1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1563 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Hanson) –– 1563

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Mr. Harcourt

Hon. Mr. Parker

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

The House in Committee on Bill 19; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 25 as amended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Island.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Did you dream about this?

MR. GABELMANN: As a matter of fact, yes.

Mr. Chairman, just while I catch my breath and organize my notes, I

want to this morning, in continuing the discussion on

section 25, which

is the so-called double-breasting section.... I would argue that the

term "so-called" should not need to modify the noun.

I want to refer to a series of cases, some of which I'm still trying

to lay my hands on photocopies of. But before doing that, I want to

make five points about the wording proposed by this amended

section 25.

The first point is that there have been repeated Labour Relations

Board decisions that the word "operational" in front of the word

"control" is in fact a redundancy, and that the amendment that we

debated yesterday to eliminate the word "operational" as an adjective

modifying "control" is, in fact, an absolute irrelevancy. I made that

point in passing yesterday, but I wasn't as convinced enough in my own

mind that I could make the point without fear of contradiction.

As a result of some work I've done overnight and again this morning,

I am convinced — and I think any member who reviews Labour Relations

Board decisions on this question would also be convinced — that the

deletion of the word "operational" as a modifier of "control" is, in

fact, absolutely irrelevant. Board decisions say that "operational

control" means exactly the same as "control."

So no value in diminishing the potential impact of this

section in

respect of allowing more double-breasting is achieved by that

particular amendment, and that point has been made to me by several

knowledgeable people, including one particular lawyer who is probably

the most knowledgeable person in British Columbia on

section 37. He

basically makes a living from

section 37 — and

section 53, but

certainly from

section 37.

He cited case after case, which I don't intend to go through this morning.

But I feel comfortable in asserting without fear of any contradiction that the

deletion of the word "operational" will not have any impact whatsoever

in respect of future Industrial Relations Council decisions in determining whether

or not control is being exercised by individuals in a company.

The second point I want to make relates to the change of the

disjunctive word "or" to the conjunctive word "and." I think I made

this point yesterday, but I want to repeat it this morning. As a result

of this change, you now must demonstrate some element of control as

distinct from management or shareholding or financial power. You must

now also show that the firm, the operation, is being managed by the

same people. You must do both. To put it more simply, you must

demonstrate both because of the word "and." Where previously you only

needed to demonstrate either control or direction, you now must

demonstrate control and direction. I make that point because it is

important in respect of decisions that I want to refer to later on in

this debate on this section. I will come back to that in detailing

those particular cases.

I had some trouble yesterday in attempting to sort out what the word

"same" meant in terms of this amendment, as opposed to what was

previously there, the word "common." The member for Nanaimo had helped

me along in that particular case, but I didn't feel comfortable. I will

confess, Mr. Chairman, that yesterday, following the debate on this

section, I evaluated what had happened and I decided that I had not

convinced myself, that I had not won the debate in my own mind in terms

of making these points, so I went through this again and sought

additional information to see whether or not in fact the assertions we

were making were correct.

Now, convinced as a result of that work that in fact those

assertions were correct and are correct, "same" in legal terms, I

understand, means you must have a perfect matching. "Common" does not

have the same preciseness of definition. In arguing in favour of a

declaration of common employer, a union would have to show that the

style or the type of control is precisely the same for each company.

That would be a requirement. They would be required to demonstrate and

to in fact prove — not just to demonstrate but to prove — that the

style or type of control is precisely the same for each company.

I make that point because it, too, is important in respect to some

of the cases that I want to refer to. The example in that case is that

a unionized company could escape its collective agreement, which is

what double-breasting is all about, by simply having a second company

with the same management team, but exercising control in one company by

shareholding and in another by financial influences. In other words, by

exercising the financial management in different ways in these two

companies. It could be the same management team, but the two companies

could be organized with a different financial structure and therefore

quite clearly could escape because of that different financial

structure.

[10:15]

I'm told, and I have no reason to disagree, that it will be simple

for companies to devise schemes to get around

section 37. Whenever

companies establish themselves, or whenever additional spinoff

companies are being established, whether or not it's with the intention

of evading some responsibility that might be placed upon them by labour

legislation — or other legislation, for that matter — companies, if

they're smart, go to a lawyer.

In the past, when companies have gone to lawyers — and Wills

Enterprises is a good example of this one — to seek advice as to how to

avoid the constrictions, as they would see it, of

section 37, they've

been given such advice. In the case of Wills Enterprises, they failed

in an effort to escape from

section 37. Those same companies would do

the same thing today. They would go to their lawyers and would be given

[ Page 1564 ]

advice as to how to establish different financial

control as, for example, being one way of avoiding the requirements of

section 37, and would establish the companies on the basis of that

advice, which would then enable them to escape simply and easily from

this existing proposed language.

There are three cases in recent years that went to the Labour

Relations Board — celebrated cases, and people who are involved know

the names: Comet, Zagreb and Wills. In each of those cases — if my

memory is correct, in Zagreb it came by appeal and not in the initial

decision — finally the double-breasting attempts made by those

companies were not allowed by the Labour Relations Board. In each of

those cases double-breasting would now be allowed by the language being

proposed.

These are all cases related to the construction industry. The same

arguments and the same avenues of escape exist in industrial settings.

I think the concern is expressed yesterday in a telegram sent to

members of this House — or at least to the minister and me, and

probably others — by the president of the IWA, Jack Munro, about the

potential being now wide open for contractors escaping their legal

obligations to operate union, particularly on the coast, where most of

the logging in fact is done by contractors.

It's not particularly wide open, under this section, if a contractor

has millions of dollars of owned investment. If he owns his own tower

and equipment, it will be difficult for that contractor to escape

section 37 –– I would argue that it would be difficult — not

impossible, but difficult — because it would require a transfer of

assets in a major way. It will be done and it will attempted by some of

these operators; I have no doubt of that in my mind. But if a

contractor leases his equipment, he will have no difficulty whatsoever

setting up different companies under different financial management,

thus escaping the prohibitions under the new law, from having this new

company lease equipment as well. That will lead to the situation that

the union is concerned about in terms of deunionizing the logging on

the coast. I must say that contractors — good employers who have union

agreements — are also concerned about that particular potential.

The concern is, at the present time.... And I won't digress too much

here, but it's important, I think, and the Hopwood report, which the

Forests minister knows about, is clear evidence of this. At the present

time the contractors are being expected to do their logging at 25

percent less cost than the majors are expected to do their logging. As

a result of that, there's a requirement to cut costs. How do you cut

costs? You do it in a variety of ways, but the best way is to be able

to deunionize. So if you're a logging contractor, what you can do, from

your major logging contracting company, your primary operation — to

start with, to make it simpler — is sell your equipment and lease it

back, in the same way that B.C. Ferries has sold its fleet and leased

it back, or parts of it. It's a common and an increasing business

operation these days. Cash flow problems are aided, or cash flow

management is handled more effectively, by leasing in many instances.

But now there's an added incentive for this leasing, and that will be

that you will then be able to establish another company with separate

financial control. In other words, you may set up one of which you're

the manager and the full owner, but for the second one you have a

different corporate structure. I don't understand corporate law, so I

don't understand how to define how it will be done, but it's done

commonly and will be done to achieve this purpose.

You can then have this other company lease that same equipment or

different equipment, begin to phase out your primary company and begin,

with this new non-union company, to take over some of the work that was

available and was being done originally by the unionized contractor.

That is a clear loophole, given decisions about the words that we are

now faced with. That's why there's a concern that in order to cut these

costs, logging contractors will feel obliged to move into non-union

operations, will feel obliged to hire less skilled workers at lower

wages without union protection. Anybody who has any knowledge — as most

members of this House do — of the logging industry will know that it's

a dangerous industry; it regularly kills 35 people a year....

I see the red light on, and since I need some more time I'd ask the

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) if he has anything to say.

MR. CLARK: Before I do that, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: On behalf of the two members for Nanaimo — I might

say it is appropriate to make this introduction because I was born in

Nanaimo — in the precincts today are grade 10 students from Ladysmith

Secondary and their teacher, Mr. Doerr, and I ask the House to make

them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't know that an introduction would be

treated as intervening business, but I guess it is. In any event, if it

wasn't we'd find another mechanism, as you know.

The concern, obviously, in an industry which kills in terms of 30 or

40 people a year at the present time, is that if you do go non-union

and you do end up with less skilled people working, particularly in

falling, but in yarding and many other parts of logging as well, you're

going to find that these less skilled people are going to end up

killing themselves more regularly than they do now. That's not the only

concern; there are all the economic concerns about the downward spiral

in wages and all of that. But I'm not going to make those kinds of

arguments, because this morning we want to talk more technically about

the real meaning of these words. I'm quoted as saying that I've given

up any hope of persuading the government in terms of making these

arguments, and that's an accurate quote, but I must say that I still

hope that if the minister does not want to allow for double-breasting,

he will listen to these concerns and act upon them. The simple way of

acting upon them would be to go back to the existing language of the

Code, which already allows in many instances for various kinds of

double-breasting.

To get to some of the language of the law, I referred yesterday to

the CCAG case, February '86, which was an application, and I referred

to it by talking about Peter Gall's application for a different

interpretation of

section 37, which was denied by the LRB. I didn't

quote the best part of the

summary of that judgment dated February '86.

Just so that the case is on record, I think I said it yesterday, but

it's 32-86.

The board said: "If the board was to restrict itself to one

criterion, entities which were in fact under common control or

direction would be able to escape their obligations to trade unions and

to frustrate or defeat the rights vested in those trade unions and the

employees they represented." With all

[ Page

1565 ]

due respect to everything we said yesterday — all of us on this side of the

House — this is the most important sentence that has been entered into the debate

so far, and for that reason I want to repeat it, with some emphasis. The board

said: "If the board was to restrict itself to one criterion...." Now

in the new language — not to digress, but to make the point — the board can restrict

itself to one criterion for several reasons, most importantly because of the

change of the word "and" to the word "or." So if it's

able to restrict itself to one criterion, the board says,"...entities

which were in fact under common control or direction would be able to escape

their obligations to trade unions and to frustrate or defeat the rights vested

in those trade unions and the employees they represented."

That is a clear declaration from the board that had the language of

the Code been different in 1986, they would have had to allow for

double-breasting in those circumstances. In my words, if the board was

required to consider only one criterion, then legally certified

companies would be able to escape their certification.

It's a clear, absolute and forthright declaration from a board which

had purposes and objects which were more friendly toward trade union

organizations than the new council will have, and from a board which,

although it was attacked by many trade unionists for being biased over

the last few years, was relatively close to some kind of neutral agency

in labour relations. Given the other changes in the Code, and

particularly the purposes and objects, there is not the same degree of

confidence that the new council will be able to come at these issues

from the point of view of protecting those collective rights, because

now the individual rights are more important and the market economy is

more important. So this new council will not only have the wording that

we're talking about in this section, which will clearly require them to

allow for double-breasting in situations where heretofore it was not

allowed, not only will it be required by these wordings, but it will be

encouraged by other sections of the bill to move in that direction as

well.

[10:30]

I want also to quote from another decision of the board, Armeco and

S.G.M. Construction, LRB 239/84. The board identified in that decision

four issues. I will just read from the

summary again the facts of the

case. S.G.M. Construction argued that the original decision was

inconsistent with the principles of

section 37. This was an application

for reconsideration of a board decision, and the construction company

was arguing that the original decision was inconsistent with the

principles of

section 37. The original panel of the board had held that

four prerequisites to a

section 37 determination had been met. These

are the four: "

(1) There must be more than one entity carrying on

business; (2) the two entities must be under common control or

direction." I am not going to do justice to this family name, the

Malekyazdi family — I am sure it is pronounced in a much more

sophisticated manner than I have managed. That is the second of the

four issues. "

(3) The two entities must be engaged in associated or

related activities...and (4) there must be a labour relations purpose

to be served...." — by granting the application in this case.

The application was for declaration that Armeco and S.G.M. were common employers.

The application was granted. The board said: "Here are the four prerequisites

that were in place which enabled the board to make a decision that they were,

in fact, a common employer." Those four prerequisites are no longer required

under the law, and as a result of that — I don't think I need to repeat

the argument in terms of single criteria now being sufficient to deny a common

employer declaration — it is clear that the test is less. It is clear the test

is considerably less.

I could quote further from the reasons for that judgment, but I

won't in respect of the time that is involved. There are other cases

which I want to talk about. I referred to them in passing: Zagreb

Construction, Wills Enterprises, Comet Drywall and some comments on

page 20 of the Concerned Contractors Action Group, which was the

summary that I referred to earlier.

But before I do that, members will understand that I have just had

these cases brought into the House, and I have not had an opportunity

to read them. I know the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone)

would like to have a few words on this particular subject, and there is

one case which I will detail more technically later on.

I just want, if my memory is accurate on this subject, to summarize

in general terms. This is a common kind of case that exists, where a

contractor sets up one of his trusted employees, a senior employee in

another business. The contractor's union.... He sets up in another

business one of his trusted employees who operates out of the same

office, uses the same equipment, uses the same facilities and assets

that are available to the original contractor. This new company is

non-union; it's operated by this "trusted employee."

Then an arrangement exists between this trusted employee and the

original unionized contractor. The arrangement usually, and in one case

precisely, goes along these kinds of lines. An agreement is reached by

which, in this one case I'm referring to, 5 percent of the gross

revenue of the new company, the non-union company, is the fee for

service for using the equipment, the office, the facilities and

everything else of the original company and, of course, for all of the

work that's funnelled to this new, non-union company. Now 5 percent of

the gross, as you can imagine in contracting, is a pretty hefty chunk

of money. That 5 percent of the gross goes to the original union

contractor from the "trusted employee" who operates non-union and who

is being funnelled business from the union contractor.

Now that's a standard way of evading

section 37. For a while, back

in 1979 in particular, there were successful applications. Brian Foley,

who was then on the board and who is now with B.C. Rail in an

industrial relations capacity, made decisions that moved the board in a

direction that was new to it, and it was allowing these kinds of

obvious double-breasting situations. Subsequent to that, Stephen

Kelleher, in his time as chairman of the board, got hold of that issue

and moved it back into a different direction so that those kinds of

obvious transgressions, those obvious kinds of deliberate attempts to

evade

section 37, were not allowed, or not allowed as readily as they

had been in 1979.

Clearly without any fear of contradiction I can say that with the

new language, that situation and more will be wide open, and it will be

available not only in the construction industry, on which I have

primarily focused, but also across the whole of our unionized workforce

and workplace sector. The availability will be there, wide open, simply

by establishing different companies with different financial management

or control or a different style of management control, or by

establishing dummy sub-companies that are operated by a "trusted

employee;" and then you skim off some of their

[ Page 1566 ]

gross — 5 percent has been a rule of thumb in the past — and double-breasting

is wide open.

I guess I want to conclude with this point: if the government wants

double-breasting in British Columbia, it has achieved it. If it doesn't

want it, it should change the language of this proposed amendment.

MRS. BOONE: Yesterday when we heard some debate from the

members from the other side, it became clear, I think, that many of

them really believed this

section does not allow double-breasting. I'm

hoping that through the debate today, through listening to my colleague

from North Island when he is making some very good cases, you will

realize that this

section truly does allow double-breasting. As my

colleague has stated, if in fact this is what you intended to do, then

you have achieved it. But if you haven't intended to allow this

double-breasting to occur, then I hope that some of us on this side can

show you just how it will occur and that it does allow double-breasting.

The fact is that with this section, a very small corporation or a

small reorganization of a corporation, with slightly different

management structure, under the same ownership as a union firm, would

be all that's required to break that union. That company would then be

allowed to bid on a non-union basis on contracts. Now it doesn't take

too much of a genius to understand that when you're competing with

firms that are non-union and do not have comparable wages — as one of

the members opposite indicated, and I have forgotten which one it was,

people come from outside the province and do not pay comparable wages —

it's not going to be too long before that company is doing all of its

bidding on the basis that it's non-union, and the unionized

section of

that company would very soon be left out. That would lead to the

destruction of the trades.

The one I want to focus on right now is the construction industry.

There is no doubt in my mind that this portion of the bill, when you

couple it with many of the other portions as well, will completely

deunionize the construction industry. I know that many construction

companies out there are looking for this bill to do that very thing.

They're trying to compete. They're competing with non-union companies

that often come from outside the province, and they are not paying

comparable wages. The unionized construction industries are having a

tough time of it. There's no doubt of that. There's no doubt that when

members say, "This will save the unionized construction companies," I

think what they mean is that it will save that company; they don't mean

that it will save the unionized

section of that company.

Double-breasting will end the unionized

section of that company.

There's no doubt in my mind at all.

I've talked to many companies, and we've agreed to disagree on this

section. The unionized companies that I've spoken to are happy with

their unions; they're happy with the standards that they have with

their unions. Their concern is about competing. They aren't able to

compete, as I said before, with non-union people who are able to go in

and constantly underbid them.

One of the concerns they are bringing up is standards, and I don't

think that has been addressed at all in the legislation. The

construction industry is saying there is nothing out there to regulate

standards for the construction companies. Anybody can come in and get a

business licence, formulate a construction company and go out and bid

on jobs. They do not have to have come from a construction background.

They don't have to have any knowledge of the construction industry. All

they have to do is form a company, and go out and bid on jobs. That's

what this province will be led to in the future, without having the

unionized construction industry out in force.

The construction industry is looking for some direction on that, and

I hope that the ministry does address that situation and come up with a

licensing procedure so that companies are able to ensure that their

colleagues that come into the construction field do have adequate

standards, do have an adequate background, and are able to ensure that

the public is getting what they are paying for. Right now there is

nothing out there to ensure that. I can assure you that there won't be,

once this double-breasting procedure is allowed and non-unionized

companies can come in. They do not have to have qualified trades

people. They do not have to ensure any standards. We will see companies

out there bidding on contracts to build highways, roads, bridges and

what have you, that do not have qualified trades people, that do not

have the necessary people there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MRS. BOONE: It is not nonsense, because it is happening right now.

Double-breasting, in the construction trades in particular, as I

stated, is certainly going to end the unionized

section there. The

implications to the province are pretty wide-ranging, though. As I say,

there's no doubt in my mind that we will have a lowering of standards.

When we try to compete with the non-union sector outside the province,

when we start to lower our standards and lower our competitiveness in

order to get into the area.... They will have lower wages, and that's

the full implication. That's the full reason that they want the

double-breasting, so that they may pay lower wages, so that they may

compete with those outside the areas. And this certainly is not going

to be good for the rest of the province. You've all received one of

these, I'm sure. It's an economic analysis of B.C. put out by the B.C.

Central Credit Union. In there they state:

"While real wages and salaries of the average working

person in B.C. have declined since 1982, the extent of the decline

differed among industries. With more non-union labour being employed in

the construction sector and more part-time labour employed in the

services sector, average wages in these two industries declined the

most in real terms. In addition to falling real wages, personal taxes

at the federal and provincial levels have also increased over the same

period, leaving an even lower net real take-home pay for most British

Columbians."

It's here. The non-union sector does lower wages.

You can't expect to have high wages in the non-union sector of the

construction industry.

[10:45]

It also goes on to state the implications for the province as a

whole. With the wages of the province as a whole declining, it says:

"Although this decline is not unique to B.C., it is only

in B.C. and Alberta that total real wages and salaries have fallen almost yearly

since 1982. Because wages and salaries contribute over 70 percent of total personal

income, this has meant an erosion of buying power of B.C. consumers."

[ Page 1567 ]

Over and over again, we heard in the budget, Mr. Chairman, that what

this government was trying to do was to put money back into people's

pockets so that they could afford to buy things, so that they could get

our economy going again. That's not happening. It says here that the

federal and provincial governments are taking more in taxes, yet we are

making provisions so that companies can pay people lower wages, which

in turn will take money out of their pockets, take away their buying

power, and certainly not help any of your private sector businesses out

there that are struggling to make ends meet. They will not be able to

purchase new cars. They will not be able to purchase new TVs, videos,

clothes, in many cases, and their standards will go down. This, Mr.

Chairman, is what double-breasting will lead to in British Columbia.

When you tie this

section of the bill to other sections of the bill

that are obviously meant to deunionize this sector, it is meant to

lower wages, to make us competitive with Taiwan, Korea and the other

countries out there that do not pay any standards of wages that we

would consider acceptable. When you tie this in with this

section here,

it is obvious that the implications for the province of B.C. are going

to be very great. It's not just going to be affecting the workers, it's

going to be affecting all the private industry people and all the

businesses.

As I stated earlier, I honestly think that many people, and I know

the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall).... I saw him on TV, and

he stated that this

section does not allow double-breasting. He stated

that, and I think he probably really believed that. I hope, through the

discussions — if you're listening, please — you will realize that it

does allow double-breasting, that double-breasting will take place, and

that this is going to have an effect on our province.

Many of the members stated yesterday that they really are pro-union;

they're not anti-union; they don't want to see the deunionization of

our province. If that's true, then please pay attention. Do not pass

this section. Do not allow this type of thing to occur in our province.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting listening

to the debate as it goes on, and I guess it's obvious that we have a

difference of opinion in some things. I think the member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was suggesting the deletion of the word

"operational" from this particular

section had no effect at all. I have

some difficulty in accepting that, because we recognized, with good

advice, that there may be an indication with the word "operational"

there that it would prohibit the IRC from having the ability to look at

the financial control of the corporation. Operational, to me and to

other people I've discussed it with, could be construed as a mechanical

relationship to another company. We believe, with the deletion of that

word, that it does give the IRC the ability to consider the financial

side of it.

It was interesting to hear the member for North Island say that the

Labour Relations Board, as it exists now, is more friendly to labour

than the new council. I have some difficulty in understanding that,

because the new IRC hasn't been put in place yet, other than our

indicating who we would be choosing for commissioner. I think the

member for North Island also suggested that in

section 27 he was

assuming, and made the statement, that individual rights and the market

economy are more important than the other aspects of the objectives in

that section. It appears to me, in that section, that we are trying to

ensure that individual rights and the market economy, as well as a

number of other things, are considered. But I don't think there's

any indication that those two particular issues are emphasized or

underlined, or are the two most important issues in the objectives.

It's interesting to hear the member for Prince George South talk about expertise....

AN HON. MEMBER: North.

AN HON. MEMBER: South next time!

HON. L. HANSON: Prince George is a beautiful city, whether it's north or south; I think you recognize who I was speaking of.

It was interesting to hear the member suggest that expertise, with

this change to

section 27 as it relates to the construction industry,

is going to diminish and contracts are going to be let to people who, I

guess if you want to go to the ridiculous, are clothing-store operators

and are now in the construction business.

I think that there's a very important aspect of that that's not

being mentioned here. We should always remember that there is someone

who is letting that contract, and the government or the individual or

whatever the entity is that is contracting to have work done would

certainly be very concerned about the ability of the people they are

contracting with to do the job. I don't think that price is the only

consideration. We all do that in our day-to-day lives: when we go to

get some service, we look at whether the service we're going to get is

what we expect and of a standard we expect. I think there's ample

protection in the people who are letting the contract determining first

of all that who they are letting the contract to does have the ability

to do the work. There are many methods of determining that. In most

situations, where there are contracts of a substantial amount

particularly, there are bonding and other things required to ensure

that the performance is there, and usually in the terms of the contract

the standards that are expected are very clearly laid out.

I reiterate that it's not our intention to allow widespread

double-breasting. We certainly don't intend to allow an employer who is

unionized to evade his responsibilities. I think we do want to see the

ability of some of those people in business to invest and go into other

businesses, but certainly not to allow them to frustrate or defeat the

legitimate bargaining rights that have been achieved by their various

trade unions.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was suggesting that

there were four prerequisites cited by a decision of the board, and I

certainly wouldn't argue with that, but those prerequisites flow from

the current Code. When we look at those decisions — the

interpretations

that have been developed by the board — we always have to remember that

they were developed by the board under the current Code, and I would

suggest that the new Industrial Relations Council will also develop its

interpretation of the various acts. There is no question in my mind

that that

interpretation will prevent the employers from avoiding the

rights and responsibilities that they have relating to any collective

agreement they may have. But we also want to say that we want to give

those employers the opportunity to start new businesses, create more

employment and so on. Again I would point out that there is absolutely

no reason why those new entities cannot be organized if the employees

of those new entities so desire.

[ Page 1568 ]

MR. CLARK: The minister repeatedly said, and said when he

first introduced the bill: "We don't allow double-breasting." He said

it again now; he qualified it: "It's not our intention to allow

widespread double-breasting" — so just a little bit of

double-breasting, but not widespread. He said that it's not the

intention of the government to allow construction companies to evade

their responsibilities under the collective agreement. The question

then is: why change it? The only reason for changing this clause is to

make it easier for companies to start non-union subsidiaries or to

double-breast. Why in the world would you change it, then? I mean, if

there's no rational reason, if the minister keeps saying,"It's not our

intention to double-breast; we don't want to allow it; we're not going

to allow it; the changes don't allow it," why in the world would they

change this section? The only reason to change this

Section is to

weaken it and make it easier to evade collective agreements. That's the

only reason.

I want to talk a little bit about why this is important to the

construction industry particularly, because I think the construction

industry is unique and these clauses have particular importance. I

think the members should recognize that in a typical industrial

setting, workers who have collective agreements have seniority. They're

protected by seniority language. Secondly, usually there's a fixed

plant or a mine or something that can't be moved. So the operation is

fixed in one spot, and the workers are protected by seniority rights.

The construction industry doesn't have that. Most people don't seem to

realize that unions and people working in the construction industry

don't have any seniority protection at all. So what they've done is

have hiring halls to attempt to provide security of employment for

construction workers in a mobile industry.

The second thing that's done, because of the mobile nature, is that

there is legislation that deals with double-breasting, to deal with the

two problems of people working in the construction industry: number

one, no seniority, and number two, the mobile nature of the industry.

So we have double-breasting legislation, under the old Labour Code,

that said that a unionized construction company could not set up a

non-union company on the side to compete and move work to the non-union

sector to circumvent the collective agreement. Otherwise the logic is

clear: you unionize a construction company, and all the owner has to do

is spin off a non-union subsidiary and circumvent their collective

agreement with their employees. It thwarts the whole purpose of joining

a trade union, and defeats any organizing potential in the construction

industry. That's why we have double-breasting language. That's why we

don't allow those non-union spinoffs in the old Code.

[11:00]

This law makes it incredibly easier. The minister says he doesn't

interpret it as that it will be any easier, but the case law referred

to under the Labour Code has certain tests, and the new language

defeats those tests. Under the old Code

interpretation, this makes it

easier. The minister says: "Well, we don't know how the new IRC will

interpret it. All we know is how the old Labour Code interpreted it."

If anything, I suggest the new Industrial Relations Council will be

worse, because there will be no labour participation on it, and

therefore no labour appointees.

But even if you say that all that went before in the Labour Code

doesn't apply, then let's look at where they have that language. They

have that language in the United States — very similar if not identical

language — "the same control and direction," and there it's wide open.

The American jurisprudence, with the same language, allows

double-breasting.

By any test of the impact of this legislation, it is to weaken the

existing provisions. The minister has repeatedly —

section after

section — said: "That's not our intent." Even if we accept on good

faith that that is not the minister's intent, that doesn't mean

anything, because the reality is that certain consequences flow from

certain language in legislation, and the experience in the States and

in the existing Code demonstrates that this language weakens the

protection of unionized employees in the construction sector, by

allowing union companies to spin off non-union subsidiaries.

The one test that is most critical is the financial test. We're probably all familiar with the Pennyfarthing case.

The Pennyfarthing was owned by Stevenson Construction, a unionized construction firm, and the construction unions attempted

to have Pennyfarthing declared a common employer under this

section of the Labour Code, so that the collective agreement

would prevail. The reason the labour board turned down the union's attempt to have Pennyfarthing declared the same as

Stevenson Construction, and therefore covered by the union collective agreement, was that Stevenson owned 40 percent of

Pennyfarthing. All the labour lawyers I have talked to agree that if it had been 50 percent, the union case would have

been successful. In other words, that was the test, very clearly: that to have the same control or direction required a

financial interest in excess of 50 percent. That was the old test.

I submit that this amendment to the old Code deals specifically with

that case, and simply says that that test no longer applies. So a

unionized construction company can now spin off a 100-percent-owned

subsidiary that's non-union to compete against themselves. Ultimately,

it's obvious that even if a construction company or an owner of a

construction company that is unionized wants to remain union, it simply

will be impossible if everybody else is spinning off non-union

subsidiaries. It puts them in a difficult position. Of course, it puts

the workers in a far worse position.

I want to deal a little now with something that I don't think has

been mentioned yet in this debate, and that's the question of

retroactivity. This bill says that the penalty can only be retroactive

if there is.... It used to say "deliberate attempt," but now it simply

says "an attempt," which still implies intent. In other words, you have

to prove that the employer who has spun off this non-union subsidiary

intended to thwart the collective agreement before any decision by the

new Industrial Relations Council becomes retroactive. We have a

situation, quite clearly, where a firm spins off a non-union

subsidiary, is caught by the union, goes to the Industrial Relations

Council, is found guilty, and there is no remedy except to say: "Oh,

that's terrible. Don't do that again."

It is absurd for two particular reasons. It is very significant in

the construction industry because of the duration of construction

projects. It's not like a mine, a mill, a pulp mill or a sawmill.

Construction projects have a short lifespan, so a unionized company can

spin off a non-union subsidiary for one particular construction

project. By the time it goes through all the machinations and all the

processes and all the action before the Industrial Relations Council

and all the legal procedures.... He is found guilty, but it is found

that he hadn't intended to do so, or that you can't prove intent. So

even if he is found guilty, it says he can't do that again, but

[ Page 1569 ]

meanwhile he has built the whole thing non-union.

The duration of construction projects means that, and of course the

delay that we experience with the labour board will be far worse under

this bureaucratic nightmare, with this type of legislation which is so

interventionist that it is going to require an army of bureaucrats. It

means that construction projects will be constructed non-union, and

there is no penalty on the unionized firm.

What you are doing in this legislation is this. There is a built-in

incentive to spin off a non-union firm, to try to do it, because if you

get caught, the onus is on the union to prove that it was intended —

that if not deliberate, then it was the intent of the company to thwart

the collective agreement. Under this legislation, the onus is now on

the union to prove somehow that the unionized company that spun off the

non-union firm intended to thwart the collective agreement.

We see a tightening up of the provision which makes it easier to

spin off, and then we see a second provision which says that if you get

caught and you are found guilty, the remedy is simply to say you can't

do it again, unless the union can prove that it was an attempt to

thwart the collective agreement — unless the union can prove that it

was the intent of the unionized company to do that.

Mr. Chairman, for the construction industry this is the most

important clause in this new bill, because it means, as Graham Leslie

has pointed out, and others consistently, the deunionization of the

construction industry. It is absolutely clear....

MR. WILLIAMS: And others.

MR. CLARK: The first member for Vancouver East says others

have pointed it out. Of course, virtually all experts in the field have

pointed it out. It is only partisan individuals on the other side that

have said that is not the intent or that is not the legislation.

So even if we accept at face value the minister's statement that

this is not the intent of the legislation, it is clear that that is the

consequence of this legislation. It means the end of the unionized

construction sector.

If you think that this is just going to happen, and that the power

of government can force this kind of legislation on the unionized

construction sector without any disruption, then you are absolutely and

totally wrong. This clause, more than any other, will result in

continued industrial unrest in this province. It isn't going to help us

attract foreign investment; it isn't going to help us attract domestic

investment. It is going to cause turmoil and violence. It is going to

cause jailings. It is going to cause repeated unrest in the unionized

construction sector, because you are saying to those people that they

no longer can conduct business in this province. You are saying that

that is the end of their union and the end of the way they have

conducted business.

That may be the minister's intent or the government's intent in the

long run, and when you look at the other clauses, that is clearly the

direction. We want to compete with Asia-Pacific and Korea and Taiwan,

and we have to be more competitive in the market economy. The desire is

clear there: it is to drive down the wages of the construction industry.

But if you think you can do that by force of legislation, by this

kind of act, without any disruption, you are absolutely wrong. This

clause, more than any other clause in this new labour act, is going to

cause serious turmoil and industrial disruption, and it won't work.

Worse than that, it is insidious, because the minister has repeatedly

said that he is against double-breasting, and that is not what this

language does.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair understands that the hon. Premier would like

to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, to all of the hon. members

here, we have visiting with us today a group from my old constituency

of Surrey, and certainly a group that I have great admiration for and

have had some opportunity to be in contact with over the years. They

are 19 grade 7 students from the William of Orange Christian School in

Surrey. They are seated in the gallery with their teacher, Mel Deglint,

and I would ask the House to bid them a welcome.

MR. MILLER: Well, I know that you missed my presence

yesterday. I want to talk a bit about a point that was covered somewhat

by my colleague from Vancouver East, and that is the impact on the

construction industry. Of course, you can't really talk about that

without mentioning the proud history that companies in this province

have and the reputation that they have enjoyed throughout the world in

terms of their ability and their efficiency on major construction

projects. Certainly I, like many other people in this province, have

had relatives who have traveled; my father-in-law, for example, was in

pipeline work in South America and my own father was in the Yukon.

I think it may be important at this point, when we're talking about

that, to understand that construction workers, although they have been

viewed as very highly paid workers in this province.... All too often

we forget that construction workers don't often work a full year. They

don't enjoy the benefits of a stable economy or a stable situation in

which to work, and therefore there is, I believe, justification for the

kinds of wage rates that they've been able to negotiate. And

construction workers and construction companies have also, in my

opinion.... And again I stress the fact that B.C. does have a proud

history. We have some tremendously competitive, efficient construction

companies and construction workers. When I think of some of the massive

projects that have been undertaken in this province, going back many

years, there's proof positive of that.

Now here's an industry and a workforce that's really faced with

deunionization. Quite frankly, they have enough problems in terms of

combating that situation without this little helping hand from the

government. New companies are forming — they are non-union — and it's

clear that.... And I know employers in the construction sector, and in

the truck logging sector which I talked about the other day in the

House, who want to remain union. It's not that they are rabid union

people, but they have a history in this province, and they know the

contribution that unions have made, and they get along with their

employees, and they conduct business fine. The new companies are coming

in, and they are non-union companies. The difference, and it was

significant to me.... I recall the Pennyfarthing case, or the contract

that was let, where the lowest bidder was just under. It was just the

lowest bidder, and not by very much. The next lowest bidder was a

little bit higher; the difference in the two bids was not that

considerable. The factor was wages. It was clear to me upon reading the

story of those two bids and the differences between the two bids and

the fact that one was union and one

[ Page 1570 ]

was non-union, that the non-union owner was, in a

sense, pocketing the wages. He was taking the wages that he had saved

because he is non-union and putting them in his pocket. Really, the

difference in the two bids wasn't that much.

I've talked before about that downward spiral, and other members

have talked about that downward spiral. There was a recent report —

from I forget the name of the accounting firm — that indicated that in

fact that is happening in this country and in this province, and I

think that that's a negative impact on the economy of this province. I

fail to see why the government, despite the minister saying for the

first time since I've sat through this debate that he was sure of an

interpretation.... We've asked him lots and lots of questions a lot

simpler than this one, and he's never been able to say that he was sure

of an

interpretation. The best he's been able to offer is: "Well, that

will be an interesting question for the board to consider." Now, all of

a sudden, he's sure of an

interpretation. Well, I don't think he is

that sure of that

interpretation.

[11:15]

So we have a situation where the threat to the construction

companies and construction unions is very real. We have a

section

introduced that is going to be just a big helping hand along the way,

to speed the process up, and the result of that will be, I think, a

lowering of our expertise — that proud history that I talked about —

and a dismantling, if you like, of the stability that's existed with

construction workers for many years through the hiring halls, bearing

in mind that most of these people are located in the lower mainland but

spend most of their working lives traveling away from home and being

away from home and living in camps, and quite frankly some of those

situations have not been the best either.

So our people in British Columbia, I think, are good workers. They

deserve the kind of wages that they are getting, and they have won

those wages through negotiation, free negotiation with their employers.

The government, as they have failed to do with the other clauses that

whittle away, that really give a helping hand to the deunionization

process, fail to really justify that in concrete terms. I have heard

some attempts at philosophical arguments, but I have never heard

anything that you can really put your teeth into in terms of a real

argument as to why it seems that the government would prefer that we

weaken the trade union sector in this province. I think this clause is

simply another one along the way to doing that, and for that reason

alone the government should reconsider. I am sure the minister won't

want to respond to that.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I indicated earlier that I

wanted to refer to three particular LRB decisions over the last few

years. Before I do, I think it is important to extract from the

government policy document what the government's economic intention is

in respect of not only this

section but the legislation in its

entirety. This document was prepared three years ago, and it was part

of a five-year economic plan for the government's program in British

Columbia, so it is clearly still in effect. I will just quote one

paragraph from that report:

"Particular emphasis should be given to measures which remove barriers

to the efficient operation of markets, including the labour market." This

is an extract from a government document which sets out the economic agenda

for the next five years. This was done about three years ago. "Particular

emphasis should be given to measures which remove barriers to the efficient

operation of markets, including the labour market." One of the arguments

we have been making consistently throughout the debate on this bill is that

that objective is being met by this legislation, and in particular it is met

section 25, to remove barriers from the labour market.

When the earlier

section talks about a market economy, they are

talking there also about the labour market and the objective: the

philosophical goal of the government is to remove barriers in that

labour market. I want, as we have been saying now for some days, to

relate that objective to this particular

section and, by extension, to

this entire piece of labour legislation.

I want to cite a case in which the labour board has allowed for

double-breasting under the existing law. I think this is probably the

case which is on the edge of the decisions which have been made in

respect of declarations of common employers. This one is Comet Drywall,

Power Drywall and Cosmic Systems. I will not review the entire case,

but I think what I will do is just read the

summary of the case.

An application was made by the Drywall Tapers and Finishers Local

2009, a union I suspect most members of this House didn't even know

existed. Nevertheless, the board says:

"A new business started, by a former principal of a company"

— not an employer, a principal — "that had a collective agreement with

the union, was not a successor to the company bound by the collective agreement,

even though the two main elements of the business of the company bound by the

collective agreement had been the business reputations and expertise of the

two principals. The company bound by the collective agreement had not ceased

any part of its operations, and its business did not continue in any discernible

way through the new company. Two companies that shared offices and facilities

and used the same employees and site superintendent, although not interchangeably,

were not common employers. Although the principal of one company had lent money

to the principal of the other, the lender was not the guiding force behind the

borrower's company."

Yesterday the minister talked about this

section being needed to

allow for investment, that if we didn't have this

section of the bill

there would be no investment. Here is a situation where two principals

decide to partially

part company — and I didn't mean the pun. One of

the principals decided to set up another company, a non-union company.

In this case, it was additional investment — another company created —

and presumably additional work, because the original company still

managed to maintain its original level of work and business. So there

was additional work being done. Presumably some other company didn't

get the work. I guess you can't argue that it's additional investment,

but I think it meets the kind of criteria the minister was talking

about yesterday, wishing to allow for increased investment. Well, here

you have a case, which I think is a classic, where the LRB allowed that

company to operate non-union. It denied an application by the union for

a common employer declaration. Yet there were two partners in a

unionized business, one partner moved out, set up a separate company in

a legal and financial sense, and continued to use the same offices, the

same equipment and the same personnel — although not interchangeably —

but was not declared a common employer. So if the government wants some

limited ability to have a variation on double-breasting but not double-

[ Page

1571 ]

breasting, that's available now. Clearly the Comet

Drywall case is the law on that issue. So it's hard to understand what

the government wants to achieve by making these changes in wording,

unless it's double-breasting.

Let me refer next to the Zagreb case. Almost every decision you see

section 37 has some reference in it to the Zagreb Construction case.

I referred to it earlier. In this particular case a decision by a panel

chaired, ironically, by Shona Moore had allowed for double-breasting. I

say it's ironic because Shona Moore has been one of those people who is

neutral; her politics, I think, are capital-L Liberal — certainly not

part of our side of the equation. She has been a neutral on the board,

who has since left the board and is operating in private practice. In

fact, she made a decision in this Zagreb Construction case in 1983 that

allowed for double-breasting there. It was a decision involving the

carpenters. The decision was appealed, and the board decision of six

months later overturned that particular decision.

What were the facts? Well, in brief, Mr. Chairman, they were that a

husband and wife had a company. They operated it jointly; they were the

principals — no one else was involved — and it was a union company. The

wife then started up her own company, using the same offices, the same

people, the same everything. The board, in a panel decision which Shona

Moore was involved in, said: "That's not double-breasting. They're not

common employers" — believe it or not — "and you're allowed to have

this separate company, even though you were both principals of the

unionized company." The wife goes out and starts up a non-union

company, and the board in its first decision declared that it was not a

common employer. Of course, it was appealed and then overturned. The

declaration was that in fact this was double-breasting and these were

common employers.

I think the important point there is that even with a liberally

minded chairperson of a panel — and the composition of that panel one

could perceive as middle of the road in terms of its view of labour

relations — and even with all of the original language of the Code and

the purposes and objects of the Code as they were — still are for some

days yet — even with that language, a husband and wife operating two

different companies using the same business apparatus could be declared

as not common employers even though the decision was overturned.

The point is that with the new language certainly, with the new

objectives certainly, and with the new mood that the IRC will bring to

the administration of this new act, that original decision would have

stood and the appeal would never have succeeded without any question

whatsoever.

The point here is that even with the existing wording of

section 37 in the

Code, the government will achieve its objective of allowing for double-breasting

because it is its objective clearly. It will achieve its objective for allowing

double-breasting of this kind. Principals of a company, one of whom spins off

a separate company — a husband and wife, one of whom spins off a separate company

— using the same facilities, using the same equipment, using the same offices,

using the same ability to solicit business and choosing which arm will handle

the business.... All of that will be available to the government under the

existing wording of

section 37, given the other changes to the Code and the

direction the IRC is being required to take under

section 27 of the new act.

So there can only be one conclusion. Only one conclusion can be reached from

a decision by the government to proceed with making the test less onerous or

less rigorous, as it is doing by making these changes. We no longer have four

criteria which must be met; any one criterion is sufficient to escape the "common

employer" declaration.

I want to conclude my comments at this stage with reference to Wills

Enterprises. I referred earlier this morning to a situation where a

trusted senior employee of a unionized company could set up another

company, and there could be a cosy arrangement between the two in terms

of utilization of the unionized company's assets and resources. The

cosy relationship is that 5 percent of the gross goes to the unionized

company for all the non-unionized company's work — an exceedingly cosy

relationship. It may not be the best example, but it's the example I

want to cite: the Wills Enterprises decision of February 27, 1984. I

want to read the reasons for the decision of the board in this

particular case.

[11:30]

Just to set the scene, we have a unionized contractor. One of the

trusted employees sets up another company, uses all of the same

resources, operates non-union, gets contracts through the network and

all of the resources of the unionized contractor, pays 5 percent of the

gross to the unionized contractor for those services — but operates

non-union. The current language would lead to a different decision than

the one reached here, because in this case the declaration was that in

fact this was a common employee. Here are the reasons:

"The activities or businesses of Argo and Wills Enterprises"

— these are the two companies — "were associated and related. Both companies

were general contractors, one engaged in union and the other in non-union construction.

The narrow test for control or direction asserted by the companies — namely,

whether there was a 'single guiding force' in the two companies when

viewed on the operational level — failed to give proper effect to the intent

of the Legislature as disclosed by

section 37. The words 'control or direction'

had never been limited by the board to operational control, nor to the presence

of any persuasive influence by key individuals..."

I need to pause here, because the minister may say "operational"

is no longer with us. It doesn't matter; the law is clear that it doesn't

matter whether the word "operational" is there or not. I just want

to make that point.

"....in the affairs of the two entities involved. The

board had certainly found 'control or direction' to be present in two

companies by virtue only of common share control or common financial control,

regardless of whether the day-to-day business of the two entities fell under

the control or direction of a single individual. Yet the board was not limited

to considering only these factors" — under the old law.

Mr. Chairman, I only need another minute or two.

MR. CLARK: I was enjoying greatly the member for North Island, and I wish he would continue.

MR. GABELMANN: I will wrap up quickly by finalizing the quote from the LRB.

"In this case, power — that is, realistic

control — rested with the company controlling the purse strings, Wills

Enterprises. The true relationship between Wills Enterprises and Argo

could be seen by reviewing the facts of only one project operated

ostensibly by Argo. Financing, banking services and bonding were

supplied by Wills Enterprises, and Argo was

[ Page 1572 ]

building the project using former employees of Wills Enterprises.

Argo had become active precisely at the time when Wills Enterprises had become

less active in the public tender market. Through Argo, however, Wills Enterprises

was able to continue a presence in the public tender market and to make a profit.

"To ensure that collective agreement obligations were not

defeated by mere corporate reorganization was precisely one of the proper purposes

section 37 of the Code. Given that Wills Enterprises continued to compete

in the same market as Argo, the panel found that there had been no transfer

of a part of a business within the meaning of

section 53. The operative prerequisite

had thus not been satisfied."

The reasons conclude with that point.

Under the new law, as I think we have demonstrated this morning,

that decision would be reversed. Those two companies would not be

viewed as a common employer, but in fact would be separate employers.

It is for that reason and for much else that we on this side of the

House feel that the government either does not understand what it is

saying in respect of its position on double-breasting, or deliberately

intends to allow for double-breasting to become rampant in this

province.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be back after a

very successful mission of selling B.C. coal, but it is unfortunate to

have to come back into a debate about this

section 25 of the Industrial

Relations Reform Act. It makes it more difficult to do just that sort

of a task after receiving such negative comments from people in the

rest of Canada about this terrible piece of legislation. I think it's

important to realize that

section 25, with the significant change of

removing the old words under

section 37 of the Labour Code, "a common

control and direction," and changing them to "the same operational

control and direction," in essence allows for double-breasting, which

in essence allows a union contractor to also set up a shell corporation

to be a non-union outfit; and it applies retroactively, which is even

more insidious, Mr. Chairman.

So I think it's important that we make it clear why this particular

section, like the rest of the bill, is bad for British Columbia. What

it allows an employer to do is unilaterally get rid of unions by using

a corporate strategy. This particular section, Mr. Chairman, is as

repugnant as any in this quite repugnant piece of legislation. It

represents clearly the unfair nature of this Bill

Section 25

demonstrates that very clearly — that the government has deliberately

set out to establish an unfair labour bill.

It is a bad piece of legislation, and this

section demonstrates it

because the

section demonstrates three fatal flaws in this piece of

legislation. First, Bill 19 and

section 25 in this bill tip the balance

in favour of employers and against the working people of this province.

Secondly, it extends, not ends, wage controls. It wipes out freely

negotiated collective agreements, where the wages and benefits have

been negotiated by free citizens, between employers and employees. It

wipes out what workers have fought for for decades in terms of wages

and benefits, and basically turns the workers of this province into

economic serfs in low-paid jobs with little or no security and very few

benefits. It is bad for the workers of British Columbia.

Section 25 also shows the massive intervention of this government in

labour-management relations. It is taking away from the free collective

bargaining process, Mr. Chairman, which is an essential element of our

democratic system.

The Minister of Labour, I understand, yesterday said: "We need

section 25 so that we can have more investment in British Columbia,

more jobs and a more prosperous, stable province." I want you to be

aware that it's going to do the opposite.

Section 25 is going to scare

away investment and lead to a more depressed, bitter British Columbia.

If that is the minister's reason for bringing in

section 25, he's

wrong. His judgment on that is clearly wrong. It is not going to bring

about more investment.

I'll come back to that in a second, but I also want to talk about

why this particular

section 25 is such an odious provision for the

people of British Columbia, the working men and women of this province.

I'll give you a few examples why it is going to be so destructive to

hundreds of thousands of people in this great province of ours. I'll

use the example of construction workers. What will happen to the people

who have built this province? They've taken years to get training,

skilled and become apprenticed. They've worked in dangerous and

difficult circumstances to build the mines, the highways, the electric

projects and built the buildings that have made this a modern and

prosperous — at least until the last few years — part of the world.

The construction workers of this province are going to be

double-breasted. They're going to have wages and benefits rolled back

so that they'll be working as a lot of the non-union contractors have

done at half the wage rates, with very few benefits, with contractors

who have a less than envious record — as probably the politest way to

put it — in providing apprenticeships, in putting funds into the

apprenticeship program, of providing for the security and safety of

older workers in their older years by putting into pension funds, by

putting into health and safety programs for their valued employees.

Workers in this province, when this provision is introduced,

proclaimed, put into effect, are going to have a far meaner and far

less secure work environment, with far less purchasing power for the

local economics throughout this province.

As New Democrats we don't want that, and we don't think the working

people of this province and the small business community want to see

that happen either. You know, our citizens are proud of the men and

women who put together the dams and the hospitals and the schools and

the highways and the bridges and the houses that we all now enjoy. We

don't want to see that happen to the workers of this province.

Section 25 applies much more widely than just to construction

workers, because it also applies, for example, to logging contractors,

particularly on the coast. I have heard of, and I think we will be

receiving shortly, a communication from the logging contractors on the

coast of British Columbia, who say that the pressures on them right now

are so dramatic, and the practices of the forest companies in this

province are making it so difficult for them to stay unionized, that

they will be forced to decertify; they will be forced to place their

workers in a position of being, again, economic serfs. Do you know what

the truck loggers are saying? They are saying that people are going to

be killed because of

section 25. People will be forced to work in

unsafe ways. They'll be forced to drive their trucks much more quickly.

They'll be forced to accept unsafe work practices. They'll be forced to

do these things, and we don't want that to happen. We don't want to see

the working men and women of this

[ Page

1573 ]

province killed because of the ill-thought-out,

unjust

section 25 that is before us at this time. I would prefer to see

a few pieces of paper killed — Bill 19 — than the working men and women

of this province killed.

That's all we'd be killing, Mr. Chairman: a few pieces of paper. A

few pieces of paper, and then go back and do the job properly, so that

we can get a proper labour-management climate in this province. I think

we could also then go back — working with the Minister of Labour, the

Premier and the Minister of Finance — to bringing about the investment

that the Minister of Labour says

section 25 will bring about.

Well, it won't. That's not just my opinion and the opinion of my

colleagues here on this side of the House; it's not just the opinion of

the 22 splendid members of the New Democrat caucus who have been

putting forth very clearly our arguments on this bill, and our superb

labour critic, who has in a measured, restrained and articulate way....

AN HON. MEMBER: Boring.

MR. HARCOURT: .... been laying out for the boring members of

the other side of the House — for the uncaring, not-hearing members of

the other side of this House — the disaster that this

section in this

bill is.

[11:45]

I want to respond to the minister, who said that

section 25 will

bring about investment in this province. I want you to know, Mr.

Chairman: that's not the opinion of the people of British Columbia;

that's not the opinion of the editorial writers, the business writers

or the business community. That's not the opinion of Jim Matkin, head

of the B.C. Business Council, or of Bill Hamilton, who was the head of

the Employers' Council, the predecessor to the B.C. Business Council,

and the Postmaster-General in the federal Parliament. That wasn't the

opinion of the Deputy Minister of Labour, who left in despair and

disgust because he would not be part of this terrible piece of

legislation. That is not the opinion of people in British Columbia, and

I can tell you, from speaking to a number of members of the federal

government whom I met while I was in Ottawa, it's not their opinion.

It's not the opinion of the people I spoke to in Toronto; it's not the

opinion of the people I spoke to — union and management — in Hamilton,

where we were selling B.C. coal to be used as metallurgical coal, or

the people we were speaking to when we were discussing selling millions

of tons of B.C. coal to Ontario Hydro. It's not the opinion of people

in central Canada. It's not the opinion of the people who are going to

make the investment decisions. It's not the opinion of the people in

Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, New York,

Paris, Geneva, London. It's not their opinion, Mr. Chairman. They're

not going to come to a province that is suffering from massive

confrontation, bitterness and insecurity.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: The relevancy, to the confused member of the House on

the other side, as I've said twice before to the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen,

is that your own minister said that this

section would bring investment and

jobs, and he's wrong. So if it's not going to bring investment to this

province; if it's not going to create jobs — it's going to lose jobs;

if it's going to create a situation where our citizens are working serfs,

economic serfs, where they have far less of a way of life, where they face more

danger, where they face less security, where they don't live in a province

where they have the dignified way of life that they want, then indeed this act

is so wrong that it should be put aside for us to take a sober second look.

And

section 25 is one of the worst parts of this act.

I may say, Mr. Chairman, that

section 25 seems to be provoking the

worst impulses of the government. While I was away selling B.C. and

selling B.C. coal and trying to create 13,000 jobs in this country....

While we were doing something positive for British Columbia, I was

ashamed, as a member of the legal profession, at the unbelievable

performance of our Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith). I will be

speaking more about that later on today, so you can sit down and behave

yourself, hon. member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Boundary-Similkameen rises on a point of order.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I rise because, although I've

enjoyed the member opposite's words, I would ask the Chairman to advise

us whether or not the ability to sell on the part of the Leader of the

Opposition is relevant to

section 25. Would you so advise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would have to rule that certainly an

ability to sell is not relevant, although I do think the Leader of the

Opposition did tie what he was saying to the

section of the bill that

we're dealing with.

The member continues. We'll give you a couple of moments. The time is up, but....

MR. HARCOURT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You're

right. It has a great deal to do with selling British Columbia, and it

has a great deal to do with selling out the working people of British

Columbia. If I can't sell that to the hon. member, then indeed this

government has trouble.

So, Mr. Chairman, we think that

section 25 represents one of the

most repugnant aspects of this repugnant piece of legislation. It

permits double-breasting. It is going to diminish rather than enhance

the opportunities for working men and women in this province. We hope

that this bill will not be proclaimed, that we can have a chance to

enjoy the beauty of British Columbia in the summer and come back and

have another go at this false start at bringing about a prosperous and

stable British Columbia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PARKER: Just a comment, sir. I find it amazing that

anybody in this House would suggest that British Columbia was built by

union only. Unionized members of the workforce in British Columbia

represent maybe a third of the workforce. I don't think we should be

leaving out other people in the province of British Columbia. Over 60

percent of the workers of British Columbia are non-union. And to think

for a moment that this piece of legislation and this

section would

cause deaths in the logging contracting business on the coast is

atrocious. The logging industry in British Columbia is largely

non-union. It has an excellent safety record. Mr. Chairman, I believe

those are just fear tactics and improper information, trying to upset

the people of British Columbia. I think it's totally irresponsible.

[ Page 1574 ]

MR. MILLER: I think there have been some excellent arguments

made tying the effects of this

section into what's going to happen in

the workplace. With respect to the Minister of Forests and Lands and

the major safety gains in this province, we've killed 35 loggers in

forestry this year. The major safety gains that have taken place in

those dirty dangerous jobs in the bush have been won by trade unions.

It certainly wasn't the employers of this province, or especially the

non-union employers.

HON. L. HANSON: It certainly was an interesting speech by the

Leader of the Opposition. His reference to the knowledge that

Switzerland, Japan.... None of these people appreciate Bill 19; they

don't appreciate

section 35; the world is going to end; doom and gloom

is going to come; British Columbia is going to drop. I believe that

British Columbia will be better for Bill 19 and

section 35 will also

prove that.

To add credibility to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition,

he said "common control and direction." The Code language read "common

control or direction." I would suggest that the Leader of the

Opposition should read his notes; and I also suggest that he should

take that into consideration when he is speaking on the reaction of the

rest of the world and Canada to British Columbia and its Code 19.

The philosophy in this bill will bring investment to British

Columbia; it will bring prosperity to British Columbia. That is also

reflected by the philosophy of this government. The philosophy of this

government is supported by the people represented here by a majority on

this side of the House.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating to me and to

other members of the House, I am sure, to hear the Minister of Labour

continue to tell us what he believes. The only conclusion I can derive

when he continues to rely on belief rather than logic and rather than

on evidence is that he defines belief the way St. Paul did — "the

evidence of things not seen."

Mr. Chairman, what we have been doing is presenting cases, documented and demonstrated

time and time again, suggesting that this

section of Bill 19 opens the door

to double-breasting. All we have had thus far is repeated assertions that no,

we don't believe that is the case. What we have said is simply that unless

and until this government can demonstrate clearly to us that that is not the

intention of this piece of legislation, we will continue to argue the case as

passionately and effectively as we can. Because to do otherwise is to open the

door to a state of affairs in this province that is simply not tolerable and

acceptable to fair-minded and decent individuals.

When I hear platitudinous kinds of squibbles coming from the other

side suggesting that we are wrong, let me put it to the members

opposite, in more ways than one, I might add: I invite any one of them

to challenge any single one of the economic arguments we have

presented. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that my request is unreasonable

because it demands a certain level of knowledge and expertise, which

they clearly don't possess. But I am suggesting in all seriousness that

we have indeed provided very good, solid and substantial arguments to

support our case. They have been met only with repeated assertions of

"We don't believe," or "We disagree." For heaven's sake, if you want us

to accept the premise that this is not opening the door to

double-breasting, then accept also the simple invitation we have given

you: rewrite it in such a way that it is patently clear. At the very

least, we might even consider another alternative: give us a formal

declaration from the other side of the House that your government will

not tolerate double-breasting. Unless and until you do that, however,

with all due respect, Mr. Minister, we can do nothing else but stand

here and articulate the case we presently are.

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I see the time has run out, as it has

for those on the other side of the House. I would suggest that the

committee ought to rise and report progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada