[ Page 4657 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Builders' Lien Amendment Act (No 2), 1984 (Bill M205). Committee stage

Third reading –– 4657

Patients Property Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M206). Committee stage

Third reading –– 4657

Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M201). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4657

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places (Bill M203). Second reading

Mrs. Wallace –– 4657

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4658

Groundwater Regulation Act (Bill M204). Second reading

Mrs, Wallace –– 4659

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 4659

Labour Code Amendment Act (Bill 28). Second reading

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4660

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4661

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1984

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I see there are a large number of visitors to our galleries today, and I'm sure that all members would like to bid them a special and most cordial welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to bills, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill M205, Mr. Speaker.

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1984

The House in committee on Bill M205; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, in finishing this bill off, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all hon. members on both sides of the House for the support they've given my first private member's bill. I would also like to thank all those who assisted me in preparing and presenting the bill.

Having said that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved,

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Dewdney is fortunate in that he belongs to the government party. If he belonged to the opposition, that bill wouldn't have had a hope in Hades of getting through.

Bill M205, Builders Lien Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984, reported completed with amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill M206.

PATIENTS PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill M206; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, like my colleague from Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), I'd like to thank the House and members for their support of this bill. I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill M206, Patients Property Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M201.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

(continued)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until a later time.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is a standing order — number 44, I believe — which obtained some notoriety in the last session, last fall, with respect to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). Standing order 44 says that Mr. Speaker, if he is of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of the debate is an abuse of the rules, may, if he comes to that conclusion, put the question or decline to put the question. I submit it is in abuse of the rules. This has happened again. It's just a device on the part of the government designed to prevent a debate and discussion about a bill which will create employment in this province. All the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is doing is obstructing the orderly progress of legislation to create jobs. I submit Your Honour may find that it is an abuse of the rules and thus decline to put the question on that motion to adjourn the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has accepted the motion from the member, and while the points raised by the member could have some validity at another time, at this time the Chair cannot concur with the point raised by the member.

Hon. members, the question is adjournment of debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on Bill M203. I adjourned the debate on behalf of the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING
IN PUBLIC PLACES

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE: Every year I try, and every year we get a little closer. We have now had a precedent set in the acceptance of private members' bills by this House. My colleague for Skeena has indicated that, strangely, all private members' bills that are accepted are introduced by private members on the government side of the House. I would not

[ Page 4658 ]

want to have the authenticity or the veracity of my colleague for Skeena put into question, but wouldn't it be nice if the House did agree to accept a bill introduced by a member from the opposition.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I came close once.

MRS. WALLACE: This bill has been written and rewritten until I think the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the Premier and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) would all agree that it is in order. I know the Clerks would agree that it is in order. It's an orderly bill, Mr. Speaker. Not only is it an orderly bill; it's a good bill. Not only is it a good bill; it would be a popular bill. It would be very popular with the public out there. It would make that sagging government look good if they took this bill and accepted it.

This bill has some very positive aspects. This bill has provisions in it that would help reduce the budget of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I notice the Minister of Health is not in the House, but it would help him reduce his budget, because it would be a step in the right direction toward reducing the horrendous health costs that are attributable to smoking.

It has been estimated that the health costs for the average American male who is a heavy smoker are $59,000 greater than for a non-smoker. That's a pretty horrendous cost. It has also been proven without much doubt that the breathing of second-hand smoke is just as harmful as smoking. This would mean that a lot of the costs that are not now directly attributed to smokers would be reduced.

[10:15]

I think another aspect is that the cost of smoking has been recognized by insurance companies. Many insurance companies have higher premium rates for smokers than for nonsmokers. The thing that comes to my mind is something that was published in a medical journal not too long ago. A great many companies have come to the conclusion that it is not in their best interests to have heavy smokers as employees. The Xerox company did some studies in the United States, and they found that the costs of replacing and retraining, and the health care costs, involved in the instance of a top-level executive who suffered a premature death as a result of heavy smoking were $166,000. Another company in the United States — the name escapes me at the moment — had an employee who died as a result of heavy smoking. This company carried their own insurance and were responsible for the costs. The costs during the last eight months of that individual's life for which that company was responsible were in excess of $30,000. Another company did a study relative to the loss of productivity. This really should hit.... Where is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ? He's gone now, but the Premier is here. He likes to talk about productivity, and so does the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland). It's been estimated that an employee who is earning, say, $10 an hour, which is not a maximum wage by any means.... Lost productivity as a result of the fact that that person is a heavy smoker would amount to $1,250 per employee in one year. Now those are some pretty startling statistics. Unfortunately, those monetary statistics are probably the ones that are of more interest to that government, and that's why I have stressed them. They are not the ones that are of the greatest interest to me.

The ones that are of the greatest interest to me are the health statistics, and they are very conclusive as well. Smoking is very bad for you; smoking is also bad for people who do not smoke if they are obliged to breathe in polluted atmosphere — and it is polluted atmosphere. That's what this bill is all about. It's not asking for anything that isn't already being carried out voluntarily by many Crown corporations; B.C. Ferries, for example, have no-smoking areas in both the lounge and the eating areas; many stores now have signs: "Thank You for Not Smoking." That's probably more due to economic reasons than it is to health reasons, because certainly people moving around where merchandise is displayed and dropping ashes can cause damage to the merchandise or start a fire. More fires are started by cigarettes lost in chesterfields, probably, than by any other single cause. That's not a statistic; that's just a thought. But I think that you would find that a lot of fires are started as a result of careless smoking; certainly insurance companies say so, and they have done some studies.

But it's the health reasons that concern me. I think it's time that we took a step, and this would be a step forward. It's not a costly thing; there are not going to be that many areas that are going to have to spend any dollars. If a restaurant is too small, all they have to do is simply post a sign on their window to say that this facility has no no-smoking area. Then the customers know. It simply means that every owner of a restaurant or public facility sets aside one area for smokers and another area for non-smokers. It's very simple.

My colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) tells me that Burnaby has such a bylaw. So it's not new; it's not really landmark legislation. This bill is patterned basically after Minnesota legislation which has been in effect for a long time. Toronto has had it. Edmonton....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's a city, not a province.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, why not let B.C. be the first province? Minnesota is the first state; let B.C. be the first province.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm going to defend Lockstead's right.

MRS. WALLACE: The member for Mackenzie's (Mr Lockstead's) rights are defended in this bill, because he will have a right to smoke in one area. But my rights are also defended, Mr. Minister, because I will have a right to go into a public place, a restaurant, a public meeting, wherever, and have my rights defended because I don't have to breathe my colleague's smoke. Obviously I should quit while I'm ahead. Hope springs eternal, Mr. Speaker, and maybe this is the year; maybe 1984 is the landmark year when we will, in this legislative chamber, not only pass a bill that is acceptable to 90 percent of the public, that is a step forward in preventive medicine, that is an economically viable bill because it will in the long run be a step down the road towards reducing health care costs but, even more than that, will be a landmark in that the government accepts a private member's bill introduced by a member of the opposition.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is probably correct in most of her debate and discussion, for a number of reasons.

[ Page 4659 ]

The concern I have I agree with what the member is speaking about with respect to the health aspects — productivity and so on. I think it would be unfortunate if it were necessary for a province to enforce such legislation. We may be getting closer to the day when that may happen. It is becoming more common, as the member mentioned, in private corporations, institutions and municipalities, where they are taking this subject on. Possibly that's the way it will evolve, and maybe at some time it will reach the provincial level. I would hope that it wouldn't be necessary to be applied at the provincial level.

It's very difficult to argue with the member's point of view. Perhaps if the member brings it back at some other time, it might be considered again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 30

NAYS — 13

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M204.

[10:30]

GROUNDWATER REGULATION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKERS: Order, please. I recognize the second member for Victoria on a point of order.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was left off.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that the recording of the name was made, but the mention of it was not. I thank the member for bringing that to the Chair's attention.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Returning to Bill M204, Groundwater Regulation Act, I adjourned the debate on behalf of the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: Again I thank the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I'm like the fellow who kept beating his head against the stone wall, and the reason he gave was that it felt so good when he stopped. Obviously, I don't have enough sense to stop.

The groundwater bill is another one that I've introduced time after time in this Legislature for the same reasons. They are still valid today the same as they were the first time I introduced it. We haven't had the opportunity to discuss this one at all in recent years, but the reasons are still valid. There are no controls over groundwater. None at all. I think the outstanding example that I came upon when I was doing some research on this particular subject was the fact that two neighbours in the United States somewhere got into a feud. I don't know whether this was down in the Ozarks or just where it was where they were a-feuding and a-fussing, but one neighbour had a well very close to the other neighbour's line, and that was his source of water supply. Because of the difference of opinion between these two neighbours, the other neighbour brought in a drilling company, drilled a well on his side of the line, had two trucks come in loaded with ordinary salt and dumped it into the well, which, of course, absolutely ruined the other neighbour's well.

That could happen in British Columbia, because there are no controls. Fortunately, we don't have much feuding in British Columbia, but there's nothing to stop it. The problem that occurs here time after time is that someone in a fairly rural and unsettled area has a well, which supplies his or her family's needs, and a settlement grows around that person's home as the urban sprawl takes place. Other people drill wells, and they get into the same aquifer, and nobody has enough water. I'm sorry that I can't have some graphs in here, because if in fact the first well has hit what they call a high point on the aquifer, at maybe 30 feet, and the other wells hit a lower point, at say 60 feet, then those wells drain off the water from the high point, and the original well — not always, but very often — goes dry, for no obvious reason.

It's happened often enough that there are a great many people very concerned about it. The engineers of Saanich municipal council in 1980 — 1 know I'm going back a way, but the problems are still the same — indicated that a letter from the water rights branch basically stated that there was no licence in force with respect to groundwater.

It could be by proclamation of section 4 of the Water Act, but that would simply say that groundwater was covered by the Water Act. It would leave any specific details strictly in the hands of the minister. I don't know if that's the best way to go; I don't think it is the best way to go. I think groundwater is quite a separate issue from surface water. Groundwater as such should be regulated by entirely separate legislation, because problems related to groundwater are entirely different.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, it would be most interesting to listen to the debate and the argument and maybe dispute some of the claims made. However, under section 66 of the standing orders, since certain aspects of this bill call for expenditure of public money and places an impost on the Crown, I have to bring to your attention that the bill is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would concur with the observations of the minister, and I so rule.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 28.

[ Page 4660 ]

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure today in taking my place to move second reading of Bill 28, the Labour Code Amendment Act, 1984. This government believes that these practical and even-handed adjustments in the legislation are particularly necessary at this time to govern labour relations in this province. As an aside, Mr. Speaker, as the months go on — particularly during this summer — it will be seen that these amendments are part of an ongoing process that this government has for laying a solid foundation for building our economic recovery.

I sometimes find it difficult to understand some of the criticism that has come forward about these amendments indicating that the consultative process was not followed. These amendments have been a very long time in the making, and they evolved from a lengthy and ongoing process Of consultation between myself, senior officials of my ministry and a broad cross-section of the people involved in the labour relations process in this province — and others as well, including private citizens who only have an interest. Mr. Speaker, we received between 250 and 300 submissions on changes to the Labour Code. In my time in government I know of no other matter which has gained the attention of the public in the way in which this has.

It hardly seems necessary to say this, but I will anyway. The past couple of years have been very difficult for our province and our people. Like most of the rest of the western world, we were severely jolted by the recession. Events have been dominated by our government's efforts to bring us out of that recession and to encourage economic recovery. It's no surprise that economic recovery within the continued framework of restraint in government spending has been the paramount issue as far as our administration is concerned. That means several things — one of the most important being the need to keep our industries and our manufacturers competitive and to promote and market our goods around the world.

As we were formulating that strategy, and as we continue to formulate that strategy, it became abundantly clear that if it was to occur, it was essential that our labour relations process be stabilized and that everyone involved, including the labour and business community, rethink and re-evaluate their attitudes toward the kind of industrial climate that exists within our province. That was essential, Mr. Speaker, for a very good reason. The plain and unshakeable fact is that the recession has brought a new reality in this province. It is a reality in which the expectations and attitudes developed during the fifties, sixties and the seventies of unlimited growth and unlimited expansion — and I include unlimited government growth in spending — can no longer be met. That new reality is here, and we can't duck under it or run away from it. We either recognize it, accept it and adjust, or we're determined to face a bleak future in terms of economic growth and recovery in British Columbia. As far as I'm concerned, there is no choice involved.

If our province is to meet those challenges and changes brought on by that new reality, we first have to define what and where we are on the global scene — and we can do that fairly quickly. Ours is basically an open economy, with two-thirds of our wealth generated by our export trade. We compete in world markets, where the competition is already fierce and destined to become even fiercer. Our future success lies in meeting and beating that competition, and it won't be easy.

I guess in some ways in the past the world may have beaten a path to the door of our province during those golden years, but it's not longer the case. There are no longer any automatic customers for our resources and services. If we are not competitive, if we cannot demonstrate our ability to deliver quality products on time and at an acceptable price, our prospects are poor indeed. We have to convince investors — the people whose capital generates expansion and jobs — and our resource customers that we can do the job. We can't hope to do these things if we ignore the reality within which we exist or cling to practices, traditions and activities which are no longer valid in the world as it exists today; that, again, includes the crucial area of labour relations.

While changes to labour legislation cannot in themselves bring about economic recovery, better and more stable labour management relations will be crucial to the process. We have to show that we are dependable, and we can't hope to accomplish this if our labour image is one of continuing disputes and disruptions which threaten continuity of supply or products or services; it is that simple.

There's more to all this than merely making changes in legislation. We have to change our collective mindsets in terms of our relationships within the province and how those internal relationships affect our dealings with the people with whom we do business. We have to back off from our traditional entrenched positions, from the them-versus-us mentality of confrontation, because there isn't a them and us, there's only us — all of us.

[10:45]

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Interesting asides, Mr. Speaker, when the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) admits that his machine successfully organizes all the demonstrations. I'm quite surprised at that admission. But it's good for the public of British Columbia to know.

Instead of the them-versus-us confrontational attitude, we must venture into new areas where there is mutual recognition that we share a common destiny and that the time is past for any segment of our society to go it alone. Like it or not, in today's interdependent society there is a linkage that we break only at our collective peril. In my view, the dangers inherent in trying to stand still in a world that is evolving and changing are far greater than any problems or pitfalls that we will undoubtedly face in adapting and adjusting to today's new reality.

The amendments that we're proposing to the Labour Code are practical in terms of helping us come to grips with that reality and will be welcomed by individual workers here in British Columbia. I say that because I believe that the people who put in the hours for the paycheques are in many cases a step ahead of those who lead them. They know, sometimes as a direct result of painful personal experience, what the reality is all about, and they want a better way of dealing with it. They're not interested in trying to cope with all of their problems by being called or picketed off the job. They are not interested in becoming redundant because their employer can no longer compete in those world markets.

[ Page 4661 ]

They're not interested in trying to resolve issues by confrontation or by being pressured onto the streets to engage in activity that is politically oriented. They know that what's happening in the community today cannot be denied; those who think that it can are kidding themselves and the people to whom they are accountable.

I know there's a very real sense of frustration out there among working people. Sometimes it's almost a helplessness, that somehow they don't always have the opportunity to have a meaningful say in events or a voice in their own destiny; that too is addressed in these amendments to the Labour Code.

These amendments give workers greater freedom to decide whether or not they wish to belong to a trade union. Under these proposals unions themselves will be required to maintain fair and reasonable conditions of membership.

We are also taking the opportunity to ensure that major projects such as Expo 86 will be built on time to welcome the world to British Columbia. Those workers out there, for whom so many of us say we speak, often feel alienated from the decision-making process as union members, and angry when through no fault of their own they find themselves denied the opportunity to go to work and earn a living for themselves and their families. No fair-minded citizen in British Columbia would find that kind of situation anything but unfair.

We essentially had two aims in mind in drafting the changes that are before us today: to broaden the decision-making process for working people and make it more democratic, and to try to encourage economic recovery by allowing workers to share in the recovery's rewards. These changes are extremely significant in terms of their potential for bringing about more stability and fairness in the workplace of British Columbians. I don't think anybody can deny that those two elements have been sadly lacking, particularly in these recent months in our province.

During the process which led to the changes in the Code, I made it clear that the entire area of labour relations was under scrutiny by my ministry, and that the examination would focus, in the main, on just who the labour relations system was serving, and why there seemed to be a continued failure for it to function properly. The amendments won't remedy all of the problems which exist, and no legislation can, because many of the problems must be remedied by the free collective will of the parties involved. But they are pragmatic and will help us tackle the most immediate and pressing problems, the ones which clearly, if allowed to fester and continue, could impede or slow our government's efforts to bring about economic recovery for all of our people.

More importantly, I am convinced that they do reflect a consensus among workers, managers and members of the general public. They were not developed in isolation by bureaucrats or politicians isolated in a closet or ivory tower of some kind. We listened to groups across the entire spectrum of our province's society, and this legislation is a result of that listening. I think the amendments reflect a fair, even-handed, middle course. They reflect, as well, the result of a deliberate decision on our part to choose consensus and cooperation over confrontation. In the long run I am also convinced that they will be given a fair trial by all concerned, and that that fair trial will lead to much improved industrial relations and a workforce which will at least feel that it now has a voice in matters critical to its well-being.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in moving second reading.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, as all members of the assembly are aware, last night we had the distinct pleasure of being hosted by the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters. In the galleries today is a member of that association, a fine broadcaster well known in the Vancouver area. As well as being a fine radio man he is a superb entertainer who has a great show and an act which is quite creative and at many times deals with political humour. I am sure that today he is here honing his skills and probably writing some new lines for his great act. I would like the House to welcome Bob Robertson.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in our audience today is a teacher-principal from the Burnaby School District with a group of students from Burnaby, along with some students from Quebec who are visiting the House. Mr. Speaker, could we bid them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Much of what the minister had to say in introducing debate on Bill 28, the Labour Code Amendment Act, is in fact an argument for not introducing the amendments. I would like to deal one by one with the major elements of the comments made by the minister, but first of all, just in general terms I would like to say that what every citizen of British Columbia and what every member of this Legislature wants, more than anything else in this province of ours, is an ability to have a job and to make a good living, an opportunity to participate in a community where life is fair, work is plentiful and antagonisms and confrontation are kept to a minimum. That's what we all want, Mr. Speaker. For the minister to imply, if not say, that some elements of our community deliberately try to thwart those objectives is simply wrong. We all want an economy that works, one that is free and in which people have an opportunity to participate in full measure.

I say in some sorrow, Mr. Speaker, that deliberately or not, wittingly or unwittingly, the government has unfortunately chosen a course in these amendments, and in its recent behaviour in respect of labour-management relations, that does nothing more than inflame the climate, create confrontation and make economic stability, development and growth more difficult to achieve. The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) can say that's nonsense and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) can say it's not true. That's fair. We'll have a debate about that during the course of the discussion on Bill 28. But I find it curious, Mr. Speaker, that when the government chose not to intervene in a political way prior to the construction of the stadium at B.C. Place, chose not to inflame the community, chose not to inflame workers, the workers and the people of this province

[ Page 4662 ]

were able to produce a magnificent building on budget and on time.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

For whatever reasons — and I believe they are political reasons engendered by the Huey Long approach to politics, which means you pander to public opinion; you read the opinion polls and see what political advantage you can make of them — I believe that the government has decided that in these difficult economic times, this is a good time politically to bash labour. If that's the conclusion they've reached — and it's obvious that they have reached that conclusion — I understand why. They feel the politics of that are useful for them. No consideration, Mr. Speaker, of whether or not those activities will make economic development in this province more difficult; no consideration as to whether projects that might well have been completed without fuss or bother, on time and in budget, are now endangered because of the overt and deliberate attempts on the part of the government to foster hatred and confrontation.

Why else would the government not allow its chosen managers — the people it has authorized to act on its behalf at Expo 86, for example — to reach an agreement with their workers without government interference? Why is it that this government, which cries at every opportunity that the government should get off the backs of the people, the government get out of this, get out of that, should get out of the other thing, is so determined to involve itself as fully as it possibly can — more so than in any other democratic state in the western world — in the affairs of trade unions and in the affairs of workers? Why is it that they feel they have to direct their management in places like Expo 86 to not reach an agreement that was there and available? Why else but for political reasons? What's wrong with building Expo 86 the way we built the stadium? It worked; it's beautiful; it was on budget and on time. So too could Expo 86 have been developed and built. That's not the government's choice, Mr. Speaker.

[11:00]

The minister talked — and I'll come in a moment to more detailed comment on his comments — about the fact that these amendments, these legislative changes, have been as the result of consultation by everyone involved. I've spent the last 40 hours since the bill was introduced talking to people in the industrial relations community and to others in the community who have some particular areas of expertise in respect of Labour Code matters: some directly in the labour movement, some not, some lawyers, some others. Mr. Speaker, what I'm finding without exception in virtually every case, in virtually every detail in these amendments is bewilderment. The classic and common response I'm receiving is: "I don't know what that means." These are people who would have been consulted if what the minister told us had been true, for the most part. They say: "We have not had time enough yet to understand fully what these words mean, what those words mean."

I won't dwell on the fact that the legislative drafting is pathetic, as has been the case often recently with legislative drafting. I don't blame the drafters; I blame the cabinet committee on legislation for that. It has been absolutely pathetic, because it is so often unclear as to its meaning. But that's a side issue; that's an issue that needs to be dealt with seriously at some other time.

More importantly, there are any number of important elements, half a dozen really important elements, in this legislation, and I can't find a consensus in the community about what they mean. And if I can't find a consensus, tapping the resources that I have at my call, is it possible that those people, including some who would have been involved in the consultative process, weren't in fact consulted? The minister appointed an advisory committee composed of five people, two of whom were selected by the labour movement as a result of the Kelowna accord. We're not told what they r ecommended to the minister; we're not told what the discussions were. I'm not sure how much I can say about what went on in that particular series of discussions before I run the risk of breaking confidences. What kind of process of consultation is it that has a consultative advisory committee about which we can't talk in detail because we might be breaking confidences?

Mr. Speaker, what's wrong with taking the approach that the Manitoba government has taken, for example, by introducing a White Paper on some fundamental differences and changes they want to look at? But no, we've been hit with a series of amendments, some anticipated — I refer there to the definition of strike, an anticipated amendment to the Labour Code, one that is relatively easy to deal with, even though, Mr. Speaker, I must say that there has been some querying there about that language and what it means. But I feel fairly confident in my own mind that I can interpret that, and it means it's a fairly straightforward amendment, and we'll get to that in committee when we deal with the definition section.

But when you go through the rest of the sections, you deal especially with three areas: the certification and decertification processes; the issues relating to the economic projects, and the cumbersome and artificial procedures developed there accomplish God knows what, because it doesn't accomplish what the Premier stated would be accomplished; and, thirdly, the area of secondary picketing. I have described a number of possible scenarios to friends of mine who have some day-to-day acquaintance with the Labour Code, and I've said to them: "How will this new legislation affect this particular aspect of secondary picketing? Would a certain activity be permitted?" The answer is: "We don't know. We've looked at it and studied it; we don't know."

If there is that kind of response on these major changes, how can the minister say there has been consultation? If in fact the response to the legislation by half the people who are affected by it, the workers, has been universally condemnatory, how can the minister say he's had consultation? I heard the Employers' Council president say that consultation doesn't mean you get what you want. Everybody knows that. No one demands. But consultation at least means you know what you're going to get, because you've been through a consultative process and you've lost your argument.

How many discussions did the minister have with the officials of the building trades about the particular wording of the economic development project section? My guess is none. How many discussions did the minister have with the small unions, which are involved on a daily basis in organizing, about the ramifications of the new certification procedures? My guess is none — I say "guess"; it's an informed guess. The fact is, there was no consultation. If the minister means that he received 200 or 300 letters and read them and then did something with them, and that's consultation, then he and I have different definitions of the word "consultation."

[ Page 4663 ]

In fact, to get back to my opening comment, this bill was brought in without consultation. It was brought in, in my view, without listening to the advisory committee that was appointed, and brought in deliberately to continue the Premier's agenda of fomenting industrial unrest in this province so that further legislation can be brought in to yet further trample on the trade union movement in this province.

I'll go back to my opening comments again. What we want on this side of the House, what the public wants and what most people want — if not the right-to-work employers who are influencing the government in its policy deliberations — is economic cooperation. We want projects like Expo to be finished on time and properly. We want other economic projects to be started and to be developed. For that to happen, the workers who build those projects — because they wouldn't happen without them — need to feel that they are involved, that they have been consulted, that they are part of the process of building this province, and not to feel that they've been dragooned and forced into it, or to feel like workers do in South Africa or the Soviet Union, where they have no rights. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we have yet reached that stage here in British Columbia, but from every indication I can perceive from what the government says, they would like us to be in that situation.

The minister says in his opening comments that we have to be competitive. They'd love to be able to force people to work 50 hours a week at $5 an hour, because then we might be competitive. We'd still be five times over the hourly rate, but maybe because of our extra skills and our extra use of machinery we might be competitive. The implication, if not the statement, is clear. Government would prefer, if it could, to regulate in its entirety what labour receives as compensation, when they work, how they work, where they work and who they work with, despite the rhetoric to the contrary.

I'm just going to quickly go through some of the things the minister said: "The consultative process took a long time"; "broad cross-section of advice" — Ian Stewart and Mr. Kerkhoff, and I wonder who else.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Fraser Institute.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, the Fraser Institute. If in fact there was a broad cross-section of advice, how is it that the participants on both sides of the table were surprised? And why do they still not know how to interpret this legislation?

The minister then said: "Economic recovery is the paramount issue in this province." We agree. Why, then, has the government embarked on a series of strategies culminating — at this point, at least — in these amendments that have deliberately stopped British Columbia from joining the beginning of that economic recovery that can be seen in the rest of the continent, outside of Alberta and British Columbia — interestingly, Alberta and British Columbia, where we have the most repressive and anti-labour governments? If the government were sincere in wanting economic recovery, it would offer olive branches. It would consult. It would not trash and thrash those people who it needs to assist in the economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, the minister says we need to be competitive with the rest of the world because we're a trading province. We agree. But how can you be competitive when workers don't work at full capacity because they're browned off and feel they're being forced into doing things they don't want to do? To digress for a moment, how do you get full productivity in a pulp mill when people know they're going to have an agreement imposed upon them? How are we going to be competitive in the world — as the minister wants, and as we want — if people feel they're being hammered at every turn in labour matters in general as dealt with by this piece of legislation? You can use the 2-by-4; you can drive that horse to the trough, and you can probably even force that horse's mouth down to the water, but you can't force that horse to swallow that drink of water. I know the government thinks you can, but in labour relations that doesn't work. I continue to be astounded that the government thinks that by arbitrariness, force, compulsion, government flat and cabinet edict somehow workers will be more productive and therefore more competitive. It flies in the face of all of the learning that should have been going on about labour relations in North America.

[11:15]

The minister went on at some length in a rhetorical series of comments about the workers' rights, the rights of the individual as opposed to rights as part of a collective, and implying that an individual who has failed to persuade the majority of his colleagues on a course of action within a trade union somehow has more rights than the majority. Members on this side of the House have long been in favour of minority rights and have long protected those rights. But the government itself would not pretend to govern on the basis of those people in a minority who disagreed with them. They would say: "No, we represent the majority of people. We were elected by the majority." So too with trade unions. For the most part — and I'm prepared to say for 98 or 99 percent in this province if not in parts of the United States — membership democracy obtains in local unions almost without exception. The members who grumble to Social Credit about the treatment that they might receive or the policies that might be developed by local unions, are those same people who don't go to the meetings. When you don't go to the meeting, it's the same as when you don't vote: you've a hard time arguing about the policies that have been determined by those who do participate. Democracy means that while the minority rights are protected and not trampled upon, the majority has the right to govern. We accept that principle in the province; we accept that principle in this Legislature. Why should not that principle apply in local unions?

The minister made a rhetorical speech that went far further than the legislation itself — with one exception, if I'm reading the bill correctly, which we'll deal with in committee in some stage. What he did in his opening comments, loudly cheered by a full assembly, no doubt asked, if not ordered, to be in attendance....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Some of us have eyes to see with and ears to hear with.

The minister talked at some length about the rights of the individual worker. Those rights are protected in trade union constitutions, without exception that I know of in this province; but to be safe, I will say that no doubt it's not 100 percent. No doubt the minister can find a union with an undemocratic constitution. But I suspect that in finding one he will prove the case I'm making.

"Pressured onto the streets, " he said. He said workers were pressured onto the streets. When he said it, I thought,

[ Page 4664 ]

well, I'm going to go after him for that, because that's such apparent nonsense. Because it's such apparent nonsense it doesn't even deserve a response.

"Workers denied the right to go to work by their unions." Workers are being denied the right to go to work by this government and its economic policies. Fully 17 or 18 percent of the workers in this province are being denied the right to go to work because this government wants there to be unemployment in this province so they can drive wages down and crush the trade union movement. It's a deliberate policy of unemployment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Shame on you!

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not afraid to say those....

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder why the members are so sensitive. Why else would the Premier go to Ottawa several years ago and argue for higher interest rates? Why else would they embark on programs and policies that, like their Tory government counterparts in the rest of this province...?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for North Island has the floor. Kindly extend the courtesy due to him.

MR. GABELMANN: Why is it that only Manitoba has an improving employment record and ours continues to suffer? It's because of the economic policies of the government. Why else would the government want high unemployment, except to accomplish the goals laid out by the Minister of Labour when he said we have to become competitive? How do you drive down wages in an economy? You create high unemployment, that's how. For members on the other side to say "Be more intelligent" or "That's nonsense" or "Don't be stupid...." They don't understand the economic plan as enunciated by the Fraser Institute. That's what they want. I'm prepared to grant that there are members on that side of the House who don't understand the full agenda of the Fraser Institute.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is this the bill, or what are we debating?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the minister made a 15-minute speech, and he didn't talk about the bill. I heard not one explanation of any feature of the bill. He gave us an economic theory speech, no doubt prepared by the influence at least of Walter Block and the Fraser Institute.

I am a mouthpiece for the New Democratic Party, which, unlike the government in power, believes that what we need in our society is cooperation, not confrontation. I want to argue for the idea that you achieve cooperation through processes of consultation, involvement and conciliation, not by arbitrary compulsive features in labour relations. Why is it that in the last ten years labour relations, while not perfect — the minister and I would agree that they could never be perfect — have been improving? Why have we never gone back to the dark days of the late sixties and the first two years of the seventies? Because there has, for the most part, been a realization that the Labour Code — despite the need to make changes here and there; no one quarrels with that — has been fair. Not only has it been fair; it has been perceived to be fair. There are some people who would deny others their democratic rights and who would argue that the Labour Code isn't fair. But talk to the people who are involved with the Labour Code daily, whether it's management, labour or that huge battery of labour lawyers who are involved in processes relating to the Code. Ask them whether or not there isn't a perception that the Code is fair.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What about the working people? You didn't mention them.

MR. GABELMANN: I talked about them: the working people as represented through their organizations in dealing with the Labour Code.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, once again, please grant the member for North Island the right to speak, as you shall all have yourselves.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I already made the point about people wanting to work. God knows there are people who want to work being denied that opportunity by the government because of its economic policies. We've had that discussion.

One of the things the Minister of Labour does frequently and he knows that I have some considerable sympathy for this point of view — is talk about the need to reduce the legal processes and the huge reliance on lawyers at every step in labour relations. One of the ironies of this piece of legislation is that we are going to need more labour lawyers than ever before in this province. My advice to any law student at this stage would be to get into labour law because there is going to be a huge field out there for them.

When you deal with the certification procedures alone, where maybe 30 out of 300 applications went to a vote in the last year.... I don't know the exact numbers. Those are the numbers I've been given. I've not checked them out to be sure that they're absolutely precise, but they're in that range. When you deal with the fact that all 300 are now going to have to go to a vote, that employers are now going to be able to intervene and campaign, that employers are going to be able to hire people specially to vote their way on voting day.... The minister looks surprised. All he has to do is read his bill. When you look at those aspects of this bill, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I wish the member would just shut up, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we sat for some time very quietly and listened to what the Minister of Labour had to say — his arguments in support of this bill. We now have our lead speaker presenting arguments on the other side of the bill, and I would ask the House and you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that he has the same respect as was accorded to the Minister of Labour.

[ Page 4665 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Poor baby Colin.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll be delighted, Mr. Speaker, when the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) finally does go to London.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Unless, as the member said, he has been denied the opportunity that he thought he had because of his manners.

Back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that what that section and others are going to do is to make lawyers rich and involve yet more lawyers in the process.

Any cursory understanding of how American labour law works, as compared with Canadian labour law, because we've chosen two completely different directions in respect of certifications and decertifications.... Anyone who has even any cursory knowledge, as I would hope the minister has, of those differences and that system there, which we're now moving to in this bill, will know that on the first hand you defeat the rights of a democratic majority to achieve their goals, and on the second hand you make it so damned expensive for small groups of people to be properly represented and to use the legal processes that they can't use them. J.P. Stevens is the classic case of that. The textile workers for years and years attempted to organize an employer who had decided he didn't want unions, unlike the majority of big employers, who recognize that there is some very real advantage to them as employers in having the ability to deal collectively with their employees as opposed to dealing with each of them individually. But when you get a company like J.P. Stevens in the States, and no doubt companies in British Columbia who have similar attitudes and values, and given the opportunity to use the American approach, which we're now moving to, you'll find that no matter how well organized, no matter the size of the majority of the group attempting to receive certification, that will be denied to them.

Mr. Speaker, it may be that as a matter of philosophy the government would like workers not to organize. That comes through in various ways. It comes through in the minister's speech when he talks about individuals: making it clear that when individuals band together as a group for purposes of collective bargaining, that's not as good as when they operate independently, individually. When you have that kind of attitude expressed by the government, no doubt some sectors of the business community — not all, by any means — will decide to take that cue from the government and go that extra step, and take every opportunity to thwart the democratic desires of the majority of their employees where and when that happens.

[11:30]

I recognize that the minister has a meeting to go to, and I accept that. I won't make any further comment about that. I just say that so that everybody recognizes that I know that, and it's okay.

Mr. Speaker, I think my caucus would agree that the green light can be waived for designated speaker purposes.

Mr. Speaker, in respect of a question such as the direction of the government vis-a-vis the Labour Code, the Americanization of our labour law, I intend to deal in some detail with that during committee stage. It's not appropriate now. But I must say that between now and the opportunity that the government has to bring in amendments to the bill, I hope those members of that caucus who perhaps haven't thought about this issue will take an opportunity to go to the library and borrow a book about labour relations called Reconcilable Differences, written by Paul Weiler; a neutral — if ever there was a neutral in this business — with some considerable experience, a man who got a labour relations board underway which commanded the respect of everyone in the business. It's a well-written and intelligent book, one with which I have some differences; no doubt members on that side would have differences from a different perspective. But it's an argument — a plea, in fact — for us in this country not to take the American route, particularly in respect of the certification process. We will have interminable wrangling; we will have immense legal bills; and ultimately, in a majority of those cases we will have an unfair decision because of employer interference — deliberately and often not deliberately.

I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that for some members of this House, knowledge of that issue is unfortunately a bit scanty. What happens is that you have a small plant — say 25 employees. At the present time, if 15 or so of those employees decide to join a union and so indicate by signing a card and paying the initiation fee, Labour Relations Board has the opportunity to automatically certify the union at that particular plant or operation. Under the revisions in this bill, when those same 15 people sign the cards.... And I would argue that they cannot sign those cards without paying the full initiation fee of the union and the full first month's dues, whatever they are. The minister shook his head earlier when I made a quick reference to that point. That's how I read the legislation, and that's how others read it.

Nevertheless, they still sign up and application is then made to the Labour Relations Board for certification by the union on behalf of the employees. The Labour Board, which is not required, as it is in Nova Scotia, to order a vote within five days — no limit in effect — then considers the application. Some days or weeks or possibly months later, depending on the workload — which remember is going to be considerably increased because of the need to conduct certification votes on every occasion, and no doubt because of the argument that will entail as to procedures — the Labour Relations Board, much busier and needing a much larger staff than it did before, will then order a vote when it gets to that application and when it has some staff free to conduct that vote. In the meantime, the union business agent, the organizing committee or the person who signed up the workers isn't there every day reassuring those workers on the course of action they have taken and keeping them informed as to their rights. But management is there every day. In the case of a small outfit like this, it's probably the owner who's there — if not every day, at least frequently. In casual conversation, quietly, the owner or management says: "You know, this union stuff, it's just going to make trouble. It would be so much better if we just kept it the way it was. We might be threatened with loss of jobs if there's a union here. More than that, if we have a union and I have to pay wages, maybe they'll be too high and maybe I'll have to lay off, and maybe I'll even have to close." Employers are....

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm telling the truth.

[ Page 4666 ]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It does. He says "maybe." Maybe that will be the effect. That's the truth, because he doesn't know. Who's going to prove whether he's telling the truth anyway, in respect to his business, when he says: "Maybe I'll have to lay some people off"?

That kind of subtle pressure goes on every day, and in this particular example....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Shuswap (Mr. Michael) says: "What does the organizer tell the people when he signs them up?" I wonder what he told the workers when he signed them up.

MR. MICHAEL: The truth.

MR. GABELMANN: If that member told the truth when he was on organizing drives, he can be assured that so too do other union organizers.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I suspect from that interjection that perhaps that member didn't always....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: He discovered he could make a hell of a lot more money being on the other side, and so he did.

Back to this small operation of 25 employees, 15 of whom have signed cards. No certification vote is ordered for some time to come. The employer continues in his campaign to subtly, casually — not overtly; no literature, just casual conversation over a cup of coffee or after work over a beer — talk to the employees and cast some doubt in their mind about their decision. Under American labour law in the federal statutes, an employer can and does do that. In this case all that has to happen is that three of those 15 people say: "Well, maybe the boss is right; maybe the organizer is wrong. Maybe I'd better sign a revocation slip." In the American situation the vote is taken and the union loses as a result of employer interference. Do you know what's even worse in the bill we're getting today? That can happen and much more can happen, because between the date of the application being filed — when those 15 out of 25 employees agree to join the union — and the date some weeks or months later when the vote is ordered, the employer can hire some new employees, and those new employees can vote. So the employer says: "Aha, by intimidation and by working these people over, I haven't been able to shake them. They're still committed to the union, so I'm going to lose 15 or 10. How do I solve that? I'll go and hire 10 more people who'll be working here on the date set for the certification vote."

MR. MICHAEL: He can do that now.

MR. GABELMANN: We can't do that now. Mr. Speaker, for a guy who pretends to be knowledgeable in this field, he should know better than that. I'm talking about the rights of the employer under....

MR. REID: You're too cynical.

MR. GABELMANN: Maybe we are. Maybe there isn't an employer in this province who would do what I'm suggesting. Maybe there isn't. Let's assume there isn't. They're still given the right under the law. Why? If they're not going to do it, why would they be given the right under the law to do it?

Let me just continue with this example. The 25 employees are joined by 10 new employees on voting day. Those ten new employees who are hired for a day, for a week — for any period of time, as long as they are working there on the date of the certification vote — are able to vote. And of course the employer is going to make sure, when he hires his new employees, that they're going to vote the right way. So the certification vote is taken, with 35 people in the bargaining unit now, not 25, and the vote is 20 to 15 against the union.

Mr. Speaker, this particular provision isn't a big deal at a pulp mill with a thousand people that may have just been built and is now ready for certification, because an employer would have some difficulty in manipulating when you have such a large unit. But most of the organizing in this province now takes place in the small service sector of our economy. The organizing is being done by the small unions. The pulp mills are organized; the sawmills are organized; the big factories are organized. It's all done. What hasn't been organized in provincial jursidiction, as in federal, are the small places: under federal jurisdiction, the banks; under provincial jurisdiction, the small manufacturing plants and offices. In those cases, a workforce of 25 is not uncommon. What does the employer now have the opportunity to do? Not only to follow the American model of employer interference — not coercion or intimidation. Even though the employers have now been exempted from the old section 5 of the Code, which said that coercion and intimidation shall not take place, the government now wants intimidation and coercion to be illegal only in the case of trade unions. Even so, if an employer did use coercion or intimidation, a fair Labour Relations Board would no doubt rule that an unfair labour practice and, theoretically, at least, would still have the right under section 8 of the Code to impose a certification, even though the imposition of a certification is now denied in an automatic way by these changes.

But we're not talking about intimidation and coercion; we're just talking about casual conversation about the worries that the owner or the manager has about the viability of the particular operation. Will that be declared an unfair labour practice? Not under this bill. Therefore there will be no right of the board automatically to certify as a result of employer interference — by itself a wrong direction. Every expert in this country writing on this issue, back since 1948, when Justice Rand was involved so intimately in labour matters, going on through any number of other people from John Crispo to Paul Weiler to many, many more, all have pleaded with Canadian lawmakers not to follow that American example.

[11:45]

But you know, this government has decided to do that — to give full rein to the British Columbia equivalent of the J.P. Stevenses. But more than that, it has allowed for the voting unit to be carefully constructed and designed on the day of voting by the employer.

If the government does not desire that approach in either of those two respects, it should, before we get to committee stage, clarify that legislation by full amendment. If that's in

[ Page 4667 ]

fact what they want to do, why didn't the minister tell us that when he spoke? The minister made no reference whatsoever to the procedures involved in certification; no reference whatsoever to the intricacies of the secondary picketing section; no reference at all in specifics to the question of the economic development projects. It's a curious section, if I've ever seen one. The minister gave no justification for the fact that the government has decided that cement trucks on a construction job are no longer part of the construction job. Why not? The minister didn't give us any explanation whatsoever during the course of the introduction; not a word about any of the details.

I wouldn't be asking for details that are more appropriate in committee stage; I just want to know what the government means by this legislation. I understand, I think, the definition of construction. Other than for the automatic certification provision re building trades union, I'm not quite sure why it's there. I understand, I think, what the government intends by the section relating to construction work, but I don't understand why it's worded the way it is. What's the motivation in saying that integral parts of a construction project are no longer part of that construction project? Is that a backhanded way of dealing with the affiliation clause? The minister didn't tell us. And on and on throughout the bill — complicated, difficult sections. There is no explanation at all from the minister as to what was intended, what the implications will be, how it will work.

"Fair and reasonable conditions of membership." What does subsection (4) mean? Before we get to it in committee, I think the minister should at least tell us whether that section means that in an organizing drive a union, in attempting to sign people up so they can later apply for certification, in fact has to charge, on the application form, the full first month's membership dues, and the next month's and the next month's, until the certification vote is taken, as well as the full initiation fee. Is that what that section means? Three of the four lawyers that I talked to think so. The minister didn't bother to have the decency to tell this House what the case is.

You go on and on. In section 5, why didn't the minister explain to us the government's motivation in saying that multiple-employer bargaining units, multiple-employer certifications, require the consent of every employer before there can be multiple certification? Is that because in the pulp industry MacBlo wants out and all the other pulp companies want to stay in? Is that what that's for? If so, why? Is it the government's policy that in forced negotiations, to pick one example, independence should be given every one of the membership of COFI or FIR — in terms of the bargaining units and of the pulp and paper labour relations bureau and FIR in the woods industry — in the forests and sawmills? Those two bargaining agents for their member companies.... Is it the intent of this section to allow one of those companies — and I think of MacMillan Bloedel, because I've heard some of their senior people saying that they would like to be able to bargain independently...? Is it the intention of the government, therefore, to say to the majority of the members of those particular organizations: "Your rights are no longer protected, because one of the membership in your group has decided that they do not want to participate in multiple-employer collective bargaining"?

Has the government considered whether that's a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not making a judgment. Maybe it's a good thing; maybe it's a bad thing. But it's a major change of policy direction on the part of the government. We didn't hear a word or a murmur or a hint from the minister as to that particular section — section 5 amending section 40 of the Code. Yet if I read this correctly — in the few hours I've had to study the bill as compared to the year, at least, that the minister's had — this is a fundamental change of policy direction in British Columbia labour-management relations. For a long time there has been a desire on the part of industry and unions and government — all three — to achieve multiple-employer bargaining. That process was, with nails torn out almost, achieved in the construction industry. It was achieved with less difficulty in the forest industry. But without a declaratory statement of any kind as to government intention, they appear to wipe that out with this section, unless every single employer in that particular industry chooses to participate in multiple-employer bargaining. That's like saying — this is a slight exaggeration — that for a government to do something, it has to have the support of every single person affected by that action. That's absurd. Society can't function that way.

But more importantly, I guess, if we are going to embark on a major new direction in terms of labour-management bargaining in this province.... Believe me, this is a major change. This House and this province deserve more than I think they got from the minister. All that I know of that the minister has ever said on this subject was in a TV clip that I saw a few weeks ago in respect of some discussions being held in the forest industry about the right of MacMillan Bloedel to bargain independently from Crown Forest Industries, Canadian Forest Products, Tahsis Co. or any of the rest. As I remember it, and I'm obviously very much paraphrasing, in response to the TV interviewer's question, the minister said: "I think negotiations should be as close as possible between the employer and the employee." In other words, it shouldn't be third-handed by having another body interposed into the process, which you have in effect with FIR and the Pulp and Paper Bureau.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not here making a comment about yes or no to that question. All I'm saying is that that is a major policy direction, which was embarked upon ten years ago in terms of attempting to achieve employer councils. There was considerable discussion and lots of opposition. But what we have snuck into the Code here, and not referred to at all by the minister in his opening comments, is what I perceive to be a fundamental change. Don't the participants in this business and the public in this province have a right to have some explanation of why? It will mean major changes. I'll leave that and deal with it in more detail during committee stage on section 5.

Mr. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.