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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4177 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Pulp and Paper Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 18). Second reading.

Mr. Segarty –– 4177

Mr. Skelly –– 4178

Mr. Michael –– 4180

Mr. Mitchell –– 4181

Mr. Veitch –– 4184

Mrs. Wallace –– 4186

Mr. Pelton –– 4187

TUESDAY, APRIL 3,1984

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the first

member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), it is my

pleasure to introduce to the House Mr. Martin Mellado, who is from the

Little Mountain constituency and a very strong supporter. I would ask

the House to welcome Martin Mellado.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 18.

PULP AND PAPER COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, many hours have passed since two

o'clock yesterday afternoon, when the Leader of the Opposition came

into this House, made an emotional outburst and accused the government

of trying to ram a piece of legislation through this House while

members of the pulp unions throughout British Columbia were voting on

whether or not they should obey the law — or whether or not they should

go back to work. The press reports this morning indicate that a number

of those people received bad advice from the Leader of the Opposition

and all of those.... I've been watching that party over the past week,

hoping that somewhere along the line some new leader would emerge with

a sense of purpose and a sense of direction for that party, who would

not get into the type of emotional outburst that took place in this

Legislature yesterday with respect to the advice given to working

British Columbians. The leaders of the two pulp unions followed the

advice of the Leader of the Opposition, and suggested that this was not

an act to put them back to work until it was passed by the Legislature.

I know that those members of the union will think about their position

over the next couple of days and over the course of the debate. We have

a responsibility to point out to them the serious danger and the threat

to their very existence with this type of attitude.

Yesterday I talked about what is taking place in terms of the international

marketplace, and I'd just like to touch on that briefly again this morning.

As you know, the traditional suppliers of pulp throughout the world, known as

the Norcan group of nations — Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the United

States — face fierce competition from their rivals throughout the world, the

non-Norcan group of producers, which have gained significant growth in world

markets over the past 15 years. In 1982 their combined tonnage of pulp production

stood at 9.5 million tonnes, or a full 35 percent of the world pulp supply.

By the end of this year it is anticipated that the same non-Norcan group of

producers will gain another 2 percent of the share. By 1990 and beyond, when

world demand for pulp is expected to expand tremendously, the competition from

the non-Norcan producers is expected to intensify and become extremely fierce.

These are the facts that the leader of the opposition should bring to those

leaders of the pulp unions, who face very serious danger today in the loss of

a competitive edge. It is not good enough to stick your head in the sand like

an ostrich and poke it up every once in a while because there's political

ground to be made; to poke it up every once in a while and give bad advice to

trade union people throughout this province, who look to all of us for guidance,

advice and leadership and the ability to do the right thing regardless of politics.

Brazil, for example, opened up new pulp mills in 1978 and 1979.

Their combined production of 900,000 tonnes is beyond their domestic

requirement and is now available for export. Brazil has export markets

in Europe, Japan and the United States. In neighbouring Chile, pulp

exports are projected to grow to 750,000 tonnes by 1990 and 1.5 million

tonnes by the year 2000. Chile now has export markets in Germany,

France, China and Korea. Neighbouring Argentina is also looking at

exporting 40 percent of their capacity of kraft pulp to the Norcan

areas, our traditional markets, and that's where the threat is coming

from within.

In eastern Europe, Portugal is considering entering the world pulp

market in a major way, with production capacity expected to be 735,000

tonnes by the end of this year, expanding to 915,000 tonnes by the end

of 1985. This is basically the situation in which we find ourselves

insofar as our competitors are concerned. In eastern Europe, only

250,000 tonnes is available for export to other nations.

But even from within the Norcan group itself we face fierce

competition from pulp mills currently being built in the southeast of

the United States. One might ask why countries like Brazil, Portugal

and the United States are building new pulp mills, when in a province

with a large forest land base such as British Columbia — and elsewhere

in Canada — pulp mill and sawmill construction has ground almost to a

halt. It is not because we don't have available fibre, because all of

us know that there is enough fibre in British Columbia to construct two

new pulp mills. At the present time we export those chips where and

when we can, and we're fortunate to be able to do that. There is enough

fibre, and one would then ask why we are not building new pulp

capacity. Our Premier gave that message to the people of British

Columbia in February 1982, and that message was there for those people

who wanted to listen to it: the cost of our production is too high. He

said that if we are to compete in the very challenging world market of

the 1980s, we would have to lower our production costs. That's

basically the problem that we face today. The cost — in United States

dollars — of manufacturing a tonne of pulp in southeastern British

Columbia is approximately $360; in the southeastern United States it is

$340. So clearly they have a competitive edge in any new markets.

That's the situation, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what company would

be prepared to go out and invest $500 million of their money building a

new pulp mill in British Columbia when they are already struggling to

maintain their current share of the market, let alone capture new

markets for their products? All of this evidence is available to the

members of the opposition party and to pulp unions. While Mr. Sloan and

Mr. Gruntman would go around and play petty politics and one-upmanship

with Jack Munro on the advice of the members of the opposition party,

our competitors are going out to the international marketplace and

stealing our

[ Page 4178 ]

contracts right from under our nose. That is a

situation which this party and our government won't tolerate in this

particular climate. There's absolutely no way that this province can

afford to allow this dispute to go on any longer. I would have hoped

that the critic of the Attorney-General, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown), would stand up in this House and support this legislation.

For the first time in a long time she would have an opportunity to do

something for the women and children of this province, which she

complains about in this House many times over the course of the debate.

And I would have hoped that the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who

would get up in this Legislature and play petty politics with the

independent loggers of British Columbia, would stand up in support of

this legislation and perhaps have an opportunity to put some of those

independent loggers to work in this province — loggers who probably

haven't worked six months in the past two years and need an income. I

know the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will stand up in support of

this bill, because he says that he doesn't owe his allegiance to either

big unions or big business. I look forward to his support on this bill.

[10:15]

I can understand the position of the labour critic on this bill. I

don't expect him to support it, because he is a pretty principled

fellow. He didn't support the legislation when the New Democratic Party

brought in the legislation, and I don't expect he will support ours.

Because he doesn't support it we can only assume that the leader he is

supporting for the leadership race of the New Democratic Party would

not bring in this type of legislation. We can also suppose that that

leader too would be against the private ownership of land in our

province.

I know the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) will stand up

and support this bill. He's been harping at the government for the

length of lineups at soup kitchens, and so on, in our province. Here's

an opportunity to reduce the lineups at those soup kitchens, and to

stop playing petty politics on the backs of the poor, the disabled and

the handicapped of this province. Here's an opportunity to put some

people to work and provide needed revenue to this government to provide

services for those people who are less fortunate than we are in this

province.

I support this bill. It's a bill that will allow the collective

bargaining process to take place in this province. I challenge the

leaders of the pulp union and industry in our province to stop playing

politics, sit down and negotiate a collective agreement under the

provisions of the legislation that will allow people to go back to work

and make an income in order that they may be able to support their

families during this difficult time in our economy. The bill provides

for that.

It also provides an opportunity for those payrolls to be circulated

around the community, with people spending money in the businesses of

the small business people of our province who desperately need help.

Perhaps with people spending money those small business people, who are

the largest employers in our province, will be able to hire some young

people, put them to work and provide help for them as well.

Most of all, this is a piece of legislation for the wives and

children of those people who work in the forest industry. We all know

what happens in this type of dispute. A few of the radicals will go

down to the local pub and have a great gossip about how they socked it

to them and how they pulled one over on Bennett and on the companies,

and they'll have a great laugh. But it's not very funny, because it's

the wives who have to look after the food for the family table. It's

those people this bill is designed to help most of all.

It provides an opportunity for people, men and women, to go to work

in the pulp mill and to provide opportunities for their families to

grow in an environment that's extremely tough in 1984. There are new

opportunities out there. I would appeal to the members of the New

Democratic Party to give this bill second and third reading today, and

allow this bargaining process to take place and the parties to get

together — without the political emotion that takes place in this House

— and come up with a collective bargaining agreement that will see the

industry settle down. Perhaps, with some common sense prevailing,

industry will be able to look at the union and invite them to

participate in ways in which they can expand new pulp capacity in our

province, utilize our surplus of wood chips and provide new jobs and

new investment in our economy. Unless we get back to creating those

jobs and new investment, we will all suffer the results.

I want to commend the Minister of Labour for bringing forward this

piece of legislation. I want to reiterate that it has been agonizing

for all of the members of our caucus, too, to come down with this

legislation, because since we formed the government in 1979 it has not

been our policy to legislate people back to work. It's not our policy

today, Mr. Speaker, but there are times when government has to take

strong and decisive action. It's only those people who have the courage

to make hard decisions necessary for our survival today that, in the

long run, will go down in the history books of our province as a

government that brought the province along during extremely difficult

times. So I want to congratulate the Premier, our Minister of Labour

and all our caucus colleagues for facing the reality of the time and

for having the courage to bring forward this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of Bill 18.

MR. SKELLY: I always appreciate listening to the member for

Kootenay. It almost seemed for a moment there that he was going to melt

into tears about having to pass this legislation. What I was concerned

about was when he was talking about competition. It's interesting that

if the member was concerned about competition, about eight weeks ago

when the companies locked their workers out, those workers were in the

course of producing the pulp that we required for our foreign markets.

In fact, all of the pulp mills in the province were working, producing

pulp, shipping that pulp into those foreign markets that he's worried

about being taken over by Brazilian competition, and the companies shut

them down. Why didn't the government get tough then, if they were

worried about competition? Why didn't the Premier come out of the hills

then, as he did when CP threatened to take over MacMillan Bloedel, and

order those companies back to work; use his muscle, or use the muscle

of his office to order those companies back to work so that we would be

producing the pulp required in those foreign markets?

The member's statement rings pretty hollow. Why didn't the Premier

use the moral suasion of his office at that time to keep those pulp

mills working to keep our markets secure? Instead he allowed this

dispute to carry on for eight weeks when those companies ran their

workers off the job. Already at that time agreements had been

established, dates had been established for the unions and the

companies to meet to negotiate the collective agreement. Even in the

face of that date being set, the companies shut down their mills,

stopped

[ Page

4179 ]

producing the pulp and started losing those markets that the member talked

about.

The member also talked about new pulp capacity being developed in

the province. He said there was enough fibre in British Columbia to

establish two new pulp mills. Well, what about the fibre that was given

to Doman Industries several years ago on the central coast? He was

given additional allowable cut in the Nootka PSYU on the promise that

he would build a thermo-mechanical pulp mill on Vancouver Island. The

requirements that Mr. Doman entered into have never been imposed on him

by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland); he is in violation of

his contract. Yet when a forest company received timber in Alberta on

the promise that they would build a mill at Whitecourt, Alberta, and

they refused to live up to that promise, the timber was taken away from

them right away.

The member talked about competition and losing foreign markets. Yet

this government did not step in and use their moral suasion to attempt

to keep the pulp mills in this province working. The statements of the

member for Kootenay ring hollow when he talks about competition and

losing those markets.

When the Minister of Labour introduced the bill, he talked about his

anguish, regret and concern for the 20,000 people who are out of work

as a result of this lockout. And I'm concerned about them, because a

good percentage of those 20,000 people live in my constituency. They

are hardworking, producing millworkers, and they were working at the

time the companies locked them out. They were producing pulp for those

foreign markets. Yet the government didn't put any pressure

whatsoever.... They didn't consider it an emergency that we were losing

those markets, that we were condemning these people to no salaries at

all. Suddenly, eight weeks later, they become concerned.

That statement rings pretty hollow as well when in this province

there are a quarter of a million people out of work. As other members

have pointed out, this province is worse in terms of unemployment than

any other jurisdiction in North America, with the exception of

Newfoundland — the traditional have-not province of Canada — and West

Virginia, the poorest state of Appalachia. Mr. Speaker, B.C. is in

worse shape in terms of employment than those other states. Yet the

minister expresses concern about 20,000 people being out of work in the

pulp industry when he could have brought those people from the industry

in eight weeks ago, knocked heads together and brought those people

back to work — ordered an end to the lockout. Yet he did nothing. This

government has done more to create unemployment, confrontation and

problems with the workforce in British Columbia than any other

government in the history of British Columbia, or Canada for that

matter.

The minister and the Premier express some concern for the citizens of Port

Alberni. It's unusual for the minister to express any kind of concern at

all, because he is the one who has caused all the problems in Port Alberni.

When MacMillan Bloedel downsized their operations and threw 3,500 people out

of work, was there any word from the Premier of this province? Was there any

word from the Minister of Labour? Was there any word from the member for Kootenay

(Mr. Segarty), who has suddenly developed all this concern for the working people

of this province? Did the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) say: "Use

it or lose it. Put those people back to work or you're going to lose your

tree-farm licences"? Not a word from the provincial government. From the

point of view of MacMillan Bloedel, 3,500 people in Port Alberni went off the

job forever, and this government did nothing.

When there was an opportunity for this government to get involved in

an intensive silviculture agreement with the federal government, to

improve the sustainability of our forests, to replant the forests, to

put those people back to work in Port Alberni, was there any concern on

the part of the Premier about the people who were out of work? Was

there any concern by the Minister of Forests? Was there any concern by

the member for Kootenay? Not a bit of concern. As a result, those

people are out of work in Port Alberni. This government has done more

to create unemployment in Port Alberni than anyone else. Private

industry isn't responsible. The responsibility rests with this

government here. Now they cry about the concerns of those people who

were out of work for eight weeks as a result of this pulp industry

dispute. They shut down the Assessment Authority office in Port

Alberni. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is chirping

from his seat over there, has shut down five or six schools in Port

Alberni. He sacked the teachers and is going to be sacking even more

teachers by the time he's finished the budget cuts and by the time he's

finished his reign of terror in education in this province. This

government bears more responsibility than anyone else — public, private

or whatever for the unemployment that's going on in this province.

They didn't mention unemployment in their budget speech. They even

admitted that they dissolved their special cabinet committee on

unemployment in the province. They have no concern about unemployment.

They have no concern about those people who are out of work. Those

people would not be out of work today if it weren't for the type of

legislation that this government brought down, if it weren't for the

type of club that this government is using over their heads in order to

drive them back to work.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair, ]

The Premier compared this bill to Bill 146 that was passed in 1975.

There's absolutely no comparison at all. When that bill was presented,

the industry went back to work and the pulp and paper workers went back

to work. There was concern: nobody likes to be legislated back to work.

But it wasn't held over their head as a threat like the

section in this

bill that says that if they don't reach a collective agreement within a

certain period of time, this government is going to impose a collective

agreement on them — a collective agreement determined by the

government. There was never any such provision in Bill 146. More than

anything else, that provision has probably caused the workers in the

pulp and paper industry to reject this legislation and to refuse to go

back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to go on at any length. I am concerned

about the statements made by the Minister of Labour about his new-found

concern for the workers in the pulp industry, when he and his cabinet

are wholly responsible for the fact that a quarter of a million people

are out of work in this province. He has demonstrated virtually no

concern about those people who are out of work, and the cabinet has

done little, if anything, to generate employment in this province. As a

result, we're one of the worst jurisdictions in Canada and North

America in terms of unemployment.

I listened to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who has gone back to

[ Page 4180 ]

his office to cut back more government programs to

put more people out of work. When he talks about unemployment and

expresses his concern about the pulp workers, that rings a little

hollow too, Mr. Speaker. When the member for Kootenay talks about the

competitiveness of our pulp industry, and the government has done

nothing over the last eight weeks to impose an agreement on the

industry or to order the industry back to work, that rings a little

hollow. If there is any reason why these workers are out of work today,

it is that this legislation is so abhorrent that they feel if they go

back to work they are going to end up with a settlement imposed on them

by a government which has demonstrated itself to be anti-labour,

anti-employment and anti-industry in this case.

I am absolutely opposed to this legislation for the reason that it

allows cabinet to impose a settlement on the industry behind the closed

doors of cabinet and in consultation with their friends. I am

absolutely opposed to any legislative action which orders people back

to work before the legislation is even passed in this Legislature, and

I certainly intend to stand in opposition and to vote against this

legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we could have some quiet while members are speaking, hon. members.

[10:30]

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in analyzing the response from my

constituency, and having talked to people during the past week from all

sectors throughout my constituency, I can stand up in this House with

full confidence of supporting this bill to end this dispute. I have

talked to people from all walks of life: labour people, business

people, constituents in general and housewives, and there has not been

one single person in my telephone canvass who advised me not to take

action. They are unanimous in their points of view that this government

must take action to end this long-standing dispute in the pulp

industry. The costs are mounting every day. The tax revenue alone is

said to be somewhere in the vicinity of $500,000 a day as a direct

result of this dispute. The economic impact is bordering in the

vicinity of $10 million a day, and on top of that we have sawmills in

many parts of the province of British Columbia burning very valuable

chips, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars a day going up in

smoke. This is a terrible waste. Chip piles are rotting.

We have the question of our international reputation affecting the

long-term livelihood and economic benefits, and the loss of markets

with long-term impact on our long-term planning in the province of

British Columbia. In the middle of all this, Mr. Speaker, we have a

very fragile recovery in all sectors of the province. Seven out of

fifteen copper mines in this province are currently closed because of

poor market conditions. Seventy percent of the total of the molybdenum

production in the province of British Columbia is at a standstill, and

we have a fishing industry that is suffering very severely at the

present time. In the middle of this we have a dispute in the pulp

industry, which is one of the most important industries in this

province and which has been at a complete standstill for eight weeks.

I've done a little research, and I would like to outline to the

House some of the differences between the legislation called the

Collective Bargaining Continuation Act that the opposition brought in

when they were government in 1975 and the legislation currently before

the House. The comparison is that in 1975 negotiations were in process

in the forest products industry — and there is a large question mark in

my mind as to whether the government should have stuck their nose into

that dispute in the first place, because of that fact. I have a great

deal of sentiment with some of the words the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann) said in this House yesterday. I believe that the

interference of the New Democratic Party government in 1975 has a lot

to do with what has happened since 1975 and what we're having to face

here today. The comparison is that in 1984 no negotiations have taken

place in the industry for approximately two weeks. In 1975 the bill at

that time gave 48 hours notice; conversely, our bill gave 72 hours

notice. In listening to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) speak a few

minutes ago, criticizing this government for taking so long, wondering

why we didn't step in at an earlier date, the interesting point is that

it took the NDP government in 1975 ten weeks to take action. We have

been very patient and have waited for eight weeks to take action. I

repeat, they stepped in after ten weeks when negotiations were already

in process; we have stepped in with no negotiations going on.

It makes little difference to me, in taking action as the

government, whether it's a strike or a lockout. The plain facts are

that it is an industrial dispute that is costing this province

irreparable damage. In the history of the NDP — the short-lived three

and a half years of the NDP — they involved themselves in five labour

disputes. They took legislative action involving five labour disputes.

I would remind the House and the members that this is only the second

time in nine years that we have involved ourselves in a labour dispute

to this degree. It's interesting to look back over the records and see

the action taken in 1975 and some of the statements made.

I would like to read some statements in a press release in 1975 made

by the Minister of Labour of the day regarding the Collective

Bargaining Continuation Act. The

article said: "King told the House the

government still believes in the free collective bargaining system and

the rights of unions and employers to use strikes and lockouts as part

of the system." There's nothing the matter with that. I would like the

opposition to listen to this. He said: "'But no rights are absolute. No

one has the absolute right to indulge in economic warfare that in many

cases jeopardizes the safety, health, comfort and welfare of the people

of the province of British Columbia. All four disputes covered by the

legislation have jeopardized that public interest and are likely to do

so.'" The

article goes on — and it alludes to what I said earlier in my

address: "The greatest surprise in the bill was that the forest

industry was included, since meetings between forest industrial

relations and the International Woodworkers of America were continuing

and appeared to be making progress."

I repeat: the result of the action in 1975 has a lot to with where

we are today. It makes little difference to me that the dispute in 1975

was a strike and the dispute in 1984 is a lockout.

In covering some of the clauses in the Collective Bargaining

Continuation Act, let me read from

section 2(a): "all employees shall

immediately resume the duties of their employment with their respective

collective agreement in force between the employees and their

respective employer prior to the coming into force of this act." Pretty

strong words, Mr. Speaker.

Section 2(

b) says: "no person or trade union

shall declare, acquiesce in or engage in any strike of the operations

of their employers or declare, authorize, acquiesce in or engage in any

picketing of the places of business

[ Page

4181 ]

operation of their respective employers or the

places where they are employed." Very strong stuff, Mr. Speaker. Let's

read the last part of

section 3: "...any declaration, authorization or

direction to go on strike declared, authorized or given to them before

the coming into force of this act has become invalid, and that any

strike and picketing is prohibited by reason of the coming into force

of this act." That's the kind of stuff the opposition, when government

in 1975, laid before this House to solve a problem. I have a great

amount of difficulty in listening to the speakers from the opposite

side criticizing the positive action that this government is taking

today in resolving the current dispute in the forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time that the employers and the unions in

the province of British Columbia had a close reexamination of where we

are going in the field of industrial relations. We look around this

province and we see a lot of conflict, a lot of lost productivity, a

lot of lost wages, a lot of lost profits and a lot of lost markets. I

think of how great this province could be if the people involved in

industrial relations throughout the length and breadth of this province

would have a re-examination, discontinue the conflict and get on with

building a better British Columbia.

I see the dispute in Vancouver with the newspapers, the Province and the Sun ,

and I wonder what's going through people's minds in bringing a large

employer such as that firm to a standstill. I read in a recent

article

in the local newspaper that the Vancouver Province lost $15

million in their last fiscal year. I wonder what goes through people's

minds in the port of Vancouver when I see hundreds of jobs being lost —

tens of millions of dollars of economic activity — because the port

workers insist on maintaining the repackaging clause that they have in

their collective agreement. I wonder, when I look around and see all

the unemployment in Victoria, what went through certain people's minds

last year when the local newspaper, the Times-Colonist , offered

to run that paper on a seven-day basis and employ several extra people,

and the union voted down that seven-day operation. I wonder what is

going through those people's minds in making those kinds of decisions.

I also wonder, Mr. Speaker, what's going through people's minds in

the recent False Creek episode. A reputable firm in the province of

British Columbia bids on a project, is the lowest bidder, puts hundreds

of people to work, and other groups of workers think that they have an

inherent right to push that firm off that project. I also wonder what's

going to happen in this province in the next week or ten days regarding

the Expo 86 project, a project that is dear to the hearts of all

British Columbians. It hangs in jeopardy because of the selfishness and

greed of a few labour leaders in the province of British Columbia, a

few union leaders insisting on taking irresponsible action and

insisting that that project remain 100 percent union labour.

I look at the question before us, the question of the act resolving the current

dispute in the forest industry, and I look at the pulp workers having already

lost in the vicinity of $6,000 in lost wages and benefits. Surely they must

be aware that they cannot and will not succeed in bettering the contract negotiated

by the IWA. Having lost $6,000 in wages, they would have to get an additional

30 cents an hour over the most recent offer just to pay the interest on the loss.

But what do we have? We have an opposition obstructing and delaying, and nurturing

conflict, encouraging conflict in this House.

[10:45]

In listening to the most recent speaker from the opposition, I was

interested in his opening remarks, talking about the action of our

Premier. He asks: "Why wait eight weeks? Why didn't you act long ago?"

Well, I guess, conversely, we could ask why it took the NDP ten weeks

to act in 1975? That doesn't matter. He forgets about that. He talks

about the laying off of teachers and government workers. Mr. Speaker,

doesn't he realize that this dispute is costing this province hundreds

of thousands of dollars a day in tax revenue which could go toward

increasing social services, building a stronger economy and building

better benefits for those people in need? He must be ignoring those

kinds of things. He's either blind or is deliberately misleading this

House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That must be withdrawn. The term "deliberately misleading" is unparliamentary.

MR. MICHAEL: I will withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

I would like that member of the opposition, the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly), to declare before this House, or declare in the press

gallery, if he favours a better settlement, a more expensive

settlement, a more lucrative settlement for the pulp workers than he

does for the IWA. I would like him to declare himself. Does he favour a

more expensive, more lucrative settlement for the pulp workers than he

does for the IWA? I think the thousands of IWA members in Port Alberni

would very much like to hear that member's views on that particular

subject.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think that if this House were to spend

more time on approaching the constructive things to make this province

stronger, to create more jobs and to create more economic activity....

On that subject, there is no doubt in my mind that when this dispute is

settled and the pulp workers and the forest industry are fully back to

work, we've got a good marketplace out there right now where you're

going to see a lot of economic activity in British Columbia. There are

a lot of machine shops, expansion projects and renovations taking

place, and I think you're going to see a significant improvement in the

job-creation activities throughout the province of British Columbia. I

support this bill 100 percent. I'm surprised at the position of the

opposition. I can't believe some of the words I've heard coming from

across the floor.

MR. MITCHELL: It's interesting when I sit here and listen to

the various speeches that have gone on this morning. I wonder what bill

they are discussing. They don't appear in any way to be discussing Bill

18, which we have before us. Some of the talks that have been given

sound very much like the talks I gave in my throne speech and budget

speech. There's a need for a change in the industrial development of

our pulp mills — they are becoming antiquated and do need upgrading.

But what did this government sit back and allow to happen in the pulp

industry? They allowed a corporate power takeover by Noranda, and the

millions of dollars which were spent on that power struggle was money

that should have been put into this industry to upgrade it and make it

competitive with world pulp industries.

This is what's happening. What really bothers me is when I listen to

the speakers trying to compare Bill 18 with Bill 146 passed in 1975.

There is no comparison. I listened to the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) try to embarrass certain

members on this

[ Page 4182 ]

side of the House by reading statements about

another piece of legislation. If they really wanted to embarrass them,

they should have brought in an identical bill to what was passed in

1975, but there is no comparison. Bill 146 in 1975 was a bill to bring

in a 90-day cooling-off period to allow negotiations to continue.

That's all it was. It wasn't a bill that imposed a settlement. Not only

does it impose a settlement but it allows the cabinet to vary, by

regulations, parts of that agreement that have been negotiated over the

years by collective negotiation and agreement. You have a bill that

allows the cabinet to vary that collective agreement. I know that when

that party were in opposition in 1975, they would not have supported

this bill. Never would they have supported this bill.

Would they have supported a bill to have allowed the NDP government

to write a collective agreement? No, they wouldn't. You know, Mr.

Speaker, from your vast knowledge of the government's political

philosophy, that they would never have sat back and allowed the NDP to

write an agreement for the pulp workers or the forest industry or any

group. This legislation is all part and parcel of the same type of

legislation that came in in 1983 when the attack was on the public

sector workers. This government brought in legislation that eroded

rights that had been freely gained by collective bargaining. They not

only did that but also changed statutes — laws of the province of

British Columbia that had given people in the public service certain

rights and certain dignities. The government brought in legislation

that wiped those out. This type of legislation is now attacking the

private sector. It is trying to do to the private sector what was done

to the public sector. This legislation is one large conspiracy to take

away benefits that people have gained over the many years of free

collective bargaining. They are doing it under the guise of restraint,

and because we are in the unfortunate position of having a lot of

unemployment — unemployment caused by this government's mismanagement!

This government got the province into more debt than any other

government in the whole history of British Columbia. It took a hundred

and some-odd years to get $4 billion into debt, and it took this

government less than eight years to get nearly $16 billion in debt.

This is from the mismanagement of our forest industries and of our

power in the economic field, because we are into debt from building....

HON. MR. HEWITT: What are you talking about?

MR. MITCHELL: You know what I'm talking about. You know that

the debt this province has from government mismanagement is causing the

unemployment that this government is trying to use to put down the pulp

workers or the forest industry.

I know that clear heads on both the labour side and the industry

side will eventually prevail, and they will negotiate a settlement; the

history of labour in this province proves that eventually they do sit

down and go over the facts. But what bothers me is that for the two

months it was a lockout this government did nothing. For two months,

when the Minister of Labour, the cabinet and the back-benchers should

have been insisting that the persuasion available in the minister's

office, the Premier's office, the Minister of Finance's office, of

where the industry is going to go in world markets....

For two months while the company had a lockout and the workers

wanted to continue to work, when they were keeping the wheels of

industry rolling until the company wanted to have a lockout, the

government did nothing.

MR. MICHAEL: How about 1975?

MR. MITCHELL: This is different. In 1975 the then Minister of

Labour was meeting daily with the various groups in British Columbia

that were on strike, meeting daily with either the employer or the

employee. This is what governments must do. Governments must give

leadership and direction. But what is this government doing now? They

are doing exactly what they did last summer to the public service. They

are bringing in the Big Brother attitude of we know best, we'll write

the agreement.

What you're going to see in this province is what you see in Quebec,

where the Legislature is dealing with bills about two feet high — all

the collective agreements of all the public servants, which become

legislation. This is what is going to happen if we continue down this

path of altering the rights of collective negotiations. You cannot

grind people down and say: "We will pass the law and we will set your

standards." There's a double standard. I don't want to get involved in

the negotiations, but one of the items on the negotiating table was a

COLA clause; but that was bad because that wasn't in the IWA contract.

So there's a double standard. This government has a COLA clause to

increase the taxes on cigarettes and on gas. They have a COLA clause to

increase the rates charged for hydro. There's a double standard: one

for this government and one for the people who work in this community.

I listen in utter amazement when they compare this bill with

unemployment. There is unemployment in this province, and there is a

need to attack unemployment. There is a need to look at full employment

as a way of life. When we have approximately 225,000 people unemployed,

this is the problem that this government should be looking at. But no,

they zero in and allow a lockout to go on for two months, and then, all

of a sudden, when they lift the lockout by making Bill 18 retroactive,

then everyone else is breaking the law.

[11:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We have to have some consistency in the Legislature, and I say that

we should have some common sense. The government has an obligation to

give some leadership and some input, but you are not going to give that

leadership when you allow people to be ground down by two months of

unemployment. Once they have lost $6,000 in wages.... I quite believe

the figure is correct. People are not going to grovel forever. All of a

sudden you say: "Now we have you down, and you've got to do it the way

we want." This is the attitude that this government is forcing on the

public servants, school teachers and nurses of this province. This was

where they started last year, and it's going to continue as long as

this government is in power.

If you're going to compare apples, let's compare apples and apples.

But don't compare apples and oranges. There's nothing in this bill to

force a settlement on the employees that you can compare to that 90-day

cooling-off period. The previous speaker is well aware of that; there

is no comparison. When you look at this, and when you look at the

final.... If this type of legislation is allowed to creep into our

parliament, if you can bring in legislation on a Friday at 12:45 and

make it retroactive after 72 hours.... This is immoral, Mr. Speaker.

You're aware that legislation must be debated in this House. When it's

passed, that legislation is law. That is not law in anything else but a

finance bill. The reasons that finance bills are accepted in parliament

to be

[ Page 4183 ]

retroactive is because of traditions that

parliament have set up to allow the Minister of Finance to do his

planning and his budgeting. But there are still traditions in

British-style parliament that allow procedures that we follow to bring

in legislation.

Those of us who were lucky enough to be elected have an opportunity

to debate it, to bring in amendments and to pass it. Then it becomes

law. But to make these veiled threats that people are breaking the law

when it is really not a law that has been passed.... The majority of

this government can jam anything through. Last year they jammed through

the labour standards amendments. If you go back into last year's Hansard ,

you will read where I said that one of the sections taken out of the

Labour standards is that a collective agreement stays in force until a

new one is negotiated. In the labour negotiations, especially in the

type of labour negotiations that I was involved in in the essential

services, it was important that the agreements stay in force past the

cutoff date, which was traditionally December 31. Negotiations never

got started until the spring, but the agreement stayed in force. In the

House last year I asked: "Why are you taking out this

section of the

labour standards where the agreement runs out on the expiry date?" It

does not allow for the continuation of negotiation. But the government

didn't listen to us. They jammed that

section through. What happens in

Bill 18? They had to bring it back in. The had to bring in a

section in

Bill 18 to cover something that they stupidly took out last year. In no

way did taking that

section out of the legislation last year help

collective negotiations.

You have to develop within the labour negotiations an attitude of

sharing of ideas and an understanding of where the industry may or may

not go. In this legislation they are going to set the wages. They are

going to allow the government, by regulation, to bury that agreement.

Maybe somewhere down the line someone negotiated a maternity clause for

employees for 15 or 20 weeks, male or female. There are countries in

the democratic world that do have maternity benefits for husbands and

fathers. It's not something that we have in this country to any large

degree that I'm aware of. Maybe we are old-fashioned. Maybe a lot of us

remember what it was like to look after a new baby, and we don't want

to have that time foisted upon us. Anyway, there might be sections in

an agreement, and then, all of a sudden, the cabinet says: "We don't

want that in the agreement. We can save X hundred thousand dollars for

that company by wiping it out." They can vary it. There's nothing in

Bill 18 that sets the price or the profit of the company.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: The doctors got a better settlement than the

IWA. All kinds of people got a better settlement than the IWA. It is

not the right of this Legislature to say who should get what in the

economic negotiations of a labour contract. It is not our

responsibility, and it is not our right. That is something that has to

be freely negotiated between the employee and the employer. No more

should you say that a policeman shouldn't get more than the guy who

cuts the grass — they all work for the municipality — or that the

labourer should get the same as the electricians on construction. I

don't know what is economically viable in the pulp and paper industry.

I don't think anyone in this House can stand up and give you the true

economics of the pulp and paper industry. I don't believe that the real

figures and facts are ever put forward in negotiations. You're aware of

that, as is everyone in this House. We are not privy to this

information. It is not our responsibility to set negotiations or set

rates for any industry.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: I don't disagree with the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly). We are saying that this piece of legislation is part and

parcel of the legislation that was brought in last year to erode the

conditions of the public service: public employees, be they teachers,

nurses or civil servants, policemen or anything. That legislation

brought in last year was the start of the package of which this is a

part. I imagine other legislation will be brought in that will attack

the construction industry and other sections of the community — the

service industry. If they take the same attitude as they took to people

living on welfare, who haven't had an increase for two years.... They

cut them back. I quite believe that it's not inconsistent that this

government will cut back the minimum wage to a dollar or two dollars,

whatever the Fraser Institute tells them. I believe it's consistent

with what is happening in this province. There is no built-in COLA

clause like the government has for their revenue. Whenever the

inflation rate goes up, they raise the taxes on gas, they raise the

taxes on cigarettes and they raise the rates for hydro. But when

inflation eats away at anyone else's paycheque, does this government

worry? Do they care that the standard of living that has been

negotiated over many years, with built-in COLA clauses...? They don't

worry about that. All they want to do is provide the confrontation.

What we have had in labour negotiations is a type of confrontation. I

say that clear heads must prevail. We cannot continue this

confrontation. I have faith that those who are negotiating will have

clearer heads and that we will work toward a better settlement.

But I say this government should hang its head in shame at the lack

of leadership it's given for the last two months in this particular

negotiation between the pulp industry and its employees. Meaningful

negotiations, with assistance from the government — the assistance that

they are demanding be forced through now — should have taken place on

the day that the companies wanted to shut down. The government should

have said: "Our economy right now is so fragile that we cannot afford

to lose two months, two weeks or two days of production." Now they're

saying it has cost this province $8 million a day. It cost that same S8

million two months ago. If this government wanted to give leadership,

they should have said to the companies: "We believe" — and I don't

completely share this view — "that the economy is starting to go up,

and we can not afford a lockout." This is where the government stands

condemned. They should have given that leadership then instead of

coming in with a heavy hand and legislation that is foreign to any

province in this country. Not only are they going to force a collective

agreement on them, but they can vary it by regulations.

The larger companies have a direct pipeline to this government. It's

quite easy for this government to listen to a one-sided opinion of what

changes should be made. I think the gentleman who leads the

construction industry said that it's not the wages they are opposed to;

it's the fringe benefits. Maybe they are a cost item, but they are

something that was negotiated. I can quite believe that similar

legislation will come in, and they'll force that through. So all of a

sudden they can start cutting away.... They can force through a

[ Page 4184 ]

settlement on the collective agreement for the construction industry if there

is a confrontation. This government is great in establishing confrontations

— setting them up until they come to a boiling point and then trying to put

them down with bad legislation.

[11:15]

The only thing is that the next bill that comes in may not have the

section that was taken out of the labour standards bill. They may bring

it back in in a way that doesn't give the protection which says that

the present agreement will stay in force until a new one is negotiated.

They might leave that

section out. Then it will all be made retroactive

to whenever the negotiations broke down. You can't understand or

predict what the government is going to do next, but there is a certain

consistency. Whatever they are going to do is going to cut down

standards that have been negotiated by the working people of this

province.

MR. MICHAEL: No matter how good it is, you oppose it.

MR. MITCHELL: I am not opposing it...but this is the

attitude.... It's not for me to say what pulp workers or nurses or

librarians should get. We in the NDP have not got involved in the

nitty-gritty of negotiated settlements. I don't think government should

get involved. If we do, I predict that we'll end up doing the same as

the Quebec government — trying to pass collective agreements as acts.

MR. REID: Five times in three and a half years.

MR. MITCHELL: Is he making a speech?

We have to develop a climate of proper negotiations. We must have

one standard that we live by and expect the companies to live by, and a

standard that is shared by the employees.

As I have said many times before, there are no simple answers to

getting our economy going. We have to get together and sit down and

work with the trade union movement, the business community, the church

leaders and the academics. We have to change our direction. We can no

longer continue the confrontation this type of legislation is

developing. We on this side of the House will vote against this

legislation. I know that the government would have voted against it

when they were in opposition. The bill they voted for allowed for a

cooling-off period so they could sit down and continue their

negotiations. That's all it was. But this piece of legislation allows

the government to enforce a collective agreement, and it allows the

cabinet to alter and vary that collective agreement, and that is

dangerous.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take my place in

this debate and say that I support Bill 18. I think it is important to

answer a question which was advanced by the Leader of the Opposition

yesterday. He asked: "Why not wait? If the Leader of the Opposition, or

indeed other members of the NDP, had read the bill they would have

looked at the purposes and objectives of it. It says:

"This act shall be interpreted and applied so as to

(

a) protect employees employed in the pulp and paper industry and other

persons employed in related industries from suffering further adverse

affects from the labour-management dispute now taking place in the pulp

and paper industry, (

b) remove an immediate and substantial threat to

the economy of the province and the welfare of its citizens, which

exists as a result of the labour-management dispute, and (

c) to promote

conditions favourable to an orderly and constructive settlement of the

labour-management dispute without further shortage of work."

Why wait?

The Leader of the Opposition said that the thing that was bothering

them was that the unions were taking a vote. I guess the reason for

that vote would be as to whether or not the leadership would counsel

the members of those particular unions to uphold or to indeed break the

law.

I can't understand the NDP, even with such disarray as they now have

in their party, counselling anyone to vote not to uphold the law of

parliament. If that sort of advice is being given by the opposition to

the trade union movement, or anyone else in this province, I'd say it

is bad advice, and they ought not to listen to it. Leadership is not to

run to the head of the crowd and see which way it's going; it's to

lead, even sometimes when things are tough and dark. It is probably not

a popular thing for this government to bring in legislation that puts

people back to work. It's the first time our government has done this,

but it is not without precedent by other governments in this

parliament. It is leadership, and that is what is required. It is not

looking to see how many votes you can pick up from labour at some

convention to get some brass ring, however nebulous an item that might

be. It's leadership that we need in this province, and that is what is

being exemplified here.

I am saddened that the NDP has apparently not placed the people who

we are intending to protect by this bill in their order of priority. It

appears to me that their priority is more a leadership contest which is

looming somewhere in the future, and that appears to be permeating all

of their thoughts and bringing them to the position that they are in at

this particular time. It is also apparent to me that the NDP really

don't care a whit about the men and women who are involved — the

mothers who are trying to put bread on the table in this dispute — and

I am terribly saddened by that.

We're all very much aware that this is a very controversial piece of

legislation. We're also aware of a controversial piece of legislation

that was passed by a former government. It was called the Collective

Bargaining Continuation Act. I understand that the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who is not in her seat, and the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who is not in his seat, are painfully

aware of that legislation that was passed in this Legislature some time

ago. I'll have to watch their position with great interest, Mr.

Speaker, and I can assure you, as members consider the legislation now

before us, that I believe it's most fitting that we recall the

arguments advanced on behalf of the previous legislation by the New

Democratic Party in 1975.

If we look back for a moment to October 7 — I believe it was — 1975,

some of the remarks on the then Bill 146 — and they tell us about a lot

of legislation.... We're struck quite forcibly by the remarks and how

very closely they parallel our situation in 1984. Let me just briefly

remind all hon. members of some of the highlights of debate in that

special session. Bill King, now a leadership aspirant, then the

Minister of Labour, stated:

... I stated on introducing this bill, Mr.

Speaker, that the government is concerned that the rights of private

citizens in this province are being unduly harmed and damaged by the

industrial disputes that I have referred to.

[ Page 4185 ]

This bill seeks to come to grips with those problems and provide

a mechanism for relieving the impact and the hardship to the citizens of the

province, while continuing the collective bargaining process to ensure that

settlements are found without further disruption, and without further hardship

to many citizens throughout the province.

How things have changed in a few short years, Mr. Speaker.

We have never stated.... . that there is an absolute right to

indulge in economic warfare which, in many cases, threatens and jeopardizes

the basic safety, comfort and health of citizens in this province.

I'm sure the opposition is as concerned with finding some

remedy, some relief for the people who are suffering under the present state

of affairs.

That opposition seems to have changed, Mr. Speaker.

We are saying to them: 'Get back to the table, and in the

interests of your members, and in the interests of the citizens of this province

and the total good which must be put before the narrow, selfish interests, get

back to solve these disputes through the collective bargaining process.'

The Attorney-General of the day, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), stated:

The people of British Columbia can be proud of the Premier of

British Columbia and the Minister of Labour of British Columbia.... have no

intention of abdicating the responsibilities of leadership....

...democracy is becoming a threatened, vanishing species unless

we, as democratic legislatures, show the necessary leadership and courage....

I can align myself with the thoughts of that former minister in

those former times. How things have changed in a few short years.

There is no doubt that democracy, in a difficult period of inflation

and unemployment, and some fear and some grasping self-interest, is beginning

to lose its sense of the common good...and descend into a fractional frame

of mind, with interests fighting interests to the detriment of the common good.

How things have changed.

The Minister of Health at that time, the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke), said that the bill was aimed at providing for the people

of British Columbia.

Something had to give, something had to happen in our economy,

among our workers and in our workplaces in this province, and that something,

I'm convinced, had to be done what was done this morning....

The Premier of the day said:

Options and consultation and advisement are only good for so

long, Mr. Speaker...then the government must act...we have a responsibility

to all the people of this province before any one particular group.

The Premier — the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), the Leader of the Opposition — stated at that time:

This bill is our duty: to do less would not

be doing our duty. We have waited, we have been patient...but there

comes a time when a decision must be made.

It is the will of the people expressed

through a government. It is the will of the government that people calm

down, go back to work and begin to grow up a bit in new collective

bargaining.

[11:30]

I was interested, too, to review the account of this legislation provided by Lorne Kavic and Garry Nixon in the book entitled The 1,200 Days: A Shattered Dream . They tell it if you should want to look it up some time, on page 157. Messrs. Kavic and Nixon said:

"When the NDP caucus assembled one hour before the session

was to begin" — and I'm sure the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

will remember this — "ministers and back-benchers alike were surprised

to find a Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, Bill 146, had been prepared

and was going to be implemented. It would force all workers currently on strike

in British Columbia" — all workers at that time currently on strike — "back

to work for up to 120 days. Its contents were explained by King, but there was

virtually no time following the minister's comments for discussion — nor

was such encouraged by either Barrett or King. The decision had been taken and

compliance was expected. Only three back-benchers — Steves, Gabelmann and Brown

— were prepared to act upon their private views in recording opposition in caucus

as well as shortly thereafter in the House."

I commend them for standing up for their principles.

The member for Skeena as well was all set to vote against the

legislation until he phoned some union officials in his constituency

who informed him that no matter how much they were going to oppose the

bill publicly, they were privately in support of it, and he'd better

vote for it I would say that things have not changed with that member.

While we listen to the remarks of various opposition members and

trade union leaders in our province, this history ought to be borne in

mind. The lyrics of the old song, It Ain't Necessarily So

come instantly to mind. We do know that the members for Burnaby-Edmonds

and North Island were prepared to follow socialist dogma blindly, as it

were, even against the wishes of their own Government at that time, the

vast majority of the people of British Columbia and the trade union

movement, and they paid the price for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the price?

MR. VEITCH: You lost in 1975, my friend.

Given that there is no clear leadership in the NDP today and given

that we have heard some unclear leadership from their protégé, Mr.

Vickers, who apparently agrees with Margaret Birrell that the public

interest must be sacrificed to trade union principles, it would be very

interesting to know where, precisely, that would-be Premier, that

would-be leader, stands on this particular occasion.

MR. HOWARD: Christians shouldn't tell lies.

MR. VEITCH: I'm not a stranger to the truth, my friend, whatever other stranger I may be in this place.

There's a new reality in British Columbia that more British

Columbians are realizing that you can have all of the coal in the

mountains and all the trees in the forests, and they're potentially

valuable, but they're worthless until you can cut them down, until you

can extract them, until you can sell them to someone and take them

somewhere. This is something that the NDP has not realized.

They don't realize that in this province we're not pricemakers; we

can't set our own prices. We're pricetakers. We are very dependent upon

the world, and we're not the only people that sell pulp. Nearly 13,000

members of the CPU and the PPWC have been out of work since February 2,

and the Leader of the Opposition says: "Why not wait a little longer?"

Ask the mothers of those families why we ought not to wait a little

longer. We're losing about $2 million a day in wages, and you're the

people who are holding it up. Hydro alone is losing $500,000 a day —

gone forever — which must be added to our Hydro cost to every person in

every family and every business in this province.

[ Page 4186 ]

Secondary picketing put an estimated 10,000 IWA members out of work

from February 22 to March 20, although a voluntary halt could have been

called at any time. Industry losses are running to $8 million a day.

There is not only incalculable direct damage to the provincial economy,

but also, in the Premier's words, "a clear and present danger that our

reliability as a supplier will be questioned and that pulp markets and

jobs could be lost forever." That's the problem. That's the new reality

in this province. That's something that's got to sink even into the

heads of the NDP and of the union bosses who appear to be directing

this group, if there is any direction at all at this point in time.

We've got to realize that we are not an island unto ourselves in

this province and that having all these potential resources does not

mean we can furnish wealth, jobs and prosperity for ourselves and for

the people who follow after us. What we have to do is realize that we

are just one little piece of a big market, and we've got to be more

competitive, to be dependable and to be looked upon as a reliable

supplier of goods and services, or we're not going to go anyplace and

in fact we're going to go backwards in this province. If that's what

the NDP wants, keep it up. But they should show leadership and they

should forget about a dogma which died many years ago. Forget about a

socialist dogma and start thinking about the good of the people of

British Columbia. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown)

consistently talks about the good of the people and the need to be

looking after it. Let's exemplify that. The challenge I give her today

is to turn away from their thoughts and stand up, for once, on

principle, as she did before. The principle is that we can put people

back to work in British Columbia. Support this bill, and let's get them

back to work.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this morning could you and I put

ourselves in the position of a pulp worker who has been locked out from

his job for some eight weeks. Consider that on March 24 that pulp

worker picked up his newspaper and read a full-page ad sponsored by the

pulp industry in British Columbia. Five days later on March 29 he

listened to the Premier's speech, and in that speech he heard, not

paraphrased but exact direct quotations from the March 24 ad sponsored

by the employer who had locked him out and who refused to negotiate.

Then consider that he hears the Minister of Labour say that he's been

in constant contact with both parties, and that he knows this is not

true. Consider that the last contact the union had with the Minister of

Labour was on March 19, when secondary picketing was withdrawn. From

then until 6 p.m. on March 29 there was no contact with that Minister

of Labour, yet the minister, when he introduced this bill, said that

both parties had rejected assistance offered. How could they reject

assistance if there had been no contact? Consider the position of that

worker when he realizes — has it brought home in full force — that not

only is the Premier quoting the exact words of his employers who have

locked him out, but that the Minister of Labour has indicated that he

has been constantly in contact with his union. He knows that is not

correct. Then the other shoe drops with Bill 18.

We've heard a lot of words today trying to compare Bill 18 with Bill

146. I want to make a comparison with Bill 146, and it has nothing to

do with Bill 18. I have in front of me

chapter 113 of our statutes, the

essential services legislation brought in by this government. The

Essential Service Disputes Act is almost word-for-word Bill 146: a

90-day cooling-off period; negotiations to proceed; collective

bargaining to proceed. This government did not need Bill 18 if they

wanted to do what Bill 146 did. If the situations are parallel, all

they had to do was act under the Essential Service Disputes Act. The

terms are there. It's laid out very clearly and precisely. We had a

difference of opinion on this side and that side as to whether we

should have on the books essential service legislation such as this, or

if in an emergency we should have a Bill 146. The way it was dealt with

was identical in the two pieces of legislation. We've had some

selective reading from that bill, but never have we had any indication

that in that bill there is a

section 9. At no point was the government

involved in imposing a settlement.

My colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell)

talked about the Quebec situation. That's bad enough, but at least in

Quebec it's being done in the full light of the Legislature, not in

cabinet in secret. That's what this bill is proposing. The Essential

Service Disputes Act would have put those people back to work with a

fair and equitable opportunity for them to negotiate a settlement. It

would have lifted the lockout, and that could have proceeded had the

companies been prepared to negotiate in good faith. What possible hope

can we have that those companies will negotiate in good faith when the

Premier in his speech quotes the exact words of the companies' ads, and

the Minister of Labour talks about meeting constantly with the trade

union when that is not the case?

Another argument that has been advanced today by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. Michael) is that somehow the workers in the pulp industry were wanting

more than their brothers and sisters in the logging and sawmill industry. The

loggers and the sawmill workers in this province were offered a further package.

They were offered two things over and above the original agreement: one of those

was another half percent in the third year; the other was that the companies

would withdraw their request for concessions on fringe benefits. The loggers

and the sawmill workers agreed to that. That offer has never been made to the

workers in the pulp industry. You might say that the concessions that the pulp

workers have were already too great — not so.

I dislike getting into the area of collective bargaining and union

negotiations, but this bill has brought that directly onto the floor of

this House. I'm not going to spend too much time on it, but I want to

point out just a couple of very interesting points. For example, if you

work as a logger or a sawmill worker, in order to qualify for full

vacation benefits — that's certainly one of the fringe benefits — you

must have worked for 1,000 hours. If you are a pulp worker, you must

have worked for 1, 386 hours in order to qualify for those same

benefits.

Long-term disability. If you work as a logger or in the sawmill, and

are permanently injured at age 20, 25 or whatever, you have a

disability pension until age 65 when you become eligible for your old

age pension. If you work as a pulp worker, you have a disability

pension for five years plus six months for every year worked. It's

quite a difference. By the way, we hear a lot about the logging

industry being very hazardous, and I'm sure it is. Do you know the

average life span of a pensioner from the pulp industry? Thirteen

months. It's much longer than that for other industries. The chemicals

that those workers are exposed to and the shift work....

It's a very hazardous occupation.

[ Page 4187 ]

Statutory holidays. If you are a logger or a sawmill worker, you are

entitled to ten statutory holidays to spend with your family. If you

work in a pulp mill, you presently get six. One of the concessions the

company wanted was to reduce it to five, and that was never withdrawn.

The same is true with seniority. The seniority is quite different in

the two. But the concessions asked for in seniority by the company —

which were also asked for in the logging and sawmill industry, but were

withdrawn — were never withdrawn for the pulp workers.

As I say, I don't like dealing with items that are more properly

related to labour negotiations, but I think the reasons for the concern

of the pulp workers who are faced with this legislation are obvious.

They are faced with legislation that has no phase-out — and, again,

that's where it's quite different from Bill 146, which automatically

phased out after 90 days plus a possible 14 — and that is simply at the

discretion of the cabinet and the minister. It can go on forever. There

is no assurance that safety regulations will be met or that wages as

presently specified in the agreement will even be met. There's no

assurance that the company will bargain in good faith, because the

company's got it made. If they don't bargain in good faith, they can

trust this government to bring in a nice, easy settlement. The cards

are all stacked in favour of management.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: They're hard up for responses, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that is completely reprehensible is

section 14,

which makes this thing retroactive. How ridiculous! This is not the law

until it is passed and proclaimed. Supposing it is passed. Is it

possible for employees, then, to go back to work retroactively? If you

pass a sales tax bill, you can collect it retroactively. If you pass

any kind of a tax bill, it can be collected retroactively. But you

can't go back to work retroactively.

I would suggest that this bill could wind up going through the

courts of this province and of Canada. This is in contravention of our

very constitution and our Bill of Rights.

It's very difficult to speak on such a bill, because I find it so

completely reprehensible. Of course we want people to have the

opportunity to work, but we want them to have the opportunity to work

in a labour climate that is conducive to productivity and is in line

with the kind of things that, certainly, my forbears fought for in this

province and this country. This bill could well be a forerunner of the

kind of things we talked about around the clock relative to the public

sector here in these chambers a few short months ago being applied to

the workers in the private sector. It's not so long ago that the miners

in Extension, who were being killed day after day by gas explosions,

found themselves faced with the militia which was called in because

they were protesting and trying to form a union. In the space of time,

that's not so long ago. Are we to revert to those situations? Do we

have to fight the battles all over again? This

section 9 coupled with

section 14.... I know I shouldn't be talking about sections but they

exemplify to me the principle of this bill.

If this government was upfront about wanting to get those mills open

and those workers back, they would have simply used the legislation

that is on the books: a 90-day cooling-off period and back to the

bargaining table. But no, that wasn't good enough. They bring in

something that is vindictive against the workers, and gives them the

opportunity to take whatever steps they like for as long as they like,

the opportunity to change it as often as they like, and the only

recourse this Legislature will have is to read the results when they're

tabled. That's not democracy. That's not the kind of legislation that I

want to see for the workers of this province.

MR. REID: It's not like '75.

MRS. WALLACE: No, not at all like '75. In '75 you would have

simply used the Essential Service Disputes Act that you now have,

because it has exactly the same words — word for word in many

instances. This bill should never pass these chambers. If it does,

we're starting down a very retrograde road which will make it extremely

difficult to turn around and go in the direction where we have been

gaining in our rights for workers, in our ability to participate in the

economic future of this province on a fair and equitable basis with a

just return to the people who provide the labour for our economic

development.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for recognizing

me and for letting me stand in my place today. I don't intend to malign

any of the members opposite. That's not my way of doing things. I do

have a few things to say, and I would like them not to become

disjointed. So saying that, and taking note of the time, I would like

to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada