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 1, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1473 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

One-day union labour walkout. Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 1473

Mr. Rose

Oral Questions

Graham Leslie letter to Premier on drafting of labour bill. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1474

Mr. Williams

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1476

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

Mr. Williams

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Hewitt

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Jansen

Mr. Guno

Mr. Jones

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Rose

Ms. Marzari

Appendix –– 1497

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to give a warm welcome to two friends

of mine, Chris and Suzanne Slater. They're a mixed riding: Suzanne is

now a resident here in Victoria and Chris still resides in Prince

George. This is a happy weekend for them, as they've been reunited

after Suzanne's not having seen her husband or children for about six

weeks now. Please welcome them to Victoria.

HON. L. HANSON :

I have the pleasure to announce that my wife Nancy and my son Mike are

in the audience today. Would the House please make them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming today my husband John Hagen

and our friends Aron and Eve Gilmartin, who are the ministers at Beacon

Unitarian Church in Coquitlam.

Ministerial Statement

ONE-DAY UNION LABOUR WALKOUT

HON. MR. VEITCH : I rise to make a ministerial statement, acting for the Attorney-General:

have taken the first step in seeking a court order to prevent any

repetition of today's unlawful union action. I have just instructed my

counsel to file a writ in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and

that step will he completed momentarily. The details of the claim are

attached and I will file this with the Clerk afterwards. The claims are

based on allegations of conspiracy and intimidation.

This

work stoppage is an offence against the state, not just the government.

It is an offence against the Legislature and therefore against the

people. It is an attempt by unlawful means to intimidate the

legislative process. The union leaders are trying to move the making of

our laws out of the Legislature and into the streets. There can be

little doubt as to the purpose of these strikes. You need only look at

the words last week of labour spokesman Jack Gerow, when he said: "The

legislation approaches fascism. We are going to come out on strike."

When asked again whether it was legal or illegal he responded, and I

quote again: "Working people are the only people in this province who

have any power, through their trade unions, to fight."

When

the president of the British Columbia Federation of Labour himself was

asked whether the public would respect an illegal strike, his response

was that he thought: "The public will respect our members', our

affiliates' and the working men and women in this province's protest

against this very dangerous and damaging legislation." Mr. Georgetti

also said: "It is time to demonstrate our opposition to this bill in a

stronger way." Mr. Lee Cochrane also stated: "We will do just what we

can to see that this bill doesn't become law."

This sample of remarks, Mr. Speaker, helps illustrate the object of the strike,

which is to subvert the democratically elected will of the people by force.

All members of our Legislature, including the cabinet, are democratically elected

by the people through secret ballot. The statement made by spokesmen of the

British Columbia Federation of Labour illustrates that the federation and its

supporters are using their power in an attempt to coerce the constitutional

authority of government and of the Legislature of this province. This goes far

beyond political opposition to government policy. This conduct represents an

attack on the constitutional rights of every British Columbian.

Every

citizen, whether in favour of or opposed to Bill 19, has a democratic

right to speak out, criticize and protest lawfully. Legitimate

criticism of Bill 19 is jeopardized and tainted by lawbreaking. No

citizen, however powerful, however well-backed, has the right to use

unlawful methods to subvert the democratic process of our Legislature.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court of British Columbia will be asked at the

earliest opportunity to pronounce on these actions, and to issue an

injunction restricting any repeat of these unlawful activities.

[2:15]

We have not proceeded confrontationally or in a punitive way. No penalties at this time are being sought from the court.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER : Order!

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Maybe I should repeat that for them. We have not proceeded

confrontationally or in a punitive way, and no penalties at this time

are being sought from the court. No criminal charges or search warrants

have been resorted to, but instead I'm going to the courts on behalf of

our citizens, seeking a civil remedy of injunction. If an injunction is

obtained, I trust that the strikers and their leaders will obey the

orders of the court.

MR. ROSE : I don't really blame

the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) for going to Ottawa after

dropping this one. I understand the Attorney-General got married over

the weekend and, like for this government, his honeymoon is over.

would have had a lawyer respond to this particular statement except

that we don't view this statement as a legal one at all. It's a

political statement, pure and simple, It wasn't written in the A-G's

office; it was probably written in the Premier's office. I think that

the A-G probably took his marching orders from the Premier's office.

MR. SKELLY : Like the Minister of Labour.

MR. ROSE :

Yes. Charlie McCarthy instructed the A-G, Edgar Bergen, to ride

roughshod and treat the Minister of Labour like Mortimer Snerd. Now

that's what we're dealing with here. you know. So embarrassing were the

revelations over the weekend by the former Deputy Minister of Labour

that we have to have this phony preemptive strike, when they've got all

the powers they need in Bill 19 to prevent anything like this coming in

the future.

This is show biz; this is not legislation. It's

just show business, and it's really shameful. Look what it says here:

"The claims are based on allegations of conspiracy and discrimination."

Whose allegations? Who was the alligator, and when are you going to

drain the swamp? Further on, it says something about intimidation,

unlawful means to intimidate the legislative process. When was the

government so

[ Page 1474 ]

weak, really, that it was going to be intimidated by a very, very moderate trade union movement on a one-day's peaceful protest?

You're

trying to provoke action; that's what you're trying to do. So much for

the new start. It says here: "democratically elected" people; "...the

object of the strike...is to subvert the democratically elected will of

the people by force." What force? Is anybody storming any barricades

that you've seen? Not me, Mr. Speaker. I haven't seen any of that.

I want to say this before I close. It's a backward step. Since when was dissent not part of the democratic process?

think labour has been extremely responsible in this issue. There is

lots of time, if this was going to be concerned.... Why the concern

today? Why not a week ago? It's all show business. It's puff and

puffery and nonsense, and we don't intend to treat this kind of PR

effort with any more than the disdain and contempt it deserves.

Oral Questions

GRAHAM LESLIE LETTER TO PREMIER

ON DRAFTING OF LABOUR BILL

MR. GABELMANN :

In his letter to the Premier, Graham Leslie is quoted as follows. It's

a brief quote, and then I'll ask the question following that. "Little

did he know" — referring to the Minister of Labour — "until he had

already completed the first draft of the report which you had

requested, that you had already decided what changes to make and that

those changes had already been drafted under your direction." Did the

Minister of Labour at that point object to the Premier about being put

in a position of conducting a public sham in the so-called public

hearings?

HON. L. HANSON : Thank you, member of the opposition, for posing the question.

First

of all, the statement made by my former deputy minister is certainly

disappointing to me. There certainly is a difference in opinion about

the process that went about. Now that Mr. Leslie is part of the public

out there, he certainly has a right to express his opinions.

But

I have to say to this House that the process that was started to

generate Bill 19 was started a long time ago. I also have to say that

the philosophies that were developed I was a part of. A number of

suggestions were brought forward that were not included in the

legislation. I'm disappointed, as I said, and a little surprised that

Graham would take that position, because in fact he was part of those

discussions.

When I was on my tour of the province seeking

briefs and various things, there was no question that there was a

process going on that was developing, if you will, some various options

or alternatives, and that some of those were accepted and some of those

were rejected. The end result was Bill 19 as you see it.

While

I'm surprised and disappointed at the former deputy's letter, I

certainly can't agree with a number of the things he has in the letter,

particularly the question that was asked by my critic opposite.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Speaker, while the minister was traveling around British Columbia,

did he know that some other bureaucrats and some private citizens were

drafting legislation, which, for the most part, had already been

completed prior to the completion of the public hearings? Did he know

that that process was going on at the same time?

HON. L. HANSON :

I have a little difficulty in understanding how the opposition can

suggest that the process that we went through does not require an awful

lot of time and an awful lot of drafting, and that there were

suggestions being put forward as a matter of philosophy, but those....

MR. WILLIAMS : You didn't know.

HON. L. HANSON :

Yes, I did know. And a number of those suggestions, regardless of what

you may suggest, were rejected. And we go through that process. A lot

of things were offered as suggestions. Yes, I did know that that

process was going on, and yes, I did ensure before anything was put in

place in its final form that I was there as part of those discussions.

MR. GABELMANN :

The minister suggests that he did know that the process was going on.

Did he know that the legislation, for all intents and purposes, had

been finalized before his hearings were finalized?

HON. L. HANSON :

First of all, the question that has been asked by my critic from North

Island is just not true. The legislation was not drafted in its final

form, nor was it drafted in a situation that wasn't open to discussion.

They were simply ideas brought forward, and I was part of the process

of finalizing what the final bill would be.

MR. GABELMANN :

We have a serious matter of disagreement between the former deputy and

the minister. I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether he suggests

that Graham Leslie, by saying that the changes had already been drafted

under the Premier's direction, is not telling the truth.

HON. L. HANSON :

In Mr. Leslie's letter here, he is making a number of assumptions that

are just not the case. He is suggesting that there was a Bill 19

drafted, and that when we had completed the tour, that draft was what

was presented. That is just not true. There were a number of

suggestions presented, there were a number of suggestions taken as a

result of the tour of the province, and they were all put together into

a collection. From that, through various discussions with the committee

that I had working on it, we came up with the eventual Bill 19.

Then,

to even go further, to ensure that we had all of the various

alternatives in place, the amendments that were introduced are very

substantial, which indicates that there isn't, nor was there, any hard

and fast generation of this bill prior to my hearings.

MR. GABELMANN : The minister has agreed that there were two processes —

that there was in fact a process going on under the Premier's

direction. He is just arguing with me about how much of it was

completed and what form the recommendations took. So he agrees there

was a process.

When the minister went out and asked the

public to talk to him about legislative changes, the public was under

the understanding that those processes, that consultation, that advice,

was what would lead to the legislation. Would the minister not agree

that the public was misled by the government in that respect?

[ Page

1475 ]

HON. L. HANSON : No, I would not agree to that. I think that the opposition

are suggesting that there were two processes going on in total isolation. That

is just not true.

I've

said this before: from the day that the Lieutenant-Governor swore me in

as the Minister of Labour and the mandate was given me for a review of

labour legislation, there was a process that started to analyze the

various briefs that had come in, in fact prior to November 6. They had

come in as a result of a very difficult labour disruption that was

happening in the province, and a number of people were expressing

concerns about that. As a result of that November 6 mandate, given by

the Premier, to look at the Labour Code, a number of briefs came in

immediately, and the analysis and the possible alternatives of drafting

that came about as a result of those briefs — that process was started

then. But for the opposition to suggest that that was a totally

separate process, as opposed to the hearing process, is just not true,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, Mr. Leslie

said two entirely separate processes were underway since last year. Can

the minister advise the House when he was aware of the other process

that was underway?

HON. L. HANSON : The opposition

member is suggesting that there were two completely isolated processes.

That's just not true. I was aware of the drafting philosophy that was

happening as a result of the various briefs that we got in, right from

the day that I was sworn in as Minister of Labour.

[2:30]

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister, then, is confirming that he was aware right from day one

that a Vancouver law office was drafting legislation in his name.

HON. L. HANSON :

First of all, Mr. Speaker, a Vancouver law office was not drafting

legislation. Second, the allegation that they were two completely

separate processes is totally wrong. They were in fact processes that

were joined together and part of the total review of the Labour Code.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The former deputy, Mr. Leslie, made the statement about two entirely

separate processes. I'd like to ask the minister if he conveyed the

deputy's concerns about major elements of this legislation to the

Premier.

HON. L. HANSON : I'm not sure what question the member is trying

to get out, but the fact is that all during this process they were not dual

processes. They were one process. Anyone who would suggest that there is not

a requirement for a process . . When we're going through the hearing and

having all those concerns raised, there are options that are being developed

as a result of those. Some of them were rejected and some of them were taken

into consideration. It surprises me that Mr. Leslie, as the member opposite

is suggesting, is expressing such great concern, because there were concerns

expressed by all of us about certain things that were being suggested. But by

the same token, there was never the concern that's being addressed in the

open letter to the Premier. I might suggest that the deputy minister at that

time was part of this whole process that was going on.

MR. GABELMANN :

I wonder if the minister would agree that any law without the support

or at least the acquiescence of the majority of those whom it purports

to affect will inevitably be opposed, and that this opposition will

guarantee the failure of the larger objective.

HON. L. HANSON :

I'm not sure that that's even an appropriate question. But by the same

token, I know what the member is referring to. He s referring to a

report, or a part of a report, that was tabled at the same time that

the legislation was tabled. I think that if the member opposite would

take into consideration what that statement says, it says that the

whole of British Columbia is involved in all legislation, and that if

it doesn't have the majority of British Columbia as a support basis for

it, it won't work. That's true about any legislation.

MR. GABELMANN :

Just as an aside then, Mr. Speaker, in a poll on Saturday the majority

of British Columbians expressed their view that they don't agree with

Bill 19. Would the minister not agree that it should therefore be

withdrawn?

HON. L. HANSON : The first answer is no.

The second answer is that I have some difficulty in giving credibility

to the statement that the poll which was announced — I believe it was in the Vancouver Sun — is indicative of the province of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled an answer to a question taken on notice.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Speaker, I rise under

section 35 of the standing orders, with the

purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance.

Yesterday

Mr. Graham Leslie, Deputy Minister of Labour until April 1, 1987,

revealed that Bill 19 was written by a "select group of draftsmen" with

"little or no accountability to the political process," and that the

first draft of this legislation had already been written before the

Minister of Labour completed his review of labour legislation requested

by the Premier. Again today Mr. Leslie confirmed that there were two

entirely separate processes underway in this province. One process is

the set of hearings by the Labour minister leading to his report, and

the second, beginning sometime last year under the Premier's direction,

which resulted in Bill 19.

Mr. Speaker, this unprecedented

action on the part of a senior official in the previous and current

Social Credit government undermines seriously the Premier's assertion

that extensive consultation went into the writing of Bill 19 –– I move

therefore that this House adjourn to debate this matter of urgent

public importance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I expect Your

Honour will reserve on this, Mr. Speaker, but the government would have

to be totally opposed to the innuendo contained in this motion, and as

evidence advise you that as recently as last Monday, substantial

amendments to the bill were placed before the House.

MR. SPEAKER :

I thank the members for their comments. I received the notice just

before question period, so I will reserve decision and get back to the

House as soon as I can.

[ Page 1476 ]

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.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, when we closed on Friday we had dealt with

section 12. Now we are on

section 13.

section 13.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman,

section 13 is, on the surface, a simple amendment,

changing the name of the Labour Relations Board, as defined in the

Labour Code, to "Industrial Relations Council."

One could

argue that this is an unimportant change. But I would argue that if the

Supreme Court of Canada were, every decade or two, to change its name,

it would have a profound impact on confidence in the highest court of

our land. Over many, many years the Supreme Court has developed a

reputation and a significance and a place in our society, mostly

because of what it does but partly because it is identified as a body

that is of long-standing duration. When we in labour relations

constantly change the name of the body, particularly when it is a body

that is highly respected, we undermine its confidence in the public's

mind.

At this point in the debate — this is not going to

be a major

section of Bill 19; there are obviously other sections of

far more consequence and far more destruction to our society –– I think

in terms of

section 13 it is important to quote from the ombudsman's

report of this year, filed earlier this session in this Legislature, in

which the ombudsman talks about the Labour Relations Board.

says: "In 1986 we received very few complaints against the Labour

Relations Board. None were substantiated." In 1986 very few

complaints against the Labour Relations Board; "none were

substantiated." The report goes on: "It has been our experience that

the board acts in a fair and reasonable manner. There were two

inquiries...."

Rather than reading all the numbers, I will

just read the totals. There were 20 inquiries or cases opened, and

there were 20 closed during the course of that year. Two of these 20

inquiries to the ombudsman's office about the Labour Relations Board

were simply that — inquiries. Six inquiries or six complaints, or

whatever else they might have been, were withdrawn by the applicants;

three were resolved or corrected during investigation; and nine were

not substantiated — out of the total in all of 1986 of 20 complaints about the Labour Relations Board.

goes on but I won't read the whole thing; it's a short

section in the

ombudsman's report –– I won't read it all, because I think it stands on

its own and every member in this House should have read this report

when it was tabled some weeks ago. But I think it is important to make

the point that the Labour Relations Board, so named, has been

well-respected in British Columbia, has operated fairly, has operated

without complaint from the public and has an outstanding reputation.

A former member of this House in a letter to the Vancouver Sun

made an excellent point. The former member of this House was Tony

Gargrave, I think a member of this House from 1952 to 1966 from

Mackenzie. He made the point in a letter to the Vancouver Sun

that these symbolic changes are important and are significant. While I

wouldn't agree with him in total, obviously, he makes the point that a

very important change for the government to consider in dealing with

this is to revert to the term "Labour Relations Board." Why? Because it

is well-respected. People don't complain about it. The process under

which it operates is fair, and why change it?

I conclude

this point with the point I made initially, and that is that if the

Supreme Court of Canada or the B.C. Supreme Court or some other court

of comparable nature were to change its name every decade or every 15

years, just by the fact of doing that it would lose its credibility and

lose its reputation.

I allege that the reason the

government wants to change the name of the Labour Relations Board is

because we have had a fair process and the government wants an unfair

process. It is important to give the whole operation a new face and a

new name, because we are leading now into a process that will be

entirely unfair, will be employer-dominated both in terms of the

composition of that council and also, of course, of the law it has to

administer. For that reason, the government could not go along with

maintaining the name of an organization which had developed a

reputation for fairness and integrity.

MR. LOVICK :

It must seem rather surprising that when one starts to speak about what

must, on the face of it, be a rather trivial clause such as this one — or at least trivial in relation to some of the others we've been examining —

the temptation I am feeling is to begin by quoting the Declaration of

Independence. I say that because I want to draw the minister's attention — and his staff's attention, also —

to the essential claim of that declaration, which is that when changes

are being introduced to something which has hitherto functioned well

and has existed comfortably and effectively in the past, then the onus

must be on those who advocate the changes to state the reasons for

their departure.

I would like to start, then, by asking the

minister if he would be so kind as to share with this House what the

rationale for this proposed change is. I would dearly love to hear that.

HON. L. HANSON :

First of all, I don't agree with the opposition's suggestion that

changing the name of the Labour Relations Board to the Industrial

Relations Council or the adjudication division of the Industrial

Relations Council is, in itself, an indication that government is

unhappy and disturbed by the performance of the Labour Relations Board.

It is certainly interesting to note, though, that there were a number

of concerns raised with the hearings that I held around the province,

both by management and labour unions or labour leaders, that in fact

the Labour Relations Board had some difficulties. They still had great

respect for it, but they were having some difficulties as to timing and

various things.

But I assure the opposition there is no

great hidden agenda in the changing of the name from the Labour

Relations Board. We are simply putting in place the continuation of the

Labour Relations Board under a new name, under a new method of

adjudication of differences in the industrial

[ Page

1477 ]

relations area. As a matter of fact, a number of recommendations came forward

that mediation services should be more closely related with the Labour Relations

Board. So I can't accept the fact that there is some great ominous message

that is being sent forward, nor can I accept the philosophy that the change

of name simply means that the Labour Relations Board was not a reasonably effective

body.

[2:45]

MR. LOVICK :

Well, I'm delighted to hear that the minister is willing to assuage and

delay our fears about whether the change of name is, in effect, a vote

of non-confidence in the existing LRB. I am sure that everybody is

happy to hear that that is not the case.

But did I hear

correctly from the minister when he said that there was some difficulty

expressed or they were having some difficulty with timing and other

things of the Labour Relations Board and that that was somehow adduced

as a reason to change the name? Did I hear that correctly? I was

listening closely, and I didn't hear a specific reason for the name

change. Did the minister make reference to timing? Is that the case?

HON. L. HANSON :

I don't think that I made reference to timing as a concern that was the

only concern. I said that there was some concern with timing expressed.

I am sure that the member on the opposite side has received a number of

the briefs that were presented to me, and I am sure that if he would

refer to those, he would understand the various things that were raised.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Chairman, I want to look for just a moment, if I might, at the

actual wording change and suggest to you that though many of us are

inclined to use the old line about what's in a name, and after all the

words don't matter that much because clearly our intentions are what's

important, perhaps there is indeed a significant departure alluded to

or suggested in this wording change. Let me touch on that.

First

of all, I think it's safe to say that in British Columbia for a very

long time, when we talk about that whole area of industrial relations,

we call it labour relations. That may be incorrect, technically

speaking, but certainly labour relations is the nomenclature we are

more familiar with that has some kind of historical justification. The

problem with changing from "labour relations" to "industrial relations"

is that "industrial relations" is patently wrong. It does not describe

what now goes on in the area that this bill is designed to deal with.

Rather, it harks back to another time when the only sector of the

economy that was "organized" was the industrial sector. In that sense,

maybe this is indeed a retrograde step. I don't, as I say, see any good

reason, nor have I heard any good reason adduced, as to why we make

this change, and when I look at it, it seems to me there's a compelling

argument to be offered to suggest that, if anything, this is a

retrograde change rather than a progressive one. That, I think, is an

important concern.

The other part of it that concerns me is the movement away from "board"

to "council." I don't want to suggest any insidious plot or conspiracy

on the part of government, but I would tell you that any student of language

and propaganda knows full well that the difference between "board"

and "council' is a suggestion of, on the one hand, some kind of tribunal

on high that adjudicates irrespective of public opinion,

whereas the other one,

by definition, is consultative and open and conciliatory. The irony, of course,

is that they are reversed, because what we are getting proposed here, I would

suggest, is indeed the authority that sits on high and isn't much concerned

with being conciliatory.

The

reason I think it's an important point that I'm now referring to, Mr.

Chairman, and one that I think we ought to dwell on for just a moment

at least, is simply that given the reputation that the government now

has with organized labour in this province, this kind of change —

which, as I say, many people are going to argue is ironic in the

extreme because it does not in fact do what it suggests or what the

words suggest, or doesn't, I should say more correctly, represent what

the words suggest — will have the effect of antagonizing and further

inflaming those people who are currently walking away from their

workplaces. I'm suggesting that for those simple reasons this language

ought to be changed and we ought to revert to "Labour Relations Board."

What

I would suggest again, though, is the point I began with: if something

is working well, if it has functioned well, if it has a history of

satisfying our needs, then the onus must be on those who would advocate

change to demonstrate the grounds for that change. So far, with all due

deference to the minister, I don't think we've heard any grounds for

the change. I sincerely hope that we could hear some, and would invite

that response.

HON. L. HANSON : We've altered the

structure and overall responsibilities. We still have the old Labour

Relations Board, but we've married them to the mediation services, and

we've combined them under one umbrella: the Industrial Relations

Council.

I think that reflects a new beginning. It reflects

the theme of the legislation and, I believe, is very appropriately

named as the Industrial Relations Council. I'm sorry that the member

opposite and I have a difference of opinion as to what that name means

and how it most appropriately reflects the new system, but certainly I

can't agree with the concerns being raised. I believe it is a very

well-thought-out name and very clearly describes the responsibility of

the council.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

MR. CLARK :

As I understand it, this continues the Labour Relations Board as the

Industrial Relations Council, and deals with the question of two

things: retroactivity and the continuation of cases now before the

board.

Does the minister agree that this

section ensures

that business started under the old Code will be concluded under the

new act? The minister's nodding, so that's the intention.

have some concern about this, because, as of course is always the case,

there are all kinds of cases before the board, particularly with

respect to

section 37 or

section 53 proceedings — in other words, double-breasting under 37 or successorship under 53 —

and this new bill materially affects how they would be adjudicated. If,

for example, we were in the middle of a hearing on a

section 37

application — in other words, a double-breasting application — and

the hearing was adjourned and set down for, say, August, and this bill

passed, could the minister enlighten me as to which law would prevail?

[ Page 1478 ]

HON. L. HANSON :

I think the member is dealing with

section 70, which would be more

appropriately discussed at that time. But

section 14 provides for the

operation of the Industrial Relations Council, and continues the

tripartite composition of the Labour Relations Board. I don't believe

it's appropriate at this point to talk about a case being handled when

the new board takes effect, because there is a later

section that will

deal with that.

MR. GABELMANN : On the tripartite

nature of the council, is it the minister's intention to take nominees

from business on the one hand and labour on the other for those two

parts of this tripartite structure, and to appoint those nominees?

HON. L. HANSON :

I would imagine the member for North Island is suggesting that the

tripartite composition will not be possible, because there will be

people who refuse to take

part in it. Is that not what you're

suggesting?

MR. GABELMANN : Have you got cotton batting in your ears?

HON. L. HANSON : Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. I have . . . .

any case, we believe that the tripartite composition of the Labour

Relations Board and the council is the appropriate makeup. We believe

that there will be people prepared to serve who are representative of

all interests in labour relations.

MR. GABELMANN :

Let me try to ask the question again. One of the ways you keep a good

tone in the Legislature, Mr. Chairman, is by keeping your voice down.

If I'm not speaking loudly enough for the minister, I wish he would

tell me. If he's not hearing what I'm saying and is answering questions

that I haven't asked, then it may be that I'm not speaking loudly

enough, and I will speak more loudly.

Under this tripartite

system, is it the minister's intention to appoint nominees from

business on the one hand and labour on the other to fill the positions

in those two parts of the three-part system?

HON. L. HANSON :

Certainly that is our hope. There will be neutrals, of course, who are

accepted as neutrals by all parties. We'd be pleased to have

nominations from both labour and management for consideration for

appointment.

MR. GABELMANN : I did not ask whether

the minister would consider nominations for appointment. I asked

whether he would appoint nominees from business and from labour to

those positions, as proposed by both business and labour.

HON. L. HANSON :

The member, opposite is accusing me of being hard of hearing. I guess

in some cases I am. But if the question is whether we are appointing

only those people acceptable to both sides, I don't think that that is

always possible. Certainly we want to ensure that there is reasonable

representation of all the views out there relative to labour relations.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, I'll try again. I did not ask if he would appoint persons

acceptable to both sides. I asked whether or not those persons being

nominated for positions on the Industrial Relations Council by, on the

one hand, business and, on the other hand, labour — not the neutrals; I haven't even talked about the neutrals yet — appointments suggested by those two parties who are affected by this process, will be appointed by the minister?

HON. L. HANSON :

I don't think that you can say that any suggested person will be

appointed, but I have to say to the member opposite that any suggestion

as it comes forward from labour or any suggestion as it comes forward

from management will be very seriously considered as to their skills

and abilities and not their position — which side of industrial

relations they support. I think that in the past, generally speaking,

most nominations, if you will, from the labour side and most

nominations, if you will, from the management side have been

considered, and in most cases they have been appointed as needed.

[3:00]

MR. GABELMANN : Would the minister consider that the Industrial Relations Council is a tripartite agency of government?

HON. L. HANSON :

Well, yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman. But the member opposite is trying

to suggest that any suggestion that has come from anyone, if they're

representative of a certain part of the community.... Do I guarantee

that they're going to be appointed? I'm suggesting that we're looking

for a tripartite organization within this council and that those

suggestions will be given the utmost and most serious consideration to

ensure that there is a tripartite essence to the council.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, in ordinary circumstances I would assume this was a

rhetorical question, but it may not be, so I'll ask it: does the

minister not agree that tripartite means three parties? He does. But

the minister, in answer to my questions, is suggesting that only one of

these three parties will make a decision about who's on the tripartite

agency. Is that correct?

HON. L. HANSON : Well,

again, Mr. Chairman, I think the member opposite is not facing reality.

I think that there's a responsibility of government, as it says in the

legislation, to make these appointments, and I think that there is a

responsibility of government to ensure that all opinions are

represented fairly on the Industrial Relations Council.

MR. CLARK :

Well, I don't want to belabour it if it's in a different section, but

reading this

section 14: "All business pending before the Labour

Relations Board before the coming into force of this subsection shall

be continued before the Industrial Relations Council . . . ." I'm

wondering what the minister's intention is with respect to all business — which is a significant amount —

that is currently before the Labour Board. When this act comes into

force, how are those decisions going to be made in terms of the

decisions made by the Industrial Relations Council when they've been

three-quarters finished by the Labour Relations Board?

HON. L. HANSON : You know, I really think that the member is trying to bring up

section 70 at this point, and that

[ Page

1479 ]

certainly deals adequately with the question that he's been posing to me.

The

eventual result of the formation of this board hope fully will

represent all sectors. We're not suggesting that there are advocates

being appointed. We're simply suggest ing that there are people who are

very knowledgeable about the perspective of the various interests — the difficulties, at least, the adjudicators are expected to rule on —

to ensure that not only is management, but labour . . . . And in the

case of some neutrals, that there is some consideration of other points

of view . . . .

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

HON. L. HANSON : I move the amendment, numbered

section 15.1, standing

in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

section 15.1.

MR. GABELMANN :

As I understand it now, the council t can be . . . . I'll start again;

I still have my mind on question period, Mr. Chairman. There will be

additional vice-chairpersons of the board. Is it — the potential (4); the minister S may appoint additional vice-chairpersons —

the minister's intention that those additional vice-chairpersons

will be reflective of the "tripartite" nature of the council or in fact

additional so-called neutrals?

HON. L. HANSON : Mr.

Chairman, I think both. The a amendment is simply giving more

flexibility than was previously the case, and I'm sure that in the

fairness of the c commissioner's appointments there will be adequate

representation from all interests as these panels are formed.

Section 15.1 approved.

section 16.

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 16 standing in my name on the order paper.

[See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

section 17.

MR. GABELMANN :

First of all, this is a compensation section. There have been

contradictory reports in the media about the salary that the

commissioner of the new council would earn. Earn may not be the

right word, but would receive. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the

minister could clarify just what the salary of the commissioner will be

pegged to and how much it is at the present time.

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, it's obvious in the amendment that it's tied to the

Supreme Court judges' stipend, and my understanding at this point,

although I believe it's under review, is $107,000 or $108,000.

MR. GABELMANN :

Would the Minister of Labour agree with me that by paying Mr.

Peck, at least for the first five years, twice as much as he, the

minister, earns — in real terms Mr. Peck will be earning close to twice as much money as the minister — that is a fair reflection on the relative importance of the two positions?

HON. L. HANSON :

Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly here are a number of people who are

earning more money ban the ministers of the Crown. I might suggest to

my critic that the members of the opposition are earning considerably

less than the ministers, and I guess that reflects the way the system

is and the responsibilities that are there. I don't think that any of

us are elected or at least run for the positions that we do in

political life in British Columbia for the salaries that are attached

to it.

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON : I think that we — and I acknowledge that the members in opposition have the same motivation — are all interested in British Columbia, and are in these positions because of our interest.

It's interesting to note that a number of the briefs — and I'm sure my

critic opposite is very aware of that — were suggesting that in order to attract

the people most suitable and recognized as most suitable to the various positions,

there had to be recognition of that in their remuneration.

MR. GABELMANN :

The member for Vancouver East anticipated my next question, Mr.

Chairman. Is it appropriate that an employee of government, as Mr. Peck

will be, receives more money than his boss, the deputy minister of the

department?

HON. L. HANSON : In fact, in real terms,

my deputy minister is . . . . I am his boss. I think in fact he

probably makes more money than I do. For those people who dedicate heir

life as a career to the civil service, if you will, there is a

justification. I would like to reiterate that we who run for politics

in British Columbia don't run for politics for the stipend that it

provides us with. We run because we have an interest in the affairs of

British Columbia. I think it is reasonable that people who make a

career of it sometimes are paid more than their bosses are.

MR. GABELMANN :

I agree with the minister in one art of what he is saying, and that is

that there will often be occasions when public servants earn and make — both more than their political masters. That is appropriate.

But my second question was not about their political masters. My second question

was about their boss — another public servant. There are occasions when public

servants an, and properly should, earn more than any of the deputy ministers:

that is, when those public servants are appointed by this Legislature — for

example, the auditor-general and he ombudsman.

I don't know what the salaries are in those cases; I assume hey are higher

than deputy ministers in both cases. I believe they are; I understand now that

they are. There is no inapropriateness in having a servant of this Legislature

earn more than the deputy ministers. I find it highly unusual that a public

servant who works for and under a deputy minister, who reports directly to the

minister, would earn more than the person above him in the list of employees

in the bureaucracy.

[ Page 1480 ]

If I am wrong, if in fact Mr. Peck is not junior to the deputy minister, then I would like to hear that from the minister.

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what the member opposite is suggesting —

that all deputy ministers should be the highest-paid people in

government? I think there is a misunderstanding on the part of the

member opposite that the commissioner's position is answerable to the

deputy minister alone. I think that the deputy minister and the

commissioner will have a lot of communication back and forth. I would

suggest that if the member opposite would look at . . . . I think it is

the salary of the auditor-general that is tied to the Supreme Court,

and the position of commissioner, we feel, warrants that sort of salary

to attract the best people to it.

I think there is ample

evidence out there that there are administrators in hospitals and that

sort of thing who are earning more than deputy ministers, more than the

Deputy Minister of Health. I am not sure if the member is suggesting

that those administrators are answerable to the Deputy Minister of

Health.

MR. WILLIAMS : It does raise the obvious

problem that we have in this administration in terms of underfunding in

the senior levels of the civil service. There is no question about

that. That is a broader . . . .

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I am suggesting that occasionally you may not get the talent you need

with the fees you pay; but I am not suggesting that at the moment. I am

interested, though, in what Mr. Peck receives now in his present

position. Could the minister advise us? Is it more on a par with the

deputy minister level in terms of salary, in terms of the CSP?

HON. L. HANSON :

First of all, that information is certainly available in public

accounts, and the former position that the individual held was

adjudicator of the compensation stabilization program. I will certainly

get what compensation that involved and bring it back to the member

opposite if that is the information he requires. Just from memory,

believe it is tied to a deputy minister's salary.

[3:15]

MR. WILLIAMS :

So you're going to move up from those levels into the over-$100,000

level. That's already being investigated in terms of committees looking

at increasing judges' pay, so we might really be thinking of doubling

this commissioner's pay, or something like that, with the establishment

of this legislation. Would that be the case?

HON. L. HANSON :

No, that's not the case, but I think the members opposite would

acknowledge that the responsibilities that the new commissioner is

assuming certainly have some variance with his responsibilities in the

compensation stabilization program. The very nature of the Industrial

Relations Council is so important to the province of British Columbia

that we feel that that is a reasonable salary level to establish for

the individual charged with those responsibilities.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I wonder if the minister read the former deputy's statements in

yesterday's newspaper to the effect that the close monitoring of

collective bargaining which the industrial relations commissioner is

expected to carry out will end up an impediment. Your recently departed

deputy, Mr. Leslie, said that this man will end up as an impediment

rather than an aid in the industrial relations process in British

Columbia. That being the case, wouldn't it be reasonable to reduce the

salary?

HON. L. HANSON : First of all, I thought we

had dealt with that quite extensively in question period. I have the

greatest respect for Mr. Leslie, but I don't always agree with his

opinions. And I don't believe that what the member opposite is

suggesting has any validity. I believe a recognition is required for a

very responsible position such as we're establishing, and part of that

recognition has to do with the salary attached to it. I think the CSP

commissioner's salary is something in the area of $90,000, but I

certainly will bring that back to the member.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I have some trouble with the minister's assurance. His experience as a

minister is since October or November of last year. Mr. Leslie has been

in labour relations work most of his active career, with a significant

background in the lower mainland as well as over here, and he's the one

who says it's going to be an impediment. Isn't it reasonable to be

concerned, then, about this kind of bonusing for what is clearly seen

as an impediment by a learned person who understands the implications

of this statute probably better than most people in this House?

HON. L. HANSON :

I think the member opposite is suggesting that Mr. Leslie is a very

experienced and knowledgeable person in industrial relations, and I am

certainly not disputing that. But I'm also saying to the member

opposite that a number of very experienced and, if you will, credible

people in the labour relations field don't happen to agree with that

opinion that has been put forward. There isn't any individual that I

know of who is considered the world's authority, or there wouldn't be a

difference of opinions.

MR. CLARK : I just want to

follow up some of the things that the member for North Island was

saying, because I'm not sure the minister grasped the significance of

them. He was saying that deputy ministers are paid at a certain level.

The only other people in government who are paid judges' salaries are

the auditor-general and the ombudsman, and they are accountable to the

Legislature; not to the cabinet, not to the Lieutenant-Governor, not to

the government, but to the Legislature. Can the minister name any other

position in government where one bureaucrat is above another

bureaucrat, in terms of who reports to whom, where the junior member is

paid more than the person he's accountable to, which seems to be the

case in this respect? This person is reporting to a deputy minister who

is paid considerably less than him. He is not reporting to the

Legislature; he's reporting to the deputy minister. Can you name any

other case where that is the case?

HON. L. HANSON :

I'm still having a little difficulty in grasping the concern that the

members opposite are expressing. We have a deputy minister and we have

an assistant deputy minister system in place. There's no question that

the

[ Page

1481 ]

assistant

deputy minister is answerable to the deputy minister, and there's no

question that the deputy minister is answerable to the minister. We

have in the case of the Workers' Compensation Board a commissioner

appointed by cabinet who the deputy minister keeps very close liaison

with, but he doesn't answer to the deputy minister. We have the

chairman of the Human Rights Council put in place. He could be

considered as associated with a deputy minister in terms of reporting,

and yet there's no relativity in salary. I think that salaries are

relative to the responsibilities that we apply to the individual. The

suggestion that the commissioner is responsible to the deputy minister

in the same form that an assistant deputy minister is just not correct.

MR. GABELMANN :

The legislation says that the commissioner of the Industrial Relations

Council will be paid at the salary level of the Supreme Court justices.

That implies somehow that this person is as independent of government,

is as separate from government, and has no reporting mechanism to

government, in the same way as Supreme Court justices. Does Mr. Peck

have the same independence as a Supreme Court judge? The answer is

obvious, I think, when you read the legislation. He does not.

AN HON. MEMBER : Come on!

MR. GABELMANN :

What do you mean, "Come on!" Mr. Chairman, the member who just

interjects went around the province with the Premier on this sham

commission. He's yet to participate in this debate, mainly because the

legislation doesn't reflect what he heard on that commission. That's

the reason he and his other colleague haven't even participated, except

by interjections.

The point we're talking about here is

that there is an attempt to equate that position with a Supreme Court

judge. There is no act setting up Supreme Court justices that makes

them answerable to the minister in the way this act does. The whole

principle is wrong. I'm not arguing or advocating that Mr. Peck's

office should have an independence that Supreme Court justices have. He

shouldn't. But if he doesn't — if he shouldn't and in fact he doesn't have that independence why is he paid at the same level?

HON. L. HANSON :

I guess we have a basic difference in philosophy. The suggestion by the

member opposite is that the commissioner is answering to the Minister

of Labour in that in the decision-making process the Minister of Labour

has the ability to interfere, and so on, and I don't think that would

be reasonable and understandable. The commissioner has a very

responsible job to adjudicate the legislation, to interpret the

legislation as is presented to him. He will do that in his capacity as

commissioner. We think that that is relative to a responsibility that

justifies that kind of salary.

MR. GABELMANN : This debate could probably be over in half the time if

the minister either could or would listen — I'm not sure which it is. If

the minister believes that this position should pay $107,000 or $108,000,

then pay that amount, in the same way as the minister and cabinet assume that

the chair of the Workers' Compensation Board and the chair of the Human

Rights Council, and assorted other persons in this province, are paid an amount

established by cabinet. If you want to pay him that or more, fine; I don't

have a heck of a lot of objection. I've some but it's not a serious

objection.

But

that's not what the government is doing. The government is by statute

setting up a relationship of equals between Mr. Peck and all members of

the Supreme Court of British Columbia — by statute — by saying: "The

commissioner shall be paid compensation in an amount equal to the

compensation paid to a Supreme Court judge..." The Supreme Court judge

is independent. The Supreme Court judge does not have half the powers

that Mr. Peck has. You might argue that Mr. Peck should get paid more,

given the awesome kinds of powers he's been given, even with the

amended legislation. But we're not arguing about how much money he

should make. We're arguing about the principle of tying that position,

those powers and that authority to the position of a Supreme Court

judge.

MR. R. FRASER : To the salary.

MR. GABELMANN :

To the salary of the position of a Supreme Court judge. Correct. Now

why is it that we don't peg other jobs to other positions?

AN HON. MEMBER : Because the rationale isn't the same.

MR. GABELMANN :

Is the rationale that the Industrial Relations Council is an equivalent

to the Supreme Court, that it has the same moral and legal authority as

the Supreme Court? If so, how is it then that judgments of Mr. Peck and

his agency can be referred or filed to the Supreme Court, presumably

because it is a superior body? If it is a superior body, presumably the

people administering that superior body would earn more money; or if

they didn't, at least it wouldn't be tied legislatively to a position

of equality between the two. They are not equal.

This isn't

a sticking point. We're not going to debate this

section all afternoon,

but it's incomprehensible to me why in this instance and in no others

the government chooses to equate a public servant with a Supreme Court

judge, who is independent of the public service.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

MR. GABELMANN :

This is a

section that is going to take some time. This

section

probably in its philosophy accounts more for today's protest than any

other

section in this bill. You may say that it's

section 62 or the

double breasting

section or all the other concerns that exist that led

to the activity today, and to a certain extent that's true. But the

philosophy of the government is fully explicit in this particular

section. I want to take some time — and other members of my caucus will also participate in this debate — to talk about how these changes change the fundamental philosophy of the management of labour relations in this province.

The

first is that an amendment suggests that the develop merit of effective

industrial relations through good working conditions and the well-being

of the public can be achieved previously by the relations between

employers and their unions. It now becomes between employers and their

employees. That is a fundamental philosophical change. The

[ Page 1482 ]

government

is saying: "Our intent is that in the future industrial relations will

take place between employers on one hand and employees on the other hand — not their union."

[3:30]

If the minister has ever been surprised about why people in the

industrial relations community, people out there who are neutral,

people out there who have no personal stake — not to mention all those people who do have a personal stake —

are convinced that the government is out to deunionize British

Columbia, he need only look at that one small change, which by itself

has no impact because this

section is the purposes and objectives of

the new IRA. In fact, by making that seemingly small change from

"employers and their unions" to "employers and their employees," the

government is signaling its true intent, which is to destroy collective

bargaining, to destroy collective activity, to get to a situation so we

will have a competitive market economy like they have in Taiwan and

South Korea and all those places with whom we compete.

That's

what this

section is all about, and that's what this legislation is all

about. The government went as far as it could in this first bite at

deunionizing. It bit a little bit further than it could and had to

withdraw a little bit, but the intent, philosophy and objectives are

all here. They are spelled out in black and white terms.

Mr. Chairman, the original legislation in

section 27(1)(

a) talked about employers and employees —

and I concede that before the minister develops his line of argument to

say I'm wrong and that the old legislation talked about employers and

employees. It did, but in

section 27(1)(

b) it also talked about

improving the practices and procedures of collective bargaining between

employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of

their employees. That

section is in there again. So what you've done — and you need to go through this slowly to see what the real goal of the government is —

is maintain some of the language while inserting other language that

totally distorts the objectives and goals originally envisioned by the

drafters of this legislation.

"The council,

having regard to the public interest as well as the rights of

individuals and the rights and obligations of the parties before it and

recognizing the desirability for employers and employees to achieve and

maintain good working conditions as participants in and beneficiaries

of a competitive market economy . . . ."

The principle of

good collective bargaining is to resolve disputes, to ensure that

people get along together so that productivity is high, relationships

are good, grievances are reduced, and when contract time comes around

they can reach an agreement easily and quickly. Those should be the

purposes of labour legislation, and to make sure that a fair balance

obtains. We have none of that in this legislation. Drafting legislation

to serve the competitive market economy has become the goal of the

government.

Mr. Chairman, isn't there an obvious conflict in the minds of members of

the Social Credit Party between the philosophy of a competitive market economy,

presumably without government interference, and this massive government interference?

It's almost laughable to listen to the advertisements of the National Citizens'

Coalition, or whatever they're called, on the radio, supporting the government

in its efforts to get this philosophy enshrined by saying its main motive is

to get governments off the backs of individuals and out of the marketplace.

This is the most intrusive venture into the marketplace of any government in

the history of this country. Doesn't the government see the contradiction?

You don't believe in interfering in this way with private commercial contracts.

Why then do you interfere in this way with private contracts relating to wages?

I'm sure the government would like to in fact reduce the amount of legislation

governing private commercial contracts. They would like to get government off

the backs of those parties who wish to freely reach an agreement. Yet the philosophy

of this bill, as outlined in the new

section 27 of the Code, amendment 18, is

to do the opposite of that, to intrude in a massive way into private contracts

between employers and the people who work for them. Isn't the government

aware of that obvious contradiction?

Isn't

the government also aware that by adopting this philosophy, more

trouble is in fact created than solved? Isn't the minister aware of his

own letter to the Premier, in which he says you can't solve industrial

disputes legislatively? Isn't the minister aware of the good

relationships that were beginning to develop between employers and

employees in this province in respect of, for example, the Pacific

Institute of Industrial Policy? Is the minister not aware that by

injecting this philosophy of labour relations being subject to the

competitive market economy, he subverts the whole practice of labour

relations and creates a mess? Isn't today evidence enough for the

government that they've gone too far with this bizarre policy, this

bizarre philosophy which argues that the primary objective of labour

relations is not good relations between employer and employee but

relations which understand and reflect the competitive market economy?

What's

so obnoxious about the philosophy and what's so tragic about what's

happening to this society is that people all around the world — every multinational corporation —

will have on the telex tonight a report from their people in British

Columbia about what happened here today. They're not going to be

concerned about blame. The telexes won't say it was the government's

fault, the opposition's fault, labour's fault or management's fault.

They will just simply report on the fact that workers in this province

felt incensed enough about a legislative initiative of government that

they were prepared to sacrifice tens of millions of dollars worth of

wages to demonstrate how angry they were about legislation that has as

its primary focus language that says: " . . . good working conditions

as participants in and beneficiaries of a competitive market economy

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN :

Does commercial contract law have a philosophy

section in it which says

that commercial contracts will reflect the competitive market economy?

Of course not. Why would the government want that kind of massive

interference in a freely arranged bargain between two commercial

partners? Why would you want that?

MR. R. FRASER : It's unnecessary.

MR. GABELMANN : Of course it's unnecessary. It's unnecessary in labour relations too. The first shutdown in eight years in B.C. Ferries — why does it happen? Because of legislation that interferes so massively . . . .

MR. R. FRASER : Not true.

[ Page

1483 ]

MR. GABELMANN : What's not true? The shutdown came about because the guys wanted the day off. Is that what happened?

MR. LOVICK : They want to lose some wages, right? Give up some wages; take the day off. The good life, yes.

MR. GABELMANN : A long weekend.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, the debate this afternoon will go much more smoothly, and

much quicker, and the public will be served much more effectively, if

the member for Boundary-Similkameen closes his mouth a little bit more

often. He should remember that he has twice as many ears as mouths, and

he should listen twice as much as he talks.

MR. HEWITT : Are you threatening me? Are you telling me that I can't ... ?

MR. GABELMANN : Mr. Chairman, I'm threatening the member for Boundary-Similkameen as much as workers are threatening the government today.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, I think we should just continue with

section 18. This is a

particularly difficult bill we're dealing with, and I would ask all

Hon. members to please save their interjections. We should listen to

whoever is on the floor; he has the right to speak.

The member for North Island continues. We only have a couple of minutes left, lion member.

MR. GABELMANN : That's fine then. I've got much more to say, but I'll wrap up on this particular point.

One

of the other impacts of changing the philosophy of the Code, as is

being done by this, is to abandon the view that we've held in British

Columbia that organizing trade unions is an activity which should be

encouraged.

AN HON. MEMBER : Or at least is legitimate.

MR. GABELMANN : Or at least, as my colleague suggests, is legitimate.

Those of us on this side of the House believe that encouraging — not forcing, but encouraging —

trade union activity, encouraging people to act collectively, will do

more to improve our standard of living and our economic prospects than

any activity of government or any other activity that can be imagined

or that could be undertaken. That is the single most useful endeavour.

Why is it that the most highly paid woodworkers in the world work in a

province where woodworkers are almost entirely 100 percent organized?

As a result of that, woodworking communities have, and have had, a

standard of living that is among the highest anywhere in this country.

There is very real value in organizing, in bargaining collectively. It improves

all of our standards of living. Once woodworkers have that kind of income, shopkeepers

have the money spent in their stores; the natural and traditional supporters

of Social Credit benefit from the money spent in their stores by people earning

a decent wage. As a result, our whole economy improves. It becomes more competitive,

too, as is evidenced clearly in the competitive position of the B.C. lumber

industry, which is the most competitive in the province.

MR. R. FRASER :

Mr. Chairman, I really didn't intend to get up and debate this

section

today, but I will, because . . . . I would like to repeat some of the

remarks of the member opposite, who speaks with great feeling. I

appreciate that, because I like to talk with people who believe . . . .

MR. CLARK : Is this your role in life — to give the minister a break?

MR. R. FRASER : You stop heckling; you'll get a turn. Mr. Chairman, defend me from that unmerciful heckling.

MR. LOVICK : Certainly you require help.

MR. R. FRASER : That's right: all the help I can get, including the second member for Nanaimo.

I say, I'd like to participate today because I like to work with people

who believe in what they say even though I may not happen to agree. As

my friend from Nanaimo would probably say.... He would probably quote

Voltaire, who said: "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the

death your right to say it." It's the same with the member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann).

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MR. R. FRASER : It seems to me, Mr. Chairman — Chairwoman, in fact —

and to many whom I know that the desirability of employers and

employees achieving and maintaining a good working relationship is

paramount to the interests of the province of British Columbia. For us

to think otherwise would be folly. Certainly it would be in our best

interests to recognize that we are participants in and beneficiaries of

a competitive market economy, for it certainly is time that we

recognize that we are not an island unto ourselves; we are part of a

gigantic world economy upon which we are dependent to a large extent.

[3:45]

is not just a matter of raising salaries in one industry and then

spending all the money in the store. We certainly have to sell the

product, which pays the wages which then go to the store. The sales

come first.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER : Entering into my field — that's dangerous for you. As I say ....

MR. R. FRASER :

that had I had the chance. My education is limited simply to

engineering, and that's not enough, as you can see.

It's

important to me to get into this discussion because of the fact that I

believe that the primary relationship is between employer and

employees, not between employer and trade union or employer and

customers particularly, because they can change. It's the unit that

we're talking about.

[ Page 1484 ]

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER :

The first member for Vancouver East says master-servant; sort of

old-fashioned language, according to me, but if that's what you think

it is, that's fine. You're an employer; I suppose that makes you the

master and all those who work for you the servants, so maybe you know

more about that than I do. It didn't work that way in my business, I

can assure you.

It's important to make sure that the

economically viable unit is the company or the co-op or whatever it is,

so that that unit will function and will be able to compete effectively

with other similar units or different-sized units or units that operate

in a different market, so they can work. So this makes sense. Certainly

to involve the interests of the public, which I know will inflame the

members opposite, seems to me to be significant; for we cannot have a

group of people arguing against the general interest of the public.

recognize there's a possibility that will be upsetting to the member

for North Island, but the fact is that this recognition in print is the

recognition that all who succeed already have, and to put it there will

get my support.

MR. CLARK : Madam Chairman, there are

many offensive elements in this act, in my view, many that are

interventionist, but this

section is probably the most offensive of all

because it changes fundamentally the philosophy by which we do business

in terms of labour relations in this province, and it alters

fundamentally the way we've operated in Canada.

Nowhere in

North America, I think, is there legislation similar in terms of the

kind of intent that the legislation is based on. It's very important,

because all of the other sections of the act will ultimately challenge

that the labour board, for whatever reason . . . . They all are read

through the veil of

section 18, or

section 27 of the act. This is the

section that the lawyers and the chairman and the vice-chairman of the

board turn to when they want to see what the intent of the legislation

is.

It really isn't labour legislation at all; it's an

economic and political agenda, highly interventionist. It talks about

competitive market economy, and it's one of the benchmarks for labour

legislation. It doesn't encourage collective bargaining, as the old

bill did; it doesn't say that the purpose of this labour legislation is

to encourage collective bargaining. It supports, I think, a kind of

heavy state intervention to try to ensure a competitive market economy.

The minister has been clear — and I think Graham Leslie in his

article confirms —

that this bill means the deunionization of the construction industry,

if not more. The minister knows that's what this bill will do; the

government knows that; the deputy minister has confirmed that. So

that's what they mean by the competitive market economy that they want

to see. And the minister nodded when we talked earlier about trying to

compete with the Pacific Rim. We have to deunionize, we have to reduce

our wages, we have to reduce our living standards if we want to

compete. That's what this legislation does.

MR. R. FRASER : He didn't say it.

MR. CLARK : He said it before in this House, Mr. Member. He said that in fact we have to be more competitive.

That's the goal of the legislation: to make us more competitive.

MR. R. FRASER : There's nothing wrong with that.

MR. CLARK :

There's nothing wrong with that? We want to reduce our wages

consistently, deunionize, to become more competitive. That's the goal

of the legislation; and this section, which talks about the purpose and

intent of the legislation, makes it very, very clear. They try to use

labour legislation as an economic tool, and they consistently . . . .

Contracts are negotiated freely now between two parties. So they're

saying that we need the state to intervene between the parties who have

freely negotiated agreements to retroactively void sections on the

basis that it doesn't make us competitive.

That's

essentially the goal of the legislation: to use it as an economic tool.

It's to intervene retroactively and side with the employer, and we've

seen that in

section after

section after section. We have to be more

competitive, so we can't allow contracts that say that pipe has to be

manufactured by union companies, even though that means tremendous

economic benefits to the province. We see that in pulp mills. We can't

have that, even though the two parties agree, even though the companies

agree that they're going to buy their pipe from British Columbia, even

though since 1927 that's been the case in that collective agreement. In

this

section of the act is the purpose: a competitive market economy.

This

section is the veil through which all the other sections are read.

That's clearly the direction of the government; it has decided the

question of a competitive market economy.

I would say,

Madam Chairman, that you can't legislate a competitive market economy.

It's ironic, you know, because to say that we're going to legislate a

competitive market economy simply won't work. That's not how the

economy works. Trying to legislate a consensus doesn't work either.

We're going to legislate in the public interest — that's what the bill says; that's what this

section says.

MR. WILLIAMS : And if you don't agree, we'll charge you with conspiracy and go to court.

MR. CLARK : That's right. We'll throw you in jail if you don't agree with that.

The

fact is, if we ever needed any proof that this bill is not going to act

in the public interest, it's in the actions today. The kind of response

that we're seeing from this legislation . . . . And this is only the

initial response, surely. So even if you accept that the goal of the

legislation is that the public interest is served, already we're seeing

the reactions. Is this in the public interest? Clearly not. The goal is

a competitive market economy. Will what's going on today, in terms of

people going to work, make us more competitive? Everybody around the

world is going to know that we had a general strike in British

Columbia. They're going to turn on their TVs and see that there's a

general strike going on in Chile, in South Africa, in Argentina — and there's a general strike going on in British Columbia. That's the company we're keeping around the world.

MR. WILLIAMS : Like a tinpot South American country.

[ Page

1485 ]

MR. CLARK : Exactly — as my colleague from Vancouver East says. That's the company we're keeping in British Columbia.

Clearly,

even if you agree with the intent of the legislation, it simply isn't

working. It hasn't worked to date and it's not going to work, because

you can't legislate people's cooperation and you can't legislate a

competitive market economy. You have to do it by working together with

people. You have to do it in terms of other economic levers that the

government has which should be dealing with the severe problems in the

economy. You simply can't legislate it. We've seen enough today to

indicate it's the precursor of things to come in British Columbia. It

has already done more damage than all of the individual sectoral

strikes that we've seen in British Columbia. The action of the

government in bringing in this legislation, and the reaction of the

public today, has done more damage to the economy of British Columbia,

more damage to our reputation, than anything that has gone before.

Clearly,

the intent, the purpose, of this

section is not going to come to

fruition. So even if you agree that this is what we want, this act

doesn't do it, and it doesn't do it because it doesn't have the

cooperation of the major players involved in doing business. It's a

fundamental and radical departure from the way we've conducted

collective bargaining in this province, in Canada, and in North

America. It's a radical experiment on the backs of the people of

British Columbia, and it simply won't work.

MR. HEWITT :

I, like many others in the back bench on the government side, didn't

feel it was appropriate or necessary to speak, but I think from time to

time we all feel that we should say something. We shouldn't leave it to

the minister to take the attack, because the attack, in most cases, is

unfounded. I think

section 18 is a prime example. First of all, the

members of the opposition have such a narrow vision; they haven't read

the section; they don't understand the section; the don't want to

understand the section. But they are correct in one thing, Madam

Chairman. They are correct that it is a very important

section of the

act — very important. And just to help them out in understanding so

they may change their view, it does say in this section: "The council,

having regard for the public interest as well as the rights of

individuals and the rights and obligations of the parties" — etc., etc. —

"shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed

on it under this Act so as to achieve the expeditious resolution of

labour disputes, and for these purposes" — and I quote this very

emphatically for the member for Vancouver East — "the council shall

have regard for the following purposes and objects: (

a) securing and

maintaining industrial peace and furthering harmonious relations

between employers and employees . . . ."

Now gentlemen — and lady —

of the opposition, if you find that objectionable, please stand and say

so. What you're really saying is that you're going against harmonious

relations which this council, under this act, under this section, is

required . . . . They shall have consideration for securing and

maintaining industrial peace.

Or would you like to look at the next section? It indicates: " (

b) improving of practices and procedures of collective

bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives

of the employees...." Madam Chairman, what's offensive about that?

You see, the problem we're getting in all this debate and this furor and this "general strike" — or

ungeneral strike, I'll call it, because you don't have total support of

all the labour movement; you know it and I know it; there are many

people out there with the labour movement who are totally fed up with

their leaders and what they're trying to do to this province . . . . So

I would suggest to you that these subsections of this

section of the

bill give very strict direction to a council who have to have regard

first of all for the public, and also for the rights of individuals and

rights and obligations of the parties involved.

If you took at subsections (

c) and (d) — all these sections —

they are very important to collective bargaining and to harmony and

democracy in the workplace: "encouraging the voluntary resolution of

collective bargaining disputes . . . ." The "voluntary resolution" —

does that smack of heavy-handed action by the council? The council

itself must take into consideration the matter of collective bargaining

and the right of both employer and employee to settle their disputes.

AN HON. MEMBER : By consultation.

MR. HEWITT :

The member across . . . . You know, it's funny, we have some pretty

wide limited debate under these sections. I can tell you that in other

years we haven't had it, and I think I have to compliment the

government side for allowing the opposition the wide-ranging debate.

"Consultation, " the man says. Have you ever seen the amount of . . . ?

I've never seen in 11 years the amount of consultation that this

government has gone through to attempt . . ..

[4:00]

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT : I've touched a nerve, Madam Chairman. To get on-side, full discussion, first of all the minister . . . . Oh, point of order.

MR. LOVICK :

It's an important point of order, Madam Chairman. What the member

opposite said, and I hope unwittingly, was that the government of the

day is the only power of law within the society. He said that you allow

us to speak. That is not the case. That went out with dictatorships

some 300 years ago.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Would the first member for Boundary-Similkameen like to rephrase the statement?

MR. HEWITT :

Madam Chairman, I consider where it came from, and it's a bunch of

nonsense. However, he also recognizes that in this House we've had to

hear a number of statements that they have made — very eloquently, I might add, to the member for Nanaimo — but also well off the mark of reasoned debate, dealing with a

section or sections of this bill.

Madam

Chairman, the point I'm making in this

section and its applicable

subsections, if the members opposite read it, is that this council

under this legislation shall have regard to the following purposes and

objects, and I've named a few of them — (

a) to (e), for example. They

must have regard for: "minimizing the harmful effects of labour

disputes on persons who are not involved in the disputes." I think that

is very fundamental to this legislation, because for too long

[ Page 1486 ]

organized

labour has held the innocent third party to ransom in many a community

across this province. I can name one in my town. Slade and Stewart no

longer exists — not because of the employees in Penticton who belong

to that union, but because of the control out of Vancouver who in the

end saw the demise of Slade and Stewart. As a result, a number of

friends and neighbours were put out of work because of the

shortsightedness of organized labour.

Section 18 brings

democracy to the workplace. It is the fundamental section, in my

opinion, of this bill, and it certainly puts in place many safeguards

for both employee and employer. I support

section 18. I think it's a

great move in the right direction for harmony in the workplace in this

province. I'm sure that the people opposite should read it before they

debate it.

MR. LOVICK : I'm delighted to note that

two members from the other side of the House have now spoken to this

bill, beyond the minister. That, I think, is a step in the right

direction. I was especially impressed by the member for Vancouver South

who, I think, performed yeoman service. Clearly he took on that heroic

task of speaking for a period of some five minutes without ever

actually making reference to what the bill stated, and I think that's

admirable, that clearly one who wasn't prepared to deal with the

measure nonetheless had the courage to stand up and speak. I think

that's marvelous.

I'm intrigued also by the member for Boundary-Similkameen, who wants us to note all the clauses in

section 18.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I wonder if you could deal with the actual

section and not deal with the personalities in the Legislature.

MR. LOVICK :

Thank you. I accept your caution, Madam Chairman. Certainly I would

apologize profusely if indeed I'm guilty of that. I would suggest,

however, that the difference between my remarks and the remarks from

the two previous speakers is simply that my remarks were direct, as

opposed to the veiled ones from the other side. However, I will take

the caution and abide by it.

I want to touch on just a

couple of the points made in debate by members opposite that are

germane to and relevant to

section 18. The business of suggesting that

somehow the purpose of this legislation is to protect the public

interest, and that the public interest will be protected because of

doing something to curtail the activities of labour and trade unions,

is sadly and patently ludicrous given that the same government is

prepared to do nothing whatsoever to protect the public interest

against other kinds of actions; let's call them strikes.

For

example, what happens when we have significant fluctuations in interest

policy? What happens when we have capital strikes, when we get

particular entrepreneurs and other agencies saying that they will go

elsewhere unless they get a better deal? Do we hear the government

suddenly saying that in the public interest we're going to protect

people and we're going to roll back those price increases? We're going

to remove somehow the rights of those other free actors within the

economy, within the society? The answer, of course, is that nothing

happens. I'm afraid this government tends to have a very single-minded — indeed, tunnel-vision —

kind of view of the universe. That's the predicament, and that

certainly is what we are referring to when we talk about

section 18 of

the bill.

The member for Boundary-Similkameen began the

process of reading the particular subsections of this section. I think

we were all interested to note that there is in fact, when we look at

subsections (

a) to (g), probably very little we can disagree with — if we could accept thes verity of the words awritten. The problem, however, is that the actions of this government speak so loud that we cannot hear the words.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : That's "loudly."

MR. LOVICK :

Somebody presumes to suggest that I ought to use an adverbial form of

the word, Madam Chairman. I would remind that individual that that is a

nineteenth century grammatical convention with that particular word

that is no longer in use. However, I am delighted that the member

opposite was indeed paying attention.

The point I have been

making is that we have protestations and pronouncements from the

government side of the House about what they are trying to accomplish

in this legislation. Unfortunately, we have other announcements, other

pronouncements and actions by the government that are clearly in direct

contrast and contradiction to the first set of statements.

Let

me just give you an example of that, Madam Chairman. Look at the first

clause in terms of the purposes and objects of this bill: " . . .

securing and maintaining industrial peace" — and we all say, yes, that sounds good —

"and furthering harmonious relations between employers and employees .

. . ." Most of us would say: isn't that marvelous? If you can come up

with the kind of bill that can do that, we will all be cheering.

Indeed, we will be thrilled and delighted if that is the case.

Unfortunately, we were told that Bill 19 as presented to us before

amendments had these purposes. I would simply put this question to the

minister: how can anybody be expected to take seriously the claim that

the purpose and object of this legislation is to secure and maintain

industrial peace and foster harmonious relations between employers and

employees when you have had to bring in some 50-odd amendments because

the legislation was so patently and totally unworkable and when we have

had nothing but notice from day one, from the time the bill first saw

the light of day, that it was indeed going to cause discord and strife

and chaos throughout the province? How can one make that claim in the

face of all that evidence?

That is my point, and that is

why I am a little incensed when I listen to the member for

Boundary-Similkameen waxing self-righteous and sanctimonious about the

good and noble and decent purposes of this legislation, at the same

time as we have probably 200,000 people not at work today. The two do

not go together, Madam Chairman, and that is why I suggest the member

for Boundary-Similkameen was misleading us, to put the matter

charitably.

I want to turn now to what I am concerned about

with this bill. As I have already suggested, I am not much concerned,

at least at first blush, with subsections (

a) through (g). I don't

think any of us — or certainly not any I have spoken to yet — have

much disagreement with any of those clauses as stated. Our concern,

rather, is the ideological manifesto in the

preamble, that reference to

the "competitive market economy." A couple of my colleagues have

already picked up on that. I want to flesh out that argument and

demonstrate why it is that we are concerned about that, why we would

contend it has no

[ Page 1487 ]

place

in a bill such as this. I am suggesting to you that the claim is

ideological. I note, by the way, that when my colleague from across the

way, the member for Boundary-Similkameen, was reading us this

particular part of the bill, he chose to leave out that

preamble. I

suspect he knew as well as I what the problem with it was.

The

business, then, of the competitive market economy. Let's start by

defining our terms. I think it is important we do that, simply because

it seems to me that the term is bandied around somewhat. Rather than

giving you my own idiosyncratic definition, I decided I would bring in

a trusty, handy-dandy reference text. The reference text I am using is

David Crane's A Dictionary of Canadian Economics . "Market economy" is defined as follows —

I think most of us know this, but let's find out again precisely what

the words are; and I promise you, Madam Chairman, that I am not about

to quote a lengthy passage:

"The market

economy is an economy in which the setting of prices and allocating of

resources are determined largely by the forces of supply and demand.

The greater part of economic activity results from the actions of

private corporations and individuals, while the role of government is

held to a minimum.

"The market economy has

been largely replaced by the 'mixed economy,' which combines the use of

the market system in some sectors and government intervention in

others, with government setting the overall rules and regulations under

which businesses and individuals operate."

Of course, the

point to note is that market economy sounds suspiciously like, let's

say, fair capitalism, as defined there. Rather, so the dictionary

definition tells us at any rate, what we live in, or have assumed we

lived in, was a mixed economy rather than a market economy. The

question that instantly comes to mind then is whether in fact this

thing called competitive market economy is indeed an effort to step

back from the mixed economy. Is it, as we are suggesting, an effort to

turn back the clock somewhat? I think that's a legitimate concern.

Because we have seen everything in the throne speech and budget speech,

as well as this particular document before us, I think we are indeed

dealing with a kind of ideological crusade.

We're talking

about reducing the size of government. We're talking about getting

government out of the way of business and so forth. Therefore we come

to the conclusion that that is indeed precisely what this bill is about.

I'm emphasizing this now, Mr. Minister — and I'm delighted that you are paying attention and I thank you for that —

because I want to suggest to you this hypothesis. I want to suggest,

namely, that the bill you present here, given the primacy of

competitive market economy, will effectively have the impact of

removing organized labour as a major player in the economy of B. C.

I'm

suggesting in fact that what the purpose of this bill is, and it is

given away to us by this language, is to say that we want the

competitive market economy to triumph, and in that situation we do not

have room for trade unions. I'm not suggesting a sinister conspiracy or

anything; rather I think that's ideological purity on the government's

part. If we pause to reflect on the matter for a moment, we can all

recognize pretty clearly that maybe trade unions don't have a role to

play in a "competitive market economy."

[4:15]

we say that the forces of supply and demand are going to interact and

that will be the system which governs the allocation and distribution

of goods and services in a society, then what do we do with an entity

like a trade union, because a trade union is an organized entity which

is designed to restrict supply? It says, in fact, that we will not

provide as many workers as the market would otherwise bear; rather we

will artificially interfere with the marketplace to hold wages at a

given level.

It is, therefore-you can argue in a pure textbook market model —

the case that perhaps trade unions don't fit. They don't belong in a

competitive market economy. I fear that perhaps that is what is in the

minds of the draftspersons of this legislation. What we're looking at

is a means whereby we can move trade unions out of the calculus, out of

the business of allocating goods and services within a society. Take

away the irritant that interferes with the supply side of the equation

in our economy.

I hope that's not the intention, but to

judge from the

preamble to this bill, it is indeed. The obvious

question, if I'm not correct in that, is: why would we try to enshrine

the competitive market economy in talking about labour? If we're

talking about trade unions, what other purpose can we have than to talk

about the competitive market economy? I would put that to the minister

and his advisers. I can't see any other explanation and I'd love to

hear one.

Let me just dwell for a few moments more on

predicaments with that competitive market model that we've already

alluded to on a couple of occasions. I think everybody who has bothered

to study the history of modem industrial societies recognizes that what

we have arrived at was an accord between capital and labour — much

simplified, but loosely called capital and labour. The accord

effectively produced a whole set of rules governing the fair play of

the two sides in the game. The accord began to break down in the early

seventies, at least in North America, when we had oil shock and we had

South-East Asia and other such things. That's when we first heard those

sounds about restraint and monetarism and neo-conservatism and so forth.

The

thing that got lost in the calculation, however, the thing that got

lost in that set of historical developments, was why we developed the

accord in the first place. We developed the accord in the first place,

we developed an interventionist government and a role for trade unions

simply because it was clearly demonstrated to us that the market

economy, left to its own devices, didn't work terribly well.

found lots of things wrong with that, and I hasten to point out here

that the market economy and the market mechanism have tremendous

capacities. They can accomplish great things. I would never minimize

that; nobody on this side would do that. But recognize you pay a price

for it. There are things the market can't do.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, your time has expired. Thank you.

MR. G. HANSON :

Madam Chairperson, I would like to hear the continuing remarks of the

second member for Nanaimo; I think he's certainly educating the House

in the matter.

MR. LOVICK : Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank my colleague, the first member for Victoria, for his

[ Page 1488 ]

kind remarks. I assure you they were not prearranged or rehearsed.

was developing that fairly straightforward case: namely, that the

market mechanism, marvelous thing that it is, will not solve all our

problems. We developed a welfare state preeminently and precisely

because the market economy let us down. It wasn't a satisfactory means

for redistributing income. It wasn't, also, a mechanism that could

enable us to do anything about, let's say, slum housing; or not slum

housing — pardon me — low-cost housing. That's a very major slip.

It's a mechanism that doesn't give us any means to deal with things

like the environmental constraints under which we now labour. This is

why.... It's interesting to note that there are still signs of life in

the House at this point, Mr. Minister.

It's interesting to

note that as we move into a newer economy and a so-called more modern

and what some call post-industrial society, the pressures on the market

economy become all the greater and the limitations of the competitive

market economy become all that much more obvious. For example, the two

great constraints that we are facing now in any kind of economic and

social policy construction are, first, environmental, and secondly,

employment. Clearly we cannot carry on producing goods the way we have

for most of our modern history, because the environment won't bear

the shock. Clearly, then, left to its own devices the market, which

can't adjudicate environmental constraints, won't be able to do the

job. There's a job for government, obviously.

The other

area, probably more important, is in terms of employment generation.

Part of the accord, part of that contract I alluded to earlier, was the

concept that governments have an obligation to provide employment — to set policies, at least, that provide employment —

for sufficient numbers of their citizens. What we have seen for a very

long time, of course, is the predicament that societies are not,

without considerable difficulty, able to generate sufficient jobs.

Certainly it is the case that the marketplace doesn't generate

sufficient jobs, and certainly it's the case that most recently we are

confronted with a major new problem, namely, the fact that we can now

produce greater and greater amounts but we require fewer and fewer

people to do so. Again the marketplace isn't going to solve that

problem.

This — again I emphasize, Mr. Minister —

is why we on this side of the House are concerned about this

preamble.

What is this business about the competitive market economy and somehow

fitting trade unions into that, seeing them as somehow compatible with

and part of that? We are suggesting that that is an ideological

statement. That's a belief statement rather than an accurate

description of the society in which we live and the economy which

performs within our society.

We're suggesting that if for

no other reason, we on this side of the House would vote against this

bill because of that

preamble. We're arguing that it is misplaced, it

is irrelevant. Indeed, it is perhaps a retrograde step.

MR. JANSEN :

It's a pleasure to address

section 18. Various references have been

made by certain members opposite with regard to our lack of debate on

this bill, and I would be pleased to offer my comments in regard to

section 18.

My understanding of this debate is that we

debate the changes that have been brought about. Why were these changes

brought in in the form of Bill 19? The hearings throughout the province

spoke to the committee, to the minister and to individual members that

we have to expand the employment opportunities in this province.

British Columbia, like Canada, like every other country in the world,

is also in a competitive position; we are not an island. Together we

have to provide the framework for job opportunities. Time and time

again people requested that we introduce legislation to provide and

expand the opportunities for employment in our province. These were

submissions received not by organizations so much as by individual

members. People came to us: union members, non-union members,

employers, employees. They requested this time and time again: expand

the ability for us to attract jobs in the province of British Columbia.

They wanted fairness in the legislation that would provide a positive

framework for members and organizations to enter into agreements or not

to enter into agreements. They wanted the ability to resolve

differences quickly. They wanted the ability, to enable agreements to

be entered into expeditiously.

Those are the things they requested of us. But what are the changes being debated today in this House? Let's look at those.

The

changes in Bill 19 to

section 27 in the 1973 Code are very simple. I'll

read the clauses that are being added: "and recognizing the

desirability for employers and employees to achieve and maintain good

working conditions as participants in and beneficiaries of a

competitive market economy . . . ." What is wrong with that statement?

What is wrong with a statement that says we are participants in and

beneficiaries of a competitive market economy? Are we not living in

such an environment in British Columbia? Are we different than the rest

of the world? Are we an island that does not recognize that there

indeed are economic pressures out there and that we are in a

competitive working environment? What is wrong with the statement:

"participants and beneficiaries of a competitive market economy?" I ask

members on the other side of the House to explain to me what is

different, what is wrong with that particular statement.

What are the other changes being introduced? The first three clauses — (a), (

b) and (c) —

are already in the legislation and I think don't require any further

comment, but what are the others? Let's look at them. Clause (d):

"encouraging the voluntary resolution of collective bargaining

disputes." What is wrong with that statement? What's wrong with a

statement suggesting that we as a government encourage the voluntary

resolution of collective bargaining? What is the problem? We keep

referring back to situations that don't happen. We're suggesting in

this legislation that we can encourage a spirit of the voluntary

resolution of collective bargaining.

What is the other

statement? Clause (e): "minimizing the harmful effects of labour

disputes on persons who are not involved in the disputes." Can anyone

here tell me why they would disagree with that statement? Clause (f):

"providing such assistance to employers and bargaining agents as may

facilitate the making or renewing of collective agreements." We are

here to assist and to enable the making and renewing of collective

agreements. Is that a harmful statement? Is that a retrograde step in

regard to the labour legislation framework in this province?

What

is the other

section being added? Clause (g): "gathering and publishing

information and statistics respecting collective bargaining in the

Province." I asked the other members on this side of the House what the

problems are;

[ Page 1489 ]

what

do you see as wrong in introducing those changes to our Labour Code? We

are participants in and beneficiaries of a competitive market economy.

We encourage voluntary resolution of collective bargaining. We are also

in agreement on minimizing the harmful effects of labour disputes. We

provide assistance to employers and employees in resolving their

differences. We also gather statistics. What is wrong with this

legislation, with

section 18, Madam Chairman? We have brought this

forward to in fact provide a positive framework, and the province

overwhelmingly supports that.

[4:30]

MR. GUNO :

Madam Chairman, first of all, may I say that I appreciate the

opportunity to rise here today to participate in the debate on this

section. It was interesting to hear the last speaker talk about why, in

his own words, the changes were wrought in this particular bill. He

referred to the great consultation that was undertaken. One of the

phrases I keep hearing is that we are not an island, that somehow we

must join the rest of the world. I'm not sure if they mean by that that

at least in British Columbia we're going to have to create some kind of

free economic zone where we're going to deprive our workers of their

rights, so that we can bring about this competitive market economy that

is continually referred to.

Madam Chairman, I just want to

talk about the goal of the legislation, which has been referred to by

my colleagues, and to really zero in on the reason for this drastic

alteration in the whole of labour relations by the introduction of a

labour bill. In introducing Bill 19, this government has missed the

opportunity to introduce a labour bill that would be fair and based on

cooperation. I think that this government missed an opportunity earlier

this year, when representatives from business and the B.C. Federation

of Labour got together and began a process of examining ways to work

more peaceably and effectively, to start recognizing the fact that

there is an opportunity in this province for the two sectors to work

together. I think that was a great opportunity that was missed by this

government.

I keep hearing, as a rationale for refusing to

make any changes in light of the growing public opposition in all

sectors, that they have a philosophy, that they can't alter this bill

if it's going to jeopardize this philosophy. Well, what is the

philosophy? What is the underpinning of the philosophy they speak of? I

think my colleagues have been very effective in identifying the true

agenda of this government in terms of radically altering the economic

and social fabric of this province and downgrading the role of

unionism, in order for us to send a message to the world that we are

open for business. In other words, B.C. is for sale. That's the message

that we're sending in terms of trying to alter the kind of labour

relations that we have had up to this point.

Examining

section 18, Madam Chairman, clearly gives the message that this

government is at least going to minimize the role of trade unions in

this province. It gives greater stress to the rights of individuals; it

focuses on the desirability for employers and employees to achieve and

maintain good working relationships. In other words, it fundamentally

shifts the relationship by emphasizing, as my colleague from North

Island said earlier, employer-employee, in other words, stressing the

rights of individuals. It also talks about protecting the third party.

But what is missing is any reference to free collective bargaining or

the rights of workers to organize so they can protect themselves by

entering into free collective bargaining.

I think that my

colleagues have zeroed in on some of the reasons, but I think the point

must be made that by downplaying the role of trade unions, we must say

that this government equates a competitive market economy with one that

is nonunion; or the absence of a very strong trade union must be in

place. All this is done, Madam Chairman, under the guise of public

interest. But it is clear that when this government talks about public

interest, it is not talking about the ordinary citizens. They are not

talking about business; they are not talking about British Columbia.

When they say "public interest, " they are really talking about

maintaining this competitive market economy, and the expeditious

settlement of labour disputes would be done at the expense of trade

union rights.

So, Madam Chairman, I agree with my

colleagues that there is an economic and political agenda. This bill is

highly interventionist, and it is ironic that it is introduced by a

group who pride themselves on being free enterprisers. It is free only

as far as their interests are concerned or not concerned. As I said

earlier, this particular bill is one that is parading as some kind of

industrial relations policy, when in fact it drastically alters the

economic structure of this province.

The tragedy, as I

mentioned earlier, was the fact that we had an opportunity to seize and

foster that unprecedented initiative which was launched by the Business

Council of B.C. and the B.C. Federation of about working out a new kind

of relationship, one based on cooperation, on fairness. One of the

speakers said, referring to Bill 19, that one of its main objectives

was to establish harmony in the labour scene. I think we have made the

point often enough that there is simply no bloody way you can legislate

harmony. I mean, that is the sort of stuff that is worked out. It takes

years and years of experience. of failure; inch by inch you work it

out. By introducing this kind of highly interventionist initiative, we

have effectively destroyed years and years of those kinds of

experience. I think that's one of the biggest mistakes, or one of the

biggest miscalculations — if I'm going to be charitable — in this bill. I agree with my colleagues: it's ill-advised, unproductive and ill-timed.

MR. G. HANSON :

Madam Chair, this is a very important day in the province of British

Columbia. I guess other members would probably recollect more

accurately, but I think in 1974 this

section 27 that we're looking at

came in in Bill 11, under the Labour Code, introduced by another

minister at the time as the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party

from the interior of the province, as this minister is from the interior —

very close proximity, Vernon and Revelstoke. Yet the philosophy

imparted in this legislation brought forward by this minister, and this

section we're discussing today, takes us in two entirely different

directions.

As I was reading Hansard

on this particular

section as it was debated 13 years ago and the way

that the philosophy of the bill was being articulated in this chamber,

the purposes, goals and objects, as stated at that time . . . . The

primary function was to make the collective bargaining process work

successfully. The process is accompanied by allowing the board to

become involved in the total process. But you know, both the business

community and the labour movement, at the time Bill 11 was introduced,

had gone through a long consultative process, and the legislation

brought before this House was at the urging of both business and

labour. They

[ Page 1490 ]

were asking for an overhaul, for a new code of industrial relations to make bargaining work in British Columbia.

Rather

than to meet the demands of the competitive market economy, the goals

and the objects were spelled out much differently. They were to take

into account the role that working people play in the equation of the

economy. And they weren't to be servants; they were to be involved in a

partnership, a collective bargaining process that was fundamental to

the system. The

section that we were dealing with under 27 was to

promote the collective bargaining process as the key to industrial

relations.

It is pointed out in that debate that one of the

reasons they got into bringing in the Code was to deal with matters

that arose during the life of a collective agreement: the things that

would occur to inflame industrial relations — to move into a

non-legalistic way, a way that was more flexible, more sophisticated

and more progressive. The heart of the matter was to deal with problems

that would emerge sometimes when a contract was in force and effect,

but because of a slowness in arbitration matters or other related

matters, something would occur to cause disputes that would arise,

whether a wildcat, a work stoppage . . . . Something would occur, and

there was a contract in place. We needed something to get away from the

courts, something that could interpret in a more just manner the

specific needs within the dispute and try to come to a resolution.

Because, as was pointed out in that debate, no two disputes out there

between employer and employee are identical. We do have arbitral

precedents, etc., but each dispute that this minister is trying to

address — and wrongly, in our view — is unique unto itself and has to have a special way of looking at it.

The

objects outlined in

section 27(

l) of the Code form the underpinning of

the entire Code: to develop effective industrial relations in the

interest of achieving or maintaining good working conditions; not some

banana-republic, bucket-shop operation, either in our province or

elsewhere in the world, but good working conditions and good industrial

relations. That's in the interests of big employers.

[4:45]

The people who have traveled since 1974 through the province of

British Columbia, looking at the way industrial relations were being

administered under Bill 11, wanted to see how they could learn from

some of the provisions of the legislation here within the province, to

streamline their own economic arrangements. Because it's in an

employer's interests to have predictable working conditions. That's

part of the equation; it's part of the input in production. They want

to know that a one- or two-year contract is in place. They want to

administer the contract fairly after the collective bargaining process.

The

collective bargaining process is not without conflict. It's an

inherently conflicting process, but it addresses very much the market

economy, the way things are proceeding. During a recession, what goes

on the table is different than when it's a boom economy. We don't have

to look very far in Canada or elsewhere to see that that's correct. The

bargaining table reflects what is economic performance. It just does;

it's as simple as that.

So what we have in this

section is

a move back to a more legalistic approach, back to a more punitive

approach, back to a more interventionist approach, rather than taking

the parties' views and trying to come to terms to develop a statute

that would be flexible, responsive, fair and non-punitive, not coercive.

That

is what you're dealing with here, and here we have this minister from

the interior in this House on the Social Credit side. The critic in

1974 was Mr. Chabot. He carried the debate for Social Credit, and the

Labour Code — as pointed out by our debate leader, I believe earlier on, and other speakers — Bill 11, passed unanimously in this House.

MR. RABBITT : Cooperation by the opposition?

MR. G. HANSON :

By the opposition, yes. Social Credit voted for that, because that

bill, to that new member for Yale-Lillooet, was the result of

comprehensive consultation and urging by business and labour. It was

the result of that process. There wasn't a parallel campaign, a

parallel process where other people were sitting in a smoky room with

big, fat cigars pulling the old LRB decisions and making alterations to

fit every lost case they had. They didn't have that at the time, and

that's why Bill 11 passed unanimously in this House — because it was addressing real concerns.

Let

me just read you a couple of brief quotes from that debate: "This was

one of the areas where there was indeed complete unanimity — at least a good degree of consensus in all sectors" — and this is the result of the hearings —

"on the need for a changed Labour Relations Board. So, in response to

those appeals by labour and management, the main practitioners of

industrial relations . . . ." Unless labour and management, as the main

practitioners in industrial relations, are on board and believe in the

fundamental intent and objectives of the legislation, the minister

knows, as is stated in his own report, it's doomed to failure. So we on

this side of the House don't understand why you're not adopting

something that is so fundamental to economic performance; and that's

what your government is doing at the moment — damaging economic performance.

Under

section 27(1) of the old Code, to modify it, to make it ideological — not consensual but ideological — you've

moved away from the ability to respond and have fundamental agreement

from the outset on what the rules of the game are, and have provisions

such as the special officer or bodies that could address things in a

flexible and fair-minded way. So the members on this side of the House

have been trying, through force of logic and argument and history . . .

. Why are we going back, throwing ourselves back to the Mediation

Commission days? There is no reason for it whatsoever.

pointed this out earlier, but I'd like to continue a little longer on

the fact that a lot of people who don't know a lot about industrial

relations feel that when you legislate or when you have something in a

contract, that's the end of any kind of dispute. You have to find ways

of resolving disputes to make the ongoing process work. It's not

something you sign and put on the shelf, because there are

interpretations. Both parties have to work to make that contract work.

Here's a quote from October 3, 1973, when this was being debated:

"Now in the past, anyone who is knowledgeable" and

this is the former minister, Bill King — "and has had any experience in

labour problems in this province will recognize that one of the greatest and

most sensitive problem areas has been disputes aris ing during the course of

collective agreements. It's manifested through job actions, work-to-rule

programs, work stoppages, wildcat strikes, and so on.

[ Page 1491 ]

There have been inequities and there have been reasons why the

working people of this province have been moved to employ those tactics to solve

their problems."

So rather than pretending you can legislate all that away, you find ways to address those root problems.

"One of the reasons I've just outlined was an ineffective

arbitration procedure contained in collective agreements. Another device was

the deliberate attempt by one party or the other to delay arbitration proceedings

so that the problem festered on and created animosity and hostility until eventually

it erupted into a work stoppage. At that point the government was called upon

to come in and try to pick up the pieces.

"This allows the board to become involved" — and to try and get away from what he called "guerrilla action and inflaming the whole industrial climate of the province."

Your

philosophy in your bill is fundamentally flawed, fundamentally wrong.

The modern, progressive . . . . The reason people came from other

jurisdictions was because of the principle of the bill. All the way

through this opposition to Bill 19, you have steadfastly refused to

understand that the underpinning principles of the bill were flawed and

wrong. All the other language hanging on these principles were on sand,

on nothingness.

So the controlling force, the organizing

principle in the Labour Code, was collective bargaining. That was the

unifying principle that both labour and management agreed upon, that

the best process . . . . Rather than the government coming in and

intervening and making one party or the other upset, the government saw

its role as putting in place the apparatus to make collective

bargaining work, being a support mechanism — not an interventionist, not a punisher or a cop, but something that would support the process.

MR. SERWA : It wasn't working.

MR. G. HANSON : It wasn't working? You didn't ask anybody. The backroom lawyers with the fat cigars wrote this legislation.

There

is also the tendency now in this legislation to take us back into a

more court-related process. Even today we have had the Ministry of

Attorney-General making pronouncements. As pointed out in that debate,

there was a very comprehensive debate around Bill 11, and it said:

"The

courts of law can only really catch a glimpse of the overall labour

picture. Their interference in the past has been sporadic and

fortuitous. The judges lack the intimate knowledge of the very dynamic

process