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 15, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1761 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

WCB surplus. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1761

Aids funding. Mr. Clark –– 1762

Mr. Cashore

Establishment of Ingenika reserve. Mr. Cashore –– 1763

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

Hanson) –– 1763

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Sihota

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Williams

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Guno

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, today we are joined on the

floor of the House by a delegation from India, members of the Lok

Sabha. They are accompanied by Senator Perrault and the High

Commissioner to Canada, and of course His Excellency the Consul-General

representing India in British Columbia. I will endeavour to read the

names of the members who are here, and I apologize in advance for my

mispronunciation.

The leader of the delegation is the Hon. B. Shankaranand, who is the

Minister of Water Resources for India. He is accompanied by the Deputy

Speaker, Dr. Durai. The others are members of the Houses of Parliament

in India: Mr. Vajpayee, Mr. Deo, Mr. Basu and Mr. Manhar. I would ask

the House to make them all feel very welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I would report to the members of the House that on

their behalf you were able to host a very fine luncheon for these

members today, and we would very much like to thank you for doing that.

I would also advise you that they have a 3 o'clock airplane to catch,

so they are waiting for question period and then are going to proceed

on to visit the commercial activities that take place in Vancouver,

especially in Vancouver South.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't want to frustrate the minister in his

efforts to get us on to question period, which I'm sure he's looking

forward to, but I do want to congratulate him for pronouncing those

names pretty accurately.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to introduce

individuals in this House, and as a member of the IndoCanadian

community, it's an extra-special privilege to be rising today in the

House and welcoming these gentlemen to the chamber this afternoon. I

would once again ask the House to join me in wishing them not only a

good visit to the Legislature, but a good stay in Canada for the

duration of their stay.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a

friend of mine from Trail, British Columbia. He's not only a friend,

he's a cousin of mine; he doesn't admit it, but he is. He's a

businessman and president of the Social Credit constituency

association: Walter Siemens. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: I wish also to welcome Walter Siemens to the

House today. Also, I would like to introduce Don and Melissa Sperry in

the gallery, who are visiting from the village of Warfield. The Sperrys

are in town to witness an historical event: their old friend Paul

Nicholson will be entering into a contractual obligation, saying "I do"

very shortly, and they're here for that. I would like the House to join

me in wishing Paul and his betrothed well, and in welcoming the Sperrys

to Victoria as well.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to make a special

welcome today to Sister Pautler and 32 grade 7 students from the Cloverdale

Catholic School.

MR. CHALMERS: In the south end of the great riding of

Okanagan South is a small community known as Peachland. Because it's a

growing community. there's a delegation drawn from the municipality of

Peachland to have meetings here today. In your gallery. Mr. Speaker, we

have His Worship Mayor George Waldo, Alderman Nick Oystryk and Alderman

Willie Dobbin. I would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. JANSEN: In the House today is a good friend of ours and a

frequent visitor to this House, Mr. Bill Coombes, president of Fraser

Valley Broadcasters Ltd. Would you please make him welcome.

HON. MR. REID: In the House today, visiting from the fine

community of Cranbrook is Mayor Jensen and his clerk administrator Mr.

Tim Wood. They're here discussing the issues of that positive project

called Fort Steele. Would the House please make these two gentlemen

welcome.

Oral Questions

WCB SURPLUS

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

and Consumer Services. In the last five years Workers' Compensation

pensions have dropped by $4,475 annually. Does the government agree

with the decision of the WCB to divert to the employers money that

property belongs to workers, totalling S99 million, as announced a few

days ago?

HON. L. HANSON: As I understand it, the assessment rates that

are based on payroll are the rates that are supposed to reflect the

compensation that is paid to those individuals who are injured in the

workplace. Certainly the WCB is adequately funded, both in terms of its

future liability and of its current liability, and the payments that

are being made to employers are merely a reflection of adjusting the

rates that apply to the payroll to the actual practice or the actual

experience. The rates that are paid are paid by the employers, and when

those rates are in excess of the cost of the disabilities or help that

is given for people injured in the workplace, then I feel that it's

only justified that not only the rates be reduced but that the

surpluses be returned to those people who paid them.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister wouldn't agree with

me that the $99 million surplus was generated as a result of the cuts

in pensions and as a result of the cut from 13 to 8 weeks for

reassessment periods, and that adjudicators are now working with higher

caseloads. In fact, workers who are being injured are not being served

nearly as well as they were before and aren't receiving the

compensation they are properly entitled to. That's the reason why there

is a $99 million surplus, I wonder if the minister wouldn't agree with

that.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, no, I would not agree with that.

The Workers' Compensation Board has a considerable surplus still on

hand. That was only a distribution of a portion of the surplus. and

certainly the rest of the surplus is still there. We will be studying

the compensation and so on as I get further into that responsibility.

but my answer to that question is no.

[ Page 1762 ]

[2:15]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that every MLA in this

House who does constituency work is aware of workers who have been

injured on the job and who in some cases have lost their homes, and in

two or three cases that I know in fact have lost their families and

their marriages, as a result of not being able to get properly

compensated by the Workers' Compensation Board. The record is a

disaster out there, and the clear decision of both government and the

current administration of the WCB is to divert money away from injured

workers and to put it into the hands of the employers — who are causing

these injuries, for the most part.

I just want to try to ask the minister in a serious way: will he not

direct the commissioners to look at properly funding workers who are

injured in this province and diverting the money that is now in surplus

to that cause instead of back to the employers?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the workers' compensation system

that we have in British Columbia is the best in Canada, bar none. The

proof of that is in the numbers of people that come looking at our

system. As the member suggests, there are cases where compensation is

not provided. I'd certainly be prepared to look into any one, but the

Workers' Compensation Board has been given the mandate of adjudicating

claims as they relate to injuries in the workplace.

AIDS FUNDING

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Health. The

minister's announcement on AIDS prevention today contains a number of

worthwhile elements, very clearly, but it really does nothing to build

on the base that has been established at the community level by AIDS

Vancouver. Why not reorder the funding priorities to provide financial

support for the expertise of AIDS Vancouver? I mean, wouldn't that

inexpensive move to utilize those volunteers be more cost-effective?

HON. MR. DUECK: To make a statement that we are not doing a

job, that it would be better served in AIDS Vancouver, is completely

erroneous. They're providing a function that is worthwhile, and I have

no objection to them doing that. So does the arthritis society, so does

the cancer society, so do six or 12 others.

Providing care in this province to the people who are ill is the

responsibility of the Ministry of Health, and we're doing exactly that.

We're not duplicating. They have a society; they are doing certain

things for the people that are sick from this dreadful disease.

However, we are in it in a much bigger way — provincially, not just for

one city. For us to sit back and say that they will do the job that the

Ministry of Health is responsible for is just not correct.

Furthermore, as far as the funding is concerned, we never at any

time agreed to fund this society. We agreed to give them bridge

funding, which we did, at $30,000. This was extended once for the end

of June — another $15,000. It was very clearly understood that these

were the moneys they would receive and no more, and that's where we're

at at this time.

MR. CLARK: It's ironic. This is clearly a case where the

private sector can do better than the government. The minister, in

turning down the AIDS Vancouver request, stated in the House last week

that there wasn't enough money available, yet now he's spending over a

million dollars. Clearly there seems to be some duplication,

particularly with respect to the AIDS hotline. Would the minister

explain why his ministry is spending money on high-priced bureaucrats

to man a hotline which is now manned by hundreds of volunteers in

Vancouver?

HON. MR. DUECK: To say that the private sector is not

involved is again completely wrong. If the member had done any homework

at all he would know that this is not the case, because all homemaker

services are contracted out by the ministry — in other words, we

contract so many hours — and that's what we're using to provide for

AIDS Vancouver, as well as any other person who fits that criterion.

They get every possible assistance that anyone else in the province

receives if they are ill. No different, no more, no less. I shouldn't

say no more — much, much more, because it costs more, and we're quite

willing to provide those funds. We don't say that because you have a

certain illness, you only qualify for X number of dollars. We say that

when someone gets sick, they get all the help possible from every

source that's available to us.

When you say we haven't got enough funds, maybe that's one reason,

because we spend between $5 million and $6 million a year on AIDS right

now. So you can't accuse us of not spending money. We do more for AIDS

than any province in Canada. We're the first in many areas when it

comes to AIDS. We've got a viral culture-testing clinic going up now

which should be open on July I –– I visited that this morning. We've

got a dental clinic for AIDS that's going to be operating very soon.

We've got St. Paul's Hospital looking after all the sick who come down

with AIDS. We're doing research work. All our health units are

providing information for AIDS. We're doing a package that's going out

to schools for all the 10 to 12. One film has gone out already for the

Grade 12 graduating class. We're now providing free film to all people

who wish to view it — whether it's a society or an individual. You can

have free film — anyone at all; it's being offered in all the Video One

agencies.

I don't think you can accuse us of not doing our share. I think we do our share plus more.

MR. CLARK: It's all well and good for the minister to say

those things, and we agree, but the question is, can it be more

effective? Can it be even more cost-effective as well? In New York

city, community-based agencies receive five times as many phone calls

for AIDS information as do government departments. Before deciding to

establish a department hotline, a government hotline, did the minister

do any study on the degree to which those in high-risk categories in

other jurisdictions are willing to trust a government department over a

community agency?

HON. MR. DUECK: Another study? If I did all the royal

commissions and studies that the opposition members ask for, I wouldn't

get any work done. I'd be spending all my time and money doing studies.

Another thing that perhaps you don't remember or don't know: our

phone line was established a year and a half ago. It is so busy that

we're contemplating expanding that area. So

[ Page

1763 ]

there's room for what AIDS Vancouver is doing and what we're doing.

We're not cutting into their business. As a matter of fact, why should we?

We are all operating for the same cause or for the same purpose, and that is

to help the victims who unfortunately have this disease.

MR. CASHORE: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. The minister's

comments last week about "their own kind" indicated a homophobic

attitude on the part of the minister. Aren't these biases the real

reason AIDS Vancouver is not being included in this program?

HON. MR. DUECK: I think I made a very clear explanation of

that the other day. Perhaps you were not in the House at the time, so

you can look it up in Hansard .

ESTABLISHMENT OF INGENIKA RESERVE

MR. CASHORE: I have a question for the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations. The minister visited Ingenika by jet last

week, and action from provincial and federal governments is obviously

long overdue. The minister and I and the member for Prince George North

(Mrs. Boone) were all shaken and shocked by what we saw there. Will the

minister make a commitment today that the government will transfer the

Crown lands at Ingenika so that a reserve can be established in a

location chosen by the Ingenika?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I didn't visit it by jet: I went by propeller airplane. I'm glad you could go by jet.

We made the offer to the federal Department of Indian Affairs four

months ago. It's up to them to take it up. It is sitting on the

minister's desk. He's going to be in Victoria or Vancouver next week,

and I'm going to try to push him again on it. We think it's long

overdue that these people would receive land at Ingenika Point to make

a reserve. However, it is not clear whether they want to settle there

or in some areas a little farther away. That's only one of a number of

complicated issues that have come about as a result of this

resettlement, but we had offered that land months ago to the federal

government for inclusion as a federal Indian reserve.

MR. CASHORE: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

conditions being as shocking as the minister has recognized, and in

view of the continuing neglect of the people by governments, will the

minister table a specific timetable for consultations with the people

of Ingenika and the federal government?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I met with the people. I'm meeting with the

minister. I'm going to meet with the people from B.C. Hydro because I

believe they have some responsibility in these actions. A specific

timetable: I plan to be back to Ingenika or back in there within the

next 30 days to have some results. The problem was only brought to our

attention in January of this year. I was asked by the chief in May to

come and visit. He asked me not to visit until June because of the

conditions. He said he wanted to have me come and visit in June.

I'm rather curious to know a whole bunch of details of how this particular

Indian band managed to fall through the cracks of the social nets that we have.

It's not completely clear to me why the federal government has built a health

facility on what is not federal government property for this community. There

is no explanation as to how they could justify funding part of it and not recognize

it as an Indian community. It is an Indian community; the people have lived

there more or less for the past 18 years, or some people have been settled there

for the last 18 years. It has fallen between the stools.

I talked to the regional director for the Department of Indian and

Northern Affairs, and he tells me there's a bureaucratic rule in Ottawa

saying they are not to add any more Indian reserves. I think they have

to make an exception in Ingenika, because I don't think it's setting a

precedent. Quite frankly, I think that's a one-off situation that is

different from almost every other native land claim — or native problem

in the province. It's exclusive from a land claim.

There are about another six or seven inquiries I have made, and I

would hope to have an answer by the middle of this week. Perhaps by the

time my estimates come around I'll be able to give you a lot more

detail. I'm certainly not going to rest on it.

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 62 as amended.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to see both you and the minister back from what I hope was a pleasant weekend.

Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking in opposition to

section 62, and I have

some questions and concerns to direct to the minister and to the

government. I suppose a major concern is this presumption that the

government and the minister have that they and the commissioner's

office — and I emphasize the commissioner's office. rather than the

individuals who may be staffing that office — to be empowered under

section 62 of this act are going to know everything and act in every

positive way in what the government describes as the public interest.

It's quite clear to anyone who has ever studied this particular

government — the Socred government of today — or indeed any government

in Canada, that the public interest is always merely a euphemism used

by politicians to describe what those politicians think is best on

whatever issue on whatever day.

[2:30]

Mr. Chairman, in our society the courts or quasi-judicial bodies

have resolved many disputes over the years. For those decisions to be

effective, the court or the quasi-judicial body or the judges who were

involved had to have credibility with those to whom their judgments

were being applied. Naturally, people don't always like the decision of

the courts; in fact, sometimes both parties do not like the decision of

the courts or quasi-judicial bodies. But the fact is that for the rule

of law to be effective — and we are discussing a law: major changes in

the laws of British Columbia here, with

section 62

[ Page 1764 ]

in particular — the method of application and the method of resolving disputes must be credible.

I think that the minister or anyone else who raises the names of the

commissioner or any of the staff is in fact obscuring the issue. The

issue is whether or not the office itself and the legislation around it

is credible. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that this particular

section, if not indeed the entire bill, is simply not credible with the

overwhelming majority of the public — even those parts of the public

who generally support the government.

We all know that in any aspect of our society, the authorities —

whether it be the police or game wardens or park wardens or the Coast

Guard; whoever it is — can only govern, can only enforce laws, with the

consent of those who are being policed. It is becoming increasingly

clear that British Columbians do not particularly consent to the

notions that are put forth under

section 62 of Bill 19. Mr. Chairman,

I'm not singling out trade union leaders or trade union members. I'm

not singling out management, necessarily, or certain parts of

management or certain industries. The fact is that the average British

Columbian, whatever their position, however they earn their living,

simply is not finding this particular act and this particular

section

credible.

Mr. Chairman, we do not want anything coming through this House,

forced on the public of B.C. by the Socred majority, that's going to

result in production losses anywhere in the economy of British

Columbia. The last ten or 15 years have seen major production gains in

British Columbia, both in quantity and quality, in industry after

industry. We all like to boast in this House about how well-endowed

British Columbia is in our natural resources, but the fact is that our

natural resources — particularly our hydroelectric power, our mineral

resources and our forest resources — are extremely expensive to

extract. They're extremely expensive to develop.

We're only competitive in this province because our workforce and

our management force have been highly innovative, and have been highly

productive. Those largely technological and managerial innovations did

not come about by agreement at contract time, they came about in an

ongoing way — sometimes rather painfully — during the lifetime of

contracts. One of the reasons that the United States was so insistent

that there be either a tariff or a stumpage increase, for instance, on

our Canadian wood products was the very high productivity of the

industry in British Columbia, despite the fact that it's incredibly

expensive to get wood out of the bush and into the mills.

Mr. Chairman, you might ask: "How does

section 62 relate to that?"

It relates to that because that kind of productivity innovation that saw that

evolution over the last 15 years — indeed, I think it's not just over the

past 15 years, but probably over the life of the industry in B.C. — is because

in general there has been an ongoing cooperation between people who work in

the industry and the owners and managers. No one in British Columbia wants to

see technological and managerial change resisted rather than adapted. That,

I fear, will happen, not might happen, under the imposition of

section 62.

Speakers across the way, especially the minister, have stated that

in 1973 a major new labour act came in, so why can't the Socred

government in 1987 do the same thing'? I state quite clearly that this

is different than 1973. Nineteen seventy-three was not a throwing out

of everything that was before and a bringing in of something entirely

new. It was simply a codification and an updating of past and existing

practice seen in the practical realities of the early 1970s. It

demonstrably did not throw out the lessons and judicial decisions of

the past; it simply discarded what was archaic and non-productive to

harmonious production, and reflected the reality of the day.

Section 62

in Bill 19 does not do that; it goes far beyond that. It throws out —

casts to the wind — what was there before and brings in an entirely new

set of rules, an entirely new way of doing things. So there really is

not a parallel between

section 62 of Bill 19 and the changes and

additions made to existing labour legislation back in the early

seventies.

Under the various labour acts that are in place in British Columbia

but that will be replaced by Bill 19 if the government insists on

thrusting ahead with it, particularly with

section 62, B.C.'s labour

force acquired a much-deserved reputation for innovation and

adaptability. It is noted that even in recession, B.C. construction

workers and B.C. manufacturing techniques are in worldwide demand. I

cannot understand why the government wants to hammer away at success.

Lester Pearson always used to say that the successful practice and

administration of government was the skilful use of blunt instruments.

The government is taking unto itself a series of blunt instruments that

nobody has confidence in them to use skillfully, instruments that

formerly were out there to be used by the courts and quasi-judicial

rulings. As I said earlier, those rulings were not always liked, but

the system of making those rulings, and those who made those rulings,

were always respected. I don't believe that

section 62 is going to

bring into force and office a system which is going to be respected;

and if the system and the office are not respected, the rulings,

however correct they may be in some cases, are not going to be

respected either.

The Socred government says they want to free labour and management;

they want to bring democracy into the workplace. To try to do that

under

section 62 is, I think, a total and ultimate fantasy. What the

government is really doing with this

section is fettering labour and

management. Why on earth would anyone in the workplace, during the

length of a contract — especially at contract time but even during the

length of a contract — make concessions, make modifications, make

adaptations to the realities of changing technologies, changing

markets, changing demands? Why would anyone in their right mind —

either way, management or labour — even if they wanted to make

adaptations, make those concessions if they knew that those concessions

after they had been made could well be used as a benchmark for an

arbitration of a contract dispute under

section 62? Why would anyone

want to work closely together during the length of a contract? Why

would anyone want to make concessions at contract time, knowing full

well that in the event that a dispute — a dispute in the sense of a

work stoppage — should develop, all the concessions that had been made

and all the adaptations would simply be accepted as the status quo in

terms of an arbitration'?

Section 62 removes any incentive for cooperation and concessions

that already existed there and naturally existed there within the

workplace on an ongoing basis. That is what successful industrial

relations are. It is ongoing cooperation in the best interests of

working conditions and of quality and quantity of production.

Let's throw out, completely disregard, whether or not the IRC — I

know it is going to quickly be dubbed the "irk" — will be fair, because

the fairness will always be a subjective

[ Page 1765 ]

judgment, in any event, something like beauty, art

or even obscenity. The point is that the IRC under any staffing regime

will not be seen as fair or even-handed. That is the bottom line of my

objection to

section 62. Any law, any part of a law, must not be seen

by the public to be an ass. The law must be respected. Taxpaying

British Columbians do not respect

section 62.

MR. SIHOTA: This is actually, apart from a bit of an outburst

on Thursday, the first opportunity I have really had to talk about

section 62 in its broad terms. I am heading towards a number of

questions to the minister at the end of this.

The

section is — I think every speaker has said this somewhat

inconsistent with the government's stated job of getting government off

the backs of people. It is quite to the contrary of that, in that it

brings about a massive amount of intervention in labour relations

matters. It clearly has, as I call it, a La Guardia approach — you

know, when you have all these airplanes lining up to get in. It seems

like

section 62 is much the same way, in that there are seven or eight

things that can be done, and they are all stacked up one after the

other waiting to come in and land on and impose upon the collective

agreement or the negotiation process.

It's a far departure for a government that believes in getting

government off the backs of people. It's a far departure for a

government that philosophically, I would think, would agree with

freedom of contract — the ability of individuals to contract on their

own. And it's a far-flung approach for a government that I always

thought believed that parties ought to decide amongst themselves as to

what economic injury they want to inflict on the other with a view

towards resolving an industrial conflict, as opposed to the government

deciding.

[2:45]

There is no doubt that the public interest clause, as it appears in

this section, is the one that I would consider to be the most notorious

and one of the most troublesome, apart from the extensive powers given

to the commissioner to intervene during the course of disputes, simply

because "the public interest" — as the member who spoke before me

indicated — is such a difficult term to define. It's very difficult to

get a handle on what public interest is. I think it is fair to say that

historically all sorts of fine things or not-so fine things have been

done in the name of the "public interest." It strikes me that the usage

of that type of vocabulary within this type of

section allows for a

misuse of powers under the act. I don't think that's good with respect

to dealing with industrial disputes.

Over the weekend I was reading — and I believe someone else may have

quoted from it — a report from the British Columbia Business Council

which talks about the number of industrial disputes in the province and

the extent to which it has fallen over the last couple of years. I just

want to quote from its conclusion. After it cites the number of

disputes in the province and the extent to which it has dropped, it

says: "These positive developments mean that a poor reputation for

labour relations may in part be more a reflection of poor public

relations than of reality. Business, labour, government and the media

must attempt to give unexaggerated reports of existing problems, and

work to build on the present trend of conflict reduction." I found that

to be interesting, because I think that there clearly is a perception

out there that we have wide industrial strife in British Columbia. That

perception being the case results in people thinking that that's the

reality. As the council pointed out in that report, there is quite a

difference between what is perceived to be the case and what is really

the case.

It may well be that the public doesn't understand the fact that

there is not really a lot of industrial strife, and days lost to

strikes and lockouts, in this province. If anybody were to understand

that, it would seem to me that it ought to be the ministry. The

Ministry of Labour, hence, it seems to me, if it were aware of those

kinds of facts — which I am sure it is — would not have put forward a

section which is so interventionist in its nature. It seems somewhat

out of line, given the reality of the situation.

As a result of that, we have a piece of legislation that sort of

stacks up all these powers that are available to not just the minister

but to an individual.

I was looking for another quote here, which I can't seem to get my

hands on. In any event, there is a mediator, the fact finder, the

commissioner's conference, a public interest inquiry board, an

industrial inquiry commissioner, the final offer vote, special

mediators that can be appointed and a decision made by the minister. It

strikes me as being a substantial overkill in terms of trying to deal

with — as the minister said himself — the 5 percent of disputes that

end up in a strike situation. With those types of broad and innumerable

options.... It seems to me rather strange that those types of options

are required in a jurisdiction where we don't have that many problems.

I would anticipate that the counterargument to that is that if you look at

the current Labour Code, conceivably there are quite a few options available

under the Labour Code to deal with industrial strife. That's very true;

there are no two ways about it. There are six or eight options under the current

legislation to deal with industrial strife, much as there are six, eight or

ten options available under

section 62 to deal with industrial strife. What

differentiates, in my mind, the two pieces of legislation is the extent to which

the powers are controlled and curbed under the Labour Code and the extent to

which they are broad and wide open under proposed Bill 19 and

section 62 — I

think that sort of explains the dilemma.

I could — I think, if it was reasonably put — be convinced that

there was a need to perhaps extend some of the options that exist in

the Labour Code so as to allow one to deal in a more expeditious and

efficient way with industrial strife. I may

part company in this House

with many who may not agree with that opinion, but I think that the

bottom line is that it would have been appropriate to consider a

fine-tuning of the options currently available under the Code so as to

allow them to be directed more readily and immediately to industrial

strife when it occurs. I don't think that's a farfetched proposition: I

think it's reasonably put.

So recognizing that there are indeed a number of options in both

pieces of legislation, it seems to me that the difference lies in the

fact that this

section in particular goes to an absolute extreme, in

terms of using very broad and liberal language to deal with industrial

conflict, as opposed to the narrower language in the Labour Code,

which, I would agree, may in some instances have required fine-tuning

and improvement.

Because this is not second reading, I don't intend to go into any

depth or comment at all upon the sections that I could see within the

Labour Code that would require some changes in language. Suffice it to

say that these ones go so far. In fact, if I was a party — which I

wasn't — to the original drafting

[ Page 1766 ]

back in 1973, I would find it hard to believe that someone would have taken that legislation to this extreme.

One of the things I find particularly galling is this matter of

votes and the ability of the government to order votes whenever, while

notice has been served and certainly after a strike or lockout begins.

It seems to me that the parties to the conflict, the parties that

decide to engage in inflicting economic harm on the other, ought to be

free to decide when the pressures have built up sufficiently to warrant

a vote. If that decision — as it now appears to be headed, under this

section — were to be exclusively within the hands of the government,

then I think the political public pressure on the government would be

so great that the natural inclination would be to hold votes

prematurely and often. The downside of that is the fact that it may end

up solidifying the situation and encouraging people to be a little more

excited about their positions and hence a little less likely to

consider some form of resolution and settlement of the matter.

The pressure on politicians is always the greatest during these

types of disputes — and I'm sure that's a handy quote that somebody can

fire back at me. But within the context of this

section and within the

context of debate on ordering votes, I think the government is going to

react too quickly in ordering those votes, as opposed to allowing those

parties to decide freely among themselves as to when they think it

would be appropriate to consider a vote. That provision in particular

causes me considerable concern.

We're beyond the point now in the course of this debate, if one is

to believe the Premier of the province, of sort of overturning the

legislation, withdrawing it, sending it off to committee or finding

some other way to deal with this pivotal

section —

section 62 — which

is, once again, in the overall scheme of things, highly regrettable.

This weekend — if I may digress a bit — I spent a fair bit of time

touring two fairs held in my riding, and the public feedback was

incredible. To be honest, I received comments from both sides of the

fence; I don't think anybody in this House receives comments only from

one side of the fence on any of these controversial matters. I was

really taken aback, more so this weekend than in just about any other

instance since this legislation has been introduced, by the level of

concern that people had; and secondly, the familiarity that they had

with the legislation. I'm saying this without saying which side of the

fence they stood on. It was surprising to me, the extent to which

people seemed to understand not simply the intent or the propaganda

that comes along with the introduction of the legislation, but actually

understood the mechanics of the legislation. There were clearly some

who felt that the mechanics were justified; an overwhelming majority on

this side of the coin who were very understanding of what was

incorporated in this legislation, who could point very specifically to

the things that they thought about, which affected them at their

workplace.

Once again, I don't particularly intend to go into all of the

examples — in fact, any at all — because I think that might have been

more appropriate in the debate we had earlier. But I was surprised, and

a little disappointed, if I may say so for the record, that the Premier

was questioning people to the extent of wondering whether or not they

had had an opportunity to read the legislation. The fact of the matter

is that people have a fairly good understanding of this legislation, a

very good knowledge of where it's coming from and some very deep

reservations. Once again, the point that was being made to me over and

over again — as in many of the editorials that I have in this hand,

which I won't bother to read — was that it's time for a sober second

look.

There you have it. It was totally evident to me that if there was

consensus around any point, not specifically dealing with this

section

but with sections in general, the consensus was that perhaps it ought

to be taken away from the temperature of this chamber and placed in

front of people who could take a look at it in a relatively cool

environment.

If I can find it, I want to end by asking a question which I had

identified and thought was well put in this section. Maybe I'll go

through my notes and try to identify the two or three issues that I

want to canvass after one of my other friends has had an opportunity to

speak on the legislation.

MR. G. HANSON: I rise to oppose this particular section. As

one of the individuals who was around in the summer of 1983 when we had

the 26 bills that we honed down to the dirty dozen — being one of the

walking wounded from that particular campaign.... The Social Credit

government continues to interfere in the collective bargaining process.

I think the economic indicators, Statistics Canada, the Conference

Board of Canada, the Royal Bank, the universities, people acquainted

with the industrial relations climate of the province, are pretty clear

— there's a consensus — that the government, by intervening in 1983 and

distorting the balance between a balanced collective bargaining process

under the Labour Code, that framework that no one seems to be able to

really criticize.... What you've got is a replacement with a totally

atavistic, "back to the '68 Mediation Commission" approach that our

economy has been ill served by the intervention of 1983 and then again

by an upscale amplified intervention now.

As we proceed through this debate at committee stage of

section 62 —

some three weeks so far — we're trying to persuade the minister by

logic and the force of argument, by appealing to him as the minister

responsible for shepherding this bill through the House, that an

about-turn really would be possible. An about-turn would be well

received in the community. A cooling-off period, it's been called.

Somehow politicians invest statutes with their egos, when I think they

shouldn't. Governments feel that somehow their ego is in a basket and

they must tough it out, put their tin hat on and just take whatever

criticism is necessary, because they're on a Messianic mission to

change what they perceive as a problem. What we seem to have before us

is increased powers for a certain non-elected office — an increase in

powers of intervention which the business community does not want and

the labour community doesn't want. We're hearing from more and more

individuals who are coming forward to ask the government to take that

famous second took, and I'm rising to do the same.

[3:00]

My own community was particularly hard hit when the compensation

stabilization program came into full force after 1983. Mr. Peck's

office was working and overturning agreements, rolling back agreements,

overturning arbitration awards, just generally creating conflict, and

this community suffered badly. I alluded to the Conference Board of

Canada and the Royal Bank, who do their own independent studies of

economic performance. Their conclusion was that there was an adverse

reaction within the B.C. economy that has stifled our recovery until

now, and that continues to. The recovery that occurred in central

Canada.... I know there are other dynamics occurring in Ontario and so

on, but the lack of

[ Page 1767 ]

confidence.... I know the people in my own

community — and let's just put it on the basis of an MLA speaking on

behalf of his own constituency. I know what a dampening effect the '83

— and right to the present — impact on labour relations as brought

about by the government has had on our community. Since that time

people have always been fearful of their jobs, not willing to invest

and not willing to look beyond a few paycheques. It affects their work

performance. It affects the general economy of southern Vancouver

Island, and I think even the business community here could reinforce

and corroborate what I am saying to the minister: rather than

instilling investor confidence and consumer confidence, this

intervention....

It's not just from the labour community's point of view. We have all

sorts of research that indicates it. There is an oil company executive,

for example. who is quoted in one particular item I have here. He says:

"Where a government doesn't accept the sanctity of the collective

agreement and the contract, it can start intervening. There is no

sanctity in a contract. If politicians by their acts can wipe out any

requirements to keep a contract...... This is a Colorado oil executive,

and I have the reference, if the minister is interested. But it's not

just the labour community's concern. It's the business community, when

they see a government setting up a super body that can intervene and

override and interfere and move in at various stages to undermine the

process.

If we could only just step back from it. Let's ask ourselves: what

is the process based on in its essence? It really is based on trust.

It's based on some notion of equality: withdrawal of services versus

the power of the employer in terms of lockout. It seems that the

examples are numerous where governments adopt this interventionist

approach that the public interest is not well served and that the

public interest, even though the government declares that to be its

objective — to create a climate and an impression about British

Columbia beyond our borders.... The Conference Board of Canada has done

extensive canvassing of large corporations to determine what the

factors are that help them make their judgment about where they are

going to invest and establish themselves, and labour relations is not

the number one criterion.

Many speakers on this side of the House have been trying to make the

case that the perception abroad gets exaggerated by the ideological

objectives of the current regime, so that when the government wants to

protect the public interest or establish a more favourable climate

abroad, they accomplish precisely the reverse, by adopting the approach

that they're establishing here, with this non-elected body and the

tremendous sweeping powers of the commissioner. Even though with

amendments there is some reference back to the minister, it is really

the wrong way to go.

The Premier made reference to functioning standing committees of

this House prior to this session, and a whole series of things have

been conducted — on labour, on liquor, on heritage, on various matters

that really could appropriately have been referred to, for example, the

Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental

Relations. In the eight years that I've been a member of this House

that committee, which had the same name — Labour, Justice and

Intergovernmental Relations — never ever met, and I thought that this

year would be a perfect chance. And when your commission was off on the

road, my first thought was: "Why is that not Labour, Justice and

Intergovernmental Relations?" Why not? I think that for all of the

two-month period that we've been debating 20 and 19 — and now the key

feature of 19 in 62 — I can't help but wonder whether this whole

scenario wouldn't have been quite different, and I'm sure it would have

been, if that committee, even though six government members and the

ministers are on that committee, and our labour critic is on that

committee, had held hearings in the spring of this year, and had

tangled and argued within the committee but had brought forward a bill

to this House on amendments to the Labour Code. What a different

scenario that might have been than what we have been engaged in.

The thing that I think most members on this side of the House, and

the vast majority of the public, can't quite understand is why, when

the hazards seem so predictable. so inevitable, so likely as a result

of this bill, the government seems hell bent for leather to proceed. It

is the prominent individuals in this province who seem to be willing to

come forward and attach their name to their view, such as Bill

Hamilton, such as Mr. Matkin initially — he softened a bit with the

amendments. But the Cominco board and other individuals of stature in

the business community, when they look at this particular

section —

because this is a central feature of the bill and the way it will

function — are opposed and are concerned.

There are so many things that we are concerned about: the process

that has brought us to this point; the way the bill was drafted; the

way the bill is proceeding in the House without consensus, without

support of the parties. You stated so clearly in your report that for a

statute of such importance to the economy as the industrial relations

guidelines, regulations, support network for collective bargaining....

It is the underpinning of our economy, in the sense of the working

people, union or non-union, and their relationship with the employer,

and the guidelines, the way the bargaining process takes place and how

you reach resolution....

How many times in this debate have we talked about the resolution of

disputes? The collective bargaining process is a conflict-resolution

process, and it must be seen to be fair. It must function fairly; it

must be based on trust. I have been an elected rank-and-file bargaining

committee member. I have negotiated collective agreements, and they

take some time. I am aware of that process; I am familiar with it. I am

not an expert. I think you have to be with it an awfully long time to

be an expert.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

But it does not function without a sense of trust, equality,

balance, fairness, all of the features that seem to be absent in this

statute. When you sandpaper the people and you make them feel that you

are a government ideologically positioned against the ordinary working

people, union or non-union, it does not bode well. There is a sense of

frustration, I think, on this side of the House, because unlike any

debate that I have ever witnessed in this House, more positive

suggestions have been submitted, made available to the minister,

face-saving for both the first minister and the cabinet.... We are not

in this debate to win Brownie points. We think there is still time

left, right up until prior to proclamation. for a second took at this

statute.

I mean that in all seriousness, representing a constituency that

suffered greatly due to 25 percent of all public sector employees being

fired, laid off, and the lack of investor confidence in this community.

Small business suffered, went bankrupt. All you had to do was walk up

and down the

[ Page 1768 ]

streets: shops closed.... What little extra

disposable income people had.... They're still reluctant to spend it,

because they still don't know. I hope it is wrong, but there is a

rumour that there is going to be another 10 percent cut of public

employees in this province. I hope that does not happen, because that

is just a cutback of important services to families, to his own

ministry, the Forest Service, Environment....

So, Mr. Minister,

section 62 is like an exponential increase in the

negative features.... I see my time is up. If someone could just give

me a moment, I'll conclude.

[3:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, I'm intrigued by the presentation, and I trust it would carry on for a few minutes more.

MR. G. HANSON: Madam Chairperson, I do have a few more comments that I want to make.

As legislators, I think we should learn from experience. The

province suffered badly in the '83 legislative package, which was sort

of Bill 19 in its incipient form. What we have now is a full-blown

potential crisis in front of us. I think it's our duty as legislators,

and certainly as members of the opposition and government

back-benchers, to make our concerns clearly noticed by the minister.

Further down the pike, if what occurs is what we can see happening....

You know, the minister and the Premier can dismiss these events that

are occurring — even last weekend — in ideological terms: rent-a-crowd,

or partisan groups. That kind of dismissal is short-sighted. I think

it's a mistake. It was pointed out to me when I first got elected here,

by a member who will remain nameless, that one of the important things

that often escape the public — visitors, school delegations or people

who come into this Legislature and just get one snapshot or a small

number of frames — is that this body, this room, the dynamics of this

place, reflect the feelings that are occurring out in the community.

It's a very representative body here. It's like the valve on the top of

a pressure-cooker. If this place doesn't function properly and meet the

legitimate needs and concerns of the community, of the people outside

of this place, then we are not doing our job; this institution is not

functioning the way it should. If the pressure builds, then our system

is not functioning properly. The laws that come through this House

should be reflecting the legitimate concerns, values, beliefs, desires

and aspirations of the people whom we represent and who send us here.

Empowering Mr. Peck with super powers was not on the program for the

last election. It wasn't on the agenda of the election. Style versus

substance did not explain to the people of the province that rights,

duties and obligations that were clearly understood, after a 12-year

working into shape of the labour relations machinery that was in place

in this province, that was functioning properly.... That wasn't on the

program.

Mr. Minister, we think that the public would be well served, even at

this late date, by referring this to the Labour and Justice Committee

of this House, which is ready to function: six government members,

three opposition members, the Minister of Labour, the opposition critic

for the New Democratic Party. They could do a good job of cooling off

the situation, inviting expert testimony from those who still have

concerns about Mr. Peck's role, about the double-breasting and about

other aspects of the bill that, it is crystal-clear to us, will be

leading us down a route that is not going to serve our economy well. It

is going to be combative, in the very worst sense of that word. If we

learned anything.... I wasn't around at the time, but there are members

in this House who were present during the whole Mediation Commission

debate, and its ensuing strife, about which members could be bringing

forward their suggestions and their recollections. Why do we have to

step in the same swamp twice? We did have a model bill under the Labour

Code. Sure, it could have been improved. There were other things the

minister of the day wanted to elaborate on and to go on....

Unfortunately we didn't have that opportunity. But it did serve the

province well right through until relatively recently, when various

amendments came in.

Rather than have the underpinning of labour relations in the

province based on stability, trust, fairness and notions of that type

rather than Big Brother intervention — "we know best" — which will

totally destabilize the climate, and already is.... I think that the

minister, even though he has heard what I am saying before, in

different forums, from our side, from other submissions that have been

made to him.... It is not too late to make that decision. I think the

public would respect you for it. They would respect the government for

it. I think there are polls that indicate that, even though our

political elbow and hundreds of years of democratic political history

tell us that when governments get boxed in, and they back up and say,

"The stakes are so high that we're willing to wait six months for a

look, for more discussion...."

We have a statute in place. It's not as if there's a vacuum. That

opportunity is still there, and we would obviously like the minister to

take that under advisement. As the debate leader on our side has

indicated, our job in this debate is not to crow. If you make that

choice, our job is not to crow but to congratulate you for that.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to ask a rather specific question of the

minister, if he doesn't mind, right now, because I have some concerns

about the

definitions under

section 62, 137.1. Under the definition of

"public sector employer," subsection (

b) says that it means "a

corporation or an unincorporated board, commission, council, bureau,

authority or similar body that has (

i) on its board of management or

board of directors, a majority of members who are appointed by

an Act,

a minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or (ii) employees

appointed under the Public Service Act...." I wonder, Mr. Minister, if

you could just tell me in general what broad group of organizations you

see falling under this. Can you define some of the breadth of that

range of organizations — those councils, bureaus, authorities or

similar bodies?

HON. L. HANSON: I think the words are fairly clear. They spell it out fairly.... Are you looking for specific examples, such as ICBC?

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON: You know, there are so many that I could

publish you a list about yea long. I think that if you look at "public

sector employer" in the Compensation Stabilization Act, with the

addition of "library board," that gives a fairly meaningful description

of it. I can get a copy of that if you'd like. It gives a number of

examples.

[ Page 1769 ]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I am more interested in subsection

(i). You are talking about very large organizations such as the

Workers' Compensation Board and ICBC. What is the smallest type of

organization that you think would be included and therefore named a

public sector employer? Are there small groups that you have in mind

for this?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, it is all of those defined in the

Compensation Stabilization Act. I will get a copy of the act and pick

out the smallest one.

MS. EDWARDS: What I wondered is whether you had anticipated

the kind of organization that I have been talking to recently, in very

specific terms. One is the Friends of Barkerville, a private

organization. It has been operating in order to support and add some

broader dimension to the functions that can happen at Barkerville.

Recently they have been asked to reorganize, and they have been asked

to allow the minister to appoint their board of directors. That would

mean that the Friends of Barkerville become a public sector employer.

Is that what you had in mind?

HON. L. HANSON: No, that obviously isn't what we had in mind.

I am not sure the Friends of Barkerville.... They are an advisory board

that really, as far as compensation or as a public sector employer

wouldn't.... I don't think they would even be considered an employer,

actually.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Minister, but I know that they

are not.... One of the reasons that the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation

and Culture wanted them to change their constitution and accept the

minister's naming of the directors is that they want them to become

more than an advisory board, and that they want them to raise money, to

give money to functions that would not be there and to do various

functions that would go beyond being an advisory group. One of the

particular sticking-points was to have the minister name their board of

directors; the minister wants to name the board of directors. I see

this coming directly under the definition of who you say would be a

public sector employer. In other words, if the Friends of Barkerville,

or the Friends of Fort Steele, if you choose, or the Friends of the

Provincial Museum, which is perhaps different.... Let's stick to those

two, the Friends of Barkerville and the Friends of Fort Steele. If they

hired anyone, they would then become a public sector employer.

I think there are some problems there. We seem to be coming at

things from two directions. I am not sure that you meant a group such

as the Friends of Barkerville to be a public sector employer if they

chose to hire someone.

HON. L. HANSON: I really don't know anything about the

Friends of Barkerville, but first of all, if they were to be a public

sector employer, there would have to be

an act created that would

create them and in fact give them the responsibilities, whatever they

may be, under that act. Then if the Friends of Barkerville were

constituted that way and were in charge of the operation of Barkerville

and were employing people under that enabling legislation, they would

become a public sector employer.

But I think what you are suggesting is maybe more in the advisory capacity, is it not?

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, it says here that all it has to be

is "a corporation or an unincorporated board, commission, council,

bureau, authority or similar body that has on its...board of directors,

a majority of members who are appointed" by the minister. That would

describe the Friends of Barkerville.

I think that there will be a number of other Friends groups. There

is a Friends group which now runs the transportation museum recently

established in the lower mainland; it would become a public sector

employer under this act. I was wondering if the minister intended that,

and if not, perhaps the definition should be changed, because I don't

understand, if that is the case, what the minister's intention would be

to name groups like that, small community groups who are there to raise

money, contribute, help the operation of these heritage parks and so

on. Why would you want them to be named public sector employers?

[3:30]

HON. L. HANSON: But they won't be, unless they do have

employees, first of all. Secondly, public sector employer means the

government. a corporation or an unincorporated board, commission,

council, bureau, authority or similar body that has on its board of

management or board of directors a majority of members who are

appointed by

an act, etc. So it's not the intention — in fact it won't

be — that the Friends of Barkerville as they are now constituted is to

be considered a public sector employer.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure why they wouldn't be included here.

It doesn't say they have to be appointed by

an act. They can be

appointed by the minister, and that is what's happening with the

Friends of Barkerville and the Friends of Fort Steele. Perhaps you

would clarify for me then whether.... You say they do not fall under

the definition of the act. Is that correct?

HON. L. HANSON: I don't know the circumstances to do with the

Friends of Barkerville, but if they're being appointed by the minister

on a voluntary basis, they wouldn't be caught under this public sector

employer suggestion.

MS. EDWARDS: They are definitely registered as a society, and

their constitution as registered under the Society Act requires that

the minister name the directors.

HON. L. HANSON: There's only a bargaining relationship if

they have employees. I don't know the circumstances, but I would be

pleased to get all of the details that you're talking about and give

you an

interpretation of whether they are or not. From what you've told

me, they're not a public sector employer, but I don't know on what

basis they're being appointed, how many, or what the mandate is of that

specific organization.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't think you're saying that they're not;

you're saying you will investigate and get back to this House with an

idea of how that fits in. It seems to me that if that kind of an

organization fits in, there are many in the province that could; if

they ever hired anybody, become a public sector employer. I don't know

whether that's what the minister intended, and I don't know whether

that would serve any particular function.

[ Page 1770 ]

Could I be assured that we will get an answer before the

section passes?

HON. L. HANSON: We're on the Friends of Barkerville, but I

don't know the circumstances and so on. If in fact the Friends of

Barkerville are a board appointed by the minister and empowered to

manage the Barkerville operation and receive public funds, and it does

have employees, they would in fact be a public sector employer.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure if that definition would also apply

if they were not empowered to manage the.... I don't know whether that

has real significance here. Why would that definition have to include

that they were empowered to run the park? It doesn't, according to this

definition. All it says is that they would be a council, board, bureau,

authority, commission, etc. with a board that is named by the minister.

HON. L. HANSON: As I said, I don't know the circumstances. I

guess I could relate that I recently appointed the travel advisory

council; but they don't have any employees, so they're obviously not a

public sector employer. I don't know what this group is being appointed

for or what their mandate is, but if there is a ministerial management

board that does have employees who are in fact administering and

running a public facility, they would become a public sector employer,

I think, under that

interpretation.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, let me try it a different way.

If this body, which has its board of directors appointed by the

minister, runs an operation that is largely funded by non-governmental

funds — largely funded by its own operation or by voluntary

contribution, or by funds solicited and received elsewhere other than

government — they are still caught by this definition, and still remain

public sector employers — if they have employees — even though they are

not totally, or perhaps even mostly, funded by the government. I think

what the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) is trying to ascertain is

why it is that in these cases — and there aren't many in British

Columbia, but there are clearly some.... Why is it that these bodies,

who are appointed by a minister but who don't spend the minister's

money, or the government's money, are considered public sector

employers? Because that, under this wording, is in fact what happens.

HON. L. HANSON: I suppose that I have in my own riding a

relatively similar circumstance to the one you are talking about, and

that's called the O'Keefe Ranch Society. I would suggest that if the

minister were approached — the Minister of Tourism, I understand — to

appoint the members to that society.... They aren't, in my view, a

public sector employer, and shouldn't be appointed by the minister for

that purpose.

MR. GUNO: I'm happy to rise today to express my opposition to

the inclusion of

section 62 in Bill 19, and I want to do that in very

brief and general terms, Madam Chairman.

I just got back from touring the southern part of my riding this

weekend. I was rather gratified and, to some extent, surprised by the

number of people there whom I met who expressed very informed concern

about Bill 19 and also

section 62. I can state unequivocally that none

of them is daunted by the so-called complexity of this bill. In fact, I

would say that the complexity is overstated; that it's more convoluted

than complex. It's frustrating to listen to the Premier dismiss the

overwhelming public opinion against this bill, particularly

section 62.

I think that we've overstated also the ability of experts, lawyers,

to be the only ones that can somehow decipher the intent and thrust of

the bill. I don't think it takes an expert to see that this bill is so

seriously flawed that it will introduce an escalating instability in

our industrial relations; that it is a radical departure, especially in

section 62, from the way that we in British Columbia have in the past

resolved our differences in the workplace.

Over the last few weeks, Madam Chairman, this side of the House has

effectively pointed out the many flaws of Bills 19 and 20, and has

shown that this bill appears to have been so hastily drafted that, even

with the 40-odd amendments that have been made by government,

fundamental objections still remain. The government, or the Premier,

has attempted — unsuccessfully, I think — to portray that these

amendments constitute real changes, or somehow have met the concerns of

many people, not only the labour sector but also the business sector of

our economy. They have attempted to portray these amendments as somehow

meeting the legitimate concerns of a broad cross-section of the people

in British Columbia.

But I think there are still fundamental problems that remain, none

more troublesome than

section 62. Here the government purports to

establish a dispute resolution mechanism that would establish, as they

say, more industrial labour stability. But in doing so, this government

has — and I think many of my colleagues have pointed this out —

abandoned the one area that works, and that is the cooperative

approach: to allow the parties to be the essential ingredient in

resolving differences in industrial relations. Instead, in

section 62

this government gives an unelected official, a civil servant, powers

beyond those which our democratic system of government would

legitimately allow. I think it's been pointed out, and I think it bears

repeating over and over again, that it provides for a massive increase

in government intervention in the collective bargaining process.

Ultimately it's going to result in more instability.

The Premier said just the other day that he is a good listener. I

think that it's time he and the government demonstrated that ability to

listen to the people. There's a growing consensus in this province that

Bill 19 has so many flaws that it ought to be withdrawn to provide

people the opportunity to address some of the more serious concerns,

especially those involved in

section 62.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Later, along with my colleagues, I want to point out some of the

more detailed concerns, but I just wanted to go on record and say in

very general terms that many people I've met in the Atlin riding are

very concerned about this bill and about allowing an unelected official

such awesome powers to intervene and deprive our workers of their

legitimate rights rights that they have worked for over the last five

decades.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I have now spoken on two occasions

about the general principle of

section 62, or at least the entire batch

of materials within

section 62. Pretty clearly, we're running to the

end of our energies and the tether on this

[ Page 1771 ]

particular thing without being involved in some kind of blatant filibustering, and we don't want to be involved in that.

[3:45]

I wanted, however, to rise once again and offer a few more comments,

for two reasons. One is that I'm a little concerned that the Minister

of Labour has not responded to the last four or five statements that

have been made by my colleagues, and I think we are owed some response

to those statements. Secondly, as I suggested the last time I addressed

this House, it seems to me there is something extremely and

significantly fundamental embedded within

section 62. I for one would

feet guilty indeed if I did not take another opportunity to add a few

more comments to the record about this bill and why we are so strenuous

in our opposition to it, especially this section.

I suggested last time, Mr. Chairman, that the predicament with the

bill was summarized very effectively by that management lawyer, Gavin

Hume, whose comment was that this bill has a profound impact on the

course of labour relations in this province. Most specifically and most

importantly — and I'm going to quote him again, if I can, because I

think those words are important — it provides authority to the

commissioner to refer the disputes to a third party "without the

consent of the parties involved in the dispute." That's what stands out

in my mind and sets off alarm bells.

What I tried to articulate and enunciate the last time I spoke, Mr.

Chairman, was that this

section of the bill, whether we know it or not,

effectively puts an end to collective bargaining in a free society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LOVICK: It does. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Veitch) can harrumph and declaim and protest for all he's worth. The

fact of the matter is, however, that the moment we write legislation

that says a third party can intervene without the consent of either of

the two parties, we have effectively said that collective bargaining no

longer means what it used to mean. As I suggested before and will

restate here, that amounts to a redrawing of the rules by which we

live. It amounts to a changing of the social contract. There may well

be some who want to say: "So be it. We accept it. That's fine. We like

it." But for heaven's sake, have the decency and the temerity and the

honesty to at least acknowledge what it is we are doing. We are

rewriting the social contract, and let's have no illusions about that.

I suggested that why that offended me so much was that it also takes

on one of the fundamental and central assumptions of a democratic

society. That fundamental assumption is that people are to be treated

like adults. They are to be treated as independent, decision-making

individuals who can decide for themselves what is in their best

interest. When we say to those individuals, again as a matter of

course, that what we are going to do is set up a mechanism and a system

whereby we are going to solve their problems — "You no longer have to

worry about such things as bargaining, because we have some seer, an

individual in whom is vested this enormous amount of power, who will

solve your problems for you...... That step, that measure is

retrograde, regressive and unhealthy. It is not good for a free society

to do that. There are, to be sure, occasions when we want to call upon

a third party to help us out of our predicaments. But we don't write

legislation that assumes an extreme situation as a matter of course. We

don't need to give any individual these kinds of powers.

I am arguing, as my colleagues have argued, that this is simply

retrograde; it is a bad measure, and one that we feel strongly about.

Therefore I felt the need, Mr. Chairman, to add my few words more on

this issue. I might end my remarks here by saying that we will continue

to put pressure on the bits and pieces of

part 8.1, because there are

questions we have about the particular bits and pieces, the nuts and

bolts. But the central issue remains and obtains. I would ask the

minister to please make an effort to assuage and allay my fears. I

think he owes us that.

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I must apologize to my

colleague from Shuswap-Revel stoke (Hon. Mr. Michael). I referred to

the O'Keefe Ranch, and it is in his riding, not mine. I have to get the

ridings straight.

The last speaker has been criticizing me for not speaking. Quite

frankly, the concerns you have raised are the same concerns that have

been raised for about three days, I guess, more or less. I have

responded to them two or three times, but I can respond to them again

if you would like.

There is a very basic difference in our thinking. You say that the

powers of the commissioner are going to effectively destroy collective

bargaining in British Columbia forever and a day. But to make that

assumption, you have to make the assumption that every time there is

any kind of a dispute, there is the commissioner with his intervention

with a mediator or whatever it may be. I say to you that the reason we

are formulating it in this manner is that that is a very important

labour relations position. The mandate of the commissioner is that he

is there to help, in any manner he can, the parties reach their own

independent agreement. The commissioner's mandate is assistance. not

interference. He can follow a dispute that is impending. and the

individual, who is very experienced, in this particular case.... But

the responsibility that lies with that commissioner — again I underline

it — is to help, to facilitate, and not to interfere with collective

bargaining. To say that collective bargaining is at an end in British

Columbia.... I just can't accept that.

Again, I apologize to the member opposite if he feels that I don't

respond often enough. But you keep raising the same concerns, which you

have every right to, and I do respond to those concerns. But I have

some difficulty in responding to those concerns every time someone

speaks.

I think someone said in some of the earlier presentations that we

have a fairly successful labour relations climate, and if you relate 95

percent of collective agreements being settled as opposed to those in

which disputes erupt, I guess you can say that we have a fairly

successful labour relations climate. But when we have difficulties that

do in fact cause British Columbians as a whole great pain and great

suffering. maybe "fairly successful" is not as good as we can be.

The approach in Bill 19 is totally different from the mediation act

that was referred to in some of the earlier discussions. It's different

in its objectives. Again I point out that the main objective is the

voluntary resolution of disputes, not the interference in disputes.

I have to say to the members opposite that the proof of the

Industrial Relations Council — the proof that everyone will see — is

when it is there and when it is working. When it is working, it will

work well. There seems to be an assumption, in these various concerns

that the opposition has raised, as to the various responsibilities that

the commissioner has being

[ Page

1772 ]

applied almost on a scheduled basis: "Hey, those

two are fighting; we'll do this. That didn't work; then we'll do this.

And that didn't work; then we'll do that." I would suggest that that's

a pretty simple application of the responsibilities in

section 62. I

think everyone — the members on this side and the members on that side

— understands how important industrial relations are to the province of

British Columbia. Those people, given that responsibility to facilitate

voluntary settlements, will recognize that serious responsibility and

will use it in a very serious and responsible manner. I just have to

reiterate that the responsibilities of the IRC and the commissioner are

not only to adjudicate disputes if they are brought forward, but to

enhance and facilitate collective bargaining and voluntary settlements.

I think one other factor that's been missing in most of the

discussion is that they will have a responsibility for providing an

information service on a regular basis to all of the participants in

labour relations — which, by the way, has generally been a request of

both labour and management. They see that as being a very real and

helpful requirement in determining what is happening in labour

relations in the rest of the industrial world as they may use that in

their own bargaining process.

MR. LOVICK: I shall be brief. First I thank the minister for

his sincerity. I accept that, and I appreciate it. Let me just make a

couple of points, and I shall be brief because obviously, as the

Minister of Labour points out quite correctly, we have apparently

unbridgeable, insurmountable differences, and all the talk in the world

is not about to solve that predicament.

When I hear repeated assertions that this is really about assistance

and not interference, I become, however, a little bit suspicious, Mr.

Chairman. It reminds me, frankly, of those individuals who want to

interfere in family squabbles — you know, the kind of neighbourhood

busybody or something, the person who always wants to know what's going

on and always feels that he or she can solve the problem that the two

parties can't. In 90 percent of the cases, rather, the situation is

that the two parties say: "Look, let us have our fight. Let us have our

dispute. Let us have our discussion. We'll work it out." However

well-intentioned the third party, the intervener, might be, the point

is simply that the individuals who are having the dispute, if they know

there is a third party who is going to come riding in on the mythical

white horse.... Clearly the tendency on the part of the two parties is

going to be: "Let the third party solve the problem then." I don't

think it's a good approach; I think it's a bad approach.

[4:00]

The other point I would just make here is to say to the minister

that he continues to make reference to the fact that there is a basic

difference in our thinking. I am quoting the minister when I say that,

Mr. Chairman. I have participated in this debate now for some three

weeks, it seems to me — it's about that long, I think — and I have

heard many, many references to that claim, many claims of that sort:

namely, that there is a basic difference in our thinking, or that here

we have a philosophical parting of the ways. What I have not heard,

however, is just what that difference is. The minister will recognize

that I have tried to get that read into the record, because I think

it's important.

Now what I want to suggest that that difference is, and I do this

carefully and considerately, is that the government seems predisposed

to believe that you can legislate social harmony, that you can make

democracy work by smoothing out its rough edges. In other words, the

government's propensity, I would suggest, is to an authoritarian

solution. Its propensity is to order rather than to freedom. It is

prepared to argue the case that the public good, the public interest,

the maintenance of order and stability and all of that stuff somehow

are more significant and higher attributes in the scale of virtues and

values than things like independence, freedom, democracy, liberty.

What we have been suggesting again and again, Mr. Chairman, is that

there is a price one pays for a democratic society. The price one pays

is discord and dissent and disagreement, and we say that we allow

people sometimes to interfere with the public order. We accept that as

given. We argue the case, rather, that no society is worthy of the name

if indeed it maintains its order and its equilibrium and its stability

by virtue of the fact and by means of the fact that it continues to

repress dissent and disagreement. We are arguing that the measure of a

grownup and civilized and adult society is to allow individuals the

maximum opportunity to sort out their own differences of opinion. I

would suggest to the minister that that perhaps is the point of

departure; that is a starting point, at least, by means of or by way of

elucidating what our "basic differences in thinking" happen to be.

Again, Mr. Chairman, as I say, I know that we have spent probably

sufficient time now on

section 62 in general terms, and I'm sorry that

we are no closer together on that. I will, however, cease to speak on

that. Rather, I and my colleagues — I'm sure I can speak for them as

well — are now prepared to took at specific sections within

Part 8.1,

i.e.

section 137.

MR. CLARK: As the member for Nanaimo pointed out, he's

wrapped up our discussion in general of

section 62, and I'm going to

ask him to kick off debate on the first

section — 137.1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As I turn the floor back to the member, I would

again remind him of

section 61 and relevance, and hope that perhaps we

can stick a little closer to relevance as we go through these sections.

MR. LOVICK: There's a marvelous irony in that, Mr. Chairman,

because we're talking about

section 62 — but of course I won't mention

that — not

section 61, as you suggested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Standing orders — 61 of the rules.

MR. LOVICK: Of the rules? My apologies.

We don't have much difficulty, Mr. Chairman, with the

definitions —

i.e. the

section of this bill called "Interpretation" — or at least I

don't. Perhaps some of my colleagues who have had a little more time to

look at all the details may want to raise questions. What I want to do,

though, is simply to begin by posing one question: namely, the first

definition, "arbitration board." I'm a little afraid when I see that

kind of inclusivity written into legislation. I discover here that

"arbitration board" means just about anybody involved in the process,

and that scares me. It apparently means individuals; it means boards;

it means groups of people or individuals who have widely diverging and

different powers. We're talking about final offer selection, about

special mediators, about mediators as well as arbitrators. All of us

who know

[ Page 1773 ]

anything about the business of industrial relations

know, of course, that there are very precise

definitions for those

terms. I'm wondering, then, why it is the case that "arbitration board"

means so much. It's reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland or somebody who

says: "It means whatever I think it means, or whatever I want it to

mean." It seems to me that the people could be better served by a

somewhat more rigorous and specific and exclusivist kind of definition

process.

Would the minister care to respond to any of that?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, when it comes to the resolution of

disputes, I think the Industrial Relations Council should have the

broadest ability to make a selection of the formation of whoever may be

responsible to settle a dispute so that he can better make a choice as

to which he feels, knowing the circumstances of the situation, is the

most appropriate method to impose, if you will. I think it's simply a

method of giving some flexibility to that, as opposed to giving it a

very narrow definition.

MR. LOVICK: I have no difficulty with the principle or the

desirability of flexibility. I'm not sure, however, that we achieve

that end simply by saying that language doesn't mean anything, which I

think is the intention of — or at least the conclusion of — this

definition process provided in 137.1.

We're apparently trying to say that "arbitration board" means one

individual or a group of people. And not only does it mean that; it

also means people with different powers. I think it's fair to ask:

can't we tighten up the language somehow so that we know precisely what

we're talking about? Are we talking about a single arbitrator or about

a group of people? Clearly, I think the council chairperson would

probably want to have a little more direction when he or she is given

instruction — or chooses, I should say, to intervene in a particular

dispute debate — to know what kind of mechanism he or she wishes to set

up. This seems to me so wide and so flexible that it's in danger of

meaning nothing because it apparently means everything. That's my

concern.

I see a look of consternation and puzzlement on the minister's face.

Fair enough. I apologize: my words were perhaps imprecise. If something

means everything, it also tends usually to mean nothing. I think the

predicament with "arbitration board" as defined here is that it means

everything.

[Mr. Pefton in the chair.]

HON. L. HANSON: I guess I have to say to the member opposite

that it says exactly what we intended it to say; it gives that

flexibility to the council to use the mechanisms that they see as best.

The discretion of the IRC will be used, and the intention here — which

is why I said that it says exactly what we meant it to say — is to

provide that flexibility to the board in the ability of choosing the

single arbitrator, board of arbitration or whatever they see as being

the most appropriate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member — the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: The only member. It's too bad the member for

Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) is not here, because that would obviously

invite another comment from me.

Subsection (

j) to

section 137.1 talks about "an employer named in the

Schedule to this Act." The copy of the act that I have doesn't have a

schedule to it. Is the minister saying that the complete list is

actually from (

a) to (i)?

HON. L. HANSON: I think the member is probably referring to a future

section of the bill —

section 66. That

schedule is set out in

section 66.

MR. SIHOTA: My apologies to the minister. Indeed it is. I

looked at the end of the act and didn't think it would be buried

somewhere before that.

MR. CLARK: We're moving right along here, to

section 137.2:

"Duties and functions of disputes resolution division." I have some

specific questions, if I could, regarding

section 137.2(2).

This is a new feature. It seems to me, of labour relations, which

empowers the chairman to authorize the employment of consultants by

special mediators, a public interest inquiry board, a fact-finder or an

arbitration board. These appointments may be made at any time during

the course of collective bargaining. As I understand it, it means that

in each of those areas, which are already unprecedented in terms of the

interventionist scope of the legislation, they could then also in turn

hire consultants. Is that how it reads to the minister as well?

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

HON. L. HANSON: Just in opening, I might say that it's not

our intention to overlook any solution to a problem. The capacity to

employ a consultant isn't seen as an additional power or another level

of intervention. We feel it merely gives the authority they may require

to hire additional assistants to carry out their responsibilities or

duties.

MR. CLARK: Will the consultants be responsible to the

chairman or will their immediate responsibility be to the fact finder,

the mediator, the public interest board or whoever essentially hires

them? I'm just trying to get a sense of the chain of command here.

HON. L. HANSON: They're effectively responsible to who

authorized the hiring in the first place. Of course. the minister is

ultimately responsible, and certainly the chairman has some

responsibilities also, but they are immediately responsible to the

people who took the contract or made the appointment.

[4:15]

MR. CLARK: Maybe I can get it clear, then. The chairman can

appoint a fact-finder to look into a dispute, and the fact-finder can

hire a consultant to assist him. Is that correct? Let me just give you

a scenario.

The chairman can appoint a fact-finder to a dispute. Can the

fact-finder therefore hire a consultant to help him look into the facts

of the dispute? Then does the consultant report to the fact-finder?

HON. L. HANSON: If he is authorized by the chairman, that

could be a case. Maybe I could give you a scenario that a fact-finder

could, after consultation with the chairman, hire a

[ Page 1774 ]

pension actuary, if that were something that was part of the process that was going on.

MR. LOVICK: Further to that question, it is the case. Is it

not, however, that by that particular

section the following individuals

or groups of individuals are empowered to hire consultants? This is a

derivative of my earlier question. A special mediator may hire

consultants; a public interest inquiry board may hire consultants; a

fact-finder may hire consultants; or an arbitration board may hire

consultants. Is that not the case?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, but I think the member is referring to 137.2(2). Is that correct?

MR. LOVICK: Yes.

HON. L. HANSON: Well, I think it says: "The chairman may

authorize a special mediator, a public interest inquiry board, a

fact-finder or an arbitration board to employ consultants."

MR. LOVICK: My next question will reveal my ignorance, I'm

afraid — and I'm surprised that members opposite aren't leaping up to

take advantage of that opening I gave them. The question is whether

this particular section, this reliance, apparently — or at least this

avenue to employ consultants — represents a departure, a deviation from

existing practice. Is this new, or has this always been the case in

terms of the Ministry of Labour and its efforts to adjudicate and

resolve disputes?

HON. L. HANSON: With some modification. We have had

industrial inquiry commissions hire consultants in the past, but

certainly with the authorization of the minister.

MR. LOVICK: My question, more precisely, is whether the

existing Code, the old Code, had also as part of its mandate, its

statutory authority, the stipulated right to employ consultants. Is

that the case?

HON. L. HANSON: Sometimes too many conversations are going on

at once. But it wasn't stipulated, I guess, before. It had been a

practice that was used in a number of cases.

MR. LOVICK: May I assume then that what the minister is

saying to me is that this is an effort to rationalize and legitimize a

process that was going on before but was not statutorily provided for?

Did I misunderstand?

HON. L. HANSON: There certainly is a budget limitation, of

course, and I don't think it is through the process of industrial

inquiry commissioners. In the past, you know, it was an accepted.... I

don't think it was prohibited. There is, as I said, a budgetary one.

But I think what we're trying to assure here is that, using good

industrial relations practices, the efforts to resolve a dispute

shouldn't be hindered if there is assistance required of a consultant

with some particular expertise.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that answer. The reason

I focused on this particular

section within the bill, 137.2, is that in

these days, when the new terminology to conjure with is privatization

and all of that, I am just wondering if some persons are not likely to

took at this particular

section and say: "Aha! What we are looking at

is a diminished staff within the Ministry of Labour and a growing army

of private consultants." The minister, I hope, is prepared to assure us

that that is indeed not the intention of this section.

HON. L. HANSON: I certainly have no difficulty in agreeing

with that, because it is not the intention at all. There is no relation

to privatization of anything.

MR. LOVICK: One more question. I must confess, Mr. Chairman,

that I had not thought, when I first started this line of questioning,

that I would have this many questions. But it is fascinating, when one

begins to look, to find out how many questions are inevitably

engendered.

The next question I would pose is this: could the minister share

with us the criteria that might be used in determining who the

consultants are? Or is it perhaps a fair conclusion to say that we will

hire consultants, but certain people, because of their past record of

associating with trade unions or some such thing, need not apply? In

other words, can we have some assurances that the Ministry of Labour

will be a fair employer, to use that terminology? I won't name

individual names.

HON. L. HANSON: The whole purpose of this is to enable the

best possible experts, professionals or whatever, depending on what the

requirement is, what the purpose is of hiring a consultant....

Certainly it is not limited to management people or legal people or

trade.... Quite often, I think, consultants are used who have no

relationship to either of those two communities, if you will, because

they have some particular expertise that may be required. I don't know

what the circumstances are, but I guess if you need an accountant, you

would look for an excellent accountant.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions to pose to the minister relating to the monitoring part of this section.

I would like to preface my question by saying that on first

appearance, a lot of these terms may seem fairly innocuous and rather

harmless, but that if you were to put them in the context of the

hurly-burly of disputes, then they are fraught with all kinds of

ambiguities.

If we were to start from the most basic level, this

section

establishes as the duty of the division that it is to monitor

collective bargaining. If we were to combine that with

section 27,

which sets out the purposes and objects, then would the minister agree

with me that combined with that

section and particularly the

expeditious resolution of disputes...? Combining that monitoring

authority with

section 27, would you not agree that at the very least

more intervention is possible here than under the old Code?

HON. L. HANSON: No, I don't, because you also have to keep in

mind that in order for anyone to help — which is the mandate of the

board — or facilitate voluntary collective bargaining, the division

must be kept aware of what is going on and the circumstances and so on.

So I don't agree with that

interpretation. I think the suggestion is

that the stating in

section 27 of the expeditious resolution of

disputes means that getting this information will force them to

intervene. But I don't see it as being that. I think that any help or

facilitation

[ Page 1775 ]

of settling of disputes should be done from a very

knowledgeable background. That's the basic reason under this. "Monitor"

means that the division must keep itself informed about what is

happening in the world. I don't think that has any relationship to the

expeditious resolution of disputes. It's an informational type of

thing. We would expect the division to be kept up to date on and aware

of everything going on in the labour relations field.

MR. GUNO: But you would agree with me that it is a departure

from the old practice of having that particular kind of intervention —

arbitration — flow from collective agreements, and not from a third

party imposing that kind of intervention. Would you not agree that that

particular element has been introduced in this section?

HON. L. HANSON: I guess we can't agree on that point. It used

to be part of the Essential Service Disputes Act. But the duty of the

division is to know about what's going on in the world. I think the

member is suggesting that knowing about that makes them more mandated

to intervene, and I don't see that as being a relationship.

MR. GUNO: Well, I won't pursue that, but I think there is the possibility of that intervention.

Given the fact that in B.C. we don't have, I suppose, effective

freedom-of-information or protection-of-privacy legislation, I would

like to know from the minister exactly what form this public scrutiny,

this monitoring process and the controls that will be imposed on it,

will take, both in law and administrative practice.

[4:30]

HON. L. HANSON: I think the member is reading something

sinister into this. We're not suggesting that the need to know is

anything other than to be aware of things happening in the labour

relations world. I suppose that if the member's question was what legal

limits the need to know is restricted to.... The board will decide what

the need to know is. But this is nothing sinister. I don't think it's

an invasion of privacy. I think it's very clear what it says: there is

a need to know for the DRD.

MR. GUNO: I'm not suggesting anything is sinister, by any

means. We're quite curious to know in some detail the form that that

kind of monitoring will take, once you establish that particular limit

or the need-to-know basis. Just what form will that monitoring take? At

what stage will it begin?

HON. L. HANSON: At what stage will it begin? I can't answer

that. I think it's as simple as saying that the DRD has heard of some

difficulty, and they have a requirement here to monitor all things in

the labour relations field. It may be as simple as a phone call, and

saying: "Can we be of assistance? Do you have some difficulty?" — that

sort of thing.

MR. GUNO: Now we have the sort of minimum basis. But can it

go up to the stage where you can have someone actually part of the

bargaining process, or at least be there, taking note of the progress

of the collective bargaining process?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, Mr. Chairman, I think that the sort of

generalized discussions we had on 62 presented a lot of very black and

very difficult situations — the forecasting of doom and that sort of

thing. I suppose the answer to the member's question is that a mediator

could be there, but it certainly would be very difficult for the

mediator to be there without the agreement of the parties. Second of

all, why would a commission with the mandate of enhancing and helping

disputes have a mediator listening to the bargaining that's going on,

when in fact if he knew the circumstances it would be a hindrance to

reaching a voluntary agreement? So I guess it is possible, but it's

very unlikely.

MR. GUNO: Given that there is a possibility that this kind of

monitoring can take the form of a simple telephone call, as you

suggest, or even the possibility of having someone present to monitor

the progress of negotiations, wouldn't you agree that because of the

delicate nature of these negotiations, that kind of presence, even if

it's a telephone call, would inject a new kind of psychological element

in the process?

HON. L. HANSON: I'd have to disagree with the member. It's

nothing particularly new. We've been monitoring disputes for a number

of years. Again I say to the member opposite that what he's suggesting

is that a voluntary solution to a bargaining process would be very

difficult to reach with a third party perched there, in effect

interfering. I say again that the mandate is not to interfere, it's to

enhance. We're talking about professional people in the field of

industrial relations, and that sort of interference would be contrary

to the mandate of the Industrial Relations Council.

MR. GUNO: This is my last question, but really an

observation. When you talk about interference, I think that can take

almost a passive form — just being there. The fact that you make a

call, the fact that you're sitting there, is a form of interference and

would, I suggest, add a different dimension to this whole negotiation

process.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I think I represent that great

body of British Columbians that the government likes to refer to as the

third party. I certainly don't have a background in labour relations,

so my questions are coming more from the perspective of a learner.

Under duties and functions, 137.2(

b) says: "to provide assistance to

employers...." I would like the minister to give me about two examples

of what assistance would look like — the first two examples that come

to your mind. Just give me two things that you would see happening

which you would call assistance.

HON. L. HANSON:

Section 2(

b) reads: "to provide assistance

to employers and bargaining agents" in both cases, or at least in

both.... It's a generalized information sort of a thing in a neutral

fashion. Again I underline "to facilitate the making or renewing of

collective agreements" on a voluntary basis, but it's a general kind of

information that may be required.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to thank the minister, although I was

hoping that I would hear something much more specific than that —

something that would be informative with regard to the actual kind of

activity that would be taking place. For instance, would this mean that

a monitor or a fact-finder would be sitting down with an employer or a

bargaining agent and advising them with regard to how to proceed? Or if

[ Page 1776 ]

wouldn't mean that, would it mean that just

generally they would be there to be helpful, but you don't have

anything more specific than that? The minister is shaking his head....

HON. L. HANSON: I think what the member is asking is: would

somebody be providing assistance to the employer and not to the

bargaining agent or vice versa? I would point out to the member (c):

"to gather and publish information and statistics respecting labour

relations, employment and collective bargaining in the province." That

assistance may be part of some information that is required, readily

available to everyone.

MR. CASHORE: I find that answer somewhat more helpful,

although I wouldn't want to think that the minister was reading

anything sinister into my comments. It does raise the question with

regard to employers and bargaining agents as to whether or not there

are quantitative or qualitative differences in the kinds of help that

would be provided.

Sometimes help, again, is in the context of the helping hand that

strikes again. I don't think anybody, either employers or bargaining

agents, management or labour, are seeking that kind of help, which

seems to be the kind of help that this

section typifies and which is

typical of the entire act. I'd like to go on and ask a question that

follows along with the line of questioning of the second member for

Nanaimo.

When we look at the duties of the division, there is quite a list of

duties here. There is monitoring, there is providing assistance to

employers and bargaining agents. We have facilitating the making or

renewing of collective agreements. Then we have gathering and

publishing information and gathering and publishing statistics. We have

the administration of mediation services. We have the carrying out of

the functions. We have a chairman who may authorize a special mediator

or public interest inquiry board, fact-finder or an arbitration board

to employ consultants.

It seems to me that there is a wide range there of possibilities —

just to be more specific — with regard to employing consultants. I

would think that, based on the statistical information that we have

from years gone by with regard to the commission and, indeed, the

ministry, there would be sufficient data there to enable the minister

to give us some idea of what kind of cost we're looking at here. What

kinds of moneys are going to have to be budgeted to enable this hiring?

I'm interested in whether this hiring is the hiring of people who are

on annual salary or whether they're on fee for-service. I think I heard

you refer to contracting a few moments ago, and you may have been

referring to this part here. Would you give us the benefit of your

projections with regard to how much this process is going to cost and,

to be really specific, especially with regard to clause (2) of

section

137.2? What is that going to cost in terms of the ministry's

projections? I am sure in drafting this legislation you have developed

some sort of an idea of the frequency whereby some of these services

might be called for.

I realize you can't be specific, and I'm not expecting you to be,

because my hunch is that in a moment the minister will stand up, with

all due respect, and say: "Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, but the

member is asking me to be specific and I am sure he will appreciate I

can't be specific." So I'm not asking the minister to be specific, but

a lot of students are going through their exams today, and sometimes

they have multiple choice, so here's a multiple choice: is this going

to cost up to $100,000 a year; between $100,000 and $1 million; or is

it going to cost over $1 million; and let's make a fourth choice of,

say, over $500 million. Put it in one of those categories, please.

[4:45]

HON. L. HANSON: That was quite a question. I think that I

should first of all point out that "the chairman may authorize a

special mediator, a public interest inquiry board, a fact-finder or an

arbitration board to employ consultants." The costs of those

consultants will certainly depend on the consultant who is required.

The member knows very well that I can pick a figure out of the air, he

can pick a figure out of the air, and then we can both toss a coin at

the end of the year and see how close each is. I think the member and

the members in the opposition would totally agree that any consultant

who would be helpful and.... Being responsible people that the chairman

would deem to be helpful in the particular circumstances where they're

being appointed...would certainly justify that expense if it arrived

at a collective agreement. The member very well knows that I can't say

$1 million, $2 million or $3 million, or $150,000. But the amount spent

will be the amount necessary to do the job, and do it properly.

MR. CASHORE: I must say that I find that answer quite

disturbing. If I understand correctly what the minister said, it was:

"Well, the member well knows that we can't predict...." But if the

minister is not able to predict in some way what he might expect to be

the case, especially under 137.2(2), one then has to wonder why the

clause was put in there in the first place. If it is something that is

so nebulous, so unpredictable, that there's really no way, on the basis

of the experience that has happened in the past, which is supposed to

be the reason for bringing forward this legislation.... It becomes

very, very disturbing to realize that the minister, who is introducing

this legislation, doesn't really have a ballpark guess as to what this

would quite likely cost.

I don't think it's a question, Mr. Chairman, of the minister making

one guess, the member opposite making another guess, and then finding

out sometime who was right or who was closest. We're not playing a game

here. What we're doing is assuming that we're dealing with a piece of

proposed legislation that this government takes very seriously. How

serious can we assume this legislation is, and this particular part of

it, if this minister has no ballpark guess based on previous experience

with regard to the extent to which

section 137.2(2) specifically might

be used? I find that very disturbing.

HON. L. HANSON: I don't know whether this is a fair question

or not, because the member wasn't here, but I would doubt very much

that when the '73 Code was introduced there was an estimate on the cost

of, or how much was needed for, the industrial inquiry commissions. You

know, we provide a number of services in the province of British

Columbia that are driven by the need for those services, and there are

always budgets. But we believe this is such an important aspect of

industrial relations in British Columbia that there is a good and

justifiable reason for providing the reasonable funding that's needed

to make it work.

MR. CLARK: I just have one question, then I think we can move on to the next section.

[ Page 1777 ]

In terms of the consultants, the minister is explaining that it's

meant, I guess, mostly for technical things — pension actuaries, I

assume, and those kinds of things. Will those reports of the

consultants be available to all the parties in the dispute or in the

issue? In other words, will they be made available to the union, to the

company and to the mediator, fact-finder or whoever commissioned it, or

will they be private reports that go directly to the body that hired

the consultant?

HON. L. HANSON: I suppose that the consultant who's hired

would report to the person or group or whoever hired him, would he not?

That would be very logical, and that's, I assure you, what the case is.

Whether that consultant's information, depending on what it was, would

be a help to the resolution of whatever the issue is that they're

dealing with.... They would make that determination. Because again, the

mandate is to help and to facilitate reaching an agreement.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to deal with the whole question of mediation, which starts in

section 137.2 and moves into 137.3.

The philosophical decision that was made by the government to move

mediation services from the government to the board or the council is

one that I think on balance, in the normal course of events, would be a

good decision. There is some real argument for a labour board —

whatever you call it — which has the confidence of the parties to in

fact have responsibility for the mediation services as well, to get it

out and remove it a bit from the political arena. I think there is some

real value in that.

However, I must say that given the nature of the powers of the board

and given all that we have been talking about in terms of this section,

I worry about the ability of the mediation officers appointed by this

particular council to have any credibility in doing their job. I worry

also about how long it will be in each case before these mediation

officers have worn out their welcome and will be unable to carry out

their tasks, given the kinds of things that they may well end up

involved in, including recommending settlements and all that kind of

activity.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I think once your mediation officers get themselves involved in

arbitration and in compulsion, they lose an ability to continue

effectively as mediation officers. It is a good thing, I guess, that

the legislation allows for the retaining of private sector mediation

services, so that the Clive McKees of the world.... There are a number

of them out there; I guess for a while Vince Ready was in that

position, but not now. Given the nature of this particular section, and

given the nature of the responsibilities of the council which allow for

so much compulsion, I don't think the mediation officers are going to

be able to do their job. In a few years most of them won't be welcome

in most disputes, and that's too bad, because I think a professional,

highly competent mediation services branch, wherever it works, whether

in the ministry or at the board level, is really important. We need to

upgrade those services, and that is not a negative comment on persons

now employed in that area. In the really tough disputes, we almost

always have to rely on outside people to come in and act in a mediation

role. That is going to accelerate now, as a result of these mediation

officers being tied into this process that Ed Peck will be

administering.

So I just want to say that in principle the idea of removing it, of

upgrading the service and of making it a highly professional relevant

body of people, is sound, and I would support it. But given the context

in which this group of people is going to have to work, it just won't

work. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that these people will be

burned and will not be welcomed, and the whole effort to establish a

respected mediation branch will be out the window, and that is too bad.

I want to deal just with a couple of parts of 137.3. Given what I

have just finished saying, the authority of the chairman of the labour

board — I will use that term, and I mean it to be council or LRB or

whatever happens to be current — to appoint mediation officers is

appropriate. But given all of the range of options that the

commissioner will have.... Or the chairman working for the

commissioner; I recognize this is going to be the chairman of the

separate body. It's not the disputes.... It's a separate arm of the

council — I understand all of that — but reporting to the commissioner.

The fact that the commissioner is there over it all will mean that even

if those chairman's appointments could be trusted, they won't be

trusted because of that context. I guess that is the only point I want

to make there. We would accept, I think, the idea that the chairman

make those appointments, but not when the chairman is working for an

agency that is able to go the next step and lead into various kinds of

compulsion.

I am a bit worried about.... The final words of subsection (4) on

page 20 of the consolidated bill are: "...and such other information

as the mediation officer considers relevant to the collective

bargaining between the parties." This is pretty wide language.

This isn't the worst thing in here; I want to make that point

quickly. I don't want us to stall on this. But it's very wide latitude

to a mediation officer in reporting out in terms of the dispute. Why

access there to report all kinds of extraneous matters which may well

have been front and centre during some of the meetings that the

mediation officer attended, and he got so wrapped up in it that he ends

up putting in subjective information about how he feels about certain

people's role and behaviour. and on and on? I'm not sure that's useful

to the eventual resolution of a dispute through collective bargaining.

The next section, number (5), gives the mediation officer the

opportunity to include recommended terms of settlement. That is power

that no mediation officer really wants, unless both parties come to him

in a sort of med-arb manner. This is more than med-arb, as I read it,

because either party can request the chairman to direct that, in

effect, the mediation officer come in with the proposed language. If

I'm reading that correctly, I don't think it's going to do very much

for the longevity of the mediation officers. If they allow themselves

to get caught up in that kind of thing — in a situation where both

parties are not fully in agreement that that's what should happen.

[5:00]

This number (6) is really, again, the language that one wonders

about. "Parties conferring with the mediation officer under this

section shall provide such information concerning their collective

bargaining as the mediation officer requests." That can be wide open.

That can be strategies, information — and it cuts both ways — that

employers feel is their business and no business whatsoever of any

public

[ Page 1778 ]

servant. It seems to me to be too wide open. It's

yet another illustration, I think, of the way the legislation was

written: it was written to catch everything. Rather than to focus on

what the objective was and be precise about it, the language is written

in a way that allows for wide-open opportunity to do almost anything. I

think that's a mistake, and it's particularly a mistake in sections

dealing with mediation, which is such a tricky business requiring

skilled people.

Taken together, what this whole

section of the bill does, and what

this particular subsection does, is in effect to make it impossible

over the long haul for these mediation officers to be successful.

That's a shame, because they are very important players in helping to

reach settlements freely and without compulsion.

MR. LOVICK: Just as my colleague the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann) has concerns about the mediation services

section of

Bill 19, so do 1. What I want to do is refer to some particular items

in this

section as they are numbered, dare I say — in order — and

outline my concerns.

First of all, I think it's important that we all recognize precisely

what that first statement says: "Where notice has been given to

commence collective bargaining between a trade union and an

employer...the chairman may appoint a mediation officer." What we're

in fact saying is that once the collective bargaining process begins,

the chairperson of the commission can appoint a mediation officer, with

no grounds, no need and no demonstrated purpose in doing so.

The phrase has been used here on a number of occasions in the last

hour about sinister purposes, and I would again emphasize that I am not

for a moment wanting to suggest there are sinister purposes emanating

from the other side of the House, I do want to suggest, however, that

in the labour/management climate we have in the province of British

Columbia today, that kind of declaration as the opening

section of a

mediation

section of a labour relations bill is guaranteed to be

perceived as a means whereby the government will once more interfere in

the normal collective bargaining procedure. It is, in short, wide open.

It says, in effect, that a mediation officer could come into a debate

on its first day. The moment we say that collective bargaining will

cease, or request the parties to commence collective bargaining, we

could appoint a mediation officer. Again I'm suggesting, Madam

Chairman, that that kind of power, that kind of discretionary ability

on the part of the commissioner, is too much ability and power. It's 0

clause, I suspect, Mr. Minister, that's going to return to haunt your

government. I suspect that we will indeed hear a number of expressions

of anguish and concern about precisely that single section, which, I

grant you, on the face of it appears to be innocuous enough.

That's the first part.

Section 137.3(2) — again, one wonders why.

This is a new

section that says, in contradistinction to the old Code:

"A person appointed as a mediation officer need not be an employee of

the council." Aha! will argue the critics, yet another manifestation of

the privatization impulse. Just as I said some minutes ago, Mr.

Chairman — or Madam Chairman; I'm going to keep doing that, I'm sure,

until you reprimand me specifically — about the

section that said that

each of those bodies created by this bill has the power, given the

commissioner's approval, to hire private consultants, so too, it would

seem, we have effectively made, almost as a matter of course, the same

remedy available here. I'm not entirely sure why we need to be this

specific and say that a mediation officer can be anybody that the

commissioner chooses to appoint. Given the climate of suspicion,

misunderstanding, frustration and everything else in which we are now

living, I would not be at all surprised to discover that a whole bunch

of individuals look at this particular

section and say: "Aha! This may

well be a way to reward one's friends."

HON. MR. REID: Oh, come on!

MR. LOVICK: I see the Minister of Tourism is demonstrating signs of being alert and aware, and I'm delighted to note that.

The point I'm making is simply that this particular

section of the

bill makes it possible for the commissioner, whose powers are, as we

know, already immense, t