[ Page 4693 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Labour Code Amendment Act (Bill 28). Second reading

Mr. R. Fraser –– 4693

Mr. Nicolson –– 4693

Mr. Michael –– 4696

Mr. Cocke –– 4698

Mr. Campbell –– 4702

Ms. Sanford –– 4705

FRIDAY, MAY 11, 1984

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), I would very much like to introduce to the assembly Mrs. Ann McKenzie, formerly of Quesnel and now living in Waterloo, Ontario. I would also mention, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. McKenzie was the landlady to Mr. Brian Rowbottom when he first entered government service, and he's now with the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today it's my pleasure to introduce a group of young Canadians from Sir Winston Churchill High School in Montreal, Quebec. These students are being hosted by Prince of Wales Secondary School in Vancouver. Recently a group of students from Vancouver were in Montreal and were hosted by the Sir Winston Churchill High School group. This is a band from Montreal accompanied by their leader, Mr. Don Garrett; their chaperones are Giselle Bazerqui, Julie Bilsker, Mario Caron and the president of the Prince of Wales band association, Mr. Allan Nicholson. I would ask the House to make them most welcome to British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984
(continued)

MR. R. FRASER: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in this debate to tell everybody in the province and everybody in the House how I support this bill, and how much I support this bill. I compliment the minister on coming down with a bill that is fair, when indeed the temptation to go one way or the other must have been overwhelming at times. It appears that there is something in that bill for everybody — both sides at least — and certainly for the working men and women in the province of British Columbia.

There's no doubt about the fact that some will look for flaws, and some will make most of any changes they see for their own interest and not for the interest of the general public. But it is my fond hope that everybody out there who sees the bill and reads the bill will indeed look for ways to make the bill work. That's the whole foundation of this government as I see it. Certainly some aspects of the bill that I am particularly fond of are the changes to the rules with respect to secondary picketing. I can recall some years ago when a union was secondary picketing the B.C. Ferries, at the inconvenience of every single member of the public, and it was my feeling at the time that the management of that company and the leaders of the union could certainly fight on their own territory, for they were both big enough and powerful enough to do that. As I've said before, I'm very fond of the changes with respect to the rules regarding secondary picketing. I would certainly agree with secondary picketing as it affects employees who are being treated unfairly, but I think it should be restricted to the parties involved and not involve other people. The same philosophy and understanding was given to the pulpworkers with respect to the IWA last summer, and I know that members of the IWA, and probably the pulp unions at some future date, would support this idea.

Those members on the other side of the House who claim to be the sole defenders of the labour movement are wrong. Those of us over here are defending the rights of unions, management and, in particular, the working people of the province. Some would use provocation, some would suggest there will be frustration, some would impute motives not there. But not for me. I have great faith in the people of British Columbia, and I know they will make it work. Indeed, my faith in the minister is reinforced by my strong belief that if some new minor changes have to be made to make the legislation even better, then those small changes will be made. So if we hear something good here, we'll put it in — I have no doubt about that.

One of the other aspects of the changes that I really like has to do with successor rights. Certainly when a business changes hands, the new owner expects to keep the existing customers; but he has no right to those customers. He must continue to win them. In the same light, I suggest that unions should work hard to keep their members. I would not grant them the right in perpetuity to ownership — if you want to put it that way — of those people who are working. Indeed, it is my belief that unions and management will be more responsive to the working men and women of the province, because they will have to make sure they're doing their job correctly, and I can endorse that idea wholeheartedly.

As I see this bill, it is a demonstration of democracy in the workplace. In fact, the secret ballot, long the symbol of a free and democratic society, is espoused in this bill. Every working man and woman in this province who wishes to change his or her mind has the right to do that. I can endorse everything in that bill with respect to the changes that we're making. The secret ballot on certification or decertification makes me feel very happy for everybody who is involved in it, whether they're on the union or on the management side –– I have no doubt whatsoever that both parties will be more responsive to the needs, wants and desires of the working people.

I want to see working men and women having their rights. Those out in the community who were watching us here yesterday, today and perhaps Monday, those who read the bill carefully, will understand that it is fair to all. That, Mr. Speaker, is something that I want to see us do always,

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill is probably the dumbest economic move that this government could possibly make at this time. This move is not welcomed by small business in British Columbia, which is reeling from the effects of the confrontation that this government has been been undergoing as a direct policy for the past three years. This is the result of a government that hasn't been able to balance the books since the current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) took over in the 1979-80 fiscal year. This is a government that has been spending more money than it has been able to collect in taxes since the 1979-80 fiscal year, and in order to cover up their bungling as fiscal mismanagers this government has sought seriatim various groups in the

[ Page 4694 ]

province about which there might be some misconception and toward which there might be some ill-conceived hostility. Rather than try to clarify, inform, educate and elevate the level of debate about some very complex issues, while we're going through very complex economic times, the government has resorted to the basest of motives, and it has sought to provocate, to confuse and to instil hatred and hostility between the victims of their economic bungling and society as a whole.

[10:15]

This bill is founded on questionnaires put out in the Martin Goldfarb polls seeking the soft underbelly of any group. It's a search-and-destroy mission. Look for hostility toward teachers. Look for hostility toward doctors, and if the doctors aren't coming up too well — if their pulse is a little low in terms of the feelings of the public — this government seeks them out, makes them the target of hostility, brings in some kind of a provocative act or embarks upon a provocative program and tries to turn public opinion against them for the moment. The government then turns toward the teaching profession, and there again tries to promote hostility. In this bill, having last year taken on public service employees and, I suppose, their union, it's now taking on the private sector employees, more or less, with this act of provocation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Some parts of this bill are not going to have a great effect, technically speaking, one way or another, but they are meant to inflame. They are meant as a slap in the face, as an act of defiance against democratic principles within labour unions. Other aspects of this bill are going to have very profound effects. But the most profound effect of this bill is that it continues to paint British Columbia as a province in which there is no economic growth; in which, while other parts of the country are experiencing recovery, British Columbia, already number ten out of ten in economic growth, already at the bottom when it should be at the top, is going to continue along this path of seeking, rather than to rectify the underlying problems, to find excuses. It is going to look for victims. It is going to look for people to whom we can vent our hatred. It reminds me of some of the more far-out science fiction novels I may have read. There was one I recall that involved public hating, where everyone focused their energies toward hating one person or a group as a punishment, and the sum of all of that psychic power would lead to a total destruction. It seems that we could learn a lesson from that. That's what this bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, this bill — the changes in decertification, for instance — is not wanted by the labour movement, and I'll tell you that it's not wanted by responsible management. I'm darned sure that Cominco, with what they've gone through and having met on several occasions with top management of Cominco, certainly don't welcome the kind of destabilizing effect brought about by the chaos that is going to result from the new decertification provisions.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: It's not management's decision. Read the bill, my friend. The decision there is going to be between people who are raiding.... Mr. Speaker, I must be on a roll; I've been generating so much cross-comment from the other side of the floor, A few, after having hurled a few choice epithets at me, have left the House. If that's the effect that this speech is having, I guess I should keep on going, because that certainly is, I think, the problem.

I think the reason that some of those members are upset by the words that I'm having to say on this particular bill is because it really does strike at the heart of the matter. The people who are really even more threatened than labour by this bill are small business people. I've been talking with retail people in Vancouver, retail people here in Victoria and back in Nelson-Creston and they want to get on with recovery. They do not want another confrontation in this province.

This government and its Goldfarb polls — one can easily produce the Goldfarb polls with the questions that are asked. They are asking questions about people's perceptions of labour and people's perceptions of educators and people's perceptions of doctors and of public servants. They are looking — and it's very obvious from the polls — for the basic hostilities, the kinds of hostilities upon which really racism, bigotry, all of the things that one would seek to prevent in a human rights code.... I know that we're not on the Human Rights Code, Mr. Speaker, but those are the types of motives that are being examined by the government. It might be laudable to look at people's attitudes towards certain questions such as that if it were the government's intention to educate, to clarify, to make people have more understanding of others' points of view, rather than pitting one against the other. They are trying to pit the unorganized worker against the organized worker, rather than trying to have both sides understand the point of view of the others. The government is very happy to see a strong reaction from organized labour, because they want to see a strong reaction from the unorganized. They want to see a confrontation; certainly they want to see a war of words, if it does not come to something even worse than that.

One problem in British Columbia is stagflation, and this bill does nothing to rectify that. The problem of stagflation is the fact that when you add the index of inflation and the index of unemployment.... Even if inflation has come down somewhat, it's only come down at the expense of unemployment. If you add the two of those together it's probably higher than it's ever been, even though inflation is somewhat lower than it has been of recent date. It's only come down at the cost of that other index. That is the thing that we should be trying to address, not trying to scapegoat, and not creating a hammer with a whole bunch of different innovations in this bill.

Many of these things have been tried before, and they failed. I can remember the previous Social Credit government and its Bill 33, the Mediation Commission Act. It was an act which they never did bother to implement. They brought it in, and it served its purpose. It inflamed people; it got people all upset about organized labour. The government never was stupid enough to actually implement the provisions of that act or make use of it, although they had opportunities where it would have applied. The purpose of that act was to inflame and set British Columbian against British Columbian. I remember when for a year the government took the compulsory check-off dues away from teachers; then it was brought back at the request of all the teachers, the school boards, and just about everyone else. It was the cure for which there was no disease.

This act seeks to impose rules and regulations on one democratic set of organizations. Democracy means that there is a freedom and a responsibility vested within that group,

[ Page 4695 ]

regardless of the fact that people might make mistakes. Democracy is the freedom to make mistakes, not to be supervised by some external force. This bill takes away democracy and takes away democratic responsibility from trade unions. I'm sure the government would not condone our doing the same thing to other organizations, whether they be societies, fraternal orders or other groups that flourish in our democratic society, yet it singles out trade unions for this kind of treatment. I think this is the most destabilizing, threatening thing to our economy. When I mainstreet, whether in Vancouver or Victoria, and go into various shops and strike up conversations, I'm amazed at the number of people.... I don't expect to find support for the New Democratic Party there. In fact, when they wish me and my party well, I don't think it is so much that they are specifically wishing my party well, but because of the frustration and the dashed expectations with this government, they are saying that they don't like what has been happening since the last election. They don't like this unbridled attack on group after group. That is the essence of this bill: the singling out of various groups for attack for the purpose of deflecting attention from the economic inadequacies of this government.

I can remember former Ministers of Labour under this current Social Credit administration who would stand up in the House and brag about the labour-management peace, the lack of industrial strife, the lack of illegal work stoppages and the drop in the number of work-days lost in this province. What did that result from? It resulted from the current Labour Code administered as it had been since it was brought in in 1973 or 1974. It created a fairness. When that Code was brought in, it was not brought in as a reaction to the old Labour Code amendments, the old Bill 48 and Bill 42 and Bill 33 and the other old labour bills that were taken away. In other words, when Bill King brought in that bill, he and the cabinet — and I don't believe I was a part of that government at the time; I guess I was at the end when that current Code was brought in — decided that the purpose was that there would not be a total swing of the pendulum to the other extreme; that we would stop that pendulum in the middle; that we would not rectify bad labour legislation by bringing in bad management legislation. So that Code did bring to British Columbia an unprecedented era of labour-management peace and a reduction in tensions. It brought something that Labour ministers, like Alan Williams, would get up in the House and brag about and take some credit for. Even though he didn't bring in that particular Code, he certainly defended that Code against erosion. For that he certainly deserves credit.

[10:30]

What are we seeking to do? We're seeking to upset that balance. What is realized is that we're warned in one of the very early issues of Sir Erskine May, written by Sir Erskine May himself, that parliament is supreme but subject to the willingness of the people to obey — in other words, to accept the rulings of parliament. There have certainly been things done which.... Well, we can pass any kind of a law we want to in here, within the keepings of our own jurisdiction. We can't pass laws dealing with national defence, for instance, which is not within our jurisdiction, but we can certainly pass things dealing with labour law, education and health care. We can pass almost anything that we want, but we must think about the public. It is, after all, a very important part of parliament. We have a responsibility to the public not to try to exploit its weakness or to try to exploit division; with the public we have a responsibility to bring British Columbians together.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking against civil disobedience. I am talking about a government that would use Martin Goldfarb polls to incite the basest instincts of the populace, rather than trying to enhance understanding. I'm saying that any government that incites and invites civil disobedience is irresponsible, a disgrace to the whole concept of parliament and what has been won for the people.

I suppose that again one of the overriding problems with this bill is that it does not even define the limits of the power that is being given to the cabinet, in terms of designating what an economic development project is and what the limits are. We've heard various explanations given and they range all over the ballpark, but it isn't spelled out. One of the principles of this bill is that the bill simply is not clear. It extends extraordinary power without a clear definition of the limits of that power, so it becomes almost unlimited in certain areas.

The minister may take offence at my quoting Sir Erskine May when I talk about the most eminent parliamentary authority, but if the minister would ever read back to about the ninth edition he would see that even in the days when the franchise was not extended to women — and maybe not even to people without land at that time in Great Britain — there was nevertheless that recognition of the rights of the people in terms of those who were the guardians of parliament at that time.

We can pass laws about picketing and we can become more and more restrictive about rights to picket; but if a picket line goes up, whether legal or illegal according to the most current piece of legislation, there are people who just won't cross that line. They won't cross that line because it is as thoroughly ingrained in them as religious belief is ingrained in many people. It is an act of conscience, and when people are faced with an act of conscience, I think there is the very real chance that some of these laws which we are attempting to put in here will be found just as invalid as laws that were passed in Quebec, which said that Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't distribute literature on the streets of Montreal. That act was found invalid; it was found to go against, in that case, religious belief very clearly spelled out, and to be beyond the jurisdiction of the provincial parliament. Laws can be found to err, and now that we have human rights in Canada, a great deal of this legislation could be found to go beyond the rights of a provincial parliament to legislate in labour matters. It could be found to violate the rights of citizens of Canada.

I would welcome the actions of a Social Credit government that would get on with taking positive measures to fulfil the expectations of people who were told before the last election that if the Socreds were re-elected they would all have jobs. If the Socreds had fulfilled that promise, I would gladly stay in opposition for the rest of my political life. If we had returned to reasonable levels of unemployment, instead of having the highest levels of unemployment in the country, if in my riding the policies of this government had reduced, as promised, levels of unemployment from about 20 percent at the time, instead of increasing them to 25 percent or even beyond — perhaps 40 percent in the Nelson area — I would gladly stay in opposition for the rest of my political career.

[ Page 4696 ]

They haven't done that, and bringing in this piece of legislation is clearly a signal to the people of British Columbia that this provincial government has no economic plan; that they are willing to accept high levels of unemployment, willing to do anything to keep themselves in power. They will leave no stone unturned in terms of trying to find groups toward which hostility can be directed in order to draw attention away from the government.

This government will go the extra mile; this government will work 24 hours a day; this government will make every sacrifice that it can to find another scapegoat. It isn't just people in the New Democratic Party that have reached this conclusion. What I am bringing to this House is a message from administrators, from fairly large corporation presidents and vice-presidents, from store-owners, from wholesalers, from companies that are closing down their operations in British Columbia and consolidating to places like Calgary or back to Toronto, to people who have given up waiting for this government to get on with building and pulling people together.

When I was Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker, I realized that there was a tremendous confrontation among various groups who had very common goals and objectives. I sought to bring them together. I brought together at the same table people like Henry Block and Bruce Yorke; people like your good friend Tom Goode and Harry Rankin and Mike Harcourt and the late Alvin Narod and people from the labour movement like Mr. Roy Gautier and other people such as that. I brought together people who were interested in housing from different points of view, to concentrate on the commonality of their interest rather than their differences. That's what we should be doing in this province.

This government is concentrating on the differences that divide people. It is blowing those differences out of proportion with this kind of an act, rather than looking at the commonality of interest. If ever there was opportunity in British Columbia, it is today. If ever there was opportunity, if ever there was a time when labour and management and small business were all on the same side, it is today. But this government is trying to drive and keep those wedges between them because they know that their political fortunes, their very narrow, selfish interest is more within the wedges that divide small business and management and big business and labour and the unorganized and church groups and senior citizens and everyone else. That huge mass of people, that young unemployed person who never even had a job and has been out in that workforce for two or three years now and that other large group, those professionals, all of those engineers who are unemployed, recorded by the B.C. Association of Professional Engineers.... They've got about 15 percent of those people in their middle years — those years that should be the best earning years — unemployed.

There are two things we can do. We can try to make those people resent their position and focus that hostility toward organized labour, which happens to be the group of today. It was put to me by an administrator that what the government is doing.... We get very tired of this, and I'm sure that people of German extraction must get very tired of this kind of analogy, but he said that the private sector, organized labour — and this was an administrator on the other side, a person who sits opposite labour and tries to reach collective agreements with them — are the Jews of the moment in this government's oppression, as teachers and doctors were in very recent times. That was his choice of words. I don't say that to offend anybody or try to create any kind of hostility towards many good citizens of British Columbia who are of German ethnic origin, but that analogy is one that I guess is so compelling that people cannot help but see it. There very well might be one or two good points in this act, but this is not the time to bring it in. This is the time in which we should be, as I say, Mr. Speaker, looking for the glue to bind the broken pieces of British Columbia together. We should not be seeking to force it apart any further. That is why I am absolutely and totally opposed to this piece of legislation.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to support this legislation, Bill 28 –– I wish to compliment the Minister of Labour and the Premier and indeed the cabinet and the government for the great amount of work that went into preparing this very comprehensive piece of legislation.

It's certainly a very large step, one of the cornerstones of economic recovery in this province to put our house in order regarding the Labour Code in British Columbia, and I think that when all of the words are said and the chaff is sorted out, the people of the province of British Columbia will agree by a very large majority that this is indeed a very good piece of legislation.

[10:45]

During the election campaign I recollect this government and candidates and our Premier promising the people of British Columbia that there would be revisions to the Labour Code, that those revisions would give equity to the question of certification and decertification, and that they would bring in legislation to democratize the free collective bargaining process. As I read this bill, I find this government meeting those commitments.

When I look at legislation in the workplace, what I look for is fairness and equity. When I look at the amendments to the Code that Bill 28 proposes, I see fairness and equity. I see the new legislation banning political strikes. I ask you: what is fair and equitable, in the eyes of a small businessman or an innocent worker working on a production line, where a group of people can get together in Ottawa or in Vancouver and make a decision that that business shall lose a day's production and those workers a day's wages? I think it is a very good move, and I support that particular section of the legislation.

Regarding certification and decertification, the 45 percent figure remains. If 45 percent of the workers in a group decide they would like to join a union, then all this legislation does is say that there shall be a secret democratic vote held to decide whether the majority of workers wish to join that union. It shall be completely free of any coercion or intimidation. The vote shall be secret, and it shall be supervised. I would suggest that by certifying a union in this way, the union, on becoming certified, will be very solidly established because the employer will know from the onset, if that vote is 5 I percent or more, that the union has the clear support of the majority of workers in the workforce.

Regarding the aspects dealing with secondary picketing, it has been said on this floor already, and I will not take a lot of time on this, that all we have to do is look back in the very short history of this province at the tens and hundreds and millions of dollars lost by stoppages imposed on unionized workers with a valid collective agreement by unionized workers who were in a dispute with another employer. I refer, of course, to the pulp dispute and the tens of thousands of man-hours lost by the members of the IWA in the province of British Columbia. This type of legislation is long overdue. It

[ Page 4697 ]

is completely and absolutely 100 percent wrong to permit unions, on their whim, to take off throughout the province shutting down employers holus-bolus without first going to the Labour Relations Board and getting a clearance for that secondary picketing. I'm not saying that secondary picketing is wrong in all instances. There are certainly times when secondary picketing should be permitted, and this legislation provides for that. It is purely and simply putting the onus on the union to put their case before the Labour Relations Board and get permission beforehand. I support the legislation 100 percent.

I wonder if the second member for Vancouver thinks that the Premier of this province indeed staged this entire event so that he could bring about some changes to the Labour Code. I think his statements on the floor of this assembly yesterday were somewhat irresponsible in accusing the Premier of this province of going out and stirring up issues for the sake of making some amendments to a Labour Code that he indeed promised the people of British Columbia during the last election campaign he would make.

Regarding the section of Bill 28 dealing with economic development projects, there is no doubt whatsoever that this is zeroing in on the Expo site. How anyone looking at the size of that site — some 168 acres — could suggest that fairness and equity should not provide that that site be a mixed site must have a mixed-up mind. I notice that even one of the leadership candidates of the NDP, Mr. Vickers, has come out in support of non-union companies having freedom to bid on government projects. I compliment and congratulate him on his stand, although I think he may pay dearly for it in the election campaign for the leadership a week from this weekend.

I wonder what happened to the old slogan in the labour movement of "Let's go out and organize the unorganized." It seems to me that if we have a case such as Expo, with 10 or 15 percent of the projects being done by non-union people, perhaps the craft union leaders should get off their butts and go out and convince those people to join the union, as they do in industrial unions across this province and across this country and across this continent. I would suggest to you that they are looking for the easy way out whereby they can sit back in their offices and give easy directions and sweep in large groups of workers without going out and doing any work. If there's a non-union contractor on a project, go out and sign up the crew and apply for certification.

Another section has to do with the two-year closure. If a company has a certification and is closed down for two years, it can apply at the end of that two-year period for its certification to be removed. In view of the fact that employees have not been working for that company for two years, and there are no seniority benefits left in the agreement, I have a hard time arguing against that section. I feel it's fair.

Another section deals with the question of construction certifications where a small operator has an opportunity to bid on a job on a one-shot basis. He can become certified, he can have a collective agreement, but that self-destructs at the end of that particular project. I find it completely unfair to have any suggestion whatsoever that that small employer should be tied to a certification and collective agreement for the rest of time, when he has to go back to his home community and compete with other operators who do not have union certifications and union collective agreements and all the benefits that they provide. I think what you're really doing then is legislating him out of business, and I don't think that's equitable.

Another section of the proposed amendments to the act has to do with the question of unions not being permitted to penalize members for refusing to break the law. That section is long overdue in the province of British Columbia. All we have to do is look at the Stephen Craig case, some of the cases in this community of Victoria, and look at some of the actions taken against teachers throughout the province. I'm very proud the government came to grips with this in this particular section of the act and made it an illegal act to penalize people for refusing to break the law.

Interjection.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MICHAEL: I didn't say they were.

Another thing that's going to be tidied up in this legislation are variable initiation fees. It will eliminate unfair leverage and perhaps an element of coercion. The new system will create a better feeling — a true feeling of solidarity. When workers join a union, they will either all be charged $5, $10, $20 or $100, or they will all be given dispensation at the same time. I don't think that it's equitable for a union to have the leverage of going to an unorganized group and saying: "If you join the union today, it's going to cost you a $1 initiation fee. But if you don't join today — and you're going to have to join after we get our certification and agreement — it's going to cost you $100." I think there is an element there that has to be removed, and I'm very happy to see that tidied up in this bill. I consider it fair and equitable legislation.

I've listened to the people across the floor debating this particular bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're merchants of fear.

MR. MICHAEL: They are indeed merchants of fear. They set themselves up as the sole friends of labour in the province of British Columbia. They accuse us of only representing management. If the count that I see is correct, we have 35 members on this side of the House and they have 22. At the last count that I took, management people in the province of British Columbia were outnumbered by labour by about ten to one. If we are not getting a large chunk of that labour vote, how come we got 35 and they got 22? I think if you go back in history to the early fifties, when this party first came into being in the province, you will find that since that time membership in trade unions in the province has increased in the neighbourhood of 450 percent. We have some of the best contracts and the best benefits of any province or state in North America. We on this side of the House are very proud of that.

I look at my own constituency, and I feel that I represent a very large section of unionized workers. If it weren't for the unionized workers' support, I wouldn't be sitting in this Legislature today. I've got hundreds of loggers in my constituency. I've got hundreds of sawmill workers — seven large sawmills in my constituency. There are two large plywood plants, hundreds of teachers –– 35 schools in all — several liquor stores fully unionized, five hospitals which are fully unionized, six municipalities which are fully unionized, three regional districts, and government workers in the Forest

[ Page 4698 ]

Service. I've got the largest hydro dam project in my constituency. At the time of the election there were somewhere between 1,600 and 1,800 unionized workers in my constituency. We have a very large and fully unionized mine, railway workers by the hundreds, social workers, telephone workers, linemen, post offices, teamsters, rock and tunnel workers. It's a very heavily unionized constituency, but I believe the people in my constituency voted for me because they could see our government advocating fair and equitable policies.

I have not been backward in coming forward to assist unions when asked to do so. Within about ten days after my election a large restaurant in the city of Revelstoke was caught in a very unfortunate strike. It gave me a great deal of pride to go in there and meet with the picketers, the union business agent and the employers, and within a matter of hours we had those workers back to work. We are indeed friends of labour.

It somewhat disappoints me, though, when I listen to members on the other side of the House talking about the lack of cooperation and communication. I'd like to ask the members opposite to do some homework and find out when any labour union in the province of British Columbia, since 1975, has invited our Minister of Labour to be a guest speaker at a convention. Check the records and find out when any labour union with certification in the province of British Columbia invited our Premier to address one of their conventions. When they talk about cooperation and communication, I have a very difficult time. When they say those words, looking at the evidence and the facts I see hypocrisy. If they want better relations and better communication, I would suggest they ask their friends in the labour movement to open up those doors and permit our leaders to meet with them, permit some input, a two-way communication.

[11:00]

We heard some words yesterday from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) about leading a horse to water. My suggestion is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him vote NDP. You can take his views, siphon off large chunks for political purposes, but when he enters the polling booth the chickens come home to roost. We know we're getting a large part of that labour vote out there; we know we're getting it because we're doing the right things.

I'm somewhat confused, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps when we can get into cross-examining the minister, we can clear up some of the items brought up by the member for North Island, such as who votes on certifications and the numbers that vote when certification votes take place. I have some disagreement with some of the things he said yesterday. Hopefully we can clear that up during the questions on that particular reading.

I was somewhat surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear the member for North Island talk about his interpretation of the right to work. I was very surprised indeed. If he tells those kinds of stories on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, he must be peddling that stuff to the workers in trade unions across the province of British Columbia. In my view, again the words "merchants of fear" properly describe some of the words put forward by that member.

Interjections.

MR. MICHAEL: Read Hansard.

There were some words said on the floor yesterday, Mr. Speaker, about the coming NDP leadership convention and the fact that 280 voting delegates out of 1,100 are from the trade union movement. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker — perhaps a little "Trivial Pursuit." How many members from the trade union movement do you think would be in attendance on that weekend if they were voting for a Premier of the province of British Columbia? I'll tell you the answer to that: it would be as many as necessary to win.

MR. BLENCOE: Tell the truth.

MR. MICHAEL: Read your constitution.

If we are going to have true recovery in this province, we must have responsibility, accountability and teamwork. We must not have headlines stating: "Longshoremen Reject Destuffing Clause." We shouldn't have NDP leadership candidates stating: "We've got to keep Solidarity angry." That's not the way for accountability, responsibility and teamwork.

MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if I could have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: I'll be brief. Hon. members and Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Brock Anderson and the chaperones and the students from Quinson Elementary School in my riding of Prince George.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we have just been treated to an examination of this bill in second reading by a person who surprises me, to say the least. He is a person who should know better. He is a person who had dealt with the Labour Code and labour matters for many, many years of his working life. That person knows it has been difficult in this province for a number of years to organize working people because of the coercion that is out there at all times. To now remove the element of protection of the worker....

Somehow or other when we get into this House and we debate trade union matters and organized-labour matters, we forget that what we're talking about is the protection of the rights of working people from oppressive employers, and that is what is now being taken away in this piece of proposed legislation. I don't read this bill as something that is complementary to our economic development. I see this bill as trying to create in British Columbia the Alabama of Canada. That's precisely what I see here when you talk about economic development: it's a situation where you try to make working people live in squalor in order that the province or its industry may be made competitive. For God's sake, what are we thinking of?

This is the most regressive piece of legislation that we've ever seen, in its application to labour. The former Social Credit government, prior to 1972, had a fair reputation. We can remember the numbers — Bill 33, Bill 41 and the rest of them — and they were bad enough. But this bill takes us back to those days — and worse, in some instances.

MR. LAUK: Were those the days when Cliff was against the legislation?

MR. COCKE: Those were the days when that member was arguing vehemently that it was unfair.

He talked about a number of things. He complimented the Premier and the Minister of Labour for all of their late nights

[ Page 4699 ]

and their hard work spent on developing this piece of legislation — the marvellous work that they've done. They have already outraged the sector that we most need in this province: that is, the trade union people who can assist in a proper partnership in economic development here. We have not seen any move on the part of this government to get economic recovery, other than following the stupid advice of the Fraser Institute.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Of course you're in touch with them every day, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. SMITH: Every morning.

MR. COCKE: I know that you are. Of course you are, because you follow their stupid philosophy that has taken this province from a have province to a have-not province. How any government worth its salt could have taken us down so far, so fast, is almost beyond belief. Here we are now contending with Newfoundland for the greatest number of people unemployed in this country. We're worse than any jurisdiction in the United States other than Alabama, and this is a government that is now bringing in repressive labour legislation and saying that they require it for economic development. They've driven us into the ground with them.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I have noted, however. They are very generous with themselves, very generous indeed: high-flyers, lovely expense accounts, staff coming out of their ears — when you talk about personal staff. The cutbacks, however, come where it affects human needs and human services in this province. Now, on the backs of working people, we're saying we must become competitive, and the only way we can become competitive is to bring in legislation that is going to make it more difficult to organize workers; more difficult for them to receive fair play; more difficult in every way to have harmonious labour-management negotiations. It is creating a terrible climate.

Somebody on that side yesterday referred to Australia. I wish they would look at Australia and the Australian experience. The Australian experience was as follows. They had relatively reasonable — for that day — labour-management rules and legislation, and then along came very heavy, repressive labour legislation. It outraged workers. They outlawed strikes, they did this, they did that. All it did was create a situation in that country whereby they had more person hours lost than they had ever had before in their history. In those days we were relatively bad, but they made us look good. That's what repressive labour legislation does.

As the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said, it is feudal. Now what is feudal about this?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The meeting at 9:30 went fine. It's interesting to me, you know, that when we meet with the Employers' Council, it's not noted. When we meet with COFI, it's not noted. When we meet with the trade union leaders, all of a sudden it's: "How did the meeting go?" The trade union leaders have met with that government too, and it did them no good. They promised consultation, and what did they get for their trouble? No consultation, and a piece of legislation that opens up with the whole question of making disharmony out of potential harmony.

Mr. Speaker, let's examine some aspects of this bill. In the first place, it's interesting........ I'd like to contrast one aspect, because the former speaker tried to contrast this particular area. Let's contrast the area of coercion. Now we have a situation whereby there cannot be coercion by a trade union, or by its leadership, of working people. That also appeared in our Labour Code. The thing that happens here however, is that management has been excluded from that. Management can coerce, but the trade union business agent or whoever must not by law. Even-handed indeed!

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It's nonsense, he says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the bill.

MR. COCKE: Read the bill! It would be interesting if you read it maybe twice. As a matter of fact, this is such a poor piece of draftsmanship that you have to read it about fifty times to try to make sense out of it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Marvellous! Get the Code and read it in tandem. How else can you possibly read a bill?

The fact of the matter is that the present statute includes management in terms of coercion, intimidation, etc. But oh, no, not any longer. They're making it easy for their friends.

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Murray Pezim might have drafted it, but I doubt it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I am deadly serious, Madam Member, when I say that this bill is nothing more or less than divide and-conquer, making it difficult to organize — and that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) knows it's difficult enough to organize, to help people help themselves. And they're making it increasingly difficult with this bill, almost impossible in some instances. Fair and reasonable conditions for membership indeed! It is nothing short of divide and conquer.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the incompleteness, about "remove management;" they even remove management from remedy. If you look at the section dealing with remedies, they eliminate management — the employer — from that particular area of the bill. Why? To again make it virtually impossible to deal fairly and squarely, as that Minister of Labour says he is trying to do. It is totally undemocratic, yet that's the word that comes out all the time from that side. Every member of that government and its supporters seem to indicate that somehow this piece of legislation provides democracy.

MR. MICHAEL: No more secret votes.

MR. COCKE: Let's talk about secret votes. Let's talk about any kind of votes. What about a set-up, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 4700 ]

that disfranchises union members and permits only non-union members to vote? A great set-up, Mr. Speaker, and yet that is included. The Minister of Labour looks totally puzzled. I'd be puzzled if I were him, if I didn't know my bill any better than he obviously does. Or is he just acting? It makes it difficult in every way, shape and form.

Mr. Speaker, why has the Premier decided that the Kerkhoffs of this world should dominate the workplace of this world? I would like to send somebody out with a camera to take a look at some of the work that those non-union construction companies do. There's a couple of examples I can show you right here in the capital city. Take a look at it; take a picture of it, for crying out loud. That's the kind of work we're encouraging? Not on your life. There has been a tradition in this province of good solid construction. There has been a good tradition in this province of cooperation in developing apprentices to learn trades, to come up through the ranks and then succeed those who taught them, in providing decent, good solid construction. Do you see any of that in the non-union developments? Of course not. You see substandard work. Is that the objective of a totally substandard government, a government that cannot look after the economic affairs of this province and is now reaching out into the community, making damned sure that it's not going to work either? It is a sickening scene.

History tells you every day that when there's this kind of government interference, you create nothing but chaos. Can't that history get through to this group? How can they even envisage a piece of repressive legislation creating harmony? This is a government that says they want to get government out of people's business, and then they turn over some government enterprises to their friends. Privatizing, they call it. But oh no, they'll get into the lives of workers. They have no shame in that. What are they talking about — less government? This is more government. This is repressive government.

The way they've got these vote situations set up now, it's going to take a nice long time before you can get the LRB, unless it's staffed up to the nines; and I can't see them staffing any unit except their own offices with significant increases of staff. But it would take a very significant increase in staff to get the vote within months. By that time there's all sorts of opportunity for coercion on the part of the employer.

Mr. Speaker, I say this, understanding at the same time that many employers don't want this. There are many thoughtful employers in this province who say: "What the hell are you doing to labour relations in British Columbia? We don't need this kind of stupid legislation. We don't need to outrage people. Why aren't we heading for harmony?" Confrontation is the name of the game. We had 26 bills in the last session creating confrontation across the board.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Human rights, all of them.

Mr. Speaker, these bills do nothing more or less than create that lack of harmony, and who needs that?

I also want to make clear, because I note that there are a few construction unions represented in the gallery today.... The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) said something about a Vickers' statement, the leadership candidate.

MR. MICHAEL: That's your man.

MR. COCKE: That's right; that's the person I'm supporting. I also happen to know what he said. He said the building trades had agreed that the fair wages practices would be the way it should be done. He agreed to that. That was his statement, and it was a statement that the building trades have made over and over again. They have been quite prepared to negotiate, and they've indicated that over and over again. What do they get for their trouble? This. I can't believe it! They are bending over backwards for management, bending over backwards in every way, shape and form. But do you know where they really bend over? I want everybody to listen to this very carefully, because section 13, which deals with economic development projects — which is to be a laugh a second — is aimed not only at Expo and the 160 acres that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke talks about; that section could be aimed at any project under the sun, and I predict it will be. That's a section that never should be in a bill.

To talk about economic development projects, when all you're going to do is create havoc with this kind of legislation, you have to have something other than brains in your head, because it is not economic. I'm not saying this because of the way I read it, I'm saying this because everybody I've talked to who happens to be involved in this particular area tells me that this is their way of understanding the bill. Economic indeed. All this in the name of progress? I suggest to you, no progress whatsoever comes out of repressive legislation. The Minister of Labour has been talking tough for years. Certainly there was an anticipation of questionable labour legislation. There was a draft circulated last year — I forget whether it was 35, 36 or 52 — that was probably even worse than this. I sometimes suspect that what they do is try to modify feelings by doing something somewhat less, but this is not really less. This is just very bad news for everyone.

Let's think about the economic development situation. You think that by putting up wire fences around....

What's that member standing for? Are you on a point of order?

MR. CAMPBELL: No, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make an introduction.

MR. COCKE: In the middle of a speech, Mr. Speaker? I'm sure he can do that at the end of my few remarks. I will not yield the floor. If any of our members ever stood to interrupt one of your speeches I would be very surprised.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's get on with Bill 28, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss for a moment or two this whole question of economic development. In that very badly worded section — I suspect one of the reasons for the bad drafting is to open up even further the holes created by this legislation — we see a situation where we put up wire fences around certain aspects of a project, and we say, "This is for you and that's for the others," and so on. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you very clearly that that could have been remedied in negotiation with the building trades. They made offers over and over again. This government showed its total lack of integrity by not sitting down and properly negotiating that site. They bent over backwards in order to provide that that site could go ahead. I heard Chuck McVeigh the other day on the radio. He works for the Construction Labour Relations Association. He said that he's opposed to this kind

[ Page 4701 ]

of situation because it could have been brought about by proper negotiation. Now we've created forever blocs of antagonists.

Why do we need to do that, when there could have been friendly relations on that or on other sites? It is not exclusive to that particular site. It can be used anywhere, on any site. All that does is whittle away at those organizations that have organized workers within them. This is nothing less than union-busting. That may sound good and ring well in somebody's ears, but I'll tell you that not one of us in this Legislative Assembly and not one of us out there in the community would be living the affluent life had it not been for the fight put on by organized labour right from the 1800s until today. All they ask is that people get their fair share of what is being produced, a fair share of the riches being created by the hands and minds of the workers. Sure, negotiations can be tough, but that's what it's all about.

[11:30]

We live in a democracy. We value freedom, and they want to take it away. They do take it away at every opportunity they get. They're doing it here. They've done it in every other piece of legislation that they have proposed in the last while. This is what they think can make a better province, but historically it cannot; historically it does not. All it does is create further animosity and further outrage. When parts of this bill are couched in words like "economic development," in a labour bill, that's really doing it, isn't it? But you can't hide the direction by titles. The only way that you can create harmony is to have some sort of agreement that there is a fair and equitable piece of legislation before us.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I heard somebody say: "Get off your butts and organize." You'll sure have to get off your butt and organize on this one. It's making it very difficult.

I want to say that we had very little time to organize our thoughts around this bill. It was introduced the day before yesterday and was first brought up for debate yesterday. Here we are with the most significant changes in the Labour Code, in labour law, in this province, and that's the way it's treated. Any time in the past when significant legislation has been proposed there has always been a good deal of time given to the opposition to have at least some consultation. This morning afforded us our first meeting with a number of people who are directly affected by this particular piece of legislation. If the government had any kind of ethics, common sense and decency, at least a week would have been left between first reading and second reading of this bill — a minimum of one week. Forcing it down the opposition's throat and forcing it down working people's throat is their way to get the job done. I don't see the government showing any signs of decent behaviour in this respect. They waited until the Human Rights Bill was debated and out of the way, and then they brought in this one. That was because they were worried that somebody might get a chance to organize people's thinking around this piece of legislation.

I suggest to you that this bill has been put here purposefully to antagonize people one against the other. What a time to do it — when the province is at its lowest point in history since the last Depression. Economic development is happening across the country at a far better rate than in British Columbia. There are more people out of work here than we've seen in recent history. Particularly young people need some protection, help and training.

But they decide that this is an advantageous time to bring in a piece of legislation that does what this does. They brought it in because they know that people out there are desperate. People who are charged with the responsibility of feeding a family and trying to live on this government's welfare, which is outrageous, are grasping. They will work for anything that will provide them more food on the table. That's why this government chose this particular economic climate as a time that they could get away with bringing in this kind of bill.

But what the people had better understand is that once you destroy something, how do you put it back together? How do you put back the protection of working people's rights? Once they have opted, by virtue of their economic situation, to work outside the house of labour, it will be very difficult. How long would it take, my dear colleagues and friends, for Alabama to get into the twentieth century, much less get up to the 1980s? Repression. Hostility. Work for nothing?

Let's talk about economic development for a second and think about it. I think about Vancouver Plywood plant in Vancouver closing down; Mac-Blo is closing it down — great corporate citizen. This province has enriched that outfit to the extent of multi-billions of dollars, and the money they've made here they've taken out. They've invested it in Alabama, the southern United States and other areas where you can pay rock-bottom wages. And then they turn on us — the very people who built this tremendously strong economic unit, and the very people who made them their money — and said: "Goodbye, we don't need you any more. We've going to close down this archaic plant. We'll move to our new luxury plant down South where we can get people working for virtually nothing." This is what happens.

What we should be doing here is enhancing this situation and not detracting from it. The Premier had an opportunity to do that very thing. The member from Shuswap said that he wasn't grandstanding. He has had this carefully planned for months. Certainly during his campaign he danced all around the labour issue. It was this member from Shuswap who at that time was doing most of the talking about what he felt should be produced in terms of changes in the Labour Code. The Premier danced all around everything; he didn't make anything clear at that time.

This whole question, as the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) said, is a total charade. It has been an absolute charade up to and including that breathtaking time when we were waiting for the report to come down from Jim Pattison to the Premier, to advise him as to whether or not we can go ahead with Expo. Jimmy comes running over here with his sheaf of papers, and he says: "Mr. Premier, no, you shouldn't go ahead with it. We can't come to a conclusion. We can't negotiate a settlement." The Premier then has to go to bed and think about it. Then he says: "We'll be brave. We're going to try it anyway. We'll go on with it. There's too much invested in it." It's all a charade to set the atmosphere for the kinds of things that have happened; they've been setting the stage.

I'm not suggesting for one second to those who might be listening to me that the man is particularly bright. As a matter of fact, I think quite the opposite. The fact of the matter is that he has people around him who are strategists, and this is a deliberate strategy. There's no question about it in my mind.

[ Page 4702 ]

It's a strategy to accomplish what should never be accomplished. It's a strategy that would do exactly what his guru Michael Walker tells him is the thing to do.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) says: "Oh, well, we don't talk to them every day." You don't have to talk to Michael Walker every day. You could learn everything that Michael Walker knows in three hours — the most stupid archaic economic theories that one has ever heard of. The whole western world has been ruined by the Milton Friedmans, who have captured every right-wing mind in the western world. Look at those right-wing minds. Look at where Margaret Thatcher has taken Great Britain; look at where Ronald Reagan has taken the United States. They are the most stupid, irrelevant bunch, yet they've managed to do it. They have managed to wreck the western economies, except those economies that told them to go and chase themselves. Those economies are doing far better.

Anyway, this bill is going to hurt the economics of this province. This bill is going to hurt the working people of this province. This bill is taking away the protection that the average working person needs. Individually it's very difficult for one to negotiate with an employer; collectively you can. Anyone who tries to say to me that there's something wrong with trade unionism is going to have a darn good argument. As far as I'm concerned, this society, this country, owes most of its success to the fact that we have had workers organized in our country and in our province. A strong trade union movement is absolutely essential to the economy. Take a look at the other aspects of the Alabama economy. Every aspect of it is down in the drain. Every aspect of those right-to-work states is at the low end of the economic scale. Look at the well-organized areas in this western world, and what do you find? You find far more equity, richer economies and just a very much better place to be.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the red light is on. I'm sorry that I can't bend your ear any longer, but I have one little message for you: I'm totally and unalterably opposed to this piece of absolutely inadequate, rotten, poor legislation.

[11:45]

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to make an introduction. It is my pleasure to introduce a longtime friend of mine from the Coquitlam area, Mr. Herb Radis, and a very close friend of mine, a person with whom I have been associated with 18 years in the Canadian Paraplegic Association, the director of administration services, Mary Lou Takasaki. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. CAMPBELL: Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two people from Vernon, Bill and Shirl Lahowy. They are long-time residents of Vernon, and for these outstanding citizens of our city I would ask this House to give them a welcome.

Now on to Bill 28. Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to improve the climate of labour relations in British Columbia. Make no doubt about it. We've had the other type of labour negotiations; we've had the other type of labour climate, as we've just gone through in nine weeks of pulp mill lockout strikes. Many of these people wished to go back, but they were denied the right. But that wasn't the only part. These people didn't only interrupt the marketplace of the pulp, but they also went to the IWA mills time after time, secondary picketing to their very own union brothers. Where is the brotherhood when you're shutting down your brothers out of employment and out of jobs? That is wrong, and I'm very glad that this bill is going to take a look and is going to alter secondary picketing except under very special circumstances.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Another thing about this bill is certification or decertification — 55 percent vote either way by secret ballot. That's the one thing that I really feel is probably the most important thing in this bill. I am amazed at the opposition sitting across the way when they talk about human rights day after day. Where are the rights of the people who are in their very union to vote by secret ballot? Surely through all democracy secret ballot has been the way to go. Secret ballot has been the accepted principle in democracy, and the very people who fight for human rights wish to deny the people the very effort that democracy is based on, the very principle that democracy is based on. These opposition would deny that to the people.

Mr. Speaker, surely the people have a right to obey the law, to cross the picket line to go to work. We have a group of union leaders who are instructing their people to disobey the law of the land and not to cross that picket line. When you've got an opposition sitting across here who support this thinking, who encourage people to disobey the law, I wonder where this province is going to. How could they possibly ask people to disobey the law of the land and call themselves upholders of human rights? It amazes me how they can sit there day after day and promote that and then, in the next breath, go right around and instruct their people to disobey the law.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about intimidation. That's what human rights is all about: to stop intimidation. But who are the greatest intimidators? If you go back to last year's walkout strike by the teachers, some of the teachers who crossed the picket line have been harassed ever since by their Teachers' Federation. It's amazing. The same people who wish to uphold human rights are the same people who wish to violate the human rights. That's one of the things about the changes in this labour law; this is going to be corrected and stopped. That's why I'm amazed that these people across here, when they talk about this new piece of labour legislation which is going to enshrine human rights in labour law, are opposed to it. Talk about hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. That's hypocrisy in the ultimate, that is.

The employer if he has been closed down or does close down for two years, will be able to decertify. He will be able to decertify and go back to work. Now can there be anything wrong, after you've been closed down for two years, with decertifying and going back to work? If he's going bankrupt, is there anything wrong with actually being closed down for two years to decertify and go back to work? If he's going bankrupt, is there anything the matter with his waiting that two years and then going back to work? Surely not. Surely he must have some rights as well. We talk about rights; surely the man who puts up the dollars must also have some rights. He must have the right to earn a profit so he can pay those wages. That's got to be his right. He has to be able to make a profit so that he can pay the taxes to support this Legislature

[ Page 4703 ]

and the social programs this government has embarked upon and is embarking upon. Surely he's entitled to that right.

This new labour law will allow the employers the right to talk to their employees during negotiations. It's only fair. It's long past due. When was it ever right that the man who signs the paycheque can't even speak to the people who work for him? Imagine! He has been disallowed to speak to his very own employees. Do you call that human rights? I'm glad this gallery's getting full; I'm glad the people are sitting here today to listen to this labour legislation. I'm pleased, because I'm sure the people sitting in this gallery realize that if they were working for a company and their boss had something to explain to them, they would want him to go down and talk to them. They would want him to explain what's going on, instead of the union way of keeping the boss isolated over here so that they can foment trouble and the workers are not able to ask the boss, directly, questions pertaining to their employment and their very livelihood. I'm glad there are people here in this gallery to listen to this, so that when they go back home they'll be able to say that this government is in favour of human rights. In fact, this government is the advocate of human rights. This government is going to take the yoke off the workers of this province and allow them to be free. That's what this labour law is all about.

When we talk about the secondary picketing of other industries which are not on strike, and closing other industries down to exert pressure on the employer as well as the government and the employees in the other plants who are not on strike, how wrong can that be?

AN HON. MEMBER: Completely wrong.

MR. CAMPBELL: Completely wrong — you're absolutely right. This should have been changed long ago. This is long past due, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased that this minister has brought forward a bill that's going to correct some of these wrongs that have been in place for many years. They should have been replaced long ago, but fortunately they're going to be changed now.

I hear talk across the way about increasing legal costs. How could it increase legal costs when today they can go out on secondary picket and every time they do it that employer has to hire lawyers to go to the Labour Relations Board? It takes perhaps three days to get the cease-and-desist order....

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Well, I'm really speaking to the people out there who have the grit under their fingernails and the callouses, and know how to work.

Is it right that that man should be closed down for three days while he goes and gets his cease-and-desist order from the Labour Relations Board? No. Why should a man have to go to court every time to maintain his rights? Surely, under this new regulation, the onus will be on the union to go to the Labour Relations Board and obtain permission before they picket. Before they commit an illegal act they will have to obtain permission — and then it won't be an illegal act. It's about time the onus was placed on these people. It's long past time.

MR. BLENCOE: Alabama, here we come.

MR. CAMPBELL: These people talk about Alabama. They want the special rights for the few, for their friends in the labour movement. They talk about help for the young people, but if he can't get into the union: "Sorry, my young friend, there is no job for you today." Special treatment for their friends — that's what it's all about on the NDP side. That's what it's always been about on that side over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do the labour leaders want?

MR. CAMPBELL: What do the labour leaders say? Yes, the labour leaders were over this morning to give them their version of it and to tell them what to say, because we know that this party over here is a party of the labour bosses. When the labour bosses holler, they don't ask how high to jump, they just leap. I would hope that when the new leader of that party is picked, whoever he may be, he would reconsider the position they've taken over the past years and say: "This party is going to be for improvement in British Columbia. This is going to be a positive party that is going to assist this government in the economic development of this great province. This party is going to assist employers to create more employment within this province." There's going to be a climate and an atmosphere here that's going to encourage investment in our province and encourage more industry to settle here. If we don't have that climate within British Columbia to entice investors to come here with their plants and industries, to employ our people.... We could have the highest union rates in the world, we could have $100 an hour and everybody unemployed. On this side we believe that's not the answer.

High wages today, more unemployment tomorrow, higher wages the next day, greater unemployment. Every time they want more wages, more businesses go bankrupt and more people are unemployed. They say they represent the working people. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this party is the party of the working people and the little people of this province. This party is trying to help those people. This is the party that's trying to create stability within this province. When that man goes out and buys a house, has a mortgage to pay, has his job, and his wife and family to take care of, he wants some stability. We believe he's entitled to some stability so that he can make his mortgage payments and live a decent and respectable life on a decent income in this province, rather than be unemployed and forced out by exorbitant wage demands, and by secondary picketing and all that has gone with it over the years.

I believe that when we talk about designated projects and certainly we're looking at Expo — this government would be remiss to close down Expo because of union problems. They couldn't proceed with 9,200 potential construction jobs on that site during the next 18 months, with 9,200 people going back to work. This government is endeavouring to put people back to work. We cannot allow labour leaders to dictate to the government, which is the people out there. The people sitting in the gallery are entitled to jobs, and this government is determined to provide them.

During Expo there will be 27,000 people working there. Many of these young people in the galleries will be finished school in two and a half years, or they will be in high school or university, and will be out looking for jobs. They will be able to say: "I'm glad this government stood up, didn't back down to them, and said that Expo will go ahead." That's why this party is a party of young people, middle-aged people,

[ Page 4704 ]

senior citizens, working people, business people, all the people of this province; that's what this party represents, and that's what we're going to continue to represent.

Expo will bring approximately $3 billion into the economy of British Columbia in 1986. We cannot afford to lose this type of revenue. There will be a ripple effect throughout all industries: the hotel industry, the motel industry, the gas station business.

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, I'm glad you said, "Even in the Okanagan," because we anticipate getting many of these tourists. Of the 27 million people who are going to attend this great exposition, if 10 or 15 percent of those people decide to come to the Okanagan, or to the north end of Vancouver Island, or to Victoria....

[12:00]

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Maybe these people over here don't welcome those tourists. They are sitting over there laughing, as if it's a big joke when you talk about the tourists coming here. I want to tell you that that's no joke. Those are good, hard dollars in the economy. If they don't want them over here, the people of the Okanagan want them. We want them bad, and we're prepared to work to get them. Any time they don't wish those tourists to travel over here, all they've got to do is talk to chambers of commerce in the interior; they welcome those people with open arms. They're getting prepared for that great year 1986, when these people are going to be coming in. They're going to be fighting hard for that tourist business. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these representatives from lower Vancouver Island over here have a duty to the people within their area — even if they disagree with them — to encourage the tourists to come here, because they have unemployment in their area and they have a duty to bring the tourists over here to help lessen the unemployment. I don't think the members over there can deny they have a duty, because they are also elected people; they are elected to represent their people.

AN HON. MEMBER: All they do is laugh.

MR. CAMPBELL: I know they laugh. They think it's a joke. That first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) thinks it's a joke to talk about bringing tourists over here, but that's very serious business. I am sure that the students going to the University of Victoria think that that's very serious business, because a lot of their employment will be gained in 1986 through Expo. So it's not a laughing matter, it's a very serious matter, and I hope that these members over here will take this message to heart.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I want to say about this bill: I don't believe it went far enough. I believe that in this bill there should have been the final offer made to the employees and then the strike vote should have been taken by secret ballot after the final offer was made. To go in before negotiations start and ask for a strike vote, to try and scuttle negotiations and ask for a strike vote before you have even had an offer put on the table, to say before you even know the boss's offer, "Give us a strike vote so we can negotiate" — what kind of way of negotiation is that? If they don't believe that their workers will reject it, why do they want the strike vote early? They ask the worker for a mandate to strike before they even know.... Why? Because they don't believe in human rights, that's why. That's why they want it: because they want to have it tied up before they start.

Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that this bill would have contained that: after the final offer was made, they would then take that offer to their workers and let them vote on it. That's what democracy is all about. That's what workers' rights are all about. That's what democracy in the workplace is all about. How would these people in the gallery like it if they were asked to give a strike vote before they even knew what the final offer was — what any offer was — before negotiations had started? Imagine, asking for a strike vote before negotiations have even commenced, because we "need it to bargain." That's the epitome of human rights, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation thinks of the public. After all, the public has also got to be concerned. They have got to be concerned with the labour legislation in this province and their rights. Certainly the people who are not on the job have a right. I think of the people who wish to ride the buses today. They have a right to have transportation provided them until that union calls a strike and goes out instead of an interruption of services that inconveniences the public at large. People are getting in excess of $16 to $17 an hour and they inconvenience the unemployed; they're inconveniencing the senior citizens. Surely the public at large out there are entitled to different treatment than that from people who have a steady, secure job at a subsidized rate from the government — a government which is all the people. Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't create wealth; it spends wealth; this government only spends what the taxpayers send in. But when we subsidize these buses, we're asking the taxpayers — the citizens in Prince George, Peace River, in the Okanagan and in the Kootenays — to subsidize this bus system in the lower mainland, which has slowed down, inconveniencing the public down here. If that's democracy, if that's human rights, then we need to review the human rights bill again.

Mr. Speaker, much more could be said about this. I don't wish to keep going, because I know these people can digest only so much at a time, and I believe that I have elaborated about as much as they will be able to digest in one sitting. When the next speaker gets up to speak, we'll know whether he's really been listening, whether he has digested or whether I already spoke too long and he missed the point. With that I'd just like to say that I support this great bill. I support the minister who drew it up; I wish he had made a couple of other changes; however, we'll have to settle for this at this time.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon I've got a group of students down from the Pemberton Secondary School. They've travelled all the way here to visit Victoria; they're staying here tonight. With them are Dan Williams, their teacher, Leslie Muir, one of their chaperones, and Brian Lester, their driver. I'd like the House to welcome all these students from Pemberton.

[ Page 4705 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting that we are spending our time this morning talking about this piece of legislation, which is going to make it nearly impossible for the trade union movement in this province to continue to exist, when at the same time we've had the release of the unemployment statistics for British Columbia. It's a clever tactic, and it's also part of the overall package of this government in terms of trying to divert attention away from the real problems this government has created and from the serious problems that exist in this province by bringing in legislation which is union-bashing.

We have out in our community some 220,000 desperate people who are without work, many of whom have not been able to find work for more than two or three years. We have many desperate families who are at this stage looking only for a job; that's all they want, a job in this province. We've heard from the member for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell) who suggests that this bill is somehow going to create work. He is absolutely wrong; it does not create one job. We still have 220,000 people out of work. The rate of unemployment in British Columbia is still going up, while in the rest of Canada it's going down. Those are the issues this government is trying to cover up with legislation of this type. The government is creating confrontation and little fires all over the place so that the people of the province will have their attention diverted away from the very serious problem that so many of our people face. On Vancouver Island, for instance, people in the building trades are now facing an unemployment rate, in some cases, of well over 60 percent. That's not addressed in this bill. I hope the member for Okanagan North reviews this legislation and recognizes that this legislation does not create one job, in his constituency or anywhere else.

In the last ten months this government has destroyed 90,000 jobs in this province. They've disappeared because of the economic policies, the lack of interest and the right-wing philosophy that they've been following deliberately creating the economic chaos that we're in right now. We have this legislation before us, but no proposals whatsoever to reinstate those 90,000 jobs that they've destroyed in the last ten 10 months; no proposals whatsoever to put to work the 220,000 people who are out of work, people who are lining up at food banks and soup kitchens, the people who are desperate to try to keep their families together. There's none of that, not a word from those government members, just more and more of the same: destroy the trade union movement.

These people are so biased against the trade union movement that you can quite often hear in their voices and see on their faces the hatred that they harbour within them toward that trade union movement. I've never seen it before in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, but it is here in this particular group of people. It keeps coming out and being displayed in the words of those members as they get up to speak. They don't recognize the history of the trade union movement in this province. They don't recognize that if it were not for the organizational work and sacrifices made by the workers in this province, throughout its history, sometimes resulting in loss of life.... People have given their lives to try to have some kind of decent working conditions in this province. They don't recognize any of that history or they would realize that the standard of living that we enjoy in this province today as a society is directly related to that early work and those early sacrifices made by people who were determined that they were not going to be trampled upon by major corporations, who were determined that they were not going to live with substandard wages and substandard safety and working conditions of all kinds. There's nothing that some of these people in the back-bench would like better than to have a situation where people have no rights at all in the workplace. That would make them very happy, and it's displayed time and time again in the speeches made by this bunch. They want wages reduced. They want the standard of living of working people reduced.

[12:15]

They don't want employers spending money on improving safety conditions — it costs money. They're interested in profits and protecting their friends in the corporate sector. That's where their interests are, and that's what we're hearing in speech after speech coming from the back-benchers, who have all been ordered to speak on this particular legislation. We haven't heard from them for months on all the other legislation, but we know they've been ordered to speak on this. They're all getting up.

We heard yesterday from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who complained that we were not defending the trade union movement. He got up and said: "We" — speaking on behalf of the Social Credit Party — "don't have to defend workers — you do." What he means is: "We speak for the corporate sector; you get up and speak for the workers." I'm very happy to be standing up here speaking on behalf of the working people of this province today. That's my job, said the member for Omineca. It's not his job.

MRS. JOHNSTON: It's everybody's job.

MS. SANFORD: I'm quoting from his speech of yesterday. Maybe you weren't here.

We are seeing here today the changes to the Labour Code, which, as I have pointed out, are a very damaging set of changes in terms of the survival of the trade union movement in this province. But it's only part of the direction that this government has been on for a long, long time. We have received a copy of legislation that was prepared back in 1981. It was never introduced into the House. It may be introduced yet, although maybe with this legislation it won't be necessary. It was called the technology assistance act. It had been proposed, and we were able to obtain a copy before it was actually introduced into the Legislature. It ensured that in certain technical sites, as designated by the cabinet, the Labour Code would not apply. People who worked in certain areas would not be covered by the Labour Code under this particular technology assistance act. Therefore you can pay them what you want. You don't have to worry about all of the provisions of people banding together and bargaining for basic working conditions and basic salaries and basic pensions and basic coverage under health provisions and dental programs. They are only carrying out what they have embarked upon for a long time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Many of the members on that side of the House — or at least some of them — have been critical of the minister because it's taken him this long to do it. These people are very biased against organized workers. They're very biased against the whole process which gives working people any rights whatsoever.

Interjections.

[ Page 4706 ]

MS. SANFORD: I'm talking about the right to organize, and I'm talking about your attitude about the trade union movement. The non-union people are not going to have the opportunity under this legislation to have a union represent their rights, because the certification process is going to be so difficult in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is 55 percent difficult?

MS. SANFORD: I think it's clear by the comments made by the people sitting across the floor of the House that they really don't understand the extent of this particular piece of legislation. They don't understand how difficult it is going to be in the future to organize those people who are not now organized. Not only is it going to be difficult for the trade union movement to survive under this legislation; it's a piece of legislation designed to destroy that trade union movement, I think the minister knows it. Certainly the cabinet knows it. The back bench may not be as well informed; I understand they are often not informed about things that are taking place.

This is another example of this government's betrayal of the people of this province so that they can better take care of their friends. We had some assurances about the Residential Tenancy Act: that there would be consultation, changes, that it would be a fair piece of legislation. We had the same assurances about the Human Rights Act: that there would be consultation, people would be listened to. We had the same assurances for this particular change to the Labour Code of British Columbia: that people would be consulted and listened to. In each and every case the government has proceeded on its merry way; in the case of the Labour Code, the way that was established some years ago in the document which, never introduced into the House, had the same intent as this piece of legislation. "Let's designate areas in this province," said the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in this piece of legislation which prohibits the application of the laws of the province. We heard a lot from the member for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell) about the laws of the province. Because it suits their purposes, this government wants to set up areas in this province where the laws of the province don't apply. They can better take care of their friends if working people do not have the opportunity for any say at all in their wages, working conditions, pensions and health benefits.

The sad thing about all this is that it is a very deliberate ploy by government. We have all those people out there who want nothing more than to get a job. There are 75,000 people between the ages of 15 and 24 desperate for a job, and what's the government doing? Bringing in legislation which will cripple the trade union movement. It's not dealing with any of these problems. Everything that this government does makes this problem of unemployment worse. Month after month the figures go up. Month after month people hope desperately that there will be some sort of economic recovery. The government does nothing, except to make the situation worse by bringing in legislation designed to ensure that working people will not be able to have any say. They will find it difficult to even survive as a trade union.

What the government doesn't seem to realize....

Maybe it does realize this. I haven't quite got it straight in my own mind whether the government does realize it and is proceeding in this direction anyway, or whether it simply does not realize that if you treat people fairly they will respond in a fair way. If you ask people to consult, if you consult with them in a fair way, listen to their concerns and incorporate some of their concerns, then people will feel they've been dealt with fairly. But when you betray them time after time after time — and that's what this government is doing again in this piece of legislation — then people cannot be expected to respond in a fair way either. As a result of these amendments today, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have a lot of chaos around the whole area of certification and decertification. We're going to have a lot of confrontation, because people realize that in this particular piece of legislation they're not being treated fairly. There is nothing fair about this legislation.

In the future people are going to be far less willing to consult when they have made the effort, they have tried, they've presented their views, and are ignored, trampled over and betrayed time and time again. You cannot expect them to continue to try to work with government to come up with the best solution for their problems. One thing about it though: based on the history of the trade union movement and the fact that workers are not going to sit back forever and be trampled upon, that this legislation will be very harmful to those people who are now certified in this province, who exist as trade unions.... Many of those unionists are going to disappear, but because they are being trampled upon, because they are being dealt with in an unfair way, they will come back and be stronger than they were before. That's the history of people who are oppressed, and they're being oppressed with this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was here ten years ago when the Labour Code was first introduced. The minister responsible was given a lot of criticism at the time. Interestingly enough, it did not come from the employers' groups as much as from the trade union movement at the time, because they expected that the pendulum would swing from a very right-wing, anti-union-attitude stance — pieces of legislation like the infamous Bill 33, which was introduced by the government prior to 1972 and never passed — to the other side, where trade unionists would be able to be certified without difficulty, where they would have no problem whatsoever in obtaining what they saw they had been denied for so long under anti-union legislation. The Labour Code that was introduced was even-handed and fair. That does not mean there were not changes that had to be made from time to time in that Labour Code. Everyone recognizes that. But it was fair, even-handed legislation.

[12:30]

Even Bill Hamilton of the Employers' Council complimented the then Minister of Labour on the fine work he had done in establishing a whole new approach to industrial relations in this province. It was Bill Hamilton who said at the time: "We now have an opportunity to have some fair collective bargaining take place in this province." He recognized the fairness of the legislation. He recognized that it was evenhanded. Paul Weiler, the first chairman of the Labour Relations Board, and an expert in the field of industrial relations, saw it as a fair piece of legislation at that time. Today it is Paul Weiler who is saying that these amendments swing the pendulum so far in the direction of anti-unionism, union-busting, union destruction, that what will probably happen is that in the future the pendulum will have to swing the other way. It's going to be more difficult for people who wish to achieve certification.

When the minister introduced this piece of legislation, he took the high ground and made no reference at all to the

[ Page 4707 ]

provisions of this bill, but talked about economic development, recovery, employment. In fact, every reason that he gave for the introduction of that bill was a reason for withdrawing the bill. The minister made no reference whatsoever to the reason he felt that it had to be more difficult in this province to become certified. Why did he change those provisions? Was he worried that the trade union movement would get too big? Was he worried that the 44 percent of the workforce in 1974 had grown so much in ten years that he had to bring in provisions to ensure that it was much harder to become certified? In that ten-year period there has not been a rapid growth in the trade union movement. The percentage of people who are organized is virtually the same as in 1974, so it can't be that the minister was worried that more and more people would become certified. We know that government generally does not look kindly on the trade union movement. He gave no indication at all why that change was necessary. Therefore we can only come to one conclusion: they want to ensure that no one else in this province becomes certified, and they want to make sure at the same time, through the decertification provisions in this labour amendment bill, that more and more people will no longer belong to a trade union in this province.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Should workers not have that choice?

MS. SANFORD: The first member for Surrey is asking if workers should not have that choice. All right. What we have now, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where if, in a plant that is not certified, a trade union signs up 55 percent of the people in the plant, a vote must be taken. But that vote is not taken the following day. It could be sometime down the road before the Labour Relations Board is able to set a date on which the vote will actually be taken. Before, if at least 55 percent of the people had signed a union card, that was good enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you afraid of the vote?

MS. SANFORD: Just be patient; I'm going to explain that.

It seems to me that if 55 percent of the people at the plant have signed up and said, "Yes, I want to join this union, I'm prepared to pay my union dues, and I want to become part of a bargaining unit," then the Labour Relations Board, quite rightly, could say: "Okay, there are 55 percent of the workers, we will grant the certification." But now they have to have a vote and, as I say, that vote does not take place the day after the cards are signed; that vote takes place sometime down the road, depending on the agenda of the Labour Relations Board, how busy they are and how easily they can set up a vote. But in the meantime that employer can bring whomever he wishes onto that plant floor and increase the number of people who are working at the particular plant, because on the day the vote is taken everyone working at the plant votes.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The minister says that's not true. Well, I should really find the section and quote it for him, because that's what the legislation says.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That is what the legislation says. They can bring in people, and it's the number of people who are employed on the day of the vote. The minister said nothing about this in the introduction; he now disagrees. He also disagrees with the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), who also indicated that somewhat the same provisions would apply; so there's obviously a difference in interpretation over there. Again this points out the drafting problems of this bill. But it reads pretty clearly that an employer will be able to do that. Certainly the employer will be able, during the period of time when the employees at his plant are deciding whether or not to sign a union card, to say: "If you sign that card, I'll fire you." He'll be able to say that, because there's nothing now that prevents him from coercing, intimidating and speaking to his employees during that period of time when they are attempting to become certified.

If the minister introduces the bill one day — and there's no doubt that the whole area of labour legislation is a complex area — and expects the members on this side of the House within 36 hours to be able to analyze the bill, get feedback on the interpretation of various sections of a very badly drafted bill, and come in and make speeches on a bill....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The minister suggests we should have the weekend in which to consider it. Would the minister accept an adjournment of...? Oh, I see. All right.

It seems to me that in an area as complex as labour relations, the minister should, in his introduction to the bill, tell us some of the provisions of the bill. Doesn't that make sense to you? Surely the minister recognizes that if they're going to debate a bill as complex as a Labour Code amendment bill within 36 hours of its introduction, then the least the minister could do would be to outline what he sees that the bill provides. I expect we're going to have a lot of work for lawyers in this province as a result of this legislation, because there will be a lot of disagreement on the interpretation of various sections.

Secondary picketing. My colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) mentioned yesterday that the one thing we.... Oh, the minister is leaving; he's taking his lunch. Is he going to be back, Mr. House Leader, or do you wish to...?

interjection.

MS. SANFORD: When the minister leaves with his lunch and his briefcase, Mr. Speaker, one can assume that he has left for the day?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Would you like to declare a recess, Mr. Speaker, until...?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, carry on.

MS. SANFORD: In other words, the House Leader is telling us that the minister has gone for the day. You're going to take notes for him, are you? I guess the minister had to catch a plane somewhere.

[ Page 4708 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, could we please continue with the debate.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the people from the back bench who have spoken on this bill have misinterpreted....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I'd be very pleased if the minister comes back. As a matter of fact, I could talk about other things until he gets back.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the rules of order require that we speak to the bill, not to the whereabouts of any particular person. I would suggest that we continue the debate on Bill 28.

MS. SANFORD: There was another section that I wanted to talk about. The minister was shaking his head the other day when the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was raising this issue. I don't know whether he's going to agree with me or not, but I agree with the member for North Island in the interpretation of this particular section: that is, that if people are considering becoming a member of a trade union, they sign a card that they will have to pay the full initiation fee and the full membership fee for however long a period of time it takes for the vote to be held by the Labour Relations Board. That's the interpretation of the member for North Island, based on some information that he has, and he's had some legal people looking at this bill as well. It says that the variable fees will no longer be allowed. So that means that people who are joining a trade union will certainly be discouraged by the fact that they have to put out the total initiation fee at the outset and pay the total membership fee until such time as the vote is taken. I'd appreciate getting some information on that as well.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not bring about economic recovery. It will not create one job in the province. This bill will make it more difficult for working people to become certified and have some say about their working conditions, wages, pensions and health benefits. This bill is typical of the attacks the government has made on low-income people and working people. It is a betrayal of the trust that the trade union thought they had. They thought they had an agreement that there would be consultation and that any changes to the Labour Code would be made very carefully. This bill upsets the balance totally. It is an unfair bill which is going to make it very difficult for the trade union movement to survive in this province. This bill, because it is unfair and a betrayal, is inviting confrontation from people who are concerned about the economic situation in this province and about the fact that there is so much unemployment. This is a bill which gives the government more power so that they can better take care of their friends. In this piece of legislation they will be trampling on the rights of workers. By these amendments they will ensure that fewer people are certified in this province. They will probably drive down wages as a result of this. Perhaps we'll get to the stage where we have a situation similar to that in Alabama, as mentioned many times. I hope it doesn't quite become an Indonesia in B.C., but that's what they're setting out to do, wittingly or unwittingly; the former, I suspect.

This bill is a betrayal. We're very much opposed to it. We will work and continue to speak against this kind of legislation, which is yet another example of the kind of betrayal that this government is capable of.

[12:45]

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:46 p.m.