1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1619 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Prince George mortality rate. Mrs. Boone –– 1619

Ms. Smallwood

Accord with federal government on offshore gas and oil drilling. Ms. Smallwood –– 1620

Farm income tax exemption. Mr. Rose –– 1620

Private woodlot transfers. Mr. Williams –– 1621

Falcon capture in Queen Charlottes. Mr. Williams –– 1621

University Endowment Lands boundaries. Ms. Marzari –– 1621

Ministerial Statement

Wildlife management areas. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 1621

Ms. Smallwood

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1622

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Miller

Appendix –– 1642

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to introduce a number of guests

today, the reason for which will become apparent later when I make a

ministerial statement: Stu Reeder, president of the B.C. Wildlife

Federation; Joe Lotzkar, president of the Federation of B.C.

Naturalists; Graham Kenyon of the B.C. Conservation Foundation; Ed

Vernon and Al Murray from the Wildlife Centennial Committee; General

Bert Hoffmeister, chairman of The Nature Trust; Tom Slater from Ducks

Unlimited; Keith Connors from the Guide-Outfitters' Association of

B.C.; Sharon Chow, president of the Sierra Club; Mike Green, president

of the B.C. Trappers' Association; Vicky Husband, president of Friends

of Ecological Reserves; Yorke Edwards from the Nature Conservancy of

Canada; Tony Shebeare from the Council of Forest Industries; and from

the federal government. Art Martell of the Canadian Wildlife Service.

Would the House please welcome these distinguished guests.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Max Lindenthaler from Burnaby. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. REID: In the House today are two very aggressive

businessmen in the visitor marketing business, over here from Surrey to

visit my staff. I have pleasure in introducing Bob Olafson and John

Brouwer. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: I'd like to ask the House to welcome three great

constituents from the beautiful constituency of Saanich and the

Islands: Mr. Jim Lang, Mr. Len Mulholland, and the mayor of North

Saanich, Mr. Lloyd Harrop.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We also have two lovely members of the

fairer sex with us this afternoon. I'd ask the House to welcome Mrs.

Roberta Cuppage from Saanich and the Islands, and Mrs. Pat Guest from

Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. JANSEN: In the House today we have two recently married

people from the constituency of Chilliwack, Dick and Lisa Van Maren.

Please give them a warm welcome.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, in the member's gallery today is a

gentleman from Langley. Peter McNamara, a member of the Langley Central

Rotary Club. With him he has Ron Auer, who is a Rotary exchange student

from the Netherlands, and a visitor, Tony Monteiro, also from the

Netherlands. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, in the House today is a friend of

mine from the city of Penticton, a businessman and former alderman of

that city. Would the House please welcome Ron Biggs.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the audience today is a lady who helped

Duncan pull off B.C.'s finest Festival of the Arts ever. She's a special

worker in the community: Mrs. Pat Guest. Would the House please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

PRINCE GEORGE MORTALITY RATE

MRS. BOONE: Further to my question earlier on the mortality

rate in Prince George, which is 34 percent above the provincial

average. what action has the Minister of Health decided to take to find

out just what the causes are, and if there's anything that can be done

to prevent this?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, we have no results yet.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary. Has the minister decided to take

any action at all to investigate this? I understand you have no

results, but have you decided to investigate this in any way?

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have.

MRS. BOONE: Can you tell the House, please, what investigations will take place, and what you intend to do?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker. there are various areas that

we're looking at now. It's mainly through my own ministry staff; we're

not going to have a royal commission or anything like that. But we will

try to find out why the percentage is that much higher in that

particular area. We have some word back at this point that — and this

is only speculation — it may be the lifestyle to a degree it may be

other areas, even drinking water. It's something we have not yet

discovered. We may never find out the real reason. These things are

very difficult to trace.

MRS. BOONE: A new question to the Minister of Environment.

The air quality in the Prince George area has been under study for

about five years now, and I understand there's adequate documentation

available on the airshed quality in the Prince George region. I have

asked the minister's officials several times for some documentation: I

hope it will be with me today. My question to the minister is: is he

willing to make this documentation and information available to the

public?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The documentation is not complete yet, Mr.

Speaker. There is a considerable study still being carried on, and I

would at this point, until I see the documentation, only indicate to

the House that I will take the question as notice.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, before I go into my question, I would like to ask a supplementary of the Minister of Environment.

MR. SPEAKER: It would have to be a new question, hon. member, because he took the question as notice.

[2:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD: A new question, then, to the Minister of

Environment. Specifically on the question of the mortality rate in

Prince George and water quality, the Ministry of Environment. under

water quality control, several years ago cut back the chemical analysis

of water in this province. We no longer do chemical analysis of drinking

[ Page 1620 ]

water. Will the Minister of Environment assure us

that, for the Prince George area in particular, he will reinstate that

program to do a chemical analysis of the water and look into that

possible link to the health hazards there?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think the health and safety of water is

largely dealt with by the Ministry of Health. We look at the situation

from the other side, and that is that we deal with sewage but not with

water.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Well, I believe there are some overlaps in responsibility. I would like to put that question to the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't listening. What was the question?

MS. SMALLWOOD: The question is on water quality in this

province. The minister has cut back the chemical testing of the

drinking water quality in our province; that happened several years

ago. Will the minister, because of the problem in Prince George, do

chemical water analysis in that community?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that the

question is correct. The question is correct, but I am not certain that

we cut back. We may have cut back in certain areas, but if that is the

case, I would have to take that particular part on notice. But I would

assure the House that on any testing that we do, when we come up with

the results, they are correct.

ACCORD WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON

OFFSHORE GAS AND OIL DRILLING

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question now is to the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. Once again this government has made a

major announcement outside of this House without bringing the

information to the House first. This is with regard to the offshore

exploration and drilling of natural gas and oil. Can the minister

assure this House that the agreement will be brought to this House for

debate before the negotiations are finalized?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, what has been announced is the

commencement of a negotiation with the federal government for the

finalization of a Pacific or west coast accord re oil and gas.

Hopefully, it can be negotiated over the next six months. Certainly

there will be an opportunity to debate it and the east coast accords

during the estimates of my ministry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I take that as assurance that the minister will bring that information to the House before finalizing.

My additional question is: as there are obvious conflicts between

land and sea claims for native rights in this province, will the

minister tell us what steps he or his government has taken to assure

that the issue of land and sea claims will be dealt with first?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources, I can't give that assurance, but I'm certain

that the government will have those claims very much in mind. I can

tell the member that over the last four years there have been extensive

hearings leading up to today's announcement. The Ministers of

Environment and other ministers have published their concerns, and

those concerns have been taken into account in today's preliminary

announcement.

MS. SMALLWOOD: One final question to the minister. Will the

minister commit himself to a public hearing process to deal with

compensation and with environment and socioeconomic conflicts in regard

to these proposals before any permitting process takes place?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Those matters were addressed; they are

addressed in the reports filed last year. The normal process for

approving exploration, mining or in this case drilling will be

followed. In other words, there will be hearings.

FARM INCOME TAX EXEMPTION

MR. ROSE: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and

Fisheries, perhaps I could direct my question to the loquacious

Minister of Finance. I would be interested in his comments. The

Minister of Agriculture recently told residents of the Cowichan Valley

that he would stop the planned increase in farm income exemption for

part-time farmers, which the budget suggested was going to go from

$1,600 gross income a year to $5,000. Would the minister care to bring

the House up to date on any rethinking of this proposal?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The issue of the raising of exemption

levels is one that was projected far enough into the future that we

would be able to receive comments and advice from a variety of the

affected citizenry. As a consequence of that and the active interest of

many members of this House, we are still in the process of receiving

those comments, and in the fullness of time we will be dealing with

them. But at the moment we're still in the process of receiving

comments.

MR. ROSE: A supplementary to the minister. Most of these

part-time farmers are hard-working people; they are not hobbyists who

shoot grouse in the fall or ride to the hounds every Sunday morning. Is

it the government's policy to encourage part-time farmers as a way of

conserving farmland in British Columbia and not jeopardize it for

subdivision because of the high exemption which was envisioned in the

budget?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That's a good point, and one that the

government is well aware of. It is certainly true, as the questioner

brings out, that in addition to a possible abuse by virtue of the

existing

interpretation of farm exemptions, there is also the very real

fact that the presence of some of these five-acre properties,

particularly those surrounding the urban parts of the province, work to

the advantage of preserving farmland. I think that is something the

government recognizes and is certainly interested in supporting.

There is a fine line to be marched between the interests of property

owners — allowing them to reap the benefits of their work in the

farming community — and at the same time ensure that urban communities

are given room to expand. Concurrent with that, of course, is the

ever-pressing need to preserve and enrich the role that farmers have

traditionally played in the development of our province. We are very

[ Page

1621 ]

proud of the government's protecting role, and we certainly intend to continue

making every reasonable effort to ensure that farmers in British Columbia are

allowed to grow and enrich their incomes. We will be monitoring it very closely,

and as I said earlier, we are still interested in receiving comments and input

from all citizens on that subject. We still have room to receive them and implement

before the trigger date of 1989.

MR. ROSE: I'm a little concerned, Mr. Speaker, about that phrase "trigger date."

I wonder, since any exemptions given to these entrepreneurs of the

farm are really borne by the municipalities concerned and shared by

other residents in the municipality, whether the government has decided

to adopt a policy of compensating the municipalities from the general

tax roll for any exemptions which are granted to these areas.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I have not, to the best of

my knowledge, received any such requests from local government

representatives. Presumably, were such requests to be made, they would

come to government through the pipelines of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, which is the umbrella organization of all local

governments in the province. Having had a close association with that

organization's efforts over the last number of years, I can say with

confidence that that has never been a high-profile concern of the

organization itself. I've not heard the suggestion for some time that

there should be some assistance for local government to compensate for

the loss of property tax revenue.

Just in response to the general thesis, it does seem to me that

local government itself would have an interest in preserving farmland.

If that is their interest, and I suspect it would be, then it's not

unreasonable to expect them to make some financial contribution to

enable farmland to continue. I'm not aware of any organized effort on

the part of the representative organization, the UBCM but if it were to

be brought forward, my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and I would, of course, be pleased to give them an

audience.

PRIVATE WOODLOT TRANSFERS

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Minister of Forests regarding

private woodlots that have been granted by the province. They've

granted free some 480 of them. Now they are being transferred, and

great profits are being made. Has the minister reconsidered transfer

policy with respect to private woodlots?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, no, we have not considered

transfer policy. But it's a point well made, and will be taken under

consideration. Thank you, Mr. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I note that outstanding

consultants suggest that maybe $13 million is being made in the

transfer process with respect to that.

FALCON CAPTURE IN QUEEN CHARLOTTES

I have a further question to the Minister of the Environment regarding the

trapping, or what ever you would call it, of young falcons in the Queen Charlotte

Islands. Some ten permits, I believe, are being granted this year, and these

birds are very limited in number. In previous years and under previous administrations

there was a moratorium on this kind of activity. Could the minister explain

to the House why he feels justified in allowing this to take place in the province

today?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, to

the House and to the member who posed the question, an injunction has

been filed. The ministry hasn't seen it yet but it does put me in a sub

judice situation, and I can't offer any further comment.

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LANDS BOUNDARIES

MS. MARZARI: A question to the Minister of Lands and Forests.

The University Endowment Lands, soon to become known as the Point Grey

Regional Park, is undergoing some rapid change at the moment. For ten

years plans have been in the works, accepted by the community and

accepted by the government, for a final definition of the boundaries of

the University Endowment Lands. It has come to the committee's

attention within the last few days that the Ministry of Forests and

Lands is changing those boundaries and possibly removing 200 acres out

of the park lands, which would be very much against what the community

has been fighting for and has agreed on for some years. Would the

minister elaborate or explain why, at this eleventh hour, the ministry

would come in with changed boundaries and 200 acres removed from the

park?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, there is no park. It's under

consideration, and nothing is being done in isolation. Any

modifications are being done in discussion with a number of parties

that have the University Endowment Lands at heart and have sonic

concerns. Nothing is being done in isolation.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I understand that a new person

has entered this world, Ryan Reynolds, your first grandson. He was born

yesterday and weighed eight pounds and is the son of Paul and Nicole

Reynolds. I would ask this House to bid him welcome.

Ministerial Statement

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial

statement. I have the pleasure today of making an announcement which I

am sure will meet with the enthusiastic approval of all members of the

House. It concerns the establishment of six major wildlife management

areas around the province to benefit significant wildlife populations

and habitats.

Fittingly, this designation is being made as part of our province's

celebration of Wildlife '87, the national conservation centennial which

commemorates the founding of Canada's first wildlife sanctuary 100years

ago. This celebration is an opportunity for the people of our province

to join

[ Page 1622 ]

with our fellow Canadians in activities that focus

on the needs of wildlife in its natural habitat. I am happy to say that

the British Columbia conservationists have given their wholehearted

support, in concert with our government. to ensure that the centennial

will be a success.

[2:30]

It was on this very day in 1887, June 7, that Sir John A. Macdonald

announced the establishment of the first bird sanctuary in North

America at Last Mountain Lake, Saskatchewan. This was an incredibly

farsighted achievement for its time, and I am sure all members will

agree that it is an appropriate benchmark for measuring the wisdom and

worthiness of today's conservation decisions.

I would also like to draw the House's attention to the exhibit which

is presently on view in the rotunda. It is a selection from the work of

thousands of young people from schools across our province who

undertook the task of celebrating Wildlife '87 by creating posters with

the theme of joining hands in conservation. I am sure you will agree

that they have done an admirable job of bringing that message very

vividly to life. Parenthetically, let me thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

your cooperation in mounting this display in our legislative precincts.

Mr. Speaker, the six wildlife management areas which we have

designated are in a very special way examples of the same spirit of

cooperation and concern for wildlife. In recent years, each of them has

benefited from the very best in wildlife management and habitat

protection techniques, assisted in some cases by supplementary public

and private funding through my ministry's habitat conservation fund and

such organizations as Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Trust.

Beyond that, each has been preserved and enhanced with the

enthusiastic cooperation and, in some cases, participation of local

citizens, landowners and conservation groups. All of the areas are, to

a varying degree, accessible to the public for viewing and educational

purposes. Three of them are close to urban population centres, where

contact with wildlife is needed most.

The six areas are: the Junction wildlife management area, where the

Chilcotin River meets the Fraser — this area supports a major herd of

California bighorn sheep as well as other wildlife; the Pitt-Addington

marsh in the heart of the lower mainland east of Vancouver, home to a

great variety of wetland wildlife, including the sandhill crane; the

upper Cariboo River, northwest of Williams Lake, which provides

excellent winter range for moose as well as habitat for a variety of

other wildlife and fish species; the Chilanko marsh, west of Williams

Lake, which provides excellent waterfowl habitat and winter range for

moose; Dewdrop Rosseau Creek on the north side of Kamloops Lake,

important range for mule deer, California bighorn sheep and other

species; and finally Tranquille, on the flood plain of the Thompson

River within the city of Kamloops, providing excellent waterfowl

habitat for migratory waterfowl, songbirds and other wildlife.

The establishment of these wildlife management areas is consistent

with our government's policy of preserving the very best of our natural

heritage, including wildlife species and wilderness lands, through a

strategy which recognizes the great variety and potential of our

province's land base.

A common demand these days is that our wildlife program should be

put on a broad footing, that it should manage ecosystems rather than

simply manipulating game populations, and that it should pay more

attention to non-game species, to threatened and endangered species and

to nonhunting recreation. I would like to emphasize that there has

already been a strong trend towards this kind of emphasis over the past

few years, and that these designations represent a further step in this

direction.

Habitat studies and habitat enhancement projects are crucial to our

wildlife management activities, and we will continue to give them

strong support, In general, our wildlife program is being planned to

reflect as wide a public interest as possible.

In preparing these plans, wildlife staff are also working closely

with other provincial agencies, resource agencies and property owners

to ensure that resource developments, industrial operations and

agriculture are compatible with the prime goal of maintaining healthy

wildlife populations.

This is a challenging task, yet I believe that these new wildlife

management areas are a practical demonstration of what can be achieved

through careful consultation and well directed management. Above all,

they show what can be done with the active support of citizens who take

their stewardship responsibilities seriously. The message of Wildlife

'87 is that this kind of conservation program can be the norm for our

province when the knowledge and the will are there.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to thank the Minister of Environment,

first of all, for giving me notice of his presentation to the House

today. I'd like to add my voice and the voice of the opposition to the

celebration of Wildlife '87. While the goals that the minister has

outlined are of preservation and identifying the ecosystem as a

priority rather than dealing with the problems, I would like to support

him in those goals and add my voice on the need for an intensive and

comprehensive program for the management of both wildlife and

wilderness in this province. I also will look forward to the

Environment estimates and, in particular, will be looking for

additional support for conservation officers and programs within the

ministry that will support this concept.

Again I would like to commend the minister for his kind words and

promising priorities towards these particular management areas. We'll

look forward to further explanation of how the minister will be

governing and managing these areas.

Orders of the Day

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

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

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

section 29 as amended.

MR. SIHOTA: I've had the weekend to sit back and consider

again the debate we've been having with respect to

section 29. I guess

the weekend, if it serves any purpose, serves one purpose in

particular: perhaps it allows people to cool down a bit and step back

and have some second thoughts about the legislation. If only the

government would exercise a little bit of cool thought on some of this

legislation and allow the temperature, both in the House and outside on

the streets,

[ Page 1623 ]

to cool down a bit, and allow us to take a sort of thoughtful, rational approach to this legislation.

But over the weekend, Madam Chairman — Mr. Chairman. Sorry, my

apologies. I'm thinking of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran),

who's normally in the chair, and I apologize for that. So please accept

my apologies. I should have been looking up instead of down.

The point, I guess, that....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think there is anything untoward about my

comment there; I was talking about where my head was when I was making

the comment. It was pointed down towards my notes.

I should say, though, that the member for Langley made some great

statements on TV with respect to the performance of the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) over the weekend.

The more I thought about the issue and the more I talked about it on

Friday night with my wife, the more concerned I became about the word

"substantial." I know it's a point, but it's awfully frustrating to

hear the answers that the minister has been giving, and then to tie it

in with the intent the minister says that he has with respect to the

section. There is no dovetailing between the intent and the words: the

words lead themselves to one conclusion, and the intent, as expressed

by the minister, arrives at another. I keep on hoping the government

would bring down some further amendments to clarify this legislation.

My first question of the minister is this: does the minister have in

mind any further amendments to this

section or any other sections'?

HON. L. HANSON: No, I don't have in mind any amendments. We

believe — or I believe — that the wording as we have it here now is

clear. I think we've had some very enlightening discussions on the

various wordings, but I would be remiss to say that if something comes

forward that doesn't change in fact the intent or the philosophy —

something that we have missed, although we've had such extensive

consultation and dialogue with the various interested parties, both

labour and management and their legal counsel — it seems to me a remote

chance that there will I be any changes at this point.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry to hear that, because it's clear in my

mind that this

section and the government's stated intent are not one

and the same. Instead of trying to belabour the point and talk again

about bakeries and Safeways and the words "substantial" and "assets."

and all of that, let me just sort of wrap up my thoughts on this by

making the following points.

I would like to believe the minister with respect to his comments

about his intentions on this section, the intentions that I think he

articulated on Thursday, to begin with, and on Friday. I would only

hope that the Industrial Relations Council, if it ever comes into

being, will take the same type of tack the minister has taken with

respect to the comments that I've made on

section 29. I really do,

quite frankly, believe that that's asking for too much. It's a bit of a

dream on my side, because I just think, reasonably put, that it would

be impossible. Given the changes in the section, given the extent to

which we have wandered from the wording of the Labour Code, and now

have the wording as it appears in

section 29, it's highly unlikely, and

it's most probable that we won't see the types of conclusions that the

minister arrived at during the course of debate on this section.

Therefore I think it lends credence to the argument that we've been

making all along: that this clause will make it easier for individuals

to be able to sell off portions of, or a lot of, their assets within

the company and avoid their contractual obligations to their employees

and allow for successor rights to fall by the wav,

I think that the change with respect to assets was a significant

departure from what we've got right now. On the other hand, if the word

"business" within the

section is used to include "assets," then it's

perhaps not as broad a departure as one would normally think. The

minister again says that in his view the word "business" takes into

account the word "assets." However, if you consider just the normal

rules of judicial

interpretation, and if you recognize that "assets" —

or "entire assets"; I think that's the phrase — has been removed from

the Labour Code in this section, I think it's unlikely that the

Industrial Relations Council will come to that type of conclusion.

I also think that the approach the government has taken with respect

to dealing with this

section is ill-founded. The approach appears to be

to say that the labour board seized on one element, whether assets or a

part of or contracts with other companies or the sale of contracts to

third parties or the inheritance of accounts receivable by the

purchasing company — and particularly, of course, in the case of assets

and parts of. The government seems to think that the Labour Relations

Board would seize on one isolated situation — without looking at the

circumstances in their entirety — in arriving at a decision as to

whether or not successor rights should apply. I agree that the comments

that I'm making are somewhat technical, but if one were to sit back and

read the Labour Relations Board decisions, there are very few decisions

where they focused in on one isolated attribute of the sale or the

transfer or the lease in order to come to the decision that successor

rights ought to apply. They looked at the circumstances as a whole.

[2:45]

When the minister says a name in this House that he thinks that the

Industrial Relations Council should look at the circumstances as a

whole and not at one particular attribute, I'd like to believe him. But

by making the deletions that you've made in this legislation. you are

telling the Industrial Relations Council, in effect, not to take a look

at those attributes that you've deleted — assets, or a part of, to use

two examples that I cited during the course of my cross-examination. as

the minister put it at one point, of the minister on this matter. I do

think that if indeed the government appreciated that the Labour

Relations Board took a look at the circumstances as they were in the

whole, then it would not have brought about this change.

I think that there was a misunderstanding on the part of the

government in terms of how the Labour Relations Board functions and of

the extent of its inquiry to determine whether or not successor rights

should apply. But there you have it; you will now send a new signal to

those who are arbitrating on these types of matters, and as a result of

that, what's going to happen, in my view, is that a lot of situations

that would have been captured under the old legislation will not be

captured at all, and in trying to prevent what I called earlier on

during the course of the debate "the phantom bulldozer case" from

happening, you're going to prevent all sorts of

[ Page 1624 ]

other cases which were legitimately caught and

properly accorded successor status from being captured by this

legislation. The wording within this

section 1s such that it's going to

make it a lot easier — incredibly easier — for people to avoid

successor obligations, so much so that it's difficult to accept the

government proposition that double-breasting — to use that language;

deunionization, as I call it — will be prevented by this legislation. I

think that's regrettable.

So the substantial part of the business assets will no longer

attract successorship. The transfer of individual skills or abilities

will no longer attract successorship status. And that's certainly going

to affect the construction industry and several small businesses that

have been unionized. It will not, because of the changes with respect

to location, address the Thrifty's situation that we used as an example

earlier on, which happened just down the road.

Finally, I think it raises again the question of bankruptcy, because

my reading of the labour relations law.... Over the weekend I was

looking at the CLE material on bankruptcies and successor status, and

the point was made there again that often bankruptcies would not result

in successor applications and that again the court would look at all

the circumstances. What you've done with this amendment is pretty well

rule out the possibility for those legitimate cases to be captured by

the legislation. I know what the legislation says with respect to

attempt to evade on the section, but once again that's an issue of

intent, and it's very, very difficult in any tribunal, let alone the

courts, to be able to prove that there was intent to evade. Just pause

for a moment and ask yourself how it would be that you could prove a

mind-set within a particular individual, especially when that

individual is going to be denying that type of mind-set. The wording of

the section, as I read it, is going to require a tremendous amount of

evidence being brought forward on the bankruptcy issue for successor

rights to apply.

We've all heard of cases that upset us. We've all heard of cases

where we think that successor rights should not have applied. I think

that the government obviously operated on rumour of those cases; and

essentially, when you begin to look at the jurisprudence in this area,

those cases are few and far between. Sure, there has been the odd case,

just like there are cases under the provisions of the Criminal Code

that I know as a lawyer I've never been happy with the outcome of, but

that doesn't warrant wholesale changes to the Criminal Code. It doesn't

require — to use another phrase that has been used a lot lately — a

sledge-hammer to kill a fly. There are ways in which this legislation

could have been crafted, in my view, with a little bit more

sensitivity, to address itself to the situation where successor rights

were wrongfully applied by the Labour Relations Board, but I don't

think anyone needed. to go this far. I don't think that the words "a

part of it," given what the minister says, ought to have been

eliminated. I think that the use of the word "substantial" totally

changes the way the council is going to be looking at successor

relationships in contrast to the way the Labour Relations Board did,

and I think using the intent language with respect to bankruptcy is

again going to make it very difficult to allow for the attachment of

successor rights in legitimate cases.

Certainly, eliminating location as a variable — and skills as a

variable — will once again assist in what I perceive to be the intent

of the section, which is to deunionize, to make it easier to

deunionize. Elements within the construction industry in particular are

going to be quite satisfied with this section. It is my

interpretation

that it is those elements that pushed for this section, and that for

some reason or other this

section was not properly thought out or was

sloppily worded to allow for larger leakage than had ever been intended

on the part of the government.

During the course of debate in the last few days on this, if ever

there was a

section that would have resulted, I would hope, in more

amendments on the part of the government, or alternatively would simply

have been allowed to stand, I think it was this one. I certainly have

no hesitation in voting against this section. I only hope that the

minister will step back for a moment from the adversarial, partisan

approach that sometimes this House invites and just quietly analyze

this section, because I think it allows for a lot more than the

minister is saying it allows for. The second member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Clark) asked the minister outright: "Will you amend this

section

in the future if it doesn't reflect what you say your intent is?" I was

disappointed again to hear the minister not answer that question

directly, because it would be a measure of the conviction if that was

done, and certainly there are no amendments coming forth now.

So it is frustrating. It is very frustrating for those of us on this

side of the House to hear the responses that we have been getting,

because the intent, as the minister expresses it, just does not match

up with the words in this section. We will see a large-scale

deunionization in this province. We will see innumerable cases come

before the council — should it be created if this act ever passes —

where unions will try to assert successor rights on the basis of the

old law, and it won't hold up any more. It is a radical departure from

a Labour Code

section that has served us well in the past. I don't

think there is any debate about that; the current

section 53 has served

us reasonably well.

This is such a far-flung departure that it invites all sorts of

questions. It is consistent with the pattern we have seen in the rest

of the legislation: the extent to which there has been a radical

departure, in just about every

section we have reviewed, from what is

currently the status quo. That just does not sit right with the

government's intent of moving incrementally to solve those few phantom

cases, as I call them it goes well beyond that. It is a regrettable and

awesome attack on the right of individuals to decide among themselves

as employees how they want to represent themselves with the employer,

and on the right of employees to be protected in the event that an

employer decides to sell, lease or transfer his commercial entity to a

third party.

Third parties. The principle that we always hear from the other side

of the House is, why should third parties be bound by these types of

collective agreements made between an earlier employer and the

employees? The fact is, in commercial law — and I speak as someone who

has done a lot of commercial law — third parties are often bound by

contractual obligations, by debt obligations. They are often bound by

guarantees and liabilities and contracts with debtors and creditors.

Those always survive the sale of a commercial enterprise, and their

obligations to their employees should survive as well; yet for some

reason the government thinks some should and some shouldn't.

I see that my time is up, so I will wrap up on that note. It is an

awesome and radical departure from what we have, and it is regrettable,

in my mind, that the government would see fit to make this type of a

move.

[ Page 1625 ]

HON. L. HANSON: I thank the member for those remarks. I too

stepped back and spent a lot of time over the weekend considering the

various things that have been said.

I think there was some remark about the antagonism that goes back

and forth and so on.

Section 30 — and also the other sections — has

nothing to do with whether you are opposed to it, therefore I am for

it. That has nothing to do with it at all. Very quickly — I don't want

to prolong this — I think those employers who see the amendments to

this

section as a blank cheque to avoid their responsibilities under

the act as negotiated with their employees and their unions are in for

a surprise. I certainly am confident that that will not happen.

The member made my response to a question from another member seem

as if I was waffling, and I was not waffling. I'm suggesting to the

member on the other side that it is always government's responsibility

to monitor what happens with any legislation that we bring forward, or

that any other government brings forward. If that legislation is not

working as it was intended to work, after a period of time, giving it a

reasonable opportunity to work, then it's government's responsibility

to respond to that. I think it will be my responsibility as Minister of

Labour to monitor what is happening with this

section particularly, and

I will do that. And if it isn't working as we intended it to after a

reasonable length of time, then it will be my responsibility as

Minister of Labour to respond to that.

[3:00]

MR. GABELMANN: I'm debating just what tone to use in

responding to the minister's comments just now. Clearly every minister

of the Crown in every government would always consider how legislation

he or she was responsible for was working, and would constantly monitor

it and make changes if it wasn't working. If they didn't do that, they

should be moved back to the back bench. So the answer isn't

particularly helpful in terms of a debate on this section. By the time

government gets around to introducing the changes that will be

required, the construction industry will be deunionized and much else

in the province will be well on its way. An assurance that the wording

will be monitored and the minister will perhaps bring in amendments if

it's not working isn't particularly useful, particularly when we

consider what the clear intent of the government seems to be here. I

think that we heard part of it expressed well by the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) on, I think, Friday

morning, if not Thursday.

One of the problems we have — and it's demonstrated more clearly in

section 29 than, I think, in any other

section of the amendments — is

that we have legislation brought in as a result of the collective view

of a group of people who have either personally experienced situations

in respect of board decisions on successorship status or, more

frequently, have had stories told to them — more often, I would argue,

apocryphal than not — about how

section 53 of the Code has prevented

maximizing the value of assets before a sale, and how the provisions of

section 53 of the Code have prevented the selling of equipment or

machinery in an effort to rationalize a particular business. In fact,

99 out of 100 of those stories are wrong. I hear them too; I've heard

them for 15 years. They're almost always wrong in fact. The stories

become exaggerated. They're rare, and they are not part of the

mainstream of labour relations difficulties, problems or issues.

I think members of the Arbitrators' Association made the point quite

well last year. They didn't say it with particular reference to this

section, but what we have in this

section is a response by a government

that has listened not to the majority of people involved in the

business. the majority of people dealing with labour relations on a

day-to-day basis, but rather to isolated individual stories from

friends or political supporters of theirs who have run into problems

with provisions of the Code or decisions of the board, particularly in

respect to successorship.

I think it's useful to put in the record brief excerpts from a

commentary done for Butterworths. which is a national agency or

organization that prepares commentary on legislation like this. It was

done by Gavin Hume. who's with Russell and DuMoulin in Vancouver. I

happen to know Gavin, because I've served on arbitration boards where

he's been the management lawyer or advocate. As a result, I have some

understanding of where he comes at this issue from in terms of his

political perspective and his view of labour-management relations. I

don't share his views. I'm sure he would feel comfortable with the

minister's views, and vice versa.

In his extensive

summary of the bill, he has quite a useful

summary

section 29 that I think puts it all into perspective. We need to

recognize that this is not a flaming left-wing view of the damage that

this

section is going to do to the rights of trade union members and

their collective agreements and certifications. This is a balanced

view, I would argue, but a view from the right.

He says, as we did earlier in this debate, that the successorship

section has been substantially amended in four respects, which is the

point that we made earlier. He's talking here about the

section that

the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) spent so much time

with.

"The new provision only applies to a transfer of the business or a substantial

part of the business. This is reminiscent of pre-Labour Code legislation, which

spoke only in terms of the sale of a business or part thereof, but did not make

any specific reference to assets. This legislation was interpreted in Amalgamated

Lithographers, 1964" — a bunch of numbers which aren't too important

— "and in R. v. Labour Relations Board ex parte Lodum Holdings, 1969"

— again some more numbers. "The thrust of this amendment is to significantly

restrict the approach that the board took in Redskin Cedar Co. et al. v. IWA

Local 1-367."

I think the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark)

referred to that decision on Friday.

Clearly — a point I want to make briefly in respect of this here is

someone who is recognized as knowledgeable on the issue, comes from a

perspective different from ours, and makes briefly the same points that

we make: that is, the agenda of the government is to bring back to

successor rights law the pre-1974 law as interpreted in several court

decisions in the sixties. That approach to successorship was changed by

the Code as indicated in Redskin Cedar, and now we're back to the days

of the sixties.

We've had the debate. Clearly the government wants to move back to

the sixties. We don't, and there's the division: there's the difference

in point of view. It remains to be seen whether the results of the

sixties, which led to an NDP government, will be repeated. By returning

to them, will we go back to the situation where we win the next

election as well? I would argue that the government is doing us a great

[ Page 1626 ]

favour in this respect, and if I thank them for

anything, I thank them for that. It would be nice to sit on the

imperilment benches again after the next election.

Gavin Hume goes on to say, and I think this confirms arguments we're making:

"The skills or abilities of an individual are not

considered as the 'business' which this

section applies to. Clearly,

this is in reference to the construction industry, where the board has

held that a

section 53 successorship can occur when applied to the

principal of the business, or when 'the key man' moves from one company

to another."

By implication, he's saying that those decisions

will now be reversed as well, so that when the "key man" moves, the

certification doesn't. It's obviously wide open for manipulation with

that.

"Thirdly, there is no transfer by reason only of the

fact that the business performs similar functions at the same location

that was previously occupied by the unionized business."

Here we go with Thrifty's again.

"This

section appears also to be in response to Redskin

Cedar ( supra ), and other cases where the board has found that the continuation

of a similar or same business in a location previously used by a business which

was certified creates a successorship."

There's a grey area in there, but they did find that. Whether they would

have found it in Safeway-Thrifty's is an issue that we can't comment

on yet, because we don't know. But there was a grey area there. He says,

in fact, that it was less grey than that, but now it will be completely black

or white, depending on one's point of view.

Fourthly, last of all, he writes:

"Successorship does not apply where the business or

the substantial part of it is transferred by a trustee in bankruptcy

under the Bankruptcy Act.... This appears to be in response to the

concern expressed by many about the inability to realize the maximum

value of the assets of a bankrupt corporation because of the

certification and the other obligations under the Code which the sale

of the assets carried with it. The council would be forced to reach a

different conclusion than the board did in such decisions as

Trav-L-Mate Industries Ltd. and Carpenters."

This was an 1982 decision.

I have just picked this up this morning. I hadn't seen it before

now, and if I'd had it before, I might have organized my comments along

the lines that he has organized his commentary, because it's quite

nicely, neatly and precisely done.

What he does in

summary is to confirm our fears about what the words

mean and to confirm that there is a significant and substantial change

in law being made with these changes, and that there will be — again by

implication, but clearly, I think — a profound difference in the way

businesses will be able to spin off, subdivide and maximize assets

under bankruptcy in a way that denies the value of the assets of the

employees.

I want to conclude by taking a minute on that subject, because we

haven't spent a lot of time on the bankruptcy aspect, the fourth of the

four major issues. I want to repeat that one line, because it really

summarizes a difference in values between members in this House. He

writes:

"This appears to be in response to the concern

expressed by many about the inability to realize the maximum value of

the assets of a bankrupt corpora tion because of the certification and

the other obliga tions under the Code which the sale of the assets

carried with it."

So we have here a clear division of view. We would argue that the

assets of the company or of the business should include the people who

work for it. Without those people's labour, in many cases over many

years and even decades, the business would not have achieved the value

it achieved. Their work, their dedication in most cases, their sweat

and their tears, if not their blood, go into making a business

profitable and prosperous. It may then meet bad times. If it does and

goes into bankruptcy, all of those assets that the business has that

were provided by labour are just kissed right off and those people are

told goodbye.

We're not talking here about a situation where the bankruptcy leads

to a permanent closure; we're talking about a change in ownership. The

people who have put their time, effort and labour into making that

business what it was over many years are just told goodbye — their

value is nothing, and all that matters is the maximization of the

capital value of the particular plant, operation or service.

That's a view of society which we reject. We would hold that the

owner and his assets, his capital, should be treated with no more

deference and given no more value than the value of the labour and of

the workers and the people who have made their life working at that

particular enterprise. I cited earlier in this debate on

section 29 the

Mac and Fitz example in the Okanagan, where this precise situation is

now developing. In fact, ironically in that case, sale of that

particular plant is awaiting proclamation of this section, because it

will be worth more to potential purchasers to buy the plant without the

people. All we would argue is that they should be required to buy the

people too.

Friday in debate on this point, the Minister of Tourism, Recreation

and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid) was suggesting that my conclusion that the

government is more interested in capital than it is in people is unfair

and wrong and that the government is quite interested in people: "We

care about the owners, and they're people, aren't they?" — that kind of

response. But your clear illustration here is that the government's

concern is with capital, with the owner of that capital, and not with

the people who have been employed in that situation.

I guess I don't find a need to rant and rail about it. I just want

to point out that we will make sure that people around this province

over the next few years understand the difference between the values of

that side of the House and of this side.

[3:15]

MR. LOVICK: I have not thus far spoken on

section 29 of the

bill, primarily because it seemed to me my colleagues were doing an

admirable job and didn't need any help from me. However, as I've

listened to the comments coming from the minister over the past couple

of days that we have been on this, I have a certain fear that one area

has not been addressed under the heading of successor rights. I'm

referring specifically to the new terminology that we are now hearing

much of in the province of B.C., namely, privatization.

I think it appropriate for me to put this in a context for the benefit of the minister, that he will understand I'm not merely

[ Page 1627 ]

making up some kind of hypothetical case. I

attended a conference — last week I believe it was — on privatization,

a conference that was addressed, incidentally. by the minister within

government who is responsible for privatization. One of the seminars as

part of that conference was entitled "Successor Rights." Interestingly

enough, one of the participants in the panel was a member of a law

firm, the name of which has been mentioned on many occasions in this

debate. Another of the participants was a former vice-chairman of the

Labour Relations Board. Curiously, however, the conclusion that those

people drew about the whole large area of successorship rights was: "We

don't know. We've looked at the new Code, we've looked at the

amendments, but we don't know."

I think that is an incredibly damning kind of comment to be made by

professionals in the field who are surely as knowledgeable as any. In

other words, they couldn't tell us whether the Code protected existing

trade unions in the event of a takeover by another entity. From their

point of view, it was simply not clear. I suggest that that has the

effect of a time bomb ticking away in the province at the moment, and

it's something that I believe the Minister of Labour has an obligation

to address. I'm raising it here because I think, as I say, it's a

crucial issue; and because we are dealing with successor rights, at

least tangentially, this seems to me the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman.

I want to suggest a couple of things also to support that

contention. The metaphor I used was of a time-bomb ticking away. The

other day I received a glossy poster from the Canadian Union of Public

Employees' office launching a campaign, which says: "Privatization —

what about your kids?" — or something of that kind. The reason that has

come out, of course, is precisely because those individuals are

wondering what happens to their status, what happens to their tenure,

what happens to their rank, if you like — seniority clauses, wages,

working conditions, all those kinds of things — in the spectre of

privatization. I think that's a legitimate concern, and we on this side

of the House certain1y are concerned that this particular measure of

the bill would seem to open the door to the removal of what are loosely

defined as and called "successor rights." That's the basis of our

concern.

I don't think, again, that we're being unduly alarmist. I think

indeed there is evidence abundant to substantiate the claim that I am

suggesting now. For instance, the most famous one is a story that

recently came to light about the Japanese experience — the Japanese

railway system. As I'm sure the minister is aware, not very long ago

the Japanese railway system was divided into 12 separate companies.

More than anything, the important conclusion of that great transfer and

that change in ownership was that at one point there were 270,000

employees, and the day after the dissolution of the single company into

12 companies, there were 205,000. The 65,000 individuals who were not

rehired — not, I am sure, entirely by coincidence — happened to be

members of one particularly irritating, troublesome trade union. I'm

suggesting to the minister simply that employees in companies

throughout this province are well aware of those kinds of experiences —

their concern, therefore, about successor rights.

The conclusion that I'm suggesting to this rather longwinded

argument — and I apologize for that, because as I say, I did not intend

to speak to this particular

section of the bill — is that we, the

government, must give very clear and definite assurances to workers

that successor rights will indeed be protected, and I think I can

fairly say, on the basis of what we have listened to thus far, Mr.

Minister, that there have not been those kinds of assurances. When I

listen, for example. to my learned colleague from Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew talk about the legal arguments, and I listen to other members

on this side talk about particular cases and particular precedents.

what it seems to me I recall hearing from the other side is essentially

nothing — no comment. I am therefore asking, I suppose, whether the

minister would perhaps be good enough to give us his sense of successor

rights as they are or are not protected within the bill — specifically

in this section, of course, but throughout the bill as well. Perhaps

the minister would care to respond to that.

HON. L. HANSON: I'm not just sure what the member was

referring to. "Is there some relationship to this

section of the bill

and privatization," I suppose, is one of the tenets of the argument

that was advanced. In a broader term, I think what we're saying in this

section of the bill is that if there is a discernible continuity,

successorship should follow. To rule on specific things and so on, I

would not be able to answer that. But I suppose you might be referring

to something like, let's say. B.C. Rail. Is that a substantial portion

of government. or isn’t it a substantial portion of government?

Again, the jurisprudence is going to be developed by the Industrial

Relations Council, but I would think that B.C. Rail.... There certainly

would be a discernible continuity in that case. It would boggle my mind

to come to any other

interpretation. I don't know if that's the answer

you're looking for, but it's fairly clear to me. Again, you can go on

and pick this little thing or that little thing, and try to determine

under the specific circumstances what the determination would be.

What we're saying is that in

section 29 we're trying to make sure

that the Industrial Relations Council determines that there has been a

discernible continuity, and that the essence of a business is there

when successorship rights go with it.

My critic mentioned a paper prepared.... I've forgotten the lawyer's

name, but I have read it. I think it was prepared prior to the

amendments being introduced, as a matter of interest, and I think it

referred to some of the things about skills and abilities and so on. We

did bring in an amendment to the bill when we recognized that we were

excluding skills and abilities from part of the determination of a

business. but it should be amended to say that they shouldn't be not

determined. They shouldn't be the only determination: they should be

part of the determination.

MR. LOVICK: I was struck by a phrase that the minister used

on a couple of occasions here that I don't recall encountering before:

"discernible continuity." Is that a phrase that appears somewhere? It

isn't in

section 29. Is it somewhere else in the Code? I'd like to

know, if that's the case. Or is it some new terminology to be

considered when we're talking about privatization too?

HON. L. HANSON: It's not in the legislation.

MR. LOVICK: It isn't? Okay.

It's a useful construct. It seems to me. Did that just leap to mind as the minister was reflecting on this matter. or is there

[ Page 1628 ]

in fact some principle enunciated and embraced in that particular phrase? I'm curious, frankly.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister argues that what this

section 1s

designed to do is to provide that successor rights will be declared if

there's a discernible continuity; I think that's essentially what was

said. I would argue that that's what the original legislation said. The

problem we have is in finding the right legislative language to

properly define "discernible continuity." I would argue that any

continuity that you could discern would be continuity. Most of the

cases about which the law has defined this issue in the past few years,

essentially without using that language, relate to that issue. Was

there a continuity of business that can be discerned by the panel on

the board?

Decisions were made where sometimes they said yes, sometimes they

said no. Every commentator who has made reference to this

section

argues that the language is weaker, the test less onerous than it was

before. If the test is not less onerous, why make the changes? Clearly,

the government, and I think it was expressed by some other members of

the government caucus, wants the test to be made less onerous.

The question that the board has to make a decision about now is

whether or not there is a discernible continuity. Is it the same

business carrying on and trying to evade its responsibilities of

certification? The board makes decisions, has been making decisions

based on the weight it gives to various bits of the evidence and

inevitably in the close ones makes a judgment call, a subjective kind

of judgment. Occasionally the judgment may have not pleased members of

the government caucus.

You might well find that there are as many as a half a dozen or a

dozen cases over the last year where the decision went in a direction

different from the direction that the government wanted. I think the

former Premier on occasion made that kind of comment. It was expressed

along the lines of an argument that said boards and agencies shouldn't

be making government policy; government should.

We've gone the flip side on that one now. The minister keeps saying

that the board will make these decisions. Bill Bennett's view was that

the board should not be making these decisions. However, that is

another issue. But this discernible continuity question....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: If it was talked about last week, I missed it.

[3:30]

MR. SIHOTA: I talked about it.

MR. GABELMANN: You talked about it? Well, I missed it. Then I

won't pursue it much further, if the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

did talk about it. But it is what the law used to say. Why change it?

Section 29 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Brummet

L. Hanson

Reid

Dueck

Parker

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Dirks

Peterson

Veitch

Strachan

Couvelier

Davis

Johnston

R. Fraser

Weisgerber

Jansen

Hewitt

Gran

Chalmers

Ree

Bruce

Serwa

Vant

Huberts

Messmer

Jacobsen

S.D. Smith

NAYS — 20

G. Hanson

Marzari

Rose

Stupich

Skelly

Boone

D'Arcy

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

Edwards

section 30.

MR. LOVICK: I really thought for a moment that we had arrived

at a particular plateau in terms of debate and procedure in the House

where we were going to have a brief elucidation and explanation of the

intent and purpose of a given section. I would therefore like to

suggest to the minister that perhaps that was just an oversight and

that he is indeed prepared to tell us briefly what he sees as the

intent of

section 30, before we begin — if the minister is willing to

do so.

HON. L. HANSON: I agree that that's a reasonable approach to

take. The

section 30 amendments are in relation to voting procedures.

There have been suggestions that not all votes, as it relates to the

collective bargaining process by voting of the membership, have been

held so that it isn't determinable which way the individuals have

voted. We've ensured in this

section that there is a guarantee of the

secrecy of the balloting.

We've also suggested in here that the voting results — be it the

accredited employer organization or the employees who have voted — be

revealed in terms of numbers for, numbers against, number of ballots

issued, numbers destroyed, etc. Of course, as I said earlier, it

applies to votes held by both the union and the employers'

organizations. The votes are to be counted in accordance with the

regulations which will be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

There's another here also; we have felt that there have been

instances where a strike or lockout ballot may be worded in a manner

that doesn't really give the employees — or the employers' organization

— the chance to respond to the issue. We've also said in here that if

they aren't held in a prescribed form, the votes will be invalid.

I think that there's been a lot of press and media and so on. Most

recently in the IWA forest industry dispute there was a suggestion that

there were "yes" and "no" ballot boxes, even though the vote in fact

was held in secret — that there was a means of determining how the

individual did vote.

MR. WILLIAMS: The danger of a "no" ballot in a "yes" box.

[ Page 1629 ]

HON. L. HANSON: I suppose the member opposite approves of that performance.

To sum up, it improves the current voting procedures and ensures

democratic voting practices. It extends the secret ballot requirement

to all votes conducted by a union respecting collective bargaining or

as ordered by the council. They must be conducted in a secret manner.

It ensures that the knowledge of the results of those votes is made

available to the two interested parties. I think that fairly well

describes the intent. I suppose that there will be a number of

questions, and I will be prepared to answer.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the

minister for extending the courtesy of a brief explanation of what he

perceives to be the intent of this section. I think that is indeed a

good niodus operandi for this House, and indeed for all legislation,

and I commend the minister for that approach.

This

section of the bill is not as causing of consternation and

concern to us on this side of the House as other sections. That is not

to say that we don't have some difficulties with it, but we recognize

that this is not some matter of fine and elaborate principle that must

be defended to the last breath, or some such thing. I hasten to point

that out to begin with: I'm not prepared to stand here and declaim or

denounce or any such thing. However, I think there are some problems

with this section.

The main problem, as we on this side of the House see it, is that

this

section seems to be animated and given life by a starting premises

that we have difficulty with: namely, that you can't trust those

people. The whole thing is couched in these terms: we have to legislate

fair and legitimate democratic procedures because, if left to their own

devices, those individuals will not use fair and democratic election

procedures.

Now I picked up a couple of the allusions made by the minister about

departures from what is right and proper in terms of the normal

procedures for elections. But I'm wondering how many those are, or

whether those are indeed not aberrations — significantly aberrations;

that is, very few in number, certainly in relative terms. It seems to

me a mistake, frankly, for a government to begin to set up a policy

because there has been one violation at some point in the past, and

therefore to say no more of those violations will be allowed to occur,

simply because of fiat — because we will outlaw the possibility of

those kinds of violations occurring.

[3:45]

I hope at some point the minister will indeed share with us how widespread

the evidence was to suggest that there were practices of voting that were irregular,

to use that terminology. To put the question more specifically, are there large

numbers of recorded cases where trade unionists — from our point of view the

primary concern here — have indeed been demonstrated to be engaging in unfair

voting practices? If that's the case, then I think we owe it to the

trade union movement to state that it is the case, rather than to leave it just

as a sort of nudge, nudge, wink, wink. to use an old phrase.

So that whole business, to begin with — simply the matter of trust.

Does this whole thing proceed from the assumption that you can't trust

individuals, and therefore the state will get involved?

The other concern — and I'm struggling with this a little bit, Mr.

Chairman, because I realize I could readily be out of order — is that

this

section assumes the passage of the next section, namely 55, and it

is 55 that causes us concern, because 55 is the one that says non-union

members will be allowed to vote. As I say, I'm struggling, because I

want, I suppose, to consider these so-called reforms to voting

procedures in the context of that other amendment. But again I

recognize that that is somewhat premature, given that it is after all

the next amendment.

We are concerned also, I suppose. about the whole business of

publishing the votes. I want to suggest to the minister that this will

certainly be perceived by many to be an antiunion strategy — an

anti-union measure. The reason is simply this. Trade unions customarily

look upon having various votes as part and parcel of their strategy.

Whether or not to release the results becomes a matter of the technique

used in bargaining — the technique used as part of the strategy. It

would seem that this particular measure will effectively take away that

option on the part of a trade union. In other words, all results

apparently must be published. Again, as I'm suggesting, the trade union

will. I suspect. perceive this as being yet another manifestation of

government taking sides, interfering on behalf of the other guys. and

that causes us concern.

The other broad area of concern is the whole business of government

supervision being required for all voting that has to do with

collective bargaining matters. I'm wondering if the minister has given

any thought yet to whether that will necessitate the development of a

brand-new bureaucracy or the hiring of additional staff or some such

things. Because, in fact, it is the case that trade union negotiating

committees will frequently have matters that they want to discuss with

their members and present to the membership that, by this rather loose

wording, will be called "matters referring to collective bargaining."

All of those votes or decisions that have to be taken may well come,

then, under the provisions of this

section and require some kind of

government supervision. The question, I guess, is whether it is the

intention to have a whole new batch of individuals hired as part of the

Ministry of Labour to go around supervising all votes or some such

thing. I realize I am engaging in what is traditionally called the

reduction argument — you know, where one takes it to its logical absurd

extension.

But I think it's a fair question, nevertheless. In other words, are

we suggesting that all of those kinds of votes that have loosely to do

with collective bargaining will now require government supervision?

Those are the broad concerns. We have a couple of larger ones — dare I

say we'll call those philosophical. I started with the notion, and what

appears to be the starting perception of this government, that you

can't trust these people and therefore we, the government, must get

involved to supervise all of these activities called ballots and voting.

But I'm wondering if, on a somewhat more profound and serious level,

the kind of legislation proposed here, this kind of interference with

the democratic right to choose and to cast one's ballot, is entirely

compatible with Canada's obligations in international law. For

instance.... I shouldn't say "for instance." The case I'm making, and

that I ask the minister to note, is that Canada did indeed sign the

International Labour Organization convention agreement of 1948, and the

heading there, of course, is: "Freedom of association and protection of

the right to organize."

That particular

section of that international covenant lists

something very specific in

article 3, and I'd like to quote that if I

could, because, as I suggest. perhaps this proposed

[ Page 1630 ]

legislation is not entirely compatible with that

section.

Article 3 says as follows: "Workers' and employers'

organizations shall have the right to...organize their administration

and activities.... More specifically, the clause says the public

authorities "shall refrain from any interference which would restrict

this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof."

As well, in

article 8 of the same document, we read as follows: "The

law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so

applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this convention."

The question again, then, is whether this statement that we, the state,

will supervise your particular voting procedures, we shall also tell

you how the questions are to be formulated and presented, and we shall,

indeed, make sure that that is effectively supervised and we shall also

determine the nature of the question and we shall also say that the

results must be published at a given point on a given time or given

date is compatible with that bit of international law to which Canada

is a signatory. That's the other question, and I think it's an

important one too. So perhaps at this point I will simply ask the

minister if he'd care to respond to any of those concerns.

HON. L. HANSON: We did look at that — the ILO — and we feel

that this is nothing but living up to those principles. I guess the

concern that the member mentioned is whether these things are being put

in place as a result of a lack of trust, I guess, of the procedure that

is there now? Then I think he mentioned: are we getting too far into

the internal operations of the unions? I don't think that's the case.

During any bargaining process and during the bargaining processes

that I've been involved in, the negotiating team had been back to their

membership a number of times asking questions of this and keeping them

involved as it relates to this as a very major issue, and this is where

we are on it. Maybe asking for shows of hands as to whether we should

continue in that direction, or how they feel.... I don't think we are

interfering in that at all. All we are suggesting is that there is a

requirement for a democratic, secret kind of vote, as we have in all of

our elections, but certainly not from the point of view of saying: "We

don't trust you to do it on your own." We were simply saying, like we

do in all our elections, be they civic, hospital — well, hospitals are

societies, usually — school board or all of the other things, that

there is a democratic process that should be followed.

But the internal workings of the union and the deciding of the

union, as well as the employers' organization, as to what position they

are going to take, what stance they are going to take, whether the

issue is large enough for us to pursue all of that sort of thing, I

think, isn't affected by these voting procedures. But there is no doubt

that there is a.... I think that, as the member opposite says, the

democratic process is fulfilled in.... I guess, on the other hand, that

if it is being fulfilled and everything is fine, there is nothing wrong

with putting it here to ensure that it is fulfilled.

But again, no, I don't think that we are interfering in the union's

internal business. I think that there is nothing here that says those

sorts of discussions and those sorts of votes that go on within, when

they decide their bargaining position and all of the other

things...that does not fall under this section; that is, their internal

discussions and their internal decisions as to what they....

Of course, these provisions also apply to employers' organizations,

if they are an accredited organization. The individual, of course; one

employer with one union is not a.... But no, I don't think that....

Certainly I have had a lot of discussions, and I don't feel that

that....

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I stated just a moment ago that

here is precisely where the minister and I have some disagreement,

because I would suggest from a close reading of this particular

section

that it effectively opens the door to precluding and forbidding

show-of-hand or voice votes. Let me just quote the particular

section I

am referring to. It says in

section 55(l): "All voting directed by the

council or by the commissioner under this Act and other votes held by a

trade union or employers' organization of their respective members

regarding a collective bargaining matter...."

MR. MILLER: Straightforward to me.

MR. LOVICK: It seems to me entirely clear, very

straightforward indeed. What that suggests is that any kind of vote,

any kind of preliminary strategy session or whatever that the trade

union might be having where it wants to simply say, "Are we all agreed

to that, guys?" will have to be by secret ballot — moreover,

apparently, in the manner prescribed and government-supervised. That, I

suggest to you, is (1) administratively unworkable, probably; (2) very

costly; and (3) a prima facie intrusion into the rights of that

democratically elected organization.

I don't think, as I say, we are being at all alarmist, through you,

Mr. Chairman, to the minister. I think, rather, that we are simply

reading the words as written here. I think perhaps the words are simply

carelessly drawn or some such thing. So perhaps the minister would like

to respond to that to begin.

HON. L. HANSON: I am sure you are referring to: "All voting

directed by the council or by the commissioner under this Act and other

votes held by a trade union or employers' organization of their

respective members regarding a collective bargaining matter, shall be

by ballot cast in such a manner that the person expressing a choice

cannot be identified.... That is certainly not my

interpretation, but I

will take that under advisement. The question is: is the wording as

such...?

[4:00]

MR. LOVICK: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I recognize I may sound like

the classic pedant here, and please forgive me if I do, but knowing a

little bit about language, I can tell you that what we have here is a

compound subject. There are two subjects for one verb. The second

subject in this case is "all other votes held by a trade

union...regarding a collective bargaining matter." I suspect — and I'm

delighted to see the look of consternation on the minister's face, and

on his adviser's face — that this is not their intention. I wonder if

we might get some assurances from them that that will be changed — or

thrown out, or whatever.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Or changed now, yes.

HON. L. HANSON: I would be perfectly prepared to stand this

section over until I can get that looked at carefully.

[ Page 1631 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed that the

section be stood over'?

All I right then. We'll defer

section 30 and we'll come back to it as we proceed through the bill.

section 31.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to

section 31 standing in my name on the order paper, [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

HON. L. HANSON: We make two changes here, and one is a very

technical one that I'm not sure will cause a lot of concern. But the

substantive change is that.... We did not intend in the first place,

and do not intend now, that there be any misunderstanding that

replacement workers are eligible to vote in matters relating to

collective bargaining procedures. I think that pretty well describes it.

The second one refers to the Post Office, and I think it's just

a.... We had "an office of the Canada Post Office." The original

wording was just to make absolutely certain that we're referring to

the.... This clarifies the reference to the Canada Post Corporation Act

and to the Post Office. So it's really a definition.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to say for the record that we

appreciate that amendment. It would have been an appalling situation if

the original wording had stood. We say thank you to the minister for

doing that.

I might also say thank you to the minister for his response on

section 30. I think that's an appropriate and useful way of conducting

business in here when that kind of situation develops. That's good.

Amendment approved.

section 31 as amended.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like to ask the minister why it is that he

believes that non-members of a trade union should have the right to

vote on issues affecting the trade union. A general rule of law in our

society.... Well, it's the law of the country that non-citizens cannot

vote. We make it a point that when you become a member of the country

by becoming a citizen, you then gain some rights, the most fundamental

of which is the right to vote. As I read it, and I'm sure the minister

would agree, this

section is akin to giving noncitizens the right to

vote in general elections, because we're saying that non-members of the

trade union will be allowed to vote. It seems to me that if they don't

participate in the organization, as they've chosen not to do by not

being members, then they should not have the right to vote. I say it's

akin to the question of non-citizenship, but it's even worse. It's not

a precise analogy, because this is a clear choice not to join made by

an individual. In the case of citizenship, there is a required

three-year waiting-period during which you cannot make a free choice to

become a citizen and thereby have the rights, including the right to

vote. I just want to try to get some justification from the minister as

to why he thinks that kind of standard should exist in trade unions

when it doesn't exist in our country.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the hon. minister, the

Chair has been advised that the second member for Saanich and the

Islands would like to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Chairman. I ask the House to welcome members

of the Tsartlip Cub pack from the constituency of Saanich and the

Islands. Also, I wish to mention that two sons of the second member for

Langley, namely Kevin and Ryan Peterson. are members of the Tsartlip

Cub pack, and they are sitting in the Speaker's gallery. I ask the

House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. L. HANSON: We've had a number of cases presented to us

by individuals suggesting that there may have been some restricted

access to ratification votes for those members doing picketing duty. We

have covered in another

section of the bill an issue where the removal

of a membership within the trade union — as a disciplinary method

within the union — should not cause them to lose their jobs unless

there was an arbitration procedure and it was determined to be fair and

reasonable. That's the reason we put that clause in. We're trying to

make it clear that all members of an affected bargaining unit should be

entitled to vote on the matters that directly affect them and their

livelihood. Of course, in another

section the people who have received

religious exemption are restricted from voting.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not the major

section of the bill. It's a

concern. I guess the way this issue was resolved in a broader sense,

historically, is Justice Rand's decision in 1948, I think, which

allowed persons not to join. As long as we have as many Rand formula

situations as we do, I suppose a

section of this kind. If not

appropriate. Is understandable. I am no, going to make a big to-do

about it.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

On the second clause. I want to deal with the issue of announcing

voting results. I assume that

section 55.1(2) is in place in order to

prevent the IWA, for example, from announcing its strike votes or its

ratification votes on a local-by-local basis where there is a

coordinated bargaining situation. Is that a correct assumption'? If it

is, can we also assume that this clause is in place because of the

strategy employed by the IWA last fall?

HON. L. HANSON: I would be misleading my critic and the

members opposite if that did not have a very large influence on this.

Certainly I think I as Minister of Labour and my colleagues look at the

situation as similar to how we handle our provincial elections, if you

will. Parts of our province are in a different time zone than others,

and I guess we produce the results in coordination. But again. It goes

back to what the member suggested: the influencing of various units of

a multi-unit bargaining situation. We don't believe that the

announcement of the results in one place should happen so that it

unduly influences the result of the other places either way, pro or con.

MR. GABELMANN: Again, not the end of the world in terms of an amendment to this bill. and one of the things to

[ Page 1632 ]

which people could have said,"We don't like it, but

we can live with it," but I think yet another illustration of the

imbalance that exists and is exacerbated by these changes. The trade

union will be impeded in its ability to conduct its bargaining and its

strike strategy by the result of a number of other sections, but also

here as a result of being required to announce its decision all at

once, without announcing decisions local by local, or however. The

employers don't have any comparable restraint. If the employers have

weak components, the union and the public don't get to find out. It's

all conducted in secret. The votes that might take place, whether

within a council or within the board of directors, or between a husband

and wife in a small business, or whatever structure that might

exist.... All of the discussions, all of the votes and all of the

strategy are determined privately and secretly, and without the

legislative restraint that unions are forced to conduct their strategy

under.

In our minds it is just another illustration of an attempt by the

government to bring in legislation that so grossly imbalances — if I

can make a verb out of that noun — the labour relations situation in

this province. Employers have all the clout as it is. They can pick up

their capital and move to Taiwan or Brazil. Workers as a group don't

have those kinds of options. Capital already has all the cards, and the

labour legislation should be an effort to give some rights to workers,

so that they can begin to deal with the power of the corporation, with

the power of capital, which is untrammelled by legislation. Here we go,

section after section, putting further restraints on the way in which

workers can conduct their business. In this case, they're going to be

told that they can't maximize their bargaining position by a technique

of conducting a vote or perhaps releasing a vote at different times.

[4:15]

If the balance was equal on the other side, I would say fine, I can

understand why you want to have this kind of provision. But it isn't

equal on the other side. The board of directors may be having a

horrendous fight about tactics or strategy or about how strong they are

or how willing they are to back up their particular position by a

lockout or whatever. No one will ever know about that debate in the

board of directors' meeting. No one will ever know that half or just

under half the directors wanted to do one thing, as opposed to what the

other half wanted to do. Yet when the trade union expresses its views,

it's wide open in public, and constrained in a way that allows them no

latitude whatsoever.

I want to make the point again: I could live with this

section 1f it

were balanced, but it's not. I guess that's the theme of our objections

to this legislation throughout.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd hate to see this

section pass without at

least having the opportunity to add my thoughts to the record. So I

thought I would take advantage of the opportunity to register my

concerns.

It is very interesting, this section. My friend from North Island

has talked about the imbalance, so I won't, and as a result keep my

comments short. You know, the minister often wonders how those of us on

this side of the House come to the conclusion that the playing-field is

not level, that it's being tilted in favour of one group or the other.

This type of clause is one that tends to get you there, because it

seems to apply to one side and not the other. This is one of many

qualities that show up in this legislation that cause that concern.

The

section on 55(l).... I take it that the intent once again is not

to influence, as the minister says. It talks about a vote. The way the

section is worded, sure, you cannot take a vote, but there are other

ways to influence. You can certainly call whatever voting you're having

done at a particular time a poll, as opposed to a vote, and taking a

poll isn't banned. It's very easy for one to work their way around

section 55.1(2) by simply doing polling of various locals: "No, we're

not having a vote; we're just conducting a poll." If you want to cut

out the question of influence, the

section doesn't do it. Really, it's

sort of taking an attack at the trade union movement to try to tell

them that they can't do something that they've done in the past, one of

their tactics. It just removes it because of a perception on the part

of the government, I guess, that it influences votes further down the

line. Quite frankly, I don't think it does, and I don't think that it

will in the future deter from strong votes or mediocre votes. It's

certainly my experience of trade unions that they're sufficiently

democratic and that the word gets down such that the members are quite

capable of making decisions on their own as to which way they should be

voting on a particular matter. Instead of having a 92 percent vote, you

may get a 91.5 percent vote. But it's not going to change the end

result of the vote in any substantial way. All it does is show a bias

and serve as another element of provocation. I guess that's the concern

that I had.

The whole

section 55.1(2) is a little bit like federal elections.

During the course of federal elections, as the minister knows, they

start and finish voting in Newfoundland and start counting the results

in Newfoundland way before we even get out of bed — some would argue —

in British Columbia. There's always a debate in this province as to

whether or not the results of federal elections should be released in

advance as they're being counted across the country. I guess we've got

a law that says you don't do that. In the United States they have a law

where you can track the results across the country. But anyone who's

been involved in the political process knows how it is that you can

work your way around and get that information in any event. So I guess

55.1(2) reminds me a little bit about the law in relation to Canadian

elections.

I don't have strong feelings with respect to opposing the changes in

section 31 with respect to 55.1(2) anywhere near the degree that I did

with the other sections, but I just want to point out to the minister

that it's very easy to get around the section; it's very easy to do

what the minister says he's trying to prevent. I think the

section

really is another one of those that just serves to inflame, provoke and

tip the field. That's all you're doing here, and I don't think it was

particularly necessary.

Section 55.1(1) is a similar matter. I won't reiterate the comments

about imbalance, but it is again.... I understand that when I was out

of the room someone did make the point about elections in Canada, in

terms of whether or not.... It's a little bit like saying that

everybody in Canada is eligible to vote, whether they are a British

subject or a recent immigrant, or whatever. We've set down some laws in

terms of who can vote, and perhaps the same type of thinking ought to

apply in trade union matters — particularly in trade union matters —

where I think that people who are voting on the collective agreement

ought to be members of the union. But I think you've heard that, so I

don't intend to repeat the arguments on that as well.

I guess there's somewhat of an ambivalent feeling on my part about

the

section in terms of its wording, but there's no ambivalent feeling

in terms of the shot it takes at the tactics of

[ Page 1633 ]

trade unions. It's not a burning issue, but it

starts to burn when one starts to read the act

section by section, and

begins to see that the little things that they were able to do in the

past are now being denied of them. This is the kind of

section that

will inflame; that's what it serves to do, Mr. Minister.

MR. CLARK: I just have a simple question for the minister,

tying this one in with the

section you just stood a minute ago. I

understand that this allows all people who are not members of the

bargaining unit — but, I assume, paying dues — to vote on all matters

of collective bargaining. In the old Code, as I understand it — I could

be wrong — everybody got to vote on whether or not to strike. I see

your assistant nodding his head. They got to vote on whether or not to

strike, so now they get to vote on all matters of collective

bargaining. Is that your intent, or is it the intent to say that for

all ballots that are decided upon under the previous section, which

you're going to bring back, whenever there us a government supervised

secret ballot, all members of the bargaining unit get to vote? Or is it

your intent to say that on all matters of collective bargaining,

regardless of whether the secret ballot is ordered, all members get to

vote? Do you understand the distinction?

HON L. HANSON: Are you suggesting that we want everyone to vote on all of procedures that go on within the union, and so on?

MR. CLARK: Is that what you want?

HON. L. HANSON: No.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like to clarify it. I think the existing

legislation is that everybody, member or not, who is an employee in a

certified operation gets to vote on strike votes. The change appears to

be that they will get to vote on all matters relating to bargaining. Is

that correct, first of all?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes. I have the assurance from the Minister of

Tourism that that's correct, and that gives me a certainty that it's

correct. Madam Chairman, I won't make any further comment.

All matters relating to collective bargaining include a variety of

matters that are normally internal union discussion relating to

strategy and issues, and the public, the Labour ministry and the

employer never even knew there were discussions or votes going on. But

unless I'm not reading this correctly, it seems now, if it has anything

to do with collective bargaining, that there will need to be a vote

which will include people who are not members of the union. If that's

the case, I'm a bit concerned. I wonder if the minister would clarify

that.

HON. L. HANSON: As I said, we passed over that

section which

was one concern on who could vote and so on. There was an intimation

there that this voting procedure, secrecy and everything, dealt with

everything that was going on within the union.

What we're saying here is that those who have, in a very broad

sense, a substantial interest in determination of a strike, which, of

course, is in the legislation now.... But the ratification of a

collective agreement, a vote on an employer's offer. those votes that

are ordered by the board, should be party to the members being affected

by it. But the people who are conscientious objectors are removed from

that. They don't have the ability to vote on it.

MR. GABELMANN: I accept, and I think we would agree, with an

intention or with language that concluded, in effect, the Rand formula.

Non-members would have the right to participate in a strike vote, would

have the right to participate in a ratification vote and a subsequent

ratification vote that the employers might now put to the union under

the new language. You can't rationally or reasonably argue against

that. Everybody who's going to be affected in that way should have the

right to vote on those issues. But it doesn't say that.

I would accept that that is the intention of the minister. It may

well have been the intention of the drafter, who knows? But it doesn't

say that. It says, and I hadn't picked up on this myself very well

earlier. I confess. but suddenly now I see the consequences in a way

that I hadn't seen before. It says that these people who are not

members — shall be entitled to participate in votes held by a trade

union of its members with regard to a matter related to collective

bargaining." It doesn't say in votes that are ordered by the board or

requested by the employer or government supervised strike votes or

government supervised ratification votes. It doesn't find language to

deal with any of those issues: it simply says: "If a trade union is

having a meeting...."

Let me describe a situation that could happen under this clause, as

I read it. The trade union has a meeting to discuss its strategy in

respect of the collective bargaining that's underway. The meeting might

be to delay for a week the next meeting with the employers: or it may

be on a whole host of different issues. Now non-members will be able to

come to the meeting and vote. We're not talking here about a supervised

vote. We're talking about: "...participate in votes held by a trade

union of its members" — those are often by show of hands at a meeting —

"with regard to a matter related to collective bargaining. That will

allow non-members to come to the meeting to participate in a

show-of-hands vote about strategy in respect of how the collective

bargaining should or shouldn't proceed. I don't believe that that's the

government's intention at all. But I believe that what I'm suggesting

would happen under the law the way it's worded.

[4:30]

Again, it may be useful to stand this

section down as well, because

it relates to a similar kind of issue, where the language is clearly

ambiguous and does not lead to the conclusion apparently sought by the

government.

MR. RABBITT: If the minister is wanting to respond, it might

answer one of my questions. following up on the line of questioning

from the critic and the definition of "matter related to collective

bargaining : 2 — in 55.1(1). Would that in clude such things as the

selection of the negotiating commit tee and the formation of

negotiating demands?

HON. L. HANSON: I believe that when you look at the

definition in the

interpretation

section of the Labour Code, it says

that "'collective bargaining' means negotiating in good faith with a

view to the conclusion of a collective agreement or its renewal or

revision, or to the regulation of relations between an employer and

employees." I'm sure the IRC will follow that definition and narrow the

voting considerably.

[ Page 1634 ]

Again, I don't get that

interpretation that my

critic is giving me, quite frankly, from that: "All employees in a

bargaining unit, whether or not they are members of the trade union or

of any constituent union of a council of trade unions, shall be

entitled to participate in votes held by a trade union of its members

with regard to a matter related to collective bargaining." When you

look at the definition of collective bargaining, I believe that that

does narrow it down to those issues that I talked about earlier: that

is, ratification, strike votes and that sort of thing — mind you,

strike votes are covered in any case. But I don't agree with that

interpretation. I'm sure the IRC will determine that in a much narrower

manner, taking that into consideration.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sure the IRC will want to do just what the

minister is suggesting; but I'm also sure — absolutely sure — that it

will not be able to do what the minister thinks it should do. The

minister read the definition of collective bargaining. It means

negotiating in good faith. Part of negotiating in good faith,

presumably, would be presenting a package of proposals to the other

side which are good-faith proposals. The union will have a meeting of

its members long before the contract has expired. They will sit down

and discuss which items should go into the package, which issues should

be put on the table for bargaining. That's related to collective

bargaining. Normally that takes place in a meeting. There are no

ballots sent out to the full membership about that. It's a meeting

process; it's almost a seminar process. Normally only members of the

union participate in that particular process. Now if you read this, I

think that without any doubt, if you determine or if you judge — and I

think the IRC will be required to judge — that what goes into a package

of demands or proposals from either side, but in this case the trade

union, does relate to collective bargaining.... Because that's what

collective bargaining is all about: the proposals and the

counter-proposals.

So everybody, whether they are a member or not, shall be entitled to

participate in a vote. Votes are held in various ways. Votes are not

just held by government's supervised, government-worded questions, but

are also held at a meeting by a show of hands. In this situation of

formulating contract proposals, that's almost always the way it's done

in a democratic organization.

So what you're saying here is that non-members will have the right

to come to the meeting and vote. Now if you want to inject a note of

instability into collective bargaining, this is a good way of doing it.

Let's say that the minister suggests that our

interpretation — or my

interpretation; I haven't canvassed this with my colleagues to see if

they agree with me or not....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're right; you're always right.

MR. GABELMANN: No, I'm not. If a non-member of the union

demands to be allowed to go the meeting to discuss what form the

collective bargaining will take, whether it is formulation of the

contract demands, whether it's tactics in respect of how and when to

bargain, whether it's tactics as to whether or not the union will ask

for a mediator to be injected — a whole variety of issues which can

come up.... A non-member can go to the meeting and say: "I demand to be

able to have a vote on this issue." Or a whole group of them could go;

you can imagine what that will do to the meeting. If the chair of the

meeting says,"No, you're not able to vote; I won't count your votes,"

they could then go to the IRC and say: "We weren't allowed to vote, and

section 5 5.1(1) of the Code says we can vote, because it says we

'shall be entitled to participate in votes held by a trade union of its

members with regard to a matter related to collective bargaining."'

All they will have to prove to the IRC is that the matter that they

were refused permission to vote upon was a matter relating to

collective bargaining. Formulation of contract proposals surely is a

matter relating to collective bargaining; determination of where and

when to bargain surely has to do with collective bargaining; a decision

about whether to seek the assistance of a third party, a mediator, is

surely related to collective bargaining; and on and on and on.

I think the argument is unassailable, frankly, and I also think that

the government's intention is to require that these people have a vote

beyond just strike votes — also ratification votes, and with that point

we don't disagree. We say fine; we'll let the

section go, if that's

what you want it to say. But the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt)

raised an even bigger issue, in a sense: who conducts the bargaining

for you is surely a matter of collective bargaining.

The member knows. I'm doing this thinking as I go; I haven't had

time to think this one through and prepare myself. But you could have a

situation where a majority of nonmembers could show up at a meeting and

select the bargaining committee over the objections of the union, which

has been charged under the law with conducting the bargaining. That's a

bizarre situation, but it's conceivable, if not likely. We need to be

precise in matters of law, particularly of this kind.

The new bill is not going to stand or fail on this section, that's

for sure, but it's clear that there is a loophole here that is too

broad and potentially destabilizing, and it is simply an error in

drafting, probably. The simple solution now would be to do with this

section what we did with

section 30, which is to stand it down.

HON. L. HANSON: I honestly don't think there's a problem, but

it's so closely related to

section 30 that I will agree to standing it

over and coming back tomorrow morning.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Does

section 31 as amended stand? Is that what we're asking?

HON. L. HANSON: No, Madam Chairman. I've agreed, with the opposition's agreement, that we will revisit 30 and 31 tomorrow.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay.

Section 31 as amended is deferred.

section 32.

MR. GABELMANN: We have no problems with

section 32, except as

it relates to the imbalance in relationship to

section 33. I think we

would more appropriately have this debate under

section 33 than

section

32. Ironically, the amended 58 is seemingly the precise wording that

existed in the 1973 legislation. We've gone back to that; I hadn't

realized that until someone else pointed it out.

It's tortuous wording; you have to be a lawyer from Philadelphia to

understand it. We didn't have a debate about it in 1973, but we might

have. Nevertheless, the principle that

[ Page 1635 ]

a council of unions must have permission from the

IRC prior to dissolution is good. I think the principle is sound — that

that discretion should exist with the IRC. We would argue that the IRC

should have discretion in a whole variety of areas, and for that

reason, unless someone else has any comment on 32, we'll have the

debate in 33 about this whole principle.

Section 32 approved.

section 33.

MR. GABELMANN: The very principle of the IRC having

discretion about whether or not a trade union council can be broken up

is violated in 34. If the employers' councils choose to break up and

follow the rules in terms of timing, the IRC has no discretion. It's

either a curious view of how labour relations should work — which is

that the employers should do whatever they want without regard to what

the IRC might think, and the employees have to do precisely what the

IRC thinks — or the government's just made a mistake.

I'd like to stop at this point, before making any speeches, and ask:

is it in fact the government's intention that unions have to have

permission to break up their councils, but employers don't — that they

can get it automatically?

[4:45]

HON. L. HANSON: That's interesting to hear, Madam Chairman. I

guess the reaction to the accreditation of employers' organizations and

their ability to withdraw was as a result of a number of presentations

to that effect from individual employers. If it had been raised as a

matter of concern that unions wanted that same ability, we might have

responded to it, but it was not even raised as an issue, as to the

certification as a bargaining unit. The whole thing behind it was that

there was a great concern expressed by a number of employers as to why

they wouldn't want to join an accredited employers' organization,

because it was almost impossible to get out of it if they changed their

mind later. There is a different procedure, of course, advocated in

this. But we never heard from anyone that there was a concern by the

organized labour to have the same privilege.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, that is an absolutely

appalling admission by the minister. In my words, what the minister

said was: "We brought in

section 33. We didn't make any changes in

respect of 32, because we didn't have any requests for changes to that

particular

section in respect of trade unions, but we brought in

changes in respect of employers' councils, or councils of employer

groups, because there was a request." You don't make labour law based

on requests from parties. The essential element in labour law is that

(1) it be fair and balanced, and (2) that it meets some objectives.

Later in the discussion on 331 want to get to the whole question of

objectives — the whole question of allowing for whipsawing and all of

the bad old days in terms of a million different negotiations going on,

rather than having coordinated bargaining. But first I've got to deal

with the suggestion from the minister that because trade unions did not

request that they be allowed to break up their trade union councils, no

change was made; but a change was made because the employers asked for

permission to be able to act out of accredited employer groups without

reference to the IRC, just by asking. If the labour law of this

province was based on a

summary of the requests of all the parties, we

would have a mishmash that would be absolutely unmanageable. We

wouldn't have labour law at all.

The government must have some objective in this matter. Either it

wants a return to whipsawing and the old style of 17 different sets of

negotiations in for example, and literally hundreds of different

negotiations in the forest industry; of it wants the continuation of a

trend that began in the early seventies, which was to try to get

coordinated bargaining. The government, by these two sections, has

demonstrated that it has no policy at all, because it goes in one

direction in respect of employees and in a contradictory direction in

terms of employers. It clearly has no game plan, no goals. It doesn't

know whether it's in favour of whipsawing and individual bargaining

between employees and their employers directly, without accredited

groups. It doesn't know whether it's going in that direction or in the

direction of coordinated bargaining, such as we've had through CLRA and

FIR and other groups in British Columbia, and in the building trades by

the council that exists.

My speech isn't together. It's a bit jumbled, because I'm still

standing here astounded that the minister is suggesting that he's going

to allow employers to break up accredited bargaining councils simply by

saying they want to, without reference to the IRC, and not give that

same right to the unions. I don't think either of them should have that

right. They should both be required to justify to the IRC why it is in

the public interest — if I might use those two words — that that

particular bargaining council and particular relationship should be

broken up. When you go back to the bargaining that took place a year

ago — or whatever it was — between CLRA and the building trades unions.

It's clear there were CLRA members who wanted to get out of CLRA, for a

variety of reasons. But was that useful to the public good in the long

term? I don't know. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. But shouldn't the

governing agency for labour relations have some say over that

particular issue? Isn't that what you have a Labour Relations Board or

an Industrial Relations Council for — to make some determination as to

whether or not that's appropriate?

If, however, you’re going to say no, it's not appropriate that they

have that right. that say; that if MacMillan Bloedel wants to get out

of FIR. then let it go; it goes by virtue of having applied to go....

If that's what you believe should happen, then surely to God you've got

to say to the union members that they have the same right. Let's use

the CLRA building trades unions analogy, because it's clearer and more

understandable in this context. rather than mixing it up with the FIR,

IWA, PPWC, CPU issues. Look at what happens in the buildings trades.

You're saying that individual employers, if they do it in time and

follow the procedures, can pull out of CLRA and effectively bust it: in

the current climate, it would break up CLRA. But member unions of the

B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council

cannot do the same thing. They can't simply say, as you might expect

two or three unions last bargaining to say: "We want out because we

don't like what the majority of the council has imposed on us." It's

just bizarre.

What we should do when we look at this kind of lawmaking is say to

ourselves. particularly when it comes to councils of unions and

accredited employer groups: what are the objectives of public policy

here? I would argue that the

[ Page 1636 ]

objectives of public policy are to achieve as much

coordinated bargaining as is possible; to not allow fragmentation: to

not allow whipsawing; to achieve some kind of rationality in the

collective bargaining process; to achieve a situation where you do in

one set of bargaining what might take 17 different sets, or many more,

in other industries. But there is no clear expression of public policy

in these amendments.

I heard the minister saying: "When I went around the province, I

heard some employer groups" — and I can imagine they were CLRA members,

incidentally — "saying, 'We want to be able to get out.' I didn't hear

any union groups saying: 'We want to get out."' So the minister just

said: "Well, they've asked for it, so we'll give it to them." That is

not the way to develop public policy.

I have rambled a bit and taken a bit longer in hopes that the

minister, in his discussions over there, would have an opportunity to

reflect on what is being proposed and to see whether or not he wants to

either justify it or perhaps stand it down too.

MR. CLARK: I will be brief and let the minister respond. The

member for North Island has explained most of the rationale. I find it

somewhat bizarre, and I am not sure the minister understands the

consequences of allowing these kinds of units to break up.

Let me give you some examples. There are two things that can happen

in terms of whipsawing. On the one hand, an employer can attempt to

break out of the council one unit that has a weaker bargaining unit,

attempt to force down the wage at that competing weaker bargaining

unit, and set the pattern for the rest of the industry. I can think of

a number of cases where that would be the case; for example, the Metal

Industries Association, where they could pick off or carve out a couple

of units, drive down the wages and attempt to force the overall wages

down because they are all competing against each other.

The second area would be the converse: the trade union could pick

off one company that is split off from the bargaining unit and attempt

to strike only that one unit and drive the wage up and set the pattern

for the rest of the industry that way,

It has tremendous consequences, particularly where there is a

competitive environment. In some areas it is not quite as serious,

because you can have differing wage rates, for example, within

bargaining units in the same industry, if they are say an export

market. But if it is a domestic market like the steel — fabricating

industry, and you've got 30 or 40 steel-fabricating companies competing

against each other, then the wages, it seems to me, have to be kept in

common. That is why there is the Metal Industries Association, a master

organization that bargains for that industry. But if you allow them to

be carved off, then you are setting it up either for the trade union to

drive the wage up and set the pattern, or for the employer to take one

of those sectors down and therefore have a lower wage for the whole

unit to set the standard.

It has tremendous consequences for industrial stability. That is the

purpose of having it very difficult to get out. Many employers don't

like having councils. I understand many municipalities don't like being

forced to be members of councils. But there is a rationale for it, and

the rationale is industrial stability. It is a public-policy rationale

that has been fought over and fought through for years. To allow, with

the stroke of a pen, the ability of individual employers to get out of

their councils sets up this kind of checkerboard situation in terms of

striking, lockouts and setting the pattern. It really has tremendous

consequences in many sectors; the forest industry for example, in which

we have had lots of talk in the pulp bureau of different pulp companies

getting out.

It is exactly the situation we had in the sixties with trade unions,

where we had construction unions whipsawing each other and strikes

shutting down the whole construction industry because of one trade

union. That is why we had a council of trade unions forced on those

trade unions for that kind of stability.

This says: "We're going to keep that, but we are going to allow

employers to do the reverse." So the council of trade unions in the

construction industry, for example, presumably would have to sit down

with each individual employer if there is no CLRA — if they are all

split up. It is impractical, but worse than that, it is going to mean

significant disruption. It doesn't make any public-policy sense.

The minister, in all fairness, hasn't given us a broad public-policy

rationale. He said they had some employers come to them and say: "We

want out." Of course that is going to happen; lots of employers want to

get out. They think they can get the wages lower, for example, in their

own unit, and maybe they can. But where is the public-policy rationale,

in terms of how that affects British Columbia and industrial stability?

Maybe the minister didn't explain it well enough the first time, and

I will give him an opportunity now to give us a broad public interest

rationale for allowing employers' accredited associations to be split

up.

[5:00]

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, we didn't respond just because

someone raised the issue of accreditation. The issue was raised and an

awful lot of thought was given before it was brought in.

The fact is that we believe that the ultimate effect of allowing

this is that the employers' organizations won't break up; they will

become stronger than they are now. Certainly the issue, as my critic

suggested, was raised by the CLRA, by a number of municipalities and by

a number of lumber industries who had some concerns. I think that now,

as a matter of fact, the interior lumber manufacturers who bargain as a

group are not an accredited organization; they're simply an

association. A few of the members split ranks during the recent IWA

forestry strike, but are in fact now back in the organization and

stronger than ever. They're united, and I think that in itself is

relative proof that there is a benefit to some democracy in that

system. Where there is a union bargaining council, it has been imposed

on the unions by the Labour Relations Board after a specific reference.

In an accredited employers' organization there has been no such

imposition. The employers have voluntarily joined together, and we've

only made it difficult f