[ Page 4177 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Pulp and Paper Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 18). Second reading.

Mr. Segarty –– 4177

Mr. Skelly –– 4178

Mr. Michael –– 4180

Mr. Mitchell –– 4181

Mr. Veitch –– 4184

Mrs. Wallace –– 4186

Mr. Pelton –– 4187

TUESDAY, APRIL 3,1984

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), it is my pleasure to introduce to the House Mr. Martin Mellado, who is from the Little Mountain constituency and a very strong supporter. I would ask the House to welcome Martin Mellado.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 18.

PULP AND PAPER COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, many hours have passed since two o'clock yesterday afternoon, when the Leader of the Opposition came into this House, made an emotional outburst and accused the government of trying to ram a piece of legislation through this House while members of the pulp unions throughout British Columbia were voting on whether or not they should obey the law — or whether or not they should go back to work. The press reports this morning indicate that a number of those people received bad advice from the Leader of the Opposition and all of those.... I've been watching that party over the past week, hoping that somewhere along the line some new leader would emerge with a sense of purpose and a sense of direction for that party, who would not get into the type of emotional outburst that took place in this Legislature yesterday with respect to the advice given to working British Columbians. The leaders of the two pulp unions followed the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, and suggested that this was not an act to put them back to work until it was passed by the Legislature. I know that those members of the union will think about their position over the next couple of days and over the course of the debate. We have a responsibility to point out to them the serious danger and the threat to their very existence with this type of attitude.

Yesterday I talked about what is taking place in terms of the international marketplace, and I'd just like to touch on that briefly again this morning. As you know, the traditional suppliers of pulp throughout the world, known as the Norcan group of nations — Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the United States — face fierce competition from their rivals throughout the world, the non-Norcan group of producers, which have gained significant growth in world markets over the past 15 years. In 1982 their combined tonnage of pulp production stood at 9.5 million tonnes, or a full 35 percent of the world pulp supply. By the end of this year it is anticipated that the same non-Norcan group of producers will gain another 2 percent of the share. By 1990 and beyond, when world demand for pulp is expected to expand tremendously, the competition from the non-Norcan producers is expected to intensify and become extremely fierce. These are the facts that the leader of the opposition should bring to those leaders of the pulp unions, who face very serious danger today in the loss of a competitive edge. It is not good enough to stick your head in the sand like an ostrich and poke it up every once in a while because there's political ground to be made; to poke it up every once in a while and give bad advice to trade union people throughout this province, who look to all of us for guidance, advice and leadership and the ability to do the right thing regardless of politics.

Brazil, for example, opened up new pulp mills in 1978 and 1979. Their combined production of 900,000 tonnes is beyond their domestic requirement and is now available for export. Brazil has export markets in Europe, Japan and the United States. In neighbouring Chile, pulp exports are projected to grow to 750,000 tonnes by 1990 and 1.5 million tonnes by the year 2000. Chile now has export markets in Germany, France, China and Korea. Neighbouring Argentina is also looking at exporting 40 percent of their capacity of kraft pulp to the Norcan areas, our traditional markets, and that's where the threat is coming from within.

In eastern Europe, Portugal is considering entering the world pulp market in a major way, with production capacity expected to be 735,000 tonnes by the end of this year, expanding to 915,000 tonnes by the end of 1985. This is basically the situation in which we find ourselves insofar as our competitors are concerned. In eastern Europe, only 250,000 tonnes is available for export to other nations.

But even from within the Norcan group itself we face fierce competition from pulp mills currently being built in the southeast of the United States. One might ask why countries like Brazil, Portugal and the United States are building new pulp mills, when in a province with a large forest land base such as British Columbia — and elsewhere in Canada — pulp mill and sawmill construction has ground almost to a halt. It is not because we don't have available fibre, because all of us know that there is enough fibre in British Columbia to construct two new pulp mills. At the present time we export those chips where and when we can, and we're fortunate to be able to do that. There is enough fibre, and one would then ask why we are not building new pulp capacity. Our Premier gave that message to the people of British Columbia in February 1982, and that message was there for those people who wanted to listen to it: the cost of our production is too high. He said that if we are to compete in the very challenging world market of the 1980s, we would have to lower our production costs. That's basically the problem that we face today. The cost — in United States dollars — of manufacturing a tonne of pulp in southeastern British Columbia is approximately $360; in the southeastern United States it is $340. So clearly they have a competitive edge in any new markets.

That's the situation, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what company would be prepared to go out and invest $500 million of their money building a new pulp mill in British Columbia when they are already struggling to maintain their current share of the market, let alone capture new markets for their products? All of this evidence is available to the members of the opposition party and to pulp unions. While Mr. Sloan and Mr. Gruntman would go around and play petty politics and one-upmanship with Jack Munro on the advice of the members of the opposition party, our competitors are going out to the international marketplace and stealing our

[ Page 4178 ]

contracts right from under our nose. That is a situation which this party and our government won't tolerate in this particular climate. There's absolutely no way that this province can afford to allow this dispute to go on any longer. I would have hoped that the critic of the Attorney-General, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), would stand up in this House and support this legislation. For the first time in a long time she would have an opportunity to do something for the women and children of this province, which she complains about in this House many times over the course of the debate. And I would have hoped that the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who would get up in this Legislature and play petty politics with the independent loggers of British Columbia, would stand up in support of this legislation and perhaps have an opportunity to put some of those independent loggers to work in this province — loggers who probably haven't worked six months in the past two years and need an income. I know the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will stand up in support of this bill, because he says that he doesn't owe his allegiance to either big unions or big business. I look forward to his support on this bill.

[10:15]

I can understand the position of the labour critic on this bill. I don't expect him to support it, because he is a pretty principled fellow. He didn't support the legislation when the New Democratic Party brought in the legislation, and I don't expect he will support ours. Because he doesn't support it we can only assume that the leader he is supporting for the leadership race of the New Democratic Party would not bring in this type of legislation. We can also suppose that that leader too would be against the private ownership of land in our province.

I know the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) will stand up and support this bill. He's been harping at the government for the length of lineups at soup kitchens, and so on, in our province. Here's an opportunity to reduce the lineups at those soup kitchens, and to stop playing petty politics on the backs of the poor, the disabled and the handicapped of this province. Here's an opportunity to put some people to work and provide needed revenue to this government to provide services for those people who are less fortunate than we are in this province.

I support this bill. It's a bill that will allow the collective bargaining process to take place in this province. I challenge the leaders of the pulp union and industry in our province to stop playing politics, sit down and negotiate a collective agreement under the provisions of the legislation that will allow people to go back to work and make an income in order that they may be able to support their families during this difficult time in our economy. The bill provides for that.

It also provides an opportunity for those payrolls to be circulated around the community, with people spending money in the businesses of the small business people of our province who desperately need help. Perhaps with people spending money those small business people, who are the largest employers in our province, will be able to hire some young people, put them to work and provide help for them as well.

Most of all, this is a piece of legislation for the wives and children of those people who work in the forest industry. We all know what happens in this type of dispute. A few of the radicals will go down to the local pub and have a great gossip about how they socked it to them and how they pulled one over on Bennett and on the companies, and they'll have a great laugh. But it's not very funny, because it's the wives who have to look after the food for the family table. It's those people this bill is designed to help most of all.

It provides an opportunity for people, men and women, to go to work in the pulp mill and to provide opportunities for their families to grow in an environment that's extremely tough in 1984. There are new opportunities out there. I would appeal to the members of the New Democratic Party to give this bill second and third reading today, and allow this bargaining process to take place and the parties to get together — without the political emotion that takes place in this House — and come up with a collective bargaining agreement that will see the industry settle down. Perhaps, with some common sense prevailing, industry will be able to look at the union and invite them to participate in ways in which they can expand new pulp capacity in our province, utilize our surplus of wood chips and provide new jobs and new investment in our economy. Unless we get back to creating those jobs and new investment, we will all suffer the results.

I want to commend the Minister of Labour for bringing forward this piece of legislation. I want to reiterate that it has been agonizing for all of the members of our caucus, too, to come down with this legislation, because since we formed the government in 1979 it has not been our policy to legislate people back to work. It's not our policy today, Mr. Speaker, but there are times when government has to take strong and decisive action. It's only those people who have the courage to make hard decisions necessary for our survival today that, in the long run, will go down in the history books of our province as a government that brought the province along during extremely difficult times. So I want to congratulate the Premier, our Minister of Labour and all our caucus colleagues for facing the reality of the time and for having the courage to bring forward this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of Bill 18.

MR. SKELLY: I always appreciate listening to the member for Kootenay. It almost seemed for a moment there that he was going to melt into tears about having to pass this legislation. What I was concerned about was when he was talking about competition. It's interesting that if the member was concerned about competition, about eight weeks ago when the companies locked their workers out, those workers were in the course of producing the pulp that we required for our foreign markets. In fact, all of the pulp mills in the province were working, producing pulp, shipping that pulp into those foreign markets that he's worried about being taken over by Brazilian competition, and the companies shut them down. Why didn't the government get tough then, if they were worried about competition? Why didn't the Premier come out of the hills then, as he did when CP threatened to take over MacMillan Bloedel, and order those companies back to work; use his muscle, or use the muscle of his office to order those companies back to work so that we would be producing the pulp required in those foreign markets?

The member's statement rings pretty hollow. Why didn't the Premier use the moral suasion of his office at that time to keep those pulp mills working to keep our markets secure? Instead he allowed this dispute to carry on for eight weeks when those companies ran their workers off the job. Already at that time agreements had been established, dates had been established for the unions and the companies to meet to negotiate the collective agreement. Even in the face of that date being set, the companies shut down their mills, stopped

[ Page 4179 ]

producing the pulp and started losing those markets that the member talked about.

The member also talked about new pulp capacity being developed in the province. He said there was enough fibre in British Columbia to establish two new pulp mills. Well, what about the fibre that was given to Doman Industries several years ago on the central coast? He was given additional allowable cut in the Nootka PSYU on the promise that he would build a thermo-mechanical pulp mill on Vancouver Island. The requirements that Mr. Doman entered into have never been imposed on him by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland); he is in violation of his contract. Yet when a forest company received timber in Alberta on the promise that they would build a mill at Whitecourt, Alberta, and they refused to live up to that promise, the timber was taken away from them right away.

The member talked about competition and losing foreign markets. Yet this government did not step in and use their moral suasion to attempt to keep the pulp mills in this province working. The statements of the member for Kootenay ring hollow when he talks about competition and losing those markets.

When the Minister of Labour introduced the bill, he talked about his anguish, regret and concern for the 20,000 people who are out of work as a result of this lockout. And I'm concerned about them, because a good percentage of those 20,000 people live in my constituency. They are hardworking, producing millworkers, and they were working at the time the companies locked them out. They were producing pulp for those foreign markets. Yet the government didn't put any pressure whatsoever.... They didn't consider it an emergency that we were losing those markets, that we were condemning these people to no salaries at all. Suddenly, eight weeks later, they become concerned.

That statement rings pretty hollow as well when in this province there are a quarter of a million people out of work. As other members have pointed out, this province is worse in terms of unemployment than any other jurisdiction in North America, with the exception of Newfoundland — the traditional have-not province of Canada — and West Virginia, the poorest state of Appalachia. Mr. Speaker, B.C. is in worse shape in terms of employment than those other states. Yet the minister expresses concern about 20,000 people being out of work in the pulp industry when he could have brought those people from the industry in eight weeks ago, knocked heads together and brought those people back to work — ordered an end to the lockout. Yet he did nothing. This government has done more to create unemployment, confrontation and problems with the workforce in British Columbia than any other government in the history of British Columbia, or Canada for that matter.

The minister and the Premier express some concern for the citizens of Port Alberni. It's unusual for the minister to express any kind of concern at all, because he is the one who has caused all the problems in Port Alberni. When MacMillan Bloedel downsized their operations and threw 3,500 people out of work, was there any word from the Premier of this province? Was there any word from the Minister of Labour? Was there any word from the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), who has suddenly developed all this concern for the working people of this province? Did the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) say: "Use it or lose it. Put those people back to work or you're going to lose your tree-farm licences"? Not a word from the provincial government. From the point of view of MacMillan Bloedel, 3,500 people in Port Alberni went off the job forever, and this government did nothing.

When there was an opportunity for this government to get involved in an intensive silviculture agreement with the federal government, to improve the sustainability of our forests, to replant the forests, to put those people back to work in Port Alberni, was there any concern on the part of the Premier about the people who were out of work? Was there any concern by the Minister of Forests? Was there any concern by the member for Kootenay? Not a bit of concern. As a result, those people are out of work in Port Alberni. This government has done more to create unemployment in Port Alberni than anyone else. Private industry isn't responsible. The responsibility rests with this government here. Now they cry about the concerns of those people who were out of work for eight weeks as a result of this pulp industry dispute. They shut down the Assessment Authority office in Port Alberni. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is chirping from his seat over there, has shut down five or six schools in Port Alberni. He sacked the teachers and is going to be sacking even more teachers by the time he's finished the budget cuts and by the time he's finished his reign of terror in education in this province. This government bears more responsibility than anyone else — public, private or whatever for the unemployment that's going on in this province.

They didn't mention unemployment in their budget speech. They even admitted that they dissolved their special cabinet committee on unemployment in the province. They have no concern about unemployment. They have no concern about those people who are out of work. Those people would not be out of work today if it weren't for the type of legislation that this government brought down, if it weren't for the type of club that this government is using over their heads in order to drive them back to work.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair, ]

The Premier compared this bill to Bill 146 that was passed in 1975. There's absolutely no comparison at all. When that bill was presented, the industry went back to work and the pulp and paper workers went back to work. There was concern: nobody likes to be legislated back to work. But it wasn't held over their head as a threat like the section in this bill that says that if they don't reach a collective agreement within a certain period of time, this government is going to impose a collective agreement on them — a collective agreement determined by the government. There was never any such provision in Bill 146. More than anything else, that provision has probably caused the workers in the pulp and paper industry to reject this legislation and to refuse to go back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to go on at any length. I am concerned about the statements made by the Minister of Labour about his new-found concern for the workers in the pulp industry, when he and his cabinet are wholly responsible for the fact that a quarter of a million people are out of work in this province. He has demonstrated virtually no concern about those people who are out of work, and the cabinet has done little, if anything, to generate employment in this province. As a result, we're one of the worst jurisdictions in Canada and North America in terms of unemployment.

I listened to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who has gone back to

[ Page 4180 ]

his office to cut back more government programs to put more people out of work. When he talks about unemployment and expresses his concern about the pulp workers, that rings a little hollow too, Mr. Speaker. When the member for Kootenay talks about the competitiveness of our pulp industry, and the government has done nothing over the last eight weeks to impose an agreement on the industry or to order the industry back to work, that rings a little hollow. If there is any reason why these workers are out of work today, it is that this legislation is so abhorrent that they feel if they go back to work they are going to end up with a settlement imposed on them by a government which has demonstrated itself to be anti-labour, anti-employment and anti-industry in this case.

I am absolutely opposed to this legislation for the reason that it allows cabinet to impose a settlement on the industry behind the closed doors of cabinet and in consultation with their friends. I am absolutely opposed to any legislative action which orders people back to work before the legislation is even passed in this Legislature, and I certainly intend to stand in opposition and to vote against this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we could have some quiet while members are speaking, hon. members.

[10:30]

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in analyzing the response from my constituency, and having talked to people during the past week from all sectors throughout my constituency, I can stand up in this House with full confidence of supporting this bill to end this dispute. I have talked to people from all walks of life: labour people, business people, constituents in general and housewives, and there has not been one single person in my telephone canvass who advised me not to take action. They are unanimous in their points of view that this government must take action to end this long-standing dispute in the pulp industry. The costs are mounting every day. The tax revenue alone is said to be somewhere in the vicinity of $500,000 a day as a direct result of this dispute. The economic impact is bordering in the vicinity of $10 million a day, and on top of that we have sawmills in many parts of the province of British Columbia burning very valuable chips, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars a day going up in smoke. This is a terrible waste. Chip piles are rotting.

We have the question of our international reputation affecting the long-term livelihood and economic benefits, and the loss of markets with long-term impact on our long-term planning in the province of British Columbia. In the middle of all this, Mr. Speaker, we have a very fragile recovery in all sectors of the province. Seven out of fifteen copper mines in this province are currently closed because of poor market conditions. Seventy percent of the total of the molybdenum production in the province of British Columbia is at a standstill, and we have a fishing industry that is suffering very severely at the present time. In the middle of this we have a dispute in the pulp industry, which is one of the most important industries in this province and which has been at a complete standstill for eight weeks.

I've done a little research, and I would like to outline to the House some of the differences between the legislation called the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act that the opposition brought in when they were government in 1975 and the legislation currently before the House. The comparison is that in 1975 negotiations were in process in the forest products industry — and there is a large question mark in my mind as to whether the government should have stuck their nose into that dispute in the first place, because of that fact. I have a great deal of sentiment with some of the words the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) said in this House yesterday. I believe that the interference of the New Democratic Party government in 1975 has a lot to do with what has happened since 1975 and what we're having to face here today. The comparison is that in 1984 no negotiations have taken place in the industry for approximately two weeks. In 1975 the bill at that time gave 48 hours notice; conversely, our bill gave 72 hours notice. In listening to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) speak a few minutes ago, criticizing this government for taking so long, wondering why we didn't step in at an earlier date, the interesting point is that it took the NDP government in 1975 ten weeks to take action. We have been very patient and have waited for eight weeks to take action. I repeat, they stepped in after ten weeks when negotiations were already in process; we have stepped in with no negotiations going on.

It makes little difference to me, in taking action as the government, whether it's a strike or a lockout. The plain facts are that it is an industrial dispute that is costing this province irreparable damage. In the history of the NDP — the short-lived three and a half years of the NDP — they involved themselves in five labour disputes. They took legislative action involving five labour disputes. I would remind the House and the members that this is only the second time in nine years that we have involved ourselves in a labour dispute to this degree. It's interesting to look back over the records and see the action taken in 1975 and some of the statements made.

I would like to read some statements in a press release in 1975 made by the Minister of Labour of the day regarding the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act. The article said: "King told the House the government still believes in the free collective bargaining system and the rights of unions and employers to use strikes and lockouts as part of the system." There's nothing the matter with that. I would like the opposition to listen to this. He said: "'But no rights are absolute. No one has the absolute right to indulge in economic warfare that in many cases jeopardizes the safety, health, comfort and welfare of the people of the province of British Columbia. All four disputes covered by the legislation have jeopardized that public interest and are likely to do so.'" The article goes on — and it alludes to what I said earlier in my address: "The greatest surprise in the bill was that the forest industry was included, since meetings between forest industrial relations and the International Woodworkers of America were continuing and appeared to be making progress."

I repeat: the result of the action in 1975 has a lot to with where we are today. It makes little difference to me that the dispute in 1975 was a strike and the dispute in 1984 is a lockout.

In covering some of the clauses in the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, let me read from section 2(a): "all employees shall immediately resume the duties of their employment with their respective employer in accordance with the terms and conditions of the last collective agreement in force between the employees and their respective employer prior to the coming into force of this act." Pretty strong words, Mr. Speaker. Section 2(b) says: "no person or trade union shall declare, acquiesce in or engage in any strike of the operations of their employers or declare, authorize, acquiesce in or engage in any picketing of the places of business

[ Page 4181 ]

operation of their respective employers or the places where they are employed." Very strong stuff, Mr. Speaker. Let's read the last part of section 3: "...any declaration, authorization or direction to go on strike declared, authorized or given to them before the coming into force of this act has become invalid, and that any strike and picketing is prohibited by reason of the coming into force of this act." That's the kind of stuff the opposition, when government in 1975, laid before this House to solve a problem. I have a great amount of difficulty in listening to the speakers from the opposite side criticizing the positive action that this government is taking today in resolving the current dispute in the forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time that the employers and the unions in the province of British Columbia had a close reexamination of where we are going in the field of industrial relations. We look around this province and we see a lot of conflict, a lot of lost productivity, a lot of lost wages, a lot of lost profits and a lot of lost markets. I think of how great this province could be if the people involved in industrial relations throughout the length and breadth of this province would have a re-examination, discontinue the conflict and get on with building a better British Columbia.

I see the dispute in Vancouver with the newspapers, the Province and the Sun, and I wonder what's going through people's minds in bringing a large employer such as that firm to a standstill. I read in a recent article in the local newspaper that the Vancouver Province lost $15 million in their last fiscal year. I wonder what goes through people's minds in the port of Vancouver when I see hundreds of jobs being lost — tens of millions of dollars of economic activity — because the port workers insist on maintaining the repackaging clause that they have in their collective agreement. I wonder, when I look around and see all the unemployment in Victoria, what went through certain people's minds last year when the local newspaper, the Times-Colonist, offered to run that paper on a seven-day basis and employ several extra people, and the union voted down that seven-day operation. I wonder what is going through those people's minds in making those kinds of decisions.

I also wonder, Mr. Speaker, what's going through people's minds in the recent False Creek episode. A reputable firm in the province of British Columbia bids on a project, is the lowest bidder, puts hundreds of people to work, and other groups of workers think that they have an inherent right to push that firm off that project. I also wonder what's going to happen in this province in the next week or ten days regarding the Expo 86 project, a project that is dear to the hearts of all British Columbians. It hangs in jeopardy because of the selfishness and greed of a few labour leaders in the province of British Columbia, a few union leaders insisting on taking irresponsible action and insisting that that project remain 100 percent union labour.

I look at the question before us, the question of the act resolving the current dispute in the forest industry, and I look at the pulp workers having already lost in the vicinity of $6,000 in lost wages and benefits. Surely they must be aware that they cannot and will not succeed in bettering the contract negotiated by the IWA. Having lost $6,000 in wages, they would have to get an additional 30 cents an hour over the most recent offer just to pay the interest on the loss. But what do we have? We have an opposition obstructing and delaying, and nurturing conflict, encouraging conflict in this House.

[10:45]

In listening to the most recent speaker from the opposition, I was interested in his opening remarks, talking about the action of our Premier. He asks: "Why wait eight weeks? Why didn't you act long ago?" Well, I guess, conversely, we could ask why it took the NDP ten weeks to act in 1975? That doesn't matter. He forgets about that. He talks about the laying off of teachers and government workers. Mr. Speaker, doesn't he realize that this dispute is costing this province hundreds of thousands of dollars a day in tax revenue which could go toward increasing social services, building a stronger economy and building better benefits for those people in need? He must be ignoring those kinds of things. He's either blind or is deliberately misleading this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That must be withdrawn. The term "deliberately misleading" is unparliamentary.

MR. MICHAEL: I will withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

I would like that member of the opposition, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), to declare before this House, or declare in the press gallery, if he favours a better settlement, a more expensive settlement, a more lucrative settlement for the pulp workers than he does for the IWA. I would like him to declare himself. Does he favour a more expensive, more lucrative settlement for the pulp workers than he does for the IWA? I think the thousands of IWA members in Port Alberni would very much like to hear that member's views on that particular subject.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think that if this House were to spend more time on approaching the constructive things to make this province stronger, to create more jobs and to create more economic activity.... On that subject, there is no doubt in my mind that when this dispute is settled and the pulp workers and the forest industry are fully back to work, we've got a good marketplace out there right now where you're going to see a lot of economic activity in British Columbia. There are a lot of machine shops, expansion projects and renovations taking place, and I think you're going to see a significant improvement in the job-creation activities throughout the province of British Columbia. I support this bill 100 percent. I'm surprised at the position of the opposition. I can't believe some of the words I've heard coming from across the floor.

MR. MITCHELL: It's interesting when I sit here and listen to the various speeches that have gone on this morning. I wonder what bill they are discussing. They don't appear in any way to be discussing Bill 18, which we have before us. Some of the talks that have been given sound very much like the talks I gave in my throne speech and budget speech. There's a need for a change in the industrial development of our pulp mills — they are becoming antiquated and do need upgrading. But what did this government sit back and allow to happen in the pulp industry? They allowed a corporate power takeover by Noranda, and the millions of dollars which were spent on that power struggle was money that should have been put into this industry to upgrade it and make it competitive with world pulp industries.

This is what's happening. What really bothers me is when I listen to the speakers trying to compare Bill 18 with Bill 146 passed in 1975. There is no comparison. I listened to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) try to embarrass certain members on this

[ Page 4182 ]

side of the House by reading statements about another piece of legislation. If they really wanted to embarrass them, they should have brought in an identical bill to what was passed in 1975, but there is no comparison. Bill 146 in 1975 was a bill to bring in a 90-day cooling-off period to allow negotiations to continue. That's all it was. It wasn't a bill that imposed a settlement. Not only does it impose a settlement but it allows the cabinet to vary, by regulations, parts of that agreement that have been negotiated over the years by collective negotiation and agreement. You have a bill that allows the cabinet to vary that collective agreement. I know that when that party were in opposition in 1975, they would not have supported this bill. Never would they have supported this bill.

Would they have supported a bill to have allowed the NDP government to write a collective agreement? No, they wouldn't. You know, Mr. Speaker, from your vast knowledge of the government's political philosophy, that they would never have sat back and allowed the NDP to write an agreement for the pulp workers or the forest industry or any group. This legislation is all part and parcel of the same type of legislation that came in in 1983 when the attack was on the public sector workers. This government brought in legislation that eroded rights that had been freely gained by collective bargaining. They not only did that but also changed statutes — laws of the province of British Columbia that had given people in the public service certain rights and certain dignities. The government brought in legislation that wiped those out. This type of legislation is now attacking the private sector. It is trying to do to the private sector what was done to the public sector. This legislation is one large conspiracy to take away benefits that people have gained over the many years of free collective bargaining. They are doing it under the guise of restraint, and because we are in the unfortunate position of having a lot of unemployment — unemployment caused by this government's mismanagement! This government got the province into more debt than any other government in the whole history of British Columbia. It took a hundred and some-odd years to get $4 billion into debt, and it took this government less than eight years to get nearly $16 billion in debt. This is from the mismanagement of our forest industries and of our power in the economic field, because we are into debt from building....

HON. MR. HEWITT: What are you talking about?

MR. MITCHELL: You know what I'm talking about. You know that the debt this province has from government mismanagement is causing the unemployment that this government is trying to use to put down the pulp workers or the forest industry.

I know that clear heads on both the labour side and the industry side will eventually prevail, and they will negotiate a settlement; the history of labour in this province proves that eventually they do sit down and go over the facts. But what bothers me is that for the two months it was a lockout this government did nothing. For two months, when the Minister of Labour, the cabinet and the back-benchers should have been insisting that the persuasion available in the minister's office, the Premier's office, the Minister of Finance's office, of where the industry is going to go in world markets....

For two months while the company had a lockout and the workers wanted to continue to work, when they were keeping the wheels of industry rolling until the company wanted to have a lockout, the government did nothing.

MR. MICHAEL: How about 1975?

MR. MITCHELL: This is different. In 1975 the then Minister of Labour was meeting daily with the various groups in British Columbia that were on strike, meeting daily with either the employer or the employee. This is what governments must do. Governments must give leadership and direction. But what is this government doing now? They are doing exactly what they did last summer to the public service. They are bringing in the Big Brother attitude of we know best, we'll write the agreement.

What you're going to see in this province is what you see in Quebec, where the Legislature is dealing with bills about two feet high — all the collective agreements of all the public servants, which become legislation. This is what is going to happen if we continue down this path of altering the rights of collective negotiations. You cannot grind people down and say: "We will pass the law and we will set your standards." There's a double standard. I don't want to get involved in the negotiations, but one of the items on the negotiating table was a COLA clause; but that was bad because that wasn't in the IWA contract. So there's a double standard. This government has a COLA clause to increase the taxes on cigarettes and on gas. They have a COLA clause to increase the rates charged for hydro. There's a double standard: one for this government and one for the people who work in this community.

I listen in utter amazement when they compare this bill with unemployment. There is unemployment in this province, and there is a need to attack unemployment. There is a need to look at full employment as a way of life. When we have approximately 225,000 people unemployed, this is the problem that this government should be looking at. But no, they zero in and allow a lockout to go on for two months, and then, all of a sudden, when they lift the lockout by making Bill 18 retroactive, then everyone else is breaking the law.

[11:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We have to have some consistency in the Legislature, and I say that we should have some common sense. The government has an obligation to give some leadership and some input, but you are not going to give that leadership when you allow people to be ground down by two months of unemployment. Once they have lost $6,000 in wages.... I quite believe the figure is correct. People are not going to grovel forever. All of a sudden you say: "Now we have you down, and you've got to do it the way we want." This is the attitude that this government is forcing on the public servants, school teachers and nurses of this province. This was where they started last year, and it's going to continue as long as this government is in power.

If you're going to compare apples, let's compare apples and apples. But don't compare apples and oranges. There's nothing in this bill to force a settlement on the employees that you can compare to that 90-day cooling-off period. The previous speaker is well aware of that; there is no comparison. When you look at this, and when you look at the final.... If this type of legislation is allowed to creep into our parliament, if you can bring in legislation on a Friday at 12:45 and make it retroactive after 72 hours.... This is immoral, Mr. Speaker. You're aware that legislation must be debated in this House. When it's passed, that legislation is law. That is not law in anything else but a finance bill. The reasons that finance bills are accepted in parliament to be

[ Page 4183 ]

retroactive is because of traditions that parliament have set up to allow the Minister of Finance to do his planning and his budgeting. But there are still traditions in British-style parliament that allow procedures that we follow to bring in legislation.

Those of us who were lucky enough to be elected have an opportunity to debate it, to bring in amendments and to pass it. Then it becomes law. But to make these veiled threats that people are breaking the law when it is really not a law that has been passed.... The majority of this government can jam anything through. Last year they jammed through the labour standards amendments. If you go back into last year's Hansard, you will read where I said that one of the sections taken out of the Labour standards is that a collective agreement stays in force until a new one is negotiated. In the labour negotiations, especially in the type of labour negotiations that I was involved in in the essential services, it was important that the agreements stay in force past the cutoff date, which was traditionally December 31. Negotiations never got started until the spring, but the agreement stayed in force. In the House last year I asked: "Why are you taking out this section of the labour standards where the agreement runs out on the expiry date?" It does not allow for the continuation of negotiation. But the government didn't listen to us. They jammed that section through. What happens in Bill 18? They had to bring it back in. The had to bring in a section in Bill 18 to cover something that they stupidly took out last year. In no way did taking that section out of the legislation last year help collective negotiations.

You have to develop within the labour negotiations an attitude of sharing of ideas and an understanding of where the industry may or may not go. In this legislation they are going to set the wages. They are going to allow the government, by regulation, to bury that agreement. Maybe somewhere down the line someone negotiated a maternity clause for employees for 15 or 20 weeks, male or female. There are countries in the democratic world that do have maternity benefits for husbands and fathers. It's not something that we have in this country to any large degree that I'm aware of. Maybe we are old-fashioned. Maybe a lot of us remember what it was like to look after a new baby, and we don't want to have that time foisted upon us. Anyway, there might be sections in an agreement, and then, all of a sudden, the cabinet says: "We don't want that in the agreement. We can save X hundred thousand dollars for that company by wiping it out." They can vary it. There's nothing in Bill 18 that sets the price or the profit of the company.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: The doctors got a better settlement than the IWA. All kinds of people got a better settlement than the IWA. It is not the right of this Legislature to say who should get what in the economic negotiations of a labour contract. It is not our responsibility, and it is not our right. That is something that has to be freely negotiated between the employee and the employer. No more should you say that a policeman shouldn't get more than the guy who cuts the grass — they all work for the municipality — or that the labourer should get the same as the electricians on construction. I don't know what is economically viable in the pulp and paper industry. I don't think anyone in this House can stand up and give you the true economics of the pulp and paper industry. I don't believe that the real figures and facts are ever put forward in negotiations. You're aware of that, as is everyone in this House. We are not privy to this information. It is not our responsibility to set negotiations or set rates for any industry.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: I don't disagree with the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). We are saying that this piece of legislation is part and parcel of the legislation that was brought in last year to erode the conditions of the public service: public employees, be they teachers, nurses or civil servants, policemen or anything. That legislation brought in last year was the start of the package of which this is a part. I imagine other legislation will be brought in that will attack the construction industry and other sections of the community — the service industry. If they take the same attitude as they took to people living on welfare, who haven't had an increase for two years.... They cut them back. I quite believe that it's not inconsistent that this government will cut back the minimum wage to a dollar or two dollars, whatever the Fraser Institute tells them. I believe it's consistent with what is happening in this province. There is no built-in COLA clause like the government has for their revenue. Whenever the inflation rate goes up, they raise the taxes on gas, they raise the taxes on cigarettes and they raise the rates for hydro. But when inflation eats away at anyone else's paycheque, does this government worry? Do they care that the standard of living that has been negotiated over many years, with built-in COLA clauses...? They don't worry about that. All they want to do is provide the confrontation. What we have had in labour negotiations is a type of confrontation. I say that clear heads must prevail. We cannot continue this confrontation. I have faith that those who are negotiating will have clearer heads and that we will work toward a better settlement.

But I say this government should hang its head in shame at the lack of leadership it's given for the last two months in this particular negotiation between the pulp industry and its employees. Meaningful negotiations, with assistance from the government — the assistance that they are demanding be forced through now — should have taken place on the day that the companies wanted to shut down. The government should have said: "Our economy right now is so fragile that we cannot afford to lose two months, two weeks or two days of production." Now they're saying it has cost this province $8 million a day. It cost that same S8 million two months ago. If this government wanted to give leadership, they should have said to the companies: "We believe" — and I don't completely share this view — "that the economy is starting to go up, and we can not afford a lockout." This is where the government stands condemned. They should have given that leadership then instead of coming in with a heavy hand and legislation that is foreign to any province in this country. Not only are they going to force a collective agreement on them, but they can vary it by regulations.

The larger companies have a direct pipeline to this government. It's quite easy for this government to listen to a one-sided opinion of what changes should be made. I think the gentleman who leads the construction industry said that it's not the wages they are opposed to; it's the fringe benefits. Maybe they are a cost item, but they are something that was negotiated. I can quite believe that similar legislation will come in, and they'll force that through. So all of a sudden they can start cutting away.... They can force through a

[ Page 4184 ]

settlement on the collective agreement for the construction industry if there is a confrontation. This government is great in establishing confrontations — setting them up until they come to a boiling point and then trying to put them down with bad legislation.

[11:15]

The only thing is that the next bill that comes in may not have the section that was taken out of the labour standards bill. They may bring it back in in a way that doesn't give the protection which says that the present agreement will stay in force until a new one is negotiated. They might leave that section out. Then it will all be made retroactive to whenever the negotiations broke down. You can't understand or predict what the government is going to do next, but there is a certain consistency. Whatever they are going to do is going to cut down standards that have been negotiated by the working people of this province.

MR. MICHAEL: No matter how good it is, you oppose it.

MR. MITCHELL: I am not opposing it...but this is the attitude.... It's not for me to say what pulp workers or nurses or librarians should get. We in the NDP have not got involved in the nitty-gritty of negotiated settlements. I don't think government should get involved. If we do, I predict that we'll end up doing the same as the Quebec government — trying to pass collective agreements as acts.

MR. REID: Five times in three and a half years.

MR. MITCHELL: Is he making a speech?

We have to develop a climate of proper negotiations. We must have one standard that we live by and expect the companies to live by, and a standard that is shared by the employees.

As I have said many times before, there are no simple answers to getting our economy going. We have to get together and sit down and work with the trade union movement, the business community, the church leaders and the academics. We have to change our direction. We can no longer continue the confrontation this type of legislation is developing. We on this side of the House will vote against this legislation. I know that the government would have voted against it when they were in opposition. The bill they voted for allowed for a cooling-off period so they could sit down and continue their negotiations. That's all it was. But this piece of legislation allows the government to enforce a collective agreement, and it allows the cabinet to alter and vary that collective agreement, and that is dangerous.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take my place in this debate and say that I support Bill 18. I think it is important to answer a question which was advanced by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. He asked: "Why not wait? If the Leader of the Opposition, or indeed other members of the NDP, had read the bill they would have looked at the purposes and objectives of it. It says:

"This act shall be interpreted and applied so as to (a) protect employees employed in the pulp and paper industry and other persons employed in related industries from suffering further adverse affects from the labour-management dispute now taking place in the pulp and paper industry, (b) remove an immediate and substantial threat to the economy of the province and the welfare of its citizens, which exists as a result of the labour-management dispute, and (c) to promote conditions favourable to an orderly and constructive settlement of the labour-management dispute without further shortage of work."

Why wait?

The Leader of the Opposition said that the thing that was bothering them was that the unions were taking a vote. I guess the reason for that vote would be as to whether or not the leadership would counsel the members of those particular unions to uphold or to indeed break the law.

I can't understand the NDP, even with such disarray as they now have in their party, counselling anyone to vote not to uphold the law of parliament. If that sort of advice is being given by the opposition to the trade union movement, or anyone else in this province, I'd say it is bad advice, and they ought not to listen to it. Leadership is not to run to the head of the crowd and see which way it's going; it's to lead, even sometimes when things are tough and dark. It is probably not a popular thing for this government to bring in legislation that puts people back to work. It's the first time our government has done this, but it is not without precedent by other governments in this parliament. It is leadership, and that is what is required. It is not looking to see how many votes you can pick up from labour at some convention to get some brass ring, however nebulous an item that might be. It's leadership that we need in this province, and that is what is being exemplified here.

I am saddened that the NDP has apparently not placed the people who we are intending to protect by this bill in their order of priority. It appears to me that their priority is more a leadership contest which is looming somewhere in the future, and that appears to be permeating all of their thoughts and bringing them to the position that they are in at this particular time. It is also apparent to me that the NDP really don't care a whit about the men and women who are involved — the mothers who are trying to put bread on the table in this dispute — and I am terribly saddened by that.

We're all very much aware that this is a very controversial piece of legislation. We're also aware of a controversial piece of legislation that was passed by a former government. It was called the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act. I understand that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who is not in her seat, and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who is not in his seat, are painfully aware of that legislation that was passed in this Legislature some time ago. I'll have to watch their position with great interest, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure you, as members consider the legislation now before us, that I believe it's most fitting that we recall the arguments advanced on behalf of the previous legislation by the New Democratic Party in 1975.

If we look back for a moment to October 7 — I believe it was — 1975, some of the remarks on the then Bill 146 — and they tell us about a lot of legislation.... We're struck quite forcibly by the remarks and how very closely they parallel our situation in 1984. Let me just briefly remind all hon. members of some of the highlights of debate in that special session. Bill King, now a leadership aspirant, then the Minister of Labour, stated:

... I stated on introducing this bill, Mr. Speaker, that the government is concerned that the rights of private citizens in this province are being unduly harmed and damaged by the industrial disputes that I have referred to.

[ Page 4185 ]

This bill seeks to come to grips with those problems and provide a mechanism for relieving the impact and the hardship to the citizens of the province, while continuing the collective bargaining process to ensure that settlements are found without further disruption, and without further hardship to many citizens throughout the province.

How things have changed in a few short years, Mr. Speaker.

We have never stated.... . that there is an absolute right to indulge in economic warfare which, in many cases, threatens and jeopardizes the basic safety, comfort and health of citizens in this province.

I'm sure the opposition is as concerned with finding some remedy, some relief for the people who are suffering under the present state of affairs.

That opposition seems to have changed, Mr. Speaker.

We are saying to them: 'Get back to the table, and in the interests of your members, and in the interests of the citizens of this province and the total good which must be put before the narrow, selfish interests, get back to solve these disputes through the collective bargaining process.'

The Attorney-General of the day, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), stated:

The people of British Columbia can be proud of the Premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Labour of British Columbia.... have no intention of abdicating the responsibilities of leadership....

...democracy is becoming a threatened, vanishing species unless we, as democratic legislatures, show the necessary leadership and courage....

I can align myself with the thoughts of that former minister in those former times. How things have changed in a few short years.

There is no doubt that democracy, in a difficult period of inflation and unemployment, and some fear and some grasping self-interest, is beginning to lose its sense of the common good...and descend into a fractional frame of mind, with interests fighting interests to the detriment of the common good.

How things have changed.

The Minister of Health at that time, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), said that the bill was aimed at providing for the people of British Columbia.

Something had to give, something had to happen in our economy, among our workers and in our workplaces in this province, and that something, I'm convinced, had to be done what was done this morning....

The Premier of the day said:

Options and consultation and advisement are only good for so long, Mr. Speaker...then the government must act...we have a responsibility to all the people of this province before any one particular group.

The Premier — the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), the Leader of the Opposition — stated at that time:

This bill is our duty: to do less would not be doing our duty. We have waited, we have been patient...but there comes a time when a decision must be made.

It is the will of the people expressed through a government. It is the will of the government that people calm down, go back to work and begin to grow up a bit in new collective bargaining.

[11:30]

I was interested, too, to review the account of this legislation provided by Lorne Kavic and Garry Nixon in the book entitled The 1,200 Days: A Shattered Dream. They tell it if you should want to look it up some time, on page 157. Messrs. Kavic and Nixon said:

"When the NDP caucus assembled one hour before the session was to begin" — and I'm sure the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) will remember this — "ministers and back-benchers alike were surprised to find a Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, Bill 146, had been prepared and was going to be implemented. It would force all workers currently on strike in British Columbia" — all workers at that time currently on strike — "back to work for up to 120 days. Its contents were explained by King, but there was virtually no time following the minister's comments for discussion — nor was such encouraged by either Barrett or King. The decision had been taken and compliance was expected. Only three back-benchers — Steves, Gabelmann and Brown — were prepared to act upon their private views in recording opposition in caucus as well as shortly thereafter in the House."

I commend them for standing up for their principles.

The member for Skeena as well was all set to vote against the legislation until he phoned some union officials in his constituency who informed him that no matter how much they were going to oppose the bill publicly, they were privately in support of it, and he'd better vote for it I would say that things have not changed with that member.

While we listen to the remarks of various opposition members and trade union leaders in our province, this history ought to be borne in mind. The lyrics of the old song, It Ain't Necessarily So come instantly to mind. We do know that the members for Burnaby-Edmonds and North Island were prepared to follow socialist dogma blindly, as it were, even against the wishes of their own Government at that time, the vast majority of the people of British Columbia and the trade union movement, and they paid the price for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the price?

MR. VEITCH: You lost in 1975, my friend.

Given that there is no clear leadership in the NDP today and given that we have heard some unclear leadership from their protégé, Mr. Vickers, who apparently agrees with Margaret Birrell that the public interest must be sacrificed to trade union principles, it would be very interesting to know where, precisely, that would-be Premier, that would-be leader, stands on this particular occasion.

MR. HOWARD: Christians shouldn't tell lies.

MR. VEITCH: I'm not a stranger to the truth, my friend, whatever other stranger I may be in this place.

There's a new reality in British Columbia that more British Columbians are realizing that you can have all of the coal in the mountains and all the trees in the forests, and they're potentially valuable, but they're worthless until you can cut them down, until you can extract them, until you can sell them to someone and take them somewhere. This is something that the NDP has not realized.

They don't realize that in this province we're not pricemakers; we can't set our own prices. We're pricetakers. We are very dependent upon the world, and we're not the only people that sell pulp. Nearly 13,000 members of the CPU and the PPWC have been out of work since February 2, and the Leader of the Opposition says: "Why not wait a little longer?" Ask the mothers of those families why we ought not to wait a little longer. We're losing about $2 million a day in wages, and you're the people who are holding it up. Hydro alone is losing $500,000 a day — gone forever — which must be added to our Hydro cost to every person in every family and every business in this province.

[ Page 4186 ]

Secondary picketing put an estimated 10,000 IWA members out of work from February 22 to March 20, although a voluntary halt could have been called at any time. Industry losses are running to $8 million a day. There is not only incalculable direct damage to the provincial economy, but also, in the Premier's words, "a clear and present danger that our reliability as a supplier will be questioned and that pulp markets and jobs could be lost forever." That's the problem. That's the new reality in this province. That's something that's got to sink even into the heads of the NDP and of the union bosses who appear to be directing this group, if there is any direction at all at this point in time.

We've got to realize that we are not an island unto ourselves in this province and that having all these potential resources does not mean we can furnish wealth, jobs and prosperity for ourselves and for the people who follow after us. What we have to do is realize that we are just one little piece of a big market, and we've got to be more competitive, to be dependable and to be looked upon as a reliable supplier of goods and services, or we're not going to go anyplace and in fact we're going to go backwards in this province. If that's what the NDP wants, keep it up. But they should show leadership and they should forget about a dogma which died many years ago. Forget about a socialist dogma and start thinking about the good of the people of British Columbia. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) consistently talks about the good of the people and the need to be looking after it. Let's exemplify that. The challenge I give her today is to turn away from their thoughts and stand up, for once, on principle, as she did before. The principle is that we can put people back to work in British Columbia. Support this bill, and let's get them back to work.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this morning could you and I put ourselves in the position of a pulp worker who has been locked out from his job for some eight weeks. Consider that on March 24 that pulp worker picked up his newspaper and read a full-page ad sponsored by the pulp industry in British Columbia. Five days later on March 29 he listened to the Premier's speech, and in that speech he heard, not paraphrased but exact direct quotations from the March 24 ad sponsored by the employer who had locked him out and who refused to negotiate. Then consider that he hears the Minister of Labour say that he's been in constant contact with both parties, and that he knows this is not true. Consider that the last contact the union had with the Minister of Labour was on March 19, when secondary picketing was withdrawn. From then until 6 p.m. on March 29 there was no contact with that Minister of Labour, yet the minister, when he introduced this bill, said that both parties had rejected assistance offered. How could they reject assistance if there had been no contact? Consider the position of that worker when he realizes — has it brought home in full force — that not only is the Premier quoting the exact words of his employers who have locked him out, but that the Minister of Labour has indicated that he has been constantly in contact with his union. He knows that is not correct. Then the other shoe drops with Bill 18.

We've heard a lot of words today trying to compare Bill 18 with Bill 146. I want to make a comparison with Bill 146, and it has nothing to do with Bill 18. I have in front of me chapter 113 of our statutes, the essential services legislation brought in by this government. The Essential Service Disputes Act is almost word-for-word Bill 146: a 90-day cooling-off period; negotiations to proceed; collective bargaining to proceed. This government did not need Bill 18 if they wanted to do what Bill 146 did. If the situations are parallel, all they had to do was act under the Essential Service Disputes Act. The terms are there. It's laid out very clearly and precisely. We had a difference of opinion on this side and that side as to whether we should have on the books essential service legislation such as this, or if in an emergency we should have a Bill 146. The way it was dealt with was identical in the two pieces of legislation. We've had some selective reading from that bill, but never have we had any indication that in that bill there is a section 9. At no point was the government involved in imposing a settlement.

My colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) talked about the Quebec situation. That's bad enough, but at least in Quebec it's being done in the full light of the Legislature, not in cabinet in secret. That's what this bill is proposing. The Essential Service Disputes Act would have put those people back to work with a fair and equitable opportunity for them to negotiate a settlement. It would have lifted the lockout, and that could have proceeded had the companies been prepared to negotiate in good faith. What possible hope can we have that those companies will negotiate in good faith when the Premier in his speech quotes the exact words of the companies' ads, and the Minister of Labour talks about meeting constantly with the trade union when that is not the case?

Another argument that has been advanced today by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) is that somehow the workers in the pulp industry were wanting more than their brothers and sisters in the logging and sawmill industry. The loggers and the sawmill workers in this province were offered a further package. They were offered two things over and above the original agreement: one of those was another half percent in the third year; the other was that the companies would withdraw their request for concessions on fringe benefits. The loggers and the sawmill workers agreed to that. That offer has never been made to the workers in the pulp industry. You might say that the concessions that the pulp workers have were already too great — not so.

I dislike getting into the area of collective bargaining and union negotiations, but this bill has brought that directly onto the floor of this House. I'm not going to spend too much time on it, but I want to point out just a couple of very interesting points. For example, if you work as a logger or a sawmill worker, in order to qualify for full vacation benefits — that's certainly one of the fringe benefits — you must have worked for 1,000 hours. If you are a pulp worker, you must have worked for 1, 386 hours in order to qualify for those same benefits.

Long-term disability. If you work as a logger or in the sawmill, and are permanently injured at age 20, 25 or whatever, you have a disability pension until age 65 when you become eligible for your old age pension. If you work as a pulp worker, you have a disability pension for five years plus six months for every year worked. It's quite a difference. By the way, we hear a lot about the logging industry being very hazardous, and I'm sure it is. Do you know the average life span of a pensioner from the pulp industry? Thirteen months. It's much longer than that for other industries. The chemicals that those workers are exposed to and the shift work....

It's a very hazardous occupation.

[ Page 4187 ]

Statutory holidays. If you are a logger or a sawmill worker, you are entitled to ten statutory holidays to spend with your family. If you work in a pulp mill, you presently get six. One of the concessions the company wanted was to reduce it to five, and that was never withdrawn.

The same is true with seniority. The seniority is quite different in the two. But the concessions asked for in seniority by the company — which were also asked for in the logging and sawmill industry, but were withdrawn — were never withdrawn for the pulp workers.

As I say, I don't like dealing with items that are more properly related to labour negotiations, but I think the reasons for the concern of the pulp workers who are faced with this legislation are obvious. They are faced with legislation that has no phase-out — and, again, that's where it's quite different from Bill 146, which automatically phased out after 90 days plus a possible 14 — and that is simply at the discretion of the cabinet and the minister. It can go on forever. There is no assurance that safety regulations will be met or that wages as presently specified in the agreement will even be met. There's no assurance that the company will bargain in good faith, because the company's got it made. If they don't bargain in good faith, they can trust this government to bring in a nice, easy settlement. The cards are all stacked in favour of management.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: They're hard up for responses, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that is completely reprehensible is section 14, which makes this thing retroactive. How ridiculous! This is not the law until it is passed and proclaimed. Supposing it is passed. Is it possible for employees, then, to go back to work retroactively? If you pass a sales tax bill, you can collect it retroactively. If you pass any kind of a tax bill, it can be collected retroactively. But you can't go back to work retroactively.

I would suggest that this bill could wind up going through the courts of this province and of Canada. This is in contravention of our very constitution and our Bill of Rights.

It's very difficult to speak on such a bill, because I find it so completely reprehensible. Of course we want people to have the opportunity to work, but we want them to have the opportunity to work in a labour climate that is conducive to productivity and is in line with the kind of things that, certainly, my forbears fought for in this province and this country. This bill could well be a forerunner of the kind of things we talked about around the clock relative to the public sector here in these chambers a few short months ago being applied to the workers in the private sector. It's not so long ago that the miners in Extension, who were being killed day after day by gas explosions, found themselves faced with the militia which was called in because they were protesting and trying to form a union. In the space of time, that's not so long ago. Are we to revert to those situations? Do we have to fight the battles all over again? This section 9 coupled with section 14.... I know I shouldn't be talking about sections but they exemplify to me the principle of this bill.

If this government was upfront about wanting to get those mills open and those workers back, they would have simply used the legislation that is on the books: a 90-day cooling-off period and back to the bargaining table. But no, that wasn't good enough. They bring in something that is vindictive against the workers, and gives them the opportunity to take whatever steps they like for as long as they like, the opportunity to change it as often as they like, and the only recourse this Legislature will have is to read the results when they're tabled. That's not democracy. That's not the kind of legislation that I want to see for the workers of this province.

MR. REID: It's not like '75.

MRS. WALLACE: No, not at all like '75. In '75 you would have simply used the Essential Service Disputes Act that you now have, because it has exactly the same words — word for word in many instances. This bill should never pass these chambers. If it does, we're starting down a very retrograde road which will make it extremely difficult to turn around and go in the direction where we have been gaining in our rights for workers, in our ability to participate in the economic future of this province on a fair and equitable basis with a just return to the people who provide the labour for our economic development.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for recognizing me and for letting me stand in my place today. I don't intend to malign any of the members opposite. That's not my way of doing things. I do have a few things to say, and I would like them not to become disjointed. So saying that, and taking note of the time, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.