[ Page 5357 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 89) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5357

Ms. Sanford –– 5361

On the amendment to defer second reading six months.

Mr. King –– 5366

Mr. Gibson –– 5370

Mr. Wallace –– 5373

Mr. Cocke –– 5375

Mr. Lea –– 5375

Mr. Lauk –– 5377

Ms. Brown –– 5379

Presenting reports

Ministry of the Attorney-General report for 1976. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5380

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to tell the House that in our gallery we have special guests. Senator Victor Atiyeh and Mrs. Atiyeh are visiting with us today. Senator and Mrs. Atiyeh represent the state of Oregon, where he is the Republican leader. They are vacationing in our beautiful province of British Columbia and I would ask the House to welcome them warmly.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today the president and representatives of the B.C. Federation of Labour, who are in the House this morning to observe the debate on the amendments to the Labour Code. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the day .

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 89.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): As I rise to open the debate on second reading of this modest bill, I wish to confirm to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the House, those statements which appeared in the press this morning. There will be placed on the table of the House today some amendments to this bill, which will serve to clarify some of the questions

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): It was all a mistake!

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the members of the opposition find so much joy as a result of errors on my part. I just wish you to know, Mr. Speaker, that it is the position of this minister and of this government that when errors are perceived, we will change those errors before the bill is introduced, if at all possible, rather than continuing to present to the Legislature errors, as was the case in the former administration.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is the intention of the government to ensure that the legislation which is on our books clearly expresses the intent of the House ...

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): The latest message!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: ... and that there shall be no doubt that future amendments will not be necessary as a result.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Do you read them before you come in?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I indicate as

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that guy in the yellow shirt?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in the House; I think we should all welcome him.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It must be recognized that the Labour Code of British Columbia is a code.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: By its very name, it is intended as a statute of this province to ensure that the laws with respect to the regulation of certain matters in the industrial relations community are clearly spelled out in the legislation for all persons to see, rather than as has so often been the case with other legislation, where decisions are made by courts and other quasi-judicial tribunals that the law develops, but it is never contained in the statute books.

We will continue the practice, Mr. Speaker, of ensuring that there is codified in this Code the law as it develops in what is obviously one of the most dynamic areas of activity in our society today, namely, that of industrial relations. The changes which are perceived from time to time, as they are decided by courts and tribunals whose responsibility it is to make those decisions, must be brought into the Code so that it is constantly up to date and there can be no question as to what the law is at any particular moment. So those who have occasion to refer to the Code may have the clearest indication of the state of the law in this province.

Some of the people, Mr. Speaker, have the impression that this particular statute is the private preserve of certain aspects of our society in the industrial relations community particularly either the trade union movement or the employers. It must

[ Page 5358 ]

be clearly understood that this is a public statute of the Province of British Columbia and it is the public interest which must be served in the legislation. It is therefore deemed appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments this time make it quite clear that this bill places in primacy the public interest in these matters, rather than solely the interests of those parties who may be intimately and directly involved in this operation. I refer, without offending against your rules, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment to section 27, which for the first time makes it clear that it is the public interest which is to receive primacy as far as this legislation is concerned. The reports one hears of this legislation, which has been examined very closely since its introduction, would suggest that somehow or other this is a major shift in labour legislation in this province. I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. The several amendments which are before us merely clarify the law which presently exists in this province. It makes clear, for those who have occasion to deal with this particular law, what that law might be. It has been suggested that the changes which are being made will significantly affect the ability of the trade union movement in its organizing activities. I suggest that just the opposite is the case.

MR. BARBER: Nonsense! Nonsense!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Labour has the floor.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The trade union movement has as one of its responsibilities the organizing of workers in this province. This legislation does not interfere with that activity. It only sets certain standards which they must achieve in the interests of stability. The efforts which they must carry out to ensure that when workers in this province are organized the trade union they select will be the one which is freely chosen by them. This will, therefore, produce a unit of employees in any particular operation which the trade union can be certain it represents, without continuing difficulties or criticism.

One of the areas which causes most concern is where, because of the narrowness of the majority which the trade union has as members, there are questions raised as to whether or not the trade union is truly desired by the workers in a particular unit to represent them. It is the purpose of one of the amendments which you have before you today, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that in those cases the workers in the unit are afforded the opportunity of indicating, by representation vote, their wishes with regard to certification. The movement into certification, the organization of workers, is a significant step for the trade union involved, and for the workers. It is also a significant change perhaps, for the employer.

In order to give stability to the work that goes on after certification, it is essential that the trade union have the clearest indication that it enjoys the support of the workers in that unit so that no questions can be raised as the union moves into the difficult and important aspects that follow certification, namely, negotiation of a first agreement and thereafter the fair representation of those employees in matters of negotiation with their employer.

In the stories that appear in the press, I find it unfortunate that consideration has not been given to a major change so far as the trade union movement is concerned, and that is the establishment of union security once certification has been carried out. Of all of the applications that come across the desk of the Minister of Labour, none is so difficult as those applications that arise out of difficulties in the negotiations of a first contract.

The union security provisions that are contained in the amendments before you today are designed to ensure that in the course of the negotiation of the first agreement, that essential and basic matter, the security of the union, once it has been certified, is left beyond question.

Many questions have been raised about a change in the definition of "employee." Again, the changes that are before you in this amending bill only state quite clearly the result of a series of decisions by the Labour Relations Board on this subject.

It is all very well to suggest that in the organizing of workers in this province, the trade unions should be given the widest range possible in organizing. But it must also be recognized that in the operation of business enterprise and the management of the affairs of the enterprise, the rights of management have to be understood and there must be a clear indication as to where the division lies between those who are in the field of management and those who are not.

The Code, as it presently stands, has a definition that is inadequate in this respect. It is found to be inadequate by the Labour Relations Board in a number of decisions. Again, because this is a code, we are inserting in the amendments before you today provisions that will assist in the understanding of this division, which will clearly mark the areas that are management functions. This will enable the board in decisions that it will subsequently make to ensure that the division is recognized, and thereby industry and the trade unions will recognize where their respective fields lie.

Again, one of the areas which causes much difficulty for the industrial community is the question of unfair labour practices. I find that the Code as it presently stands leaves some doubt in the minds of the industrial community, particularly on the part of the employers, as to what their rights might be in dealing with matters of unfair labour

[ Page 5359 ]

practices and how far they can go with respect to their employees without falling within the very strict prohibitions there are against activities of the employer.

The decisions of the Labour Relations Board and the law today is that the employer has the opportunity of communicating fairly with the employees. But nonetheless, out of an overabundance of caution, many of the people who advise employers would suggest that this is not the case. Again, the change which is being made in this respect is to codify the law as we see it today.

Now it is being suggested by some that the absence of such codification is somehow or other an assistance in the organizing activities carried on by trade unions, that somehow or other if the employer is left in doubt as to what his rights are that improves the situation of industrial relations in this province. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. The concern which is created with respect to the rights of an employer to communicate with his employees does not go away because of the absence of words, but rather continues. It continues, therefore, to interfere in the relationships which must be developed and stabilized between the employer community and the trade union community and the workers of this province. Therefore, in making this amendment, we are again making certain that the parties recognize what their rights are.

In so doing, however, it must be made abundantly clear that the practices which are properly unfair labour practices are not to be condoned, and the Labour Relations Board'has a major responsibility in this regard. Any person who seeks by threat or promise or intimidation or coercion to interfere with the legitimate rights of employees to be organized and to carry on their affairs within their union is not to be accepted. Because these amendments are here for purposes of clarification, they are not to be seen by anyone as opening the gates to practices which properly qualify as being unfair labour practices in this province.

The amendments also contain other aspects which presently result in instability in industrial relations in this province. I refer to the efforts on the part of trade unions to achieve certification with respect to organized units which are already represented by trade unions. The popular phrase in industrial relations is the "raiding provision." Presently under the law, raiding can take place each year during a collective agreement and raiding can also take place in that sometimes brief interim period at the end of a collective agreement.

However, it is recognized, and the cases and applications before the Labour Relations Board made it quite clear, that those activities are an unstabilizing force in the business enterprise of this province. It interferes with the workers; it interferes with the employers; and it interferes with the activities of trade unions themselves.

Therefore, without taking away any rights with regard to raiding, to ensure that a raid, whether successful or not, is not made repetitive year by year, there is an amendment in the Code whereby such an activity having taken place, successful or not, there will be a two-year period before any further application can be made. The sole purpose of this is to ensure that the employer and the certified bargaining agent for the unit of employees - either the new one or the old one - is afforded the opportunity of making such changes as may be required in their activities and their negotiating techniques as will ensure that those employees in the unit receive fair representation from their trade union. The employee is entitled to that. It is for that purpose that the amendment is before this House today.

That amendment is also expanded into an area which heretofore has not been covered in the Code, and that is the instances where a council of trade unions has been formed. It is clearly recognized by trade unions, by employers, and by the employees who are in trade unions, that in many of our major industries the fragmentation of bargaining units is not in the best interests of the industry or of the workers. Therefore, under the Code - and it was a major move - authority is given to vary certifications to bring the several trade unions together into one single council and to enable them to carry on thereafter unified negotiations in the best interests of both the workers and the management.

However, experience has shown over the past year and a half that raiding activities can interfere with the difficult and sensitive negotiations which take place in the formation of the councils and in enabling them to carry out what is, in many cases, a new venture in working together. Therefore, with respect to the raiding provisions, it is also provided that in the case of the formation of a council of trade unions, such event having occurred, that council will also be afforded a two-year period in which the unions that are members of the council can adjust to this new relationship and they can build as between the council and the employer proper relations and carry out their negotiations without interruption. This is an essential aspect in the discharge of the council's responsibility and one which, I think, should be recognized by all people in industrial relations as a significant advance.

Again, in codifying what the law is, Mr. Speaker, we have perceived that we should also consider codifying some of the practices that have developed in the industrial relations community which are intended to provide better security and better relationships between the employer and the employees. This deals with the giving of strike notice

[ Page 5360 ]

and the concept of perishable goods.

For the first time, it has been decided that there should be a clear definition of "perishable goods" in the Code and that we should adopt, as part of the codification, those practices that are found today in the good, continuing relationships between many of our major industries and the unions that represent their workers.

The 72-hour strike notice is recognized in our major industries as being inadequate, in many instances, for the orderly shutdown of an operation if there is to be a strike or lockout, and subsequently in the orderly reopening of that operation, once that work stoppage has ended. This is done today in some of our major industries. We have borrowed upon that practice and made it the standard that is to be applied in all operations that are organized in British Columbia.

The effect of this will be to ensure that there is better stability and that the relationships between the employer and their employees in the trade unions are not going to be affected by activities that may result in most serious consequences to the industry and, in the long run, most serious consequences to the employee of that industry when shutdowns take place in such a way that the enterprise itself is materially affected or perhaps destroyed. This will apply, in particular, in those industrial operations in the province that are continuous by their very nature. They work on a 24-hour basis. The techniques in the industry are of such a nature that orderly shutdowns must be the rule.

It is for that reason that the opportunity is being given.... It's not being forced upon anyone, but the opportunity is being given, in those instances, for application to be made to the Labour Relations Board for a decision as to whether or not the 72-hour notice is appropriate and, if it is not, what appropriate period should be ordered in a particular case.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is one problem that must be recognized by the members in dealing with this legislation and the concerns that are expressed. We have a major distinction in the province of British Columbia between those large employers and the unions who represent those employees and the smaller industries - many of them today unorganized. The law we have in the Code is appropriate for large industrial enterprise. The procedures that arise from the Code are certainly appropriate for large industrial enterprise. They may not be so appropriate for some of our smaller industries.

The major strength in our economy is to be recognized, particularly in the service industries, among many of those smaller employers. We believe that the amendments in this code will make it clear to many of those smaller employees what the law is in this province, the standards that are applied and the standards by which they must govern themselves. The consequences can only be for improved industrial relations and for a better co-operative balance between employer and employee and their trade unions. In the long run, this will help us to achieve and continue the progress that has been made in the industrial relations community, the stability that is so essential to our economy and the rights and benefits that accrue to worker and employer alike.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the ruling as to the viability of this debate when there is an appearance of a story in the newspaper-, and the minister's own statement that it's all a mistake, and there will be amendments. I've asked your ruling since this is an admission from the minister that there will be amendments. Would it not be appropriate that the bill be held back until we know all the errors that are to be corrected before we go into the debate? That may be a waste of time if it's all a mistake.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It may be, we don't know. What's the hurry, if there are mistakes? Let's get the errors on the order paper. There's nothing on the order paper now. Let's get the errors dealt with now. My colleagues in the other parties agree with me.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is not well taken, hon. Leader of the Opposition. It's a matter that there is a bill before the House....

MR. BARRETT: But it may be out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: ... which is not out of order, and is the subject of the debate this morning.

MR. BARRETT: But it's all a mistake.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, are you telling us that what we have to debate is strictly what's in the bill before us, when the minister has told us, and told the press, there's going to be consequential amendments to the bill?

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: That makes it very difficult to debate, it seems to me.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. members are well aware of the practice in this House, which has always been that bills before the House are debated in second reading as they are. There's also the practice

[ Page 5361 ]

of this House which on many occasions has led to a minister indicating that amendments would be forthcoming in the committee stage ...

MR. BARRETT: Ahead of time.

MR. SPEAKER: ... when they will be debated. Certainly this has been the practice in the past, and will probably continue in the future.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, has this House ever before debated not the bill, but the Vancouver Province? What we see and hear?

MR. SPEAKER: I would hope, hon. members, that when the official critic for the opposition has an opportunity to take a place in this debate, he will debate the bill that's before us.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there's a rule about a relevant debate. Are we going to pass through second reading and not know what the bill is going to be until the minister receives his latest message? I don't know where they come from.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Your point of order is not well made, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Never before has this House been put in the position of debating something where the minister plays hide-and-seek with what the real bill is going to be. I don't want to debate the Vancouver Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is now attempting to abuse the....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. I

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! We are in second reading of Bill 89, hon. members.

MR. MACDONALD: Trying to put Laurel and Hardy out of work.

MR. BARRETT: You did that years ago.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the hon. first member for Vancouver East will have ample opportunity to be recognized and take his place in this debate at the proper time. At the moment the hon. member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would all of the members please desist from attempting to conduct the debate from their seats.

MS. SANFORD: I fail to understand what all the haste is in proceeding with the amendments to the Labour Code. We have had other bills that have been sitting on the order paper for weeks and weeks waiting to be called, and here we have a bill that was introduced two or three days ago. It was on the list of bills to be discussed the day after it was introduced into this House. It's one of the major pieces of legislation in that it's such a blatantly anti-labour piece of legislation, yet we're being asked to debate it here. Now we're being asked to debate it when the minister himself has said there will be amendments. We have no idea how many there are going to be, what they're going to say, and whether all of the debate that takes place this morning will, in fact, be out of order because it's not related to what the minister may be proposing.

Mr. Speaker, we've been wondering why this Minister of Labour, who I know is very busy, as all ministers are, failed to produce this year, in traditional fashion, a Labour Day message for the people of this province.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): This is the message!

MS. SANFORD: Not a word from him, not a word. What happened, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister was probably too busy preparing this Labour Day message, which is Bill 89, for the working people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen the Minister of Labour look weaker. Never. We have been saying on this side of the House for months that this is a weak Minister of Labour. We have talked over and over again about the way the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has trampled all over him, the way the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has interfered into his jurisdiction, and most lately, how the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) is now talking about interfering with the whole labour process.

What is this minister doing? He has been quiet on all of these issues. When we debated the anti-labour legislation as presented by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) on the colleges bill, the Minister of Labour said nothing. Not a word in debate did he have to say, even though that bill was a direct intrusion in this minister's jurisdiction.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I draw your attention to the fact that we are not debating a bill from the Minister of Education? It is a Labour bill that we're on this morning.

[ Page 5362 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It has nothing to do with another bill that is before the House.

MS. SANFORD: But what I'm trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that this minister has been pushed aside; he has been trampled on by other ministers in the various departments. They have been intruding on his Labour Code, which is his responsibility, his jurisdiction and his duty to uphold. He has been silent all these months.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's the price this minister has had to pay for joining that group of coalition people over there. That's the price he's had to pay: to have his jurisdiction invaded and trampled on time and time again. That minister has become a nobody in cabinet; everybody walks on him. I think he must feel like a rug or a carpet at this stag. He's a messenger boy for the employers' groups and for the right-wingers within that coalition group over there. This bill is the example that we see today.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that Ashley Ford is right. Ashley Ford did an analysis in the paper yesterday morning, at which time he said that the Labour Code which was introduced by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) during the previous government is the most progressive piece of labour legislation in North America. The minister knows that. The minister is trying, I believe, Mr. Speaker, to keep some sort of balance. But because he is so weak and has been trampled on and intruded on, we have this piece of legislation which is going to upset that balance.

The minister knows that it is absolutely essential that you have some kind of even-handed, fair approach to the very delicate balance that exists between management and labour in this province. He knows that. He knows it is essential that management feels that the Labour Code is fair and he knows it is essential that the workers of the province feel that this Code is fair.

MR. BARRETT: Don't desert him, Garde. At least one Liberal should stick around with him.

MS. SANFORD: By introducing such blatant anti-labour, anti-organization legislation, Mr. Speaker, the minister is tipping that balance. It's going to cause disruption and chaos in this province because he is no longer even-handed in his approach to labour-management relations.

For the minister this morning to come in and say that the amendments to the Code will improve the ability of people to organize in this province indicates to me that he doesn't even understand what this bill is doing.

Mr. Speaker, I know there is no legislation that will ever prevent strikes and lockouts in this province or in any province or in any jurisdiction, but I do know that the best way of ensuring that we have fewer strikes and lockouts is to have a Labour Code and labour legislation which is fair and even-handed. What this minister has done, Mr. Speaker, is to undo that.

The previous Minister of Labour, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , managed to do away with all of that anti-labour legislation that was on the books before the NDP took office. You know what kind of chaos existed at that time, Mr. Speaker. The Labour Code was introduced, and we are seeing the effects of that Labour Code today. What is happening is that the whole collective bargaining process is proceeding at this time under the present Labour Code with some ease. People are not at each other's throats the way they have been in the past. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is talking about protecting the public interest, but the best way he can protect the public interest is to ensure that he does not introduce legislation such as this which is going to upset that delicate balance and throw us back into the chaos of pre-1972.

According to the paper this morning, the minister has made a mistake and he's going to introduce amendments. He indicated that one of those amendments would be a change in the number of people, or the vote, required for certification. That is, he had really made a mistake and it was too much to expect that 55 per cent plus one of those people wishing to become certified had to in fact cast that vote, but that a simple majority would do. I find it incredible, Mr. Speaker, that the minister, after being interviewed for two solid days on this bill, would say yesterday afternoon: "Oh, there's a mistake in the bill!" What a weak, weak approach. Here he has been on TV, radio, been quoted in the press defending the legislation, and he obviously hadn't even read it. Suddenly he found a mistake in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Surprise.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is weak, and it only proves what we have been saying over these last months: he is a weak minister.

It's not just the working people - those who are now organized and those who are as yet unorganized - who are opposed to the amendments to this legislation. There are some employers who are concerned about this kind of legislation because they know, as the minister knows, how delicate the balance is between labour and management in this province. It has always been a volatile situation. To bring in amendments like this, Mr. Speaker, indicates that the minister is again inviting the chaos that we had before. For him to say this morning that this is going to make it easier for people to become

[ Page 5363 ]

unionized is just simply nonsense.

What I fear at this stage is that amendments which are as blatant as this are an indication that what we can expect next in this province is right-to-work legislation. That is next. That will be coming. The pressure will be coming from those backbenchers, those rednecks within his group. He has shown that he is not able to withstand that pressure and he has caved in.

Mr. Speaker, at the Social Credit convention the Minister of Labour fought against a resolution that was on the floor of the convention calling for right-to-work legislation. He has not shown that he can withstand the pressure from the rednecks and the right-wingers in that group. He capitulates, he collapses every time, and I predict, Mr. Speaker, that right-to-work legislation is what we're going to see next out of that minister.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: These are the freedom fighters over there - the protectors of individual rights. What a joke, Mr. Speaker. What a cruel joke. Those people who are unorganized are going to find it nearly impossible to become organized under these changes to the Labour Code. What does the minister feel? Does he feel that it's easy now for those people who are unorganized to become certified? Is it easy for them, does he think, to get together, to exercise their right, if they so wish, to become organized? Perhaps we should inform him, Mr. Speaker, that it is very, very difficult even with the Labour Code that now exists; these changes are going to make it nearly impossible.

Where an employer provides adequate working conditions and provides an adequate salary for his employees, those employees may not wish to exercise their right to become organized. That's fine. That's their prerogative. But, Mr. Speaker, in this province there are thousands and thousands of workers who are as yet unorganized. Those workers very often are the ones who do not particularly have skills, who do not have an educational background that would enable them to confront an employer when working conditions are unsatisfactory or when wages are too low. Very often they don't have the self-confidence that is needed to get the kind of working conditions that should be the kind of working conditions that exist in Canada or in British Columbia in 1977.

Only 44 per cent of the people in this province are organized at this time. It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that according to the latest figures which are provided by the minister's own department through the labour research bulletin, there was a total of 951,000 workers in this province last year, and 426,000 of those were organized.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a point here which I'm not sure the minister has even considered. Of the men in the work force in this province, 48.9 per cent are unorganized, but of the women in the work force 65 per cent are unorganized.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I'm sorry, I didn't explain that very well. Let me do that again, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Did you make a mistake?

MS. SANFORD: I backtrack; I withdraw. I want to do that again.

There are 951,000 workers, 48.9 per cent are unorganized and they are men. Try it again: 951,000 workers; 48.9 per cent of the unorganized are men. But 65.4 per cent of all the women workers are women, right? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: You're confusing me, Madam Member. Look, of all of the women workers in the province, 65.4 per cent are unorganized. That's the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker. It's taken me some time but I hope that I've got that point across to the minister.

MS. BROWN: He doesn't care!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I do care!

MS. BROWN: You don't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Why don't you do something about it? I care.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: There will be ample time, hon. members, for all those who wish to participate in this debate to become involved, but at least they should have the courtesy to allow the person who has the floor at the moment to continue.

MS. SANFORD: Right. Of all the women who are working in this province, Mr. Speaker, 65.4 per cent are unorganized. Many of those women are single parents who are trying to raise a family; many of those women are people who have never been in the work force before but have raised their families and are trying to get into the work force. Many of these people do not have the skills or the self-confidence that is needed to ensure that they have the working conditions that workers in this province deserve.

Mr. Speaker, this bill tramples on the rights of those people who are already disadvantaged. They are

[ Page 5364 ]

the low-income earners; they are the ones who are unorganized; they are the ones who are least able to organize. Mr. Speaker, what these people need is the help of the minister, not the kick in the teeth that this bill is giving them.

MR. BARRETT: How about the lawyers? Are they organized? Do the lawyers get the right to organize?

MS. SANFORD: When unemployment is as high as it is in this province at the moment, workers become even more afraid to try to organize to get into a bargaining unit to improve their working conditions and their salaries. They are afraid, Mr. Speaker, to talk to the boss about changing working conditions. They are afraid to go to the boss to ask for a raise because they are afraid they might get fired and not be able to find another job and not be able to provide for that family they are responsible for. They are even afraid to talk to their own colleagues on the job about their concerns and the worries they have. There are thousands of workers in this province in that position at the moment.

The people over there, sitting on that side of the House, should really know what I'm talking about here because they, too, are afraid of the boss. It's pointed out several times that people sitting over there, even on the cabinet benches, are afraid to go to their boss to discuss problems they have. They are afraid. The backbenchers who've been told to shut up are afraid to get up and speak. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that those backbenchers will get up and debate these amendments to the Labour Code.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a vote.

MS. SANFORD: On a vote, right.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Isn't that fair?

MS. SANFORD: "Isn't that fair?" says the minister, without looking at all of these other changes in the legislation. I would assume if he puts that question to us now, he has not looked at the rest of the bill because this bill is not fair.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, they now have to have 45 per cent indicating that they wish to become organized, they wish to become certified. That's gone up from 35 per cent to 45 per cent. Think of the hardship that alone creates on those people whom we have been talking about, the ones who are now seeking to become organized or wanting to become organized.

Mr. Speaker, that's only the beginning. The other changes that the minister has made are going to heap one obstacle on top of the other for those people who are hoping to become certified. Why is it that the minister has removed the Section 1n the bill which would allow people who are attempting to organize the unorganized or for the unorganized to organize themselves? Why be refused the names and addresses of the people who are within that particular unit or plant? Why is he taking that right away? Where are these people going to find out now whom they should talk to or whom they should contact? That is an obstacle put in their way, yet, Mr. Speaker, the minister this morning says lie's made it easier for them. That's ludicrous.

Another aspect of the bill enables the employer, during the time when people are trying to become certified, to vary the conditions of employment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, that's not true. Read the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you haven't read it; you admitted that yourself.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I've read it. That's not true.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to have to find that section.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's a specific prohibition against changing conditions of employment.

MR. BARRETT: We don't even know what amendments we're going to see.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, employers now will be able to increase the wage during that period of time when they are seeking to become organized or certified. They will be able to vary the conditions of employment, improve it slightly, so that the people who are seeking to become organized will, in fact, perhaps change their minds, and perhaps they will have fewer than 45 per cent of those available.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not true. There is a specific prohibition against that.

MR. BARRETT: Where?

MS. SANFORD: There are other aspects, too, that are going to make it far more difficult for the people who are seeking to become certified to do so.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other things: by changing the definition of "employee" in this bill, there are going to be fewer people eligible within a plant or within a unit to qualify for inclusion under the

[ Page 5365 ]

Labour Code. That, too, makes it more difficult for a group of people to become certified. That's an interesting section, Mr. Speaker.

The minister indicated that the definition was not clear enough and he wanted to make it clearer. But as I read the definition and the change in the definition under the first section, I find, or at least, I'm assuming, that people who are now actually certified and are within bargaining units, are going to have to be excluded, because they are in some way playing a management role or assisting and advising the manager in some way.

I'm also wondering if this means an absolute end to any industrial democracy in this province. When the minister says that any employee who is in any way advising management is now to be excluded under the provision of the Labour Code, does he mean that people who are currently serving, at least in an experimental way, on boards - such as the board at Kootenay Forest Products, where workers are actually involved in that - will no longer be eligible to sit on those boards? They are advising management. They are assisting in management decisions, Mr. Speaker. This section of the bill, in my view, could easily be interpreted in that way, so we will not see in any way, shape or form any industrial democracy, even on an experimental basis, in this province.

MR. BARRETT: Perhaps we need a recess to call the government back. Where are they?

AN HON. MEMBER: They ran out.

MR. BARRETT: Are you all alone over there, Al?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one brief comment about the section which the minister referred to as raiding and which is commonly known as raiding. He has made an interesting change there. It is my understanding that the raiding will now take place once every two years instead of once every year, as was formerly permitted.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, almost once every two years.

He is changing the simple majority for the certification vote, but in this case he's going to leave the 55 per cent plus one.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): That's what you said.

MS. SANFORD: Now, see, here's the problem, Mr. Speaker. Here we are debating a section and we don't really know what the amendments are going to say.

MR. BARRETT: Is this all a mistake too?

MS. SANFORD: It seems to me, based on what I can pick out of the paper - because that's what I have to rely on to know what this minister is doing with this bill - that the 55 per cent plus one will still be in place for those people who are seeking to move from one trade union to another. That's the way I read it.

As I said at the outset, this whole debate may well be out of order. The minister doesn't understand the bill. He said the bill is a mistake, and we certainly agree with that.

But if in fact that 55 per cent stays, that means not only is he changing the raiding provisions so they can't occur as frequently as they did before but he is going to leave the 55 per cent plus one as the required percentage of vote in order to make that change. That means, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not true. You haven't read the bill.

MS. SANFORD: Well, we don't know. If that is the case, that means what the minister is doing is saying that 45 per cent of the people will dictate to 55 per cent of the people over a period of two years.

The minister is shaking his head and saying no, but he certainly has not indicated that he is going to change that particular section of the bill. Or maybe he hasn't read that section of the bill. I don't know, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You haven't read it, obviously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not 55 per cent at all.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. SANFORD: We will have an opportunity, I know, in committee stage to go into depth on some of these specifics with respect to whether it's 55, 50 plus one, 45, 35 - all these percentages. I assume once we get all these things on the order paper we'll be able to look at them and then discuss them with some intelligence.

MR. BARRETT: You've got Grace's lottery mixed up in it.

MS. SANFORD: But, Mr. Speaker, this minister has told us this morning that it's going to improve the ability for the unorganized to organize. That is

[ Page 5366 ]

blatant nonsense. It shows that the minister does not understand the bill.

The minister has said that it's all a mistake. Even though he was defending the bill and discussing the bill for two days in the media, it was in fact a mistake that he wasn't sure of, that the 55 per cent really shouldn't be 55 per cent and it should be a simple majority instead.

Mr. Speaker, this minister doesn't know the bill; he doesn't understand the bill. He's talking about making changes in the bill; he's talking about the bill being a mistake. He does not seem to comprehend what he is doing to the unorganized in this province who are already the disadvantaged, who are getting a kick in the teeth because of this legislation.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion that Bill 89, Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977, be read a second time now be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting "six months hence." I so move.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is in order, hon. members.

On the amendment.

MR. KING: I want to make a number of observations about the amendment that has been introduced by my colleague, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) . I want to point out that great confusion reigns not only in the province but in this House as well as to precisely what the intent of Bill 89 is.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister got up to introduce second reading this morning, he referred to the article in the Vancouver Province and assured the House that he wanted to confirm that article with respect to his intentions to amend.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't refer to that article at all. I made no reference to the article at all.

MR. KING: You certainly made reference to the articles in the press and stated you wished to confirm them. I believe he referred to The Province and I'm sure Hansard will show that, Mr. Speaker.

The Vancouver Province is headlined: "All a Mistake, Williams Tells the B.C. Federation of Labour." All a mistake!

Bill 89, Mr. Speaker, is a bill composed entirely of amendments to the Labour Code of British Columbia. It is a bill with no central philosophy or theme - it is a bill of amendments. The minister states in the Vancouver Province that it's "all a mistake." He gets up in the House this morning, Mr. Speaker, when he introduces second reading, and he confirms that, indeed, the press account is correct and his amendments are a mistake. He wants a serious debate on principle in second reading on a bill that is all a mistake, a bill that he's demonstrated an inability to understand, a bill that he's announced amendments to - amendments to the amendments, Mr. Speaker, because that's what this bill is: amendments. That's all it is. How can we debate the principle of a bill where the amendments contained in that bill are going to be amended, and to what extent neither we nor the minister apparently know?

I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, what the minister said about some parts of the bill: "The minister vigorously defended the change to 55 per cent when Bill 89 containing the amendment was introduced Tuesday. He said it was this defence at a news conference that made him realize an error had been made." Thank God for the press conference!

AN HON. MEMBER: He started listening to himself.

MR. KING: The working people of British Columbia no longer rely on this Legislature to protect their rights. They have to rely on a press conference outside in the corridor to make the minister understand what he has introduced. And his man is called competent?

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I'm never afraid to stand in my place and speak on a matter of principle, because I've never deserted the party I believe in or the workers of this province - neither one! This is not only blatant disregard and contempt for the rights of working people, it's incompetence of the highest order. This is going to bring chaos and inflame the whole labour relations climate in this province, when it should be the obligation and the purpose of the minister to soothe that climate, to bring protection to working people and to improve their standard of living in the province, rather than eroding it through back-door attempts to destroy their rights - rights that have been won, not only in this Legislature, but through the activities of the trade union movement over centuries.

What bumbling, what incompetence, what ineptitude! What departure from any pretext of principle! I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I could expect nothing else. I could expect nothing else. It's ironic and it's significant and it's instructive that today, facing the heat on this issue, Mr. Speaker, are the remnants of the old Liberal Party who swallowed their pride and their principles and joined that coalition.

Where is the Premier today? Where are the other Socred cabinet ministers who should be here, prepared to debate this bill. They're on a junket to Europe to escape the heat and the controversy that surrounds this very, very significant bill that's before the House at this particular time.

The minister made some interesting statements. I

[ Page 5367 ]

can forgive him his refusal to understand the role that he occupies. The Minister of Labour talked about the public interest. He said it's not just labour and management and the unorganized workers that we deal with in this bill. He said it's not just them - it's the public interest. Who the hell does the minister think the public is, Mr. Speaker? Who does he think the public is? Only 43 per cent of working people in this province enjoy the protection of a trade union. And he has the gall to stand up there and talk about public interest, as if the working people are animals, not human beings.

What do you think the public is? They're not in an ivory tower. They're not elitists who come from some secure, little, tight entity like the Bar Association. They are real people out there in the plants who produce the wealth of this province. That's who they are. Public interest, indeed! The minister's obligation, Mr. Speaker.... I'm sorry. I withdraw the previous comment I made, which I think was unparliamentary.

MR. BARRETT: Who in heaven's name?

MR. KING: Quite frankly, it angers me extremely, Mr. Speaker, when I see some dilettante get up and presume to put this bill forward as something that is going to benefit working people in the province. Either the man is completely ignorant of the needs of working people or he's simply deluding himself - or lie's dishonest. I don't know which of the three it is. But to put this trash forward without consultation with any of the representatives of working people in the province - presumably his only contact was with management groups - and then to come into this House and say that this is going to provide assistance to trade unions and working people, is sheer nonsense and hypocrisy. That's what the minister said.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't say that.

MR. BARRETT: Now he's denying he said it's going to make it easier for them.

MR. KING: The minister can't remember what he has said from one moment to the next. First he says, "I confirm the press report, " and then lie denies it. He denies other things. I suppose that's understandable, Mr. Speaker. The minister doesn't remember which party he belongs to from day to day.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Is that the best they can do? That's the best you can do, is it? Where are all your troops? Where are they all?

MR. KING: I just hope, Mr. Speaker, that the vocal Minister of Corpulent, Corporate and

Consumer Affairs will get up and speak on this bill. I hope some of those backbenchers who campaigned as great freedom fighters will get up and participate in this debate, too. I would like to hear the views of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and I would like to hear the views of the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) . I would like to determine just what we can expect in the way of further labour legislation as time goes on under this coalition government. Certainly the extreme attitudes that have been expressed in this House are having their impact on the Minister of Labour.

The only disagreement I have with my colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford) , Mr. Speaker, is on her assessment of the minister - that he is some altruist trying to resist the pressure of extremists within his own group and protect the status quo in industrial relations in this province. I disagree with that. I think the minister, for his own credibility, has been trying to give that impression, but I believe his views are as extreme as those of anyone else. He expressed those views when he was a Liberal member of this House and was advocating greater control and regulation of the trade union movement. He and his colleague, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , did the same thing.

One of the things he is is abjectly weak. He apparently doesn't understand the technical aspects of legislation. He has demonstrated that. He's abjectly weak because he has allowed the Attorney-General, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , the Premier, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , all to enunciate statements on labour policy in this province. He has allowed two of them to introduce legislative amendments that were directly under his jurisdiction. He has allowed that to go on without once getting up and saying to the working people of this province: "I, as the Minister of Labour, will protect the statutory rights of working people." He has sat silent, and by his silence, Mr. Speaker, one can only conclude that he approves completely of the incursions being made by other ministers into his jurisdiction.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I think it's fair to conclude that when he has sat silent - he's involved in a deliberate strategy, a deliberate plan. This government would like to make major changes to labour legislation in the province. There's no question about that. It arose at their provincial convention where they wanted right-to-work laws. The Minister of Labour and the Premier were able to beat that attempt back, not because they disagreed with it, but simply because they didn't think it was politically acceptable.

The thing that angers me so much, Mr. Speaker, is that all of the labour amendments that have come

[ Page 5368 ]

before this House this session have been through the back door. There has not been a frontal approach and a philosophical debate by the government about where they're going in labour relations. Apparently they lack that courage. Rather, there has been a back-door peripheral erosion by allowing the Minister of Education to pass an innocuous Section 1n another bill removing the protection of the Labour Code from university faculty members. There has been a back-door approach by the Minister of Human Resources interfering with the organization rights and the preference of union rights with the Vancouver Resources Board people. There's been a similar intrusion by the Minister of Education at Notre Dame University.

Mr. Speaker, this has to be a deliberate strategy; this has to be a plan. I want to say that if this particular bill goes through without the government having the good sense to pull back, reconsider and reassess their position, the working people and the trade union movement of this province can only conclude that this is just the beginning. This is the embryonic birth of the Socred campaign to take us back to pre-1972; to take us back to a one-sided system of labour law in this province where management holds ail the hammers and where we have a system of confrontation that is as inflammatory as ever before in history. These are the conclusions one has to draw.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

The minister is so abysmally weak in terms of his whole approach to this matter that I certainly endorse the amendment put forward by my colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford) . In good conscience, the only alternative for the minister is to withdraw the bill. Hoist it for six months; study the technicalities of it. I don't think the minister has consulted with anyone other than employers' pressure groups. They make general observations; they are not competent in terms of the technical aspects of legislation.

I strongly doubt, , and I certainly throw out the challenge to the minister to get up and tell this House whether or not these amendments came as a response to any representations by the Labour Relations Board. He referred to the board, Mr. Speaker, and he suggested or inferred that some of the amendments were brought about by problems of interpretation at the Labour Relations Board. I think that's patent nonsense. I don't think the minister has even talked to the board with respect to the wisdom of these amendments. In fact, I'm pretty certain that that's the case.

MR. BARRETT: Ask him if he has.

MR. KING: But I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker:

some of the amendments that have been introduced now are going to make life completely intolerable for the Labour Relations Board.

MR. BARRETT: Have you talked to them?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I've talked to them.

MR. BARRETT: Whom did you talk to, the Labour Relations Board?

MR. KING: I don't believe he did, not with respect to these amendments. I don't believe that, and I defy the minister to get up in this House and let us know whom he consulted with. He's already admitted in the press that he had no prior consultation with the trade union movement.

He's admitted, by inference at least, that the amendments were brought about as a result of representations from management groups. Under those circumstances, he's foregone any pretence whatsoever of impartiality in terms of his role as Labour minister. But certainly, if he is interested in attempting to regain some semblance of credibility, the only honourable thing to do is withdraw the bill. Give not only the people affected by it an opportunity to study it and to make representation to the minister, but, above all, provide the time so he himself can study the bill, consult with the technical people in his own department as well as others and understand precisely what he is doing. Apparently, that's not the case at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, the position that the minister holds is a very difficult one. I appreciate that as well as anyone else in this province, having occupied it for a period of time. I know that it's not possible to always escape controversy and to always have unanimity from the community on moves that are made. But you know, there's great validity to the points that have been made in editorial after editorial and article after article in newspapers over the last few days, to the effect that there was no need to interfere with the Labour Code at this time; the climate of industrial relations in the province was relatively stable and working fairly well.

I think Jack Munro, the chairman of the IWA, was on TV the other night and he made a good point -that the trade union movement had been working hard and responsibly to make the system, which is now functional, work. He pointed out that major negotiations have just been concluded in the forest industry, and that great effort was made by the trade union movement, not only in that industry but in others, and by industry itself, to prevent any major work disruptions this year. There's general concern about the economy.

Isn't it ironic that that particular government and that particular party, as well as the press and media,

[ Page 5369 ]

so frequently criticize the trade union movement and challenge them to show maturity and responsibility and sensitivity to the public good and to their social obligations? I would say that that is precisely what the trade union movement has done this year, and what thanks do they get for it? They get a complete stab in the back, a complete sellout by the one member of cabinet who is supposed to defend the rights of working people in this province.

That may not be his motivation, I don't know. Perhaps he thinks he's doing the right thing. But he cannot ignore and hold himself separate and immune from the consequence of what he's doing in the community, and that is the feeling and that is the consequence, Mr. Speaker.

In the name of all that's sane and all that's reasonable, I say to the minister, if you are genuinely concerned about improving the climate of industrial relations in this province, you will withdraw this bill; you will agree to this amendment to hoist it for six months, so there can be proper dialogue, dialogue which you admittedly have not undertaken as yet. Give the people a chance. There's no need to rush this bill through the House right now, this session. Why the great haste and great speed, as my colleague has asked?

There's no crisis situation in the province of British Columbia that demands attention through these amendments - none whatsoever. That's correct. The only crisis being created is being created by these amendments and by the minister's own approach. That's the only crisis; that's the only chaos we face.

I strongly feel the minister should agree to the amendments, and show some sense of leadership, some sense of being amenable to dialogue and discussion with those people whose lives he's affecting. Support the amendments and hoist this bill for six months, and we'll try to help the minister understand what he's doing, and bring some common sense to the approach.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to say very much more on it, but I just want to make one other point to the minister. We're going to get into the main debate on the amendment at some time down the road. I hope it's much, much later. I can't let go unchallenged what the minister has said with respect to the employer's role in a union organization campaign. Apparently he doesn't understand the need for the historical practice of ensuring and insisting that the employer maintain complete neutrality during the course of an organizing campaign. I want to tell him that what he's done in, I believe, the amendments to section 3 (h) . . . . The minister commented on them. I want to tell him that this is an area where he should consult with the Labour Relations Board before he takes another step.

The proposal that the minister is putting forward maybe in his mind is innocuous, but, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no way that kind of policy can be policed and controlled by the Labour Relations Board. The consequence will be intimidation and coercion by certain employers when their employees seek to organize and join a trade union so that they may bargain collectively. Perhaps the minister doesn't know the subtle nature of the problem in this regard. He should do. Had he talked to the Labour Relations Board and read their cases, perhaps he would understand it better. Once that door is opened, and the strict neutrality that the employer was required to keep is compromised whatsoever, the job of the Labour Relations Board in policing this kind of intrusion becomes absolutely impossible. Absolutely impossible. The result will be the most unfair and subtle labour practices that have ever been witnessed in this province. We have had experience, and the minister is aware of certain blatant cases that have been fought in this province for years and created tremendous strife and unrest in industrial relations. I refer. to the Sandman Inn as one. I think the minister knows who owns that. Some of these approaches and attacks are extremely subtle and destructive.

The minister is apparently persuaded that the unfair labour practice sections of the Code are still going to insulate people from that kind of conduct by employers. I want to submit to him, Mr. Speaker, that he is dead wrong. I strongly urge that he consult with the trade union movement on this particular matter, so that he starts to understand the difficulties that are posed, and with the Labour Relations Board. They're a judicious group, and I think they've been performing very well. They've done a sound job of dampening a hostile industrial relations climate in this province. There are those who have criticism. I submit that any adjudicative body is always going to be criticized to some extent, but by and large they've done an excellent job. They have credibility both with labour and management. They're recognized as judicious and impartial. For the minister to make these kinds of changes without regard to the very difficult and delicate job that the board is doing is really unpardonable. I hope the minister looks very seriously at that question before he calls this bill back for debate in the House again. I do hope, and I do urge it with all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that the minister himself will indicate that he will accept the amendment that is now before the House.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): With leave, I would like to introduce a group of people who are visiting the gallery in the precinct today. They are 38 people from all over the world. They are members of the World Council of the Young Men's Service Clubs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We are on the debate to the amendment.

[ Page 5370 ]

MR. KAHL: Yes, I realize that, Mr. Speaker. I did ask for leave.

Leave granted.

MR. KAHL: Thank you. They are visiting the city of Victoria. They're from all over the world: Zambia, the Netherlands, Europe, England. I know the assembly will welcome them to the gallery with me. Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: I'm certainly going to support this amendment to hoist this bill for six months, and so, I submit, should every member in this House. In the first place there is nothing in this bill of urgency. There is nothing that can't wait for six months to pass into law, and there is a good deal that should never be passed into law at any time.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Far worse, Mr. Speaker, as far as I'm concerned, is the way the question of how the amendments have been handled. Both as a representative of a constituency and a certain segment of opinion in this province, and as a member of this House, I resent very much the attempt to ram this bill through the Legislature without proper information available to us. Our hands are tied in this debate. It's like trying to pin the tail on the donkey, and the minister has supplied us with a blindfold.

MR. BARRETT: And the donkey.

MR. GIBSON: And the donkey, perhaps. That analogy isn't bad because, though this bill ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the donkey?

MR. GIBSON: ... has some merits, on balance it is an asinine bill. I'll save the details for the second reading debate, but the minister has to understand that the organization and certification amendments proposed in this bill, even after what little we know of his amendments, are bad. The ability of the employer and the trade union to communicate with the employee is very seriously shifted toward the employer. The employer's influence is tremendously raised by this bill. The union's influence is cut back. That is a serious shift in balance that, in my opinion, is wrong. There are some good parts - the right of the employer to communicate, I don't question that - but the balance has shifted too far. The raising of the representation vote threshold from 35 per cent to 40 per cent is wrong. It's perhaps the most serious part of the bill, perhaps worse than the 55 per cent, which the minister is apparently going to take out. Mr. Speaker, the 45 per cent threshold is much, much higher. In any representation question, when you take away those who are apathetic and those who are afraid, what you've got left is a much smaller number, and 35 per cent is a consequential fraction of that residual number. After all, Mr. Speaker, we're talking just about permission to hold a vote. Why should a democrat ever be afraid of holding a vote?

MR. BARRETT: Is that the same with the lawyers? Do the lawyers have the same thing?

MR. GIBSON: If 35 per cent of the members of any bargaining unit want to have a representation vote, Mr. Speaker, I say they should have it. Under the rules we're only allowed to go so far in this particular question and we have to talk about the six-month hoist. I'll try and restrain myself.

MR. BARRETT: You're just like your dad.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, let me give an analogy on the position of the Legislature in trying to debate this bill without the text of the amendment. The minister is a lawyer. Our minister goes into court - I don't care whether he is the defence or the prosecution - and his opponent says to him: "You have to make your case, but you're not going to hear mine." The minister as a lawyer would be outraged if that was proposed to him. As a member of this House I'm outraged that he's proposing that to us. Why the rush? Why couldn't this debate wait until those amendments have been put on the order paper? We would know precisely what they were without the inevitable confusion that we've seen in the debate already today.

MR. BARRETT: They have to rush it before they find more mistakes.

MR. GIBSON: What is the rush? We've never had greater labour peace in this province, Mr. Speaker, for years.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Code is working.

MR. GIBSON: The Code appears to be working reasonably well. Then all of a sudden at the behest of that minister, or apparently at his behest...

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Could it be they want confrontation?

MR. GIBSON: ... you would have to make that move. That's the next question, or the next after the next question, because that's on the page after the one I'm going to refer to. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I think what's happened today must be a terrible embarrassment to the minister.

[ Page 5371 ]

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you're wrong there.

MR. GIBSON: I think that others called the signals in the first bill that we had. I remember in question period a few weeks ago I said to the minister: "Were you consulted on the labour section draft in the Bills 65 and 68?" You recall he kind of flushed and he sat there and didn't say a word.

MR. BARRETT: He knew the answer.

MR. GIBSON: I think I know the answer. I think he wasn't consulted. How much of that kind of influence is going on here? Who called this latest signal that there are going to be some changes?

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Bennett.

MR. BARRETT: No, this is all his own. He wants some recognition.

MR. GIBSON: I don't know. I was so puzzled I looked for a precedent. The only precedent I could find for this kind of action was in Alice in Wonderland, and as we had read in Alice in Wonderland I find who called the signals for this change. It was Tweedle Dee, because Tweedle Dee ...

MR. BARRETT: No, Tweedle Dum.

MR. GIBSON: It is Tweedle Dee in this edition, page 68. I'm quoting him: "Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." (Laughter.) That ends the quote.

MR. BARRETT: You're out of order - you're not supposed to refer to the sections.

MR. GIBSON: That's a change of heart in this bill, "as it isn't, it ain't, " but we don't know quite what it is because the minister is not prepared to tell us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's a little difficult for the Chair to determine exactly what is in order and out of order under the scope. (Laughter.)

Perhaps it's enough to remind the hon. member that on the amendment the scope is not as broad as it would be under second reading. Perhaps the member could limit his debate to the reasons for hoisting the bill six months.

MR. GIBSON: I want to refer to the timing, and wonder why this bill was brought in now. In a time of labour peace, bringing in this particular legislation was either very foolish in terms of causing a great deal of trouble for very little bit of gain, or it may have been Machiavellian, as suggested by Ashley Ford in what I thought was a very perceptive column yesterday - and the hon. member for Comox (Mr. Sanford) referred to it. There may be forces in the Social Credit Party who would just as soon have a confrontation with the labour movement. I hope and pray that the minister will never allow himself to be used as the tool of those particular forces, but I say to him as well, in this bill, whether he knows it or not, he is being so used.

We have had a year of relative labour-management peace in British Columbia until this bill came along. We have had the budding of a climate of trust, I believe from my observations, between the minister and the labour community. We have had a climate of realism that has been dominating negotiations. If this bill is not hoisted for six months, negotiations are now going to commence to be dominated by questions of union security, because this bill attacks union security. It attacks organization security.

The minister is shaking his head. It assists union security in particular, by adding the Rand formula. I agree to that. But in a far more fundamental way, in the ability of trade unions to organize, it attacks union security. Anytime you attack union security, you're naturally going to get the kind of reaction that says: "I'm less secure so I have to fight harder."

Mr. Speaker, labour law must be perceived as fair by both sides. The minister knows that. Equally, he knows that this bill is not. Saddest of all, of course, because of the organization sections, it works mostly against the powerless in our society - the unorganized worker - who more than anyone else is a victim of this bill. Though it will be largely represented as the trade unions, it's the unorganized worker, again as pointed out by the hon. member for Comox, who will suffer most if these particular provisions go through.

We are being asked to believe by the minister, Mr. Chairman, that there has been a drafting error. We're being asked to believe by a minister that he's become a graduate of the Rosemary Woods school of memory training. A drafting error! Mr. Speaker, the minister has a reputation as the most careful, competent, precise draftsman in this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: He had.

MR. LEA: He doesn't agree with it now. He said no.

MR. GIBSON: I believe he still has. The fine print is his business, Mr. Member. You know how these bills are drafted. A cabinet committee on legislation goes over them line by line. The minister is sitting there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's the chairman of that committee?

[ Page 5372 ]

MR. GIBSON: Is the minister the chairman of that committee? They go over it line by line. From various parts of the building, you can see them toiling in the various committee rooms. And you think: aren't those hard-working people? What are they doing in there? Are they making drafting errors?

MR. LAUK: They're catching a draft.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I find that a little hard to believe. The minister has a competent deputy. Did the deputy not catch the drafting error, if it was a drafting error? The minister defended this alleged drafting error at the press conference.

MR. KING: Maybe he never told the deputy he was bringing it in.

MR. GIBSON: If it was a drafting error, what was he doing defending it? I'll just quote the Vancouver Province here this morning: "The minister vigorously defended the change to 55 per cent when Bill 89 containing the amendment was introduced Tuesday. He said that this defence at a news conference had made him realize an error had been made." (Laughter.) I'll run that past you again. He said: "It was this defence at a news conference that made him realize an error had been made."

MR. BARRETT: What would happen if he hadn't shown up at his news conference?

MR. GIBSON: I guess maybe we would have had the bill as originally drafted. Or maybe someone else would have caught the error. I don't know. The section says very clearly: "Certification." When you read through the Labour Code, the note at the side says: "Certification." Can you imagine the cabinet committee going through this? They come down and they're looking at the existing law. Then they're looking at the amendment and they see the existing law says: "Certification." They scratch their heads a minute and they say: "Well, there's a 55 per cent number here." And the minister says: "Well, no, that 55 per cent number was really meant to refer to section 43 or something like that, but at the moment we're on section 45. Isn't that a funny thing?" Is that how it works? That strains my credulity a bit.

The minister asks us to believe it's a mistake. The minister must believe the public is a bunch of fools, and I don't think they are.

Mr. Speaker, the change - if that's what it's to be when we see the amendment - from 55 per cent to 50 per cent, is good. But that's not the question. The explanation is unworthy of the minister. That's the question. Let us hear testimony from every member of that cabinet committee on legislation, as to exactly how that drafting error took place, and whether or not that figure of 55 per cent was rather thoroughly considered and canvassed. Let us hear what caucus discussions had to say about that 55 per cent figure for certification. Let us hear from the minister's department - his officials who participated in the drafting and the review of the legislation - and the Attorney-General's department officials who participated in the drafting of that legislation.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: All of whom are impugned, as the member says, by this concept of an error. If this is to be held forth before the public of British Columbia as being a simple mistake, I want to see some proof as to exactly how that mistake happened. It's perhaps again turning to Alice in Wonderland.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Lewis Carroll drafted this legislation.

MR. KING: Allan in Wonderland.

MR. GIBSON: Humpty Dumpty is explaining how he uses language.

" 'When I use a word, ' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

" 'The question is, ' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

" 'The question is, ' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

MR. BARRETT: Who's going to put him back together again?

MR. GIBSON: Well, he fell off a wall on this one.

MR. LAUK: And broke his suit.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just hope, without being able at this point to go in greater detail into the merits, of which there are some, and the demerits, which are consequential, of the bill, I would just express the hope that the minister would accept this amendment, If he doesn't accept the amendment, at least have the courtesy to this House to move the adjournment of this debate until Monday, when those amendments are on the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, was that a motion? Did you move adjournment of this debate?

MR. GIBSON: No, no. I asked the minister to agree to move adjournment. But it's a good idea, Mr. Speaker. I move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[ Page 5373 ]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 16

NAYS - 24

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I asked you to take under advisement my earlier request for a point of order. For further argument on that point of order, a very unusual happening has just taken place, where amendments have been placed on the table related to this bill but not fully distributed to every member in this House and, as I complained of earlier, were not on the orders of the day. I find it highly unusual in the middle of the debate, if not irregular.

I ask your ruling on this, because it's unprecedented, that I know of, for amendments to be tabled in the middle of the debate and announced publicly, and the debate's still going on. It is either incompetence by the House Leader, or the minister has not fully revealed to this House exactly what we have to debate. How can we stay in order if we don't know what we're debating?

Plus, Mr. Speaker, the common courtesy.... I know that the government is a bottom-line dollar, but would it please make duplicates for every member of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! With respect to....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Incompetent!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! With respect to the matter raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, it is not uncommon to have amendments filed at the Clerk's table during debate on bills. The amendments have been filed. I would suspect that there was a courtesy extended to some of the members of the House and that copies of the amendments tabled at the Clerk's table have been distributed to them. In no way can that be regarded as an improper practice.

MR. BARRETT: Does that make for orderly business and normal practice, Mr. Speaker? That's what I'm asking for ruling on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with many of the comments that have been made supporting the amendment to hoist. The first reading of this bill was September 6. Today is September 9 and that, in regard to any bill in this Legislature, is leaving a very minimal amount of time for study of the bill, public reaction and comment by interested parties. In this case, we're well aware of the fact that the public interest is a major factor. So whether it were a labour bill or any other bill, I think the minister would have to agree that this is a pretty prompt start to second reading on September 9 when the bill was first introduced in the House on the 6th.

Beyond that basic point, to start with, I would suggest that the intensity of reaction by the labour movement in the province and the fact that any serious damage to the delicate balance we've heard about is of serious import to the public at large, would surely be evidence enough to indicate that there would be some delay. I suppose the only technique in our House rules is to delay it for six months, but whether or not six months is necessary to review this bill, there is certainly a lot of evidence to suggest that it would be wise to at least delay the bill beyond this present morning of Friday, September 9, and give time for some further review of what the amendments really mean and perhaps to bring about less inflamed and less hostile atmosphere in which the review or the discussions can take place.

I would have to agree with the other comments of the speakers who have spoken this morning that if this bill is causing the tremendous concern - as it obviously is - to the labour movement and since everyone has agreed that there has been a relatively stable period of industrial relations peace in the last year or so, why, with this particular bill and with all this haste, run the risk of causing some serious and abrupt change of direction? In the present, relatively stable situation that exists between labour and management in this province.... Now, Mr. Speaker, I know very well that things are far from perfect. We're dealing with a relationship between human groups that will always be sensitive, subject to misinterpretation and will always call for a most sensitive and delicate hand on the controls. It's obvious that time is perhaps the most important factor in any sensitive relationship of that kind. Where one side to a situation makes an abrupt move, the other side is liable to overreact or take actions in

[ Page 5374 ]

fear or apprehension which, given time, might be mollified to some degree.

Regardless of the intent or the actual impact of the amendments which we're not now discussing, the suggestion that we hoist the bill to be considered later.... Regardless of the impact of these amendments and the meaning of these amendments, the tremendous concern and potential for disruption of industrial relations in the province is particularly great. When we add to that the fact that the minister has given the opposition leaders notice of further proposed amendments, which I might say, Mr. Speaker, don't seem to change very much.... I know that we can't debate that point I'm making, but at least the minister sent over these further proposed amendments to opposition leaders. At very first glimpse, having only received these amendments in the last five minutes, I can't see that the basic amendment changes very much.

When you consider all these facts, it would seem only common sense to at least leave the weekend for all parties concerned to sit back and re-read the amendments and try to determine, in an atmosphere of greater maturity perhaps, and in a calmer and less emotional atmosphere, what the amendments really mean. Then come back in to this House, if only two or three days from now, and try to work out a happier compromise than obviously will ever be obtained if we continue this debate in the present atmosphere and with the degree of misunderstanding that obviously exists as to the true impact and intent of some of these amendments.

The minister has been bitterly criticized by speakers in the House today. As I've said so many times, it's always easy to be negative in this House and to try to make yourself look large by making someone else look small. I think if we could suspend debate or discontinue the debate until a later date, and return to debate the facts and the content of these amendments rather than some of the elements of personality and innuendo that have gone on all morning, then we might come up with a bill that's more accurate and represents a compromise that both sides of the House could probably accept.

Much reference has been made to the most recent statement by the minister that the misunderstanding which the amendments have caused is partly at least related to a simple drafting error, Whether or not that's an accurate interpretation of what has happened, the fundamental fact is that this bill has the great potential to suddenly shatter the kind of industrial relations peace which has existed in the province for a year or more. Regardless of all the other arguments, some of which have been rather peripheral today to say the least, the one central argument is that regardless of the intent or the impact of these amendments, what they have obviously done is to suddenly raise the spectre of a complete and abrupt shattering of relative industrial relations peace in the province.

I would say that in such an important issue for the economy of this province and the peace of this province - and God knows we've got enough trouble with unemployment for one thing and inflation and all these other problems - do we need to stir up this kind of hornets' nest and bring about confrontation between management and labour? The scene has been relatively peaceful. There is no situation that I'm aware of which brings a sense of urgency to the introduction and debate of these amendments at this particular time.

I don't think anybody on the government's side has even tried to claim that there is this urgency or need. But whatever side of the House we sit on, it's quite obvious that this bill has very quickly and suddenly shattered or threatened to shatter stability and relative peace and harmony. I say "relative" because we all know that the labour-management scene will never be suitable as being designated as peaceful. At least, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) stated, before 1972 we went from one miserable situation of confrontation to another. Over the last several years, despite the problems that have arisen, there has been a reasonable degree of compromise and understanding between the two sides.

So for all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the very least we should do is not continue this debate right now when there is, apart from anything else, an obvious lack of full understanding as to exactly what the amendments are intended to do, particularly in relation to organization of unions.

All I can see, if we persist, is that this House just never seems to learn that it is a matter of one side trying to prove to the other which is stronger, rather than one side trying to prove which is saner. I see nothing mature or sane or even reasonable about persisting with this debate in the light of the lack of urgency that the bill be passed, the misunderstanding that has occurred and, by no means least, the fact that if it is pushed through, then, indeed, the sudden and dramatic and tragic way in which industrial relations are suddenly going to be brought to fever pitch in the province will have long-term results, which I'm sure this minister himself would not want to see.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think it makes eminent good sense that this legislation be hoisted. As I said earlier, I know the technique of using the six-month hoist is the only one available. I don't necessarily believe it should be hoisted for six months, but I do regret that we couldn't find it in our collective wisdom to adjourn the debate until next Monday.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): We do it -

[ Page 5375 ]

move the adjournment.

MR. WALLACE: Is that in order, to move such an adjournment after we have already debated?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Oak Bay is the voice of sweet reason again, and I appreciate the member when he is the voice of sweet reason - with good reason. But, Mr. Speaker, his charge that there are irresponsible suggestions being made in this House and his suggestion that there be a voice of sweet reason from those who understand this bill, is asking a great deal. This bill is a terrible mistake. The minister made a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, we've asked that this bill be hoisted for six months - six full months - because of the fact that we realize what a mistake he has made. We hope that during that six-month period he will realize the mistake, finally come to his senses and decide to bring about labour peace as opposed to labour confusion.

Mr. Speaker, this House is confused today. The minister is in disarray - sending messages across the floor. He admits that it is all a mistake, and I suggest to you that that is the reason for the hoist. What else can we suggest?

I ask you a couple of questions, Mr. Speaker. Who asked for this legislation in the first place? Was it the employers? The employers are now engaged in relative labour peace because of the Labour Code that was introduced some time ago in this province by the then NDP government. I doubt if they're asking for it. They don't want trouble. Certainly the labour movement hasn't been asking for it.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, as a result of orders from that right-wing Premier that we have in this province, the right-wing Premier who is anti-labour and never had anything to do with organized labour in his life.... He asked for it, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, he demanded it. His last words when he left this province were obviously: "Get that bill through while I'm away." Arid, do you know, they respond in knee-jerk fashion, that cabinet does. Even the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who thought his Bill 82 was coming up today, came in here with all his officials, ready to answer the questions in committee stage of Bill 82. And he was informed as he walked in the door: "Your bill isn't coming up today. The First Minister has demanded that this bill be put forward."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not true.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General says that's not true. We've had bills sitting before this Legislature for months and months on end and never brought forward. The VRB bill - never brought forward. Yet we introduce a piece of labour legislation that is awesome, and it has to be debated within three days. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a mistake. What should the minister do about that mistake? He should do as follows with that mistake, Mr. Speaker. That's what you do with mistakes - you start all over again.

MR. LAUK: Where is he now?

MS. BROWN: Hiding.

MR. COCKE: Where is he now? Mr. Speaker, that minister has obviously taken the dictation of the car dealers, because that's who wants this kind of legislation. Service industry in this province wants this kind of legislation. They've been resisting any kind of organization over the years, and this legislation gives them exactly what they want,

You talk about the right to work. There is a right-to-work element in this legislation. The minister knows it, Mr. Speaker. Make it difficult - make it impossible if you can - and then come in here and have the audacity to say that it is as easy to organize now as it was before.

Mr. Speaker, the day this bill is proclaimed, it's eminently clear that it cannot be that way. The minister is not being fair with this House; the minister's not being candid with the House when he makes those kinds of statements. That's who wrote the bill. The bill was written by that bunch of right-wing Munchkins over there who represent the service industry and the car dealers in this province. That's what they want. They want repression and that's what they're giving us. Mr. Speaker, this great group of freedom fighters, using the seagull as their emblem.... Which end of the seagull are we looking at now? It's not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, the consultation that has gone on, has gone on with the back bench. It's gone on with the car dealers-, it's gone on with the service industry. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that there's been no consultation at all with those most affected. And those most affected are the people in the service industry.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I am choking on this bill, and I hope every right-thinking person in this province chokes on this bill. It's a horrible piece of legislation, and that's why it should be hoisted, giving the minister time to think over this tragic mistake, a mistake he admits.

The Province editorial said yesterday that it's not quite right-to-work legislation, or it's better - not much.

MR. LEA: During the discussion on another bill,

[ Page 5376 ]

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , when it was pretty well recognized in this province that we had a pussycat for a minister, wouldn't go in and fight for those people that his jurisdiction demands he fight for - the municipalities. We find now that we have a litter - Mr. Meow. Mr. Meow is being pushed around from one way to the other way. The question has to be asked: who asked for these amendments in the first place?

MR. KING: He figures he's the cat's meow.

MR. LEA: He's not; he's just plain Mr. Meow, being pushed around hither and thither. Because what is happening is that we have one group of people demanding from this minister that he use certain things; then, when he gets into hot water, another group of people is demanding that he do other things.

Mr. Speaker, we should have a minister who knows what he wants to do. We should have a minister in charge of Labour who has some idea of the correct course to set, not a minister who's pushed one way and pushed another, whether it's by his colleagues in cabinet and in the caucus or whether it's by the employer. But that's what happened. We have right-wing hawks in the cabinet who do not understand anything to do with management-labour relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: And right-wing seagulls.

MR. LEA: And right-wing seagulls, which fly in a circle around the parliament buildings and always go that way. Every time they get over the Minister of Labour's office, they give him a message, and he brings those messages in here like a good little boy. They react to authority. Anybody who tells them to do something and whom they consider to be in a higher place of authority in society than they are themselves, they will listen to.

That is what this government and that minister is doing in terms of labour relations. They're listening to people who they feel are more informed than them on which course to go - and that's management. They couldn't stand on this side of the House year after year, while we were in government, and call unions every bad name in the book, especially people who were in the Liberal party then switched to the Socreds ... and talk about how labour is the bad boy; how labour is doing everything wrong; how labour is the people, who should be punished; and then get appointed to cabinet as the Labour minister, and say now he's for the worker as much as for management. You can't have it both ways. He brings in an amendment. We have to understand that first of all, the one amendment says that it's going to be changed from a simple majority to 55 per cent, which he says was a mistake. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to make that kind of a mistake. Because if you didn't want to tamper with that section and you wanted it to remain the same, you wouldn't have brought in any amendment.

Is he saying that it was a mistake that they brought in any amendment in the first place? The cabinet committee on legislation, his department and he himself, missed a whole section! That was a mistake? We're not just talking about the percentage being a mistake. He's saying that the whole section was in error and shouldn't have been brought in in the first place. Then, after he introduced it, he went to the media and defended it. Then when it got a little hot in the kitchen, he said: "I'm sorry, it was a mistake."

You know, we have time to correct a mistake in this instance, if it indeed was a mistake, and I don't think anyone on this or that side of the House, or in public, believes. it was a mistake. But we do have an opportunity to correct things before it gets to the point where we have disruption in this province. But what about the future? What about a Minister of Labour who admits to this kind of mistake when down the road we could have very serious problems that could have very serious consequences for this province? A Minister of Labour who makes this kind of mistake.... He's the person in whom we're going to put our trust to keep peace and to make sure that things run in an orderly way. What's the next mistake? Is it going to be bigger or smaller? We can assume from a stupid, stupid mistake like this - if that's what it is - that he's going to make more. When, where and what will the next mistake be?

The first mistake was appointing a person who is so obviously antilabour to the ministry. All you have to do is go back through his speeches when he sat on this side of the House as a Liberal and as a Socred to find out how anti-labour the minister really is. But once, of course, assuming the position of Minister of Labour, then he says: "I'm all responsible. I've always thought the workers should have a share and a good break." But his actions belie the words. His actions through legislation are anti-labour, anti-working-people, and yet his words say he isn't. In fact, he says that it will help.

What we have is a minister who has not got the guts to stand up to his colleagues or to management. All he does in this Legislature is sit red-faced in debate after debate. When other ministers are encroaching into his jurisdiction he sits red-faced and says nothing, and then when he brings in his own legislation it's bungled from one end to the other and he has to admit it. Where is that cool, collected minister today? At the first hint of trouble we're all in trouble. The reason that he had any reputation as being cool and competent is because he had never run into any trouble. The first sign of trouble and we find out that he's Mr. Meow.

[ Page 5377 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the debate at the moment is on an amendment to hoist the bill. I would appreciate it if you would direct your remarks to that matter.

MR. LEA: I don't know how much clearer I have to be, Mr. Speaker. The fact that we have a minister who is incompetent bringing in legislation and bungling it as he goes along is obviously enough reason to hoist this bill for six months. The minister's words and his actions over the past while tell us that he is not competent to be the Labour minister in this province, or in any other province. We're asked to debate a bill that he admits bungling from one end to the other.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows lie doesn't feel comfortable in that position. The only time that minister feels comfortable is when he is with whom he considers to be his own peer group, and he sure doesn't consider working people to be his peer group. We now have evidence, evidence of the highest order, not only suggesting but proving that we have a minister who is a bungler, who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

But when you analyse it all and put it into one package, you get a minister who wants to be over there so much that he'll do anything. He'll jump parties; he'll leave the morals behind; and he'll run this way and he'll run that way. Then, when he gets there, the stage is already set. Once you've made the first stupid bungling move of ruining a career, then it goes on and it goes on. This is what we end up with. A minister who is now in a position to affect labour-management peace for the next few years has turned out to be a first-class bungler and a pussycat we can only call Mr. Meow. That's what we have.

What did he do this morning? He got up, when he introduced this bill, and that should have been enough reason to hoist it, because he couldn't even stop talking. He didn't even know what he was saying himself, But he kept going on and on and on because lie didn't know how to stop and didn't know what to say. He didn't know what to say and didn't know how to stop. On and on and on, rambling, not saying anything, really.

Those are the reasons that this bill should be hoisted. We have an incompetent, insensitive person who's doing nothing but attacking working people on behalf of the people out there who pay his campaign wages.

MR. LAUK: It's unfortunate indeed that the promising career of the Minister of Labour, on September 9,1977, has come to an abrupt end. Now his career will probably continue but it won't be promising. He's the only minister in recent British Columbia history who has managed, from my reading of the heading in the Vancouver Province this morning, to throw a cream pie in his own face.

He's stumbled - I should say staggered - from the disaster of the amendment to a really pathetic public response reported in the press, a response that is so incredible and pathetic and so completely out of character for this minister that I think we're seeing a day-by-day change in policy of the current cabinet so alarming, Mr. Speaker, that the government should give more than just token consideration to this amendment before us now.

The cabinet is obviously not of one mind in terms of labour legislation. It's clear that the Minister of Labour has a certain view of his role and of the role in government with labour-management relations other than the role envisaged by his old friends and colleagues, such as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , and different, certainly, than that role for labour-management relations envisaged by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . Both of those other ministers would take the arrogant and totalitarian measures of wiping out a trade union with the stroke of a pen.

We had thought, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour was not of that view. We had thought that he was waiting and biding his time and perhaps dealing with his colleagues in a straightforward, rational and forceful manner in the cabinet chamber. If he has done that, he's lost the battle. Many of us on this side of the House imagined that we were sharing this regret that he lost that battle, until of course the introduction of the bill that we're presently dealing with. This bill is a clear sell-out to business; it's a clear sell-out to management.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're dealing with the amendment at the present time, not the second reading of the bill.

MR. LAUK: I'm just relating the changes in policy and why we need more time to consider this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I'm contrasting the changes.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate that, hon. member. If you just stick to the reasons for hoisting, I think we will both be in agreement.

MR. LAUK: I am mentioning that point because it is an alarming change in apparent policy of the Minister of Labour. Apparently, up until now, Mr. Speaker, we've seen a Minister of Labour who has continued the Labour Code, who has sung its praises, who has gone out of his way to be available to labour and trade unions in the province and explain to them what a nice guy he is. They have believed him and quite frankly, so have we - until September 6,1977, when this bill was introduced.

Now it seems to me that something dramatic has happened in the very short term. The suggestions by

[ Page 5378 ]

my colleagues are that he received the word from the Premier: "You will deal with these amendments in my absence." As we know, the Premier doesn't take heat; he likes to protect himself. There's no reputation too great in his cabinet that couldn't be sacrificed to that end. That's the scenario we're looking at today.

I think this minister has personal courage. I think that it's temporarily suspended. It would be of great benefit to him and to this House if the government acceded to this motion to postpone the consideration of this bill for six months. That would be a wise thing for this minister to do.

I think the minister should consider another good reason for the suspension or the postponement of consideration of this bill. We have seen recently Len Guy of the B.C. Federation of Labour go out of his way to extend a hand of friendship to this minister.

MS. BROWN: And he bit it.

MR. LAUK: He extended the hand of friendship from the man who is in the position of representing organized labour in the province. This was recently reported, and it was hoped, I'm sure, that by this extension of friendship the minister would respond in kind, not to sell out his own principles but to continue and perhaps even improve his positive role in the labour-management field.

It was a matter of days when the minister bit the hand extended to him in friendship.

MS. BROWN: Good line, Gary. He gummed the hand to death, (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Isn't that a great line? Just a matter of days. I appreciate the help from my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. I wish it were funnier.

The shocking thing about that is that not only that Mr. Guy would believe you but that you would be so crass - I say through the Speaker to the minister - as to slap and insult organized labour so quickly after this extended hand of friendship was offered. That's another consideration the minister should have. You're in danger of destroying all of the political capital and good will that you've enjoyed since your taking office as the Minister of Labour, in one fell swoop. There is no need for these amendments, Mr. Speaker. They are silly amendments. Instead of enhancing labour management peace it will work opposite. You're destroying the tremendous advantage that has been built up over these last several years through the operation of the Labour Code.

No one said the Labour Code would work overnight. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan, when he was Minister of Labour, said when he introduced the bill - if you can refer to his comments in Hansard: "We're not saying that by introducing the Labour Code of British Columbia that there will be labour peace tomorrow, but allow that Labour Code to work for a couple, three years, and it will begin to work well; it will bring labour peace to the province." His prediction came true. As the beneficiary of the Labour Code we've never criticized you for taking all of the political credit, because we lived in the hope that the Code would not be tampered with, and that the growth, the development and evolution toward labour peace would continue. By this Act you've destroyed the opportunity of the Labour Code continuing to bring about labour peace within this province. I think it's not only political, it's ego ...

MR. BARRETT: They made a political choice.

MR. LAUK: ... it's ego as well. I believe that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has made a fatal error - and a lot of men make that error. He believed that he himself is responsible for labour peace in the province of British Columbia. He's made that mistake. He didn't realize that it was the Labour Code and that Code should not be tampered with....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He believed that it was he who was trusted, not the Code. It's when politicians make that mistake that tremendous bungles like the one we're facing here today are made.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Minister of Labour has not had time to reflect that because of his ego - and that ego-smashing that's taken place, that tremendous negative reaction by the labour movement and by this party - he is now doing the double-shuffle. He is confused; the cabinet is indecisive. The directions that the Premier has given to the Labour minister before his departure were not well thought out and were superficial. You can see that the directions given to the Minister of Labour are not well thought out. The Premier, with a wave of his hand before getting on the plane to go on his junket to Europe, said: "Bring in those amendments in my absence. You take the heat. Remember, protect the leader at all costs." And, as I say, no reputation is too great to be sacrificed to that goal. Well, it seems to me that the cabinet and the Premier are too quick to sacrifice the Minister of Labour's reputation. It's to no end.

There are those cynical enough in this province who will say that the NDP are always negative, that we're always critical and that we don't want anything that this government is presently doing to work. Well, that's simply not true, Mr. Speaker. We established the Labour Code of British Columbia. We wanted to see it work. That minister has received nothing but support and, yes, even at times praise from the

[ Page 5379 ]

members on this side of the House.

He stumbled badly and he stumbled, I fear, in a way that he cannot recover. Even if we withdrew all the amendments today, he's revealed a very serious weakness in his judgment and his capacity to make decisions. He's received a serious blow to his ego. A stronger person would have been able to withstand it. Instead, he bungled before the press and public and made a ridiculous statement that it was all a mistake. That is unforgivable in a leader of cabinet status. As articulate and intelligent as that gentleman is, Mr. Speaker, he is not capable to hold office if he hasn't got the strength to admit mistakes in such a way that it is credible to the people of British Columbia - a person who will have the personal courage to stand up and say: "Yes, this is our policy and we will fight for this policy, " or "We are retracting this policy, " but not to say: "It was a typographical error, " or, "I overlooked it."

What incredulous nonsense! I don't know of any other minister ... and most of them have bungled badly through policy and administration. We've seen the circus that's been going on for the last two years. It's very amusing to some; it's tragic for the people of British Columbia.

This minister, we had hoped, would be the caretaker of this excellent piece of labour legislation - the Labour Code - in a responsible manner. He was ordered to tamper with this bill as a sop to the big-business community that supports this government. He was ordered to do so by the Premier, and the Premier did not think it through. This has the mark of a bungler, Mr. Speaker. The minister can take the credit for it if he wishes, but it seems very much to me that the Premier of this province should be marked the bungler. As political strategy, it's a disaster. I urge everyone in this Legislature to support the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be very brief in speaking in support of this amendment, because I think that when the minister hears the reasons why I'm supporting the amendment, he will bring himself to support it too.

One of the first reasons is the statement the minister made: that it was all a mistake. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Mr. Speaker, tells that a mistake is a misunderstanding of a thing's meaning. In other words, the minister admitted in his statement that he did not understand the meaning of this particular section of the Act.

He goes on to say: "I blame myself; I should have taken more care." I think, in view of that plea on the part of the minister for an opportunity to undo his mistake and to take more care in the reading and the drafting of this piece of legislation, that he will welcome an opportunity to have six months in which to do this. It will be six months in which to have some consultation with the people who are really going to be affected by this piece of legislation, who really do work for working people in this province. I'm talking specifically about people involved in the trade union movement because this amendment addresses itself not as much to organized labour as it does to unorganized labour. The minister is not involved in working with people who are not organized.

Earlier today, when the critic, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , spoke to the minister briefly about some statistics affecting the largest group of people in this province who are not organized, I interjected and said that the minister really didn't care about that group of people. I honestly believe that.

I really believe the minister doesn't care, but I do not believe that that excuses the minister from listening. I think he should hear from the people who are trying to organize these people. By making organizing more difficult, what he is doing is ensuring that the people in this province who are currently working for the minimum wage and less, the people in this province who are working under the most disadvantageous working conditions, will remain there; people who are trying to organize people who work in clerical positions, in service positions, in the department stores, in the banks, are not going to be able to do the job.

Why? Because the minister cares more about people who own the banks than about people who work in banks. That's what this piece of legislation is about. The minister cares more about people who own department stores than about people who work in department stores. That's what this piece of legislation is all about. It's not a matter of blanket uncaring; it's a matter of the minister's priorities. The minister's priorities have always been on the side of people who own rather than on the side of people who work.

MR. BARRETT: The only union he knows is the Union Club.

MS. BROWN: That's the only union that he knows;

Of course, the minister makes sure that he's a member of one of the strongest and most powerful unions in North America. He has been well taken care of and his working conditions have been well taken care of, so it doesn't matter one hoot to him what happens to anyone else. I'm talking about a publication, Mr. Speaker - a profile of low-wage workers in British Columbia - which was researched by the minister's own ministry. So the information is there. The minister may not have read the information; the minister may not even be interested in the information. But the information is there and

[ Page 5380 ]

it shows that most of the labour force that is unorganized in British Columbia today are women in the labour force. Similarly, most of the labour force that is working for the minimum wage and less are the women in the labour force. Most of the people in this province who are working for wages that place them below the poverty line are the women in the labour force. Who is aided and abetted by this piece of legislation? The employers who employ those women, the employers who pay them the minimum wage and less and the employers who do not protect their working conditions. Those are the people who are aided and abetted by this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little help from your friends.

MS. BROWN: Precisely - these are his friends.

I have always maintained that it is ludicrous to expect a Minister of Labour, who does not know or understand or care about people who work, to be able to introduce legislation that protects their right to work and see to it that they have good working conditions and decent wages. And that minister proves me correct. That minister proves us correct, because out of his own department comes the information by which he stands condemned - out of his own research and planning department, March, 1977.

Take the weekend, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. Take six months. Sit down and read the statistics that come out of your own department, the one that says that 74.3 per cent of the people in this province who are not organized and who are women are making the minimum wage and less. These are the people who are going to be hurt by this piece of legislation. You're not hurting organized labour. You can't hurt organized labour by these amendments. Who you hurt are the people who are trying to organize the unorganized. That's who you're hurting by this piece of legislation. It's the people who care about the 60 per cent of people in the work force who are women, who care about the 74.3 per cent -statistics out of your own department - who make less than the $3-per-hour minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the government is interested in an adjournment to this debate or not at this particular time, or whether they are willing to vote on it now.

Ms. Brown moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented the report of the Ministry of the Attorney-General for 1976.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at I p.m.