinion — any

person. A person is defined as a member of a trade union, employer,

trade union, etc., but in this case "person" doesn't mean person; it's

not any citizen, as I understand the law. But any member of a trade

union can now, as a result of these changes, go to the Industrial

Relations Council and seek a declaratory opinion that some event that

may or may not happen in the future shall be declared to be illegal —

some event in the future that may or may not happen. But a person — a

trade union member, employer, trade union, council of unions or

accredited council of employers; any of those people — can go and say

to the Industrial Relations Council: "We believe the law is going to be

broken in the future." And if they can persuade the council of their

view, the council can then issue a declaratory opinion.

That declaratory opinion, until now, could not be filed in the

courts unless the board permitted it. The reasons for that are clear

and obvious. What you need to do in labour relations is to keep cool to

keep parties talking and avoid court intervention so as to avoid

inflammation. Calmness, coolness and rationality are what help in

industrial relations. So in order to prevent things getting out of

hand, the Labour Board had the discretion of saying yes or no to a

request that a declaratory opinion be filed in court.

It's an essential element in labour relations: discretion. That

discretion no longer exists. The person, or any other person, as I read

it, can take that declaratory opinion and say to the Industrial

Relations Council: "I want that declaratory opinion filed." And the IRC

has no choice; it must file that declaratory opinion. Then, if any

action does happen that happens to break or violate opinion, you are

not then in violation of a civil matter of your contract or even in

violation of a board order; you are in contempt of court.

The penalties which are set out in this legislation, the penalties

which are specific, do not apply, because contempt of court is not a

matter to be treated in the same way as a violation of either a

collective agreement or a civil statute. Contempt of court is a much

more serious matter. The courts, which have no knowledge or involvement

or day-to-day experience with the requirements to conduct meaningful

labour relations, the requirements to maintain good relations between

the parties, have no involvement in that. All they are concerned about

is that a court order was violated, and that's a serious matter. They

then have the option to do whatever they want in terms of penalties.

They can seize assets. They can impose fines of any amount. They can

throw people in jail. A 15-year-old kid was sentenced to jail for 60

days in Nova Scotia for laughing in court, because that's contempt of

court.

Presumably this kind of contempt of court is more serious than that,

so what kind of penalties are involved? And what does that do for

labour relations? How does that improve industrial relations in this

province? It does not. It makes it worse.

Everything the government intends to do under these amendments, and

under this particular amendment, serves only to make things worse.

Let's think for a while. What's the worst thing that has happened in

labour relations in this province in the last year, in terms of our

international reputation? Was it the IWA strike last year, or is it

what's going on today? It's clearly what is going on today. No one

would argue about that. And why is this going on today? Because the

government, for some reason, fails to comprehend that industrial

relations matters need to be conducted in a manner similar to marital

relations. You cannot have laws that govern without having discretion.

You must have discretion, and it's now gone.

I want to say, in the minute or so that I have left, that there's

one further element in this, and it's a question we'll discuss when we

get to

section 70. All of this stuff is retroactive. People can apply

today for orders that will break a law which has not yet passed and

have that order, that request application, dealt with in the future

based on the new law, as if it were law today. When you combine all of

these elements with the introduction of this amendment, you have in

this province a recipe for a climate in labour relations that will get

worse and worse, that will fester until we come to the situation where

the whole area will be unmanageable and ungovernable.

MR. R. FRASER: Not so.

MR. GABELMANN: The member says it's not so. One only needs to

talk to neutrals in the business to determine the answer to that

question. You don't have to talk to labour; talk to people who are

neutral, who have experience with it on a day-to-day basis, which none

of us in this House have, and you'll discover that that's the case.

This amendment inflames, provokes and is absolutely wrong, and we on

this side of the House oppose it as strongly as it is possible to

oppose it.

[11:45]

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Brummet

L. Hanson

Reid

Dueck

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

Parker

Loenen

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Dirks

Strachan

Vander Zalm

B.R. Smith

Davis

Johnston

A. Fraser

Weisgerber

Jansen

Hewitt

R. Fraser

Chalmers

Mowat

Ree

Bruce

Serwa

Vant

Campbell

Long

Messmer

S.D. Smith

[ Page

1463 ]

NAYS — 16

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Stupich

D'Arcy

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Cashore

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

section 8 as amended.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister

on this section.... We don't have a lot of serious problems with the

other part of the

section — I must say that to start with. Nor do we

have any major problem with.... It's difficult, Madam Chairman.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Would members please be silent and take their places, or else hold their meetings in the hall.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, it's the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) — he's talking too loudly.

The problem being addressed here is primarily dispatch in

construction unions, and it appears from the amendment that the

government believes there's a problem with dispatch procedures. I'd

like the minister to tell us what problems he's identified.

HON. L. HANSON: We have certainly not perceived a major

problem with the hiring halls, but we have had some representations

about the odd instance of allegedly preferential treatment being shown.

I'm not suggesting that it is widespread, and this is certainly not a

slur on the management of hiring halls in general, but I think it is

reasonable, Madam Chairman. The wording in the act simply says that it

be done in a fair and equitable manner, and that they dispatch people

without undue — what should I say — aberration from what is fair and

reasonable. While I think I agree with the member opposite that it's

certainly not a major issue, there were a couple of representations to

that effect, and I think that the member opposite would agree that

hiring halls are generally operated in a very democratic manner. This

section certainly has no difficulty with hiring hall practices, because

in general they are.... There were a few aberrations suggested, but

certainly not documented to the extent that there should be a

representation to the Labour Relations Board or anything to that effect.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Before the member for North Island resumes,

could I please ask the members who are having meetings to have them

outside the House?

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the minister's comments on this,

because I think dispatch systems or hiring hall procedures are in fact

eminently fair in this province, and for that reason the amendment

wasn't really required. It's consistent with other legislation, and

it's not a serious issue, except that the fact that you would make the

amendment implies somewhat that there's a problem. But let's leave that.

I want to ask whether or not, in making the amendment, the Labour

Relations Board decisions over the years which said that people on a

dispatch list were not employees under the act in respect of

section 7

is now changed — as a result of the word "person" replacing "employee."

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, without wasting a lot of time, I guess the answer is no.

MR. GABELMANN: Well. that's interesting. I would have thought

that the answer would have been yes; but I guess the Industrial

Relations Council will make that determination.

Section 7 of the Code,

which is the

section where people can make complaints about fair and

appropriate representation, didn't cover, as I understand board

decisions over the years, persons who were on a list, because they were

not employees. Now that those persons are persons — now that the word

here in this

Section is "person" rather than "employee" — I wonder if

that definition will allow people who are on a list but not currently

working to file

section 7s.

The minister shakes his head no. Well, that's good because it makes

it easier. I think that's all we have to say on this section.

Section 8 as amended approved on division.

section 9.

MR. GABELMANN: Procedurally if the government intended to

vote no, they wouldn't have introduced an amendment. I mean, there is

an amendment to he put and the amendment is to delete. We'll vote in

favour of the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay. I just want to say on this

section

anyway that I'm delighted that the Labour minister brought in a change

to get rid of the Premier's agenda in this respect. Thank you for that.

MR. MILLER: If I stray here or display my confusion, forgive

me, but the amendment is to delete

section 9 in its entirety. The

original proposal was to add some wording to

section 9 of the Code. Am

I straying now?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Right. But the new amendment deletes the existing wording in the Code.

MR. GABELMANN: It goes back to the Code language.

MR. MILLER: Well, as long as I can be assured that that's the

case, that the existing wording under 9. I requiring membership, etc.,

in a trade union is still in there....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: All right.

Section 9 negatived.

section 10.

MR. LOVICK: I want to start my consideration of this

section and my dialogue with the Minister of Labour by

[ Page 1464 ]

posing one short question, and I ask him to answer

the question in the spirit in which it is posed. I have some expertise

and some background with the Charter and constitutional matters, and I

have also some knowledge of the historical precedents for what we like

to call our freedoms.

After a fairly close analysis of the proposed

section 10 of the bill

— i.e., 9.1 in the revised law — I really cannot understand what the

connection is with the heading "freedom of association." I think I

understand the intent of the provision, as I shall have occasion to

demonstrate, but I say — and I don't mean to be disrespectful nor do I

mean to be provocative — that I am confessing an absence of

understanding on my own part.

What is the connection with this proposal and freedom of

association? Perhaps we could start there if the minister would be so

kind.

HON. L. HANSON: The

section that is being amended by Bill 19

is that.... Heading the total

section within the Code is that the

collective agreement may provide for union membership. The freedom of

expression heading is not part of the

section heading. It only deals

with the amendment that is being presented. Of course, I know the

member has read the amendment, but it simply says....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Second member for Nanaimo on a point of order.

MR. LOVICK: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, and I'm interrupting on

a point of order now because I think it's crucial. You said freedom of

expression, and I believe it's freedom of association. Correct? I think

it is very important, for the record.

HON. L. HANSON: The government believes that collective

agreements should not be used to restrict access to employment

opportunities for non-unionized employees or as a vehicle for

organizing the unorganized. The employer should not be restricted from

dealing with whomever he pleases, if it makes the best economic sense

to do so. Then I can relate that to freedom of association.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you for the answer, Mr. Minister. I

appreciate the candour with which it was given. I would suggest,

however, that most people of my acquaintance who write about the

concept of freedom of association would have some difficulty seeing

that defence adduced to explain and defend the concept of freedom of

association. However, I think we simply have a parting of the ways

there. I think there is a very clear difference between our two sides,

and obviously I am not about to elucidate on that at great length now.

Instead, let me turn directly to the proposal,

section 9.1. First,

let me begin by also offering some muted congratulation and

appreciation. I am delighted that the minister, in the amendments to

Bill 19, is willing to acknowledge that there is a special case to be

made for construction work and construction projects, and that those

things are deliberately excepted from this clause. I am pleased that

that is the case. The construction unions, the building trades, have

been arguing for a very long time that they are unique, they are

special. But nobody seemed to be appreciating that, so apparently some

steps have been taken in that regard. I am delighted to perceive that.

What I want to start by establishing, of course, is just whether in

fact we understand one another and we are starting from the same point.

Is it true, then, to say this about the existing Code? The existing

Code allows the two parties to freely negotiate a contract in which

certain things are allowed, certain things which impinge on and impact

directly on a third party: namely, another employer and that employer's

employees.

Specifically, there are three things: the existing Code allows two

parties to enter into an agreement whereby the employees in a given

bargaining unit can say they refuse to work with non-union employees in

another operation. That is the first provision of the existing Code.

[12:00]

The second provision of the existing Code that this amendment is

obviously designed to deal with is that an agreement can be negotiated

whereby the two parties agree that the employees in this workplace can

refuse to subcontract, or the employer will refuse to subcontract any

work to non-unionized companies, or.... I am sorry, I think I have got

this a little mixed up. Let me take it from the top.

The existing Code also makes provision where a particular agreement

can be drawn whereby the management and the employees will agree that

the employees or the employers must subcontract work only to unionized

companies or companies whose employees enjoy certain terms and

conditions of employment. I am sorry I mixed that up, Mr. Minister. I

hope it becomes clear now. That's the second provision that the

existing Code provides.

The third provision, again with the same

preamble, is that

management and employees can enter into an agreement that establishes

as a condition that employers will purchase goods and services from

companies whose employees belong to a union or enjoy certain terms and

conditions of employment.

Those three clauses are in the existing Code; that is indeed the

case. What we are being given in the amended version is in effect a

statement that says that none of those three provisions will be allowed

any longer. This is my first question: is that indeed the case? Do I

understand correctly that the amendments have the force of that?

The minister nods, and I accept that as assent. Okay, thank you. I

am sorry that this must appear to be a kind of pro forma ritualistic

thing on my part, but it seems to me that what often happens in this

chamber is that people begin talking in what I have referred to earlier

as parallel streams, not about the same thing. So I want to establish

first that we are talking about the same issue. The issue is to change

the existing Code and to remove those three particular rights that were

there before.

Let me offer, if I can, the three principal arguments that we have against this measure as presented here.

I'll defer to the minister.

HON. L. HANSON: I'd ask the House for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. L. HANSON: It is with great pleasure that I would ask

the House to welcome, on behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs.

Gran), a class of children who are with us from the Bradshaw Elementary

School — which is in Langley, of course — and their principal, Mr. John

Galvin. Would the House please make them welcome.

[ Page 1465 ]

MR. LOVICK: I was saying before I yielded the floor, Madam

Chairman, that we have three principal arguments against this measure,

as enunciated in

section 10, or 9.1 in the revised Code. The first is

an argument that we have already presented, but it's just as relevant

to this

section as it has been to the others, and just as important now

as it was in the other sections — indeed, perhaps more important, given

that the strength of the argument is cumulative: the more evidences we

can see of violation of the principle I'm about to refer to, the

greater the cause for alarm. The principle I'm referring to, of course,

is the sanctity of contract between two parties.

What this legislation is doing is effectively saying to the two

parties that there are certain agreements we will not let you make. I

spoke at some length about this subject before and suggested — dare I

say at too great length, perhaps, for certain members — that there was

something demonstrably, fundamentally wrong with that approach to

legislation. I still feel that way. I still think that that is the

concern: when two parties freely enter into an agreement, unless and

until such agreement violates some fundamental principles about human

rights or some such thing, that intervention or interference ought not

to take place. Again, perhaps, that is simply a point of difference of

principle, philosophy or ideology between our two sides, but I for one

would like to note that objection. I will continue to make that

objection, I might point out, with any piece of legislation emanating

from the other side that violates the same principle.

The second concern we have with this proposed legislation is that it

once again demonstrates what we have been saying — time and time again,

if I may be allowed a little latitude in terms of repetition of phrase.

It clearly comes down on the side of the employer. There is no question

that it chooses up sides. This is in no way government serving as a

mediator between the two sides. Government is coming down on one side.

Let me explain why that's the case. I don't think I'm exaggerating

it at all. The reason that is so, Madam Chairman, is that what this

bill really says to an employer is this: if you lose in negotiations,

if you are dealing with a powerful enough union whose bargaining

position is such that that union can take steps to protect its brothers

and sisters elsewhere by ensuring that the members of a union entering

into the contract will indeed be concerned with their brothers and

sisters elsewhere; if you can have that clout in negotiations and can

win an agreement that allows that to happen, we, the government, are

going to say: "Sorry, we won't allow that to happen. Instead we will

interfere with the negotiation you freely entered into, because the

employer lost." Obviously this again curbs the employer's freedom of

movement. There's no question that that's what the existing Code does.

But the only explanation I can see for why government would take this

step would be to say: "Clearly the employer wasn't able to withstand

the pressure from the organized bargaining unit — the trade union.

Therefore what we, the government, are going to do is to write the laws

in a way that says: here's a little extra help, Mister or Madam

Employer." This way you don't have to worry about being in a position

where you can negotiate an agreement that you, the management, don't

like. I suggest that that is the only reasonable construction one can

put on this particular clause, and I am more than willing to yield to

the minister should he wish to respond to that and challenge the

conclusion I draw.

Do you want point three first? Let me give point three first then; I

shall. The third point, I'm afraid, is a little more — dare I say? —

abstract or cerebral or difficult to get hold of, but I think we can

manage — even the member opposite, who is smiling and demonstrating

some difficulty keeping up with us, Mr. Minister, thus far. The third

contention I have in terms of what's wrong with this particular bill is

that it forbids to the parties a contractual means whereby they can

register disapproval in principle. I choose my words very carefully.

Let me say that again, primarily for the benefit of the member for is

it Columbia River?

MR. CRANDALL: Yes.

MR. LOVICK: Okay.

This bill, as I say, forbids the contractual means for the two

parties to register their disapproval in principle of bad labour

relations elsewhere. We're not talking for a moment about the fact that

an employer may decide — given subtle pressures from the employees in a

workplace — that yes, we agree with you; we're not going to support

employer down the street X, because he or she does evil things. That

can happen. We recognize that, Mr. Minister.

The point is, however, that what this

section of the bill says is

that you cannot in principle make a statement in your contract freely

negotiated between the two parties that says: "We will have no truck

nor trade with people who do as a matter of course things that are

wrong from the perspective of good and fair and decent labour

relations." I think that's an important concept, in the same way as the

concept I was talking about the other day, Mr. Minister, dealing with

secondary boycotts and so forth, when I was suggesting that what ought

to happen is that employers and employees ought to be able to band

together to do something for people beyond themselves. If we want to

improve the condition of workers elsewhere, it seems to me we're

provided a marvelous opportunity by the kinds of clauses that were

written into the existing code, whereby workers and management in a

given workplace could say: "We agree that we will not support certain

practices elsewhere." What the government, I'm suggesting, by this

legislation has done effectively is say: "You will no longer be allowed

to take those principled stands." I think that's deplorable. I think

that's a sad day for labour relations in this province.

As I said before — and I'll conclude with just this, Mr. Minister,

for the moment, though certainly I'm anxious to hear your response —

what we have in the old Code is a wonderful opportunity to do good,

progressive, worthwhile, decent things. Government's role surely ought

to be to encourage that kind of behaviour in the marketplace, rather

than leave it to the vicissitudes of supply and demand, and suchlike.

Government's role ought to be to provide a kind of benchmark, a kind of

standard that others ought to aspire to. The old Code, I think, had

precisely that built into it. The amendments to the Code which will

make it the new code, I'm sad to relate, will have the opposite impact,

and I hope that the minister then will reconsider such things as

section 10; i.e., the new 9.1. I would anxiously await the minister's

reply.

[12:15]

HON. L. HANSON: I do detect in the one, two, three sequence

of the questions asked that there certainly is a relationship between

all three of them. In fairness, probably

[ Page 1466 ]

without detailing each one, I'll give you an answer that in my opinion should cover all three.

First of all, we're not concerned with, not are we stopping, the

sanctity of a contract other than as it relates to an agreement that

influences third parties who are not sitting at that table and who are

not having a chance to have input into the discussion, into the

negotiations, winning or losing some points, as you have mentioned on

that side. They are sitting out on the other side with absolutely no

ability to influence what is being done to them at that table.

We also feel that it's wrong in philosophy to say that pressure

should be applied through that process on another group of employees,

who again are not sitting at that table. I guess the best expression is

that the philosophy of top-down organizing is not something that we

want to encourage. I'd also like to point out to the member opposite

that there is no impediment that those people in that organization

being dealt with at a table, that they're not present at, to have

anything but the right to organize themselves if they so wish. They can

make their deliberations, they can understand what unionization means

to them, they can understand what it means to their workplace, and all

of those other things. To us, an encouragement to say that if you

unionize, your employer will have the ability to deal with all of these

firms which are now restricted from you dealing with.... We feel it is

a situation that provides, I guess, undue encouragement to them. They

certainly have the ability, if they wish, to become organized. There is

no impediment to that at all. But it's if they wish, rather than

someone else encouraging or influencing them — whatever expression you

want to use — to take that particular action.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, could I have leave for an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, it gives me great pleasure

to introduce, on behalf of our Chairman of committees, a group of

schoolchildren from Bradshaw Elementary School in Langley. Accompanying

them today is their principal, John Galvin. Would you please welcome

this group of students to the assembly.

MR. LOVICK: Let me begin, just to demonstrate that I am not

entirely single-minded and not oblivious of the rest of the world

around me, by adding my welcome to the students from the school. I hope

you're enjoying yourselves. I am.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, there will be a quiz after, on the subject, as my colleague says.

I want to respond very briefly to the minister's remarks in answer

to my question as he read it. First of all, let me just suggest that to

say that we are not interfering with the sanctity of contract "other

than" is a very scary argument. Clearly, if we say yes, we believe in

the sanctity of contract "except that, " or "but that, " or "other

than, " we're opening the door to a rather shaky principle, to put it

graciously. So I'm wondering about the validity of that case.

The argument presented by the minister seems to be that we want to

be concerned with third parties and that we want to make sure that what

happens at this bargaining table will not have an impact on others. All

right? I take it that that is indeed the case. Apropos of that, that

point was made — the statement that we don't want to do anything to

encourage organization either, so the government says: "Do we want to

discourage?" Correct? Again the minister nods his head, and I

appreciate that.

It seems to me there are two things wrong with that. The first is

that if we pause to reflect a little about the problem, we will all see

pretty clearly that what happens between any two parties in any kind of

agreement tends to have an impact on third parties, however much we

might suggest otherwise. What is negotiated by workers in one place

with their employers inevitably has an impact elsewhere. To try to

suggest that we are going to protect third parties from that, I think,

is rather analogous to Canute trying to command the waves to stay back.

It just doesn't work.

The second point, though — and perhaps a more serious one — is that

I would like to suggest that government in a democratic society ought

to encourage workers to get organized, to become unionized; or if not

to go the entire route of becoming organized and certified bargaining

agents, at least to aspire to the same working conditions and the same

freedoms that organization brings with it. It would seem to me that

government's duty is in fact to encourage that, rather than, as I have

suggested, effectively putting impediments in the way, effectively

coming down on the side of management, as I enunciated here — and I

don't think, with all due respect, the minister disavowed that or

demonstrated that was wrong on my part.

Again perhaps, though, Madam Chairman, this is simply a matter of

difference of philosophy or attitude between the two sides. Perhaps I

will leave it at that for the moment and allow my colleagues to pursue

the matter, unless the minister wishes to respond, of course.

MR. CLARK: I will be fairly brief, because it is clearly a

fundamental difference of philosophy between the parties. I just want

to make a few points that I think are appropriate. This is an

incredible government intervention in decisions of free parties to

decide on what they do or don't want to do among themselves and to

enter into contracts that do that.

I think this is very important. Employers have consistently tried to

get this language out of their collective agreements, and consistently

they have been convinced to keep it in. Unions have given something up

in order to keep this language in their collective agreements. So it

really is an expropriation. It is

an act of the Legislature that

expropriates something without compensation, because they have given up

something in their collective bargaining process to get this kind of

language in.

I just want to say, because I am not sure that all members

understand, that the reason for clauses on contracting out is to

protect the integrity of the bargaining unit, because it is job

security precisely. What happens is that if you don't have

protection.... If you are in an industrial setting, for example, and

you have maintenance workers working for the company, the contract says

things like: if you do contract out that maintenance work, it has to be

to a union company in order that there is no financial incentive on the

part of the employer to contract out those services. So in order for

the union to protect the maintenance employees in that bargaining unit,

they have that kind of contracting-out protection. That's the reason

for it. When you say that that is no longer allowed, in a sense you

provide a financial incentive for the

[ Page 1467 ]

employer to contract out things like maintenance

work to non-union companies, and when you do that, you undermine the

integrity of the bargaining unit. I think that's true in a number of

cases all along the line.

When you do that, you invite industrial unrest. Workers are not

going to allow their jobs to be contracted out, or allow jobs that are

normally done by union work to be done outside by non-union work. They

are not going to work alongside someone who's making $5 an hour; it's

simply not going to happen. So if you take away the opportunity for a

union to legally prohibit that kind of action, then the union is forced

to look for other means to prohibit that kind of action. I'm not trying

to be alarmist or say there's going to be violence or anything like

that, I'm just saying that that's what is going to happen. It will be

disruptive, and it quite simply won't work.

The minister has said that this is the intent of this legislation.

The fact is, once again, that even if that's the intent as indicated,

it has unintended consequences. It has consequences that aren't

foreseen by the minister. That being the case, it simply won't work and

potentially could cause bitterness in individual bargaining units. It

could cause disruptions like wildcat strikes, etc., to prohibit things

that were protected in the collective agreement. The union gave up

something in order to get that, and now simply won't be able to do that

through the mechanisms in British Columbia.

Could the minister comment on that?

HON. L. HANSON: I think maybe there's something that's not

being completely understood here. Unions and employers will continue to

be allowed to negotiate no-contracting-out provisions. I think I heard

the member suggesting that they wouldn't be allowed, and I'd just like

to clarify that point. The

Section is not aimed at unions any more than

at employers. It's aimed at dealing with what we see as a restraint of

free trade.

MR. CLARK: I understand that, and that's a good point. The

problem is, you're saying you can have an absolute prohibition, but not

a partial one. Most unions would like an absolute ban, but what they've

done is try to give the employer the flexibility that the employer

constantly asks for, and still provide integrity to the bargaining

unit. In most contracts the flexibility is there for the employer to

contract out on occasion, but in order to protect their bargaining unit

they say they have to make union wages; so there's no incentive to do

so. If the minister is saying that you can have an absolute ban but you

can't allow the employer the flexibility to contract out at the same

wage levels, then there's an inconsistency on the government side as

well. I think it forces unions into a position of trying to prohibit

something which employers will fight very hard for because they want

the flexibility. Is that a correct

interpretation?

HON. L. HANSON: I guess I have to repeat that in a sense.

It's not really true. Apart from the construction industry, the only

categories of contracting-out clauses which will be permitted are those

which prohibit contracting out entirely, as a flat statement, or ones

which allow contracting out as long as there is no job loss in the

bargaining unit, which is another form of it.

MR. GABELMANN: My own view of the wording coincides with the

minister's view. That doesn't make us right, but it's more likely that

we're right.

MR. LOVICK: Oh yeah?

MR. GABELMANN: More likely, only.

I think the situation, quickly put, is that a clause can exist which

says no contracting out, period, or no contracting out which will

diminish the number of employees in the unit. Those are all right. But

those kinds of clauses are difficult to obtain. The pulp industry, for

example, doesn't have a clause of that nature with its unions.

Most of the disputes in British Columbia in the last few years have

had contracting out as one of their major issues. The IWA dispute last

year was a good example of that. It's a fundamental issue in British

Columbia labour relations now because of high unemployment and

technological change. Employment levels are going down, and the number

of persons needed to run the show is going down as well. So the whole

question of job security and job preservation is a major issue.

[12:30]

One of the ways that unions could be protected previously, while

giving employers flexibility, was to negotiate the kinds of clauses

which will now be illegal. For example, in the forest industry and

logging, employers were able under existing law to contract work out.

They were required to do 50 percent in the first place in TFLs. But

they were able to do more than that. The only requirement was that the

subcontractor had to provide the same wages and benefits as were being

provided the union members by the primary employer.

That flexibility for employers now appears to have disappeared. They

will have to choose between having a prohibition on contracting out, or

a prohibition on contracting out if it diminishes the number of

employees in the unit — on the one hand they have got that choice — and

no clause at all. Those are the choices that appear to be left.

Most of the resolutions that have evolved in recent years on that

question have been a compromise between those two positions, enabling

there to be some job security and also enabling management to have some

flexibility as to how it gets its work done. Increasingly there has

been work contracted out because employers find that less costly. The

compromise has simply been one that allows for some security. You

provide security by.... You don't protect your own job, but you might

protect it a bit by insisting that the same wages and benefits be

provided to somebody else who is coming in. So to a certain extent you

do protect your job. But in forestry we have got TFLs where 90 percent,

in some instances, of the workforce are under contract. So there hasn't

been job security for those people working for the primary employer.

What happens is that you get a dispute like we had last fall,

essentially over this question.

Now you are going to force unions and employers to choose black or

white, instead of being allowed to choose grey. I think that is the

important point in this particular section. If I am right, and I

believe I am, or if I am right in substance, I don't believe that could

be the government's intention. I understand what the government is

saying about its stated intention, which is that they don't want an

employer and a union to make provisions that affect a third party; they

don't want the primary parties to affect a third party. I do disagree

with the government, but if that were the only impact of this change,

we would have a shorter debate, We would disagree with you and go on to

the next section.

[ Page 1468 ]

Let me just pause and say in parenthesis that I had hoped we would

be able to get further than

section 10 today. I must tell you; I hoped

we'd be on to 30 or something by now. If you don't believe me, I really

do mean that. But the problem is that half the sections in this bill

are of such consequence that in many cases they have more importance

than entire bits of legislation we've debated in this House. So we need

to take the time. We particularly need to take the time when it appears

as if there's an important issue at stake here. If I'm right, I don't

think the government would intend this.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: This is the IWA situation.

I want to take a few minutes, because I want the minister to have a

chance to confer and see whether we're right. If we're wrong, he can

tell us, and if we're right, he may want to stand the

section and make

some changes. I don't believe it's the government's intention to say to

management, "If through negotiations you're forced into a black and

white situation of having a no-contracting-out clause, period, " which

is what might be extracted from them in bargaining.... The alternative

for a union is to have no protection, so they're going to have to go

and get some protection.

To start with, we're going to have long disputes, because this

contracting out, as I've said before, is a crucial issue for workers.

We'll have long disputes, or we'll have settlements which will be black

or white. A company could have to agree. They may be making buckets of

money, as they are in pulp for the moment, and they decide they can't

afford to have a long strike, so they say, "Okay, we'll have a clause

saying no contracting out, " which is legal under this section. That

denies them some flexibility.

Maybe I shouldn't be making this argument, but I think it's

important that we on this side of the House make arguments that are

fair and appropriate, and that's a fair and appropriate argument for an

employer. I have no reluctance in making that particular case.

I'll stop for the moment and see whether the minister agrees with

the general thrust of what we're saying, and if so, whether the results

of this are what the government intends.

HON. L. HANSON: I'd like to point out again that the

alternative to a no-contracting-out clause completely is the

alternative of no loss of jobs in the bargaining unit. But I think that

generally we recognize what the opposition is saying, and our

philosophy is still that the influence should be restricted to the two

people at the bargaining table. So I recognize what you're saying.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, let me say briefly — because I do want us to move on — that the government will come to regret this section.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We had a lengthy five- or six-month strike

last year over this kind of issue. We're going to face more of it. If

management feels it's in a strong position to protect itself from such

a clause — either one of the clauses that are illegal — they're going

to take long strikes over this issue. I don't understand why the

government would be intent upon that kind of result.

I guess we've made the point. I want to make just one other point,

which has been made by the member for Vancouver East, and that is the

whole question of stripping from collective agreements clauses which

have been freely negotiated, which of course this

section does. If a

clause contravenes this section, it's gone from the contract. People

have gone hungry, people have lost houses, people have suffered

incredible economic dislocation in order to get clauses like this, and

they've given up other parts of a contract settlement — other parts of

the package — in order to get clauses which will now be stripped. The

government is offering no compensation. The government isn't saying:

"Well, the contract has to be reopened in order to allow for some

compensation, because if the clause hadn't been legal when it was

negotiated, something else would have been gained — perhaps extra

money, perhaps some other security." Something else would have been

gained.

Here we have the government coming in on the side of the employer

and taking away clauses that were freely negotiated and agreed to. It's

just a principle that runs through the bill in a large number of

sections, and certainly is present in this one. It's just inappropriate

in a free and democratic society — absolutely inappropriate. You

wouldn't do that to a contract between two commercial entities. After

the fact, between two businesses who make a contract, the government

wouldn't come in and strip away benefits that one side had reached —

had got from the other. There would be uproar in this province if that

kind of intervention occurred in commercial contracts, an absolute

uproar. People would be screaming about free enterprise, and the hand

of Big Brother government coming in and interfering in a way that's

totally inappropriate in our society. That's what we would be hearing

if you did this in commercial contracts. But you do it in labour

contracts, and it seems to be fine. I just say that I can't understand

and I can't believe that there is not more outrage about this kind of

activity.

MR. MILLER: Indeed, it will be disappointing to the IWA

members who were on strike for a considerable period of time last year

to try to win benefits to protect their jobs that, through legislation,

that situation is now being nullified.

1 want to deal with another situation that has come to our attention

recently in meetings with the truck loggers. I think this clause could

come into it. What they are saying is that as people who rely on the

majors to acquire work, they are being squeezed. The first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) has talked about that squeeze, and the

effect that it is having on some of these truck loggers, these

stump-to-dump contractors. They quite clearly expressed.... These are

people who have been in the forest industry all their lives, including

one gentleman, who said: "I have been an active participant in this

industry all my life, and I run a unionized company. I am being

squeezed, and I know I am on my way out, but I am not going to go out

without doing some kicking." We may hear more about that in a different

setting than this.

But they are being squeezed, and in effect.... I won't go through

all the details about the value of the forests or the timber, and what

the contractors are asking to bid on, but one of the things that has

been expressed in that debate between the large companies and the

contractors is: "You can cut costs." They have no ability to arbitrate

these contracts, so they are pretty well at the mercy of the majors.

The message

[ Page

1469 ]

is clear: "You can cut your costs; you can cut your labour costs." In other words, go non-union.

These people are saying: "No, I have employees who have been in my

employ for a good number of years. I have always been a union outfit.

We do our job efficiently. We pay good wages. We are not ashamed of

that." They are being forced to go the route of eliminating the union

simply in order to be able to get work. It seems that this clause will

impact directly in that process. It will be another aid to the majors

in terms of their relationship with the truck loggers, the

stump-to-dump contractors. So again, in the final analysis it's really

a stacking of the deck, I suppose, against those jobs that I refer to

as the well-paid union jobs, as opposed to the quite often poorly paid

non-union jobs.

Again we get back to the spiral that we talked about which could

take place, and the fact that those union jobs are a positive

contributing factor to the economy of British Columbia. I know that

generally a lot of concern has been expressed from various quarters

about the cost of labour: that the cost of labour has to be reduced.

But it may be an oversimplification on some people's part, when they're

dealing with that question, to believe that by eliminating unions they

will have solved the problem; in other words, that we really are

solving our economic problems by driving wages down. I don't feel that

we are. Certainly an employer looks at his labour costs, and that's a

consideration in terms of doing business. But the solution to our

economic problems is not to get rid of those jobs that pay well. It's

to try to do something with our economy in terms of all the other

things that could be done, such as value-added in the forest industry,

and to bring some peace and harmony to the labour front, which quite

frankly we're not doing by including these kinds of clauses.

I ask the minister to consider that seriously. I do wish my

colleague the first member for Vancouver East were here to expand on

the situation in the forest industry. He has considerably more

knowledge than I do about that. But I do believe it's a serious issue.

Perhaps the minister never considered that when he brought this

amendment in.

Section 10 approved on division.

section 11.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[12:45]

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: The amendment, as I understand it, is to

delete the

section that an exempted employee is not an employee. Is

that correct? So under this

section an exempted employee is an

employee. Let me just ask a question, which I don't want to steal from

the member for Vancouver East; it's his question, but it's the logical

next one. Does that mean that the union is required to follow the

provisions of fair representation for this person who does not pay dues?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, the amendment repeals

section 11(2)

of the Labour Code: "For the purposes of

part 3 and

section 81...an

employee exempted under...

section shall be deemed not to be an employee."

The reason for that removal is that

section 3 in Bill 19 covers that same ground,

or at least handles the same issue. There appeared to be a duplication in the

amendment, so we removed from the act the old

section covering the same issue.

MR. GABELMANN: Without getting ratty, Madam Chairman, I must

say that when you ask the minister a question he reads his briefing

notes about what the amendment's intended to do.

I'm making the suggestion that employees who are exempted for

religious reasons following this section, who are no longer required to

pay dues to the union, still must, as a matter of law, be represented

by the union in the question of fair representation. Isn't that correct?

HON. L. HANSON: The knowledge that I had from labour, as a

matter of fact, on this issue is that a number of labour organizations

had already agreed that those who had received exemption from the

Labour Relations Board under the conscientious objection clause were in

fact paying their annual or monthly assessment, whatever the case may

be, to charities — by agreement with labour, which saw no difficulty in

that at all. They had some concern that the number of objectors might

be increased, or whatever, but the way the wording is now, they've seen

very little difficulty with the situation. In fact, in many cases they

were agreeing to it already, recognizing that they were responsible for

representing...or at least that conscientious objectors got the benefit

of representation as it relates to negotiations and so on.

MR. GABELMANN: It doesn't much matter to me what unions might

have said to the minister about what they want. What matters is what we

on this side of the House think about this question. The issue here is

that people who, because of their religious convictions, refuse to pay

money to a union....Let me pause and say in parentheses here that I can

live with that; I can understand that. The same kind of principle is

involved in conscientious objection about going to war. So while I

would argue that they shouldn't, if they don't want to, be a member of

the union, I would argue that if they want the benefits the union

provides, then they should pay the freight. If they choose, as part of

their religious objection which is a philosophical objection against

unions, to neither be a member nor pay, how is it that they can get

benefits from that union that they philosophically oppose? They take

the negotiated wage instead of the minimum wage. They take the job

security, which may be present in the contract, instead of the

Employment Standards Act. They take all the protections in terms of

discipline that may be provided in the Code, instead of the civil court

remedy which exists if there's no collective agreement — plus they are

eligible for defence by the union in terms of fair representation. They

take all those things that the union gives them, while they're

philosophically opposed to unions. So there needs to be some

consistency.

Let's deal with it point by point. Let's say we all agree they don't

have to be members of the union because there is a philosophical

objection — fair enough; we can live with that; fine — which was the

original way the legislation was drafted years ago. The next point,

however, is the payment. They are so philosophically opposed to unions

and what unions stand for and do that they refuse to pay. Fine; no pay;

send the money to charity. But if the philosophical objection is so

great, then they shouldn't have anything else to do with the union

either, which includes accepting the pay that the union has negotiated

for them, or which includes the protection of

[ Page 1470 ]

the collective agreement which the union has

negotiated for them, or which includes the duty of fair representation

which the Code requires of the union. There is a philosophical

inconsistency here that is wide open, and I can't believe that it isn't

obvious to everyone. If you have objection to the union in principal,

fine, then don't have anything to do with it. But if you don't pay the

freight, you shouldn't be able to collect the rewards.

MR. MILLER: I will just briefly add to the point made by my

colleague. Paraphrasing a famous quote that got the person who said it

into a heck of a lot of trouble, if you don't play the game, you can't

make the rules. I don't know if anybody remembers Earl Butz, but he

said it. I think it just puts it in a nutshell. The minister may now

want to respond.

HON. L. HANSON: The member for North Island raises an

interesting point. I guess it is a matter of

interpretation. I think

the expression was used that if you don't pay the freight, you

shouldn't be able to haul the load or have the benefits of it. I

suppose, in effect, if you want to be pure in the thing, the individual

is paying the freight. The people who are giving the benefit are not

getting the benefit of that freight, if you will, but there is a sector

of society that is getting the benefit of that freight. I suppose that

if the conscientious objector, in his own right — and we are not

dealing with that here today — decided that he would like to take a

lesser amount or give more of his salary to charity because he wasn't

taking the benefit of that, that's up to the individual's decision.

But I understand exactly what you're saying. I understand the

conscientious objection. I would like to ask the question, though.... I

think we're really talking about

Section 11 as a whole, as opposed to

the amendment to

section 11.

MR. MILLER: Well, the amendment affords the individual who

wants to opt out the rights of full membership. Therefore here is a

person who says: "Because of my conscientious beliefs, I cannot support

a trade union. But if I get into trouble, I want the trade union to

come and represent me, and if they don't do it, I'm going to take them

to the board." It strikes me as a bit hypocritical that, first of all,

an individual who felt strongly enough — and this is maybe departing

from the legislation — to opt out would want to do that in the first

place, because it seems to me that it would display that they really

weren't conscientious objectors, and therefore you'd have to say:

"Well, you'd better start paying your dues to the union." It would be

proof positive that they really weren't.

If that's the case, I can support it. Would he accept that

interpretation? Would a union be able to do that, to go to the board

and say: "Look, this guy opted out of the union. He's a conscientious

objector, and now he wants us to represent him. I guess therefore he's

not that conscientious, or he doesn't object that much"? Does the

minister agree with that?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I certainly think that will be a very interesting argument before the new board.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved on division.

section 12.

MR. GABELMANN: Very briefly, Madam Chairman, on

section 12....

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: This is not a major

section of the bill, in

our view, and we can get through it by adjournment time. There is an

assumption here that unions are not able to look after their own

procedures, and there is also an assumption here that the civil

remedies now available are not appropriate. I recognize that the

language appears to be taken from the Ontario Code and has not caused

serious problems there. But in many ways, added together with so many

other sections, it's a bit of an insult to trade unions in this

province. As we've said before in other sections, trade unions are

democratic and are able to handle their own affairs within their

constitution. We feel that, while not making a major to-do about this

particular section, it isn't really necessary. Unions in this province

are quite capable of managing their own affairs.

Section 12 approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to once again wish

everyone one here a very happy weekend. See you all Monday. At this

point I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.

[ Page

1471 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

19 The Hon. L. Hanson to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 19) intituled Industrial Relations Reform Act , 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 8 , by adding the following:

(

c) by adding the following subsections:

(3) A trade union, a council of trade unions and an employers'

organization shall carry out its function of representation referred to

in this

Section in a fair and lawful manner.

(4) A person who considers that a trade union, a council of trade

unions or an employers' organization is contravening or is about to

contravene this

section may apply to the council for a remedy under

section 28.

SECTION 9 , by deleting

section 9.

SECTION 11 , by adding the following:

(a.1) by repealing subsection (2), and .

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1987,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada