June 21, 1988 ALBERTA HANSARD 1913 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, June 21, 1988 8:00 p.m. Date: 88/06/21 [The Committee of the Whole met at 8 p.m.] head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) [Mr. Gogo in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Committee of the Whole please come to order. Bill 22 Labour Relations Code MR. CHAIRMAN: There are some amendments: government amendments plus 55 others. Perhaps, hon. members, before we proceed, there seems to be a fair number of people visiting the Legislative Assembly gallery.

It may be appropriate to share with them what this is all about, if members would agree. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Legislature. We're dealing, as some of you obviously know but perhaps others don't, with a new piece of legislation: Bill 22, Labour Relations Code. As you also probably know, there are three stages plus committee stage in making new laws in this province. We've been through first and second readings of this Bill.

We're now in the committee study where all hon. mem­ bers of the Assembly have an equal opportunity to ask ques­ tions, put questions, and make amendments. We're about to enter that period of debate now where hon. members may speak as often as they wish, as long as the Chair allows it, and talk about various things as long as they're in accordance with the matter before us. We're about to start that now. The relaxed dress, as you see, is allowed when we're in Committee of the Whole, and members are allowed to remove their jackets.

The one final comment is that, historically, under our British parliamentary system 500 years ago, the King would appoint the Speaker. The Speaker was known then and was suspected to be a spy for the King. So hon. members within the Commons in England felt that was inappropriate and appointed one of their own in dealing with matters of raising money and passing laws. That's why the Speaker is not allowed in the Chamber when we deal with this stage of a Bill. Interesting piece of history, maybe even pertinent. Hon. Minister of Labour, do you have any opening com­ ments to committee study of the Bill? DR.

REID: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce debate on committee stage of the Bill. In doing so, I would like to address, first of all, Bill 22 as it was tabled now some two months ago and then get on to the fair-sized govern­ ment amendment that I filed with the Legislative Assembly ear­ lier on today, which succeeds a proposed amendment that was made public about two weeks ago. First of all, Mr.

Chairman, without reiterating my remarks at second reading, I would like to indicate that Bill 22 is what might be called a landmark piece of legislation in that it is aimed at significantly changing the relationship in the unionized part of the work force between employees and employers. We have in Alberta and indeed in the rest of Canada inherited from Great Britain and from the United States of America a system for unionized employment which is really based upon the results of the industrial revolution, an event that didn't happen in this province because the province didn't exist at that time.

Indeed, there were very few people living here at the time of the indus­ trial revolution. As a result of that and looking at the history of Alberta, it may be that since the first Labour Act in the province in 1947, we have indeed had legislation that was not suited to the Alberta economy or society or work force, but was more based on the confrontations that developed in the 18th and 19th centuries rather than the concepts that should have been developed in the 20th century. As a result, we have had the traditional -- and I will use the word advisedly -- confrontatory approach to labour relations.

It is unfortunate, because Alberta prior to 1947 didn't have a Labour Act, although there were unions and there were collective agreements achieved. But the situation is of course that Alberta has taken the quantum leap from a largely agrarian society to what might be called a postindustrial, high-technology society in a very brief period of time, indeed in some 40 years since the first development of major oil discoveries in the province. Mr. Chairman, in Bill 22 there is a

preamble, as there is in Bill 21, and that

preamble sets out the basic philosophy of the whole statute.

The philosophy can be put briefly in the terms that there should be between employees and employers in the unionized sector as in the non-union sector a relationship which is to the benefit of both parties, that it does not need to be con­ frontatory, and that indeed, with recognition of the economics of a given entity, realizing Alberta's place in the competitive world that we export to -- and one has to remember that Alberta ex­ ports the highest percentage of its gross provincial product of any province in Canada and that Canada has got a dispropor­ tionate trade for its size compared to other countries in that we export and import large percentages of our domestic product In that context Albertans have to realize that our economy and our economic success as individuals as well as a society are based upon our relationship with the rest of the world.

It also lays out quite clearly that the basis of the relationship between employee and employer should be based on open and honest communica­ tion. Now, in the traditional, confrontatory concept that com­ munication has frequently not been open, and some would in­ deed on occasion doubt its honesty. In case members are inclined to think that this Bill is based on a pipe dream, I would emphasize to members that there is a large number of successful relationships in this province which are based on open and honest communication.

One can mention in the private sector Suncor and Cardinal River Coals, but in both cases it followed a six-month strike. In both cases manage­ ment union, owners, and employees are now wondering why they had to go through the pain in order to learn the wisdom. The purpose of Bill 22 is to encourage in all unionized relation­ ships in the province the kind of relationship that has developed in those two entities subsequent to the strike, without having to go through that pain. Throughout Bill 22 there is an attempt to strike the fair bal­ ance between the interests and the economic powers of the em­

1914 ALBERTA HANSARD June 21, 1988 ployee and the employer, recognizing of course that there is a basic difference between the parties. Having recognized the difference, it is then the aim of the legislation to give the parties a system that they can use to their mutual advantage by dealing with each other as much as possible, given the economic realities, as equals.

Indeed, throughout the Bill there exist the concepts of trying to balance one party against the other throughout, so that rather than having to disagree in order to develop fairness, they start off with a concept of fairness and then can get on with communicating to the mutual advantage of both parties. There is a significant change, for example, in the initial proc­ ess of unionization in the proposals that are in Bill 22 for cer­ tification. Those proposals emphasize that the decision to have a union and to have a union certified is purely one for the employees.

It is not something to do with the union that they may choose. It is not something to do with the employer, nor with the government. It is a decision of those employees, and in order to minimize any external influences upon that decision, from the time of proclamation of Bill 22 onwards there will in all cases of certification be a secret ballot for the employees to make their decision independent of external influences.

Subsequent to that certification and in the initial negotiations between the parties and in subsequent negotiations, there is a new collective bargaining structure which is aimed not at giving a good set of rules to fight by, as they have been described in the past, but rather to give the parties the maximum chance of reaching a collective agreement without a dispute characterized by a strike or a lockout. The end result should be, if the parties work at it -- as indeed they should and as has been proven by Cardinal River, Suncor, and many others.

If they put their effort into it, they can achieve settlements and agreements without the necessity of throwing weapons and threats at each other via strike votes, lockout votes, or indeed strikes and lockouts. Mr. Chairman, if the parties put the same effort into it as has been done in other jurisdictions, the number of strikes or lockouts in this province would be less than one per year, and that would certainly be to the advantage of all Albertans, including the spe­ cific parties who may be negotiating. In addition, Mr.

Chairman, the provisions for strikes and lockouts have been changed so that there will be conditions at­ tached to reaching that part of the dispute, if indeed the parties are determined to reach it, that will necessitate the use of an out­ side mediator before the cooling-off period preceding a strike or lockout vote. I would emphasize that the strike or lockout vote cannot be taken until the process aimed at successful bargaining has been completed.

In other words, neither party will be able to approach the table with a predetermined ability to lock out or strike, but they will rather have to go through the negotiating process before they can reach that end point. Mr. Chairman, the function of the Labour Relations Board, an integral part of labour relations in this province for many years, has been delineated. The functions of the board have been clarified and its abilities strengthened in those aspects where it is necessary.

In addition to that the Labour Relations Board will now be able to have a relatively informal process for dealing with minor differences of opinion without the necessity for the highly legalistic, structured environment that exists with the more formal hearings by the board.

I would emphasize, however, that the decisions that are rulings of the board can only be reached by a balanced board with a small number of excep­ tions and that where those exceptions apply, the single-man board will be only the chairman or the vice-chairman; in other words, the full-time, neutral members of the board rather than the members who come either from the management side or from the organized labour side. It is the board, Mr. Chairman, that will be responsible for the taking of all votes, either by su­ pervision or by conducting such secret ballots itself.

This is to make sure that indeed these votes are held fairly and without external influences as much as possible. Mr. Chairman, there are in Bill 22 some new provisions for the regulation of strikes, lockouts, and picketing, and I would draw those to the attention of members. I will get back to pick­ eting when I deal with the government amendment introduced today. Essentially, in all three circumstances -- the strike, the lockout, and the picketing -- again, the legislation is aimed at as much as possible achieving fairness and avoiding undue pres­ sures on other parties. The arbitration process has also . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order in the committee please, hon. members. Hon. minister. DR. REID: The arbitration process has also been clarified with some changes from that which existed before. Mr. Chairman, included in Bill 22 are provisions for emer­ gencies as existed under the Labour Relations Act, and there are also provisions for the sectors of the Alberta economy where it is considered by Albertans that there should be limits or prohibi­ tions put upon strike and lockout activity by employees and employers.

Those provisions are applicable to three sectors: policemen, for obvious reason; firemen, for obvious reason; and the hospital service, again for obvious reason. The provisions in those circumstances have been changed somewhat, and what was regarded by the nurses in the province and by some others as perhaps an excessive degree of government involvement in the process of arbitration for those three sectors -- that govern­ ment policy statement has been deleted in the new legislation.

Rather, the arbitration panel will consider only the broad eco­ nomic circumstances in the province, which they probably would do anyway, rather than a specific document prepared by the government indicating the government's policies. That will remove from the arbitration process what was regarded by some people as a sore point and should, therefore, encourage the use of the other mechanisms that are available for those three sectors of the economy. The arbitration process is set out once more and is not changed very much other than by deleting the specific document that. I just mentioned. Mr.

Chairman, we have retained in Bill 22 the concept of the disputes inquiry board and have indeed expanded it somewhat so that there may be a disputes inquiry board used prior to a strike or lockout, in which case there is a temporary hoist of such activity. But in the case that such a board might be used prior to a strike or lockout because of the usefulness of the dis­ putes inquiry board mechanism, once a strike or lockout has started, the minister will in future have the ability to use a dis­ putes inquiry board after the strike or lockout has occurred as well.

There will, however, be a limit of one DIB before and one DIB after a strike or lockout. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to mention the provisions that have been made in division 19 in the event of an illegal strike, where strikes are prohibited, or an illegal lockout in those sectors, and also the measures that are available in the event that an emergency is declared and essential services and the employ­ ees in them are ordered to return to work. In the event that they do not do so, there are provisions in Bill 22 to address those

June 21, 1988 ALBERTA HANSARD 1915 matters by the suspension of dues check-off or, in the event of persistent problems, the revocation of the certification of the union. Mr. Chairman, the rest of the Bill is essentially similar to what existed in the Labour Relations Act that is currently the law of the province, to do with arbitrations and the prohibited practices. I would now like to turn my attention to the government amendment introduced today, and in particular draw members' attention to amendment N, which is that applicable to the situ­ ation of picketing.

The intention of the government in Bills 60 and 22 was to continue the traditional restrictions on picketing and the prohibition on secondary picketing, but in no way was there any intention of affecting the ability of noninvolved parties to boycott, whether or not there might be an industrial difference or dispute occurring. The traditional, well-recognized freedoms and rights of assembly, boycott, et cetera, are ones that we have inherited from England, and I think that few Canadians would wish to take those away from anyone. In view of that and in view of concerns about the function of

section 81 of Bill 22, we have had further consultations with constitutional lawyers, and I would draw the attention of mem­ bers of the committee to amendment N and the new

section 81 with its provisions. The ability to picket is laid out, as are the functions of the Labour Relations Board in delineating picketing and, if necessary, applying suitable restrictions upon picketing. The provision has been checked with a number of advisers, and it is felt that it now recognizes the realities of the situation, maintains those traditional freedoms and rights, and is also responsive to the requirements of the Charter as well as the tra­ ditional freedoms and rights that we have enjoyed.

Starting on page 7 of the amendment introduced today is a large section, numbering some 30 pages, which applies to the construction industry. As I indicated on introduction of Bill 22 on April 15, it did not include the provisions for the construction industry because indeed there was still some hope at that time that the system introduced in Bill 53 on June 5, 1987, could be made to work to the benefit of the industry, including the unionized employees and the contractors. Unfortunately, as we all know, that did not occur, and the provisions in

part 2.1 of the amendment are essentially those permanent provisions for the construction industry. In the amendment will be found provisions for a system of trade-by-trade bargaining between the appropriate union for that trade, or in some cases unions, and the employers' organization for that trade. One has to realize, Mr. Chairman, that in the con­ struction industry many employees do not have a single, ongo­ ing employer and, rather, work for a whole group of employers, and that group of employers will be represented by the employers' organization.

As a result, the trade-by-trade bar­ gaining should accommodate collective agreements on a trade- by-trade basis, since the union for that trade will be dealing di­ rectly with the employers' organization of the employers in that trade. There are provisions in the amendment to deal with the situ­ ation for the settlements across a sector of the construction in­ dustry, and such sectors will require a double-60 majority for a strike to occur or a double-60 majority for a lockout to occur. The concept, Mr.

Chairman, is that for a strike or lockout to oc­ cur, there should be a majority of the unions, in the case of a strike, in favour of the strike by a 50 percent majority within in each union, but that also overall there should be a 60 percent majority of all the employees who vote in favour of the strike. On the employers' side the same thing applies. There must be a 60 percent majority of all the employers' organizations, and there must be a 60 percent majority of the total employers.

The result of this concept should be the stability that is required by the investors before they invest, certainly in large projects in the province, especially in the industrial part, and we are looking at very large projects. There are provisions for carve-outs, not limited as in the past to the tar sands and heavy oils but also to large power-producing entities, perhaps pulp mills and other significant entities.

There is provision for a jurisdiction disputes board to deal with jurisdictional disputes, and in the transitional provisions we have covered the difficulties that might exist with certifications that might otherwise lapse and with registered employers' or­ ganizations that might otherwise lapse. Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks I would like to address the subject of spin-offs. In Bill 22 in

section 44 with the amendments that are introduced, we have dealt with the concept of spin-offs in the nonconstruction sector. As I've already noted and as most members of the committee are well aware, the con­ struction industry is what has been described as a different breed of cat. The spin-off provisions incorporated in the amendment for the construction industry will to some extent mirror those for the nonconstruction part of the economy, but there is an addi­ tional provision . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, hon. members. Hon. minister. DR.

REID: There is an additional provision for the construction industry, related to a peculiarity of that industry called project management These provisions have been discussed with repre­ sentatives of both the unions and of the employers. I think it can fairly be said that the employers are not happy with the provisions, nor are the unions.

But the provision that is included will in actual fact enable the Labour Relations Board on an indi­ vidual basis to pick its way through the situation and decide whether a construction management or project management company is a bona fide, straight-out management firm or whether it has been used to try and avoid a contractual obliga­ tion. As I said, the provision has not been greeted with univer­ sal acclaim in discussions, but on the other hand it has not be rejected out of hand by either side also. With those remarks, Mr.

Chairman, I would recommend Bill 22 to the committee with the amendment that I introduced ear­ lier on today. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. minister. Before we proceed, would the committee consent to revert­ ing to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Redwater-Andrew. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. ZARUSKY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to the rest of the As­ sembly, two special guests to our province. They are Mr. and Mrs. Jan Horacek. Mr.

Horacek is the president of Motokov Canada Inc., an agriculture and oil equipment company out of Czechoslovakia. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Horacek on

1916 ALBERTA HANSARD June 21, 1988 our recent trade mission with AOSTRA to eastern Europe, and we discussed some possibilities of trade with Alberta. Mr. Horacek and his wife are passing through Alberta today on their way to the Regina agricultural show and looking at some pos­ sibilities of trade with our province. They're seated in the mem­ bers' gallery, and I ask that they rise and receive the welcome of this Assembly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any comments, questions, or further amendments to the amendment to Bill 22 and to Bill 22? Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Chairman, just to revert, may I also introduce some people here in the gallery? MR. CHAIRMAN: By all means, hon. leader. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, seated in the public gallery are members from the Alberta Federation of Labour school with staff member Jim Selby. They're seeing labour laws in action: Bill 22. I'm sure they'll have their own opinion about it after, but I would wish the Assembly would welcome them here. If they could stand and be welcomed by the people here. head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) Bill 22 Labour Relations Code (continued) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for St. Albert.

MR. STRONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure for me to get up and respond to some of the comments that were made by the Minister of Labour in recommending to the com­ mittee that we accept the amendments to the legislation that he's put before us. Mr. Chairman, I would think that the Minister of Labour would be ashamed of himself for recommending what he's put in front of this Assembly, in front of this committee.

But I'd like to respond to a few of the comments that he made in his opening statements, and I think I'll start with commenting on his comment that, indeed, this was a landmark piece of legislation. I couldn't agree with the minister more; it is indeed a landmark piece of legislation. It takes labour legislation back in the prov­ ince of Alberta probably 100 years.

The very underpinning of labour legislation promised by this minister and this government to Albertans was labour legislation that was going to be based on some fairness, some equity, create a level playing field, and bring Alberta's labour legislation into the 21st century. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the minister has failed on all counts. Totally failed. If we look back again -- and I've said this before, and I'll refer to it again, only different sections of it.

If we look at this minister's final report of the Labour Legislation Review Committee that was offered up back in February 1987 to Albertans after all those public hearings, after this minister went on a free trip around the world at a great deal of expense to us as taxpayers, what did we get? AN HON. MEMBER: I'm not sure. MR. STRONG: No, I'm not sure either, hon. member.

If we look at the general policies that were supported by participants that the minister even put in his own final report, what we see in front of us immediately goes wrong: Albertans support the principle that ongoing or direct govern­ ment involvement in the employee-employer relationship . . . be minimized. Yet what do we see in the labour legislation we have before this committee? We see government interference in one form or another, one after the other, continuous through the legislation that the minister has filed in front of this Assembly. Mr. Chairman, I'd point out one section, only one

section for now, of where this government has interfered, totally interfered in that employer/employee relationship, where they've stuck their noses in where their noses don't belong other than to tilt the balance of fairness on the employer's behalf or what this government views as being fair and equitable for working Al­ bertans. The

section I'll point out is

section 113, where this government, the cabinet, can "revoke the certification of a trade union that causes or participates in" an illegal strike. I'd point out for all members of this honourable Assembly that the defini­ tion of an illegal strike is two or more employees walking off in concert. It's fine for the minister to state in his opening remarks, "Oh, no, this will only be used in emergency situations where those bad unions don't listen to us." Absolute nonsense. Absolute nonsense, Mr. Chairman.

We know in the Official Opposition just exactly what this government is trying to do to organized labour in the province of Alberta, and I'm sure that the trade union movement in the province of Alberta fully understands what this government and this minister intend to do to them. This is just an example of what this government intends.

This section, division 19, is totally aimed at the United Nurses of Alberta, number 1, because that determined little band of nurses had the audacity to tell this government that they were wrong in the labour legislation that they passed and had the courage to go out on a picket line. AN HON. MEMBER: Anarchy. MR. STRONG: Anarchy? AN HON. MEMBER: Anarchy. MR. STRONG: Anarchy. We've got, you know, the gum flap­ per over here from Vermilion, with his usual nonsense. You'd think he'd get up and start talking about right to work. But, Mr. Chairman, what do we have?

We saw labour legis­ lation that was brought in in the province of Alberta, Bill 44. Neither the Alberta Hospital Association nor the United Nurses asked for this dismal piece of legislation. They never asked for it. They got it given to them by this government. Now, instead of this government sitting down with those two parties and es­ tablishing some rules, some format to take care of emergencies, what this government's done is bring in division 19, specifically

section 113, to totally do away with anybody that doesn't bow down before this government, doesn't beg, doesn't get on their knees, doesn't comply with what this government philosophi­ cally thinks about anything. Now is that the fairness and equity that this government promised Albertans? I surely think not Mr. Chairman, and there are many Albertans that agree with me. Many of them. What have we got? We've got this government using a sledgehammer, a 30-pound sledgehammer, to kill an ant. To

June 21, 1988 ALBERTA HANSARD 1917 totally trample on anybody's rights. And, Mr. Chairman, I'd also ask you: under this particular

section where the govern­ ment has interfered, what rights are there for any poor union, such as the United Nurses of Alberta, if this government decer­ tifies, deregisters their union? What right, what recourse, what appeal process is there for them? Is there an appeal process to the courts? Certainly not. Because cabinet information is con­ fidential, private. What rights do they have under the legisla­ tion? Absolutely none: the same as any union in the province of Alberta that has had or could have their rights trampled on under this particular odious piece of legislation.

Certainly not legislation that will bring Albertans into the 21st century. We can go on. Again, this government promised labour leg­ islation responsive to the needs of Albertans. Certainly, as part of the recommendations contained in the final report, standards are expected to be contemporary, easily understood, in black and white, simple English. But yet what do we have? What do we have, Mr. Chairman? In some sections of the labour legisla­ tion, Bill 22, this new and improved Labour Relations Code, we have some sections where, unfortunately, labour legislation isn't put in black and white.

It's dealt with in regulations, regulations that this government can change at any time they so choose. Is that the fairness and equity that was promised Albertans by this government in throne speeches, in statements, in public hear­ ings, in press conferences by this Minister of Labour, by this government? Certainly not. Certainly not, Mr. Chairman. We can go on.

There was a number of specific major con­ cerns that were addressed at the public hearings by Albertans, not all of whom were organized: many submissions put in by labour unions, by union members, by individuals pleading with this government for some fairness, citing the areas of abuse that some employers had heaped upon them for years. Did this gov­ ernment listen? I'd like to point out some of the specific major concerns that are addressed and that were addressed by this Minister of Labour and his traveling road show, those people that were on his committee. Now, Mr.

Chairman, we look at the whole question of re­ placement workers, and certainly replacement workers were brought up on numerous occasions before this minister. The

part in the final report that dealt with it as a specific major con­ cern stated this: The use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout was consistently identified as major concern, though views differed widely on choices available to employers. Employers gener­ ally held that no restrictions should apply, while employees and trade unions felt prohibition or restrictions of various kinds should apply. Well, Mr. Chairman, when we examine fairness and equity, fair­ ness and equity that was promised by this government and this minister, what do we have?

Whose side did this government take when it came to a question of replacement workers? An employer utilizing replacement workers certainly is a major cause of violence on a picket line, as evidenced on 66th Street, where Edmontonians as part of their property taxes were forced to fork over over a million dollars to protect an employer that certainly, certainly was a little less than even what you can consider disgraceful. Disgraceful, Mr. Chairman. And we paid for that? That's not what I intend my tax dollars for, and it's certainly not what union members expect their taxes to go for.

So certainly in our view as the Official Opposition and certainly in mine, this minister didn't listen to the hundreds of Albertans that addressed this question or the thousands and tens of thou­ sands of union members in this province represented by unions, who put submissions in with respect to this particular disgrace. We can go on, Mr. Chairman. We can go on to the 25-hour lockout in the construction industry that was addressed at those public hearings. Hundreds of people addressed it. Hundreds of submissions addressed it. What happened? Do we see any cure?

Do we see any leveling of the playing field in Alberta for employees and employers when this government continues to allow 25-hour lockouts in their new and improved labour code? Is that fairness and equity? Is that the 21st century for Al­ bertans? Again, this government should be ashamed of them­ selves for having what we view and the what majority of work­ ing Albertans view as dismal, sad labour legislation, certainly not designed to protect working Albertans. That's very evident as we go through the legislation that we have before us. Mr.

Chairman, another major concern that was addressed at those public hearings was the certification process. The cer­ tification process was addressed as a significant, major concern by numerous Albertans. Submissions were put in by many labour organizations that dealt with streamlining the certifica­ tion process, making the certification process much more simplified than what it was. What do we find in the legislation?

We find the Americanization of the certification process in Al­ berta, where even if 100 employees out of 100 employees sign cards, support cards, indicating they want a bargaining agent, a bargaining unit to represent them, they still have to go through a vote, a secret ballot vote in every case. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour just exactly how long this process before the Labour Re­ lations Board is going to take before the Labour Relations Board determines that there is going to be a vote. Is this process going to be delayed two weeks, three weeks, four weeks?

Is it going to be delayed six months before this board makes a decision? In the meantime, will that employer be committing unfair labour practices, while this organizing drive is going on, to persuade, coerce, intimidate, and threaten their employees who had enough courage to sign a union card, to say enough's enough? Where they are going to be fired, and nothing's going to be done? Well, obviously, in reading this minister's and this govern­ ment's legislation, that's exactly what's going to happen, Mr.

Chairman, because what this government did was remove from the existing labour Act the automatic certification process where an employer committed unfair labour practices during an or­ ganizational drive. Now there is no penalty. It's what you call an open door for those employers out there who do not want to allow their employees to exercise those rights that are guaran­ teed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country. And, Mr. Chairman, those rights are guaranteed.

The funda­ mental freedoms: freedom of expression, freedom of media communications, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of as­ sociation. That's recognized in our Charter of Rights. But what this government wants to do is take that right away, not only in the

section that they amended,

section 81 concerning picketing, but there are other areas of the legislation where they take rights away. Now, is that fair? I certainly think not. We can go on and on and on. This minister knows full well the unfair labour practices that were committed by Mariposa during that certification drive. That is why the Labour Relations Board in the province of Alberta finally outdid themselves and gave that union automatic certification. But where did it get them?

It got them absolutely no place because the employer, after they'd accommodated the first hurdle, that first 100-foot brick wall set up before them, the employer wouldn't bargain with them. Eventually, through the process of terminations,

1918 ALBERTA HANSARD June 21, 1988 quits, layoffs, firings, they just replaced all those employees with a brand new group. And now that one's gone by the wayside. What this labour legislation should have had in it is a process for immediate first agreements if an employer is found guilty of committing unfair labour practices by not bargaining in good faith with the union who gains certification through the process as outlined in the labour legislation. But, Mr. Chairman, I'll go back to the certification process, a process that was supposed to be simplified.

Well, if it's simplified, we're certainly going backwards, certainly going backwards here. Because it hasn't been simplified. What's go­ ing to happen is it's going to be delayed. All these unfair labour practices are going to be committed. The employer who com­ mits those unfair labour practices: no penalty. So what we will see is more friction, more labour relations unrest in the province of Alberta, and more unfair labour practices committed by em­ ployers during organizational drives.

I find it absolutely bizarre that this minister would push back to Albertans the cost of holding votes in every certification ap­ plication that is put before the Labour Relations Board in the province of Alberta, because that is absolutely absurd.

The point that I had made was saying that if 100 out of 100 employ­ ees in a bargaining unit signed support cards, why should a vote be demanded where a clear majority of those employees have voted by signing those support cards to accept that union as their choice, their right to representation, to represent them in any and all matters concerning labour relations, collective agreements, and any of those other things that they have a right to as Canadians and Albertans?

What this government is doing and what this minister does in proposing Bill 22, his new Labour Relations Code, is take some of those rights away or limit those rights. Mr. Chairman, that certainly isn't fairness and equity that Albertans not only demanded at those public hearings but were promised by this minister and this government. Because it just didn't happen. We go on to spin-offs being addressed as a major concern. Certainly in his amendments the Minister of Labour has at­ tempted to deal with this. Unfortunately, the minister just didn't go far enough.

He didn't go far enough in protecting working Albertans' rights. Mr. Chairman, I can go to letters that I've received from some of those employers -- they must be stupid for sending them to me, because I certainly don't sympathize with many of their views -- in regards to what they view as being fair and equitable for working Albertans, particularly working Albertans in the construction industry. Here we have the Calgary Con­ struction Association supporting the philosophy of free enterprise, supporting the philosophy of free trade, and support­ ing the philosophy of right to work.

Now, is that fairness and equity? And complaining about the very little that this minister and this government did for working Albertans in their labour legislation. It's abysmal. Because we all know -- we didn't just fall off a turnip boat -- that there are no free lunches. Certainly free enterprise is somewhat restricted, and certainly somebody's got to pay. Normally, that's working Albertans. Isn't it about time they were treated with some fairness and equity? Certainly I believe so. Mr. Chairman, we can look at the

preamble in the minister's shabby attempt at labour relations in the province of Alberta that totally failed, came up short, totally fails to measure up. To­ tally. Let's examine what the minister says in his first

whereas: "competitive world-wide market economy." I've asked this before, Mr. Chairman. What has that got to do with labour rela­ tions? What has that got to do with labour legislation, a new Labour Relations Code? This minister commented on the phi­ losophy when he made his opening remarks to the principle of the Bill, the philosophy that normally there is not a

preamble to Bills, but there is a

preamble to Bill 22 setting out the philoso­ phy that must be kept in mind when reading every

section of the statute, a philosophical statement of the government in relation to the Labour Relations Code. The first one that he jumps into is competitive worldwide economy. AN HON. MEMBER: Shame. MR. STRONG: It is shameful, isn't it? Where are we going? It was always my understanding -- and I think any commonsense individual would know -- that this new Labour Relations Code should set out the rules in which unions, employees, employers, and employer associations should operate, and they should set them out in a very, very clear manner, in simple English that individuals, all individuals, can understand. Mr.

Chairman, I put it to you and put it to every member of this Assembly, that competitive worldwide market economies have absolutely nothing to do with labour legislation and everything to do with economics. Normally, economics are dealt with at the bargaining table between a union and an employer, a union representing employees who voted, who chose, who had the right to have a union of their choice represent them. Now, that's what labour legislation is all about, and this minister inflicting this Conservative Party's philosophi­ cal statements when it comes to economics -- well, those are sort of convoluted too.

I've listened to a lot of that, where they really don't address the point. We can go on. Here in the third

whereas:

WHEREAS the employee-employer relationship is based on a common interest in the success of the employing organization . . . How far-reaching, how nonsensical, can this minister get? This isn't the Fantasyland Hotel. This is labour relations. Certainly we know that that employee does not have access, because the employee in many cases doesn't have access to the money -- the employer does -- to get all that expensive legal advice when it comes to the intent and how this labour legislation impacts on those working Albertans who made the right choice and had a union represent them.

So what the minister is talking about again, is nonsense. I'm not saying that there isn't some com­ mon interest there, but that again has taken place, and it's taken care of at a bargaining table between a union and an employer. That's where it's taken care of, not in labour legislation that should set rules, fair and equitable rules, not legislated ine­ quality as we have here in Bill 22. AN HON. MEMBER: For unions? MR. STRONG: Because it just doesn't cut it. It just doesn't cut it. And I wish, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member making com­ ments behind me would get up and make a few statements.

I'd love to write them down. We can go into the third

preamble:

WHEREAS employees and employers are best able to manage their affairs where statutory rights and responsibilities are clearly established and understood. Does this legislation do that? We've got the

preamble here. Does it do it? No. It doesn't clearly lay them out because many of the things that it does lay out are going to be dealt with by regulation, Mr. Chairman. And we in this Assembly who

June 21, 1988 ALBERTA HANSARD 1919 will be voting on all parts of the legislation that we have before us are going to be asked to vote on this shabby piece, this ill- considered piece, of legislation without even having access to the regulations that will apply to this Labour Relations Code, the new and improved version, supposedly. [Mr. Musgreave in the Chair] AN HON. MEMBER: Well, give us constructive changes then. MS BARRETT: You can get 55 of them. MR. STRONG: You're gonna get em. MRS. MIROSH: Oh, sure. Fifty-five constructive . . . MS BARRETT: They have already been tabled, Dianne. Did­ n't you see them? MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. MR. STRONG: Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. MS BARRETT: He's the one that was shouting at me. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. MR. STRONG: Mr. Chairman, we also had this Minister of Labour attempt to convince Albertans that it only costs them a quarter apiece, 25 cents to travel the world to bring us back all this expertise in labour relations from these far-off foreign countries. It's been suggested by quite a number of members in the opposition that perhaps we certainly would like our quarter back and that thousands of Albertans would line up to get their quarters back because, Mr.

Chairman, we certainly didn't get full value for the money that was spent by the taxpayer in allow­ ing this minister to travel the world, supposedly to bring back some expertise in labour relations to make Alberta's labour leg­ islation fairer. What did we get? Mr.

Chairman, I've read this legislation from the front end to the back end, studied it for hours and hours and hours, looked at amendments, numerous amendments, to try and make this disaster a little bit better for working Albertans, but certainly cannot find -- cannot find -- anything that this min­ ister brought back from all those wonderful places he visited on his free taxpayer holiday that we paid for that made any input, any major change, to the legislation that we see before us other than that it going backwards. Totally backwards. So where and what did we get? What did we get? AN HON.

MEMBER: Americanization. MR. STRONG: Well, yeah. We got the Americanization of our certification procedures in the province of Alberta. I mean, we got that. I guess I shouldn't complain. The minister spoke at great length about how he wanted to encourage a positive relationship with his new and improved version of his thoughts on a communication process in his legis­ lation covered in

part 1. Again, Mr. Chairman, I've read this legislation through. I see no place, absolutely no place, where there's any input for employees. The whole communication process -- employees. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've waited. We waited and we waited since the labour disputes in Alberta, start­ ing with Gainers, and we were told that we would look into it; there may be a problem. We waited while he went on the world tour. Then we waited through another labour Bill that sat on the Order Paper.

Finally, we had this particular Bill, and then when we raised questions in question period we were told many times by the Premier and the minister: "Well, just wait. Just wait. We'll get a chance to debate it when it finally comes back." Then we're told: "Wait for the amendments. You know, you're getting exercised and carried away. There'll be amendments and all will be wonderful. We'll all be happy." Well, we've now had a chance to look at Bill 22, we've now had a chance to look at the amendments to Bill 22, and I think this minister knows precisely what he's doing. I have a feeling, Mr.

Chairman, that this minister doesn't even believe in half the things that are in these amendments and Bill 22. I believe the right wing in the Conservative Party has taken over totally. You listen to some of the backbenchers; you understand. See, they're thumping. That's what we want to hear. That's what working people want to hear. We'll get them on record. But the point of the matter is that these amendments and these Bills have made things worse. Now, I'm not going to go into all the details of it, Mr. Chairman, all the things I raised in second reading.

I may say that these amendments do nothing, absolutely nothing, to change the focus of Bill 22. Most of them are, as I say, housekeeping resolutions and do nothing about the Americanization of certification, replacement workers, 25-hour lockouts. My colleagues already talked about that. You know, I am amazed, though, by the gall of the minister, because he actu­ ally stands up and says without even smiling how he's going to bring fairness and stability into the market He must go behind in the back there and have a good chuckle after he makes those statements.

But I know that he has to try to make the case, an indefensible case, here about it. Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that there's no doubt that the Peter Pocklingtons of the Conservative Party have won this round with this government I believe there are some moderate people out there, even in these back benches, that must understand what this government is doing. And make no mistake about it. They may want to put the best light on it say we're doing it for stability and all the rest of it.

Their idea of stability is to get us into a situation where there is no trade union movement, where we have right-to-work states with the wages very low. That's how we're going to compete in the free trade market. Because there's absolutely no doubt that this Bill is an attempt to severely limit and, I believe, break the trade union movement in this province. Now, if we're going to bring in the amendments, the govern­ ment says -- I'm sure the minister would deny this. But we're going to bring in the amendments, some 55 of them, and we'll see how the government members vote on it.

If they're un­ prepared to accept our amendments, then we know precisely what the agenda is. It's a right-wing agenda then, this Bill. But you know, I was looking forward to certain things we were told the other day. "Well, don't worry about

section 81." Remem­ ber, we raised that in question period, and at the time he said, "Oh, that's nonsense. That's nonsense. It's not against the

1920 ALBERTA HANSARD June 21, 1988 Charter. It's a good Bill. This is not what we mean." Well, it's interesting that even this government finally had to recognize in some degree that they had gone too far, that they probably were, you know, violating the Charter of Rights, and the Charter of Rights means specifically the freedom of expression and the freedom of association. But you know, Mr. Chairman, they knew what they were doing. It's just that they were so clumsy. They had to amend that particular

section at the time that was going to defeat the Charter because they knew they would have lost that in a court case. So yes, they have amended

section 81. It's "struck out and the following is substituted." Now, I looked at this with bated breath, just this one little section, to see what they would do, to see if they would be a little fair and even deal with the civil liberties aspect. And 81(1) looks good. If they'd stopped there, we might have been okay, Mr. Chairman: 81(1) now rec­ ognizes that in a free society people do have the right to go out and show support on a picket line and show support by boycotts, if they like, under (b), "deal in or handle the products of the employer." But then, Mr. Chairman, their true colours come out.

They couldn't leave it like that. We have to have subsection (2), and there's the kicker. What they couldn't do in a legal sense -- and they still may be against the Charter of Rights with section (2) here; it will be interesting to see -- they've tried to do in a back­ door way. They're trying to do precisely the same thing, be­ cause it says: "On the application of any person affected by the strike." Well, my God, is there ever a strike that somebody isn't affected by? The public can say they're affected; a neighbour can say they're affected if a strike goes by. I can't imagine that in any strike.

So it's: On the application of any person affected by the strike or lock­ out the Board may, in addition to and without restricting any other powers under this Act including the powers of the Board . . . (

a) determine whether any premises are the place of employment for the purposes of subsection (1) . . . That'll be interesting. Then, secondly -- here's the real kicker, Mr. Chairman -- they can (

b) regulate persons and trade unions who act in respect of activities under subsection (1) and by order declare what number of persons may act under that subsection, determine the location and time of that action and make such other declarations as the Board considers advisable. Well, Mr. Chairman, who are they kidding? Do they think the courts are that stupid that they can come at this in the same way?

So you get the board set up there by the government to say, "Oh, well, only that person who's a member of the trade union may picket." And they may say that they can't even or­ ganize a boycott, and they can only be on the picket line from 12:32 a.m. to 12:34 a.m. or 4 a.m. to 5 a.m. So who are they kidding? Do they think they're going to camouflage the reality of

section 81 by doing it this backdoor way? People are not stupid, Mr. Chairman. They can read this the same as I can. Then they go on to:

(3) When the Board makes a determination or order under sub­ section (2) it shall consider the following: (

a) the directness of the interest of persons and trade unions acting . . . (

b) violence . . . Well, you already could deal with violence under the court. . . . or the likelihood of violence . . . Well, does that mean that if more than 10 people happen to go on a picket line, they'll say, you know, knowing the way this province thinks: "Ah, there's danger of violence out there; there are 10 people out on the picket line. Now we'll have to limit it to four people." Or: (

c) the desirability of restraining actions under subsec­ tion (1) . . . You know, Mr. Chairman, I suppose if we're looking at nuances, this might be slightly better than

section 81 before -- slightly better, because it does say they can do it again. But we know in this province that under

section 81(2) precisely the same things will happen as was their intent under the first sec­ tion 81 they had in. All they're trying to do is get around the Charter of Rights and accomplish the same thing. I'm saying I doubt that this even gets around the Charter of Rights, but even at that it's wrong. If it was wrong before in terms of dealing with freedom of association, if it was wrong in terms of dealing with freedom of expression, it's still wrong. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would have thought that this govern­ ment after this

section and recognizing there were a lot people concerned, would have at least said to

section 81, "We are going to be fair." No, Mr. Chairman; can't even do that Can't even do that. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what to say. We can go through the whole Act and talk about all the things, as I did in second reading, that are wrong with this Bill. These amend­ ments, as I say, actually do nothing. I have to say to this minis­ ter that when he said the other day when I was debating

section 81: "Just wait We'll bring amendments in"; that we should wait for it -- well, we waited. I say to you that I'm very, very disappointed that not even this

section is cleared up to my satis­ faction and, I think, to any working people, any fair-minded Al­ bertans. If they think they're going to camouflage with that, forget it, Mr. Chairman. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to this government that I think they believe -- and I suppose this happens with absolute power for too long -- they can do whatever they want we've got the majority over here, the tyranny of majority, and if we don't want the trade union movement because we don't like what they're doing and our friends in business get upset with them, well, we'll just bring in a Bill that takes away their rights.

They can do this, and they can sit here with 61 votes and win that particular battle. But if they were sincerely . . . We hear all sorts of things from this government about stability and wanting good labour relations. Good labour relations does not come from taking people's rights away. I thought it would have crossed some of the thick skulls in this government that the nurses' strike -- after they took their rights away in Bill 44, they should have learned that where you have good labour relations . . .

I don't know which countries they were looking at in their travels, but anybody knows where you have good work­ ing relations and where you have strong trade unions working together with government and business, that's the countries that are doing well with their economies also. That's the reality of it I've talked to businesspeople that are worried about this par­ ticular Bill, because they know that if you deliberately go after working people and create the friction out there and bring in unfair, bad, unjust laws, that is not going to create the stability this government says it wants.

The point this government should realize is that it has to be a fair process; if you like, according to their lingo, a level playing field. But this government Mr. Chairman, with this Bill -- any fair-minded people looking at it will recognize that this is not a level playing field; this is making it worse. I say to this govern­ ment that if they will not listen to the amendments we're bring­ ing in to try to make this a fair Bill, they are going to pay a price

June 21, 1988 ALBERTA HANSARD 1921 for it -- not only them but the public of Alberta, as we did with the nurses' strike. I remember -- I said this before -- predicting precisely what would happen at that particular time when we were debating that Bill, and they pooh-poohed it and said: "Oh, no, it won't hap­ pen. If we take people's rights away, if we make it illegal to strike, people will just buckle under and do whatever we tell them." Well, you can pass every bad, unjust, unfair law in a democracy, but people will react People will react; they won't put up with it.

If this minister -- and I don't really believe, as I said, he believes this -- believes that this Bill and these amend­ ments are the route toward peace and stability within our labour relations in this province, then he's more naive than I ever gave him credit for. I say to you that this Bill, if it passes, is a sad day for all of us, a sad day for all of us. Because we're going to be picking up the pieces for this as long as this government's in power. I say to the government: if you keep passing laws like this, the only good thing about it is that you won't be around long.

Because working people aren't going to put up with it That's the reality. And that may be true even of Redwater- Andrew, a person that probably hasn't even looked at the Bill, talking. He probably doesn't understand the first word in it anyhow. AN HON. MEMBER: Order, order. MR. MARTIN: Ah, don't get excited. It's true. Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that rather than people sitting back, they should read this.

All members of the government should read this Bill and go through it and tell us if it's fair, if it's going to lead into the modern world, as they are in other countries where they were supposed to have traveled. If they can honestly say that, then I just believe they're dreaming in technicolour. They've deluded themselves about this. The reality -- what's so sad about it as I said, Mr. Chairman -- is that it's not just this government that's going to pay the price for this; it's the average people in the province. Because this is go­ ing to lead to more labour friction inevitably.

Just as I predicted that back when we were debating Bill 44, I'll make this predic­ tion now. Now, there's still time. We were told: "Oh, this govern­ ment's so fair-minded. They're going to look at all the amend­ ments to make this fair." Yeah, they sure listened. They sure listened to all the other ones so far. But let's wait and see, Mr. Chairman. There are 55 amendments, and I doubt that some of them will even bother reading them. But we'll do our job. We want to debate them, and we'll decide who has a fair labour policy. We'll decide. The people will decide who could lead them into the 21st century.

I'll tell you, this is taking us back to the 19th century in labour relations. So we've seen, I guess, the final curtain on this charade with these amendments we were told to wait for over a number of years. Really since the Gainers strike, we were told that the government was going to do a job, bring back fairness. Well, we've seen it, Mr. Chair­ man. What's sad about it is that I wish I had, you know, 50 more members over here. Sixteen of us have more brains in one head over here than all of them if they think they can pass this, Mr. Chairman. If they think this is fair . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Joke. Joke. AN HON.

MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, is that a subject for debate? MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, we woke them up. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I would suggest you come back to the amendments. MR. MARTIN: Yes, I'm trying to. I just wanted to wake them up to see if they're still alive. I thought some of them had heart attacks over there, Mr. Chairman. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I will just say to the govern­ ment I guess I can cajole them, insult them, anything but get them to think about the Bill. It's the least we can do at this par­ ticular time.

But I would hope that this minister, who I think knows a little more about labour relations than some of the other ones, will take a serious look at what he's doing. I hope he's not like the architect of Bill 44 and pays the price later on for a nurses' strike that created the havoc. I'm just saying that if we proceed with this Bill and these amendments, this minister will be the architect of a lot of labour disputes, a lot of labour fric­ tion in this province. They still have one last chance with some of our amendments.

Now, it may make it somewhat fair, but knowing the record of how this government listens, I'm not go­ ing to hold my breath. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm deeply disap­ pointed at what we've been given today. I have felt for the last few weeks that we really had something to look forward to. We had the Bill presented to us, and before then and since then we've been promised the moon. Instead we have a regressive, antiquated, and clumsy piece of legislation. I think the whole thing has been a tragic tour de force from the beginning.

To be sure, there have been some improvements since Bill 60. I had hoped and looked forward to the amendments the minister indi­ cated were coming. But still it is seriously flawed from begin­ ning to end. You know, I spoke on Bill 21 about the cynicism in Al­ bertans about this whole procedure: about the trip, about the hearings, about Bill 22 and all of that we've gone through over many, many months. Then one looks at it. I had hoped that at least the minister would take a serious look at the

preamble from what has been said before, that he would think through this

preamble that sets, or is supposed to set a philosophical base. But, Mr. Chairman, somehow this Bill misses it all the way down the line. Legislation shouldn't lurch to accommodate cir­ cumstances. It should be fair in good times and in bad times. We need stability. We need legislation to produce an environ­ ment of fairness, not an environment that produces action on the backs of workers or employers. All of this blather about a level playing field -- you know, where is it? That's all it was: blather.

This is a tilted document, as far as I'm concerned, and I simply can't accept the pious hopes of the minister that this protracted process is going to enable more agreements to be reached. Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of collective bargaining works. It's done with good faith, good intentions, and integrity. We shouldn't write legislation to deal with a few bad ones. How do we write legislation, then, to preserve the integrity of the process? Well, as I said before, we take a trip, we write a report and we ignore both of them and do what we intended to do anyway. Mr. Chairman, I find this

preamble offensive, and I'm

1922 ALBERTA HANSARD June 21, 1988 astonished that the minister didn't see fit to make some adjust­ ments in his amendments to it. It simply doesn't recognize the realities of today, so why put it in at all? It doesn't recognize the freedom to associate, the freedom to organize workers, the freedom to invoke economic sanctions, the freedom to bargain collectively if an agreement cannot be reached. It doesn't do any of those things. Therefore, the

preamble is there; if it has to be there, it should be there to acknowledge these kinds of realities. The Canadian Labour Code

preamble is a model and might well have served in Alberta. It's hard to understand why the minister didn't avail himself of that. The Bill in fact, until we saw the amendments promised to us today, flies in the face of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We now have the amendment before us to

section 81, which in my view just barely gets around, does an end run around, the legal requirements and nothing more. It's an embarrassing kind of situation where one wonders how the government could have written

section 81 in the first place, but there it was, and under some strain and stress the minister brought in an amendment. The amendment really doesn't improve the situation, but I sup­ pose it may keep the government out of court. The construction amendment that's been put in, the process that has been placed there -- all of a sudden it's imposed on us, and I don't know how employers and employees and unions in that industry are expected to be able to react to what is being suggested in this amendment here. I'm surprised most of all, Mr.

Chairman, that the minister didn't see fit to amend the sec­ tion regarding hospital workers that would have revoked what I consider to be draconian legislation that doesn't allow nurses to strike. I think surely if we've learned anything in this last year about labour legislation, we should've learned that I regret that somehow he didn't see fit to change that one. Mr. Chairman, looking at it, there are no appreciable changes in the role of the Labour Relations Board. It allows a chairman to sit alone and decide alone on certain matters. There is no quid pro quo in this section. It is not equal.

It doesn't apply to employers. The board can decide whether a person is, in fact, an employee or whether an organization of employees is, in fact, a trade union. But it cannot decided whether a person is an em­ ployer or whether an organization is an employers' organization. I don't see the fairness or the equity there. Mr. Chairman, why not maintain the present methods? If we're going to make these kinds of changes into a less appropriate system, we should maintain what we've got which hasn't worked badly. Here we have a Labour Relations Board officer who investigates and re­ ports to the board and the parties.

It gives them, in our present system, an opportunity for a full hearing so that we separate the investigation and the decision-making process. Why change something if it works? There are no amendments to the very clumsy certification process that we've spoken about before. I think this allows for maximum duress, the potential for it, from the employer. Even if 100 percent of the employees sign, we have to have a vote. I believe this is protracted, clumsy, and an invitation to interfere, and further, allows no recourse to the board to take action when there have been established unfair labour practices.

In collective bargaining, as I look at that section, it appears to me that the minister has based it on a couple of assumptions. One is that we have economic recovery, and the second is that we have better communications and relationships between labour and management Now, if these things don't come true or aren't true, I think this

section can cause far greater frustra­ tion than we've had before. The construction industry is an ex­ ample of it We've had seven months of talk. It's somewhat better, I suppose, than Bill 60 but still far from the mark as far as I'm concerned. The religious exemption I believe is un­ necessary. I find the 25-hour lockout an offensive

section and, in my view, that should have been abolished -- again, failure to act on that Mr. Chairman, I see the mandatory mediation as again a protracted process with votes, votes, votes -- five votes in all. Delays, delays -- what's it going to produce? The only vote necessary is the strike vote. I see no equity, no fairness. The employer is not required to take a vote of shareholders. Where's the level playing field? It's simply not there.

My own view is that replacement workers shouldn't be al­ lowed, but if they're going to put them in, at least they should be paid at the same rate as the collective agreement that was in ex­ istence. The notion of a two-year time limit and replacement workers I think works totally against justice to employees. Two years and it's over. I don't understand the sense in that kind of peremptory legislation. Even after a settlement, employees are not guaranteed their job back but must apply in writing to get it back. Mr. Chairman, the

section on picketing: as I said before, I am extremely disappointed in the minister's amendment on sec­ tion 81. It really doesn't address the principle here that's enun­ ciated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the freedom to associate. I can't accept that this amendment is doing anything except making what the minister wanted to do all along pos­ sible. I have an amendment before the Legislature regarding

section 93, as well as many others, to give hospital workers the right to strike. That whole nurses' strike was a tragic per­ formance. Nobody won -- not the nurses, not the communities, not the patients, not the institutions. Nobody won in that We all suffered, we all lost, and it was completely avoidable. It should never have happened except for this, what I consider to be, draconian legislation. Mr. Chairman, again, the minister didn't see fit to change 98(a)(iii) that requires that arbitration consider general eco­ nomic conditions.

At least from Bill 60, he modified this one somewhat, but I believe it still renders an arbitration less than objective. I believe that removes the fairness from the whole process, and it is not what will benefit Albertans in labour rela­ tions. The idea he's left in, without amendment, that the cabinet can decertify any union they believe is causing an illegal strike, I think, too, is heavy handed, unnecessary, and totally regres­ sive. Mr. Chairman, as I say, I am disappointed in the amend­ ments. I had hoped for something more.

I'd hoped for some­ thing positive as a result of all the discussions and, I'm sure, submissions the minister has had since Bill 22 came out. I be­ lieve this is simply an invitation for continued instability. I don't think it's going to accomplish what I think the minister truly wants to have happen, and I see it with sadness. I see it as regressive; I don't see it as progressive. I see it as reactive, not proactive, and I don't believe it will serve the needs of Al­ bertans for a stable labour environment Neither the Bill nor the amendments are satisfactory, in my view. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Calgary-Forest Lawn. MR. PASHAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my opening re­ marks I'd like to deal essentially with the

preamble, the

whereas clauses in Bill 22, the Labour Relations Code, and I understand it's relatively innovative in Alberta practice to include

whereas

June 21, 1988 ALBERTA HANSARD 1923 clauses in Bills. We note that they not only appear in the Labour Relations Code but they appear in the new School Act. To begin with, then, to look at these clauses, because I think they set a framework for the rest of the legislation, or at least they should do that, and if they're not right in principle, then the rest of the Bill will fall. With respect to the first

whereas, it sets out that it is recognized that a mutually effective relationship between employees and employers is critical . . . No one would disagree with that. That's fine if the sentence stopped there, but then it goes on to add, . . . to the capacity of Albertans to prosper in the competitive world-wide market economy of which Alberta is a part.

And I think there are considerations that go far beyond that It's not just that we have to look to the worldwide economy, be­ cause that drags us into the kind of labour relations that might exist in a Singapore or a Hong Kong or a Taiwan, where there are no trade unions, where people work for a buck a day or whatever. With that kind of addition to that clause, it moves Alberta labour relations in that kind of direction of low-wage economies. With respect to the second

whereas, again I don't think any­ one could disagree with it I think it's very fine in principle, and it reads:

WHEREAS it is fitting that the worth and dignity of all Al­ bertans be recognized by the Legislature of Alberta through legislation that encourages fair and equitable resolution of mat­ ters arising in respect of terms and conditions of employment. Again, no one would quarrel with that but the real problem is that the rest of the legislation that's contained in this Bill does not reflect that principle. Mr. Chairman, the third clause says:

WHEREAS the employee-employer relationship is based on a common interest in the success of the employing organization . . . And the "employing organization" only; that it's best recognized through open and honest communication be­ tween affected parties . . . Again, no one is going to complain about effective and open communication, but that's not the final goal of legislation. It's not to work towards the success of employing organizations. That might be part of it, and it has to be a follow-through benefit, but any legislation that's drafted in this Assembly should be drafted with the best interests of all Albertans in mind. There should be a view of the ideal society embedded in your

whereas clauses, and that's sorrowfully lacking. The next

whereas, Mr. Chairman, says,

WHEREAS employees and employers are best able to manage their affairs where statutory rights and responsibilities are clearly established and understood . . . Well, that's not fine, because a statement like that has to be based on a further abstract principle that sets out clearly what the rights and privileges of individuals in a free society are. And that's very limiting, because we've seen that workers have had certain rights embedded in legislation, but the way those rights are applied often has to do with the way a particular court or a particular judge interprets those rights.

If the people that you appoint to the Bench or to the courts are biased, if they have a Conservative bias or they're pro-management in terms of their orientation, then those laws come down heavily against workers. We've seen that in strike related situations in this province over the last number of years. Again, I guess I could agree with the very last

whereas. It says: It is recognized that legislation supportive of free collective bargaining is an appropriate mechanism through which terms and conditions of employment may be established. Again, no one can disagree with that but there still have to be further abstract principles like a fairness and equity that have to be recognized in advance of the establishment of principles at that level. For example, what this legislation fails to set out in its

preamble is a recognition that people have a right to belong to a trade union, that that's an inherent part of any individual's right in a free and democratic society and that that right should not be impeded in any way. So I would suggest that the principal

whereas clause in this

preamble should read something like, "Whereas all workers have an unimpeded right to belong to a union of their choice," and stemming from that would be provi­ sions in the agreement that would penalize rather severely any action that would interfere with the rights of workers to organize and to belong to unions of their choice. If we don't have legislation like that in effect, Mr. Chairman, we're going to wind up with the same kind of labour relations you have in an Alabama, where fewer and fewer people belong to trade unions, fewer and fewer people work for anything like the minimum wage that we know.

In fact, they don't even have minimum wage laws in many of the American states. AN HON. MEMBER: Market driven. MR. PASHAK: They're not market driven, because there's no such thing as a market except in some abstract philosopher's cranium. Wherever you have a so-called free market -- you might find something like it in a Mexican peasant economy where people bring their goods down to the market each day and compete with each other. But then the peasant that's a little big­ ger begins to control market share, and you no longer have a free market.

There's no such thing, and anybody that knows anything about economics at all knows there's a tendency in all free enterprise type economies, if you want to call them that, towards concentration of capital, towards monopoly. And once you have a monopoly, you no longer have anything like a free market. That of course, is the direction we've been moving in North America. We have a few firms in every key economic sector that dominate basically the means of production, and the only bulwark against that kind of concentration of capital in the hands of a few organizations is large trade unions, effective trade unions.

Many countries of the world recognize that and they recognize in law the rights of trade unions to exist. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. I wonder if the hon. member could come back to the Bill. MR. PASHAK: Well, I am on the Bill, Mr. Chairman, because I'm talking about the

whereas clauses and the fact that in those

whereas clauses there's a singular omission which is that work­ ers do not have in this legislation a right to belong to unions of their choice. What I'm trying to argue, Mr. Chairman, is that it would be in the best interests of everyone in this society, not just trade union members but all members of this society, if we had effec­ tive, well-organized trade unions that worked in some kind of co-operative and harmonious way to the extent that that's possi­ ble with employees and with large corporations. That's not an unheard of thing in western democracies. That's the kind of labour relationships you have in Norway and Sweden and in

1924 ALBERTA HANSARD June 21, 1988 advanced, enlightened industrial democracies. There are two basic types of labour relations kinds of models that we could go to, Mr. Chairman.

We could have the kind of labour relations that dominated North America until recent years, and the kind of labour relations that conservative govern­ ments -- whether they're the Social Credit government in British Columbia, the Conservative government in this province, the Conservative government in Saskatchewan, the Progressive Conservatives federally, Margaret Thatcher in England, or Reagan in the United States -- are trying to impose on us.

They're trying to roll back the clock in terms of progressive, relatively healthy, decent labour relationships that have devel­ oped through long, continuous struggle, back to conditions that existed in the 1930s or even earlier. These are labour relation­ ships that are based on conflict models, that engender strikes, that engender violence.

They're based on the notion of master/ servant types of relationships where somehow the person that owns the factory, the plant -- the shareholder, the managers of those organizations -- has rights that workers do not have, that they have the right to tell workers under what conditions and how they're going to work, how many days a week they're go­ ing to work, how many hours a day, what their benefits are go­ ing to be or not going to be, whether they can process grievances or not, and that the only rights the worker has are those rights that are . . . MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have dealt with the second reading of the Bill. We are now on specific clauses. Would the hon. member . . . MR. PASHAK: My understanding today, Mr. Chairman, if I may, is that the hon. minister introduced a whole series of new resolutions that, in effect, open up this Bill for wide interpreta­ tion during committee stage. I'm dealing in general terms with the amendments he's brought forward, and I'm dealing in par­ ticular terms, Mr. Chairman, with the

preamble to this Bill, which I think is very important. But I will try to speed up this part of my remarks and get into some further detailed examina­ tion of the amendments, if that's what you would . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. member doesn't have to worry about speeding it up. Just stay on the subject. MR. FOX: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There was no point of order, hon. member. MR. FOX: There's no suggestion that the sections in

part 3 aren't part of the Bill, though, is there? These are whereases,

preamble to the Bill. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I appreciate what the hon. mem­ ber's saying. All I asked the hon. Member for Calgary-Forest Lawn was to come back to the Bill and the amendments thereto. MR. PASHAK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I really think I'm dealing with the

preamble to the Bill, because I think it's critical to all the other clauses that follow in the legislation that's before us. I had just made the point that in terms of historical reference what this Bill 22 does, as set out in its

preamble, is attempt to restore labour relationships in this province back to the kinds that existed here in the early 1930s or even earlier. And I'm suggesting that those relationships were particularly bitter. They were harmful to everyone that existed in society. We can only think of the bitter strikes that have occurred in North America historically, going back, I don't know -- the Pullman strike in the United States. We can go back to when the Rock­ efellers turned their Pinkerton's loose on striking miners in the Colorado oil fields. We can think in Canada of the Winnipeg General Strike.

There were deaths and violence associated with that, and workers had to take very strong, concerted, deliberate action. They had to break the law in many instances to make the minor kinds of gains they did, and as a result of those kinds of activities, there was a progression in terms of improvement in labour law. And all of a sudden, Mr. Chairman, at one fell swoop this government wants to roll that clock back and negate those hard fought struggles on the part of so many people over a long period of time. There is -- there has been -- a general recognition, Mr.

Chair­ man, in North America that we have to move away from that master/servant type of law. Many courts have decided that there are principles and fairness and equity that apply to all people regardless of what a particular contract might say, and all legis­ lation has to be viewed in that context This legislation has to be viewed not just in terms of what's just and fair for employers but also in terms of what's just and fair for employees. Those rights should be completely recognized, and those principles should be embedded in these

whereas clauses. AN HON. MEMBER: We agree with that, and it is. MR. PASHAK: But they're not, and that's really the fault with this legislation. It's completely one-sided. It takes away workers' rights to organize in a free and collective way. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. member . . . MR. PASHAK: I can even go on and show you where it vio­ lates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in innumerable instances. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the function of a committee on a Bill: I would like to read from Beauchesne 763: The function of a committee on a bill is to go through the text of the bill clause by clause and, if necessary, word by word, with a view to making such amendments in it as may seem likely to render it more generally acceptable. So we're not talking about what's not in the Bill. We're talking about what is in the Bill, and I would ask the hon. member to please direct his remarks to what is in the Bill and what changes . . . MR. PASHAK: Mr. Chairman, again, I was dealing with the

preamble, and I was just pointing out where it's inadequate and flawed and how it could be improved. I think that if the hon. minister would care to review Hansard tomorrow, he'd get some really good ideas that would lead to a much better climate of labour relations in this province in the future and wouldn't be one characterized by the violence we've been seeing recently, not just at the Gainers picket line but on [Lakeside]. We've seen it on postal and railroad picket lines. All of this has to be changed, but it has to be changed in a way that recognizes the unfailing right of workers to belong to trade unions of their choice and in some way that is completely unimpeded by employers.

June 21, 1988 ALBERTA HANSARD 1925 In any event, Mr. Chairman, there are some other sections of this Bill I would like to draw attention to that I think are clearly in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 74 provides that a strike terminates two years after the date on which it is commenced, but it is extremely silent on the issues that were considered prior to the expiry of the two-year time limit So what happens in that instance, Mr. Chairman? Do workers have to begin renegotiations all over again? I think any recognition of rights would argue that that ground doesn't have to be retraced. Sections 111, 112, 113 permit a board to suspend the check­ off of union dues. That's an extremely harsh measure and again is probably totally contrary to the right of people to free assem­ bly in this society.

Section 113 was dealt with at some length by my colleague. Obviously, we see that as a response to the nurses' strike. Firemen and nurses do not have the right to strike, and they can have their certification revoked by an order in cabinet. Those are rights and privileges that should not be removed from any Canadian for any reason. The right to association is impeded by

section 145 of this proposed Bill, Mr. Chairman. Subsection (2)(

c) permits an em­ ployer to verbally interfere with representatives of employees by a trade union. This is again clearly an abridgment of the right to freedom of association. This Bill in addition, Mr. Chairman, reverses the reverse onus clause that was present in Bill 60. This, too, impedes free­ dom of association, because reverse onus means that an em­ ployer must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that an employee was dismissed for valid reasons such as poor perform­ ance rather than for union related activities. With respect to

section 97, Mr. Chairman, if you want specifics, the Chair has the power to decide whether a person is an employee or not This is completely outrageous in terms of decisions that have been made by such bodies as the Interna­ tional Labour Organisation, which clearly recognizes the right of all employees to belong to a union of their choice. DR. WEST: What's the status quo? MR.

PASHAK: Just for the edification of the Member for Vermilion-Viking, who keeps wanting to speak without getting up and rising to his feet to speak, I belong to an association of Alberta community colleges, and the Colleges Act prevents col­ lege teachers from having an unfettered right to belong to a un­ ion of their choice. It gives the boards rights to determine which of their employees have a right to belong to their instructors' associations.

Our provincial association took a complaint to the International Labour Organisation, and that body upheld our contention that it was unjust on the part of this province to have legislation that prevented faculty members from belonging to their association in an unimpeded way. [Mr. Gogo in the Chair] Now, a further concern really has to do with the general prescription for violence that this whole legislation presents to us when we look at the sum effect of all its clauses. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it's just an impossible task in some respects to go through this Bill clause by clause.

We've done it We've suggested that there have to be at least 80 amendments, which would suggest that the whole Bill has to be taken back, redrafted, and brought back before this Assembly after due con­ sideration has been given to all the recommendations that were made to it by Albertans over a period of time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Belmont. MR. S1GURDSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to rise in debate, and I start off by looking at the first

whereas of Bill 22, because in that first

whereas I think there was some­ thing that was gained on the world tour. The first

whereas says:

WHEREAS it is recognized that a mutually effective relation­ ship between employees and employers is critical to the capac­ ity of Albertans to prosper in the competitive world-wide mar­ ket economy . . . "The competitive world-wide market economy." Here we're dealing, Mr. Chairman, with a Bill that directly affects Al­ bertans in Alberta, not Albertans in a world economic situation but Albertans right here at home, and the first section, the first

whereas, talks not about labour rights, not about the effect of the Bill on workers in our society here at home, but about a worldwide market economy. Maybe that's what we got for the half million dollar expenditure. Out of six countries the Minis­ ter of Labour and his entourage had the opportunity to travel to, perhaps that's what we got out of the tour. Now, you know, Mr.

Chairman, I was one of the people in my caucus and in my party that during that worldwide tour and prior to that worldwide tour wanted to give the minister an op­ portunity to travel and take a look at other jurisdictions, because I was hopeful. I was hopeful that we would come back with progressive pieces of information that would, indeed, take us into the next century, into the next decade even.

I thought that it would be a worthwhile expenditure of a half million dollars if the minister were to come back with sufficient changes to the existing Labour Code that would take us into the next decade and into the next century. I really hoped, I honestly hoped, that that would be the case. You know, during the time the minister was thinking of leav­ ing, in Alberta we were having a number of problems with in­ dustrial disputes. There were all kinds of people the press could go out and talk with.

I went back to some of the clippings of the news media outlets in our province, and what did some of the striking workers say about the minister's junket? Well . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is extremely reluc­ tant to interrupt The member is well aware that the principle of this Bill has been adopted by the House. We're now dealing, really, with clause by clause of the Bill and the proposed amendments by the minister. Would the hon. member come back to at least referring to amendments that have been pro­ posed so we get some semblance of not repeating what's already been dealt with by the House?

The hon. Member for Edmonton-Belmont is perhaps one of the most experienced members on this point in the House, so I hope the hon. member doesn't think the Chair is being unduly hard on him. He simply knows better than most. Edmonton-Belmont. MR. SIGURDSON: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreci­ ate your pointing out certain rules of the Assembly, and I think if we look at Beauchesne 768(2), it says that debate on Clause 1 . . . is normally wide ranging, covering all the principles and details of the bill. And that's what I'm hoping to address. I would hope, Mr.

Chairman, I would be allowed the opportunity to make points that I believe are relevant to this Bill. So with that, Mr. Chair­ man, I truly appreciate the call to order that you've given me

1926 ALBERTA HANSARD June 21, 1988 and . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is not wishing to argue, but once a Bill has been adopted in principle, hon. mem­ bers cannot argue against the principle. That's what the Chair is saying to the hon. member. The Chair was detecting that the hon. member was, in effect, speaking against principles that al­ ready have been adopted. As the member knows, that's not al­ lowed at committee stage. The Bill has been adopted by the House. Therefore, comments opposing the principles of the Bill are not entertained. That's all the Chair was addressing to the hon. member. MR.

SIGURDSON: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll con­ tinue then, and hopefully address my remarks that will fall within the confines of the debate that is to be wide ranging. I wanted to go on and point out that when I was speaking with friends -- and I made a number of friends when I walked on the Gainers picket line -- when I had the opportunity to speak with them, they too were very much opposed to the minister traveling around the world. I said to them -- some of them were here earlier this evening sitting up in the public gallery -- I said to some of those folk: "Let's give it an opportunity.

Let's hope that this expenditure is going to be worth while, because we don't want to be in this situation at the end of the next collective agreement." I said that because I really believed and still hoped at that point that we would be able to make significant changes to the Labour Code that existed at that time and still exists today. I still hope that out of this there still may be something good. I traveled around Alberta with the committee.

I didn't have the opportunity to fly at 30,000 feet; I sort of flew about four inches off the ground in my little car, and I hit all the spots along the minister's home review schedule: southern Alberta, northern Alberta, the major centres of Edmonton and Calgary. And I listened. I sat in the back, watched the panel, listened carefully and attentively to the submissions that were being made by Albertans, and I listened as well. I recall the kind of commitment that Albertans were making to the process.

I remember, and I'm sure the minister will remember, the worker in Red Deer who made a presentation to the committee. At one point he put his leg up on the table and took a bandage off to show the injury he had been subjected to when a bus rolled over his leg on a picket line. AN HON. MEMBER: He was in front of the bus? MR. SIGURDSON: He was under the bus. He wasn't in front of the bus; he was under the bus. AN HON. MEMBER: The bus went over the log and the log hit his leg. MR. SIGURDSON: Pardon me? MR. TAYLOR: They're used to missing the bus over there. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members, now. [interjection] Order please. The Chair cannot hear in stereo. One member at a time. Hon. Member for Edmonton-Belmont. MR. SIGURDSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This worker was doing something that he should be guaranteed the right of doing: the freedom to assemble, the freedom to associate, the freedom to try and influence people from crossing his picket line. And the bus went over him -- right over. It didn't stop. The injury is going to be lifelong. What do we say to that per­ son?

He was hopeful that this review process would allow him the opportunity at a future date to be on a picket line, if necessary, to bargain collectively with his fellow workers, to try and improve his lot in life. This Bill doesn't address that. When we were in Medicine Hat or Lethbridge, perhaps the lengthiest strike in the province is still going on. It will end soon with the passage of this Act But the lengthiest strike right now is still in Brooks, Alberta, at the Lakeside Packers plant. Those workers made a presentation to the review committee, and they were hopeful.

They were making an investment of time and energy to go before the committee because they be­ lieved the process was going to work for them. Up in Fort McMurray, we had the workers that had just come off a labour dispute. They'd just ended their picketing with the plant. They, too, had come forward to the minister's task force. They talked about the problems they had on their picket line and how at one point at about 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock in the morning, when they were out there picketing and there were few of them, there showed up three buses filled with the RCMP.

There were more members of the RCM Police than there were pickets that morning. What rights did they have that day? None at all. They were carted away. Those people came out to the review process and they made a presentation because they believed, they were hopeful, and they were truly of the opinion, that what was happening, what was taking place in our province, was going to benefit the workers.

The Gainers workers in Edmonton: the picket line in the summer months was large and at times quite frightening, as scab workers came through on buses that had their windows covered with Plexiglas and wire to prevent all kinds of supposed damage. Well, they showed up in December before the minis­ ter's review committee because once again they were hopeful. Every Albertan that went before this committee -- and there were many -- every single Albertan that made a commitment of time to this process was hopeful that what they were doing would be for the benefit of all Albertans.

I remember the man that was in Fort McMurray, the big, large man -- I'm sure the minister will remember him as well -- who went before the committee and was shaking like a leaf be­ cause he hadn't spoken publicly before. But he had a message that he wanted to get across to the panel and to his colleagues that were in the back and to some of the employers that were in the back.

He stood there shaking in his boots because this was a process that he was unaccustomed to, and yet because he be­ lieved in the process, because he was hopeful, he stayed and he was heard, or at least everybody heard him, but he wasn't neces­ sarily listened to. He was let down because this Act that is be­ fore us, Mr. Chairman, denies workers' rights.

It denies them the right to organize and to assemble, guarantees that are given us in other legislation such as the Charter of Rights that my col­ leagues have referred to previously, guarantees that say right in the Charter of Rights, in the very first part of the Charter, that Canadians -- and as far as I know we're still part of Canada. It says that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms," and then it goes on with a subclause about religion, a subclause about freedom of thought and belief and opinion.

The next two subclauses are most important when we compare them with Bill 22: the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of

June 21, 1988 ALBERTA HANSARD 1927 association. Well, Bill 22 is sort of thumbing its nose at the Charter of Rights. Not only is it thumbing its nose at the Charter of Rights, Mr. Chairman; it's sort of thumbing its nose at the conventions that we as a country have agreed to with the International Labour Organisation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Belmont, to use the term "thumbing one's nose," one cannot help but interpret the hon. member's comments as opposing the Bill. Now, the Chair has reminded the hon. member that this House has adopted the principles of this Bill, and as the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Belmont is a member of this House, the member has also supported the principles of the Bill, irrespective of how the member voted at the time. So this House has adopted the principles of Bill 22, and no member will therefore be allowed to speak against the principles of the Bill. Now, will the hon. member come back to the matters before this committee; namely, any clause of the Bill or the amend­ ments proposed by the Minister of Labour. MR. SIGURDSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, once again. This Bill and the amendment that the minister proposes, the amendment to

section 81, still takes away the freedoms that were granted us by a number of conventions: one through the Charter of Rights that this province agreed to and one through the International Labour Organization that this country agreed to. What does this Bill do? It says you don't have the right to associate. We have a

section in the Act that allows for the gov­ ernment to decertify an entire union if they don't like the activ­ ity that is going on. The government says, "Oh, those nasty nurses had to go out on strike, had to defy an order of the government, had to defy a regulation that we've set in place to control you women." If those women happen to go out on strike again, under this legislation this government is going to be able to take away their freedom to associate.

With a single stroke of a pen, every single progressive gain that they have made at the bargaining table over the course of decades will be struck away through Bill 22. Well, Mr. Chair­ man, I'm not allowed to say that that's thumbing the nose so therefore I won't, but I don't know what else to call it. It flies in the face of that which we thought was precious, precious in the Charter, so precious that we were able to . . . Nine out of 10 provinces signed the Charter. That's gone. The International Labour Organisation, their guarantees of association: that too, is gone, gone with Bill 22.

Even when we have the amendment the minister presented to us that supposedly strengthens the right of those affected by a strike to go out and show support on the picket line and try and encourage those who are about to break the picket line to not cross the picket line, that doesn't address the need that workers were hopeful of when the minister went on his tour.

I recall workers standing up and saying, "If you want to have a peaceful and quick settlement of industrial disputes in the province of Alberta, what you've got to do is get rid of replacement workers." Members of the committee heard it; members in the audience heard it Indeed, there were few people that came out of employer organizations that agreed with that In the history of General Motors, if they've had a strike, they've not ever hired a replacement worker. They have allowed the strike to go its course, never hired a replacement worker.

We've seen in the province of Quebec, the only province that has antistrikebreaker legislation, how effective that has been in reducing the number of lost workdays due to labour interruptions due to strike or lockout It has reduced the number of lost days, lost productivity. That's what workers told the minister and the committee. That's what workers were hopeful of. And what did we get? We didn't get that. Workers didn't secure the right to no re­ placement workers, no scabs.

In fact what they got was a sec­ tion of the Act that says that if we don't like what you're doing while you're out on strike, no more certification. Too bad. Your organization's gone. Your rights are taken away. All that you've fought for over the course of time, all that those people fought for that went before you, that's gone too.

It's rather amazing, rather amazing that the principles that labour organiza­ tions have fought for since Canada became a country -- the march to Ottawa, the Winnipeg strike -- those principles that indeed people even died for are now going to be swept away with a single stroke of a pen if this government doesn't like what's going on. This Bill doesn't deal with fairness or equity. In fact it's inequitable, it's unfair, and it's only going to further cause an abrasive attitude between employers and employees, does noth­ ing to bring people together.

In fact, it entrenches their posi­ tions further apart from one another. That's the shameful part of this Act, that of the expenditure of money. What we're going to do is see people in further corners not wanting to come together, and that's the cause of this Bill 22. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon. MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to keep my comments to four parts, two in the original Bill and two in the omnibus amendment that has been put forward by the government. First, Mr. Chairman, is with respect to the

preamble. It bothers me to see the philosophy of this government so clearly put forward. Statements in the

preamble like "the capacity of Albertans to prosper" in the competitive world and also state­ ments like "based on a common interest in the success of the employing organization" have no place in any kind of an agree­ ment put together by government to cover interpersonal relation­ ships. That type of

preamble strikes and gives you the feeling almost as if you're listening to the old marching songs of the '20s and '30s, of Deutschland über alles or whatever the song was that the fatherland had to triumph. The whole concept here is of Alberta, a nation-state that is going to be more competitive, that somehow or another we as little elves and the management working together, are going to build a magnificent sort of em­ pire that is going to go out and conquer the commercial world of today. Mr.

Chairman, what this completely ignores is that what we're talking about is people with dignity, with feelings, dealing with other people with dignity and feelings. That some are management and some are labour is the accident of the case. But the fact is, we're talking about interpersonal relationships, and I'm surprised that the government a Conservative govern­ ment of all people, were not able to capture this.

This is the type of conservatism that one would expect from the iron duke Bismarck or from some of the great what you call national so­ cialists of the '20s and '30s, where the triumph of the nation- state was the important thing. Then, of course, it was bound to trickle down through pride of achievement to the individuals in society. If there's anything we are in our modern democracies, it's

1928 ALBERTA HANSARD June 21, 1988 liberal democracies, although it may shock the MLA, for instance, for Red Deer-North to know that we're part of the lib­ eral democracies -- that's small "l" liberal -- where freedom of the individual, freedom of association, the dignity of the in­ dividual, and all those things are the important thing, not the glory of the state. Yet we have here in this

preamble something that you could lift out of Mein Kampf except that it uses the word Alberta. It talks about the glory of what we're going to do if we get united and get together and turn all these things into little grommets or widgets and sell on the world market. It is not paying attention in the

preamble to the fact that what it should be, what we want, is happy people, people with dignity, people that are proud to be calling themselves Albertans because of the way they treat each other, not because they've invaded this market or that market or have done this or done that or had a heritage trust fund going on. Because if there's anything the liberal democracies -- I'm using small "1" again in case I send nightmares up and down the backbones of the flat earth society lurking at the back of the room over there. Nevertheless, the liberal democracies teach one thing, and that is the individual and the worth of the individual, and that doesn't show through in the

preamble. The other area I would like to touch on in the

preamble: why wouldn't we mention the International Labour Organisation? It's mentioned in the government of Canada's

preamble, the na­ tional government's. If we've had any problem in this province with labour or with our image in the world, if you want to call it that, it's the fact that we often contravene ILO, and the Interna­ tional Labour Organisation is not some pinkie Commie outfit that sneaked into the east side of New York and is trying to sub­ vert the minds of all true-blue Canadians or Albertans. The International Labour Organisation is an organization built up of free-thinking people and people that are interested in promoting the whole cause of people working for their daily bread, and yet there's no mention in the

preamble that we should be working. I like the fact that I caught their attention. When you men­ tion daily bread, even the leanest of the Tories shows interest. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the Interna­ tional Labour Organisation has a convention and has a list of conventions that we could tie our labour Act to in a

preamble, which would be very handy indeed. I've noticed there, Mr. Chairman, I'm getting violin signals made at me from the opposition,

whereas in fact I always thought the Tories used an accordion, because they like to squeeze things back and forth, and I'm going to play on the strings. Mr. Chairman, the third

part I wanted to touch on was in the amendments themselves. I'm disappointed that some sort of hanky-panky seems to be have been used in

section 81(1), (2), and so on to get around the fact of sympathetic picketing, or the right for any individual in our society to go down and pick up a picket sign or just to walk along sympathetically with someone who is demonstrating either against their employer or against an unfair practice or maybe foreign grapes or whatever it is.

This government would try to set up a sort of padlock law or a sort of Court of Star Chamber where we would appeal or they would have a board that somehow or another would be appealed to that would have the right to come out and say, "Thou shalt not walk with thy neighbour in any demonstration, whether it is picketing or whether it's at marketing." That has to be without doubt one of the basic infringements on our liberty, and no matter how we flimflam and change it around, no matter how much the minister would try to pull a Pontius Pilate and wash his hands of one of the dirtiest tricks you can do today, and that is stop people from freedom of association, there's no way that that minister or this government will be able to get away with it in the future.

And I can tell you this, that we're one party that will chal­ lenge them on the very first strike. Now, it may not take much room in jail to keep four Liberals. After all, you tried to keep us in a basement washroom when we first came into the Legisla­ ture, Mr. Chairman, or the government did, so now we're not going to be too afraid of the jails that our minister might think of . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is somewhat reluc­ tant to interrupt, but the Chair would interpret referring to an hon. member as a Pontius Pilate as perhaps not the most compli­ mentary term. MR.

TAYLOR: Oh, it was very derogatory, Mr. Chairman. I intended it to be. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the Chair sort of understands that, hon. member, and the Chair would interpret Standing Order 23 with perhaps imputing a false motive to the hon. member. Now, would the leader of the Liberal Party perhaps carry on, bearing in mind the admonishment of the Chair. MR. TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe I could entail the help of another biblical scholar on the other side, the Member for Red Deer-North, but Pontius Pilate was not a bad man. He was a little simple; that was all.

And all I did was compare the government over there not to having bad motives -- they just didn't understand what they were doing -- and then now they're washing their hands. Now, I don't want sound like a minister of the gospel; far from it. But all it means is that they're trying to get out from the blame, trying to get out from the blame by ap­ pointing a board that will decide that you cannot walk with your neighbours. And maybe the Member for Red Deer-North will get a chance to fill in on that later. I know that Pontius Pilate is derogatory, but it does not mean as bad as you might think.

It just means a little bit maybe not altogether with it when it came to working out the fine details of what was going on. Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may go on a bit, the other part, to move along fairly fast -- I know some people have violins to play when they get back -- is that I wonder why that 33-page construction industry labour relations

section that's put in here. I would like to suggest to the minister -- mind you, my sugges­ tion will probably fall on really deaf ears after calling on Pontius Pilate, but on the other hand, it may have got his attention -- that the minister should do some heavy thinking about lifting it out, putting it aside for about six months.

Because if there's any­ thing -- and I'm sure the minister's had many calls on it -- that both labour and capital or management and labour, whatever way you want to call it, are confused and mixed up about, it's what the intent of this passage is, 33 pages that are difficult to follow and to understand just what it would do to the whole con­ struction industry. Much has been said about labour relations in this province, but the construction industry seems to be making a comeback.

It seems to be working its way out of its hole be­ tween labour and capital, and I have a feeling that this is going to complicate it or do much more damage. I would like to respectfully suggest to the minister and the government that they pull this aside and put it on the bench for another six months. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, those are the four. The

preamble, which completely ignores that their lot in society is one of inter-

June 21, 1988 ALBERTA HANSARD 1929 personal relationships and is not one that's built on the principle of economic gain; it's built on the principle of dignity and re­ spect for each other and happiness. The International Labour Organization: why it was left out in the

preamble. The picket­ ing, as I mentioned, was a rather sneaky, roundabout way of trying to stop sympathetic picketing, albeit, I think, brought on by the Gainers thing last year, but I think an unnecessarily draconian type of method of trying to handle the whole problem of sympathetic picketing. And lastly, the unnecessary inter­ ference, particularly by a Conservative government, a govern­ ment that has a tendency to know better or likes to say that if it's not broke, don't fix it.

Why 33 pages of the most complicated gobbledygook I've seen in some time, referring to the whole labour construction industry and which will take even the smartest lawyers years and years to put in? If I didn't know bet­ ter, I would suspect that the hon. minister has set about to try to give business to lawyers for the next 50 years. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Kingsway. MR. McEACHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't help remark -- I do say that I'm glad to be able to stand up and speak on Bill 22 tonight at Committee of the Whole reading.

I'm also glad to note that we now have some Liberals showing up to get in on the debate. I would point out to them that it started two weeks ago, and we saw a five-minute speech by the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar during 15 or 20 hours of debate on second reading of this Bill. So I'm really glad to know that the leader of the Liberal Party is prepared to go to jail on behalf of work­ ing people. It's about time he showed up. Mr. Chairman, the minister that introduced this Bill said that it was landmark legislation and would take Alberta into the 21st century.

He maintained that the 1945 Labour Act -- I guess it was the basis of the present one, with probably a number of amendments -- was not suited to Alberta, and so he's had to change the direction. He says that the 1947 Labour Act was too confrontational, that it set out a confrontational approach for labour/management relations. He thinks that Bill 22 is any dif­ ferent? He's got to be dreaming. The minister says that we're now moving into a high-tech society, which implies that some changes are going to be needed. We're moving into worldwide competition, and of course that's true, with the Mulroney trade deal.

So he brings in a

preamble, the first

whereas of which is:

WHEREAS it is recognized that a mutually effective relation­ ship between employees and employers is critical to the capac­ ity of Albertans to prosper in the competitive world-wide mar­ ket economy of which Alberta is a part; Well, Mr. Chairman, I thought this was supposed to be a Bill of rights for workers, not a declaration of war for conquering the international markets of the world. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we're moving into a world of corporate takeovers of small firms, of the big giants swallowing up little companies. We're moving into the world of the United States.

After all, we're going to have this common market, the right- to-work legislation of some of the southern states, states with no minimum wage or mostly with a low minimum wage. We're going to find ourselves in competition with the workers in Mexico, where United States corporations, even Canadian cor­ porations and Japanese corporations, are setting up so-called factories -- mostly they're assembly plants -- in northern Mexico, paying the Mexican workers 65 cents an hour. That's the world we're moving into. We're going to have to compete with that.

How are we going to maintain the dignity of the workers in Alberta if we're competing with that? Now, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't mind so much if those peo­ ple in those little eight-by-10 shacks that they're building for them had a decent living, if they were paying them a wage that was improving their standard of living. Well, I suppose maybe it's better than slumming in the streets of Mexico City, but the fact of the matter is, it's not a very decent life for them or their children.

There's no chance for further education, no chance for advancement They're just living in little ghettos, producing goods for the benefit of major corporations that wheel and deal and treat workers like this government wants to treat workers: with no respect whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, we're moving into a world of competition all right, where the big boys are playing off workers against workers. The common goal or at least the end result will be poverty for all working people.

If we carry this far enough in trying to compete with Mexico and Louisiana, the workers in Alberta will end up in the same state they're in, in poverty. We'll end up with many, many poor people and a few very, very wealthy people. European society gradually developed in such a way that we ended up with a middle class; we ended up with an educated class. Some of the workers have gained some rights over the years, and we've spread the wealth around from all these great new technological changes that we've had through the industrial revolution and the new changes that are coming now.

But this government is intent on moving us in the other direction, setting worker against worker, so that we have to compete all over the world with nations whose workers are very poor. It isn't that I would mind if we put a factory in one of those countries and it would help the workers, but that's not the aim. The aim is to pit worker against worker and cut the working man out from having a decent living so that a few people at the top can manipulate incredible amounts of wealth. Mr.

Chairman, the Employment Standards Code and the Labour Relations Code are not going to protect the workers, which is what they should be doing. The

preamble sets it out very clearly that that's not the agenda. The agenda is to make Alberta a competitive worldwide market economy. MR. HERON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Stony Plain. MR. HERON: I'd like to draw your attention to

section 309 of Beauchesne, reading; and

section 23(d), relevancy. I say "read­ ing" because I can't come to any other conclusion, Mr. Chair­ man. I look at Hansard last evening, page 1889, and the hon. Member for Edmonton-Kingsway says, and I quote: Alberta workers will have to compete with Louisiana workers and Mexican workers. The speech follows almost verbatim the one that was delivered on Bill 21 last evening. So I appeal to your sense of good judg­ ment Mr. Chairman, to try and save us from some of that repetition. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, Vegreville. MR. FOX: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

It's nice to know that the Member for Stony Plain is paying attention, but with respect, this is a separate question. That was in second reading of the Bill. This is committee stage, and it's a different

1930 ALBERTA HANSARD June 21, 1988 matter. The Member for Edmonton-Kingsway is developing some arguments which he and I and our caucus colleagues hope will be compelling enough to convince the members to look at some of the amendments that we'll be dealing with as we pro­ ceed through committee. MR. HERON: Sorry, Mr. Chairman; there was an error there in what the hon. Member for Vegreville just said. It wasn't in sec­ ond reading; it was Bill 21 discussed last evening in Committee of the Whole. And he's delivering exactly the same speech for Bill 22 in the same committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

Thank you, hon. members. It was dealing with a different Bill, and the House is dealing with it this time. However, the Chair is cognizant of the fact that Beauchesne deals with the matter of reading of speeches. However, that's similar to Beauchesne 299, relevance; it's ex­ tremely difficult to interpret by the Chair as long as hon. mem­ bers refer to matters other than the material in their hands. Edmonton-Kingsway. MR. McEACHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would point out that Bill 21 . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The point of order has been dealt with. MR. McEACHERN: Oh, okay. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I gues