1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

9017 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Labour Code Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 50). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 9017

Ms. Sanford –– 9020

Mr. King –– 9022

Mr. Gabelmann –– 9024

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 9026

Division –– 9027

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 45: minister's office (continued) –– 9027

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Nicolson

TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Last evening in Lima, Peru, Miss

Dianne Baldwin of London, Ontario, was crowned Miss Universe. I think

that our Legislature should join in congratulating Diane Baldwin for

bringing that honour to Canada and representing the young people of

Canada.

MR. REE: On Saturday I had the pleasure of

attending the joyous celebration of marriage, and today we have the

honeymoon couple in the members' gallery. I'd ask the House to welcome

the groom, Noel Wright, chief editor of the North Shore News , and his lovely bride, Jeanne, to Victoria.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 50.

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I rise to move second reading on this particular bill. There are a number of comments which I think would be appropriate.

1980 and 1981 there was a considerable increase in what has commonly

been referred to as secondary picketing in British Columbia. We know

that these activities are illegal and that they are prohibited by the

Labour Code of this province, but during 1980 and 1981 the track record

has deteriorated. Of particular concern to me and the government were

the third-party interests which were affected, and also the industrial

relations stability which had been achieved over the past few years. I

don't think anybody in the House can condone this activity, and we

cannot permit the spirit and intent of the Labour Code of B.C. to be

violated. Those whose activities are governed by this legislation are

responsible for more careful preparation and negotiation of long-term

concerns and bargaining relationships — which I think is really of

ultimate importance — and should not attempt to resolve their problems

outside the statutory provisions that the Legislature has established

for these purposes and in a single-minded pursuit of their own

self-interest.

The amendments which were introduced a few days ago really address the misuse

of the provision permitting picketing of an ally. There's a fundamental

concept of our legal history — and I suspect it's within our constitutional

history too — that a person is innocent until proven otherwise. Decisions of

this kind should rest with the institution of our society which our society

has created for administering the relationships between parties having collective-bargaining

relationships. In my view, the proper place for determining whether or not a

third party is an ally is the Labour Relations Board, which must be in a position

to make that decision before any picketing takes place. The use of a picket

is the ultimate and final act available to employees, and therefore when used

it must have with it the legal right implicit with any order the Labour Relations

Board conveys. It's interesting to note that over 1981, similar statements

have been expressed not only by employers and management companies, but heavily

reported were statements by some elements of the trade union movement.

addition, there are other amendments within the act, one of which

relates to the consent to sue. In effect, now the onus is reversed.

There is some very appropriate language within the bill, and I

specifically refer to the word "inappropriate." The important thing in

this area is to leave that discretion with the Labour Relations Board

and those people who in fact have demonstrated over the years a

growing, if not at times superb, knowledge of the complexities of

industrial relations, collective bargaining and all the ramifications

the Code has introduced. There are two or three other amendments which

are really minor; "housekeeping" seems to be the proverbial word which

is used.

As to the change in the bill from its present

status, one of the authors of the Labour Code of British Columbia, Paul

Weiler, was asked about these particular two items: that is, with

respect to an ally and with respect to the consent issue. The

information I have read indicates that there is a strong argument,

according to him — and I am inclined to agree — for predetermination of

allied picketing; there is also a stronger argument for liberalization

of the consent to sue. I would refer members to what I think is an

excellent text. Any member of the Legislative Assembly who happens to

be assigned this particular portfolio ought to take a few days to read,

reread and digest a book authored by him, entitled Reconcilable Differences .

have to remember that companies and their operations are living,

breathing vehicles which provide cash flows and employment, pay taxes,

and are subjected to too much regulation. They have markets to satisfy

— domestic, national and international. We are interested in stability

in the workforce, stability in servicing those markets. We must

guarantee the delivery of a good product, and we know that those who

default on delivery are subject to some onerous penalties.

think it's equally, and perhaps even more, important that each of those

operations has a workforce which must be looked after. During 1980 and

1981 there were times when I know the morale of that workforce was

somewhat affected. It was because of the number of unnecessary

disruptions. Particularly in today's economy, I think it's important

that we do whatever we can to attempt to achieve better harmony and

more stability, and that we ask people to think first as to what

they're going to do. Let's see if we can resolve to eliminate that

unsettling influence which has been brought to bear.

You

ask: what can employees do? Really, very little. So the major thrust of

the amendment is to ask those who have the power at their disposal to

use it and to have regard for the rights of others. Even where a picket

is illegal, employees could mitigate their losses by crossing picket

lines. We all know that is totally and unequivocally unrealistic. That

means that employees are left with no redress. As a government we must

give consideration to employees and employers who are not a party to

the primary dispute, the public who are inconvenienced or damaged

unnecessarily, governments who are penalized by loss of revenues, and

last and, I believe, most important of all, industrial harmony and

economic stability.

With respect to handling those requirements for predetermination of alleged allies, I think we can draw a parallel with

[ Page 9018 ]

the

existing mechanism in the Labour Relations Board. They've demonstrated

a capacity to handle complaints of unlawful strikes, lockouts and

picketing on an expedited basis. Parties have been brought together,

often on the same day. Regulations will be necessary to require the

board to respond in the same or similar expedited manner. The message,

I think, is really that the Labour Relations Board knows how to

respond. Applications for an ally declaration will meet the same

treatment. So the theme is to deal quickly, and the board can do this.

Often the board resolves matters informally, and I would suggest that

well over half of those applications which come before the board are,

in fact, resolved informally. The board will have similar success, I am

positive, resolving the ally problem in this manner, thereby precluding

unnecessary picketing. The object, of course, is again: let's preserve

some industrial harmony and stability in the workforce.

Now

why is this particular amendment necessary? I can give a number of

reasons. First of all, the number of cases handled by the Labour

Relations Board involving picketing activities in 1980-81 totalled 508;

of that 508, 67 percent or 341 were disposed of prior to adjudication

by the board. Of that number, somewhere between 15 and 20 percent

concerned picketing of an ally. The balance of 167 cases required

adjudication by the board; of these 167 cases, 33 involved an

allegation of "legitimate" picketing of an ally. So we're again talking

about somewhere around 20 percent. But the alarming figure in all of

this, Mr. Speaker, is that in all those cases of ally picketing only

four — and I repeat this, only four — were found to be within the

parameters, the spirit and the thrust of the jurisprudence which the

board has developed over a period of time. In 20 of these cases the

picketing was prohibited without the attachment of any condition –– 20

of them prohibited absolutely. In the remaining nine cases, picketing

was restricted by the board and certain conditions were placed on the

complainant. So I think there's a message there for government.

Some

examples of what occurred during this period of time came from the post

office dispute and the picketing of Inland Natural Gas and B.C. Tel for

delivery of their own mail. We know that government and the private

sector used Loomis; they used courier services; they used whatever was

at their disposal. The post office dispute was somewhat difficult for a

time. The fact of the matter is that you cannot preclude commerce from

taking place, whether in the public or private sector.

Another

example was when the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was on

strike — a legal strike. There was picketing of the Royal Centre that

was far too wide; it covered a host of totally unrelated activities.

The

CUPE dispute with the lower mainland municipalities brings a great many

to mind. I'll quote a comment by the B.C. Federation of Labour: "They

are carrying out a fragmented picketing philosophy which leaves a lot

to be desired." Another quote from the same organization: "They are

carrying on picketing outside of the parameters of sound labour

relations...and affect the other union members." The last quote — and

I'll refer to more of these a little later on; I believe this is Jim

Kinnaird, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour: "I don't believe

in a union's unfettered right to picket other members. There shouldn't

be a blank cheque given to anybody."

One particular example

that concerned me a great deal involved a company in Richmond, Richmond

Paper Products, a division of Crown Zellerbach. Their current

collective agreement was closed, expiring August 31, 1981. While they

were in operation they were picketed by the Canadian Union of Public

Employees for 24 hours in March 1981. The reason was that the company

moved garbage from the plant using a contractor that had been used

before, during and after the CUPE dispute. There was no relationship

between that particular division of Crown Zellerbach and the lower

mainland. There was no contractual relationship vis-à-vis the unions

which had the certification, but perhaps it was thought to be symbolic,

or they were going to apply some pressure flagrantly, and it was wrong.

The

facts are interesting, because picketing began at 6:15 a.m., Monday,

March 2, 1981. The LRB granted a hearing for 1 p.m., March 3, 1981, so

there was a delay of approximately one and one-half days. That delay,

Mr. Speaker, resulted from the B.C. Federation of Labour's threat to

boycott expedited hearings. The hearing was set and it went ahead on

March 3, 1981. The pickets, once they became aware that there was a

hearing, decided to withdraw at 6:15 a.m. on the morning of March 3.

Also, CUPE refused to attend the hearing.

What was the loss

on that particular dispute? Mr. Speaker, 300 days of work were lost and

$30,000 in wages. Of course, there's the other effect, too, of loss of

revenue to the company, a decline in morale and market stability, and

loss of revenue to the government.

That same operation was

clipped with another roving picket on August 5, 1981, carrying IWA

signs, claiming they were from Fraser Mills. From the information that

I have from the IWA executive, in that particular case they weren't

authorized, but there was another loss of 270 hours.

August 10, 1981, in the same operation, pickets were authorized by the

PPWC — the Pulp, Paper and Wood Workers of Canada — local 8, Harmac,

which was on a legal strike against MacMillan Bloedel. There is no

dispute with that at all, but why did those pickets happen to appear at

a mill certified with the CPU — Canadian Paperworkers Union — which was

under a closed agreement? The board immediately issued a

cease-and-desist order, but not without loss –– 500 days, or $50,000 in

wages.

Another example is Northwood Pulp and Timber, which

is located in the central interior of British Columbia. That was rather

an interesting case. The agreements had been entered into in a dusty

period in 1981. The employees in this case were the CPU, and they had

in fact reached agreement with their employers. After reaching an

agreement, it was felt by the PPWC that they hadn't reached a

settlement on Vancouver Island, 500 miles away, so "let's just send our

pickets up to Prince George, and we'll put them around Northwood Pulp,"

which not only shut down work for all of those people who are employed

by that mill, but there was a $300 million construction project

underway as well. I think that is unfair, unjust and inequitable. As a

matter of fact, it's interesting to note that I believe it was the head

of one the major unions of British Columbia who referred to the actions

of that particular union as cannibalistic. We certainly know they have

said "regrettable" on more than one occasion.

The Labour

Relations Board made a decision on that. The PPWC proceeded under the

guise of an ally, and the decision was that it was illegal. Okay, it

was down for two and a half or

[ Page

9019 ]

three days. We know the number of people who were employed. There were anywhere

between 500 and 1,200 people working on the construction aspect of the twinning

of that mill to double its capacity, and we know that each pulpmill has roughly

300 employees. It was totally unnecessary. Not only was it totally unnecessary,

Mr. Speaker, but it doesn't do one bit of good in attempting to resolve

the dispute emanating from the primary location.

The

last example which I would make reference to, in the interest of time,

involved dissidents in the IWA. They were having a dispute at Zeballos;

it was unrelated to MacMillan Bloedel in this case. They shut down the

large M&B mill at Gold River, as well as seven other operations.

The problem is different contracts. There was no need for what

occurred; I question whether it was even sanctioned by the IWA. The

fact is that it did occur, and it caused a great deal of disruption. If

we accumulate the loss of payroll, provincial corporate tax, federal

tax, royalties, it can be established that some of these activities

have cost the employees, employers and governments of this province

literally millions of dollars.

In my view, all of these

picketing activities that are either unsanctioned or ruled illegal do

not have the slightest impact on the primary disputes from which the

pickets came. I repeat my earlier comment that as a government we must

give consideration to employees and employers who are not a party to

the primary dispute and are damaged unnecessarily; to the public who

are inconvenienced or damaged unnecessarily; to governments penalized

by loss of revenue; and to the industrial harmony and economic

stability which is subjected to attack. One of my most persistent

themes has been that we can no longer pursue relentless, selfish

interest and still hope to survive in today's competitive world in

which three or four strong — and I mean strong — national economies

threaten Canada's international and domestic commerce. What our society

— and this means all of our economic institutions — must adapt to is an

enlightened policy of mutual self-interest in which capital, labour and

governments play cooperative, if necessarily distinct, roles.

I've

accumulated, over a period of time in this portfolio, some newspaper

clippings which I think might appropriately be quoted today. This is

from an editorial that appeared in the Vancouver Sun last summer.

"The

Labour Relations Board has trod a fine line over the years in

exercising its discretion involving picketing. It takes a dim view of

one union trying to gain extra leverage by putting out of work members

of another union who are satisfied with what they have achieved in

negotiations with the same employer.

"In the case of the PPWC, they cannot plead ignorance

of the board's policy which has been applied to its own secondary

picketing activities. It has been under no illusions that its secondary

pickets were welcome at plants where members of the IWA and CPU were

anxious to get back to work. Carried out, it has been in the knowledge

that the Labour Relations Board is bound to follow precedent and use

its discretionary powers as before. The PPWC secondary picketing

campaign has been one of irresponsible harassment."

The one I probably like best of all came from somebody in my riding in Prince

George who is not a supporter of mine at all. I know what his political philosophy

is, but I have a great deal of respect for him. I have liked him a great deal

since meeting him.

MS. SANFORD: Is he a Liberal, like you were?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

No. He's a member of your party. His name is Rino Fonari and he's the

president of CUPE Local 399. We've talked about this issue before.

First, a comment from an editorial in the Prince George Citizen :

"He's

concerned that the unions spend too much time fighting one another,

when they should be concentrating on productivity so that cheaper

foreign goods would not flood the market, robbing Canadians of jobs."

Asked about allied picketing, in effect, he came back with this question:

"Is

it fair right now that somebody can come over to your place and picket,

and deprive you of your chance to make a living? I would never picket

somebody without telling him first. It just creates friction. We should

try to treat each other like we would like to be treated ourselves. It

isn't hard."

This from the Province of Tuesday, December 1, 1981:

"Trade

unions have consistently abused picket lines and violated picketing

policies of the B.C. Federation of Labour during the past year,

federation leaders charged Monday.

"In an

unusually candid report by the federation's executive council to a

labour organization's twenty-sixth annual convention in Vancouver, the

council called such actions deplorable, adding that" — and I think what

they said is important — "the unions involved deserve a more severe

punishment than can be meted out by this convention. The report said

that abuses have ranged from a lack of proper notification to some

affiliates working behind legal picket lines. We have seen picket lines

used to punish other union members supposedly for some other

infractions of federation picketing policy. The federation officer

said: 'The policy can only be effective if it is applied in a

disciplined manner, and this year we have seen it applied in anything

but such a manner.' "

They went on to

complain about the high-profile locations, like the Vancouver Post

Office, the airport, B.C. Ferry terminals and the B.C. Tel building,

which have been picketed by other unions involved in the dispute simply

because they are symbolic. Well, there is more to having an economic

base, industrial harmony and stability than pushing symbolism, Mr.

Speaker. I quote further:

"The connection of the symbol to the dispute often seems

to defy logic; the establishment of picket lines solely to attract media attention

does not serve the purpose of the trade union movement and is therefore contrary

to the intent of our picketing policy."

That particular report was authored by Rod Mickleburgh, who is the Province's

labour reporter; there was also a similar report on December 1, 1981, in the

Vancouver Sun , authored by Peter Comparelli, the labour reporter. They pretty

well repeat the previous comments. One quotation from this clipping is as follows:

"It was noted that last spring's lower mainland municipal dispute

saw perhaps the most extensive use ever of secondary picketing in this province."

It's true, and so we will respond in a fair, just and equitable way, which

we have with the amendments before you, Mr. Speaker.

Monday, October 5, 1981 — another clipping from the Vancouver Province . I think that the same thing comes out

[ Page 9020 ]

again.

The author of this

article is Rod Mickleburgh, and the president of the

B.C. Federation of Labour is quoted as follows: "The increased erratic

picketing by labour unions is a regrettable development. Locals seem to

want quick, short strikes, but in many industries that just isn't

possible. So instead they carry on picketing outside the parameters of

sound labour relations and affect other union members."

SOME HON. MEMBER: Aye.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Never mind "aye." [Laughter, ] Well, Mr. Speaker, I enjoy a little bit

of laughter, but I want to tell you that those people who say "aye" to

me around here.... My colleagues and I have listened to them now for a

long, long time, and we're going to push it out.

Now one

comment came out which bothered me somewhat with respect to the

introduction of the amendment. The allegation was made that I did not

consult the labour movement with respect to these proposed amendments.

MR. KING: You certainly consulted the editorials.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Do you not agree, Mr. Member, that the editorials may be a reflection

of what's going on in British Columbia? I tell you, you use them to

your advantage from time to time. Recently!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

On the matter of consultation, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in

early 1980 there wasn't much question about what I was seeing on the

horizon, what was going to come, and this matter of allied picketing

bothered me, particularly after reading a couple of articles, one in

the Ministry of Labour monthly publication and the other, published by

the Law Society of British Columbia, called The Advocate .

I found it was not to my liking, really. Anyway, I asked to have a

study done, and we had somebody for that summer of 1980 to study the

impact of allied and secondary-location picketing. I proceeded and we

examined what we should send out and asked for assistance, guidance,

input and support, and all of what you could expect a politician to do.

The first paragraph in the letter to everyone, employers and trade

unions.... There were over 40 trade unions contacted: "Legislation

aimed at regulating the complex and at times controversial area of

labour-management relations is bound to have a mixed impact in the

objectives of the various participants in the collective bargaining

process." So they knew where we were coming from and what we had to

look at. I will tell you that of all that came in, several interviews

were scheduled with union representatives, but those scheduled meetings

had to be cancelled as a result of the B.C. Federation of Labour's

recommendation to boycott the study.

I quote further: "No union responded to the questionnaire, on the recommendation

of the B.C. Federation of Labour." Further, the research officer for the

B.C. Federation of Labour, obviously under some directive, was called. Finally

at 2:30 in the afternoon of July 16, 1980, we were told that the reason the

committee recommended no response was that they felt that the answers to the

questions asked were "none of the government's business." I accept

the posturing — not being consulted, etc. However, the facts are not the same,

and so I feel that I am obligated to raise that.

With

respect to the consent to sue, every application for a cease-and-desist

order or an order of the board generally always contains in its prayer

for relief application for a consent to sue. I must advise that is not

given as a matter of course; it's only given for the most compelling

reasons. In 1974 the number of applications for provision to sue under

section 32(4) was zero; in 1975 there was one; in 1976, one; in 1977,

one; in 1978, two; and in 1979, two. In each of those years they were

all rejected. In 1980 there was an application for two — one was

granted, one rejected. In 1981 there was an application for eight — one

was dismissed, four were rejected and three were granted. To date in

1982 there have been two requested and both have been rejected.

Lawsuits

will not resolve industrial relations problems. We only have to look at

the track record over many years in British Columbia to see whether or

not they have been pursued. I accept that. I understand the reasons for

that, but I don't accept it when a third party who is absolutely

unrelated to the primary dispute through company, ownership, collective

agreement — they might even be closed.... Indiscriminate picketing of

third parties.... Appearing at the gates of those plants pushes those

employees into a position where they must obey that picket line. That's

the ultimate weapon. I think, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that

the ultimate weapon in British Columbia, the picket line, has been

overused. That concludes my comments on this particular item.

I might say that it was interesting to go back to read Hansard

from the original days of the present Labour Code. I found the comments

quite interesting. I recognize the struggle that the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke had, and the opposition to the bill at the time. But

there were some items in here which might prove to be of interest —

perhaps we can refer to those later on, if necessary.

MR. KING: Feel free, Jack!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I don't want that arsenal to be used now, because I think that the members opposite may have a few words.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, ally picketing is not funny.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MS. SANFORD: It's always interesting to listen to the Minister of

Labour. I'm afraid that we on this side are inclined to laugh with him,

and sometimes maybe laugh at him, for some of the comments he makes on what

is really a very serious issue. One of the most difficult areas that government

has to legislate and deal with is labour relations. They are very much like

human relations. We are in fact dealing with issues that can't very readily

be dealt with by written legislation interpreted through the courts and so on.

The attempt made by government between 1972 and 1975 was to try to establish

a system whereby matters that were like family relations, that were difficult

to deal with, could be handled through a labour relations board that was experienced

in handling issues of that type, and to take all the problems that were being

paraded day after day before the courts in this province out of that court area

and into a labour relations

[ Page 9021 ]

board

setup so that we could avoid the court issues. We tried to ensure that

those difficult, delicate matters could be handled through the Labour

Relations Board.

In speaking on this year's Labour

estimates, the minister made reference to the Labour Code. He said it

was a superb document. He said that he had great respect for the Labour

Code. He said that he was under tremendous pressure to change the

Labour Code. Unfortunately, what we've seen with these amendments is

that this minister has succumbed to that pressure and has made changes

which have in fact changed the whole attempt by the previous government

in establishing this Labour Code, to keep the issues out of the courts,

to resolve them through a labour relations board which was experienced

in labour relations matters. The issues are complex. The issues are

difficult. Most important is the need to establish the balance and to

maintain the balance that this Labour Code provides. We must have a

balance between management and labour. We must have a document that is

fair in terms of the way it approaches labour relations in the

province. We must have a government that is fair and neutral in its

approach. We must have a document which will allow the collective

bargaining process to take place. We must allow those two to meet as

equals across the table, iron out their differences and reach an

agreement. When that agreement cannot be reached, we must have a system

whereby the employees can use their only weapon, the strike.

changing the approach to the Labour Code at this point, the minister is

ensuring that many of these disputes will again be thrust back into the

courts. He is showing that he does not have confidence in his own

Labour Relations Board and its ability to deal with the issues that

come before it. He is also showing that he has no confidence whatsoever

in the consultative process between the B.C. Federation of Labour and

his own ministry.

What we have in these amendments is the

government responding to the employers of the province, and neglecting

to consult with the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We heard the previous speech relatively uninterrupted. Let's continue that practice.

MS. SANFORD:

Just a couple of weeks ago we had the Premier calling the employers of

the province and the B.C. Federation of Labour representatives to

Victoria in order to discuss with them the economic problems that are

being faced at this time. This was the great consultative process. Yet

in issues which affect the labour movement day after day in this

province, they were not even told that these amendments were being

brought forward.

The minister talks about some statement

that he made two years ago with respect to his concern, but the

interesting thing is that the minister in his opening remarks also made

reference to a document, an annual report that was presented to a B.C.

Federation of Labour convention, at which time the labour people

themselves expressed concern about some of the abuses that had taken

place. The minister said it was a very frank document. The B.C.

Federation of Labour and its affiliates do not sanction the kinds of

abuses that the minister referred to. They have a policy, and it seems

to me that the best thing the minister could do is bring the B.C.

Federation of Labour officers over to Victoria to meet and consult with

him, sit down and say: "Look, there is this problem. Let's discuss what

you can do and what we can do in order to improve the situation."

What

this amendment before us today does is upset the delicate balance that

exists. It tips the scales in favour of the employers again. If we are

going to have labour peace in this province and negotiating across the

table in a fair, orderly way, then the minister cannot afford to upset

the delicate balance as he has done in this document. The minister made

reference to loss of wages, income, revenue and income tax in his

opening remarks. When the minister upsets the delicate balance that

this Labour Code provides for, when he does not consult with the B.C.

Federation of Labour on the kinds of amendments that he wants to bring

in and listens only to the employers of this province, he upsets that

balance, and the losses he's talking about in wages, income and revenue

are going to increase, because you cannot resolve the very difficult

problems that the two groups face across a bargaining table unless the

legislation is fair and equitable. When you tip that balance, you're

only going to ensure that the process by which people must reach an

agreement becomes more difficult. and you're going to have more

disputes.

Surely the courts are jammed enough without

changing the whole concept of the Labour Code and making the assumption

that where there is a request to sue, it will automatically go to

court. That's the first assumption now — that the Labour Relations

Board will refer any request to the courts. He's put in as an

afterthought: "unless the union can justify and in some way convince

the Labour Relations Board that it should not go to court." At the same

time, the minister is removing from the Labour Code the sections that

were previously there to ensure that the Labour Relations Board took

into account maintaining industrial peace, ensuring that harmonious

relations exist between employers and employees, trying to improve

practices and procedures of collective bargaining between employers and

trade unions as the freely chosen representatives, and so on and so on.

There are provisions in the Code now which would ensure that the Labour

Relations Board, in any decision it makes, takes into account such

things as securing and maintaining industrial peace. When they make a

decision now, under this request for a consent-to-sue order, all of

that's been eliminated. They no longer have to take into account

industrial peace and improving industrial relations. They no longer

have to do that, because that's been eliminated through these

particular amendments. The Labour Relations Board has lost its

flexibility in terms of dealing with some of these disputes.

Now,

when trade unions have to apply to the Labour Relations Board before

they can picket an ally, there is a delay. The minister himself

referred to it being about three days. What happens during those three

days is that the ally can assist the employer, completely without any

interference whatsoever, in destroying that strike, because the

employees now have to wait for a Labour Relations Board order before

they can picket the ally. It seems to me that the minister would have

been much wiser if he had not brought in that provision to deal with

the abuses he referred to, because what he is doing is penalizing the

majority of the workers in the province because of the abuses of a few.

Why didn't the minister sit down instead, consult, and come up

recommendations jointly in order to resolve the problem without this

kind of upset in the delicate balance?

We think the minister

is making a grave mistake. We are concerned that this will adversely

affect the ability of the parties to negotiate in a balanced way,

because the balance

[ Page 9022 ]

has

been upset. We are concerned that the minister, in this case, says one

thing and does another. He talks about the "superb Code." He talks

about the pressures that are on him to change that Code. He has

succumbed to those pressures, and we are concerned about industrial

relations and peace as a result of the actions he has taken today.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. KING:

I think this is one of those occasions where we have sincerely held,

but deeply rooted, philosophical differences with the government. It's

one of those occasions, I think, where the debate will reflect that

very clearly.

I accept that the Minister of Labour is

sincere in what he is trying to accomplish. I concede that indeed there

is a problem with respect to the appropriate regulation of secondary

picketing and the application of the ally doctrine. I do not accept

that the remedy which the minister has put forward is the correct one

and is going to achieve the results which I believe the minister

sincerely would like to achieve; that is, greater industrial relations

stability in this province. I'm going to try to explain why.

First

of all, let me correct the, minister. Paul Weiler, despite the very

high regard and respect I have for him, was not an author of the Labour

Code of British Columbia. Paul Weiler was hired by the government to

come to British Columbia from Queen's University to chair the Labour

Relations Board after the Labour Code had been formulated and passed

through this Legislature. I had assistance from many of my colleagues,

who provided a great deal of input as well as criticism. We did not

have unanimity in terms of designing the Labour Code. We had sincere

critics within our own group, which I believe was healthy and useful.

The people I retained to assist in formulating the Labour Code were

James Matkin, Dr. Noel Hall of UBC, and Ted McTaggart, a labour lawyer

at that time who subsequently became a judge. These people did an

outstanding job of putting together the legal language.

MR. SEGARTY: Len Guy.

MR. KING: In speaking of some of the critics I had at the time, as the government mentions, no one was more vociferous than Mr. Len Guy.

think the Labour Code has stood the test of time, and that it's

generally seen by the majority of trade union people in the province

and the majority of employers as a fair, equitable and even-handed

document. In amending the Code and in any way tipping the balance,

here's what the minister is seeking to accomplish. He has a problem in

that picketing has expanded beyond the circumstances anticipated by the

Code. How do we combat that problem? My colleague from Comox made the

point that in coming to grips through this amendment with those who

violate the Code, the minister is restricting all of the labour

movement in the province of British Columbia. He has changed the

wording and given an arbitrary directive to the Labour Board; the board

"shall" refer matters to the courts.

So it's a gradual return to the court process of labour relations administration

in this province, and the courts are not a good agency to deal with industry

relations. Regardless of where they stand in the political spectrum, most people

recognize that simple truth. The courts are excellent for some purposes; they're

not good for industrial relations. Indeed, we have designed a family relations

court as a specialized way of regulating family matters, because the traditional

criminal and civil court process was not appropriate for dealing with family

matters. It was recognized that after the immediate problem was solved, there

was a need to live together in some harmony to salvage the family unit after

the dispute was settled. So it is with industrial relations: after the particular

dispute is resolved, those two parties must live together in the future. They

have a long-term commitment and relationship. Surely the objective should be

to try to mend the immediate dispute in such a fashion that a legacy of bitterness

will not endure to poison the relationship for years to come, to breed more

disruption and hostility, more intransigence, by one or the other party. That

should be the objective.

Yes,

there has been a misuse of the ally doctrine. Yes, there has been

misuse of secondary picketing. We on this side of the House believe

there must be a fair structure of law to regulate picketing, just as

every other form of human conduct must be regulated in accordance with

law.

I want to suggest this to the minister in terms of his

remedy. He says it isn't fair that the employer was struck and

subjected to an ally picket in an illegal fashion when his remedy came

after the fact. In other words, he suffered the impact of the illegal

conduct first. He did not have recourse until sometime later, when he

went before the Labour Relations Board and sought relief, which

ultimately could go to the courts, with a penalty assessed by the

court. The minister points out that this doesn't happen very often.

The

inherent doctrine is not only to give labour a method of dealing with

those who ally themselves with the disputant; it is also to recognize

what is called the doctrine of clean hands. That, if you will, is an

import from the United States industrial relations scene, and the board

uses that doctrine with great sensitivity. The Labour Relations Board

of British Columbia — in terms of industrial relations it was imported

from the United States — is the best agency for this reason: the board

has the administration of the total relationship between the parties;

the board regulates the organizational campaign when a union is formed,

and as such it knows whether or not there was resistance by the

employer, whether or not there were unfair labour practices by the

employer; the board administers and presides over the collective

bargaining process to ensure that there was compliance with the law in

terms of negotiating a collective agreement; the board presides over

the process of rights disputes after a collective agreement has been

signed and ensures that disputes during the life of the collective

agreement are resolved by arbitration without work stoppage; the board

regulates the law of strikes and picketing.

In other words,

Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Board has a total file, a total

profile, on the relationship between the trade union and the employer

in most industries in the province of British Columbia. They know their

history; they know who has a propensity and a history of interfering

with the legal rights of the working people in that jurisdiction, and

therefore they can apply the doctrine of clean hands with some

experience and some intelligence, because they have a historical

profile of that relationship to go by. When an employer comes to the

board seeking relief for an alleged breach of the picketing laws, if

that employer has a history of being fair, just and equitable and of

acting in a legal fashion, the board, as a rule, will say: "Hey, this

particular employer's record is without blemish. He's a responsible

employer and

[ Page 9023 ]

therefore

he deserves relief immediately." Conversely, if that employer comes to

the board with hands that are unclean in terms of his performance under

the law, the board looks with a somewhat jaundiced eye at his

application, and they ask themselves: is this another attempt to gain

unfair and unjustified advantage in a dispute between the two parties?

They have that discretion. That is why, as the minister himself has

pointed out, the board has been so successful in resolving disputes

between parties without the necessity of going to formal, written

decisions and penalties that the board would be entitled to impose. The

board uses a mediation approach, because the board is backed by

discretionary power.

What the minister is doing here is

reducing that discretionary power the Labour Relations Board has, and

instead, by legislative statute, directing the board in an arbitrary

way that they must refer these matters to the courts. The traditional

punitive action of the courts will poison the relationship of the two

disputing parties for years to come. I suggest to the minister that

this is counter-productive. The Labour Relations Board, with their

experience, with their involvement with the two parties from step one

to the end of the collective bargaining process, is a more appropriate

agency for dealing with disputes between those parties than politicians

in this Legislature are. It's a mistake for politicians to start

writing arbitrary rules by which the Labour Relations Board's

discretionary power is limited. By doing that, the minister is

gradually returning to the punitive approach to labour relations that

used to exist in this province before the Labour Code of British

Columbia was passed, and that's a mistake.

What of the

minister's argument that there must be equity, that there must be a

fair remedy and an expeditious remedy to a claim of illegal conduct...?

I hope the minister is listening; I listened with great care to the

minister, and I hope he'll pay me the courtesy of at least listening to

my argument. He has made the point — and he has made it validly — that

if someone is suffering from illegal conduct, be it a picket line or a

trespass or whatever, that person needs relief, and they need relief

expeditiously. In civil and criminal courts there is no relief before

there is an offence. There must be an offence before relief is offered.

In this case, the minister is reversing the onus on the union and

giving relief to the employer before any issue arises. That's contrary

to the civil law and the criminal law. Is it equitable in terms of the

balance of powers between the employer and the workers? I suggest not.

When the working man in the plant has a dispute against arbitrary

action and illegal action by the employer, what is his remedy? Under

the collective agreement and the law, he must grieve without a work

stoppage. There's a process in every collective agreement, and if it is

not contained in that collective agreement it is deemed by law — and

that's appropriate — that the dispute must be resolved by arbitration.

I fully support that doctrine. In actual fact, what happens — as the

minister knows — in cases of dismissal, lack of fair promotion or

failure to meet any condition of the collective agreement is that the

employee is left with the effects of the employer's arbitrary violation

of the collective agreement for three months and sometimes two years

before that case comes to arbitration and he finds a remedy. If the

arbitration board finds in his favour, then he receives his retroactive

benefits, but the point is that the remedy is after the fact. In other

words, the employer holds the balance of economic power in all normal

circumstances in the workaday world. The employee, the union, is left

to grieve after the fact.

The Labour Code of British

Columbia anticipated bringing some equity into this process. It

provided a number of remedies. It provided the special-officer concept

where some of the arbitrary powers of the employer could be temporarily

forestalled until there was an adjudication — seldom used. What about

section 38 of the Labour Code as a remedy for some of the abuses which

the minister has outlined today?

Section 38 provides for a declaratory

order by the Labour Relations Board. In other words, if the employer

feels that he is being unfairly threatened by a picket line which is

illegal, either as an ally proposition or any other type of secondary

picketing, what is to prevent him from asking for a declaratory opinion

under

section 38 before the picketing takes place? This would achieve

the result that after issuing that declaratory opinion, in that

particular set of circumstances secondary or ally picketing would be

illegal. Any union that then contravened that order would be in direct

violation of a board order and that board order could then be filed

with the supreme court for enforcement. What's wrong with that as a

remedy? That would certainly speed up the process and result in a

situation where the employer was not obliged to live an unnecessary

length of time with the effects and consequences of a legal action.

is unfair to reverse the onus onto the union to gain prior approval

from the board to engage in the ally or secondary picketing in all

cases. The practical consequences will be that in many disputes, by the

time the trade union receives authority to engage in that economic

action against the ally, the crisis point of that dispute will be past

and the effect of the ally protection provided for in the Code will be

redundant. That will be the practical consequence. Where in the Labour

Code and in this government's conception of industrial relations do we

find one instance of the government saying the onus of responsibility

should be reversed and placed on the employer? Can the government deny

that the employer has the arbitrary right to fire? Whether or not it's

in compliance with the provisions of the collective agreement, the

employer has the arbitrary right to close the plant, to lay off and

impose any adverse economic condition he wishes on his workforce,

without having to justify before the fact. Any remedy accruing to those

employees comes after the fact; it comes through a prescribed system of

statutory authority which sometimes takes months to undergo. So the

effect, Mr. Speaker, is that the employee has to live with the

consequences of what may be illegal and unfair for six months, a year

or sometimes two years.

You may argue, as the minister did,

that sometimes there are millions of dollars of damages involved here

to the employer if he is the recipient of illegal conduct. Well, that's

true, and we should seek to avoid that. But where is the concern for

the working person? What's he got on the line? He hasn't got just an

investment; he's got his entire life's security on the line. If his

salary is cut off by illegal dismissal, its not only him; it's his

family and his children who are in jeopardy. I didn't hear the minister

talking about equalizing the scales in terms of unfair and illegal

action which is inflicted upon employees. Where is the balance of the

economic concern here? Some of the things the minister argued I can

identify with; I know what he's seeking to achieve, and I think he's

sincere about it. But I want to caution that in taking this particular

route. In taking this

[ Page 9024 ]

particular

remedy, the view and the feeling and the conception of working people

will be that this is inherently unfair. You have further restricted the

right of people in the workforce, through their trade union, to

represent themselves with similar reasonably balanced economic power

with the employer. That will be the conception, and that is not going

to contribute to industrial relations harmony in this province, because

when there is a deep-rooted feeling that there is inequity and

unfairness, that encourages further illegal action, as history has

shown over the years. It encourages greater hostility and greater

manifestation of dissatisfaction. That will be the consequence.

talked about

section 38 of the Labour Code as one possibility. There

was another possibility for the minister. Why did he not convene a

meeting of the Labour Relations Board, the Employers Council, the

Council of Forest Industries, the public-sector unions and industry,

and say: "Look, we have a problem here"? It's not enough to send out a

tentative invitation. The minister should have made a public statement

saying, "Look, we have a problem, and if I have to I will legislate,

but I would rather find consensus," so that all of the elements of the

industrial relations world knew that he meant business; then sat down

with those three parties to the industrial relations scene in the

province, and tried to find a remedy which was less provocative. Why

didn't he take that route?

The minister talks about a desire

to stabilize industrial relations in the province of British Columbia,

and I believe he's sincere about that. I believe every member of this

House would like to see a better, more responsible, less destructive

system of industrial relations than we have. Ours isn't all that bad,

and I am not condemning it, but it certainly is imperfect.

What

has the minister or the government done in a positive way? They're

tinkering with the Labour Code. They're tinkering with the balance of

power between the two parties which, inevitably, is going to please one

and displease the other with inherent dissatisfaction, disruption and

conflict. He might have taken another route. Whatever happened to the

labour education centre? It was a bill that was left on the Minister of

Labour's desk when the government changed in 1975. It had as its basic

objective a system of education for employers and trade union

representatives who were involved in the process of negotiating and

arbitrating agreements, so that they might understand their roles and

obligations more effectively. It had as its purpose the setting up of

courses in political science, because industrial relations involves the

exercise of power. It had as its purpose instruction in economics, so

that the participants might more responsibly and effectively understand

the economic balance that we, as a dealer on the world market, are

inevitably involved in — a very delicate balance. It had as its purpose

some instruction in sociology, so that they might understand group

conduct. It had as its purpose some basic instruction in trade union

administration.

If the minister wanted to do something

positive, why did he not proclaim that bill and fund the labour

education centre so that those people coming to the collective

bargaining table would be more skilled, sensitive and responsible in

their duties? That, in my view, would result in more lawful and

intelligent conduct in the long term. He didn't do any of those things.

They're just a couple of ideas. I'd be quite willing to talk to the

minister about some of the other ideas he could try on. But there's not

been one positive step or initiative from this minister or government

down a positive or innovative road.

When a problem arises,

they come in and amend the Labour Code in a fashion that erodes the

power of the Labour Relations Board, an agency that's been doing an

outstanding job in British Columbia. It's a move which creates

suspicion and dissatisfaction among the trade unions of the province of

British Columbia, which inevitably is going to manifest itself in more

challenges to the regime. That's not healthy at all. The remedy the

minister has brought in is not a fair, balanced or intelligent one in

terms of the long-term objective of creating greater industrial

relations stability in the province of B.C. I regret that very much. I

think it's a terrible mistake.

MR. GABELMANN: Both

the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) have, I think, covered the waterfront on

this bill. As a result, I don't need to take very much time, and I

won't.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I find it

amusing, to say the least, that the government is frequently talking

about the need to deregulate in our society. They talk frequently about

the need to have fewer legislative and regulatory prohibitions on

business, but are always willing and in fact delighted, to bring in

legislation that further restricts working people. This is what this

does. It's not the bill that it could be, if the majority of the Socred

caucus had its way; based on convention resolutions and public

statements by their members it's not that bad. So in that sense it's

not the end of the world. But the bill is wrong and bad. The bill

reflects the basic prejudice of Social Credit, which is to say: free

business to do whatever it wants, but always regulate workers and don't

allow them comparable kinds of freedom.

Why is it in this

society that we tend to always say to workers that they must stay on

the job, they must do this and follow these certain rules; but if a

business decides that its debts are too high, or its contract is not to

its liking, or it wants a different workforce, it goes out of business,

lays off everybody, and then a few weeks or months later you find them

operating with a new name, free of all their financial and contractual

obligations, and able to go out and do business again with a new name

and structure? That's the kind of inequity that exists not only in

British Columbia but throughout North America, where we have this ethic

that says whatever business does is good and whatever workers do is

bad. That's the basic philosophical underpinning of Social Credit

attitudes. It comes through again in what I think is a very bad piece

of legislation which attempts, as the minister says — and I believe

he's genuine — to redress a problem that all of us acknowledge exists.

I wonder at the minister's ability, without proper consultation, to

bring in legislation when he makes as many mistakes as he did in his

opening address on the bill. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke pointed

out one obvious error relating to Paul Weiler's role in the Labour

Code. Paul Weiler's role was obviously not as a drafter but as an

administrator of the Code. One may say it's a minor error, but I think

it's a major error from the Labour minister.

In justifying the legislation, the minister talks about a problem he described as emanating from Zeballos, where, as

[ Page 9025 ]

put it, loggers with M&B went down to picket a MacMillan Bloedel

pulpmill in Gold River. For the minister's information, those loggers

were from the Talisis Co.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's what I said.

MR, GABELMANN: You said M&B.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I said Tahsis.

MR. GABELMANN:

Well, the Blues will show that you said M&B. Several of us here

listened very carefully. Your notes may be right but your voice was

wrong.

The pulpmill in Gold River happens also to be owned

by Tahsis Co. The workers there were venting their frustration in the

only way they knew how. I'm not going to make a judgment about their

behaviour. They have to live with the consequences of their own

judgment. In any event, this legislation doesn't deal with that problem

of workers within one union violating their own union's policy and

going on a wildcat picketing expedition. It doesn't deal with that at

all. The only way you deal with those kinds of trade union issues is

through understanding, cooperation and quiet diplomatic discussion. You

do not do it by legislation.

As justification for his

introduction of this legislation, the minister used a variety of

newspaper articles. I think that there isn't a responsible trade

unionist or politician in this province who wouldn't agree with almost

everything the minister quoted from those newspapers. The trade union

movement has for years, if not decades, in this province concerned

itself with what it calls the sanctity of the picket line and the

absolute, essential need not to destroy that picket line. The trade

union movement is aware that there are at least two ways in which that

picket line can be destroyed: one is through legislative action; the

other is through the misuse of that picket line by trade unionists.

That's something that is understood and is talked about in the labour

movement all of the time: the absolute need to prevent the kind of

unjustified picketing that can bring the picket line itself into

disrepute.

The way you deal with problems that come from the

misuse of that picket line, which hurts trade unionists at least as

much as it hurts business, is to deal with it internally and to provide

support and assistance in a non-legislative way to those internal

discussions in the trade union movement, designed to make sure that

picketing is not abused.

I'm concerned about two aspects of

this legislation, as I think most people are who are concerned with

labour relations. One is that it absolutely destroys any equitability.

It destroys any opportunity on the part of a union to use surprise in a

labour dispute, because they have to go to the Labour Relations Board

first to get permission to take certain actions which of necessity may

have to be done within the first hours of a dispute. If an employer is

allowed to empty a warehouse in the first 12 hours of a labour dispute,

the economic position of that union is absolutely destroyed. The

minister is now saying to that union that the union must first go to

the LRB and get permission to set up a picket line in front of a

building. By the time that permission is granted, the building will be

empty and the economic position of the union will be destroyed. The

strike will go on longer than if the union had had an opportunity to

exert some economic power and influence on the employer.

The

whole idea of a dispute, of going out on strike, isn't to go out on

strike and stay out for a long time; the idea is to exert maximum

economic influence on the employer so that the strike is over quickly.

And what some employers — increasingly in a minority, fortunately — and

Socreds don't seem to understand is that by reducing the ability of the

union to apply economic pressure, they will extend the length of

strikes and lockouts, because it is economic pressure on both sides

that creates the force that brings resolution. When you take away that

power, you frustrate the workers and they stay out longer. That's

number one. So by this kind of legislation you achieve exactly the

opposite of what you have desired to achieve.

Number two,

you create the beginning of what I think is a return to the jungle in

labour relations; you create the situation whereby unions, when they

know that the 12-, 24- or 36-hour delay by going to the LRB will

undermine their position, will not go to the LRB and will resort to

illegal activity. Once you open up that door to a variety of illegal

activities in that area of labour relations, you open the door wider

and there will be yet more illegal activity in a variety of other

areas, more wildcatting, and more disrespect for the process and

disrespect for the Labour Relations Board, leading to yet further

unrest in labour-management relations. Why would the government do

that? It's absolutely contrary to the stated objectives of the

minister. The government has embarked on a course which will not only

lead to extended disputes and to an inevitable abuse of the law, but

will also lead to the resumption of that dreadful practice, which is to

have labour relations matters dealt with in the courts.

Even

if the board decides it does not want to allow a certain matter to go

to the courts, it doesn't have the power to use

section 27 of the

Labour Code any longer in making that determination. When a union says,

"No, you shouldn't allow this particular suit to proceed to the

courts," the union should be allowed to argue

section 27, and the board

especially should be allowed to consider the matters contained within

section 27, which — in some cases deliberately so — will admit to the

fact that yes, we will not allow the matter to go to the courts, even

though technically it may be something that is illegal; there may have

been some illegality committed. But the board needs to have the

discretion to consider

section 27 to say that the greater crime would

be to allow that to go to court and to allow a technically strict legal

application and therefore punishment to apply to one side or the other

— usually the workers in this situation. Then you destroy the whole

purpose of the labour board and the Labour Code, which is to allow

employers and employees, through the board's mechanisms, formally and

informally — and more important, informally — to work out those

differences, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) says. But now they

won't be able to, because they will no longer be able to consider

section 27.

For what purpose is this bill, Mr. Speaker? It's

not to redress the problems, which we all agree exist, because if that

was what the minister wanted to achieve, he would have been sitting

down over the last months and last two years at least with the people

in the field who work with these issues day by day and said: "I have

the final axe. I have the ultimate authority. I can bring in

legislation which will solve these problems in an authoritarian way. I

know you don't want me to do that." Both labour and management would

agree, the enlightened ones. The minister, having that power and that

heavy hand, which he does have, can say: "You work out those

differences or I'll bring in legislation." He didn't do that, Mr.

Speaker. The minister never sat down and said to

[ Page 9026 ]

those

people who work with these problems and also want to solve these

problems: "Okay, now we're going to bash heads a little bit. We're

going to negotiate this thing, and we're going to find a solution. And

you — the trade union movement — hopefully will find internal

disciplinary ways in which you can solve your problems, because that

will be less painful both to the union and to society than me, the

minister, coming in with authoritarian legislation." He didn't do that.

He wrote a letter in July 1980, I understand. Of course the labour

movement boycotted that letter, properly so. That's not how you conduct

negotiations and how you conduct discussions, Mr. Speaker.

don't quite agree with my colleague the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King), who says the minister is totally sincere in this respect. I

think that under great pressure from the unenlightened minority in the

employers' sector and the obvious unenlightened majority of the Socred

caucus who demanded that there be strong legislative curtailment of

trade union rights, the minister has attempted to bring in some

compromise, in his mind, to show the right-wingers in his group and

that unenlightened minority of employers that yes, he means business

and he'll take on the trade union movement. I don't think the minister

is sincere at all. If he were sincere he would attempt to solve the

problem by discussion, and he hasn't done that. And if he were sincere

he would not bring in legislation that will hamper the authority of the

board and thwart the whole direction in which we've been moving in this

province, toward enlightened relations between trade unions and

management, and that will return us to the dark days of the jungle. I

regret this legislation very much.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I appreciate the concerns expressed by the three members of the

opposition, two of whom have, I think, identified the problem, have

recognized that there is a problem, and acknowledge as we have that

there has been considerable indiscriminate picketing. However, this

particular bill will not in any way undermine confidence in the Labour

Relations Board.

The B.C. Federation of Labour and its

executive have made extraordinarily candid comments about the

activities which occurred in 1980, and particularly in 1981:

"We

do not sanction picketing. We find what happened regrettable. The

activities of some have been cannibalistic and the punishment to which

they are entitled cannot be meted out at our annual convention or by

us. We have our own policies within the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Those policies are well known and understood by every trade union

executive in British Columbia. They are writ on stone."

Some

of the problem has been that trade unions not affiliated with the B.C.

Federation of Labour refuse to follow their policies. This bill does

not tip the scales one way or the other. The thrust of this particular

bill is to look at third parties who are not related to any primary

dispute in any way whatsoever; whether through collective agreement,

the same union or the same company. The legislation is, in that sense,

fair, equitable and just.

Two references have been made to

section 27 of the Labour Code.

Section 27 makes reference to the

objectives of the Code, all of which I endorse in their entirety. I am

advised by legislative counsel and by one of the authors of the Code —

as mentioned by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke — that reference

within that particular

section to

section 27 is surplus; it's not

really necessary at all. The fact is, this is followed throughout the

Code, and by those who are charged with its administration. We all

recognize that the primary employer and the trade union involved with

that particular operation are entitled to 72 hours' notice of a

lockout, a shutdown or a strike — that there's going to be a work

stoppage. I just ask, in the interest of fairness, what is wrong with a

third party who could be operating a business which could be ten times

the size? That notice is given as a matter of interest, fairness and

equity to all of those involved. It's true.

It's fine to put

forth the position which the opposition does, but unfortunately....

Let's crunch the numbers and find out how many of the allied picketing

cases which occurred in British Columbia were supported, endorsed and

authorized by the Labour Relations Board when an application for a

cease-and-desist was given. There were four. Four were given,

representing between 15 and 20 percent of all the picketing cases in

British Columbia in the last two years.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got no confidence in the board, eh?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I have all the confidence in the world in the board. The problem is

that we talk on one side about "Let's grieve first," and if there's

going to be a work stoppage later.... Let's resolve our problems first.

If there is a legitimate dispute and an ally is, in fact, someone who

does have dirty hands and has been assisting an employer, then it shall

be, as somebody once said, on his head. I don't think it's fair that

company after company and employee after employee should be put out of

work as a result of indiscriminate picketing by those who are not

prepared to consider the working relationships and ongoing operations

of a third party.

References were made to this being a

return to the courts. I earlier gave you the information that a number

of cases where a consent to sue has been given is very small. Even with

all the indiscriminate picketing activity which occurred in 1981, there

were eight applications — you can throw away the rest because they were

never serious in the first instance — and only three were granted. What

we have now is a reverse onus. When you start talking about pleadings

and references made to the civil courts, the allegation is made by the

plaintiff in this case and the onus is on the defendant to establish

that he in fact has not committed an offence. In labour relations, the

Labour Relations Board must first determine whether there's been a

contravention of

part 5. Then we have to look to what redress and

recourse a third party has. All the people at the mill come up to the

employer and say: "For crying out loud, can't you do something about

this? Why are we constantly hit with this picketing. We know it's

illegal. Can't you do something?" Well, as a matter of fact, the Labour

Code had precluded any form of redress by these people. I don't see

anything inexplicable in their position.

How do we explain

the consents that are given? They have been. We know that 67 percent of

those applications before the board were determined and disposed of

prior to an adjudication — that's a hearing. We say that it's unfair. I

repeat, we have to answer to the taxpayers, employees, employers,

governments and other organizations, whether they be trade unions,

executives, employers' councils or all of them. As I said earlier,

let's crunch the numbers. It's fine that we can talk in theory. But

it's something else when we get all the facts. I told the House about

over 500 cases and gave their breakdown.

[ Page 9027 ]

Another

interesting point comes in here. We talk about the element of surprise.

Let's just think about that for a moment. The element of surprise: 6

o'clock in the morning and the operation is shut down; 300 man-days or

500 man-days are lost for no reason whatsoever. In those two instances

those employees lost $80,000 worth of wages. It's inexplicable and

insupportable.

We make reference to

section 38. I accept

that point. But there's just one problem with

section 38. I want to

know how a third party.... When the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) talks about the element of surprise, on the one hand, and

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) talks about

section 38 and

getting a declaratory opinion.... You can't have it both ways, because

the third party doesn't know when there's an element of surprise. Is it

fair to shut down plants without notice and without any right? Even

when we take the president of a union.... To turn around and say: "I

want to be treated the way others should be treated...." I thought I

made that point clear when I made reference to the editorial from the

Prince George Citizen .

The member for North Island

said: "Well, it's always to free business and regulate workers." I

don't accept that for a moment. He talked about companies which change

hands — or one is dropped and another one shows up. I only point out:

how about all the pulp and lumber companies of British Columbia? The

majors have all been here for decades. The Ferry Corporation, ICBC and

the Post Office have been here. With respect to the rights of trade

unions and the rights of organization, the member should look to the

successor provisions in the Labour Code — successor works well.

While

I accept the arguments put forth by the members opposite, I feel that

the facts speak for themselves. The rights of those employees, who are

entitled to work without disruption, when they have already made their

collective agreement, should continue. Those disruptions are

unnecessary, particularly in today's economic climate.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

50, Labour Code Amendment Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 45: minister's office, $222,410.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, I didn't want this important debate to go on without

taking

part in it. It'll only take me an hour or so to make my

contribution to the debate on the Ministry of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should see a doctor.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I see a doctor quite often. I know other people who should too.

know that members on all sides have said this, but I want to say it as

well: I consider that we have the finest health-care system in the

world, whether it's the institution or the individuals operating them —

doctors, nurses, lay staff. Our hospitals are well equipped, and we all

should be very proud of our health-delivery system in the province. As

mentioned earlier, I can talk from a user's standpoint. I came to

appreciate it more than ever during the time I was a member of a

hospital board in this province. They do an excellent job in all

respects. Sure, we have lots of criticism. I think some of it is

irresponsible, and that worries me.

Regarding the

government's side of it as far as priorities in spending, it's right

there for anyone to see. Thirty percent of the provincial budget is

devoted to health care. No other ministry of government is even close

to that. That's the priority of this government, and I don't think it

should be denied by criticisms. I particularly get incensed when the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) brings individual cases to the

attention of the House. I guess that's all right, but it's really

straight scare tactics with our citizens. What I have followed with his

criticism is that the individual cases he brings in were, as far as I

know, all refuted later by responsible people.

I feel that

this member, a former Minister of Health, knows better, and he's very

cruel in his criticism of individual cases. It's been said in the

debate that there are other ways to handle these things. As far as I'm

concerned, this member, by trying to be sensational, is doing a

terrible disservice to the people who are depending on our health care

in this province. It's a real worry, and he's doing it for political

reasons. I don't recommend he continue it, but if he does, he's losing

on it. That's the impression I get in moving around the province.

People are getting incensed about it, whether they're delivering the

health care or using the health-care system.

Some members

have talked about the health care in their ridings. I want to comment,

as the MLA for Cariboo, that we have excellent health care in the

Cariboo, with three acute-care hospitals, one extended-care and three

nursing homes, as well as, of course, homemaker service and so on. Yes,

it is difficult at times, but again the criticism — from the press

mostly — about the cutback in health care incenses me and other people

in our province, when in fact the appropriation for health care has

actually increased. We've had a real twist

[ Page 9028 ]

our province through the press and other people to justify their

position that there has been a reduction, which, of course, is not

correct. The facts prove that wherever you go. I meet with the hospital

boards in my riding. They had all asked for a 20 percent increase, and

they got an average of about 7 percent. But they weren't cut back from

what they had last year. In fact, they had an increase. That message

doesn't seem to get out. The member for New Westminster doesn't help

anything by trying to twist that around. I think he's doing an

injustice particularly to people relying on the excellent health

service we have.

I also want to say something about

improvements made in another part of health care that I, indirectly,

have been involved in to some degree. I refer to the air ambulance

service provided to the province of British Columbia by all of us. As

you know, the government air services come under the responsibility of

this ministry.

Certain people are talking about cutbacks and

so on. Firstly, I want to say that we probably have the finest air

ambulance service in Canada, operated by the government of British

Columbia from our own base of operations in Victoria, with our

excellent pilots who fly the province night or day, seven days a week,

365 days a year, bringing air ambulance service to our citizens. By

that I mean that there is a system in place. The air ambulances are

only called out where higher medical care is required. That's left in

the hands of responsible doctors throughout the province. We can now,

through a call from the Health ministry.... In Fort Nelson, one of our

northernmost communities, they actually have people from that community

back to higher medical care — in most cases to Vancouver — in a period

of about four hours. That, to me, is excellent service, and it goes on

year-round.

The other thing is that I have a figures here to

show what happened in 1981 and 1982. For the period from July 1980 to

June 1981, 535 flights were carried out by air ambulance, which

required 1,520 hours of flying. It involved carrying 756 patients, and

the mileage covered was 341,587 air miles. That is for the year July

1980 to June 1981, and I'd like to give you the figures now, Mr.

Chairman, for July 1981 to June 1982. They are as follows, to show you

how the air ambulance service has been stepped up quite substantially.

In that period from July 1981 to June 1982, 851 air ambulance flights

were made, compared to 535 the year before. The hours flown up to June

1982 were 2,022, up from 1,520 hours the year before; patients carried

in the year ending June 1982 — 1,042, compared to 756 in the prior

year; and mileages flown in the year ending June 1982 — 425,567,

compared to 341,587 miles the year before.

You will note

from these figures, Mr. Chairman, that all of them are up approximately

30 percent. In no way is the government reducing the availability of

air ambulance service to the citizens there; it's on a constant

increase, and we're very proud of that.

I know that costs

are involved, and I will just give you the rough costs of it. Flights

flown and patients carried on all types of aircraft, including

scheduled flights and charters, Armed Forces and helicopters — the

total people involved were 2,636 and the total cost was $2.96 million

making a grand total of $4,476,625, which covers both the Emergency

Health Services and the government air services. In other words, the

government air services make a lot of flights themselves, but we also

use the private sector as required. It really gives excellent service

which was never available before to the people in the more remote areas

of the province. It gives better medical care in a hurry.

There

is another way this ministry has been involved. These aircraft can't

fly if they don't have a place to land and take off. In 1978 our

government inaugurated the airport assistance program. To date, we have

spent $15 million on that very small but impressive program to upgrade

airstrips so that the air ambulance service can get into communities

they could never get into before. I'd like to name a few. Under that

$15 million in the last five years, 20 communities have had their

airstrips improved. One that we are still in the process of upgrading

is in probably the most remote community in our province, Atlin. At

Dease Lake, which is certainly an unpopulated area — it's fairly remote

— we have spent $1.3 million. We can now get in and out of there with

decent aircraft. Stewart, out on the coast, is another place; Anahim

Lake in the Cariboo, not far from Bella Coola, in the Chilcotin

plateau; 100 Mile House. There's been upgrading done at Chilliwack. A

lot of money has been spent at Bella Coola so that government aircraft

and others can get in and out of there on a decent strip. At Powell

River — I'm glad the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is here — a

lot of money has been spent upgrading under this program. Nanaimo is

another one; it's not very remote but it certainly needed upgrading.

The upgrading that took place in Nanaimo made it an all-night facility,

which it wasn't before. This, again, ties in with the air ambulance and

the additional service required.

Creston, a community in the

Nelson-Creston riding, has a brand new airstrip, and hopefully they'll

get a reasonable air service. Dealing with air ambulance, our machines

can go in and out of there now to bring better medical care, if

required. Alert Bay is another one; also Burns Lake, Fraser Lake,

Houston, Leo Creek — which is certainly a long way north of Fort St.

James and very remote; we've spent a lot of money there on a gravel

strip, and the air ambulance can get in and out of there as well. In

Vanderhoof there's a paved strip and the air ambulance goes in and out

of there constantly. In Fort Ware, which is in the Prince George North

riding and has no road access, we have improved their airstrip for air

ambulance purposes and other transportation.

In the

community of Mackenzie we upgraded that strip for better service, to

allow the air ambulance to get in. In Chetwynd — I'm not sure who the

MLA is there, but I think we've heard from him before — we built a new

strip and spent about $1.2 million, so they've been brought into the

modern world and given the air ambulance service. Dawson Creek had some

work done on their strip, particularly the float side. We worked in

Revelstoke and upgraded their strip. Salmon Arm, a community that had

nothing, now has a million dollar paved strip, and our aircraft are

using that for air ambulance and other work — they never had the use of

it before. We're now in the process of building an airstrip in the

Pemberton valley. Another large gap in the air services, as far as

airports for air ambulance work are concerned, was Lillooet. A new

strip opened at Lillooet last year at a cost of $1.3 million, and now

the air ambulance can go in there. We're working on Merritt at the

present time, and have an excellent strip that we worked on at

Princeton.

That more or less lays out.... It's all very well

to say that we have a fleet of aircraft that can bring the service to

these communities, but they can't do it without airstrips. I wanted the

committee to know what had happened there; we

[ Page 9029 ]

didn't

have much opportunity in my estimates. As a matter of fact, if I

recall, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) didn't seem to

realize that we had an airstrip in Salmon Arm. I hope he reads the

Blues now, and can find out that we have.

I just wanted to

say these few things. Regarding the minister himself, he is obnoxious

to have as a seatmate, but he's a fine minister and does an excellent

job. He makes the same remarks about having me as his seatmate. He's a

great guy. He has heavy responsibilities. I don't like to see him

thrashed by irresponsible statements and people. I don't think it's the

right way to handle things. It seems to me that if we go on at the rate

we're going, forever criticizing our health-delivery system, we're

going to destroy it, whether in British Columbia or Canada. It's sure

worthwhile keeping and improving on. That's what this government wants

to do.

All you have to do to confirm it is to do what I did,

and go down to the United States and get involved in their medical

system. You'll find that in the richest country in world you have to

pay for everything out of your back pocket. There is no medical care

down there. A hospital bed is $400 a day, and after that you start

paying for the nurses and so on; all that gives you is the bed, and you

pay extra for the pills, nurses, and so on and so forth.

MR. NICOLSON: And the toothbrush.

HON. MR. FRASER:

That's right, the toothbrush or whatever it is. I was never happier to

get back home after I went through that experience last fall in our

fine neighbours' wealthy country. I realize how fortunate we are here

as Canadians and British Columbians to have the excellent health care

we have. A lot of our Canadians have found out the way I found out.

Give

the minister and the ministry all the support possible. It is the

priority of this government. They will always have priority in

spending. As far as I can gather, there's no change in government

policy. I would say to the member for New Westminster: please, look

after your individual cases in the proper manner instead of trying to

mix it up and becoming political with it. I don't think it does a good

service to the sick, or the people that are thinking of it. It really

worries a lot of our senior citizens to see this going on. I plead with

him to desist in what has been carried on in our province, particularly

since April.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I have to

agree with some of the things that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) said. He said that he didn't like people getting up and

attacking the Minister of Health, and I think that's valid enough. I

think that one should attack the Premier, first and foremost, and

perhaps his government, and not put the whole burden on one individual,

because this is a government policy.

The minister in his attempts to try to keep a system under attack in

operation.... I've certainly had some good cooperation from him in

terms of the Willowhaven Private Hospital, a matter which threatened

the existence of that hospital. Things had come to such a threatening

position that patients and staff had been given 90 days' notice of

closure of the hospital because of funding problems. The minister took

that on, brought in staff and dealt with it.

But,

Mr. Chairman, by juggling and giving special attention to special

problems the minister cannot deal with all the problems that are thrust

upon him by this particular government. Also, the minister clearly

needs to have a better system of information flowing to him on the

effects of various kinds of cuts, because we hear constant denials in

the House of the effects that are occurring. I'll give one quick

example before adjournment. One lady whom I know came from the interior

to visit with a friend of hers who had come out from hospital. Both of

these ladies are pensioners.

The lady who had come out of

hospital lived with a sister. The sister, while she was in hospital for

a very short stay of two or three days, became incontinent. When she

came out, these two other ladies — one of whom was recovering — tried

to get this lady into some kind of intermediate care or extended-care

situation, with pretty well heroic efforts on behalf of their doctor.

This led to real problems, stumbling blocks, and for a couple of days

it appeared as if this lady, who had totally lost any kind of mental

ability, had nowhere to go, but had to stay home in the care of her

sister, who had just come out of hospital. This other lady phoned me,

related this to me, and the matter was eventually solved by the efforts

of her doctor. But she said: "I couldn't imagine that this was

happening in British Columbia. I thought that we had the best health

care in the world."

That doctor related to her an anecdote

that had recently happened in the lower mainland. For lack of

extended-care facilities they had had to place an otherwise normal and

healthy 100-year-old man into not an acute-care bed but an

intensive-care bed. Meanwhile a person with cardiac problems came in

who should have been put into intensive care. He died. Nobody can say

that he died because he didn't get into an intensive-care bed. He very

well might have died otherwise, but this came as such a revelation to

this one senior citizen, who had thought that we had the best

health-care system in the world. So when we in the opposition and when

responsible people — some of the letters from whom I hope to read into

the record before these debates are concluded.... When so many are

saying that the health system is under attack, we are not serving the

very fine system which we have built up in this province and in this

country by pretending that things are otherwise.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada