1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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)

MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4709 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement: Tribute to new Governor-General

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4709

Mr. Howard –– 4709

Routine Proceedings

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 29). Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Introduction and first reading –– 4710

Oral Questions

Easter Seal services for disabled children. Mr. Blencoe –– 4710

Dynatek financial obligations. Mr. Nicolson –– 4710

Bus service to Cowichan Bay and Shawnigan Lake. Mrs. Wallace –– 4711

Unfair labour practices. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4711

Cowichan estuary. Mrs. Wallace –– 4711

Province-Sun strike. Mr. Michael –– 4712

Cowichan estuary. Mrs. Wallace –– 4712

Human Rights Act. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4712

Quinsam coal project. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4712

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills

Mr. Pelton –– 4712

Tabling Documents –– 4712

Labour Code Amendment Act (Bill 28). Second reading

Mr. Stupich –– 4712

Ms. Brown –– 4717

Mr. Macdonald –– 4721

Mr. Mitchell –– 4723

Mrs. Wallace –– 4727

Mr. Parks –– 4730

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No 2), 1984 (Bill 31). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 4731

MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

TRIBUTE TO NEW GOVERNOR-GENERAL

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement.

An act of celebration of democratic tradition and I would say a

historic pageant of great significance took place in our national

capital earlier today when Her Excellency the Rt. Hon. Jeanne Sauvé was

installed as our Governor-General, the personal representative of Her

Majesty Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that an installation of a Governor-General

is heralded at any time, but on this occasion, which is the

twenty-third such occasion in our country, it is even more so, because

it better reflects the growing up and increasing enlightenment in our

country, as Mme. Sauvé is the first woman to assume the office since

1867. Our new viceroy is all-Canadian in every sense, and she will

bring to this office her personal grace and charm plus a wealth of

distinguished experience that will serve her well.

As Mme. Sauvé, her dedication to the development of the youth of our

country is well documented. She founded the Youth Movements Federation

in 1947 and served in 1951 as assistant to the director of the youth

section of UNESCO. She has actively supported the creative arts and was

one of the original members of the Institute of Political Research.

Also we well appreciate as politicians that she takes up the duties of

her new office with first-hand knowledge of the political process,

having served in parliament as a member of the Privy Council in three

portfolios: Minister of State for Science and Technology, Minister of

Environment and Minister of Communications. In 1980 she became the

first woman to be elected as Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons.

I would like to make the point that as Canadians we all know that

our Canadian way of government is viewed, I would say, with undisguised

longing, if not envy, by millions of people in various areas of the

world. The duties and responsibilities of a Governor-General catalyze

and complement the perpetuation of our democratic institutions and

indeed our democratic way of governing.

As her Excellency takes on her new duties, which are far more

arduous than most people consider them to be, we congratulate her; wish

her well; we wish her health and bonne chance and happily anticipate

all of the joie de vivre that she will contribute to her task. I would

like to say, I'm sure on behalf of all members of this assembly and,

indeed, of every British Columbian, that when Her Excellency commences

her visits across Canada, we certainly hope that she will start in the

west and that her first official port of call may be our beautiful

province. We look forward to seeing her, and there is no need for an

RSVP.

I also don't wish to permit this moment to pass without expressing our

thanks and appreciation, on behalf of all British Columbians, to the retiring

Governor-General, His Excellency the Rt. Hon. Edward R. Schreyer, for his service,

his easy and ready approachability to all of his fellow Canadians, so many of

whom he and his chatelaine made so welcome wherever they journeyed in Canada

and at Rideau Hall in Ottawa. Canadians from coast to coast were sincerely impressed

with the warm and thoughtful sentiments His Excellency expressed in his farewell

speech, and also with his forward thinking and personal generosity in founding

the non-profit Canadian Shield Foundation for biological research.

May he and his wife and family enjoy and Canada prosper from his new role as ambassador to Australia. We wish them all well.

MR. HOWARD: Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition wants to clearly

associate itself with those words. Her Excellency Mme. Sauvé has had a

distinguished career in the Parliament of Canada as a member, as a

cabinet minister and as Speaker of the House of Commons. We are quite

sure, as well, that in her role now as Governor-General she will carry

on her distinguished activity, bring additional stature to the office

and to Canada, and maintain and keep the tradition and honour that we

all associate with the office of Governor-General — and, of course, the

office of the Lieutenant-Governor here within the province.

Her predecessor Mr. Schreyer will be, I think, not the ambassador to

Australia but, in proper protocol terms, the High Commissioner of

Canada to Australia. I'm sure that he will carry on there representing

Canada in that form in a most distinguished way, as he did when he was

the Premier of a province, when he was a Member of Parliament and when

he was the Governor-General.

We wish Mme. Sauvé a long life ahead of her and a distinguished career as Governor-General.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it is agreed, the Chair will undertake to send the appropriate messages as outlined in the addresses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the precincts today and in the

galleries are several people from my constituency and others. I don't

want to single anyone out, but I would like to thank them all for

working very hard to win a very important by-election for me three

years ago today. I know the House would like to make them welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: In your gallery this afternoon, Mr. Speaker,

I'd like the House to welcome some people from my constituency and some

from out of town. My campaign manager Mr. Don Shwery's wife, Mrs.

Virginia Shwery, is in your gallery, and with her today is Don's

mother, Mrs. Christena Shwery, all the way from Windsor, Ontario, and

friends of hers, Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Foster. I'd like the House to

make them all welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a young

man who is often a visitor to the galleries here in Victoria, but I

would like to introduce him today. He is from my constituency, and he

has recently been elected president of the Cowichan-Malahat New

Democratic Party Constituency Association. I would like the House to

welcome Dominique Roelants.

MR. PARKS: In the galleries this afternoon I notice that a

constituent of mine has arrived. I had the pleasure of serving six

years on the council for the district of Coquitlam, and during that

period of time the deputy clerk had occasion to

[ Page 4710 ]

make my job much easier than it would otherwise

have been. I'd like the House to join with me in making very welcome

Mrs. Sandra Aikenhead.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday evening a man went over the side of the ferry Queen of Saanich

halfway between Active Pass and Tsawwassen but was rescued in a truly

heroic effort by the crew. I believe that members will be amazed to

learn, as I was, that the man was actually picked out of the water just

six minutes after he went over the side.

There are many thousands who use our B.C. ferries every year — our

own people and people from all over the world. I believe that we should

be very proud of our outstanding ferry service and its crews in

general. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if on this occasion the House would

agree to express its commendations to Capt. Myerscough and the crew of

the Queen of Saanich for their outstanding heroism and efficiency. It's truly a proud occasion for every British Columbian.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our caucus I wish to

add our congratulations to the crew and master of the vessel. These

people are extremely well-trained in their profession. I think on this

occasion the people who work for the B.C. Ferry Corporation have the

opportunity to indicate to the public of British Columbia just how hard

they work and how well-trained they are.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, hon. members, if it is agreed, the Chair will undertake the appropriate message as outlined.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1984.

Bill 29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

EASTER SEAL SERVICES

FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), but unfortunately she is once again not

present in the House. I will have to go to the Provincial Secretary as

her alternate. The B.C. Lions Society for Crippled Children has

announced major losses of mortgage investments. Some $521,000 in

mortgage investments are tied up in real estate held for resale, and it

is our understanding that a total of $1.2 million is at risk in

investments.

What action has the minister taken or the government taken to

preserve the Vancouver Easter Seal bus service for handicapped children

this summer, which appears to be jeopardized by the Lions Society

financial status?

[2:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member suggests that the

Easter Seal bus service is liable to be jeopardized by the losses of

the Lions Club on mortgages. That isn't the information I have. I'm

wondering if that is a supposition or a bit of imagination on the part

of the second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: I will rephrase my question. It has been

indicated by the Lions Society that they will no longer be able to

continue their Easter Seal bus service for handicapped children. At the

same time, we have had indications that the Lions Society is in

financial trouble. I am wondering if the government or the minister has

taken appropriate action to ensure that that service for handicapped

children will be continued and will not be jeopardized.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm certainly prepared to look into that particular

question. I want to say that the information is that the buses and Easter Seal

Camp and the Easter Seal House are not going to be jeopardized by their partial

losses in investments in second and third mortgages. Mr. Speaker, I don't

want to alarm the people of British Columbia by the question that has been posed

to me and I hope we will be able to come back with an answer tomorrow, indicating

very clearly that the services are continuing to be in place.

DYNATEK FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. The principals of Dynatek

Electronics Corp. fired the remainder of their executive staff and

closed their offices in Vancouver and Victoria. In view of these

developments, will the minister advise what assurances he has received

from Dynatek that they will be able to meet their obligations to

manufacture microchips, as proposed, on Saanich Peninsula?

HON. MR. McGEER: None, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: I will ask a new question. In a news release

dated March 30, 1983, the minister said he expected Dynatek to complete

its financial requirements in the next few weeks. Will the minister

advise when he now expects the company to complete its financial

requirements?

HON. MR. McGEER: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker. The company has

agreements with the federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce

and with the British Columbia Development Corporation. I could

undertake to determine from BCDC what the status is as far as our

provincial Crown corporation is concerned.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. In view of

the fact that Dynatek has made no serious investment — it's now eight

months behind the original start-up date announced by the minister — is

the minister prepared to make the incentive package available that was

put together between B.C. Development Corporation and the federal

government or to promote having that same package made available to

other investors who may be able to salvage something from this

apparently failed project?

[ Page

4711 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the key

element of the Dynatek operation has been the placing of orders for

equipment and therefore the ability to go into production — should they

be able to get their financing together. Of course, it is a great

disappointment that this corporation, having been offered so much in

the way of assistance from both the federal and the provincial

government, should still be unable to locate investors willing to

undertake the considerably reduced risk that would be involved in a

production plant in Canada. I say that given the very brisk market

which has been available for the last couple of years in terms of the

product that Dynatek and its competitive organizations are willing to

offer. Perhaps we have a Canadian story there: despite all of this, an

unwillingness to assume risks of the competitive international

marketplace.

BUS SERVICE TO COWICHAN

BAY AND SHAWNIGAN LAKE

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), responsible for Island

Coach Lines, I'll direct my question to the Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mr. Richmond), who, I understand, is his alternate.

The new owners of Pacific Coach Lines on Vancouver Island service

have cancelled all bus service to Cowichan Bay and Shawnigan Lake. Why

has the minister allowed the new owners to discontinue this service

unilaterally and unfairly?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, as I am unaware of the

details of that operation, I would be happy to take the question as

notice for the minister.

MRS. WALLACE: A new question, Mr. Speaker. The new company,

Island Coach Lines, has obtained authority from the Motor Carrier

Commission to conduct scheduled bus service on Vancouver Island, as a

consequence of buying buses from Pacific Coach Lines. Why has the

government not required the new owners to maintain service in order to

obtain licences from the Motor Carrier Commission, and will the

minister file a copy of the agreement on behalf of that company?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again I will take those questions as notice for the minister.

UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

The Labour Relations Board order released Friday found that the owners

of Pizza Hut involved the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Ritchie) in an unfair labour practice by thrusting the minister in the

middle of a labour dispute. This is now the second unfair labour

practice committed by a cabinet member. Has the minister decided to

explain the relevant legislation not only to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs but to his cabinet colleagues so that those ministers do not

again stumble into unfair labour practices?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm available to explain

legislation to anyone, including that member, who doesn't understand the

current legislation on the floor.

COWICHAN ESTUARY

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment,

and it has to do with a very old topic, the Cowichan estuary.

Order-in-council 3339 says: "An environmental assessment committee is

structured to review and assess proposals with environmental

implications for the Cowichan estuary." Did that committee assess the

recent construction of a dike on property owned by Doman Industries?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I'll have to take the question as notice to get the exact particulars.

MRS. WALLACE: May I ask the minister if order-in-council 3339

is still in effect, or has it been repealed? If it is in effect, why

wouldn't it have been followed?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not having the advantage of prepreparation

on order-in-council 3339.... I don't remember them all — as many as I

put through or deal with from memory, so I'll have to look it up.

MRS. WALLACE: The Ministry of Environment recently made

application to rezone 23 acres of Doman Industries property from

agricultural to public use. Why is the Ministry of Environment acting

on behalf of a private landowner in a zoning application before North

Cowichan council — and on to the ALR?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think if the member had read the Cowichan

estuary plan implementation, she'd have realized that there was an

exchange of land there whereby some of the land behind the dike was to

go into agriculture and some of the other land was to go into

waterfront environmental use.

MRS. WALLACE: I have obviously read the report much more

closely than the minister. What I'm asking is: why is his ministry

taking forward the application to have the Doman property excluded from

the ALR and rezoned from agriculture to public use? Why is his ministry

involved in doing this for a private landowner?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I will take that as notice — to determine, first of all, if what the member says is correct.

MRS. WALLACE: On May 2 the North Cowichan municipality voted

unanimously to request a delay in the implementation of the

government's Cowichan estuary plan until a public forum is held. Has

the minister decided to allow this public input, or is the government

going ahead regardless?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I understand it, the Cowichan estuary

has been studied for something like 12 to 15 years, with considerable

public input. As a result of the public input, a decision was finally

made. Then they want a public hearing. I don't know how long you would

prolong this. No, the decision has been made, and the implementation

report is in effect.

[ Page 4712 ]

PROVINCE-SUN STRIKE

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in view of the detrimental effect that the Province-Sun strike is having on our daily question period, has the minister considered involving himself in this dispute?

MRS. WALLACE: It's interesting that the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is not prepared to listen to North

Cowichan's unanimous request.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is question period.

COWICHAN ESTUARY

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question now, Mr. Speaker, for the

Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister advise whether an

application has been made to the Agricultural Land Commission to have

the 23 acres owned by Doman Industries removed from the agricultural

land reserve?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: There is no application before me at this time.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

MR. GABELMANN: I have another question to the Minister of

Labour. Concern has been widely expressed that the new Human Rights

Act, Bill 11, may violate the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights. I'm not suggesting that it does, but concern has been

expressed that it might. In view of that, has the minister decided to

refer the new Human Rights Act to the United Nations Commission on

Human Rights prior to proclamation by cabinet?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No. And the previous question I would take as notice, Mr. Speaker.

QUINSAM COAL PROJECT

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question to the Minister of

Environment on another subject altogether. Can the minister tell us

what has happened to the report of the public inquiry on the Quinsam

coal project?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, very soon.

MR. GABELMANN: What's very soon?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I answered your question. You asked can I tell you, and I said yes, very soon I can tell you.

MR. GABELMANN: Has the minister decided that when that report is released it will be made public?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I can assure that member that any time a report is released it is made public.

[2:30]

Mr. Pelton, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills, presented the committee's fourth report, which was read as

follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"Preamble to Bill PR402 intituled

An Act Respecting

Central Trust Company and Crown Trust Company has been approved and the

bill ordered to be reported.

"All of which is respectively submitted. Austin

Pelton, Chairman, Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills."

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the report to the Minister of Environment on the public inquiry into the Quinsam coal project.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the committee

on Standing Orders and Private Bills to reconvene this afternoon at 3

o'clock, while the House is sitting.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

(continued)

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced for second

reading on Thursday, May 12, at which time the minister took some 15

minutes to impress upon us the urgency of dealing with the

labour-management situation in the province, although I suppose he

called it the "labour problems" rather than the "labour-management

situation."

Certainly whatever the degree of the problem, it is something about

which we should all be concerned and have in mind all the time,

regardless of how much time has been lost due to worker-management

disputes or how many people are involved. Any time one day is lost,

it's certainly important to that one person, and when a lot of days are

lost, it's important to many beyond that. But I have to wonder why the

timing is such that the legislation has to be introduced now, early in

It is not so long since we were hearing from government spokesmen to

the effect that things have never been better from the point of view of

labour-management arguments in the province. It's not so many years

since that was the case. Indeed, the Ministry of Labour's own report is

worth referring to in that regard. The report that I have for the year

1980 goes back to 1955, and in the 18 years from 1955 to 1972, the

worst year by far was the last year of the W.A.C. Bennett regime, and

that was 1972. Even in that year the ratio of stoppage duration to time

worked by paid workers was 1.1 percent, certainly a high figure in that

it was the highest ever. Yet one has to wonder, because no drastic

action was contemplated that year, as far as we're aware. It was not

felt that there was need for government to move in with the kind of

legislation that they did about a week ago.

[ Page 4713 ]

Then the situation improved. We've never had a year as bad as 1972

until the year 1981, after the present administration had completed

seven years in office, and that seventh year was a bad one. We

shouldn't really look at that year alone; while it was 1.1 percent

again, equal to the highest year in the time of this reporting period

of 1955 to 1982, nevertheless the following year dropped back down to

0.4 percent in 1982. I wonder if the situation was really bad enough

that the government had to feel it was important that it take some

action. I suggest that the evidence is that the situation was not that

bad, and the extent to which it was bad was brought on as a reaction to

what this government was indeed doing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let me go back to 1980 when there was talk about how well we were

getting along, and not just by government spokesmen but by others as

well. There was a story in the Vancouver Sun — do you remember

when there used to be such a paper printed, Mr. Speaker? Maybe one day

there will be again. But in the issue of August 30, 1980, in an

article

entitled "Maturity the Mark of Survivors in the Battle," there are

references to the improvement in labour-management relations that B.C.

had experienced: "The union leader and the boss in B.C., adversaries

over the years as they hammered out contracts in tough negotiating

sessions, appear to be headed for a period of maturity in working

together." If that really were the case, surely that's the direction to

go — to have them working together. That was the appraisal on August

30, 1980: "Labour relations...experts give a lot of credit to the

leadership among the trade unions, one of several factors they

attribute to B.C.'s good record through '79 into '80" — and, indeed,

the records were good in 1979 and 1980. In 1979 the ratio of stoppage

to time worked was 0.3 percent; in 1980 it was 0.2 percent. So things

were well in that respect in 1979 and 1980. Apart from the maturity of

the union leadership, "another major contributor is the seven-year-old

provincial Labour Code administered by the labour board." Mr. Speaker,

that was recognized as the difference that made everyone so optimistic

that as time went on things were going to be well in B.C. from the

point of view of labour-management relations.

Paul Weiler wrote a book, a documentary of how the B.C. Code had

survived political storms by maintaining a delicate balance of power

between labour and management since 1973, when the former NDP

government brought it in. So that was the role of the labour board: to

maintain that delicate balance of power, and in so doing, to bring

about relative harmony — not good enough, Mr. Speaker, but relative

harmony — and hope for the future.

"As far as ex-teamster John Brown is concerned, the way

to function today is to make sure the board is always fair in its dealings with

labour and management. 'That's the key,' says Brown, who sits as

a part-time panelist." Mr. Speaker, there was relative fairness at the time we set it up. At the time

we brought in that legislation, there was concern raised by employees and employers

that it would not be fair. Both of them were very worried about the labour legislation,

but both groups came to accept it as very forward-thinking legislation — legislation

that they found they could live with. They found that while they sometimes disagreed

with the decisions of the Labour Relations Board, in general both parties accepted

it as doing a very good job of maintaining the delicate balance of fairness

between the two groups.

This

article goes on with a bit of a warning:

"If there is a failing on the union side, it's in the

field of organizing the unorganized. Don't mistake this as an indication

that union clout is weakening. The unions still control the great majority of

workers in vital primary industries, manufacturing and transportation, and are

stronger than ever in the provincial and municipal civil services. And this

province is still notable for having the highest percentage of organized workers

of any province in the land by a good 10 percent."

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour might well consider that warning when he

decides to take the next step forward in this campaign to try to destroy the

effectiveness of the trade union movement in the province of British Columbia.

The Labour Relations Board thought it was good. The columnist who

wrote that column quoted labour relations experts to say that things

were doing well in B.C. The Minister of Labour — at that time the

predecessor to the current one, Jack Heinrich — said that he was proud

that the man-days lost were so low. This is in a story of the same

date, August 30, 1980. So the Minister of Labour thought things were

going very well in B.C. in 1980.

"Don Munroe, labour board chairman, is optimistic about

future industrial relations. What he likes is that the number of voluntary settlement

cases without a formal hearing has also increased. Jim Kinnaird agrees that

labour and management officials are getting along better. He suggests the real

militants have switched from the industrial picket line to the political demonstration

designed to rectify government bungling, slip-ups or chicanery."

Mr. Speaker, one wonders whether the legislation we're dealing with

and debating now is not so much a concern about labour-management

relations — we're getting along so well in the opinion of everyone

consulted — as a government concern about the political activity of the

trade union movement. They felt that in order to be able to deal with

the labour movement's participation in politics, they had to bring in

legislation to try to destroy the effectiveness of the union movement.

Quoting further from Jim Kinnaird, as far as he's concerned, "the

political process has been discredited not only through mismanagement

of the economy" — and, Mr. Speaker, we certainly have lots of evidence

of that, especially in the last ten months — "but also through

scandalous carryings-on associated with such issues as Gracie's finger

and Lettergate." That's the labour board chairman's side.

Then Bill Hamilton, president of the Employers' Council at that

time, was quoted as saying that he used to believe that strikes and

lockouts were unnecessary and could be eliminated by law. He used to

believe that. He had some experience. Then he gradually realized that

you can't do that. You can't outlaw strikes and lockouts in a free

society. You've got to learn to walk around them and avoid them.

"Management generally has made its contribution to the new-found

harmony, because it has changed with the times," said Hamilton.

Mr. Speaker, this minister has not been prepared to change with the

times. He was particularly pleased with the efforts being made on all

sides — labour, management and

[ Page 4714 ]

government — to approve apprenticeship training

programs and to try to ease a serious shortage of skilled tradesmen.

That was the experience in 1980. Things were looking good. But it

didn't suit the government's plan. They didn't want things to look that

good between labour and management, especially when they came to the

awareness that more and more of the trade unions were dissatisfied with

this present administration and were determined to take them on

politically.

The first step in that program was, of course, leaving aside all the

resolutions that came up at Socred Party conventions from time to time

wanting drastic changes in the labour legislation. The references in

the minister's presentation last Thursday to the many conferences, the

many people who have contacted him about changing the labour

legislation — all that pressure on the government, pressure that some

of them welcomed, some of them indeed supported some drastic changes to

the Labour Relations Act....

They welcomed all that. They were looking forward to being able to

do it and have been trying to come up with something ever since the

government was elected in December 1975.

They wrestled with it but with a slim majority, they weren't quite

prepared to take on the trade union movement. It was the same thing

after the 1979 election; they had a slimmer majority after 1979. Once

again they talked boldly in convention about making changes, and the

Minister of Labour of the time, whoever it was, kept insisting that he

would never bring in that kind of legislation. The government wasn't

interested in right-to-work legislation. They wanted harmony between

the employers and the employees. And harmony we had; harmony we

experienced in the year 1980, as I've shown from remarks from different

people, people from all walks of life.

That's not the end of it, Mr. Speaker. There's another one that I

would like to quote from March 24, 1981: "In a speech to a western

economic conference in Vancouver, Premier Bill Bennett included in his

remarks a defence of B.C.'s labour relations, giving labour peace

credit for helping the province to remain economically healthy during

the past several years. In effect, he praised trade unionists for

helping the cause." In March 1981 the Premier was so pleased with trade

union relationships, so pleased that trade unionists were helping B.C.,

helping the cause, helping us maintain our economic situation in the

province.

Then in February 1982, just 11 months later, Mr. Speaker, the

Premier started his open campaign against the trade union movement. On

a TV program, when he had asked for time to do it, he went on the air

and started talking about the need to cut back, about the need for

restraint. There was no real program, but the government was going to

start cutting back, because it was supposed to make it easier for

businesses operating in the private sector to compete if they didn't

have to continue carrying the "dead weight of government," as it was

put.

Well, that was February 1982; that was the beginning. They thought

they were approaching an election campaign, and this seemed to be the

right thing to say at the time. But the polls didn't come out

favourably, so they walked away from that election campaign. That was

the year, Mr. Speaker, you recall, that the budget came in predicting a

break-even position — a budget that, as time went on, proved to be just

about $1 billion out. That was the year that we had a billion-dollar

deficit rather than the break-even position predicted by the Minister

of Finance.

[2:45]

But so be it. The Premier tried it. He had his speech in February

1982; he had his TV time. He talked about cutting back and reducing the

load on small business, large business and business generally of

carrying this dead weight of government. It didn't fly, so he backed

away from it and brought in the budget that was a lie from beginning to

end — not a lie that I'm attributing to any individual, Mr. Speaker,

but it was a lie from beginning to end. Certainly the Ministry of

Finance knew that the figures were not real.

Then in the fall of 1982, once again the government approached the

idea of calling an election. You will remember that infamous report on

redistribution, Mr. Speaker, which was going to create seven new seats

— six, at least — in relatively safe Socred ridings. Then when it came

down it turned out to be six or seven — we're not sure — and the

government was under such criticism in the community that they backed

away from that and once again backed away from the starting gate and

did not call the election. But they continued this talk of restraint.

The budget that was introduced that year, as I say, was $1 billion

out, but they lost the opportunity to call the election. So it appears,

though, as if they were going to have another budget. They tried to do

the election in the fall of '82 and backed away from it. Then in

January 1983, you'll remember, the weatherman started telling us how

great things were in B.C. By that time things were getting pretty bad.

To quite an extent, our economy had stopped functioning. Unemployment

was very high. The weatherman was on night after night telling us how

great things were, how lucky we were to be living in B.C. Everything

was wonderful and improving. Everyone knew that it wasn't true;

nevertheless, he did it very convincingly night after night on

television.

After four months of this advertising, spending millions of dollars

to persuade people that they were lucky to be living in B.C., the

government finally got up its nerve and called the election. They

continued to talk about restraint — no question about that — with the

promise that there would be no firings. Relations between management

and labour continued on not too badly at this time. Then the election,

and the hammer fell with the budget of July 7. The government didn't

bring in a budget; they waited until after the election, because when

they introduce a budget they also have to tell us what happened in the

past year. They weren't prepared to tell the people of the province

that they had so mismanaged the economy that they had run us $1 billion

in debt in just one year. So they put off bringing in a budget until

after the election. With that budget on July 7, they brought in 26

pieces of legislation, many of which were a direct attack on the trade

union movement, in particular the unions operating in the public sector.

That was the real beginning of the campaign to try to destroy the

effectiveness of the trade union movement in B.C. One cabinet member

was reported to have said, in a private session with a group of people,

that the government had shown the people operating in the private

sector what it was prepared to do with public employees; now it was up

to the private sector to take on those employees operating in the

private sector. That gave them the clue that they could count on the

support of government in any such campaign.

For political reasons the government did take on the trade union

movement, starting with the July 7 budget. It took them on with many

pieces of legislation, to the extent that they aroused the kind of

public campaign that had never

[ Page 4715 ]

happened before in the province of British Columbia

— rallies such as we'd never seen. All the time those rallies were

going on, while people were concerned about the bills that had come in,

no one really knew what the government was going to do with respect to

labour relations. We had heard rumours over the months and years that

there were going to be substantial changes to the Labour Relations Act,

but they never quite got to the point of putting them down on paper

which they were prepared to table in the House. Even when they finally

got around to doing it, apparently they weren't able to produce the

bill other than by Xerox copy.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I haven't heard strike before. Under this

legislation it would be called a strike. I don't think it was called a

strike under the old one, but I'm not sure.

I've tried to introduce the background to show that from the point

of view of labour-management relations, things were going along quite

well in the province of British Columbia. I'm trying to show that the

first overt action on the part of the government to upset those

relations was the Premier's speech in February 1982; the next step was

in July 1983, when the budget came in along with 26 pieces of

legislation. The government got into so much hot water with everything

else that at that time it did back away from changing the Labour

Relations Act, but everyone knew that somewhere down the street that

bill was coming in as well. Indeed, just last week the bill did come in

— a bill calculated to make trouble, a bill bound to make trouble

between labour and management.

I'd like to refer to the Minister of Labour's remarks. He starts out

by saying: "This government believes that these practical and

even-handed adjustments...." It's hard to believe, but he certainly had

all of our attention at the beginning of his remarks. We were waiting

to see what he would have to say about this legislation. Very early in

his speech — in the first sentence — he described the changes that he

introduced as "even-handed adjustments." He said it without smiling. I

was watching. I couldn't believe it. If he had smiled, at least it

would have shown he was human, because he certainly knows there's

nothing even-handed about the changes he has proposed in the Labour

Relations Act. If one needed any further evidence of that.... I don't

know why anybody would; it's so obvious from the changes that they're

one-sided. He says they're even-handed, when to my knowledge there

hasn't been a single supporting voice from outside of this Legislature,

let alone inside, other than the present manager of the Employers'

Council. I have heard him say that this will help in labour-management

relations, that it is — perhaps not "even-handed"; I think he didn't

use those words; but he did suggest that there is balance in the

changes. Well, everyone else whom I've heard quoted has predicted

trouble in labour-management relations. Soon after the changes came out

I heard Chuck McVeigh of the Construction Labour Relations Association

forecasting that it would lead to more trouble, rather than improve the

situation between labour and management in that industry — and that's

the one where it's supposed to be dealing with the problem.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

"Even-handed," the kind of changes we're proposing here? The

minister must have been joking. Yet he didn't laugh, and I didn't notice

anybody else on his side laughing. Certainly we couldn't laugh under the

circumstances, and nobody in the community is laughing. They're not even-handed;

they're loaded very heavily on one side. The strength of the labour legislation

that we introduced, the strength of the Labour Board, the references I've

referred to, the quotations from the previous Minister of Labour, the Premier

and labour leaders, the Employers' Council — the predecessor, Bill Hamilton:

all emphasized the even-handed way in which labour-management relations were

being handled in British Columbia. If this legislation is passed in its present

form, that even-handedness is going to disappear. Once we remove that even-handedness,

which has been credited with establishing such good relations between labour

and management, then I fear that we are in for bad days in labour-management

relations in the province of British Columbia. The government knows that. They

know that they're walking into trouble. They must be doing it deliberately.

There's no other excuse for bringing in this kind of action. It's either

stupid or deliberate, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't call them stupid; I do call

them deliberate. They're deliberately trying to provoke confrontation in

the hope that they can use that in their campaign to destroy the effectiveness

of the trade union movement in British Columbia.

"As an aside, Mr. Speaker" — again I'm quoting from the Minister's

speech in the Blues — "as the months go on — particularly during the summer

— it will be seen that these amendments are part of an ongoing process that

this government has for laying a solid foundation for building our economic

recovery." That worries me. In the July budget of last year, and with legislation,

we took action that was supposed to lead to economic recovery. The Premier's

speech in February 1982 was supposed to start us on the road to recovery; the

budget of July 1983 was another step forward. What was the effect of that step

forward, Mr. Speaker? You know the statistics as well as everyone else in B.C.

You know that B.C. has become worse from the point of view of the number of

bankruptcies of businesses and of individuals. From the point of view of the

rate of increase in unemployment, B.C. is worse than any other province in Canada.

That's B.C. Social Credit recovery.

If that's what the government did in July 1983, and if they're now

bringing in legislation that is bound to create more confrontation and,

as I say, can only be deliberately intended to provoke confrontation

between labour and management.... If that is their idea of promoting

recovery, one has to wonder what steps they are considering for the

summer of this year. What can be worse than what they've already done?

What can be worse than the legislation we're currently debating? We can

only speculate, but we also have to worry in view of this government's

record of improving our economy. We can't stand much more of that kind

of improvement. It would be better if they got out of the way and left

the economy alone, rather than continued to improve it in the way they

have. We can't afford a much greater rate of unemployment. We can't

afford more bankruptcies.

The minister finds it difficult to understand some of the criticism

to the effect that the consultative process was not followed. I

listened to that

part carefully, and I reread it just to see that I

heard it right. He did talk about consultation: "lengthy and ongoing

process of consultation between myself" — well, he was in it — "senior

officials of my ministry" — that helps — "and a broad cross-section of

the people involved in the labour relations process in this province —

[ Page 4716 ]

and others as well, including private citizens who

only have an interest.... Between 250 and 300 submissions..." — a lot

of consultation. Mr. Speaker, did you notice that there was not one

reference to a trade union movement? There was no consultation with any

of the trade unions or any of the trade unionists. He has mentioned and

belaboured this point about consultation. If there really was even one

trade unionist or one trade union involved in that process, don't you

think the minister would have tried to bolster his position by making

reference to that particular trade unionist or trade union? I suspect,

and I think the minister's speech confirms this, that while he did

indeed consult with employers, and Social Crediters at Social Credit

Party conventions who wanted changes made, and non-union employers in

particular, there was no consultation at all with organized employers,

organized employees or their organizations. I am sure that minister

would have been pleased to announce that he did consult with them, even

if he ignored them. It would appear that he didn't even consult with

them, let alone pay any attention to what they might have said.

[3:00]

"The past couple of years have been very difficult for our province

and our people." That was a point that I referred to at the very

beginning of my speech, and indeed they have. But we were doing very

well in the years before that, in the appraisal of many people,

including the Minister of Labour at the time and the Premier. It wasn't

until the Premier decided that the government should get involved in

the process and start interfering on the side of management that these

last couple of difficult years started. Indeed they have been

difficult, but the fault lies on the government's own shoulders.

Government action, in the person of the Premier, made things what they

have been in the last two years, and that could only have happened

deliberately.

"Events have been dominated by our government's efforts to bring us

out of that recession and to encourage recovery." Everything they have

done since the election of May 1983 has been in the opposite direction and has

hurt the economy. The tax increases they levied in the July budget of 1983 and

the threats to fire without cause some 75,000 people hurt the economy. You

can't threaten that many people with layoff without doing some damage to

the economy. It's not just the people who are directly going to be laid

off. They all have friends and relations — some of them work in the public sector

and some don't, but they work in the community. Every one of those is intelligent

enough to know that if someone else is laid off, they could be the next. If

they're not next, the fact that the economy is being hurt by the increasing

rate of unemployment is going to hurt every member of the B.C. community.

Everyone recognized that it was going to hurt; there couldn't be any

other conclusion from the government's decision to fire without cause

some 75,000 people. The government knew that when they brought in that

threat. So for the minister to say that everything they have done has

been to promote recovery, when it's obvious that everything they have

done has had the opposite effect — and was predicted to have had the

opposite effect.... It is obvious to me that they have been quite

prepared to do any damage whatever to the economy as long as they could

pursue their goal, which was to destroy the effectiveness of the trade

union movement.

I quote again from the speech that the minister read in the House

last Thursday: "It's no surprise that economic recovery within the

continued framework of restraint in government spending has been the

paramount issue as far as our administration is concerned." If economic

recovery really was their goal, then they certainly failed miserably.

If challenging the trade unions was their goal, they failed in that

last fall too, and had to back away. I think they're doing better this

spring by bringing on one issue after another.

I don't think they have succeeded in restraining government

spending. You will recall that the budget that came in in July 1983

provided for a 16 percent increase in spending. The budget that was

introduced in February of this year called for a nil increase, but even

at that rate it works out to an average of 8 percent per year over a

two-year period. That is not restraint, at a time when the cost of

living is going up some 5 percent. So they haven't achieved restraint

in government spending, and if the purpose of all of this was to reduce

what they call the "dead weight" of government cost on business, when

is business, or anyone else, going to see some of that load removed?

When are they going to see some reduction in taxes? Taxes have gone up

with both budgets introduced since the Minister of Finance brought in a

budget after the election. Spending and taxes have gone up. No cost of

government has been reduced as far as the private sector is concerned;

they're paying more all the time.

"Ours is basically an open economy, with two-thirds of our wealth generated

by our export trade." What is the government doing about it, other than

sending cabinet minister after cabinet minister on junkets all over the world,

nice holidays paid for by the taxpayers? What has the government done about

it? At least, Mr. Speaker, when we were in office we sent the Speaker on some

of these trips. But they're not even doing that. It's the cabinet ministers

that are getting all the trips all around the world. One after another, travelling

to one country after another, and they're still saying that we depend upon

our export economy; two-thirds of our economy is exports alone. But when are

they going to make some changes in that, Mr. Speaker?

During the time we were in office, we did travel and we did try to

build up export trade. But we weren't content with the fact that we

depended so entirely upon exports, and in the three-year period we did

something to try to get the economy in British Columbia moving on its

own rather than rely completely upon exports. Mr. Speaker, we did make

an attempt to get some changes in our economy. They've done nothing to

try to generate a greater level of secondary or tertiary industry here

in the province. They concentrated almost entirely upon exporting our

raw materials or relatively unprocessed materials, and now they're

saying that we depend for two-thirds of our economy upon export trade.

Well, of course, Mr. Speaker, and it's to their shame that that is

still the case after some eight years in office and after some 20 years

in office as a party before that. After 28 years as the government of

British Columbia they still say on Thursday, May 1984, that two-thirds

of our economy depends upon export trade. That in itself is an

admission of failure, if after all that time nothing has been achieved

to decrease our total dependence upon particularly the American market

and to some extent other markets. They have failed. They haven't done

anything to try to improve the development of our economy within

British Columbia. They have concentrated only on trying to export more

and more of our raw materials so that we can buy back the things we

need for our economy.

[ Page 4717 ]

"Our future success lies in meeting and beating that competition."

Well, the Scandinavians are beating the competition for our lumber products

and our pulp products by devaluing their dollar. We've tried that in Canada

to quite an extent and that hasn't worked. How far would the minister want

us to go by devaluation in order to compete with the Scandinavians, who can

keep on devaluing as long as they wish to compete with us? Are we really that

totally dependent upon the rest of the world? Is there nothing we can do within

our own province to improve our own economic lot? Is the government completely

devoid of any ideas? Is the government's solution to all of these problems

simply to send the cabinet ministers away from Victoria so they don't make

too much trouble and don't get in too much trouble here? Send them around

the rest of the world and keep them out of the way: is that their only solution

to the problems of British Columbia?

"There are no longer any automatic customers for our resources and services."

Once again, Mr. Speaker, if that's the case, let's do something here

in B.C. to build up our own economy. Let's not just find more people who

will buy our coal if we subsidize it. Let's not just find more people who

will buy round logs if we're prepared to ship them out at minimum labour

content to the product here in B.C. That's the direction of their efforts;

nothing to try to improve anything in B.C. Well, I suppose there is one exception:

the Toyota wheel plant, financed with no-interest government loans, provincial

and federal. Today we heard about Dynatek, another one that was getting all

kinds of help from the province and from the federal government. Cheap money

for things like that, Mr. Speaker, but nothing to bring anything new to get

anything really going. Where is Dynatek now? Even the minister responsible for

it was walking away from it today, and I don't blame him. Perhaps he's

so busy digging that tunnel that he hasn't had time to concentrate on Dynatek.

Maybe when he gets the tunnel dug he'll have time to work on something else.

"Better and more stable labour-management relations will be crucial to

the process." Mr. Speaker, nothing could be truer. I quoted from a lot

of people about how good labour-management relations were in B.C. some two, three

or four years ago. The Premier said it, the then Minister of Labour said it,

trade unions said it, employers said it. Everyone said it was good in B.C. and

they didn't get bad until the Premier decided that they were so good that

he had to intervene and stir up the pot because the public generally accepted

the idea that trade unionists were becoming responsible people, as was said

in some of the documents I read. They were becoming responsible, and people

were accepting the fact that trade unionists were cooperating. It was Hamilton

that talked about the cooperation among government, employers and employee organizations.

This kind of cooperation was being boasted about in B.C. just three years ago.

The Premier couldn't accept that situation, Mr. Speaker. If he were going

to destroy the trade union movement, once again he had to make the trade union

movement the whipping-boy for things that were going on wrong in the province.

So he had to start stirring up the pot.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Do you really believe this stuff?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, he asks if I really believe it.

Introduce some evidence. It was the Premier that boasted about how well

things were going in B.C. He credited the trade union movement with

doing their share in keeping the economy going. That was your Premier —

Mr. Speaker, not yours, but his; the one interjecting across the road —

saying how well things were going. It was too good to last; the

employees had to be taught a lesson; they had to be taught that no

longer could they get embarked on political activities. The Premier

didn't like the way they became involved in the 1983 election campaign,

so he decided that for the sake of future campaigns, the trade unions

had to be taken on — and that's what this is doing; it's going to hurt

the economy.

I remember a trade union leader saying during the war, when the

President of the United States decided to take them on and was going to

send in the army to make sure that the coal-miners dug coal: "Send them

in; you can't dig coal with bayonets." Mr. Speaker, this kind of

legislation is going to be a challenge to the trade union movement.

It's not going to be an invitation urging them to continue to cooperate

with management and with government; it's going to be a challenge to

them to see whether or not they're prepared to knuckle under or whether

they are going to fight for the right of their organizations to live.

If you destroy the effectiveness of those trade union organizations,

then you destroy their very reason for living at all. This legislation

will do nothing but harm in the province of British Columbia, and the

government, I submit, Mr. Speaker, is doing it deliberately.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I guess the government has decided

not to participate any further in this debate, but the opposition still

has a few more things to say, so we will carry on. As my colleague for

Nanaimo just stated, the intent of the bill is to destroy the trade

union movement. It would be interesting if the trade union movement

were air, gas, wood or something without substance or without feeling

or without life, but in fact, the trade union movement is made up of

people — human beings — and when you bring in legislation to destroy

the movement, what the legislation in fact does is hurt the members of

that particular group. It hurts the people who depend on it, who first

came to realize the importance of organizing and building a strong

movement and a strong union in order to get better working conditions

and a decent wage, and also in order to ensure that they have some kind

of mechanism for dialogue to take place with the employers as well as

with their other membership. A piece of legislation which destroys that

does damage to both — it does damage to the workers themselves and at

the same time it does damage to the employers — because it destroys the

mechanism that they used to use and used to be able to depend on in

terms of negotiations.

[3:15]

The interesting thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is that when this

bill was introduced originally, it had the unanimous support of all the

members in this House. The members who were in opposition at that time

— who are now the government — did not vote against that original

Labour Code. There were Liberals sitting in the House at that time, Mr.

Speaker; they did not vote against that Labour Code. There were

Conservatives sitting on the floor of the Legislature at that time and

they also voted in support of that Labour Code. As a matter of fact,

when one goes back and reads the newspapers of the day — the Code was

introduced in 1973 — we find that the Sun

Victoria bureau reported that it was the first time in the history of

the House that a labour bill was passed unanimously. It says: "Members

of the Social Credit, Liberal and

[ Page 4718 ]

Conservative parties have said that they view the

bill as a genuine attempt to solve labour relations problems and that

that was the reason why they supported it in principle."

Mr. Speaker, as we go through the bill, we find that actually the

people who were critical of the bill and who had some constructive

criticism to make were members of the government side of the day, New

Democratic members rather than opposition members. The opposition

members all stated that they had some apprehension prior to the

introduction of the bill, but once they saw the Code they realized that

it was long overdue and recognized that it was going to improve the

whole labour relations climate of the province, and they voted in

support of it. That's precisely what happened.

Right across Canada, other provinces looked at the Labour Code and

began to amend their legislation in line with some of the clauses of

the Labour Code, because they recognized that the Code in fact worked

in the best interest of all the people concerned. It worked in the best

interest of the organized workers — the trade unionists. It even worked

in the interest of unorganized workers, as well as of management and

the province as a whole.

You would have assumed then, because everyone recognizes that no

piece of legislation is perfect.... As times change and things happen,

all pieces of legislation sooner or later need to be amended and

improved. You would have assumed that the present Minister of Labour,

deciding to open the Code, would have decided to improve the Code. But

that is not what this bill in fact does. It destroys that labour

climate which the Code tried to create, and in fact does damage both to

organized labour and unorganized labour, to the employers and to the

whole climate of labour relations in this province.

What I specifically want to talk about today is one group of people

for whom the whole concept of organizing as workers is of vital

importance. I'm talking about women, whom the latest statistics place

in the fastest-growing component in the whole field of work. There are

more women entering the labour force today than ever before, and

certainly there are more women than men entering the labour force. The

tragedy of the situation, of course, is that most of the women in the

labour force are not organized. They are not members of trade unions.

They are still largely confined to the job ghettos of service employees

— clerical and domestic areas, which have never enjoyed the protection

that one gets when one is able to come together and form a trade union.

The reason that trade unions are so important to them is because, being

in unorganized ghettos, they tend to have to work under very poor

working conditions for low wages. In most instances they have no

benefits. If they have any benefits at all, they have the absolute

minimum, such as the Canada Pension Plan and unemployment insurance.

The concept of a safe workplace, maternity leave and those kinds of

things are difficult for them to achieve, because they do not have the

strength that comes from being part of an organization which can speak

for them and represent them and help them in terms of their

relationships with their employers.

The end result of this is the kind of statistics on poverty which we

still see and experience, not just in British Columbia but right across

Canada today, where we find that one woman out of every six is living

below the poverty line — this despite the fact that they are working in

the labour force. A large number of these women living below the

poverty line are not women at home. They are not necessarily retired or

senior citizens. But they are women working in the job ghettos, where

they do not have the protection of a strong group to speak for them and

help them secure decent wages that would lift them above the poverty

level. Three out of every five people in Canada living below the

poverty line are women. These are the statistics that we are

experiencing today, close to ten years after the United Nations

declared the international Decade for Women, which was dedicated to

helping women get out of the poverty ghetto and improve the quality of

their lives. The fact of the matter is that one of the reasons why

women are still poor, despite the fact that they've had an

International Women's Year, an internation women's decade and the

women's liberation movement and all these other things working for

them, is that they work for poor wages. In many instances, if they get

a pension it is inadequate. So what we have is women who are poor while

they are in the workforce and poor after they leave the workforce. They

live in poverty and they die in poverty.

These are tough economic times for all of us — we recognize that.

The Canadian labour movement, not just here in British Columbia but

right across Canada, is finding itself in a situation where it's not

just having to negotiate with corporate negotiators but is having to

negotiate with governments as well. They're having to fight for decent

working conditions for their membership on both levels — as I've said,

against large corporations and against governments. What happens is

that many of the gains which accrue to labour as a result of being able

to negotiate in this arena filter down to the unorganized worker. A

number of the benefits which women experience even though they are not

part of the organized labour force — such as maternity leave, which

becomes part of law — are benefits which first came into being through

negotiations; through trade unions negotiating it in contract after

contract and then fighting for it to be enshrined in legislation so

that those women, most of whom are not part of any organized labour

force, could get the benefit of it too. The protection of women in the

workplace depends totally on the gains and benefits which accrue

through organized labour negotiations, and then having those benefits

enshrined in our legislation. That's where it starts.

As I proceed, I'm going to be able to give some examples of job

ghettos in the clerical field, the department store field and in the

banking industry where women have tried and failed to organize, and as

a direct result have continued to earn wages far below what is

necessary to keep them above the poverty line. I want to stress this,

because this piece of legislation has made it almost impossible for

women in these areas of the workforce to get certification. It has made

it so difficult that an already difficult labour area to organize is

going to become almost impossible. At the same time, the bill has

introduced a further amendment which makes it very easy indeed to

decertify even those fragile groups that have organized and come

together and are struggling either for their first or second contracts

or, indeed, even to survive as an organized body as such. Those two

amendments would be reason enough for us to speak in opposition to this

piece of legislation and to vote against it, and to hope that the

minister will be introducing amendments to the bill in committee stage

which will change this. It can't be amended, really; it would have to

be deleted altogether from the bill.

What are some of the problems which women are facing in the

workforce today? One of the major threats to women employees is

technological change, because technological change is making very deep

incursions into the traditional female operations. Methods borrowed

from the industrial sector combined with advances in electronic

technology are

[ Page 4719 ]

now being applied to the service sector, which is a

female job ghetto. The rate of expansion of this sector is going to be

reduced, and there will be significant changes within many other of the

job ghettos such as the clerical one. The standardization of products

will not only eliminate job opportunities but will also entrench the

ghetto, and the simplification of work skills will lead to their

reduction to mere machine-tending. For example, we now have the

convertible typewriter, which has virtually eliminated the need for

highly skilled typists. Clerical workers are being transformed into

assembly-line workers who simply process words or stuff data into

communications systems. As these electronic gadgets absorb skills, the

position of the workers in this area are downgraded, and they then

become more vulnerable to discipline and to layoffs. This is one of the

reasons why they need the protection which would accrue to them through

being part of a trade union. This is why being able to certify, to be

certified as a bargaining unit....

Job protection is becoming more crucial as the technological

innovations impact on the service and clerical sectors of the

workforce, job ghettos which are female ghettos. As a result of

technological change, work for women has come full circle. Many women

are finding today that they are in exactly the same positions that

their mothers were in before them; indeed, more and more of them are

finding that unemployment, coupled with job insecurity, renders them as

vulnerable as their mothers were. Certainly it will ensure that they

remain as poor as their mothers were and that they, too, will live

below the poverty line, even as their mothers and grandmothers before

them in the workforce were forced to live below the poverty line. They,

too, find that they do not have decent pensions when they are finally

coughed up and spat out of the labour force at age 55 or 60, as the

case may be, and told that they are too old and no longer needed. They

too find that they do not have decent and adequate pensions. These are

the people who end up needing the GAIN supplement that swells the

welfare rolls in this province.

[3:30]

I don't think we can speak too strongly or clearly about the

importance of being able to organize and what it means to women in the

workforce. In fact, even though we stand on the floor of this House and

talk about decent wages and equal pay for work of equal value, when it

comes into force it usually comes in as a direct result of a trade

union negotiating it at contract time. Certainly that was what the

women who work for the municipality of Vancouver, who were members of

the CUPE local, found at that time. When CUPE went out on strike in

Vancouver they made as part of their negotiations — they placed on the

table — equal pay for work of equal value. They didn't actually spell

it out that way, but they talked about everyone coming into the

workforce at the same basic wage and then having access and opportunity

to take over from there.

It didn't start here, because on the floor of this House and in this Legislature

we still do not have equal pay for work of equal value. We do not even have

a government commitment to equal pay for work of equal value. Those women who

work in clerical jobs, in banks and in department stores, where they can work

40 hours part-time without any benefits, will also never, ever have an opportunity

to be paid an amount which places a true value on their labour unless they can

become part of a trade union, either through forming their own, as some clerical

workers have done with SORWUC and groups like that, or being part of an existing

trade union like CUPE, VMREU or some other group like that. This piece of legislation

attacks that access directly. It zeroes right in on certification and blocks

it, so we find that history repeats itself.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you read the book about attempts made

in earlier years to organize the workers at Eaton's department store.

It's called The Eaton Drive.

I was reading it over the weekend. Roadblocks were thrown up in the

path of those workers when they tried to organize. I noticed that in

recent months a further attempt is being made, with a little bit more

success. But that's not going to be possible after this bill becomes

law. I don't know if you know either, Mr. Speaker, about the aborted

attempts of the bank workers in British Columbia to organize and become

part of a union. It started out as a small union. It was extended and

taken over by a larger union with more power and clout, but it still

failed.

It's so difficult to get certification, because it's so easy for

management, in areas where there is insecurity and fear, to coerce and

intimidate workers. It's so easy to fire without just cause or move

them around and make organizing difficult. That's the reason that the

Labour Code is so important and that in this particular area it should

be very strong and helpful. But that's not going to happen, because

this bill has zeroed in on the certification and decertification of

workers.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other things that women in the

workforce depend on, and they are finding that the only area that they

have to carry on the struggle with any hope of success is through

organized labour.

The whole question of sexual harassment on the job, of course, has

been raised on the floor of this Legislature, as it has been raised on

the floor of many other legislatures right across Canada and certainly

on the floor of the House of Parliament itself. Yet there is no law yet

on the books which protects women in the workforce against this kind of

harassment. But through their trade unions women can file grievances,

and they have a group, they have a body, they have support in terms of

battling this issue which for so many years was not even discussed and

which women never even felt strong or secure enough to raise as an

issue. But women who work in department stores, restaurants and the

hospitality industry and women who to a large extent are confined to

the clerical ghetto in the banks lack this kind of protection. There is

absolutely nobody to speak for them, and they are not strong enough

because so many clerical offices have so few women working there.

Certainly, as I said, the coercion in some areas is so intense that

they are so totally intimidated that they cannot protect themselves or

fight for themselves.

In 1974 I spent a few weeks in Sweden, Mr. Speaker, looking at the

status of women there and trying to understand how that country had

managed to move so far in terms of the equality which women enjoyed

compared with women in the rest of the world. Last Monday I

participated in a conference in Vancouver at which the first or second

member for Surrey was also in attendance. It was sponsored by the

Swedish consul in cooperation with the Employers' Council of British

Columbia and the B.C. Federation of Labour. What it was looking at was

the role of women in Sweden and certainly women in the workforce. Once

again it became so clear how far ahead of Canada they were in so many

instances. When the question was put last Monday as it was put in 1974

by me — how was this possible; how did this happen? — the answer time

and time again was that it was the trade unions in

[ Page 4720 ]

Sweden that pioneered these changes. They were

first negotiated through contracts at negotiation time and then

enshrined in legislation maybe two or three years after. As a matter of

fact, Mr. Speaker, the speaker stated that consistently the government

ran two or three years behind the trade unions and certainly two or

three years behind the community at large in terms of enshrining things

like parenting leave, maternity leave, equal pay, equal pension,

insurance, protection from discrimination on the job, sexual harassment

and that kind of thing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That's not going to be possible. That's not going to be possible

because it's going to be so easy to prevent the certification, the

coming together and the forming of bargaining units in areas where most

of the people employed are women, where most of the people employed are

insecure and have no job security whatsoever. It's going to be so easy,

once this bill becomes law, to decertify even those units which

presently exist, because they're so vulnerable and fragile.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the dramatic rise in the labour force

participation of women in the last ten years, the proportion of women

still confined to low-paying clerical sales and service jobs has

remained unchanged. Education statistics show that even though women's

education level is higher than men's, the vast majority of them still

continue to be streamlined into the so-called traditional women's jobs.

I'm surprised that the government has not yet been able to make the

connection between the large amount of money expended on welfare

payments, either to single parents who are women, or to the GAIN which

supplements Canada Pension on behalf of women — they cannot live on

their pension alone — the link between that large expenditure on their

part and the poor wages which women earn. And because they earn poor

wages, they end up with either poor pensions or no pensions at all. In

fact, there is a direct link there.

If the government wanted, it could go out and legislate that all

women in the workforce should be paid decent wages, and that's

ludicrous; it can't be done that way. One of the ways in which it can

be done, of course, is through women being part of the organized labour

force, because it has been beneficial to its membership. We can say

whatever we want about trade unions. We can say they're horrible, mean,

bad, vicious and we don't like them, but the fact remains that over the

years they have protected their workers. They have fought against

unfair practices and poor working conditions; they have fought for

health and safety measures in the areas where their people work, and

they have certainly fought for decent wages. The last statistic that we

have shows that in British Columbia the average male earns something in

the neighbourhood of $8,853 a year if they work. With the high

unemployment that we're experiencing now, a lot of them are not earning

anything at all, but on average that's what they earn. The average

female earns $5,223 per year. What that works out to is that for every

dollar that a man earns, a woman earns 59 cents.

We've tried to deal with this in a number of different ways. We've

talked to the government about equal pay for work of equal value, about affirmative

action in terms of opening up a number of job areas that are better paying,

training and retraining women so that they can get into those jobs. We have

not had any success at all; in fact, the government has made a deliberate decision

that they would rather pay welfare, day-care subsidies and GAIN supplements

than ensure that women make a decent wage when they work, so that they have

a decent pension upon retirement and don't have to live below the poverty

line and be dependent on the welfare purse of the province. The government made

that decision not by accident but deliberately, and this, Mr. Speaker, is what

the certification and decertification clause in this legislation is all about

— a deliberate decision on the part of the government that women must continue

to be a cheap labour pool for whoever wants to hire them; that women must continue

to be insecure in their jobs — have no job security at all — and not be able

to depend on seniority to protect their jobs or anything else. Department stores

can continue to hire a woman to put in 40 hours of labour and still call her

a part-time worker, and so not have to pay her any benefits at all.

[3:45]

That is what this

section of the bill is all about, making it

impossible for women to organize and fight back against unfair working

conditions. I'm not even talking about the traditional groups of women

who've always been exploited, such as the women who work as domestics

or farm labourers. We know the difficulty that those two groups have

had even under the existing legislation. Trying to organize has been

impossible. For example, years after the farmworkers started

organizing, they still do not have a strong union with any kind of

clout to ensure that they work under decent, human working conditions.

They're still treated as cattle; they're treated even worse than

cattle, Mr. Speaker, and they haven't got the clout to do anything

about it. So we're not even including that group; I certainly am not in

the statements I'm making.

As I said before, there is no point in talking about domestic

workers on the floor of this House. I have been doing it since 1972,

and it hasn't had any impact at all. The concept of domestic workers

being able to come together and organize for some decent working

conditions is not one that one should even mention to that government

over there, because they couldn't care less and are never going to do

anything for them. What happens, though, is that they benefit from the

trickle-down theory that when a number of benefits which trade unions

fight for, and win, eventually become enshrined in our legislation,

despite all of the government's efforts they too benefit from that.

It's hard for me to think of any benefits that domestics have had in

the last couple of years, because they're still victimized by people

who won't pay their wages, by having to work seven days a week, by not

getting decent holiday time off, and so forth and so on. Of course, the

farmworkers are still being victimized by the farm contractors, and

none of this touches them at all.

The other women who work in the other female ghettos have benefited

to some slight degree by the government finally being forced to

enshrine maternity leave and holiday pay and that kind of thing in

legislation — all of which originally started as a direct result of

negotiations.

The Globe and Mail of February 24 of this year talked about

working women as being second-class citizens in Canada. It's not just

British Columbia, although this piece of legislation makes it more

difficult for working women in British Columbia. But I wouldn't want to

leave the impression that working women anywhere in Canada get a fair

shake or are treated decently by any government, because that's not

true. This particular piece of legislation, and the sections dealing

with certification, decertification and dues, has special meaning, and

is going to have a special impact on

[ Page 4721 ]

this group whom this

article referred to as second-class citizens in our country. It says:

"Although huge numbers of women entered the workforce

in the past 14 years, 70 percent of them are still concentrated in the

service and retail sectors, principally in the rapidly expanding

fast-food and restaurant industry, data-processing, services to

buildings and the booming health-care business. They found jobs as

waitresses, dental assistants, cleaning women and secretaries — all

women's work. These are dead-end jobs offering little security or

opportunity for advancement. Only 12 percent of positions in these

sectors are supervisory, as compared with 28 percent in manufacturing.

Most are unprotected by unions and collective agreement benefits.

Computers will eliminate 30 percent of bank tellers and 40 percent of

secretaries and female clerks by 1990. While male unemployment

increased by 2 percent between 1976 and 1978, female unemployment

increased by 67 percent."

I can't believe that 40 minutes has gone by. Has it? That's not

possible. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go back and deal a little bit with

the history of Sandringham and Windermere private hospitals. I wanted

to talk a little bit about some of the kitchens and restaurants, and a

language, and who are running into problems, and about the kinds of

struggles they had under the Labour Code as it existed — which we had

hoped would have been beneficially dealt with in a positive way by this

decision of the minister to open the Code. We had hoped that the

minister was going to strengthen and improve the Code, so that this

would have been the beginning of a serious commitment on the part of

the government to help get women off the welfare rolls and GAIN

supplements, to help them not to need the day-care subsidies anymore,

and to help them to rise above the poverty level so that they would be

able to enjoy a decent standard of living.

It's not that women don't work hard. I don't think even our most

severe critic or our worst enemy would say that women are lazy and

don't work hard. That's not the point. The point is that 70 percent of

women are confined to low-paying jobs, and their ability to organize

and make themselves into a union so they could get out of those areas

and improve the working conditions in those jobs is going to be

rendered impossible when this piece of legislation we're debating

becomes law. For that reason, I am unalterably opposed to it.

MR. MACDONALD: Bill 28 is acceptable to some members of the

public because it's supposed to be saving Expo 86. That's great

political flimflam, because the Labour Code of British Columbia already

covered the Expo 86 situation. There was a declaration by the labour

board that either it was a common site or it wasn't, and there were

cease-and-desist orders if there was illegal activity on Expo 86.

I suppose it's also acceptable to some people who don't look at it

very closely because of secondary picketing, which has been dealt with by other

speakers, and I'm not going into that for that reason, except to say that

there are occasions when secondary picketing has got out of line. I wasn't

pleased at all when the pulp workers in their particular dispute were able to

shut down a sawmill with which their own employment was not particularly related.

But that's not really what's happening in this bill, and it really

does give me a great deal of concern. I think the government — I

suppose deliberately; I hope not — has listened to the wool hats on the

back bench and is really coming out against the concept of trade

unionism in the province of British Columbia — and I'll give some

details — by making it very difficult for new people who most need the

protection of a collective agreement to become members of a trade union

and achieve that kind of agreement, and by making it easier for them to

lose their security when they've had that collective agreement.

I remember the debates in the days of W.A.C. Bennett. They were hot

debates; they went all through the night on more than one occasion —

Bill 42, and I think there was another one, Bill 33. Check-off was a

big subject of debate — about whether a union could use any of its

money obtained by check-off to support a political party, the way a

company could. They were big debates, but I always had the impression

in the W.A.C. Bennett years that the Department of Labour and the

Ministers of Labour were basically committed to the proposition that

trade unionism was to be encouraged for the protection of the working

people of the province of British Columbia. I have exactly the opposite

impressions of this Bill 28 we have before us today.

I doubt very much if I'm exaggerating when I say that this government is

anti-labour in the sense that it has turned its back upon whole decades of the

history of British Columbia which favoured the right of employees to belong

to trade unions. Without going into details of the bill — that's for committee,

in any exact way — you have a killing provision respecting new certifications.

It is common practice under the Canada Labour Code, and has been under the British

Columbia Labour Code, that when a group of employees applies for certification,

they do not have to put up, in addition to signing the application for membership

card, their full dues for a month and their initiation fee. Yet this bill totally

and unnecessarily requires it, and makes it extremely difficult for a trade

union to organize among the unorganized working people of the province of British

Columbia.

I wonder whether this government is really, as I suspect, turning

its back on the concept of trade unionism. I wonder why they've put a

provision like that into this particular legislation. What was the

problem with the old practice whereby a trade union going for a

certification would, under its constitution, which was filed by the

board, be able to grant dispensation for that organizing period so that

employees who didn't know whether the application was going to succeed

or not would not have to put up their full initiation and their full

month's dues until they understood where it was going? Now what was

wrong with that? I've heard no complaints that that procedure was open

to fraudulent abuse by either trade unions or anyone else. Yet under

sections of this bill the government is putting deliberate, calculated

roadblocks in the way of trade union organizations in the province of

British Columbia, becoming anti trade union.

As I say these words, the Minister of Labour leaves the House, as

well he might. I think he's turned his back. We have only one minister

of the Crown left in the chamber as I say these words. I think this

government is turning its back on the whole concept of trade unionism

and the right of employees to protect themselves on the job, which has

been hard-won over 150 years.

Since the time in a little village in England called Tolpuddle, where seven weavers decided that, instead of negotiating

[ Page 4722 ]

for their returns for their work individually, they

would do it as a group and approach their employer as one.... Under the

combines act of those years — I think it was in 1835 — they were

sentenced by the local magistrate to seven years' transportation to

Australia, a sentence later remitted, as I understand it. Since that

time all people — and I would have thought the Social Credit Party too,

despite all of the wild speeches we've heard from some of them in the

Fraser Valley opposing it, with their strange ideas about trade

unionism.....

[4:00]

It's perfectly acceptable for lawyers and doctors to have their

trade associations and their monopoly, sanctioned by the statutes of

the province of British Columbia, to make them even more secure;

privileged groups are perfectly free to join together and bargain for

their working conditions.... For the ordinary people of the province,

for whom I suspect W.A.C. Bennett had a soft spot in his heart.... In

spite of those long debates about his labour legislation, he believed

in the encouragement of the right of people to belong to associations,

even if they were just working stiffs — men and women who just simply

worked for wages. He didn't think that should be something for the

elites in some of the unions, who were in a pretty secure position.

Maybe the ITU have a very good position in certain parts of the economy

of the province of British Columbia. Why shouldn't people in low-paying

jobs, without security and without benefits, be allowed to have the

kind of thing that other people enjoy — that businessmen enjoy through

their trade associations, that the professional people enjoy by statute

law?

Mr. Speaker, this government is deliberately turning its back on the

principle that working people have a right to organize together to

improve their wages and security. I think it's a very grave decision,

far more important than any provisions that might be passed so that

Expo 86 can come on stream. I don't think there's any doubt that it

would anyway. I think that was all political flimflam. That's what

we're faced with.

There was a case that I'll refer to that shows how difficult it has

been in this new order, under the Social Credit government of the

province of British Columbia, for ordinary people to be treated with

decent respect by the labour laws and even by the Labour Relations

Board. I don't know how important the dates are, but we'll say that in

October 1982 there were 19 employees who worked for a fast-food outlet

called Pizza Hut. The proper name of the employer is P.H. Foods Ltd.

and 15 out of 19 employees, who were among the poorer paid, and with no

security.... Because the laws were there to protect them, they signed

an application to be certified as a local union with the Food and

Service Workers of Canada. They were granted certification because the

board found that more than 55 percent of them had applied to join. But

the employer protested. In June 1983 there was a full hearing before

the Labour Relations Board. There was a panel of three members, and

that board went into the matter exhaustively, because the question was

whether Mr. X or Miss Y was part of the 55 percent, or was a proper

employee on the day in question. The board went into that in a full

hearing. After trying for a long time — six months — to secure a first

agreement, and certification having been won and sustained on appeal

after a full inquiry by the Labour Relations Board, the employees went

out on a legal strike.

They were entitled to the protection of the laws. They couldn't get any agreement, and they went out on a strike.

I'm glad the Minister of Labour has returned, and I hope that

somebody occasionally reads the records of this Legislature to know

that he's missed some things, but I'm now telling him of some of the

stuff that's going on under this new order of Social Credit in the

province of B.C.

Those Pizza Hut employees embarked upon a legal strike with a

certification that had been confirmed by the Labour Relations Board

after an investigation, appeal, and lawyers on both sides. Then on a

rush application by the employer, two weeks after they were out on

strike, to the chairman of the Labour Relations Board, Mr. Steve

Kelleher, the chairman, of his own motion, cancelled the certification.

You wouldn't treat dogs the way those employees were treated. Here they

were out on a legal strike and suddenly their legal position was swept

out from under their feet. Mr. Kelleher, on his own motion, reversed

careful hearings of the board that took a long time and decided what

employee who should have been counted wasn't counted, or something of

that kind, and the strike of the employees was illegal from that point

on. What about the employees? Could they go back to work? No, the

employer wouldn't take them. He had them over a barrel.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard of decisions that have denied natural

justice to people, but I've never heard of anything quite so raw and

wrong as that Kelleher decision. It denied natural justice. When people

have achieved legal rights and they go out on a legal strike, and

they're upheld by the Labour Relations Board, for a single person —

even the chairman — to sweep those rights out from under their feet

after they've put themselves in a position of jeopardy by going on

strike is totally reprehensible.

Now I suppose the Minister of Labour is familiar with that case. He

knows there have been protracted hearings before the boards since then

and that there were unfair labour practices. Today's paper says that

the company has agreed to pay $4,000 in damages in respect of the

unfair labour practices. The employees, though, are still not

reinstated. There are applications going forward to reinstate them. But

we're in 1984 now, and they've been out of work. They lost their jobs

and their livelihood relying on the rule of law. They belong to a small

union that doesn't have a big strike fund to back them up. I don't

suppose they can get unemployment insurance, because they did go out on

a labour dispute. In the meantime the people of British Columbia are

put to a lot of expense because of further hearings by the Labour

Relations Board. They've had their certificate restored, but they can't

get an agreement. They can't get their jobs back. These employees have

been treated like dogs.

I don't know whether the Minister of Labour, who is smiling in his

seat — and I always like to see an Irishman smile, but I don't like it

on this particular occasion at this particular time.... I don't know

what he plans to do, except I do know this: he is now putting all of

the people who tried to form unions in jeopardy, even more than they

were in the past, under this legislation, Bill 28. A Minister of Labour

turning his back on the principle of trade unionism is what we have in

this province, and make no mistake about it, giving way, I suppose, to

the wool-hat pressures from his own back bench. If he hasn't got the

spine to stand up to the wool hats, he should not be Minister of Labour

and bring in legislation of this kind.

I don't know what role Mr. Ritchie, who was then the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley, played in Pizza Hut,

[ Page

4723 ]

but he was writing to the board. I've got his

letter here. It was formally replied to on March 10, 1983. He was

actively working for the employer. A member of this House should not do

that, Mr. Speaker, because the Labour Relations Board is like a court.

It's different than a court, but it's like a court. No member of this

Legislature should participate and bring what appears to be influence

as a member of the Legislature in a decision that should be made

impartially by a Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Speaker, all through this bill you have roadblocks being placed

on the right of employees to belong to unions, and the incentives given

to employers to cancel the certification through the decertification

procedures have been made enormously easier. Under the bill, when a

union is decertified for no good reason whatsoever, if there is not

anti-union animus behind this bill, no other union can become....

The agreement falls if there is a decertification vote and it

carries. All of the people who worked for the union are exposed to

being fired, demoted or discriminated against. The union agreement

disappears, the decertification vote carries and no other union can

apply for ten months.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, that's not the law now. There is no 10-month waiting period before another union can apply.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Ten months in there now? No, you can apply for decertification, and one union can replace another.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Look at the law.

MR. MACDONALD: If you've already changed that, Mr. Minister,

you had no right doing it. This Minister of Labour is cutting the knees

out from under the trade union movement and telling me that I should go

and look at the law.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Ask for a recess so you can look at the law.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I know what I'm talking about. Let me just

repeat it, Mr. Speaker. When a vote for decertification is approved,

which this minister has made easier for the employer to carry with all

that business that they may vote at the time of the voting and not at

the time of the application for decertification, then the agreement

falls and no other union can apply for ten months. Those employees are

completely at risk in terms of what their employer can do to them in

that period. The old law used to be that when there was a

decertification, it might be for the purpose of substituting one union

for another, in terms of the wishes of the employees. That's gone under

this minister. This minister of anti-labour smiles and jokes and says:

"Ah, you don't know what you're talking about."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, if the Victoria IWA went to apply for certification for a new

operation today.... Its monthly membership dues are $25 and a few cents,

I think, because there is a formula there, which may seem a lot, but it isn't

an awful lot in terms of the service that that union gives to its members, and

its initiation fees are $25. That particular local union, because of the recession,

had to put its secretary on part-time, so they're really running behind

on that kind of a dues structure. The Minister of Labour is saying here that

in terms of any new organization, you go out there and collect not the $1 that

they used to collect before to certify that the person wanted a vote to see

whether the trade union should be certified, but they have to go out and collect

$50 each from those new employees. Does the Minister of Labour deny that? It's

right in his legislation, and for no reason except to make it more difficult

for employees to belong to trade unions.

Mr. Speaker, we have here anti-union legislation such as we have not

seen before in the province of British Columbia. It's the market system

where the little people are to stay little, as far as this government

is concerned. The kind of heart and consideration for them that I think

existed in the time of W.A.C. Bennett is nowhere to be found in this

prison government.

[4:15]

We're turning our backs on organization for the poorest, weakest and

least protected in our society, while at the same time the privileged

are allowed to have their organizations and exploit. I thought that a

Minister of Labour should stick up for trade unionism. This minister

isn't doing it. I don't think he deserves the name of Minister of

Labour; it's minister of anti-labour, minister of anti trade unionism,

minister of anti the right of people to band together and protect

themselves from arbitrary dismissal, to improve their conditions, to

improve safety on the job.

This bill is not about Expo 86; it's about the Minister of Labour

saying that we've got to cut back the trade unions we have in this

province in the interests of foreign capital coming in and treating us

like a Hong Kong or a Taiwan and attracting capital. I don't know what

this mish-mash of economic theory is that's rattling around in the

government benches. It's so ridiculous and so inhuman, so anti-people,

so anti the little people, the people that work and produce the wealth

of this province. I don't pretend to understand that kind of reasoning,

because I think it's just avariciousness dressed up as economic theory.

This bill is turning its back on trade unionism. The Minister of

Labour is leading the fight, and I think: what kind of a new order are

we running into in this province? It's not one I like to see. The clear

direction is going out to the Labour Relations Boards of the future

that you've got the Pizza Hut model, where you treated like dogs people

who decided that they would take a chance under the protection of the

laws of the province of British Columbia and join a trade union. That's

the message going out there in terms of anyone else who would dare to

try to organize. We're back in the days of the Tolpuddle Martyrs where

trade unionism was actively discouraged by the state. That's what this

minister is doing. He nods his head, but that's what he's doing in this

legislation. There's no other reason why you should put roadblocks

against the right of people to organize together, especially the little

people who most need that protection at the present time. That's what

this bill is all about.

MR. MITCHELL: It's interesting when we go through various

news clippings over the past few years under this present government

and we see maybe the beginning of the

[ Page 4724 ]

legislation we have today; we see the groundwork that was laid by the government in previous legislation and previous actions.

Before we go into it, I think we should look at labour legislation

for what it is. Labour legislation was brought into our society as we

know it because there was a need to stop the exploitation of people who

work for a living. It wasn't something that came before its time. It

came because in many cases it was the children who were destroyed in

the mines; it was the breadwinners who were destroyed in the industrial

development. Every move that has been made to improve the rights and

the conditions of the people who make up the vast majority of this

society, those who work for a living....

Every piece of legislation was written with the blood of some person

on the job or it was suppressed by certain vested interests.

I think the attitude of this government could be shown in so many ways, but I would like to read from an editorial in the Victoria Times

on August 14, 1976, approximately six months after this government came

to power. At that time they were talking about unemployment, and this

piece of legislation is being brought forward because there is a lot of

unemployment. It is being brought forward as a smokescreen to give an

idea out to those who are unemployed today that if we can destroy the

trade union movement, they will all be working. But it was interesting

what the Times said in August 1976:

"British Columbia unemployment figures are as ghastly as

the weather: everybody talks about them but nobody does much about them. When

Premier Bill Bennett was the Leader of the Opposition he would rant at David

Barrett over the figures. Now that Bennett is Premier he says he has nothing

to add on the 9.1 percent July unemployed rate...."

He had nothing to say about creating jobs, creating

an attitude or an economy where we are going to develop our resources

so that more work would be available in processing our resources. In

1976 was when we should have been doing some of the development of

where we were going to go in British Columbia, but nothing was done but

talk. It's funny when you read the talk. I'll give you some of the

conditions that existed. In the 1981 Vancouver Sun , on the report on poverty in Canada, it says:

"A report that says B.C. is the only province in

Canada where the number of people who work and still live in poverty is

increasing has been described as, 'stomach-turning.' The report on the

working poor, released Tuesday by the National Council of Welfare, said

B.C.'s 50,000 working-poor households — families earning less than

$4,000 a year — comprise 12 percent of the national total and have

increased by 2 percent since 1973.

"Families considered working poor by the council earn

less than $4,000 a year, and the report said that over half of the

country's working poor live below the poverty line."

Labour legislation should be designed to assist organizing, to

assist bringing up those who are living in those conditions. It should

not be used solely to smash those who are getting a fair wage. It

should not be used to destroy something that has grown in our economy.

Labour legislation should be there to assist.

When you look at it, a person is usually considered to be living

below the poverty level if 62 percent of a yearly income is used to pay

for food, shelter and clothing. This morning I had a married man with

two children come into my office. He's living on welfare. He is a

person who has worked all his life, but eventually wore out his savings

and his UIC and is now on welfare getting around $800 to live. This is

in British Columbia, one of the richest provinces in Canada. He pays

over $500 for rent out of the $800. The attitude of this government has

not been to help the working poor. It has not been there to help bring

in improvements for the fellow citizens of our province. It is bringing

in legislation to protect landlords so that they can increase rents.

It's not there to provide any affordable type of housing based on your

income. It's not there to bring in legislation that makes it easier for

people to get together and work to develop the resources of this

province with new industries. It only brings in legislation that keeps

people down and continues to grind them a little harder.

As I said, this government didn't just start with this attitude. I

have saved another clipping, dated July 1, 1980, when this government

had started to get rid of organized workers, to privatize. It's a

beautiful word that I know all the members of the government use all

the time. "We're going to privatize all the services. We're going to

privatize the jobs that are being done today." And here's a good

example of what I was talking about — the working poor and the attitude

of a government that is keeping down people's ability to live in

dignity, to provide the necessities for their children, to plan an

education down the road — dignity that represents the resources and

wealth of this country.

The government started on this program on July 1, 1980, when they

privatized the janitors that worked for the provincial government. I

don't know what they were getting in their collective agreement; I'm

not privy to that knowledge. But as the Minister of Labour is keeping

notes, he may answer that question. They laid off the janitors and

privatized the janitorial services, and what happened? "One of the

major non-union firms that has been displacing provincial government

janitors found itself with a labour dispute of its own on Monday

afternoon when eight employees withdrew their service, charging

exploitation." This is the type of legislation that should be on the

books to protect it. What were they charging? "The main accusation was

that Amberley Building Maintenance was taking advantage of the fears of

immigrant employees by getting them to work as much as 18 to 20 hours a

day, and to sign statements that they would do so without overtime

pay." It goes on to say that workers also complained about

understaffing, the necessity to shuffle employees from one building to

another to work at a hectic pace, and on-the-spot firings that took

place without reason. "We were working flat out, sometimes 13 hours

without a meal...." This was under a Social Credit government, Mr.

Speaker. Another worker, Cham Gurprasad, "said he had been working for

the firm for about 10 months and was earning $5 an hour. He said he

often worked 18 to 20 hours a day, sometimes even on the weekend, and

that he had signed a statement authorizing straight time pay because 'I

had no choice. I figured if I didn't I would lose my job.'"

This is what we're getting with employees who are living at the

poverty level. This is the type of situation in the province today, and

it's going to get worse as this government continues to privatize the

services the people are now paying taxes for. They are asking more

people, day after day, to live below the poverty level. Is this bill

that we're debating today looking to change that? It is not. It is not

helping people to

[ Page

4725 ]

raise their expectations. At $5 an hour they are

expected to pay rents of $400 and $500 a month. You know the money that

you spend every month, Mr. Speaker; it just can't be done.

[4:30]

It goes on to say that when they started off on this particular job

they were getting $3.75 per hour, and after 10 months they were raised

to the large sum of $5 per hour. The workers brought this issue to the

press on July 1. This was a group of employees who worked for the

present Social Credit government. Granted, they worked on contract with

the firm doing the janitorial service, but as reported in the Times-Colonist

on July 2, one day later the eight were fired because they had the guts

to stand up and bring to the attention of the government, the Minister

of Labour and society the conditions they were forced to work under.

That is exactly what this government started to do back in 1980-81, and

this is what they're continuing to do.

It is interesting to read what the Premier said about the trade union movement — the Times-Colonist , April 24, 1981:

"Premier Bennett Thursday defended the right of trade unions

to 'bargain tough' for the value of their services.

"At the annual meeting of Western Regional Newspapers

at Laurel Point Inn, the Premier was asked what his government intended

to do about militant unionists who threatened the economy.

"He reminded his audience of weekly newspaper owners

that as small businessmen they were constantly bargaining for a better

deal for themselves, whether on the price of newsprint or the price of

advertisements.

"'The workers also bargain for the value of their

services,' he said. 'That's free enterprise. Sometimes the human

element creeps in and both sides get stubborn, but that too is a part

of the free enterprise system.'"

On the one hand the Premier is saying that people have the right,

under a free-enterprise system, to bargain tough for their services;

but when they do stand up and try to bargain tough, try to get more

than $5 an hour, try to increase the opportunity to live above — or at

least at — the poverty line, they are fired. The Social Credit

government has done nothing to help the trade union movement or to help

those who are trying to organize.

It's interesting to go through other clippings. "Governments Say One Thing But Do Others." This was in the Province

on February 23, 1981. Then it was quoting the previous Minister of

Labour. "Labour Minister Jack Heinrich stated that government should

stay out of the growing morass of labour disputes, because intervention

will do more harm than good to the overall labour relations climate and

the free collective bargaining system." That's what the Minister of

Labour at that time said. He went on to say:

"'It is not the government's job to interfere in

every labour dispute, just to ease pain. It is not sufficient to say

that the public is inconvenienced to justify government intervention.

Inconvenience results from every dispute. It is not sufficient to say

that economic hardship results from a dispute. Economic hardship

results from every dispute.'"

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that economic problems existed before

people on the job attempted to organize, to raise their rights and

expectations and to live in dignity. This is when the real economic

injustices happen. This is when the government should be giving some

leadership to help people, not encouraging privatization and having

people work at minimum wage.

I know that for you, who have lived all your life in the services

and always had a fair wage and always lived with and been able to

provide for your family with a decent standard of living, maybe it's

hard to look out beyond our comfortable position and remember that we

who are lucky enough to have that benefit should be looking at ways to

improve conditions. I'd like to quote also from the Times-Colonist

of July 13, 1982. The Science minister of the Social Credit government

was talking a little sense. He wasn't talking about destroying the

trade union movement. What did he say?

"Science Minister Pat McGeer says if he were Labour

minister he would push for labour and management to enter a new era of

cooperation and move away from today's confrontational style. McGeer

expects his ideas would be challenged by organized labour, which is

protective of its membership and doesn't like to experiment. 'We share

the same objectives, labour leaders and myself; to provide high wages

and a lot of security to the workers — as well as opportunity.'"

This is what the Minister of Science and Technology said in 1982. He

said we must go out and provide high wages and security. He goes on to

say:

"'In B.C. there are virtually no firms offering

profit-sharing for the workers. So why should a worker be loyal to his

company, which is just paying him a wage for service but offering no

participation in the actual running of the business? The company

doesn't give him anything. It particularly offers him no job

protection, so he turns to the union for whatever protection he can

get.'

"Management failure to encourage loyalty fosters confrontation and the adversary system."

What I'm saying is that this government should be encouraging

cooperation, not continually bringing in legislation that is going to

encourage, as the minister of universities and technology says, more

confrontation. The type of labour legislation we should be debating

today should be the type of legislation that is going to encourage and

assist those who are living below the poverty level, those who are

trying to exist and raise their families on the minimum wage or $5 an

hour. But no, this government has gone out of their way to, I say,

protect the very strong segment of our society. I know that it's easy

to say. The editorials and the news media keep on saying: "We've got to

stop the union bosses. We've got to stop organized labour." But when

you look at it, and that unions are big business.... And I think that

is true. The trade union movement is a big business. It's not a big

business because they particularly wanted to become a big business.

They were forced, because of the confrontation of big companies, to

adopt many of the managerial styles of the companies that they were

trying to organize. It was something that evolved.

When you go back into history, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, the

trade union movement started as craft organizations, started as company

organizations. It started as a group of workers trying to get a better

share of their product. But every time they made one step forward,

there was a club used to drive them back. This government is not new in

bringing in

[ Page 4726 ]

labour legislation that is restrictive. It's not new at all. It

follows in the steps of many, many company-dominated governments that

have sat in this Legislature over the years. It has continued to answer

the call of what the business community wants.

As I said, the trade union movement, because of evolution, has

become large in some cases, but the vast majority of unions that I've

ever belonged to have been small groups who have had to survive within

the legislation that was on the books. Whenever the union or the people

on the job managed to make a few gains in negotiations, the goalposts

were moved. This is really what this piece of legislation is doing.

It's moving the goalposts to make it a little easier for the business

community to have more people working at $3.75 an hour; more people

who, after ten months, try to support a family on $5 an hour — given

that more people can be fired without cause, fired solely because they

had the guts to stand up and say that the rate of pay for the work they

were doing was mediocre.

It wasn't what the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said they were fighting for — to

provide high wages and good security. It was the type of legislation,

the type of action to cut people back.

As I say, unions can be branded, and in some cases they have become

big business. But the biggest business in the union field today is the

union-busters that are now the high-priced help in negotiations. I'd

like to read from the Province of June 11, 1980:

"There's a new breed of union-buster on the labour scene.

They carry briefcases instead of baseball bats and conduct seminars instead

of twisting arms. They are high-priced labour relations consultants and labour

lawyers who coach employers in how to use every legal trick in the book to keep

the union from the workplace — and even some less-than-legal tactics.

"In the U.S. union-busting is a $100 million-a-year industry,

and growing. In the southern U.S., where labour relations are relatively backward

compared with most of the rest of North America, decertification elections have

increased fourfold since 1970, with labour losing three of every four battles.

Certification drives there are being defeated by management at a ratio of two

to one."

[4:45]

These high-priced union-busters used to work on the job site; they

used to work in the employers' associations. They've changed their

tactics. They are now working in the cabinet of this government. They

are the ones, with the backing of such organizations as the Fraser

Institute, who are going out of their way.... What they couldn't do

in negotiations they are doing legally by bringing in the type of

legislation that can destroy the certification of groups who are trying

to raise their standard of living. What bothers me is the complete lack

of humanity of the government and the back-benchers of that party. They

are not standing up and fight