[ Page 9017 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 9017

Ms. Sanford –– 9020

Mr. King –– 9022

Mr. Gabelmann –– 9024

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 9026

Division –– 9027

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

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

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Nicolson

TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Last evening in Lima, Peru, Miss Dianne Baldwin of London, Ontario, was crowned Miss Universe. I think that our Legislature should join in congratulating Diane Baldwin for bringing that honour to Canada and representing the young people of Canada.

MR. REE: On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the joyous celebration of marriage, and today we have the honeymoon couple in the members' gallery. I'd ask the House to welcome the groom, Noel Wright, chief editor of the North Shore News, and his lovely bride, Jeanne, to Victoria.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

In 1980 and 1981 there was a considerable increase in what has commonly been referred to as secondary picketing in British Columbia. We know that these activities are illegal and that they are prohibited by the Labour Code of this province, but during 1980 and 1981 the track record has deteriorated. Of particular concern to me and the government were the third-party interests which were affected, and also the industrial relations stability which had been achieved over the past few years. I don't think anybody in the House can condone this activity, and we cannot permit the spirit and intent of the Labour Code of B.C. to be violated. Those whose activities are governed by this legislation are responsible for more careful preparation and negotiation of long-term concerns and bargaining relationships — which I think is really of ultimate importance — and should not attempt to resolve their problems outside the statutory provisions that the Legislature has established for these purposes and in a single-minded pursuit of their own self-interest.

The amendments which were introduced a few days ago really address the misuse of the provision permitting picketing of an ally. There's a fundamental concept of our legal history — and I suspect it's within our constitutional history too — that a person is innocent until proven otherwise. Decisions of this kind should rest with the institution of our society which our society has created for administering the relationships between parties having collective-bargaining relationships. In my view, the proper place for determining whether or not a third party is an ally is the Labour Relations Board, which must be in a position to make that decision before any picketing takes place. The use of a picket is the ultimate and final act available to employees, and therefore when used it must have with it the legal right implicit with any order the Labour Relations Board conveys. It's interesting to note that over 1981, similar statements have been expressed not only by employers and management companies, but heavily reported were statements by some elements of the trade union movement.

In addition, there are other amendments within the act, one of which relates to the consent to sue. In effect, now the onus is reversed. There is some very appropriate language within the bill, and I specifically refer to the word "inappropriate." The important thing in this area is to leave that discretion with the Labour Relations Board and those people who in fact have demonstrated over the years a growing, if not at times superb, knowledge of the complexities of industrial relations, collective bargaining and all the ramifications the Code has introduced. There are two or three other amendments which are really minor; "housekeeping" seems to be the proverbial word which is used.

As to the change in the bill from its present status, one of the authors of the Labour Code of British Columbia, Paul Weiler, was asked about these particular two items: that is, with respect to an ally and with respect to the consent issue. The information I have read indicates that there is a strong argument, according to him — and I am inclined to agree — for predetermination of allied picketing; there is also a stronger argument for liberalization of the consent to sue. I would refer members to what I think is an excellent text. Any member of the Legislative Assembly who happens to be assigned this particular portfolio ought to take a few days to read, reread and digest a book authored by him, entitled Reconcilable Differences.

We have to remember that companies and their operations are living, breathing vehicles which provide cash flows and employment, pay taxes, and are subjected to too much regulation. They have markets to satisfy — domestic, national and international. We are interested in stability in the workforce, stability in servicing those markets. We must guarantee the delivery of a good product, and we know that those who default on delivery are subject to some onerous penalties.

I think it's equally, and perhaps even more, important that each of those operations has a workforce which must be looked after. During 1980 and 1981 there were times when I know the morale of that workforce was somewhat affected. It was because of the number of unnecessary disruptions. Particularly in today's economy, I think it's important that we do whatever we can to attempt to achieve better harmony and more stability, and that we ask people to think first as to what they're going to do. Let's see if we can resolve to eliminate that unsettling influence which has been brought to bear.

You ask: what can employees do? Really, very little. So the major thrust of the amendment is to ask those who have the power at their disposal to use it and to have regard for the rights of others. Even where a picket is illegal, employees could mitigate their losses by crossing picket lines. We all know that is totally and unequivocally unrealistic. That means that employees are left with no redress. As a government we must give consideration to employees and employers who are not a party to the primary dispute, the public who are inconvenienced or damaged unnecessarily, governments who are penalized by loss of revenues, and last and, I believe, most important of all, industrial harmony and economic stability.

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

[ Page 9018 ]

the existing mechanism in the Labour Relations Board. They've demonstrated a capacity to handle complaints of unlawful strikes, lockouts and picketing on an expedited basis. Parties have been brought together, often on the same day. Regulations will be necessary to require the board to respond in the same or similar expedited manner. The message, I think, is really that the Labour Relations Board knows how to respond. Applications for an ally declaration will meet the same treatment. So the theme is to deal quickly, and the board can do this. Often the board resolves matters informally, and I would suggest that well over half of those applications which come before the board are, in fact, resolved informally. The board will have similar success, I am positive, resolving the ally problem in this manner, thereby precluding unnecessary picketing. The object, of course, is again: let's preserve some industrial harmony and stability in the workforce.

Now why is this particular amendment necessary? I can give a number of reasons. First of all, the number of cases handled by the Labour Relations Board involving picketing activities in 1980-81 totalled 508; of that 508, 67 percent or 341 were disposed of prior to adjudication by the board. Of that number, somewhere between 15 and 20 percent concerned picketing of an ally. The balance of 167 cases required adjudication by the board; of these 167 cases, 33 involved an allegation of "legitimate" picketing of an ally. So we're again talking about somewhere around 20 percent. But the alarming figure in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that in all those cases of ally picketing only four — and I repeat this, only four — were found to be within the parameters, the spirit and the thrust of the jurisprudence which the board has developed over a period of time. In 20 of these cases the picketing was prohibited without the attachment of any condition –– 20 of them prohibited absolutely. In the remaining nine cases, picketing was restricted by the board and certain conditions were placed on the complainant. So I think there's a message there for government.

Some examples of what occurred during this period of time came from the post office dispute and the picketing of Inland Natural Gas and B.C. Tel for delivery of their own mail. We know that government and the private sector used Loomis; they used courier services; they used whatever was at their disposal. The post office dispute was somewhat difficult for a time. The fact of the matter is that you cannot preclude commerce from taking place, whether in the public or private sector.

Another example was when the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was on strike — a legal strike. There was picketing of the Royal Centre that was far too wide; it covered a host of totally unrelated activities.

The CUPE dispute with the lower mainland municipalities brings a great many to mind. I'll quote a comment by the B.C. Federation of Labour: "They are carrying out a fragmented picketing philosophy which leaves a lot to be desired." Another quote from the same organization: "They are carrying on picketing outside of the parameters of sound labour relations...and affect the other union members." The last quote — and I'll refer to more of these a little later on; I believe this is Jim Kinnaird, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour: "I don't believe in a union's unfettered right to picket other members. There shouldn't be a blank cheque given to anybody."

One particular example that concerned me a great deal involved a company in Richmond, Richmond Paper Products, a division of Crown Zellerbach. Their current collective agreement was closed, expiring August 31, 1981. While they were in operation they were picketed by the Canadian Union of Public Employees for 24 hours in March 1981. The reason was that the company moved garbage from the plant using a contractor that had been used before, during and after the CUPE dispute. There was no relationship between that particular division of Crown Zellerbach and the lower mainland. There was no contractual relationship vis-à-vis the unions which had the certification, but perhaps it was thought to be symbolic, or they were going to apply some pressure flagrantly, and it was wrong.

The facts are interesting, because picketing began at 6:15 a.m., Monday, March 2, 1981. The LRB granted a hearing for 1 p.m., March 3, 1981, so there was a delay of approximately one and one-half days. That delay, Mr. Speaker, resulted from the B.C. Federation of Labour's threat to boycott expedited hearings. The hearing was set and it went ahead on March 3, 1981. The pickets, once they became aware that there was a hearing, decided to withdraw at 6:15 a.m. on the morning of March 3. Also, CUPE refused to attend the hearing.

What was the loss on that particular dispute? Mr. Speaker, 300 days of work were lost and $30,000 in wages. Of course, there's the other effect, too, of loss of revenue to the company, a decline in morale and market stability, and loss of revenue to the government.

That same operation was clipped with another roving picket on August 5, 1981, carrying IWA signs, claiming they were from Fraser Mills. From the information that I have from the IWA executive, in that particular case they weren't authorized, but there was another loss of 270 hours.

On August 10, 1981, in the same operation, pickets were authorized by the PPWC — the Pulp, Paper and Wood Workers of Canada — local 8, Harmac, which was on a legal strike against MacMillan Bloedel. There is no dispute with that at all, but why did those pickets happen to appear at a mill certified with the CPU — Canadian Paperworkers Union — which was under a closed agreement? The board immediately issued a cease-and-desist order, but not without loss –– 500 days, or $50,000 in wages.

Another example is Northwood Pulp and Timber, which is located in the central interior of British Columbia. That was rather an interesting case. The agreements had been entered into in a dusty period in 1981. The employees in this case were the CPU, and they had in fact reached agreement with their employers. After reaching an agreement, it was felt by the PPWC that they hadn't reached a settlement on Vancouver Island, 500 miles away, so "let's just send our pickets up to Prince George, and we'll put them around Northwood Pulp," which not only shut down work for all of those people who are employed by that mill, but there was a $300 million construction project underway as well. I think that is unfair, unjust and inequitable. As a matter of fact, it's interesting to note that I believe it was the head of one the major unions of British Columbia who referred to the actions of that particular union as cannibalistic. We certainly know they have said "regrettable" on more than one occasion.

The Labour Relations Board made a decision on that. The PPWC proceeded under the guise of an ally, and the decision was that it was illegal. Okay, it was down for two and a half or

[ Page 9019 ]

three days. We know the number of people who were employed. There were anywhere between 500 and 1,200 people working on the construction aspect of the twinning of that mill to double its capacity, and we know that each pulpmill has roughly 300 employees. It was totally unnecessary. Not only was it totally unnecessary, Mr. Speaker, but it doesn't do one bit of good in attempting to resolve the dispute emanating from the primary location.

The last example which I would make reference to, in the interest of time, involved dissidents in the IWA. They were having a dispute at Zeballos; it was unrelated to MacMillan Bloedel in this case. They shut down the large M&B mill at Gold River, as well as seven other operations. The problem is different contracts. There was no need for what occurred; I question whether it was even sanctioned by the IWA. The fact is that it did occur, and it caused a great deal of disruption. If we accumulate the loss of payroll, provincial corporate tax, federal tax, royalties, it can be established that some of these activities have cost the employees, employers and governments of this province literally millions of dollars.

In my view, all of these picketing activities that are either unsanctioned or ruled illegal do not have the slightest impact on the primary disputes from which the pickets came. I repeat my earlier comment that as a government we must give consideration to employees and employers who are not a party to the primary dispute and are damaged unnecessarily; to the public who are inconvenienced or damaged unnecessarily; to governments penalized by loss of revenue; and to the industrial harmony and economic stability which is subjected to attack. One of my most persistent themes has been that we can no longer pursue relentless, selfish interest and still hope to survive in today's competitive world in which three or four strong — and I mean strong — national economies threaten Canada's international and domestic commerce. What our society — and this means all of our economic institutions — must adapt to is an enlightened policy of mutual self-interest in which capital, labour and governments play cooperative, if necessarily distinct, roles.

I've accumulated, over a period of time in this portfolio, some newspaper clippings which I think might appropriately be quoted today. This is from an editorial that appeared in the Vancouver Sun last summer.

"The Labour Relations Board has trod a fine line over the years in exercising its discretion involving picketing. It takes a dim view of one union trying to gain extra leverage by putting out of work members of another union who are satisfied with what they have achieved in negotiations with the same employer.

"In the case of the PPWC, they cannot plead ignorance of the board's policy which has been applied to its own secondary picketing activities. It has been under no illusions that its secondary pickets were welcome at plants where members of the IWA and CPU were anxious to get back to work. Carried out, it has been in the knowledge that the Labour Relations Board is bound to follow precedent and use its discretionary powers as before. The PPWC secondary picketing campaign has been one of irresponsible harassment."

The one I probably like best of all came from somebody in my riding in Prince George who is not a supporter of mine at all. I know what his political philosophy is, but I have a great deal of respect for him. I have liked him a great deal since meeting him.

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No. He's a member of your party. His name is Rino Fonari and he's the president of CUPE Local 399. We've talked about this issue before.

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

"He's concerned that the unions spend too much time fighting one another, when they should be concentrating on productivity so that cheaper foreign goods would not flood the market, robbing Canadians of jobs."

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

"Is it fair right now that somebody can come over to your place and picket, and deprive you of your chance to make a living? I would never picket somebody without telling him first. It just creates friction. We should try to treat each other like we would like to be treated ourselves. It isn't hard."

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

"Trade unions have consistently abused picket lines and violated picketing policies of the B.C. Federation of Labour during the past year, federation leaders charged Monday.

"In an unusually candid report by the federation's executive council to a labour organization's twenty-sixth annual convention in Vancouver, the council called such actions deplorable, adding that" — and I think what they said is important — "the unions involved deserve a more severe punishment than can be meted out by this convention. The report said that abuses have ranged from a lack of proper notification to some affiliates working behind legal picket lines. We have seen picket lines used to punish other union members supposedly for some other infractions of federation picketing policy. The federation officer said: 'The policy can only be effective if it is applied in a disciplined manner, and this year we have seen it applied in anything but such a manner.' "

They went on to complain about the high-profile locations, like the Vancouver Post Office, the airport, B.C. Ferry terminals and the B.C. Tel building, which have been picketed by other unions involved in the dispute simply because they are symbolic. Well, there is more to having an economic base, industrial harmony and stability than pushing symbolism, Mr. Speaker. I quote further:

"The connection of the symbol to the dispute often seems to defy logic; the establishment of picket lines solely to attract media attention does not serve the purpose of the trade union movement and is therefore contrary to the intent of our picketing policy."

That particular report was authored by Rod Mickleburgh, who is the Province's labour reporter; there was also a similar report on December 1, 1981, in the Vancouver Sun, authored by Peter Comparelli, the labour reporter. They pretty well repeat the previous comments. One quotation from this clipping is as follows: "It was noted that last spring's lower mainland municipal dispute saw perhaps the most extensive use ever of secondary picketing in this province." It's true, and so we will respond in a fair, just and equitable way, which we have with the amendments before you, Mr. Speaker.

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

[ Page 9020 ]

again. The author of this article is Rod Mickleburgh, and the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour is quoted as follows: "The increased erratic picketing by labour unions is a regrettable development. Locals seem to want quick, short strikes, but in many industries that just isn't possible. So instead they carry on picketing outside the parameters of sound labour relations and affect other union members."

SOME HON. MEMBER: Aye.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Never mind "aye." [Laughter, ] Well, Mr. Speaker, I enjoy a little bit of laughter, but I want to tell you that those people who say "aye" to me around here.... My colleagues and I have listened to them now for a long, long time, and we're going to push it out.

Now one comment came out which bothered me somewhat with respect to the introduction of the amendment. The allegation was made that I did not consult the labour movement with respect to these proposed amendments.

MR. KING: You certainly consulted the editorials.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Do you not agree, Mr. Member, that the editorials may be a reflection of what's going on in British Columbia? I tell you, you use them to your advantage from time to time. Recently!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On the matter of consultation, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in early 1980 there wasn't much question about what I was seeing on the horizon, what was going to come, and this matter of allied picketing bothered me, particularly after reading a couple of articles, one in the Ministry of Labour monthly publication and the other, published by the Law Society of British Columbia, called The Advocate. I found it was not to my liking, really. Anyway, I asked to have a study done, and we had somebody for that summer of 1980 to study the impact of allied and secondary-location picketing. I proceeded and we examined what we should send out and asked for assistance, guidance, input and support, and all of what you could expect a politician to do. The first paragraph in the letter to everyone, employers and trade unions.... There were over 40 trade unions contacted: "Legislation aimed at regulating the complex and at times controversial area of labour-management relations is bound to have a mixed impact in the objectives of the various participants in the collective bargaining process." So they knew where we were coming from and what we had to look at. I will tell you that of all that came in, several interviews were scheduled with union representatives, but those scheduled meetings had to be cancelled as a result of the B.C. Federation of Labour's recommendation to boycott the study.

I quote further: "No union responded to the questionnaire, on the recommendation of the B.C. Federation of Labour." Further, the research officer for the B.C. Federation of Labour, obviously under some directive, was called. Finally at 2:30 in the afternoon of July 16, 1980, we were told that the reason the committee recommended no response was that they felt that the answers to the questions asked were "none of the government's business." I accept the posturing — not being consulted, etc. However, the facts are not the same, and so I feel that I am obligated to raise that.

With respect to the consent to sue, every application for a cease-and-desist order or an order of the board generally always contains in its prayer for relief application for a consent to sue. I must advise that is not given as a matter of course; it's only given for the most compelling reasons. In 1974 the number of applications for provision to sue under section 32(4) was zero; in 1975 there was one; in 1976, one; in 1977, one; in 1978, two; and in 1979, two. In each of those years they were all rejected. In 1980 there was an application for two — one was granted, one rejected. In 1981 there was an application for eight — one was dismissed, four were rejected and three were granted. To date in 1982 there have been two requested and both have been rejected.

Lawsuits will not resolve industrial relations problems. We only have to look at the track record over many years in British Columbia to see whether or not they have been pursued. I accept that. I understand the reasons for that, but I don't accept it when a third party who is absolutely unrelated to the primary dispute through company, ownership, collective agreement — they might even be closed.... Indiscriminate picketing of third parties.... Appearing at the gates of those plants pushes those employees into a position where they must obey that picket line. That's the ultimate weapon. I think, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that the ultimate weapon in British Columbia, the picket line, has been overused. That concludes my comments on this particular item.

I might say that it was interesting to go back to read Hansard from the original days of the present Labour Code. I found the comments quite interesting. I recognize the struggle that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke had, and the opposition to the bill at the time. But there were some items in here which might prove to be of interest — perhaps we can refer to those later on, if necessary.

MR. KING: Feel free, Jack!

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

Interjection.

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

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

MS. SANFORD: It's always interesting to listen to the Minister of Labour. I'm afraid that we on this side are inclined to laugh with him, and sometimes maybe laugh at him, for some of the comments he makes on what is really a very serious issue. One of the most difficult areas that government has to legislate and deal with is labour relations. They are very much like human relations. We are in fact dealing with issues that can't very readily be dealt with by written legislation interpreted through the courts and so on. The attempt made by government between 1972 and 1975 was to try to establish a system whereby matters that were like family relations, that were difficult to deal with, could be handled through a labour relations board that was experienced in handling issues of that type, and to take all the problems that were being paraded day after day before the courts in this province out of that court area and into a labour relations

[ Page 9021 ]

board setup so that we could avoid the court issues. We tried to ensure that those difficult, delicate matters could be handled through the Labour Relations Board.

In speaking on this year's Labour estimates, the minister made reference to the Labour Code. He said it was a superb document. He said that he had great respect for the Labour Code. He said that he was under tremendous pressure to change the Labour Code. Unfortunately, what we've seen with these amendments is that this minister has succumbed to that pressure and has made changes which have in fact changed the whole attempt by the previous government in establishing this Labour Code, to keep the issues out of the courts, to resolve them through a labour relations board which was experienced in labour relations matters. The issues are complex. The issues are difficult. Most important is the need to establish the balance and to maintain the balance that this Labour Code provides. We must have a balance between management and labour. We must have a document that is fair in terms of the way it approaches labour relations in the province. We must have a government that is fair and neutral in its approach. We must have a document which will allow the collective bargaining process to take place. We must allow those two to meet as equals across the table, iron out their differences and reach an agreement. When that agreement cannot be reached, we must have a system whereby the employees can use their only weapon, the strike.

By changing the approach to the Labour Code at this point, the minister is ensuring that many of these disputes will again be thrust back into the courts. He is showing that he does not have confidence in his own Labour Relations Board and its ability to deal with the issues that come before it. He is also showing that he has no confidence whatsoever in the consultative process between the B.C. Federation of Labour and his own ministry.

What we have in these amendments is the government responding to the employers of the province, and neglecting to consult with the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Interjections.

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

MS. SANFORD: Just a couple of weeks ago we had the Premier calling the employers of the province and the B.C. Federation of Labour representatives to Victoria in order to discuss with them the economic problems that are being faced at this time. This was the great consultative process. Yet in issues which affect the labour movement day after day in this province, they were not even told that these amendments were being brought forward.

The minister talks about some statement that he made two years ago with respect to his concern, but the interesting thing is that the minister in his opening remarks also made reference to a document, an annual report that was presented to a B.C. Federation of Labour convention, at which time the labour people themselves expressed concern about some of the abuses that had taken place. The minister said it was a very frank document. The B.C. Federation of Labour and its affiliates do not sanction the kinds of abuses that the minister referred to. They have a policy, and it seems to me that the best thing the minister could do is bring the B.C. Federation of Labour officers over to Victoria to meet and consult with him, sit down and say: "Look, there is this problem. Let's discuss what you can do and what we can do in order to improve the situation."

What this amendment before us today does is upset the delicate balance that exists. It tips the scales in favour of the employers again. If we are going to have labour peace in this province and negotiating across the table in a fair, orderly way, then the minister cannot afford to upset the delicate balance as he has done in this document. The minister made reference to loss of wages, income, revenue and income tax in his opening remarks. When the minister upsets the delicate balance that this Labour Code provides for, when he does not consult with the B.C. Federation of Labour on the kinds of amendments that he wants to bring in and listens only to the employers of this province, he upsets that balance, and the losses he's talking about in wages, income and revenue are going to increase, because you cannot resolve the very difficult problems that the two groups face across a bargaining table unless the legislation is fair and equitable. When you tip that balance, you're only going to ensure that the process by which people must reach an agreement becomes more difficult. and you're going to have more disputes.

Surely the courts are jammed enough without changing the whole concept of the Labour Code and making the assumption that where there is a request to sue, it will automatically go to court. That's the first assumption now — that the Labour Relations Board will refer any request to the courts. He's put in as an afterthought: "unless the union can justify and in some way convince the Labour Relations Board that it should not go to court." At the same time, the minister is removing from the Labour Code the sections that were previously there to ensure that the Labour Relations Board took into account maintaining industrial peace, ensuring that harmonious relations exist between employers and employees, trying to improve practices and procedures of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives, and so on and so on. There are provisions in the Code now which would ensure that the Labour Relations Board, in any decision it makes, takes into account such things as securing and maintaining industrial peace. When they make a decision now, under this request for a consent-to-sue order, all of that's been eliminated. They no longer have to take into account industrial peace and improving industrial relations. They no longer have to do that, because that's been eliminated through these particular amendments. The Labour Relations Board has lost its flexibility in terms of dealing with some of these disputes.

Now, when trade unions have to apply to the Labour Relations Board before they can picket an ally, there is a delay. The minister himself referred to it being about three days. What happens during those three days is that the ally can assist the employer, completely without any interference whatsoever, in destroying that strike, because the employees now have to wait for a Labour Relations Board order before they can picket the ally. It seems to me that the minister would have been much wiser if he had not brought in that provision to deal with the abuses he referred to, because what he is doing is penalizing the majority of the workers in the province because of the abuses of a few. Why didn't the minister sit down instead, consult, and come up recommendations jointly in order to resolve the problem without this kind of upset in the delicate balance?

We think the minister is making a grave mistake. We are concerned that this will adversely affect the ability of the parties to negotiate in a balanced way, because the balance

[ Page 9022 ]

has been upset. We are concerned that the minister, in this case, says one thing and does another. He talks about the "superb Code." He talks about the pressures that are on him to change that Code. He has succumbed to those pressures, and we are concerned about industrial relations and peace as a result of the actions he has taken today.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. KING: I think this is one of those occasions where we have sincerely held, but deeply rooted, philosophical differences with the government. It's one of those occasions, I think, where the debate will reflect that very clearly.

I accept that the Minister of Labour is sincere in what he is trying to accomplish. I concede that indeed there is a problem with respect to the appropriate regulation of secondary picketing and the application of the ally doctrine. I do not accept that the remedy which the minister has put forward is the correct one and is going to achieve the results which I believe the minister sincerely would like to achieve; that is, greater industrial relations stability in this province. I'm going to try to explain why.

First of all, let me correct the, minister. Paul Weiler, despite the very high regard and respect I have for him, was not an author of the Labour Code of British Columbia. Paul Weiler was hired by the government to come to British Columbia from Queen's University to chair the Labour Relations Board after the Labour Code had been formulated and passed through this Legislature. I had assistance from many of my colleagues, who provided a great deal of input as well as criticism. We did not have unanimity in terms of designing the Labour Code. We had sincere critics within our own group, which I believe was healthy and useful. The people I retained to assist in formulating the Labour Code were James Matkin, Dr. Noel Hall of UBC, and Ted McTaggart, a labour lawyer at that time who subsequently became a judge. These people did an outstanding job of putting together the legal language.

MR. SEGARTY: Len Guy.

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

I think the Labour Code has stood the test of time, and that it's generally seen by the majority of trade union people in the province and the majority of employers as a fair, equitable and even-handed document. In amending the Code and in any way tipping the balance, here's what the minister is seeking to accomplish. He has a problem in that picketing has expanded beyond the circumstances anticipated by the Code. How do we combat that problem? My colleague from Comox made the point that in coming to grips through this amendment with those who violate the Code, the minister is restricting all of the labour movement in the province of British Columbia. He has changed the wording and given an arbitrary directive to the Labour Board; the board "shall" refer matters to the courts.

So it's a gradual return to the court process of labour relations administration in this province, and the courts are not a good agency to deal with industry relations. Regardless of where they stand in the political spectrum, most people recognize that simple truth. The courts are excellent for some purposes; they're not good for industrial relations. Indeed, we have designed a family relations court as a specialized way of regulating family matters, because the traditional criminal and civil court process was not appropriate for dealing with family matters. It was recognized that after the immediate problem was solved, there was a need to live together in some harmony to salvage the family unit after the dispute was settled. So it is with industrial relations: after the particular dispute is resolved, those two parties must live together in the future. They have a long-term commitment and relationship. Surely the objective should be to try to mend the immediate dispute in such a fashion that a legacy of bitterness will not endure to poison the relationship for years to come, to breed more disruption and hostility, more intransigence, by one or the other party. That should be the objective.

Yes, there has been a misuse of the ally doctrine. Yes, there has been misuse of secondary picketing. We on this side of the House believe there must be a fair structure of law to regulate picketing, just as every other form of human conduct must be regulated in accordance with law.

I want to suggest this to the minister in terms of his remedy. He says it isn't fair that the employer was struck and subjected to an ally picket in an illegal fashion when his remedy came after the fact. In other words, he suffered the impact of the illegal conduct first. He did not have recourse until sometime later, when he went before the Labour Relations Board and sought relief, which ultimately could go to the courts, with a penalty assessed by the court. The minister points out that this doesn't happen very often.

The inherent doctrine is not only to give labour a method of dealing with those who ally themselves with the disputant; it is also to recognize what is called the doctrine of clean hands. That, if you will, is an import from the United States industrial relations scene, and the board uses that doctrine with great sensitivity. The Labour Relations Board of British Columbia — in terms of industrial relations it was imported from the United States — is the best agency for this reason: the board has the administration of the total relationship between the parties; the board regulates the organizational campaign when a union is formed, and as such it knows whether or not there was resistance by the employer, whether or not there were unfair labour practices by the employer; the board administers and presides over the collective bargaining process to ensure that there was compliance with the law in terms of negotiating a collective agreement; the board presides over the process of rights disputes after a collective agreement has been signed and ensures that disputes during the life of the collective agreement are resolved by arbitration without work stoppage; the board regulates the law of strikes and picketing.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Board has a total file, a total profile, on the relationship between the trade union and the employer in most industries in the province of British Columbia. They know their history; they know who has a propensity and a history of interfering with the legal rights of the working people in that jurisdiction, and therefore they can apply the doctrine of clean hands with some experience and some intelligence, because they have a historical profile of that relationship to go by. When an employer comes to the board seeking relief for an alleged breach of the picketing laws, if that employer has a history of being fair, just and equitable and of acting in a legal fashion, the board, as a rule, will say: "Hey, this particular employer's record is without blemish. He's a responsible employer and

[ Page 9023 ]

therefore he deserves relief immediately." Conversely, if that employer comes to the board with hands that are unclean in terms of his performance under the law, the board looks with a somewhat jaundiced eye at his application, and they ask themselves: is this another attempt to gain unfair and unjustified advantage in a dispute between the two parties? They have that discretion. That is why, as the minister himself has pointed out, the board has been so successful in resolving disputes between parties without the necessity of going to formal, written decisions and penalties that the board would be entitled to impose. The board uses a mediation approach, because the board is backed by discretionary power.

What the minister is doing here is reducing that discretionary power the Labour Relations Board has, and instead, by legislative statute, directing the board in an arbitrary way that they must refer these matters to the courts. The traditional punitive action of the courts will poison the relationship of the two disputing parties for years to come. I suggest to the minister that this is counter-productive. The Labour Relations Board, with their experience, with their involvement with the two parties from step one to the end of the collective bargaining process, is a more appropriate agency for dealing with disputes between those parties than politicians in this Legislature are. It's a mistake for politicians to start writing arbitrary rules by which the Labour Relations Board's discretionary power is limited. By doing that, the minister is gradually returning to the punitive approach to labour relations that used to exist in this province before the Labour Code of British Columbia was passed, and that's a mistake.

What of the minister's argument that there must be equity, that there must be a fair remedy and an expeditious remedy to a claim of illegal conduct...? I hope the minister is listening; I listened with great care to the minister, and I hope he'll pay me the courtesy of at least listening to my argument. He has made the point — and he has made it validly — that if someone is suffering from illegal conduct, be it a picket line or a trespass or whatever, that person needs relief, and they need relief expeditiously. In civil and criminal courts there is no relief before there is an offence. There must be an offence before relief is offered. In this case, the minister is reversing the onus on the union and giving relief to the employer before any issue arises. That's contrary to the civil law and the criminal law. Is it equitable in terms of the balance of powers between the employer and the workers? I suggest not. When the working man in the plant has a dispute against arbitrary action and illegal action by the employer, what is his remedy? Under the collective agreement and the law, he must grieve without a work stoppage. There's a process in every collective agreement, and if it is not contained in that collective agreement it is deemed by law — and that's appropriate — that the dispute must be resolved by arbitration. I fully support that doctrine. In actual fact, what happens — as the minister knows — in cases of dismissal, lack of fair promotion or failure to meet any condition of the collective agreement is that the employee is left with the effects of the employer's arbitrary violation of the collective agreement for three months and sometimes two years before that case comes to arbitration and he finds a remedy. If the arbitration board finds in his favour, then he receives his retroactive benefits, but the point is that the remedy is after the fact. In other words, the employer holds the balance of economic power in all normal circumstances in the workaday world. The employee, the union, is left to grieve after the fact.

The Labour Code of British Columbia anticipated bringing some equity into this process. It provided a number of remedies. It provided the special-officer concept where some of the arbitrary powers of the employer could be temporarily forestalled until there was an adjudication — seldom used. What about section 38 of the Labour Code as a remedy for some of the abuses which the minister has outlined today? Section 38 provides for a declaratory order by the Labour Relations Board. In other words, if the employer feels that he is being unfairly threatened by a picket line which is illegal, either as an ally proposition or any other type of secondary picketing, what is to prevent him from asking for a declaratory opinion under section 38 before the picketing takes place? This would achieve the result that after issuing that declaratory opinion, in that particular set of circumstances secondary or ally picketing would be illegal. Any union that then contravened that order would be in direct violation of a board order and that board order could then be filed with the supreme court for enforcement. What's wrong with that as a remedy? That would certainly speed up the process and result in a situation where the employer was not obliged to live an unnecessary length of time with the effects and consequences of a legal action.

It is unfair to reverse the onus onto the union to gain prior approval from the board to engage in the ally or secondary picketing in all cases. The practical consequences will be that in many disputes, by the time the trade union receives authority to engage in that economic action against the ally, the crisis point of that dispute will be past and the effect of the ally protection provided for in the Code will be redundant. That will be the practical consequence. Where in the Labour Code and in this government's conception of industrial relations do we find one instance of the government saying the onus of responsibility should be reversed and placed on the employer? Can the government deny that the employer has the arbitrary right to fire? Whether or not it's in compliance with the provisions of the collective agreement, the employer has the arbitrary right to close the plant, to lay off and impose any adverse economic condition he wishes on his workforce, without having to justify before the fact. Any remedy accruing to those employees comes after the fact; it comes through a prescribed system of statutory authority which sometimes takes months to undergo. So the effect, Mr. Speaker, is that the employee has to live with the consequences of what may be illegal and unfair for six months, a year or sometimes two years.

You may argue, as the minister did, that sometimes there are millions of dollars of damages involved here to the employer if he is the recipient of illegal conduct. Well, that's true, and we should seek to avoid that. But where is the concern for the working person? What's he got on the line? He hasn't got just an investment; he's got his entire life's security on the line. If his salary is cut off by illegal dismissal, its not only him; it's his family and his children who are in jeopardy. I didn't hear the minister talking about equalizing the scales in terms of unfair and illegal action which is inflicted upon employees. Where is the balance of the economic concern here? Some of the things the minister argued I can identify with; I know what he's seeking to achieve, and I think he's sincere about it. But I want to caution that in taking this particular route. In taking this

[ Page 9024 ]

particular remedy, the view and the feeling and the conception of working people will be that this is inherently unfair. You have further restricted the right of people in the workforce, through their trade union, to represent themselves with similar reasonably balanced economic power with the employer. That will be the conception, and that is not going to contribute to industrial relations harmony in this province, because when there is a deep-rooted feeling that there is inequity and unfairness, that encourages further illegal action, as history has shown over the years. It encourages greater hostility and greater manifestation of dissatisfaction. That will be the consequence.

I talked about section 38 of the Labour Code as one possibility. There was another possibility for the minister. Why did he not convene a meeting of the Labour Relations Board, the Employers Council, the Council of Forest Industries, the public-sector unions and industry, and say: "Look, we have a problem here"? It's not enough to send out a tentative invitation. The minister should have made a public statement saying, "Look, we have a problem, and if I have to I will legislate, but I would rather find consensus," so that all of the elements of the industrial relations world knew that he meant business; then sat down with those three parties to the industrial relations scene in the province, and tried to find a remedy which was less provocative. Why didn't he take that route?

The minister talks about a desire to stabilize industrial relations in the province of British Columbia, and I believe he's sincere about that. I believe every member of this House would like to see a better, more responsible, less destructive system of industrial relations than we have. Ours isn't all that bad, and I am not condemning it, but it certainly is imperfect.

What has the minister or the government done in a positive way? They're tinkering with the Labour Code. They're tinkering with the balance of power between the two parties which, inevitably, is going to please one and displease the other with inherent dissatisfaction, disruption and conflict. He might have taken another route. Whatever happened to the labour education centre? It was a bill that was left on the Minister of Labour's desk when the government changed in 1975. It had as its basic objective a system of education for employers and trade union representatives who were involved in the process of negotiating and arbitrating agreements, so that they might understand their roles and obligations more effectively. It had as its purpose the setting up of courses in political science, because industrial relations involves the exercise of power. It had as its purpose instruction in economics, so that the participants might more responsibly and effectively understand the economic balance that we, as a dealer on the world market, are inevitably involved in — a very delicate balance. It had as its purpose some instruction in sociology, so that they might understand group conduct. It had as its purpose some basic instruction in trade union administration.

If the minister wanted to do something positive, why did he not proclaim that bill and fund the labour education centre so that those people coming to the collective bargaining table would be more skilled, sensitive and responsible in their duties? That, in my view, would result in more lawful and intelligent conduct in the long term. He didn't do any of those things. They're just a couple of ideas. I'd be quite willing to talk to the minister about some of the other ideas he could try on. But there's not been one positive step or initiative from this minister or government down a positive or innovative road.

When a problem arises, they come in and amend the Labour Code in a fashion that erodes the power of the Labour Relations Board, an agency that's been doing an outstanding job in British Columbia. It's a move which creates suspicion and dissatisfaction among the trade unions of the province of British Columbia, which inevitably is going to manifest itself in more challenges to the regime. That's not healthy at all. The remedy the minister has brought in is not a fair, balanced or intelligent one in terms of the long-term objective of creating greater industrial relations stability in the province of B.C. I regret that very much. I think it's a terrible mistake.

MR. GABELMANN: Both the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) have, I think, covered the waterfront on this bill. As a result, I don't need to take very much time, and I won't.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I find it amusing, to say the least, that the government is frequently talking about the need to deregulate in our society. They talk frequently about the need to have fewer legislative and regulatory prohibitions on business, but are always willing and in fact delighted, to bring in legislation that further restricts working people. This is what this does. It's not the bill that it could be, if the majority of the Socred caucus had its way; based on convention resolutions and public statements by their members it's not that bad. So in that sense it's not the end of the world. But the bill is wrong and bad. The bill reflects the basic prejudice of Social Credit, which is to say: free business to do whatever it wants, but always regulate workers and don't allow them comparable kinds of freedom.

Why is it in this society that we tend to always say to workers that they must stay on the job, they must do this and follow these certain rules; but if a business decides that its debts are too high, or its contract is not to its liking, or it wants a different workforce, it goes out of business, lays off everybody, and then a few weeks or months later you find them operating with a new name, free of all their financial and contractual obligations, and able to go out and do business again with a new name and structure? That's the kind of inequity that exists not only in British Columbia but throughout North America, where we have this ethic that says whatever business does is good and whatever workers do is bad. That's the basic philosophical underpinning of Social Credit attitudes. It comes through again in what I think is a very bad piece of legislation which attempts, as the minister says — and I believe he's genuine — to redress a problem that all of us acknowledge exists. I wonder at the minister's ability, without proper consultation, to bring in legislation when he makes as many mistakes as he did in his opening address on the bill. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke pointed out one obvious error relating to Paul Weiler's role in the Labour Code. Paul Weiler's role was obviously not as a drafter but as an administrator of the Code. One may say it's a minor error, but I think it's a major error from the Labour minister.

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

[ Page 9025 ]

he put it, loggers with M&B went down to picket a MacMillan Bloedel pulpmill in Gold River. For the minister's information, those loggers were from the Talisis Co.

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

MR, GABELMANN: You said M&B.

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

MR. GABELMANN: Well, the Blues will show that you said M&B. Several of us here listened very carefully. Your notes may be right but your voice was wrong.

The pulpmill in Gold River happens also to be owned by Tahsis Co. The workers there were venting their frustration in the only way they knew how. I'm not going to make a judgment about their behaviour. They have to live with the consequences of their own judgment. In any event, this legislation doesn't deal with that problem of workers within one union violating their own union's policy and going on a wildcat picketing expedition. It doesn't deal with that at all. The only way you deal with those kinds of trade union issues is through understanding, cooperation and quiet diplomatic discussion. You do not do it by legislation.

As justification for his introduction of this legislation, the minister used a variety of newspaper articles. I think that there isn't a responsible trade unionist or politician in this province who wouldn't agree with almost everything the minister quoted from those newspapers. The trade union movement has for years, if not decades, in this province concerned itself with what it calls the sanctity of the picket line and the absolute, essential need not to destroy that picket line. The trade union movement is aware that there are at least two ways in which that picket line can be destroyed: one is through legislative action; the other is through the misuse of that picket line by trade unionists. That's something that is understood and is talked about in the labour movement all of the time: the absolute need to prevent the kind of unjustified picketing that can bring the picket line itself into disrepute.

The way you deal with problems that come from the misuse of that picket line, which hurts trade unionists at least as much as it hurts business, is to deal with it internally and to provide support and assistance in a non-legislative way to those internal discussions in the trade union movement, designed to make sure that picketing is not abused.

I'm concerned about two aspects of this legislation, as I think most people are who are concerned with labour relations. One is that it absolutely destroys any equitability. It destroys any opportunity on the part of a union to use surprise in a labour dispute, because they have to go to the Labour Relations Board first to get permission to take certain actions which of necessity may have to be done within the first hours of a dispute. If an employer is allowed to empty a warehouse in the first 12 hours of a labour dispute, the economic position of that union is absolutely destroyed. The minister is now saying to that union that the union must first go to the LRB and get permission to set up a picket line in front of a building. By the time that permission is granted, the building will be empty and the economic position of the union will be destroyed. The strike will go on longer than if the union had had an opportunity to exert some economic power and influence on the employer.

The whole idea of a dispute, of going out on strike, isn't to go out on strike and stay out for a long time; the idea is to exert maximum economic influence on the employer so that the strike is over quickly. And what some employers — increasingly in a minority, fortunately — and Socreds don't seem to understand is that by reducing the ability of the union to apply economic pressure, they will extend the length of strikes and lockouts, because it is economic pressure on both sides that creates the force that brings resolution. When you take away that power, you frustrate the workers and they stay out longer. That's number one. So by this kind of legislation you achieve exactly the opposite of what you have desired to achieve.

Number two, you create the beginning of what I think is a return to the jungle in labour relations; you create the situation whereby unions, when they know that the 12-, 24- or 36-hour delay by going to the LRB will undermine their position, will not go to the LRB and will resort to illegal activity. Once you open up that door to a variety of illegal activities in that area of labour relations, you open the door wider and there will be yet more illegal activity in a variety of other areas, more wildcatting, and more disrespect for the process and disrespect for the Labour Relations Board, leading to yet further unrest in labour-management relations. Why would the government do that? It's absolutely contrary to the stated objectives of the minister. The government has embarked on a course which will not only lead to extended disputes and to an inevitable abuse of the law, but will also lead to the resumption of that dreadful practice, which is to have labour relations matters dealt with in the courts.

Even if the board decides it does not want to allow a certain matter to go to the courts, it doesn't have the power to use section 27 of the Labour Code any longer in making that determination. When a union says, "No, you shouldn't allow this particular suit to proceed to the courts," the union should be allowed to argue section 27, and the board especially should be allowed to consider the matters contained within section 27, which — in some cases deliberately so — will admit to the fact that yes, we will not allow the matter to go to the courts, even though technically it may be something that is illegal; there may have been some illegality committed. But the board needs to have the discretion to consider section 27 to say that the greater crime would be to allow that to go to court and to allow a technically strict legal application and therefore punishment to apply to one side or the other — usually the workers in this situation. Then you destroy the whole purpose of the labour board and the Labour Code, which is to allow employers and employees, through the board's mechanisms, formally and informally — and more important, informally — to work out those differences, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) says. But now they won't be able to, because they will no longer be able to consider section 27.

For what purpose is this bill, Mr. Speaker? It's not to redress the problems, which we all agree exist, because if that was what the minister wanted to achieve, he would have been sitting down over the last months and last two years at least with the people in the field who work with these issues day by day and said: "I have the final axe. I have the ultimate authority. I can bring in legislation which will solve these problems in an authoritarian way. I know you don't want me to do that." Both labour and management would agree, the enlightened ones. The minister, having that power and that heavy hand, which he does have, can say: "You work out those differences or I'll bring in legislation." He didn't do that, Mr. Speaker. The minister never sat down and said to

[ Page 9026 ]

those people who work with these problems and also want to solve these problems: "Okay, now we're going to bash heads a little bit. We're going to negotiate this thing, and we're going to find a solution. And you — the trade union movement — hopefully will find internal disciplinary ways in which you can solve your problems, because that will be less painful both to the union and to society than me, the minister, coming in with authoritarian legislation." He didn't do that. He wrote a letter in July 1980, I understand. Of course the labour movement boycotted that letter, properly so. That's not how you conduct negotiations and how you conduct discussions, Mr. Speaker.

I don't quite agree with my colleague the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who says the minister is totally sincere in this respect. I think that under great pressure from the unenlightened minority in the employers' sector and the obvious unenlightened majority of the Socred caucus who demanded that there be strong legislative curtailment of trade union rights, the minister has attempted to bring in some compromise, in his mind, to show the right-wingers in his group and that unenlightened minority of employers that yes, he means business and he'll take on the trade union movement. I don't think the minister is sincere at all. If he were sincere he would attempt to solve the problem by discussion, and he hasn't done that. And if he were sincere he would not bring in legislation that will hamper the authority of the board and thwart the whole direction in which we've been moving in this province, toward enlightened relations between trade unions and management, and that will return us to the dark days of the jungle. I regret this legislation very much.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I appreciate the concerns expressed by the three members of the opposition, two of whom have, I think, identified the problem, have recognized that there is a problem, and acknowledge as we have that there has been considerable indiscriminate picketing. However, this particular bill will not in any way undermine confidence in the Labour Relations Board.

The B.C. Federation of Labour and its executive have made extraordinarily candid comments about the activities which occurred in 1980, and particularly in 1981:

"We do not sanction picketing. We find what happened regrettable. The activities of some have been cannibalistic and the punishment to which they are entitled cannot be meted out at our annual convention or by us. We have our own policies within the B.C. Federation of Labour. Those policies are well known and understood by every trade union executive in British Columbia. They are writ on stone."

Some of the problem has been that trade unions not affiliated with the B.C. Federation of Labour refuse to follow their policies. This bill does not tip the scales one way or the other. The thrust of this particular bill is to look at third parties who are not related to any primary dispute in any way whatsoever; whether through collective agreement, the same union or the same company. The legislation is, in that sense, fair, equitable and just.

Two references have been made to section 27 of the Labour Code. Section 27 makes reference to the objectives of the Code, all of which I endorse in their entirety. I am advised by legislative counsel and by one of the authors of the Code — as mentioned by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke — that reference within that particular section to section 27 is surplus; it's not really necessary at all. The fact is, this is followed throughout the Code, and by those who are charged with its administration. We all recognize that the primary employer and the trade union involved with that particular operation are entitled to 72 hours' notice of a lockout, a shutdown or a strike — that there's going to be a work stoppage. I just ask, in the interest of fairness, what is wrong with a third party who could be operating a business which could be ten times the size? That notice is given as a matter of interest, fairness and equity to all of those involved. It's true.

It's fine to put forth the position which the opposition does, but unfortunately.... Let's crunch the numbers and find out how many of the allied picketing cases which occurred in British Columbia were supported, endorsed and authorized by the Labour Relations Board when an application for a cease-and-desist was given. There were four. Four were given, representing between 15 and 20 percent of all the picketing cases in British Columbia in the last two years.

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have all the confidence in the world in the board. The problem is that we talk on one side about "Let's grieve first," and if there's going to be a work stoppage later.... Let's resolve our problems first. If there is a legitimate dispute and an ally is, in fact, someone who does have dirty hands and has been assisting an employer, then it shall be, as somebody once said, on his head. I don't think it's fair that company after company and employee after employee should be put out of work as a result of indiscriminate picketing by those who are not prepared to consider the working relationships and ongoing operations of a third party.

References were made to this being a return to the courts. I earlier gave you the information that a number of cases where a consent to sue has been given is very small. Even with all the indiscriminate picketing activity which occurred in 1981, there were eight applications — you can throw away the rest because they were never serious in the first instance — and only three were granted. What we have now is a reverse onus. When you start talking about pleadings and references made to the civil courts, the allegation is made by the plaintiff in this case and the onus is on the defendant to establish that he in fact has not committed an offence. In labour relations, the Labour Relations Board must first determine whether there's been a contravention of part 5. Then we have to look to what redress and recourse a third party has. All the people at the mill come up to the employer and say: "For crying out loud, can't you do something about this? Why are we constantly hit with this picketing. We know it's illegal. Can't you do something?" Well, as a matter of fact, the Labour Code had precluded any form of redress by these people. I don't see anything inexplicable in their position.

How do we explain the consents that are given? They have been. We know that 67 percent of those applications before the board were determined and disposed of prior to an adjudication — that's a hearing. We say that it's unfair. I repeat, we have to answer to the taxpayers, employees, employers, governments and other organizations, whether they be trade unions, executives, employers' councils or all of them. As I said earlier, let's crunch the numbers. It's fine that we can talk in theory. But it's something else when we get all the facts. I told the House about over 500 cases and gave their breakdown.

[ Page 9027 ]

Another interesting point comes in here. We talk about the element of surprise. Let's just think about that for a moment. The element of surprise: 6 o'clock in the morning and the operation is shut down; 300 man-days or 500 man-days are lost for no reason whatsoever. In those two instances those employees lost $80,000 worth of wages. It's inexplicable and insupportable.

We make reference to section 38. I accept that point. But there's just one problem with section 38. I want to know how a third party.... When the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) talks about the element of surprise, on the one hand, and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) talks about section 38 and getting a declaratory opinion.... You can't have it both ways, because the third party doesn't know when there's an element of surprise. Is it fair to shut down plants without notice and without any right? Even when we take the president of a union.... To turn around and say: "I want to be treated the way others should be treated...." I thought I made that point clear when I made reference to the editorial from the Prince George Citizen.

The member for North Island said: "Well, it's always to free business and regulate workers." I don't accept that for a moment. He talked about companies which change hands — or one is dropped and another one shows up. I only point out: how about all the pulp and lumber companies of British Columbia? The majors have all been here for decades. The Ferry Corporation, ICBC and the Post Office have been here. With respect to the rights of trade unions and the rights of organization, the member should look to the successor provisions in the Labour Code — successor works well.

While I accept the arguments put forth by the members opposite, I feel that the facts speak for themselves. The rights of those employees, who are entitled to work without disruption, when they have already made their collective agreement, should continue. Those disruptions are unnecessary, particularly in today's economic climate.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 50, Labour Code Amendment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 45: minister's office, $222,410.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want this important debate to go on without taking part in it. It'll only take me an hour or so to make my contribution to the debate on the Ministry of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should see a doctor.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I see a doctor quite often. I know other people who should too.

I know that members on all sides have said this, but I want to say it as well: I consider that we have the finest health-care system in the world, whether it's the institution or the individuals operating them — doctors, nurses, lay staff. Our hospitals are well equipped, and we all should be very proud of our health-delivery system in the province. As mentioned earlier, I can talk from a user's standpoint. I came to appreciate it more than ever during the time I was a member of a hospital board in this province. They do an excellent job in all respects. Sure, we have lots of criticism. I think some of it is irresponsible, and that worries me.

Regarding the government's side of it as far as priorities in spending, it's right there for anyone to see. Thirty percent of the provincial budget is devoted to health care. No other ministry of government is even close to that. That's the priority of this government, and I don't think it should be denied by criticisms. I particularly get incensed when the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) brings individual cases to the attention of the House. I guess that's all right, but it's really straight scare tactics with our citizens. What I have followed with his criticism is that the individual cases he brings in were, as far as I know, all refuted later by responsible people.

I feel that this member, a former Minister of Health, knows better, and he's very cruel in his criticism of individual cases. It's been said in the debate that there are other ways to handle these things. As far as I'm concerned, this member, by trying to be sensational, is doing a terrible disservice to the people who are depending on our health care in this province. It's a real worry, and he's doing it for political reasons. I don't recommend he continue it, but if he does, he's losing on it. That's the impression I get in moving around the province. People are getting incensed about it, whether they're delivering the health care or using the health-care system.

Some members have talked about the health care in their ridings. I want to comment, as the MLA for Cariboo, that we have excellent health care in the Cariboo, with three acute-care hospitals, one extended-care and three nursing homes, as well as, of course, homemaker service and so on. Yes, it is difficult at times, but again the criticism — from the press mostly — about the cutback in health care incenses me and other people in our province, when in fact the appropriation for health care has actually increased. We've had a real twist

[ Page 9028 ]

in our province through the press and other people to justify their position that there has been a reduction, which, of course, is not correct. The facts prove that wherever you go. I meet with the hospital boards in my riding. They had all asked for a 20 percent increase, and they got an average of about 7 percent. But they weren't cut back from what they had last year. In fact, they had an increase. That message doesn't seem to get out. The member for New Westminster doesn't help anything by trying to twist that around. I think he's doing an injustice particularly to people relying on the excellent health service we have.

I also want to say something about improvements made in another part of health care that I, indirectly, have been involved in to some degree. I refer to the air ambulance service provided to the province of British Columbia by all of us. As you know, the government air services come under the responsibility of this ministry.

Certain people are talking about cutbacks and so on. Firstly, I want to say that we probably have the finest air ambulance service in Canada, operated by the government of British Columbia from our own base of operations in Victoria, with our excellent pilots who fly the province night or day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, bringing air ambulance service to our citizens. By that I mean that there is a system in place. The air ambulances are only called out where higher medical care is required. That's left in the hands of responsible doctors throughout the province. We can now, through a call from the Health ministry.... In Fort Nelson, one of our northernmost communities, they actually have people from that community back to higher medical care — in most cases to Vancouver — in a period of about four hours. That, to me, is excellent service, and it goes on year-round.

The other thing is that I have a figures here to show what happened in 1981 and 1982. For the period from July 1980 to June 1981, 535 flights were carried out by air ambulance, which required 1,520 hours of flying. It involved carrying 756 patients, and the mileage covered was 341,587 air miles. That is for the year July 1980 to June 1981, and I'd like to give you the figures now, Mr. Chairman, for July 1981 to June 1982. They are as follows, to show you how the air ambulance service has been stepped up quite substantially. In that period from July 1981 to June 1982, 851 air ambulance flights were made, compared to 535 the year before. The hours flown up to June 1982 were 2,022, up from 1,520 hours the year before; patients carried in the year ending June 1982 — 1,042, compared to 756 in the prior year; and mileages flown in the year ending June 1982 — 425,567, compared to 341,587 miles the year before.

You will note from these figures, Mr. Chairman, that all of them are up approximately 30 percent. In no way is the government reducing the availability of air ambulance service to the citizens there; it's on a constant increase, and we're very proud of that.

I know that costs are involved, and I will just give you the rough costs of it. Flights flown and patients carried on all types of aircraft, including scheduled flights and charters, Armed Forces and helicopters — the total people involved were 2,636 and the total cost was $2.96 million making a grand total of $4,476,625, which covers both the Emergency Health Services and the government air services. In other words, the government air services make a lot of flights themselves, but we also use the private sector as required. It really gives excellent service which was never available before to the people in the more remote areas of the province. It gives better medical care in a hurry.

There is another way this ministry has been involved. These aircraft can't fly if they don't have a place to land and take off. In 1978 our government inaugurated the airport assistance program. To date, we have spent $15 million on that very small but impressive program to upgrade airstrips so that the air ambulance service can get into communities they could never get into before. I'd like to name a few. Under that $15 million in the last five years, 20 communities have had their airstrips improved. One that we are still in the process of upgrading is in probably the most remote community in our province, Atlin. At Dease Lake, which is certainly an unpopulated area — it's fairly remote — we have spent $1.3 million. We can now get in and out of there with decent aircraft. Stewart, out on the coast, is another place; Anahim Lake in the Cariboo, not far from Bella Coola, in the Chilcotin plateau; 100 Mile House. There's been upgrading done at Chilliwack. A lot of money has been spent at Bella Coola so that government aircraft and others can get in and out of there on a decent strip. At Powell River — I'm glad the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is here — a lot of money has been spent upgrading under this program. Nanaimo is another one; it's not very remote but it certainly needed upgrading. The upgrading that took place in Nanaimo made it an all-night facility, which it wasn't before. This, again, ties in with the air ambulance and the additional service required.

Creston, a community in the Nelson-Creston riding, has a brand new airstrip, and hopefully they'll get a reasonable air service. Dealing with air ambulance, our machines can go in and out of there now to bring better medical care, if required. Alert Bay is another one; also Burns Lake, Fraser Lake, Houston, Leo Creek — which is certainly a long way north of Fort St. James and very remote; we've spent a lot of money there on a gravel strip, and the air ambulance can get in and out of there as well. In Vanderhoof there's a paved strip and the air ambulance goes in and out of there constantly. In Fort Ware, which is in the Prince George North riding and has no road access, we have improved their airstrip for air ambulance purposes and other transportation.

In the community of Mackenzie we upgraded that strip for better service, to allow the air ambulance to get in. In Chetwynd — I'm not sure who the MLA is there, but I think we've heard from him before — we built a new strip and spent about $1.2 million, so they've been brought into the modern world and given the air ambulance service. Dawson Creek had some work done on their strip, particularly the float side. We worked in Revelstoke and upgraded their strip. Salmon Arm, a community that had nothing, now has a million dollar paved strip, and our aircraft are using that for air ambulance and other work — they never had the use of it before. We're now in the process of building an airstrip in the Pemberton valley. Another large gap in the air services, as far as airports for air ambulance work are concerned, was Lillooet. A new strip opened at Lillooet last year at a cost of $1.3 million, and now the air ambulance can go in there. We're working on Merritt at the present time, and have an excellent strip that we worked on at Princeton.

That more or less lays out.... It's all very well to say that we have a fleet of aircraft that can bring the service to these communities, but they can't do it without airstrips. I wanted the committee to know what had happened there; we

[ Page 9029 ]

didn't have much opportunity in my estimates. As a matter of fact, if I recall, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) didn't seem to realize that we had an airstrip in Salmon Arm. I hope he reads the Blues now, and can find out that we have.

I just wanted to say these few things. Regarding the minister himself, he is obnoxious to have as a seatmate, but he's a fine minister and does an excellent job. He makes the same remarks about having me as his seatmate. He's a great guy. He has heavy responsibilities. I don't like to see him thrashed by irresponsible statements and people. I don't think it's the right way to handle things. It seems to me that if we go on at the rate we're going, forever criticizing our health-delivery system, we're going to destroy it, whether in British Columbia or Canada. It's sure worthwhile keeping and improving on. That's what this government wants to do.

All you have to do to confirm it is to do what I did, and go down to the United States and get involved in their medical system. You'll find that in the richest country in world you have to pay for everything out of your back pocket. There is no medical care down there. A hospital bed is $400 a day, and after that you start paying for the nurses and so on; all that gives you is the bed, and you pay extra for the pills, nurses, and so on and so forth.

MR. NICOLSON: And the toothbrush.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's right, the toothbrush or whatever it is. I was never happier to get back home after I went through that experience last fall in our fine neighbours' wealthy country. I realize how fortunate we are here as Canadians and British Columbians to have the excellent health care we have. A lot of our Canadians have found out the way I found out.

Give the minister and the ministry all the support possible. It is the priority of this government. They will always have priority in spending. As far as I can gather, there's no change in government policy. I would say to the member for New Westminster: please, look after your individual cases in the proper manner instead of trying to mix it up and becoming political with it. I don't think it does a good service to the sick, or the people that are thinking of it. It really worries a lot of our senior citizens to see this going on. I plead with him to desist in what has been carried on in our province, particularly since April.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with some of the things that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) said. He said that he didn't like people getting up and attacking the Minister of Health, and I think that's valid enough. I think that one should attack the Premier, first and foremost, and perhaps his government, and not put the whole burden on one individual, because this is a government policy.

The minister in his attempts to try to keep a system under attack in operation.... I've certainly had some good cooperation from him in terms of the Willowhaven Private Hospital, a matter which threatened the existence of that hospital. Things had come to such a threatening position that patients and staff had been given 90 days' notice of closure of the hospital because of funding problems. The minister took that on, brought in staff and dealt with it.

But, Mr. Chairman, by juggling and giving special attention to special problems the minister cannot deal with all the problems that are thrust upon him by this particular government. Also, the minister clearly needs to have a better system of information flowing to him on the effects of various kinds of cuts, because we hear constant denials in the House of the effects that are occurring. I'll give one quick example before adjournment. One lady whom I know came from the interior to visit with a friend of hers who had come out from hospital. Both of these ladies are pensioners.

The lady who had come out of hospital lived with a sister. The sister, while she was in hospital for a very short stay of two or three days, became incontinent. When she came out, these two other ladies — one of whom was recovering — tried to get this lady into some kind of intermediate care or extended-care situation, with pretty well heroic efforts on behalf of their doctor. This led to real problems, stumbling blocks, and for a couple of days it appeared as if this lady, who had totally lost any kind of mental ability, had nowhere to go, but had to stay home in the care of her sister, who had just come out of hospital. This other lady phoned me, related this to me, and the matter was eventually solved by the efforts of her doctor. But she said: "I couldn't imagine that this was happening in British Columbia. I thought that we had the best health care in the world."

That doctor related to her an anecdote that had recently happened in the lower mainland. For lack of extended-care facilities they had had to place an otherwise normal and healthy 100-year-old man into not an acute-care bed but an intensive-care bed. Meanwhile a person with cardiac problems came in who should have been put into intensive care. He died. Nobody can say that he died because he didn't get into an intensive-care bed. He very well might have died otherwise, but this came as such a revelation to this one senior citizen, who had thought that we had the best health-care system in the world. So when we in the opposition and when responsible people — some of the letters from whom I hope to read into the record before these debates are concluded.... When so many are saying that the health system is under attack, we are not serving the very fine system which we have built up in this province and in this country by pretending that things are otherwise.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.