[ Page 4733 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Labour Code Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 28). Second reading

Mrs. Dailly –– 4733

Mr. D'Arcy –– 4737

Mr. Blencoe –– 4740

Mr. Hanson –– 4743

Mr. Barrett –– 4745

Mr. Barnes –– 4749

Mr. Skelly –– 4752

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4755

Division –– 4756

Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act (Bill 22). Second reading

Ms. Brown –– 4756

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4756

Hospitals Amalgamation Act (Bill 26). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4756

Mrs. Dailly –– 4756

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4757

MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984

The House met at 8:02 p.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, 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)

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker.... [Applause.] I'm so glad I have the approval of everyone already.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Down to the business then, Mr. Speaker.

I wish I could say that I take great pleasure in standing here tonight to debate this bill, but I cannot.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why? Are you tired?

MRS. DAILLY: No, I'm not tired, thank you. I had a nice dinner.

I really cannot take pleasure in debating a bill which I consider to be highly regressive and which is going to do a great disservice to the economy of this province. I say that because I think when you take a hammer to any one sector, as has been done here with the trade union movement, the whole province will suffer.

In the debate earlier this afternoon, we on this side of the House were accused of indulging in rhetoric...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, it's true.

...and in non-supportive statements. It was suggested that our statements were somewhat inflammatory and really had nothing much to do with the intent of this bill.

In this debate tonight, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a couple of statements made by some of the members over there. I listened carefully — with the help of Hansard, of course. Last Friday I particularly enjoyed the delivery of one of the members of the back bench, the member for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell). He is a most interesting and refreshing speaker, but underneath all that I consider that the statements which he made in debating this bill were very dangerous, because they were couched in a populist tone that was very simplistic and which the Social Credit members all seem to indulge in. They try to convince the public of B.C. that they have the answers for all our woes in a very simplistic way. That simplistic type of debate with very complicated problems, Mr. Speaker, is dangerous.

I want to give you an example of what the member for Okanagan North said. This is actually a statement in his debate of the bill. He says: "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." Mr. Speaker, that member is therefore suggesting that the reason for the economic situation and downturn in British Columbia today and the fact that we have among the highest numbers of bankruptcies and the most severe economic recession of any province in Canada is all because those terrible union members have asked for more money. If you read his statement, that is what he is saying. I can just see that member, along with his colleagues, going out on the hustings, speaking in their ridings and coming out with these very simplistic statements. That is what he is using, and so are the other members of the Social Credit government; that is the kind of simplistic statements they are using to back up the passage of a bill which is doing great harm, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, to the trade unions of this province, to their very great history as trade unions, and to many of their gains which they fought for through the years. It is also eventually going to harm the economy of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I think we're all aware that if you bring in a bill whose main intent is to use one group in society as a scapegoat to bring about some neo-conservative policies which are not working, you are asking for confrontation, and this is what concerns the members of the New Democratic Party. We believe that this kind of legislation is going to cause more alienation and more disenchantment in the province. It's regrettable that we have to say that, but I believe this sincerely. There may be quietness out there today, and there may appear to be apathy, but let us remember that many of the people of this province are struggling just to get by. Many of them are out of work, and they can't really get worked up about a piece of legislation that is going through this Parliament in the middle of May at a time when they are struggling to make ends meet. Unfortunately, the Social Credit government, which could not get by with their large package of legislation last summer, has decided on a new tactic this year, and that is to drop some of the major ones gradually at a time when people are very demoralized with their personal situations. I don't think this piece of legislation would have appeared on the floor of the House four or five years ago, in a direct attack on many of the things that have long been fought for by the trade unions, but the Social Credit government has decided that when there is apathy, weakness and tiredness in the general public, that is the time to bring in something that they wouldn't have had the courage to bring in in better times. I believe it's a neo-conservative philosophy approach — that is, bring it in now when we can get away with it.

When I say that there are going to be problems later, I'm not saying that people are going to turn to violence or anything like that. That is not what we're suggesting. What I'm saying is that there will be problems for the economy of this province. By and large our members and the members of the trade union movement are responsible people. They want to see their province get on the way to recovery, but they do not happen to agree that this is the way to do it. Once you take on one group and try to change the delicate balance between labour, government and management — which unfortunately this bill does — you are not going to achieve your purposes. In fact, the opposite will occur.

Going back to the simplistic statements being used to endorse this legislation, I find it absolutely unbelievable that we have people in this House who think they can blame the

[ Page 4734 ]

trade unions and their apparent lust for more wages for all of our problems today. The member for Okanagan North should perhaps do a little more reading and look at what's happened in discussions and articles on the world recession. He would find that many people today accept the fact that it's been the move toward high interest rates, combined with the new monetarist theories, that has been a major problem in the recession today. To just pick out one group and say all the bankruptcies are their fault is really doing a disservice. I'm afraid that the member for Okanagan North implied that in his statement, because after referring to that he went on to state: "We believe that the worker is entitled to stability so that he can make his mortgage payments." He even refers to the inability of people to make their mortgage payments as the excuse for bringing down this bill. I have to put this together, and naturally I have to say....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're groping.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm not groping; it's a fact. The sad thing about it is that these kind of statements are going to be used by Social Credit members to back up the passage of this legislation, and when they try to couch it in those terms, I consider it somewhat lacking in straightforwardness and honesty, Mr. Speaker. I find that very disturbing. In fact, through every member's speech there is that general theme: you just pass this bill and stability will return.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I shouldn't just put the blame on the member for Okanagan North, because he's obviously following the same line as the Premier of the province, who, when asked about the bill, said: "The legislation is necessary as part of ensuring a stable and steady economic development in this province." In other words, once again the Premier is using the same line. He is trying to convince the public of B.C. to pass a regressive piece of labour legislation entirely on the basis that "if you pass this, everything will return to normal in B.C., and we'll have economic stability." I call that hypocritical and not actually being straight with the people of British Columbia. If you are against the long-fought-for rights of the unions, which were fought for over the years, then why don't you come out and say it instead of trying to cover up this legislation by saying that it has to be brought in to stop bankruptcies and to bring about economic upturns? I find that particularly lacking in integrity and, may I say, some honesty, Mr. Speaker.

In thinking over the problems inherent in a bill like this, I of course concede that I'm no labour expert. I could not indulge in a detailed debate with the minister on the actual committee stages of this debate, as I'm sure he has been well briefed. But I know that our Labour critic can. Primarily I intend to deal with my concern over the breaking of the balance of power and the delicate balance between labour, management and government.

[8:15]

I sincerely believe this bill is tipping more into the favour of management — this government's philosophy about collective bargaining and the position of unions. Before we began to bring in some progressive labour legislation in this province, previous governments had regarded unions and collective bargaining in general as forces that were really disruptive of the natural order of the economy. That was the old thinking; they felt that government must see they were subject to government controls. That was what we had until there was a move to bring in changes and to form a Mediation Commission, which, I know, even the former Minister of Labour, who is now the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), conceded was not working. It was brought in with great trumpets; it heralded a new era in labour relations with government and employees. Yet it did not work. It wasn't until the NDP brought in the new Labour Code that we began to see labour peace descend on this province, with fewer strikes. I don't think anyone could question that.

In the period of time when labour in this province was under much stricter controls, when they didn't have the enlightened legislation brought in through the Labour Code which left less government interference and a finer balance between labour and management, there were more strikes. There were more labour problems then. There was a general change once this came about. The role of government as felt by the NDP — and I believe that there are some members on the other side who believed this at one time, until this new kind of legislation was presented — was to protect the free collective bargaining system and to guarantee the right of employees to organize, free from unwarranted interference by both employers and union. The whole idea was to create that delicate balance, and that was the idea behind the Labour Code. It was known all across North America as being fairly successful in doing that.

Mr. Speaker, government policy in the whole business of labour relations should be founded on compromise. I think you would agree on that. It should be a compromise between the desires of labour organizations and those of management and between the disruption generated in acting to deal with strikes and lockouts. Now I think that's a pretty good statement. I didn't write it myself, Mr. Speaker, but I don't think I had complete attention, so I thought I'd read it again just so I can follow on from that. "Government policy in the labour relations field is founded on compromise between the desires of labour organizations and those of management and between the disruption generated in acting to deal with strikes and lockouts. The balance is indeed a delicate one, not easily achieved." We concede that.

But the Social Credit government, with this legislation and other moves you've made, are steadily beginning to disrupt that delicate balance. That is the point. I think even Mr. Weiler made recommendations to the government warning them not to bring in some of those amendments — and I hope the Minister of Labour is listening — which you have now brought before us. That's one of the things Mr. Weiler said.

Socred labour legislation allows the government to exercise compulsive authority, in many instances. Surely by now the Social Credit government realizes that you cannot treat a group of citizens in that manner without expecting some form of adversarial role climate or confrontation. And yet the government continues to do so.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Somebody says: "We'll get elected again." No one in this chamber can make that assumption at this time. I think we've been in this long enough to know that election results are very unpredictable.

The Socreds have eroded the voluntarily emphasis of the Code. That's the point I'm trying to make. The legislation of

[ Page 4735 ]

the Socred government reflects not really too much faith in collective bargaining. I know the Minister of Labour professed that in his opening remarks over and over again. As far as the writing of these notes, I want to say I usually write my own entirely; if I don't, I won't really understand what I'm saying. I want to assure you I understand what I'm saying here. I want to read it again because some of you don't understand it. "The Socred legislation reflects little faith in free collective bargaining" — I really believe that, despite the protestations of the Minister of Labour, who says that in his opening; then he drops a bill that is eroding the delicate balance — "as the best means to resolve labour disputes" — this is really what their legislation shows — "and this Code is showing a rejection" — and this is terribly important, Mr. Speaker and the thing that concerns many of us — "of the concept of a right to organize in labour relations."

Now that is a fight that was fought for over the years, and this is something that the members in the Social Credit government apparently don't seem to understand. This right to organize is being seriously hampered by this legislation. I can't help thinking as I read the legislation and tried to understand it — and it is rather complicated, as our critic has said before — of the movie Norma Rae, which maybe you saw, Mr. Speaker. It was about the organization of a trade union, and of course it was a woman who got the workers together to form their first union in this factory. I couldn't help thinking of their struggle to organize; and some of the barriers they faced are what our unions may now have to face again if this legislation passes. It is going to make it more difficult for the organization, and there is no way that the Minister of Labour can deny that, unless he is willing to amend the bill, because there are moves in this bill which definitely do undermine that. That, again, is one of my major concerns.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to find, as I was going through my reading for this bill, a quote from Mr. Matkin, the former deputy minister, recently with the Employers' Council. A few years ago Mr. Matkin said this on the matter of labour management and government relations: "The reality really is that labour relations problems of strikes, picketing and slowdowns are not legal phenomena; they are symptoms of social problems." Now I'm not going to discuss Mr. Matkin's position today; I give him credit for that statement at that time. This is something that the Social Credit government doesn't seem to be aware of. Maybe some of them, in a misguided way, actually think that if this legislation comes in, they are going to solve some of our economic and social problems. It just shows how little they understand many of the economic problems — and their roots — if they think that this piece of legislation, which hammers back the unions, is going to solve all of them. It concerns me that they are going to attempt to sell the passage of this to the public on that simplistic basis, which, as I said earlier, I consider highly dangerous. The people who accept that are in for a sad awakening when they find that the economy is not suddenly going to blossom and recover just because the unions have had some of their rights stripped from them by a piece of legislation. It concerns me that there are people on the other side of the House who think they can solve those problems in such a simplistic way.

When Social Credit brought in their big package of bills last July, at first no one was aware of just what was behind those bills; but it has become quite clear, in analysis — maybe not for everyone — that the package meant a basic change toward some of the neo-conservative philosophy that we have seen in other parts of the world. The tragedy of that is that if we look at societies that have been under the sway of that neo-conservative movement, we have to say to ourselves: "Well, what is their economic situation today?" In the United States, what do we have? We have high interest rates coming back again. So it's about time, I think, that somebody in the Social Credit government, which seems to be under the sway of this philosophy, examined and started to question whether the ones they are following — the Fraser Institute, the Michael Walkers, the people who have been advising Mr. Reagan, Mrs. Thatcher.... Isn't it about time they began to say to themselves: "Is this really taking us on the road to recovery?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MRS. DAILLY: I wish you'd say that to some of the people who are lined up today asking for bags of food in this province. You can't keep saying over and over again, year after year, "We're on the road to recovery," and hope that if you say it enough times, it's going to happen. I regret to say that if your philosophies were going to bring us onto the road to recovery, even if I disagreed with them we would have to accept them. But I not only disagree with your philosophies; they are also not achieving the end that most people in this province want to see. That's the dilemma that Social Credit finds itself in today, and stubbornness and inflexibility in adhering to this philosophy is not going to do the people of British Columbia any service.

I wanted to discuss briefly another section of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is second reading.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I think others have taken some leeway with that.

It has to do with the matter of cabinet's declaring economic development projects. I want to say, in general terms for the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), that I think this heavy hand of the government is very foolish, because it, again, is not going to achieve the desired results. Once more cabinet is made the main intervenor if this section goes through, not the Labour Board. The designation, the orders and the enforcement all become open to subjective rules which clearly will limit the freedom of unions to act on behalf of their members.

What happens to bargaining or the enforcement of collective agreements or the power of a union to protect its members? All this is going to be wiped out by the cabinet being able to say: "We declare that an economic development project." That's pretty dangerous stuff. It is giving the cabinet enormous power to make or break union agreements. As I say, I don't really think some of the members on the other side have any idea that they almost have a time bomb in their hands here. It's really dangerous, yet once again they're sitting back and saying: "Everything is going to work out all right. This is going to bring us to the road to recovery." I find that kind of naivety and simplicity frightening, particularly when it is quite obvious that there's no concern about what it's really doing to the long history of trade unionism in this province.

[8:30]

I would like to suggest to some of the members who find this bill so satisfactory that perhaps they should read about

[ Page 4736 ]

some of the fights through the history of trade unionism in this province. Some of it was brought to our attention just before 6 o'clock tonight. If you missed it, I would suggest you read it in Hansard. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) gave us some history on unionism in B.C. It was fascinating; it really was. Take the time to read it, and perhaps it might give you a feeling for the struggle over the years to achieve what the unions have in some of these basic rights. That's why it is dangerous to tamper with those rights in the manner in which it is being done today in this bill.

There's another area I would like to mention: the matter of unions and their relationship with the public. I realize that in some quarters it has been whipped up that the unions have a bad name. You can hear that running around the province. A lot of it is based on ignorance. I regret to say that many of our students leave the school system.... I didn't do much in this area, regretfully. I guess you can't do everything in the field of education, can you? I wish that somehow or other, along with learning about corporations and the economy, there could be more emphasis on teaching young people at least the history of unionism. You can teach that, surely, without being accused of trying to pressure everyone into becoming a union member — although if it is taught properly, surely a person can make the right judgment in time.

I think that we have created a group of citizens who are not really aware of the importance of trade unionism to their own standard of living. They do not understand that in parts of the United States where the trade union movement has been stamped on by authoritarian governments and laws, everyone's standard of living has gone down. If you study what has happened in some of the states, that is what has happened. That's why I am concerned with the moves taken by this government, because I'm afraid they will be dampening the economy, not improving it.

In speaking of understanding the importance of trade unionism, we hear so many negative things that I would wish that somehow the public could be made aware that they have a proud history in many areas. The trade union movement are in the forefront of fighting for universal medicare, universal hospital insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. Many of these major pieces of legislation were backed up and endorsed by the trade union movements of Canada.

It is often not recognized that many of the union officials take part in community endeavours. I know most of us in smaller communities have seen the involvement of trade union officials and members in community groups and organizations. I don't think this is talked about enough. Perhaps the public would have a better understanding of their problems if this were made more.... And I think it's up to the trade union movement to do this also. But I don't think that our school system has given too much encouragement to this whole discussion.

For example, I remember the time that the present secretary of the B.C. Fed, Art Kube, was elected or appointed — I don't know how they do it — president of the United Way of the lower mainland, which is a major function for anyone. Nobody had even heard of him at that time; this was before he was the secretary. He was an active union worker. I don't believe there was anything in the paper about it. It's interesting that every time a management person or a person belonging to some big corporation or firm is nominated or elected to these positions, he receives a considerable write-up in the paper. I have to say, I suppose, that our newspapers, while not showing a bias against them, are not doing what they perhaps could do to further the credibility of or give information about unions in our province, I think we all have that responsibility. It's sad that at a time like this, when we desperately need unions, governments and employees working together, we seem to be moving away from that. That's our only answer.

I listened to the minister when he talked about consultation. I understand that he had an advisory committee, but they've been sworn to silence. There's no open consultation from what I can see. They're taken into secrecy, into the minister's office; it's all done hush-hush. I don't know why a major thing like this could not have been turned over to the House committee. Every time we deal with one of these controversial bills, I can't help thinking how this government wouldn't be sitting here going through a long debate from the opposition if it had just been smart enough, months ago, to have put this bill into a committee and let the opposition work on it there, as they do in the House of Commons. Why are you afraid of the participation of the opposition in discussing changes to legislation? I can't understand it. If you can't do it in this Legislature, it doesn't bode too well for the future of building up a climate of cooperation. If you want cooperation from the opposition and the labour movement, why can't it be completely open and above board? Why can't we all take part in discussing changes to legislation? Once again, we're all sitting here waiting for this bill to be handed down. Everyone in the opposition is running to see what it says. It's after the fact. Everyone in the B.C. labour movement is lined up. I'm not saying that all management knew. But why this secrecy with the government? Would it not be better for government to work with all the groups involved well beforehand? I don't think we'd be sitting here with people yawning and wishing that the opposition would hurry up, do their piece and go home. I don't consider that democracy. We were sent here to participate. When the only participation given to you as a member of the opposition is after the fact, it becomes somewhat frustrating. Any Social Credit member who was in the opposition when we were government must have experienced some frustration also. But I think that the members who were in government between 1972 and 1975 had an opportunity to sit on travelling committees such as Municipal Affairs and Education around this province. Out of those committees came some common understanding on some problems. There's no question about it. I find it frustrating.

When you're in Ottawa, or read about what is coming from there, at least the MPs, whether they're NDP or Conservative, actually feel they're taking part in creating or at least discussing legislation. Unfortunately, under past Social Credit governments and, I regret, this one.... I'm sure our esteemed House Leader, who has been here as long as I have, must appreciate the fact of the frustration of not being able to take a more active part. Maybe the back-benchers themselves don't have any more opportunity — I don't know.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I hope you do. It would be more frustrating for the back-benchers, I'm sure, than it would be for us, if you could not take an active part in all the legislation.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: That's good to hear. Well, all I can say is that you didn't add much to it. That's too bad. That fresh

[ Page 4737 ]

voice coming from Maillardville-Coquitlam does not add too much when he stands up here, takes part and agrees that....

I can see that this debate is about to come to a close. I know this will be met with much happiness, but I must say that I have appreciated the attention. I just hope it will result in some concrete changes.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, one of the traditional watchwords in a democracy, when a government sees fit to overhaul a major piece of legislation affecting a major area of the economy, is that the amendments in the overhaul should update the bill. They should meet the new demands created by the passage of time. Since we're dealing with what in many ways can be described as a piece of legislation that is economic, it clearly should be demonstrated that the changes in the bill should help our economy in British Columbia. I think that everyone would agree that our biggest single problem at this time is the stagflation that we have and the fact that one person is on unemployment insurance or welfare....If you include GAIN, one person in four is receiving government handouts, and we all know that in a province as rich as British Columbia that is absolutely unacceptable.

Labour-management relations: working people and the management organizations that they have to deal with cannot be coerced into having positive, productive relationships. That kind of relationship evolves in the same way that a successful and productive free enterprise economy evolves. In fact, one might say that the trade union movement and labour management relations, as they have evolved in a free western democracy, are an integral part of the mixed free enterprise economies that we have in British Columbia and elsewhere in the free world.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The Labour Code that we still have on the books in British Columbia has participated in that evolution. It has helped it and provided a vehicle and a kind of framework in which men and women of good will could work out some very fractious disputes with the minimum amount of dislocation to the innocent public, a minimum amount of damage to the economy and property, and, fortunately, a minimum amount of damage to people's health and welfare.

This act short-circuits that evolution. It short-circuits the framework that allowed people in the province to work out their economic problems when they were voiced through a labour-management dispute. I don't think there is any doubt that since the Labour Code has been in effect, the relative days lost and the relative loss to the economy, due to legal and illegal strikes, slowdowns and stoppages have been reduced, there's no question about that. We know that as detrimental as this exercise of the free market in human relationships has been, the fact is that we have had a less detrimental economic effect in the last few years through the kind of problem that I've been describing than we've had through shutdowns and lost time due to injuries and sickness. Many economic observers, especially from industry, would suggest that we've had fewer problems with labour-management relations than we've had from shutdowns due to high property taxes and royalties, particularly on electricity, that have been put on by the present Social Credit government.

When you pass laws that fetter the right of working people in their attempts to organize themselves into bargaining units, you in fact accomplish what the government hopes to accomplish: you have fewer people in bargaining units, and you have poorer wages and working conditions. This inevitably leads — as it has in those states to the south of us which have had anti-labour legislation on the books for a number of years — to less retail trade, savings and investment. I think we need to remember that a great deal of the investment and enterprise in British Columbia has been generated by people taking their earnings and investing them in their own business — in the economy.

[8:45]

Many of the small businessmen in my constituency, for instance, are people who in their early working years were employed by industry. They may have been employed in logging or related forest industries; they perhaps were employed through Cominco in their smelting and refining operations, or they may well have worked for the CPR. They took that opportunity that was given to them in their early working years and with their savings began businesses on their own. Mr. Speaker, if they had not had that opportunity to have disposable income which they didn't need to live, we would have lost. We would have lost that entrepreneurial ability that those people contributed to our economy and those job opportunities which they gave to members of their families, to other people that they knew and to other people that they hired over the years.

I don't think anybody is opposed to investment coming into the province from outside, from other countries, some other parts of Canada. But the best kind of investment, the most responsible kind and the kind that has been of most value to this province over the years, has been the investment that was generated here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it's rather interesting that one of the excellent Vancouver business magazines and commercial operations recently asked a couple of people to look at anti-labour legislation and its effect on the economy. They asked one to be pro and one to be con. The businessperson who they asked to speak against it says quite freely — I won't use the term "admit," because he doesn't suggest he's admitting — that he could find very little argument for anti-labour legislation. He notes, for instance, that in the late 1940s and early fifties a total of 25 states introduced not just right-to-work laws but other anti-labour laws. He says these states had one thing in common then, in 1950, and today 35 years later: that is, they have a record of high unemployment, low industrialization and low per capita income. He further states that the anti-labour laws have had no effect on the incidence of industrial conflict.

Mr. Speaker, what happens in a free society such as British Columbia is that when people are discouraged legislatively from looking after their own interests through collective action, they eventually organize anyway. We can see that through the growth of the trade union movement in the twentieth century in British Columbia and elsewhere. People eventually organized anyway.

Mr. Speaker, good employers with happy and productive employees don't need trade unions. After all, why should individuals who on their time off.... Why should they see part of their earnings go into a trade union organization through dues, whether they be checked off or paid in once a month? Why should they give up their time to go to union meetings when no doubt they would be happier looking after

[ Page 4738 ]

their family, improving their home, perhaps working at something else that they may earn a second income from, perhaps being involved in a service club or some community activity? People go to trade union meetings and belong to trade unions and organize themselves into trade unions because they're buying a service that they, the majority of them in the bargaining unit, are convinced is beneficial to them in their workplace. If they didn't exercise that freedom, I would suggest that we in British Columbia could go the way of some other societies that have a good deal less healthy economy than we have.

Mr. Speaker, we have professional associations whose unabashed function is to protect the interests of the professional group: the doctors, the lawyers, the accountants, the architects. I doubt that the Social Credit government would bring in legislation that militated against the freedom of those groups to establish a closed shop; the freedom of those groups to have secret internal investigations of alleged transgressions by members. The Social Credit government and the Social Credit Party obviously believe in one set of rules for professionals and another set of rules for ordinary working people.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I need to remind you that the working people of this province are the productive mainstays of our economy. We all know that there's little or no money originally generated in this province that comes about unless someone cuts something down, grows it, fishes it out of the ocean or the rivers or mines it. All the rest of us, with our business and professional services.... All the rest of the activity in this province ultimately comes from those basic resource exploitation activities.

If we are at some point to thrive economically again in this province, we must have efficient, productive, innovative labour-management people — teams, Mr. Speaker, as we have had in the past, who cooperate and who are happy to cooperate in the efficient utilization of all our resources while protecting each other's interests — not just each other's interests as individuals, but each other's interests vis-à-vis other resource groups.

When any part of our B.C. economy is curtailed — and I use the term "curtailed" rather than "shut down" — for any reason, we might think the big loser could be the investment community, the retail sector — because people don't have paycheques — or the workers themselves. All those elements lose, but when any sector is curtailed, the biggest single loser is government, and in particular the provincial government.

Perhaps it's no wonder that the Finance minister is off borrowing money. He doesn't like to call it "borrowing"; he likes to call it "raising funds," as though he's going out to the United Appeal or something of that nature, His press releases say '"$200 million raised," and only three-quarters of the way down the page do you realize he's actually borrowed the money. He's borrowed it, but the first five paragraphs talk about how he has "raised" money.

The problem is that when the Finance minister of B.C. goes down to New York to take out yet another mortgage on this province's resources, they don't see it as the United Appeal; they see it as money that has to be repaid, principal and interest. I don't think the government likes doing that, and I don't believe the Finance minister likes that. We on this side don't like to see that happen, and the public don't like to see it happen. It happens because government revenue has declined so drastically in major part because of Social Credit economic policy. The bill we are discussing, Bill 28, is another step of that Social Credit government policy which has put the Finance minister in the position where he has to "go out and raise money."

The press has been widely reporting — I don't know who they alleged to have said this, whether Mr. Pattison or a spokesman for the government — that the price-tag on Expo is now going to be $1.5 billion. I think they probably must have consulted with Jean Drapeau after he got pregnant — Jean Drapeau claimed that the Montreal world's fair could no more lose money than a man could get pregnant, and Aislin promptly drew cartoons of the good mayor with a very large midriff.

If we are going to get the kind of money we are going to need — not going out and "raising," or borrowing, it — and if we are going to have the kind of funds needed for projects such as Expo 86, we've got to have a smooth-running, productive resource and manufacturing economy to finance the diversification and growth in the economy and generate the government resources to meet the interest and principal on that loan and the other $16 billion of borrowings taken out by the government and their various agencies over their term of office. Shareholders and workers in this province must have earnings and equity capital to reinvest. They must have dividends. When we have pieces of legislation such as Bill 28 that create misunderstanding, hard feelings and the feeling among many people that the rug has been pulled from under them and that they've been shortchanged by government, productivity goes down.

Recently we saw the sorry state of the B.C. pulp and paper industry. Without commenting on the relative merits or lack of them of both sides in the dispute — which is not settled — we should note that working people, management and supervisory people in that industry set production, marketing and quality records. The government is fond of saying we're in tough shape because markets are down. Our natural resource industries, taken as a whole, produced as much or more last year than any year in B.C. history. There is that feeling that government has not been fair to the people in that industry. When people have that feeling after they have been highly productive, innovative and have worked hard with management, it does not bode well for the economy of B.C. I only mentioned one part of it there, but it does not bode well for a major part of the B.C. economy.

Government has got to afford to pay the interest and some of the principal back on the debt. This refinancing when a bond issue comes due has got to end in this and other provinces, in the government in Ottawa, and internationally. I mentioned earlier that we have half a million people in this province on welfare or UIC; we have a couple of hundred thousand more on GAIN. Very few of these people are there because they want to be; most are there through no fault of their own. The government says it doesn't like to interfere in the marketplace, but the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the government gets out of the marketplace when it feels like it, and uses it as an excuse, and they get into the marketplace in a massive way with borrowed money. The losers are the people who find themselves in a difficult situation through no fault of their own.

Mr. Speaker, of this bill.... I don't know exactly which one; I suppose we will get into it in the clause-by-clause discussion. I won't use the number, Mr. House Leader. It could be anywhere from Section 1 to section 50 or whatever number of sections there are in this bill, but it speaks of specified developments. The government, in loving to say

[ Page 4739 ]

that they want to get out of the marketplace, is one of the biggest entities in the marketplace in British Columbia. Again, without getting into the merits — or lack of them — of the northeast coal development, that has got to be entering the marketplace with borrowed money in a major way. Certainly the B.C. Place development — and I am speaking of the large B.C. Place development, not of Expo or of the stadium — makes the government, I would say, the biggest developer in the province of British Columbia. Perhaps since there is so little other development going on, it may make the government bigger than all other active developers put together at this time. So the government is in the marketplace in several parts of the economy in an absolutely massive way, exclusively with borrowed money.

[9:00]

Mr. Speaker, in the past when the government was involved in what are now called megaproject developments — and occasionally the private sector as well, but let's stick strictly with government and its agencies — the government and Crown corporations such as B.C. Hydro entered into voluntary agreements with trade unions: no strike, no lockout. Certainly the motivation is a good one. It's happened before; it's happened in other provinces and other jurisdictions. It's not unusual on major projects to have no-strike, no lockout agreements entered into by the parties involved. In the past, projects that were so covered almost invariably came in on time and on budget. In fact, some of the major projects actually came in substantially under budget.

One of the biggest projects anywhere in the province in the early 1970s, which was the Seven Mile Dam in my riding, actually came in under budget, and there was a no-strike, no-lockout agreement on that project. It was entered into voluntarily by the parties involved, and the project went ahead with a tremendous amount of efficiency, and hopefully is paying good dividends to the province of British Columbia. So we find, and we will find — I will use that as an example when we get to that section, whatever it is — that here is the government once again interfering in an area of the marketplace which the marketplace itself has looked after up to now in this jurisdiction and in others.

One could ask, Mr. Speaker, when there aren't that many good things about the economy right now in B.C., why the government wants to fiddle with one of the good things. One of the good things has been the ability of union and management to enter into agreements that meant no work disruption by either side on major projects — projects of tremendous importance to the province of B.C.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose one of the catch-phrases about airlines these days is that nothing is lost more irrevocably than an airline seat. If the plane takes off and it's not filled, you've lost the revenue from that seat. I think it goes a lot further than that. I think it's fair to say that when we have lost productivity in the economy, lost days and industries shut down, the revenue from that cannot be regained, especially for government. Because the costs of government go on whether business is good or bad out there; in fact, when business is bad, the costs of government go up.

Bill 28 is part of the Social Credit attack on the B.C. economy. We, on this side of the House, and non-partisan people out there in the community continue to ask: "When will the Socreds realize that their actions are causing the economy in this province to decline?" Bill 28 is part of that continued decline. While the rest of North America has recovered — and, indeed, much of it gone into expansion — the private sector of B.C.'s economy continues to decline. There has been a net loss in the last 11 months of 90,000 private sector jobs; an increasing bankruptcy rate in British Columbia, while in the rest of Canada bankruptcies drop. We have falling government revenues, while government revenues grow elsewhere. Private investment is falling in British Columbia, while private investment grows elsewhere. There are incessant demands for more welfare funds to sustain even the bare minimum standard of living for several hundred thousand of our people. I suppose it is a sort of gallows economic humour, but the Socreds have achieved a welfare state in British Columbia where a number of egalitarian governments, including a previous Social Credit government, failed to do so. We are approaching a situation in British Columbia in which nearly 4 percent of our gross provincial product is simply going to interest, with very little provision for repayment. When your repayment schedule is going to take 300 years to complete if you don't borrow anything more, I think we can safely say that there's little or no provision for repayment.

I believe Bill 28 is going to militate against recovery in this province. It is going to cause us to remain the economic basket case of Canada longer than we should. Our productive people, whether they be labour, management or small businessmen, can work their way out of this situation; but I would hope that government would give them a chance. All the economic evidence that anyone could find is that the government of B.C. has made the difficult economic situation that we found ourselves in early in the 1980s far worse than it otherwise would have been. Bill 28 will have an effect opposite to what the government desires. It will stifle growth, it will stifle recovery, and it will continue the Socred war on prosperity.

I really wonder how the government could think, if they're giving working people greater opportunity....Why are so many working people so suspicious when they are the alleged beneficiaries of a government act that the government claims is going to better their position? We all know that there is a bad labour-management climate in some areas of the economy. I don't think there is any question that any solutions require diplomacy, intelligence and courage. You're not going to bludgeon people into reaching genuinely productive agreements. I would hope that the government would give up its doctrinaire stance on this bill and on other legislation that they have brought in. I would hope that they would recognize that other jurisdictions in the free world are not following their pattern of legislation and government policy. Other jurisdictions are not only not following the Social Credit pattern of British Columbia's policies and legislation, but fortunately for the rest of the free world their economies aren't following the Social Credit pattern either. The Social Credit administration somehow thinks that the rest of the western world is out of step with B.C. I would hope that the Socreds would get off their ideological hobby-horse and get back to that economic and labour-management pragmatism that used to be the mark of the Social Credit pioneers that preceded them — as well as of the governments of other political parties, whether they were Liberal, Tory or New Democrat.

There is nothing in this bill for labour — not even an attempt at tokenism. The government has not even made a pretence of meeting one concern of persons who work with organized labour. If the government is so blatant, if they wish to improve and update the Labour Code.... I don't doubt

[ Page 4740 ]

that there are parts of it that need improving and updating. No piece of legislation is perfect, and I'm sure the Labour Code, being ten years old, needs updating. But there is not even a single attempt to meet any concern of organized labour, whether it be from the official house — the B.C. Federation of Labour — or the unofficial houses of labour or from working people who are not necessarily organized into trade unions. This kind of legislation, when it has been brought in elsewhere, has not improved the economies of those areas. We have had a long period to test it. One of the more interesting things to note is that very little anti-labour legislation has been brought in in free democratic western societies since the late 1940s or early 1950s, so there is a long period of record to test it out. If there was great economic benefit to this kind of legislation, other people would have tried it at some point since the early 1950s, but they haven't. With this act Social Credit is taking us down the road of a labour-management experiment that was tried and found wanting, and is still being found wanting in jurisdictions other than British Columbia.

We have had major political differences in this province, and not just in recent years. I think we've always had a lively political scene. But prior to Bill 28 we did not have an act which directly attacks the freedom that people have had to organize and associate together for their own benefit.

I know the government is going to use their majority to jam this bill through, but I would hope, in the administration of the bill and in the way they approach the economy of British Columbia, that they stop their war on prosperity and adopt less doctrinaire, dogmatic approaches. I ask them to have a look at what other jurisdictions — some very conservative ones too — are or are not doing, and what benefits those actions are having on the economies in those areas; compare that with the disbenefits to the economy of British Columbia that government policy overall has had, including Bill 28. All of us in this House want to see a government that will come to its senses and admit it was on the wrong path, will modify its approaches, and hopefully everybody in this province will have the kind of opportunity that they've usually had in the past to get B.C. moving again.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the government for giving me the opportunity to spend the evening in this fine chamber. I'm sure we all just love being here.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's what you get paid for.

MR. BLENCOE: You're quite correct, Mr. Minister — among other things.

This evening I want to reflect on this bill within the context of what has happened in British Columbia over the last ten months. I have been taking the opportunity during the last few weeks — and usually on weekends, I might add — to speak to many people of various political persuasions. For instance, this last weekend I was involved in a number of community events, and one in particular was well attended by those who support the government in power. Many people came up to me and indicated that they were Social Credit members, and were therefore willing to discuss what they thought their government was or was not doing. I took the opportunity to listen. Obviously the key in political life is for a politician — those making decisions — to listen intently.

The advice I have had from politicians whom I respect has been: "Make sure you listen intently, take in what people say and make your decisions accordingly." What came back to me this weekend — and over the last few weeks — from those who are of the persuasion of this government is that this government has gone too far; they believe in many of the principles that Social Credit stands for, but the Premier and this cabinet have simply gone too far.

[9:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair. ]

I was most interested to see those supporters of this government feeling frustrated. These are reasonable people, not necessarily the extreme that does exist within that party, the extreme that often gets heard at the Socred conventions. These people were working people, they owned businesses or were professionals, and for whatever reason had traditionally supported the Social Credit government.

I was pleasantly surprised, I must admit, that there was a deep questioning of the modus operandi of this particular government, its way of carrying out the people's business in British Columbia. They were reflecting on the last ten months, on what's happened in the province of British Columbia, of course culminating in this Bill 28 and what it represents. It's not only people of our political persuasion, obviously, but those of the Social Credit government persuasion also, who have a real desperation or a desire to get back to some consensus and conciliation, to get back to trying to find some ways jointly to resolve our problems.

There was a distinct feeling that I got. These were people who, as I say, traditionally would support this government, and sincerely felt that this particular piece of legislation and others that we've had before us simply go too far. They will create further confrontation, further unrest, and the economic recovery this government has been talking about for the ten months since it got elected, which is not with us at all, will not be achieved in British Columbia. The thing that came back to me over and over again is that this government has gone too far. The people of British Columbia want to come back to the middle, back to some reason and sanity, back to trying to resolve our problems in an atmosphere of problem solving and not confrontation. In my estimation, in the last ten months British Columbia has become a very unhappy province. There is virtually no group that this government hasn't decided to take on in some capacity. We don't have to go through all those; they have been numerous. No one knows who is going to be confronted next.

Mr. Speaker, we have had problems in this province before in the labour-management area. We have a Labour Code that has been brought down, which has been seen as a model in North America. There's always been a belief that if the legislation and the rules are fair, and if both sides are treated equally, we will resolve our differences. We will resolve our differences. Now it would appear that this government, continuing its mission which we have seen over the last ten months to upset some of the basic things that we accept in a civilized and progressive society.... Many of those things that have become the norm are now being taken on by this government. We've seen it in the area of human resources, tenants, human rights, the public service. We've seen it with students and the dislocation of the education system. Mr. Speaker, we have a province that's in absolute turmoil.

[ Page 4741 ]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You've only got to listen, Mr. Minister. People will take you aside and say: "When are we going to get things back on track? When are we going to stop fighting each other? When are we going to try to resolve our problems together? When are you in that Legislature — all of you in that Legislature — going to prove not necessarily who is right, but do what is right for the average British Columbian?"

I think there's a distinct feeling by thoughtful, rational, caring British Columbians that what we have seen in the last ten months is not putting us back on track. Oh, sure, certain groups have been in a confrontational battle with this government. There may be some winners and some losers in the short term, depending on how you gauge winners and losers in a political fight. A lot of caring British Columbians have the distinct feeling that in the last ten months this government has been following a dogma given by extreme right-wing economists — and I've referred to the Fraser Institute many times in this House before — that does not try to achieve decisions that reflect, as much as possible, the majority of British Columbians. Certainly there may be an initial interest by some who say: "Sure, it's good to bash the unions"; or "Sure, it's good to bash tenants"; or "Let's get rid of some of those human rights." But it does not create stability for the future. It does not create a cordial atmosphere or a convivial society upon which to build economic recovery. That's what we should be trying to do in the legislation that comes forward; we should be taking a look at our legislation in terms of trying to create stability, taking out the confrontation....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, all I am trying to do is appeal to some reason and compromise on what this government has been doing in the last ten months. It is my belief that there is not a balanced perspective in this particular piece of legislation, or in many of the other pieces we've had in the last ten months.

It's a clear indication that this government is continuing to take 2-by-4s and trying to physically carry out their mission to take on certain groups in our society that they don't agree with philosophically. It's not going to create harmony. We need harmony today in British Columbia. We need understanding of our differences, and there certainly are differences, not only in the labour-management field but also in many other areas that we've discussed here in this House in the last ten months. We need harmony. I would suggest that if there's an area where we want to try to ensure that there will be peace and harmony, it's got to be the labour-management field. Without these workers, organized or unorganized, feeling that living, working, having a family and being part of British Columbian society, feeling that there's a future, some harmony and something worth working for in British Columbia, and feeling that they haven't got a government that suddenly comes out of the weeds and attacks them for whatever reason, that economic recovery, which is not coming about in British Columbia, will never happen.

We have seen the subtleties of this government, which is now talking about maximizing profits. We know what that's all about. It's taking on the wages of working people and trying to lessen those wages as much as possible by trying to force upon the unionized labour force legislation that will dramatically affect their rights and the working operations of organized labour. Although profits are important — absolutely — in the system we live in, I remind this government that it's not profits that will create the economic recovery that you desire. It's the spending ability, the wages and the earning capacity of the workers of this province. By wanting to continue to talk about this whole profit, to go back to the system where the few don't hang on to the wealth, and wealth is shared as much as possible with the workers.... What you have is a system whereby you will continue to erode the earning capacity of the workers of the province of British Columbia. We know that the world economy today is controlled.... It's not controlled by British Columbian companies; it's controlled by transnationals, which have their headquarters in other parts of the world. When you're talking about maximizing or talking about profits, you're talking about profits that don't necessarily stay in the province of British Columbia. So by taking away the earning capacity and the erosion of those wages for British Columbian workers, you transfer that earning capacity in the form of profits many times out of the province into those transnationals, many of which have their headquarters in developing countries.

In my estimation — and I guess it all depends on your philosophical position and what you believe about economic structure — if you dramatically affect the earning capacity of the workers, then a consumer-led economic recovery will not transpire. We all know that what we really have in the province of British Columbia today is nothing new at all. It's the classic philosophical struggle for the average working person to share in the resources and wealth of their province or their country. It has been a struggle, going back many years, for the labour movement to desire a proper share of those resources and that wealth. What we have now is a determined, well-thought-out strategy to take away that section of the wealth — the property, if you will — that those workers have managed to achieve through their organization and their requests that they share in the wealth of the province or the community, and that they have a fair share, and fair or decent wages, bargained for through the process we have in place today, but which unfortunately is under the gun in this province.

If it is the intent of this new direction, this mindless newspeak kind of verbiage we get from the Premier of this province, who can hardly put two sentences together, this "new reality".... What this new reality is, Mr. Speaker, is an attempt for our British Columbian workers.... He's saying to them: "You've got to compete with those workers in the Philippines or in Mexico who are being run by the transnationals." We will never, ever compete with a dollar a day or two dollars a day. Is that what we want for the province of British Columbia? I would suggest that what is happening in those countries is a great struggle of their workers to get a fair share of the profits being made out of their sweat. That's the struggle there has been in the western world.... Our workers fought that struggle, and now it would appear that in the province of British Columbia they're going to have to fight it all over again.

[9:30]

There's no mistake about it: we in British Columbia are in a classic economic struggle. This government is going to take away those hard-earned, fought-for rights and privileges, and decent and fair wages bargained for, fought for and, indeed

[ Page 4742 ]

— Mr. Speaker, you know the history of this province — died for, in terms of rights and the establishment of unions, and therefore those unions' rights to maintain their ability to achieve decent and fair wages. If the intent of this government is — and I think it is — to upset that historic balance that has been achieved between management and labour in British Columbia, it's going to create nothing but hardship and heartbreak, and it's going to destroy the very delicate economic recovery.... Well, there's no economic recovery in this province at the moment. I would most sincerely urge this government to rethink that policy and to rethink this mindless reality that the Premier of the province keeps talking about, because all it will do is continue to erode the earning capacity of the workers of the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen this government talk about trying to meet with the various organizations that have been affected by legislation. This government states that it was prepared to, or did listen to, the concerns of organized labour or the trade union movement. I would suggest that that process was not in good faith, that it virtually did not exist. We have in this House standing committees that are hardly used, and there's one issue, as I've already said — this labour-management issue — that should be put to a committee of this House, to try and listen to all sides and come out with legislation in which all sides feel they have gained something. This is one particular piece of legislation that should have been put to an all-party committee with the ability to listen to those groups which will be dramatically affected by the legislation.

That committee, listening to the various interested parties, could very well have achieved some balance and some consensus, could very well come up with some legislation that may not necessarily have met every single concern of all the interested parties.... But one of the things you do in that kind of negotiation is to find ground that you can agree on and that both parties feel they have at least got something out of. This piece of legislation has nothing for labour at all, and one thing that even the critics of labour are saying about this legislation is that it is putting the labour movement, the trade union movement, up against the wall — that their very life, their future, is jeopardized.

Mr. Speaker, when you leave no way out, you create.... It's like caging a wild animal. You have to leave a way out. You have to leave both parties with the ability to have gained something from the legislation, particularly in this particular issue. There's no question that this legislation favours management rights and dramatically affects the rights and privileges of the trade union movement. It is indeed anti-union, and there's no question that this government is on an anti-union course. It's on a course to break the trade union movement in the province of British Columbia.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the rights, privileges, decent wages, benefits and conditions have been fought for; the struggle has been long and hard. That movement will not succumb to that kind of aggressive attitude. It's taken too long for workers in British Columbia or in the western world to get a fair share of the wealth, the resources and the profits. That struggle will have to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I have to indicate that I am concerned about the particular aspect of this legislation.... Obviously I'm concerned about the definition components in the certification areas, and decertification, and the alternate construction certification. The one area that I think has certainly gained public attention is the ban that is now put upon those who wish to demonstrate in a political way, as we had last session when we had thousands and thousands of British Columbians who made a decision to leave their place of work and to demonstrate politically their decision against this government.

That right now has been removed from those British Columbians. I believe, as many British Columbians do, that it is most unfortunate. And it is indeed, Mr. Speaker, an affront to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada; it's an affront to certain sections of that. When this government moves into that particular area, where it is limiting the right of British Columbian citizens to leave their workplace because they feel moved to indicate their deep, sincere concerns about the direction of their government — their government, I might add.... Now you're going to curtail that right in a free and democratic society, and I would say that we are on a very dangerous course. I know a number of people I have talked to who don't necessarily agree with what happened last session. But they felt that those people who left their place of work to join collectively with hundreds of thousands of other British Columbians to indicate their deep concern with what was happening in the province had that right. Well, I think we have to look at that closely, because I think that is most unfortunate. It's a dangerous course and one that should be reconsidered.

To conclude, basically I have been trying to say this evening that I'm deeply concerned about the lack of consensus that is being achieved in British Columbia over critical issues. This is my first year here, but in ten months I have seen a government that doesn't appear to be willing to listen to concerned, sincere and dedicated British Columbians about a number of issues. This government is so arrogant that it believes it is so right in everything it's doing, and it's going to continue its course unabated. My request, my plea in this particular piece of legislation, is to ask the government to seriously think this through: you may have legislation that controls what organized labour can or cannot do, but if you do not have harmony, understanding and agreement on some of those basic elements worked out for the two basic groups involved in these kind of issues, you're only going to create further problems for yourself and further mistrust.

I think it's most unfortunate that this government is continuing to isolate certain segments in our community for the problems that we face. The attitude of this government is that working people — particularly in the unionized sector — are in some way responsible for what's happening in terms of the depression, that their wages and what they have done in terms of the rights and working conditions they have achieved have brought around the recession. That's not the situation at all.

What we face today, as we all know, is a world economy that has been based upon extraction of natural resources, and that is shrinking. We're also facing a struggle in those parts of the world where we have cheap products and cheap natural resources, and those workers are trying to achieve decent working conditions and wages. The only way those who continue to control the economy can get more profit is by affecting the earning capacity of those workers. The profit that the Premier talks about is the wages of those working people — taking their decent salaries and wages away and putting them back into the hands of the owners. Mr. Speaker, that's going to be no answer at all.

What we have to talk about in this Legislature is how we are going to deal with that world economy that is radically

[ Page 4743 ]

changing and how well we are going to deal with it. How are we going to deal with a society that is technologically changing so rapidly that it's leaving so many people unemployed or underemployed? This legislation gives us no answers in terms of resolving the economic problems of British Columbia; it only creates further mistrust, suspicion and confrontation. I think the time has come in the province of British Columbia — and this Legislature can start here — for some attempts to achieve some common solutions and answers to our problems.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: There is some discussion down at the other end of the chamber. The minister has also left, Mr. Speaker.

I will leave it there, but I ask this government to seriously reconsider this piece of legislation, as we have asked on numerous occasions for other pieces they have brought forward.

[9:45]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Labour Code must be seen in the context of the protection that is being removed from citizens in this province and which has been since the July 7 budget of last year. The Social Credit government is afraid to have agencies, advocates, offices or representation there to protect people, whether it's in tenant rights, human rights or consumer matters. Trade unions are in the way of this government because they are defence organizations for working people against the brutality that this government is capable of inflicting, not only in the private sector but on its own employees.

Look at what the government did over the last year and a half in human rights and other services. As you know, Mr. Speaker, they spend a tremendous number of tax dollars polling to try to find out where they can identify weaknesses to proceed with their radical right economic plan. That is the economic transformation of British Columbia into a radical right society where the citizens do not have defence organizations; they do not have trade unions which are prepared to democratically bargain and represent their interests.

In 1972, when the New Democratic Party assumed office in this province, there were a series of disconnected pieces of labour legislation where the redress of grievances was primarily in the courts. From the various bills which covered different occupations it was clear that there was no codified protection or basic scheme of justice and redress for working people, or any way of proceeding rationally in negotiating collective agreements with employers and provincial government. The NDP government at the time codified all of that labour legislation into one Labour Code after full hearings and discussions with employer groups and trade unions and so on. Do you realize that that particular bill had the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker? The Labour Code of British Columbia that you are amending had the unanimous consent of this Legislature. The people who are now tearing it apart and ripping away those basic processes of justice are now on the government benches, and those same individuals stood in their place in this House and voted for the Labour Code. What hypocrites! They were just waiting for the day when they had a situation where they could employ tax money to prepare the groundwork to disassemble these basic protections that were put in place.

That Labour Code, as has been mentioned many times in this House, in the press and so on, was something that employers and people in the industrial relations field all over North America came to look at as an experiment in rational, sensible industrial relations. What we have now, 12 years later, is a total dismantling of that structure which is going to destabilize our society. This is crisis management from the Premier's point of view, and he enjoys this style of governance. It's where you contrive to create a crisis and then manage it. We've seen him do this innumerable times in the last few years. The people suffer, the economy suffers, small business suffers and even big business suffers. The only net that holds it together is this radical-right ideology that the cabinet has been indoctrinated with that comes from the Fraser Institute.

Here's an item from the Vancouver Sun of February 24, 1984: "Walker Has Way to Dump Unions. Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute suggested Thursday that the B.C. Labour Code should be changed to allow companies with union employees to go out of business and come back as companies with non-union employees." Now is that someone who is being responsible? Is that someone who wants industrial peace? Is that a person who has any sense of fairness for the average working person in this province? This is a patsy, a rented suit for the radical right. This is someone who is really out to cause distress, not stability, in the economy.

We know from other jurisdictions that are more acquainted with and more mature in their industrial relations development that it is far better to have the trade union communities sitting together with the government and with employers planning investment policy and economic strategies so that their industry can be competitive with other jurisdictions. Instead we have a think tank subsidized by a number of individuals and corporations that don't really care to have the well-being of British Columbians at stake; they have a broader picture. They don't even want a minimum wage. They believe that the minimum wage itself....

MR. SKELLY: It prevents child labour.

MR. HANSON: That's quite right. They want child labour. I've seen Mr. Block's papers from the Fraser Institute where he really argues for child labour. What is this mentality that is galloping through British Columbia? Here we are blessed with a province.... We're the largest softwood producer in the world. We're the largest producer of low-grade copper in the world. We have a population of 2.7 million people with a geographic area far in excess of our own needs. We should be able to provide adequate education for our kids. We should be able to provide adequate health care for anyone who requires it. We should be able to provide meaningful employment for whomever needs it. We have wealth in our resources, if they are properly managed.

The Labour Code is really to benefit employers as well as working people. There are many employers that oppose these changes to the Code because they know that it's going to create problems for them. It is only that the polls show that the government is perfectly capable of bullying the public now because in an insecure climate as we have in a depression, clearly they can literally get away with murder in this province, and they almost are.

What is going on with the Labour Code is the same process that we've seen take place with the Human Rights

[ Page 4744 ]

Code, with tenants' rights, with representatives and advocates for abused children and families, and with enforcers of consumer protection law, who serve unorganized consumers. We've seen attacks against students, low-income and unemployed families, marginal small business operators and so on. We were well served with the Labour Code, and if there are improvements to be made, then they could certainly be made by a process of sending committees from this Legislature out around the province to hear what those changes might be and then having them brought before this House in a rational way.

Here we are at 10 o'clock at night on May 13 or 14 — whatever it happens to be today — and because the Premier wants this wrapped up so he doesn't have to run up big phone bills from China.... He's worried that the Katzenjammer Kids will create some kind of disaster, so he's phoning back from China four or five times a day urging them to wrap it up: "Sit all night. Use closure if necessary. Push the committee stage, get out of the House, and be quiet and behave yourselves till I come back to do some more crisis management and develop another crisis, so that I can ingratiate myself to the Fraser Institute."

The people of this province are sick of this approach. The government governs for everyone. The government should be stabilizing and sharing the distress that is in the community. But they're not governing for everyone, just for the super-rich. They argue that they're big populists. Oh, sure! Taking away all the rights and benefits and avenues of redress and of democratic decision-making that exist, and interfering in all sorts of constitutional aspects of people's rights for freedom of speech and of assembly, for the right to strike and to democratically develop a constitution. Is this government prepared to interfere in the same way in the ledgers of the banks? No. Are they prepared to interfere in the ledgers of the powerful professional organizations in this country? No. But they certainly like to bully the poor, the ordinary working people, the visible minorities and the invisible minorities. They love that. They really get a charge off that; that really sends a jolt of adrenalin through them. We have a sick government in this province. We have a government that is really addicted to bullying people. There is no need whatsoever for most of the changes in this Code. They're trying to ingratiate themselves to Mr. Walker, who has had his hand in it, and to Mr. Stewart, who is really the Labour minister in this province and who has a company called Appin Consultants and offers his services to the Labour minister in any way possible to undermine and cut away at basic decency and opportunities that working people have had to fight to achieve in this province over many years.

The wheel is turning backward in this province at an accelerating rate, and we are not going to be benefiting in any way. The economy of this province is set back by the policies of this government. The key to the economy of this province is industrial peace. It is the working people of this province who work in the mills, the primary extractive economy. Rather than diversifying the economy and adding wealth that could shore up the kinds of services we require as a community and a society, what we have instead is an attack on the ordinary working people who do create the wealth in this province, and who should be consulted and brought into the process of investment policy. There are many pension plans that exist in this province. If people felt they had a friendly government, a government that wasn't a bully, we would find those pension funds invested in long-term diversification projects to upgrade plant and to increase the job security in British Columbia. Instead we have an unending attack against working people, and we're not going to have the investment dollars put here to create the kind of job security we require.

[10:00]

We are an international spectacle. Even the CBC, as bland as it is in terms of its reporting of the issues of this country, has decided that the government in British Columbia is really out of step with the traditions of this country. The kind of program it has embarked upon since July 7 of last year is distasteful to all of Canada. It is distasteful to all fair-minded people in this country, and we are now a spectacle. I'm sure that people who read the "B.C. news" section of the Globe and Mail in the investment centres of New York, Geneva, Zurich and so on don't want to invest in British Columbia. These cabinet ministers can fly first-class all over the world, but Zurich is not going to invest any more money in British Columbia as long as there is not industrial peace here. As long as this government whips up and creates and contrives bullying actions against working people, there will not be industrial stability here, because people will fight for their basic rights to speak up as they want to and to be able to bargain in a free society.

The United Nations, through the International Labour Organization, has a number of documents that Canada is signatory to that outline basic freedoms of working people: that they should be protected and receive a worldwide.... Third World countries and so on — countries of the United Nations — look at these various labour rights processes of injustice. Canada is a signatory to many ILO documents, and these Labour Code amendments cut deeply and offend the signatories that we joined with in these various documents.

If the government sincerely wanted industrial peace, then meaningful discussions would take place with the authentic and legitimate labour bodies that exist in our province. We have a B.C. Federation of Labour. That Premier cannot refer to that organization without a contemptuous look on his face. He regards it as an illegitimate organization. Rather than being the legitimate house of labour for 300,000 people in this province, he treats it with contempt. He uses it as a means to ingratiate himself with the Fraser Institute. He uses it as a sounding board for his own political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, there are people of good will and good faith all the way through the labour community who, for the benefit of their own membership and the unorganized working people of this province, would dearly love to attempt to unburden the unemployed of their anguish. They know first hand what it's like to set up services where they hand out donated food to the unemployed in this province. They know what it's like to look at the boards in the various trade union halls that indicate the number of members who are on social assistance. People who had seniority of many, many years, who had not known unemployment, UIC and then social assistance probably in their entire working career....Now many of these people have been unemployed not one year, not two years, but for three years.

Nothing in these Labour Code amendments is going to increase working opportunities for any of these people. This is a philosophical, an ideological bill; it has nothing to do with making the Labour Code a better code. It is an ideological document framed by the hands of the Fraser Institute and Mr. Stewart. These are the ones who want to see people working at below poverty levels in British Columbia. They

[ Page 4745 ]

want to roll back the standard of living that working people worked to enjoy in this province, and they want instead.... The Minister of Labour shakes his head. Mr. Speaker, they will not be happy until there is not a union left in British Columbia.

Sophisticated employers in this province would far rather work in industrial relations with a trade union, bargain collectively in good faith, sign a contract and live up to that obligation with their employees and have stability for a one-year or two-year or three-year period. They would rather have that kind of an arrangement than some kind of a silly arrangement where people are certifying and decertifying three or four or five times a year, where there is constant rating and changes of bargaining agents or maybe no unions and so on. That is not stability. That is backward. That's the kind of thing that people had 200 years ago. That's silly, and that comes from that silly little government over there. It's a government of hot-liners, Mr. Speaker.

It's just about time in the history of British Columbia that there was a progressive voice on the airwaves. One of the problems in this province is that there are too many rightwing hot-liners, and if anyone can provide some kind of progressive voice and rational, objective and stable view, it is the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that's the job that he's going to undertake.

It is a sad evening, Mr. Speaker, because what we're seeing is the unravelling of accomplishments that really benefited all of B.C. and served this province well over the last 12 years. They've tinkered with it from time to time; they've interfered with the Labour Relations Board and they've politically interfered with the processes. They are now moving us back to adjudication in the courts; we're going to see people back in the courts. That is the way they want to go. They want political interference all the way through. That is the kind of process they want; it's an approach we will regret one day. Rather than moving ahead in a progressive way with progressive amendments to the Code through consultation and cooperation, we have again this confrontation-crisis management. It is going to do nothing but hurt our province and set back any hopes of a recovery.

I would urge the government to withdraw the amendments, because they certainly are not going to do anything for us. If they could just extricate themselves from the clutches of the Fraser Institute, we would certainly be well served. They should start governing for all of the people — the poor, the disabled, the human rights people, working people and so on. They should be governing for everyone. They shouldn't be attacking and trying to divide and conquer. Their bullying tactics are a spectacle for all of the world. I would urge the government to withdraw these amendments.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if the late W.A.C. Bennett were alive today and in this chamber tonight, much to the surprise of his successors in those chairs over there he would be up in this debate supporting the arguments being made by the official opposition against this bill.

The history of W.A.C. Bennett in this House comes from the time of the breakup of the original coalition that came together in this House to stop the CCF from becoming government in the early 1950s. At that time the coalition was riding high in power and was a representation essentially of middle British Columbia. They remained in power until they introduced a bill which at that time was known as Bill 39. It was a direct assault on the trade union movement, which was re-emerging with greater strength in the postwar period.

Bill 39 led to one of the most divisive periods in the history of the province of British Columbia. It also led to the end of the coalition, as people who had come together decided that because of philosophy and principle they would have to split apart. One of the people who left the coalition was W.A.C. Bennett. One of the reasons W.A.C. Bennett left was because the aggressive right turn of the coalition government left the great mass of the middle voice of British Columbians without any representation of what once was a Liberal-Conservative coalition. Social Credit was started in this province not as a political philosophy but as a response of populism against that right-wing turn.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The second coalition that was sponsored in this province came out of what was perceived to be a left-wing turn after the New Democratic Party was elected in 1972. Those people who were Liberals, those people who were Conservatives, went to what they considered to be the mainstream as a coalition against the government perceived to be of the left or of the right, as is the history of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I predict tonight that as this government is riding high, as this government reads polls and interprets them on the basis of a daily assessment of what the public wants, this bill, more than any other, will lead to the downfall of the present government. There is a sense of amusement and a thought that labour-bashing at this time can only strengthen the government's hand, and temporarily that may be true. But I want to warn you of what someone far wiser than I said: "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to relive it." Just as the earlier coalition of some 34 years ago in this province began to break up because of repressive labour legislation, this coalition will begin to break up after this bill is passed because of the same thing. It won't be the vocal trade union leaders who bring about your downfall; it won't be the press conferences or angry demonstrations; it won't be the pleadings of the official opposition. It will slowly take place, as it did in the early fifties, in the living rooms, the kitchens and the meeting halls of every comer of this province, as working people in this province — men and women — begin to discuss this, not in detail but on concept. The one concept that the working people of this province have always believed in is being fair, and when the balance is tipped against the working people of this province and they perceive that they are not being treated fairly, that is when the political changes take place in this province that lead to great sweepings-out of government and great readjustments and realignments and political allegiances. Just as you think that you're at the apex of your power, just as you think now that you can do no wrong, that is the time that you arrive at the beginning of your weakest moment. You say to fair-minded people in this legislation that regardless of how you juggle the books, regardless of how you manipulate the voting strengths or weaknesses of management or labour in these sections, you give to yourself — through this legislation and through the board — under section 10(b) the right to say that no matter how working men or working women vote, the board shall have the right to deem to exist what they think was in the people's mind, even if they voted yes or no. I want you to think about that.

[ Page 4746 ]

[10:15]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Exactly. And who are the first people to understand this more clearly than legislators, more clearly than newspaper writers, more clearly than the political scientists? Those men and women who are at the job, providing the taxes for the government to exist. When they perceive that no matter how they vote, the government has in this bill the power to determine how they should have voted, then those people will not forget it. They won't show up on the lawns here, Mr. Speaker; they won't show up at the NDP conventions or Social Credit conventions. When they are at home and when they experience the effects of this bill, they will remember it and they will begin to chip away at the power base of the coalition that you've put together.

One of the parts of the coalition you've put together had been some of the members of the building trades. As much as the New Democratic Party has appealed to workers to vote for them, many trade unionists have traditionally voted Social Credit in British Columbia. There has been a tacit psychological agreement between those trade unionists who voted Social Credit and the legislation and this government and its predecessors in Social Credit that somehow you are always going to produce as capitalists a balance and allow those hardhat trade unionists to have a job and a good income. For the first time since the early 1950s that psychological bond between many trade unionists and Social Credit is now being eroded. Mr. Speaker, the government can sit there and smugly think that this is a very popular bill — and it probably is, by any reading of any poll at this particular time — but what this government doesn't understand is that polls can change, but legislation won't. What you think is popular now and what you think will gain you more strength now may turn out to be the weakest link in a chain you forged in an attempt to broaden the base of support for your party.

This is not brand new. This happened once before in Bill 39, and I predict, Mr. Speaker, that it will happen again. Harold Wilson once said, Mr. Speaker, that a week was a long time in politics. Well, there are about 36 months of weeks before there is the next provincial election. As long as we discuss this bill in the abstract, you are not in trouble, but the first time after this bill passes and the Labour Relations Board uses the Section in this act that overturns a vote at the workplace of honest men and women in this province by saying that the government, through the board, determines that whatever the workers voted, that's not really what they wanted, and they upset their democratic vote, do you know what will happen? In the lunchrooms, the cafes, the living rooms and the church basements, where discussions take place in this community of British Columbia, that experience of a group of workers becomes the subject of discussion of citizens all over this province. Do you know what that leads to? The new formation of what is known as the silent majority. It doesn't show up in demonstrations or in angry letters, but it shows up on the doorstep when you go out looking for their vote. When you MLAs from the government go back there....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you can reel off all the years you want. The only time you lost power as a coalition against the CCF is when you fractured yourselves and eliminated that tacit alliance you had with many working people of this province. That was between 1969 and 1972, and it almost happened in the early 1950s, except that W.A.C. Bennett walked across the floor and joined Social Credit in a move against similar legislation known as Bill 39.

What I am saying now will be cold words on a piece of paper and could be looked back upon by political scientists three years from now. But as much as the government ignores my words tonight, if this bill goes through and you insist on interpreting that what you think free men and women have voted is wrong, and you change it, as I stand here you will lose the next election.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: This is a little bit different, Mr. Member. I have a few words particularly for that minister, because he has fallen into another trap. He has been burned once, but he hasn't learned, and I'll come back to that.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is unfair. More than anything else the people out there in a free society, particularly in a small community like British Columbia, will vote on the basis of what they feel is fair or unfair. They won't be able to recite chapter and verse what this legislation is or tell you the section or subsection, but they will know that if by a secret vote a majority of them want to decertify or certify, and under this legislation what they decided as a majority will not be implemented, then they know they've been cheated and the legislation is not fair. That's when people turn on governments.

As much as we like to think it is the flowery speeches of politicians and the flashy advertising, when people in their own homes determine that a government is no longer fair, you can spend all the money in the world on advertising in all the fancy publications you want, but you won't win again. If you pass this bill you will defeat yourselves. It doesn't look like it tonight, and you'll look good in the polls for a little while longer, but the first time this bill is implemented, and the first time it is learned by word of mouth that unfairness took place under this bill, the erosion will take place. How much erosion is there to take place? As much as the press or the political scientists may say that you won a sweeping victory, those of you who have been around here long enough know that the difference between 49 percent and 45 percent of the vote is three people in every hundred. If you alienate three Social Credit voters out of every hundred, you'll be swept out of office.

When you analyze it that way in terms of changing people's minds, the warning I give is clear, free of charge and predictable: you will lose the next election on this bill. You mark my words. As soon as you tell people in a free society that they don't have the right of a majority vote, that you will overturn it, you're going to lose people. Who will you lose? You will lose people whom you have determined and think are right-wingers. But it is not that we have right-wingers and left-wingers in this province; essentially the coalition of government that has led this province since the 1930s has been populism. Populism was based as a formula for stopping ideology. Ideology has returned, but it has returned on the right for the first time ever in this province. That same ideological thinking that has formed the coalition to bring you together, put now into practice, will bring about your defeat.

[ Page 4747 ]

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other comments I wish to make on the bill. If the minister earnestly believes that he is going to legislate human behaviour in collective bargaining through a law, then he has got a great deal to learn. This particular minister has already had one disastrous experience with listening to so-called experts. As the Minister of Health, he listened to Mr. Bewley and Mr. Hoskin about how he was going to cure drug addiction in this province by writing a bill and teaching drug addicts how to play the ukulele. It cost the taxpayers $22 million to understand that legislating ukulele lessons for drug addicts is not the way to cure drug addiction: $22 million of taxpayers' money was wasted because of an ideological commitment by that minister to think that by writing a law and telling drug addicts not to use drugs any more, it would end. Mr. Hoskin was fired, Mr. Bewley went on to a greater career, $22 million went down the tube and Rafe Mair had to clean up the mess.

Mr. Speaker, did that minister learn anything about taking advice from so-called academic experts? In the first instance, there was some questionable academic background in dealing with drug addicts. In this instance, the minister is dealing with academic ideology with no practical experience in human relations. You're not dealing with sick people who are drug addicts, in attempting to give them ukulele lessons. You're dealing with the hard-working men and women of this province who pay the taxes that keep government going. When hard-working men and women feel that legislation is passed that does not give them a fair shake — not in favour of the unions, not in favour of management, but a fair shake that's when the hard-core vote begins to dissipate.

I said at the outset that W.A.C. Bennett, were he alive, would be up in this chamber tonight speaking against this bill. I repeat, the reason he would be up against this bill is that, as an astute politician, he understood that the way to stay in power for more than 20 years in this province is to talk one way but be fair down the middle. In the last analysis, what they always said about W.A.C. Bennett was that the famous second look....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he'll forgive me, wherever he is. I like to think the best of him, wherever he is.

But this government is making the mistake of no second look. They are making the mistake of presuming that they know best, and they're basing that purely on what they see in last week's poll. They move the ideas from an abstract poll into legislation, and think they're translating that into what people want. Maybe they want it today in the abstract, but I warn you, as W.A. C. Bennett understood, once you translate that abstract into reality, and the people feel they are being treated unfairly, that's when you lose ground.

Where will you lose ground? It won't be in the industrial constituencies. They traditionally vote NDP, anyway. Once in a while they slip one way or the other. But there are hard-core constituencies in this province that will vote Social Credit even when they're voting Liberal. There are other hard-core ridings in this province that vote CCF-NDP forever. An example of a hard-core riding that votes Social Credit even if it's voting Liberal is Point Grey. Those two members ran as Liberals and got returned as Socreds — no problem. The people there know what their enlightened self-interest is.

[10:30]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, not in Oak Bay or Point Grey. We write them off; they're yours. And we have some that are ours.

Now let's talk about the middle group. What of the middle group? They represent the upward-striving middle-class people of this province, who are generally very hard-working, have upwardly mobile aspirations for their children, believe that governments will be fair and that if they work hard their kids will succeed in society. What is happening to those people in the South Burnaby constituency, in Delta, in Surrey...

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:..Yale-Lillooet too; you've got an industrial base in there that's going to look at this. Those people who quietly went and voted Social Credit, who have been bombarded by a series of government acts that have affected their lifestyles, have so far pretty well remained steady with the government. But those three people out of a hundred that are necessary to swing those ridings are made up of trade union members who have voted Social Credit in the past. It is a fact that if every trade union member voted NDP, we would have been government a long time ago. So you do have to rely on some trade union vote to get into office. You have to rely on a big one, and you're beginning, out of a mistaken belief that because you're riding high now you can insult that vote.... I'm warning you that you've just gone too far. These are not the people who demonstrate. These are not the people who make statements, either soft or bellicose. These are not the spokesmen of the right-to-work outfits or militant trade unions. These are Mr. and Mrs. Average Trade Unionist in British Columbia, who expect fairness above all from governments, and tonight are going to be deprived of it. They won't understand this overnight. You're not facing a cataclysmic upheaval of voter resentment within the next few weeks. But the first time you use the section in this bill that denies the true intent of working men and women at any job site in this province, that word will spread throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia. It happens very quickly.

In section 10(5), my good friend, where you clearly spell out — and, Mr. Speaker, I wish to be in order; I won't read it in detail, because that's committee stage — that the labour board will have, after all of the rules you list about how people should vote.... You will decide what you thought they voted for. That's where you're going to get trouble.

I know that you're not going to withdraw the bill, because you have the most pig-headed minister ever elected in this House guiding this bill through.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, with the greatest respect, that remark must be withdrawn.

MR. BARRETT: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw. The most stubborn minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's just tenacious.

MR. BARRETT: Not tenacious, stubborn. And the result of stubbornness is stupidity — but I'm not ascribing that

[ Page 4748 ]

to him, but to the wrecker. It was that minister, out of his stubbornness, who blew $22 million on what he thought was a quick cure for drug addicts.

MR. HOWARD: It was only taxpayers' money.

MR. BARRETT: It was only taxpayers' money. He was going to give them ukulele lessons, blow in their ear and cure their drug habits. Now he's going to cure labour problems with this kind of legislation. I want to tell you that it simply will not happen. Hotel-room legislation is no substitute for rational, thoughtful research and going out and finding out what people want.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues who point out the dangers of this bill are actually warning you to save you from yourselves.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it's true. You have an inherent necessity as democratic socialists to solve problems. You have attempted to save this government from this folly. Politically, fortunately for our future, they're too stupid to understand what you're saying to them and they are bringing about their demise.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, the impact will not be felt overnight. The impact will not be understood six months from now, but in the ensuing 36 months after this is passed and up to the next election, if this one section is used, you will bring about your defeat because you're not being fair. You can be right-wing; you can be left-wing. You can use rhetoric; you can attempt to be logical and reasonable. But if people feet that they're not being treated fairly, that's when they throw governments out. The one person who instinctively understood this in this chamber in all the time I was here was W.A.C. Bennett. He could read the messages better than anybody who ever checked entrails except for one time. The one time he let his guard down was in 1971-72 under the influence of right-wingers, and you lost.

Well, you formed another coalition and recovered, and now that you're riding high with that coalition you're on the edge of making that same mistake again. I don't like people of this province suffering, Mr. Speaker, and if my reason and persuasion would get you to change this bill, it would probably save your neck politically. But I want it on the record that you were warned. You were warned and I tried. You as a government will be solely responsible for the confrontation you're asking for out of this bill. You will be solely responsible for the industrial disputes that will lead to a lowering of productivity because of morale at the workplace being diminished. You will be solely responsible for the alienation of many of your own supporters who are trade union members and who quietly vote for you while espousing their allegiance for the NDP. You will lead to the destruction and the end of the present coalition that you represent as a party.

Were it only a political destruction, I wouldn't worry about it. I would hark my words and say: "I told you so." But I want to mention one other thing before I sit down.

The course of this kind of change, Mr. Speaker, which I say will bring about an electoral defeat, happens with the silent majority. But the course of it will not be easy. You are asking for trouble at the workplace in this bill. You are setting worker against worker. You are setting management against worker. You are setting investor against investment in British Columbia. You are sending a signal to the North American community that has understood that there has been a tacit agreement between labour and management in North American capitalist economy to ensure that there is continuing growth in place. But now you're upsetting the balance. You're allowing the extremists to have a field day, and that tacit psychological agreement that has given legislative authority to overall labour peace in North America is being unbalanced by this bill. Despite everything that has been said, Mr. Speaker, we have had a relatively good record in British Columbia for ten years on labour management peace. Despite all of the arguments one way or the other, we have had a reasonably calm period of time in this province. That's going to end, because what you're doing is threatening the very foundation of the organized trade union movement, as they perceive it to be happening, as well as the reality of this bill. It's a serious mistake.

I have not seen the evidence of one wise politician on that side. I've seen ideologues; I've heard rhetoric, but I have not seen the replacement of W.A.C. Bennett, who understood populist politics.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, I hope I'm wrong, and I would be the last to say: "I told you so."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You'll be the first.

MR. BARRETT: I only told you so on the drug thing, and that was so stupid. I asked you for....

MR. COCKE: ...third, fourth, fifth, and you were stupid.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. First, I'll ask the Minister of Labour not to interject. Second, I would ask the member for New Westminster to withdraw the comment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was too soft. I will withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could speak to the principle of the bill. We will have order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that you asked the member for New Westminster to withdraw, because it's a mistake to reveal state secrets.

But let me say this. There was an understanding of the people of British Columbia beyond polls. There was an understanding in their feelings, attitudes, hopes and aspirations. W.A.C. Bennett knew the people of this province. He had a feeling for the people of this province — the rich and the poor, the organized and the unorganized. That enabled him to hold that coalition together. You've made a paramount mistake in believing that polls speak for the people. You're wrong.

The tragedy of this is that there will be trouble. There will be confrontation, but there is going to be a positive result. As arrogant as this group is tonight and as confident as they feel now, this bill once passed will lead to the end of the present coalition, and, if I may be permitted a personal note, none too soon. You have done more damage to the psyche of this

[ Page 4749 ]

province, the dreams of this province and the hopes of the people of this province, even those in breadlines.... You've done more to psychologically damage their futures than any other group could do if they set out to do it on purpose. But tonight you've culminated it. With this bill tonight, you've said to your own tacit supporters in the trade union movement: "You can go to hell. We think we know that what we're doing for you is the best." You'll rue the day. W.A.C. Bennett knew it, and you're going to learn a whole new lesson. You wait and see.

MR. BARNES: Following the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to speak against the amendments to the Labour Code. I must say, however, that we're not likely to introduce any new attacks against the initiatives of the government, because just about everything has been pursued that would attract attention to the government respecting its determination to punish its perceived enemies — those who consider themselves to be working people, who are dependent on the democratic legislation that been hard fought for over the years.

I would just like to briefly refer back to the Leader of the Opposition's comments when he suggested that this government is playing popular politics. The problem in referring to the idea of using polls is that it's popular. It is popular, and I think the Leader of the Opposition and others on this side of the House realize the difficulty of trying to make a political case in the future when in the present there seems to be so much anger and hostility toward a perceived group of people, organized working people....

Mr. Speaker, I'm having some difficulty even hearing myself, with all the chit-chat. Perhaps you could get some attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate that. If hon. members are going to carry on discussions, perhaps they can carry them on somewhere other than in the chamber.

[10:45]

MR. BARNES: I realize that my remarks are not going to be any great revelations; nonetheless, I would like the record to show that I joined my colleagues in opposing the amendments to the Labour Code.

As I was saying, I recognize the difficulty of doing so in light of the attitude that this government has pursued, the attempts to exploit the biases that unfortunately exist against working people, and the political value that can be gained by exploiting the fears of voters — playing on their fears, their difficulties and their so-called security. As you know, 85 percent of the people who are working probably view those who are not working as competition; they want to be secure, perhaps at all costs, and I suppose you can't really blame them. Nonetheless, the government has a duty to recognize that the pendulum does change.

When you read the bill and look at the kinds of things the government claims it is correcting — the problems of certification and decertification, making the process fair, suggesting that secondary picketing is not fair and that they want to amend the Code to protect those people who have jobs and who are working legitimately from having to suffer any losses as a result of political action on the part of others; and on and on it goes — it's difficult at first blush to see the fault of an initiative like that by the government; to attempt to democratize, so to speak, the processes involved in labour-management relations to protect the public from unfair work stoppages due to political confrontations and differences. I've talked to people in the province about the problems that are supposed to exist between labour and management, and a large number of people are concerned, as we are, with having the very best possible working relations, with the kind of rapport and cooperation that is necessary to achieve security not just for the workers but for the investors and the public who rely on some level of congeniality between the parties so that there will be the least amount of disruption with respect to services and the production of goods.

The inspiration behind the government's move — the real motive — is hardly to improve those relationships, as some of the members have pointed out. The government's ulterior motive is that it is popular, pure and simple. At this time in British Columbia's history it happens to be a popular tack to open that cleft a little wider between labour and management, to exploit the biases and the frustrations that the public is experiencing as a result of hard times, hard times which are not just in British Columbia but throughout this country and the world. So the public is looking someone to blame, and the government is seizing the opportunity to blame the wage earners, claiming that their demands are frightening away investor confidence and frightening those people who would invest their capital, making them fearful that unless they can control working people through legislation and have some assurances that they will have the advantages they need to protect their capital invested in British Columbia....

When you think about that, it is a difficult proposition to dispute out of hand, because obviously we would all like to see people invest in the exploitation of the resources of this province on a fair and equitable basis, and we would like to see working people have a fair return for their physical efforts as well. I think that when you consider the things that have happened in this bill it has very little to do with the objectives of the bill. It seems more concerned with making it impossible for working people to collectively come to terms as a group. That seems to be more the objective than trying to improve the investor climate, suggesting ways in which labour and management can cooperate, or trying to encourage the need for consultation on serious matters of job and investor security.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I guess what we're saying on this side of the House is that the people are so angry and have been whipped up to such a tenor in this province with respect to the concept of labour, and of working people going on strike, that there is an opportunity for the government to accentuate those negative concepts and not consider the reality that working people have contributed as much as any other segment of the population in trying to improve working conditions and the job site, and in trying to be innovative in terms of the best ways to provide for a productive climate in this province. I just feel that we should back off a bit, Mr. Speaker. We should back off and think about what the Leader of the Opposition was suggesting about fairness. Not all of us are able to articulate in legalese the ins and outs of labour-management matters, because, as we know, it's a very complex field, and we know that many people spend most of their professional hours trying to figure out ways of coming to agreements. We know

[ Page 4750 ]

some of the problems that are involved in it. But fairness, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, may be the breaking-point in what the government is doing. It is a simple case of an unfair approach; it's an overkill. It just does not make sense that if we're concerned about economic recovery the way to go about it is to further aggrieve those people who are struggling to find some justice in the marketplace with respect to their bargaining procedures; and, even more important than that, taking away their right to self-determination.

I'm not inclined to take sides. I think that the important thing — despite what the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) said the other day when he suggested that this side of the House was the only side that cared about labour — is that all of us in this House should care. We should, for instance, put the words of the Attorney-General to test. He suggested that the bill was concerned about not just the interests of management but also with the interests of labour and of the public in general. But that is not that evident when you consider that the government is attempting to decrease the likelihood of working people being able to organize, to make it more and more difficult for them to achieve and maintain certification as collective bargaining units. That can mean nothing but frustration. It can lead to nothing but more chaos and uncertainty on the part of working people; whereas it may improve the situation for management because it sees an opportunity for greater exploitation of working people. It can perhaps reduce wages, but that will be, in addition to those benefits, a loss as far as the confidence of working people, who require an assurance that their job security will be protected, is concerned. As some of us have pointed out, the likelihood of more and more raiding and disorder in terms of organized labour is going to be increased.

I must admit, when I first heard those arguments, Mr. Speaker, about the likelihood of raiding of previously legitimate bargaining units and the possibility of a disintegration of existing bargaining units, I thought that this was an argument that probably didn't carry that much weight. But one of the things that's perhaps going to happen right away under this new legislation is that a large number of certified bargaining units will automatically become decertified. That could be a worthwhile thing if you were thinking strictly of just reducing the numbers and of starting off with a new slate, especially where there hasn't been that much activity in some of the bargaining units. But there are many dangers to that. I think it's just the tip of the iceberg. As we have suggested for the last year and a half, the government's ultimate objective is to put handcuffs on the collective bargainers in this province, to make it difficult for them to have any assurances whatsoever that they can sustain themselves for any length of time. It will be a series of short certifications with shorter and shorter tenure as far as the ability to continue as a legitimate, knowledgeable, effective bargaining unit is concerned.

There is every reason for organized labour in this province to be concerned. When you read the legislation, you get the feeling that the government has been very clever, that it has somehow found the exact tone and tenor for what it has to say, so that even those people who are in organized labour themselves will say: "Well, it doesn't seem so bad. It looks like it might be a pretty good deal." But you must remember that this is only year one, this is May 1984, and just one year ago we had just finished a provincial election. Three or six months prior to that, the government was running an attitudinal poll to find out public opinion with respect to labour, what their biases were, how much they really felt that labour was the cause of all of the problems in the province — demands for more wages and more benefits and so forth — and the reason the economy was in a slump. They very cleverly extracted from the public comments to allow them an opportunity — or at least the confidence they needed — to embark upon this attack on organized labour. It's very similar to the attitude of the government with respect to Bill 11. I won't reflect on that to any extent but will just point out that the Human Rights Code was eroded or eliminated under the same guise or through the same pose: that the public does not perceive itself to care about certain rights until they are missing. So the initiative of the government with respect to amending the Labour Code appears to be a legitimate, honest attempt to try to improve the climate.

I think, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, as time goes on the public, and especially organized working people, will realize that they have been dealt a crushing blow, one that takes time to understand. I'm not as generous as the Leader of the Opposition is when he suggests that this will be too bad for the government. I hope that it is: the sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned. But he is trying to appeal to the government to pay attention to our criticisms in order to improve its chances of staying in office.

I know that the government won't listen to those admonitions and that the government will proceed along the course it's on to its own detriment. But the problem with that negative sort of assessment of the situation is that innocent people are going to be hurt and people are going to be subjected to fewer opportunities to maintain their livelihood. True, there may be investors coming from other places, investing in British Columbia and exploiting our resources and getting certain advantages as a result of this legislation. But in the long run, it will transform the lifestyles that British Columbians have a right to. It will remove their protection. Large numbers of people will find themselves unable to organize effectively and unable to represent their views effectively. With a government under the impression that this is what the public wants this is just the beginning of a series of moves to deny working people the right to protection through proper labour law legislation.

Where does it lead us? Where are we going to end up? I'm afraid we'll just have to wait and see. We're making predictions of hard times ahead and more labour strife, and that this will do very little to help economic recovery, but we'll have to wait and see if in fact it is the case.

[11:00]

But if we were to take the admonitions and fears expressed by some of the labour organizations, we would have cause for concern. I've had a few telegrams. For instance, the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union expresses that union's great alarm at the Socred proposals to amend the Labour Code; they feel we should continue to resist what they call anti-union and anti-labour legislation. I must say that they are being very mild in not using the kinds of adjectives they have expressed privately, but I think it's very obvious that they feel, after what happened last year with Solidarity and the attempts to appeal to this government, that at the moment it's almost a hopeless cause, at least through due process and the legal means available to them.

Here's another one from the Canadian Paperworkers' Union: "Bill 28 represents the most serious attack, since this government came to power, on the rights of working people in the province. The contempt this government has shown recently to our members is multiplied greatly by Bill 28. The

[ Page 4751 ]

future of the entire trade union movement and its ability to fight this government is jeopardized by this legislation." There's one from the president of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union asking the opposition to do everything it can to delay passage of the bill. You'll appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that when we in the opposition are asked to delay bills.... You can realize how difficult that is, when 50,000 people standing on the lawn don't seem to be able to get an audience. This is democracy at work in British Columbia, and a sign of things to come.

The Provincial Council of Carpenters urged us to do everything possible to delay passage of Bill 28. "It's a devastating piece of quasi right-to-work legislation that is aimed at the very foundation of the trade union movement and designed to destroy the ability of the working people to resist this government. With passage of Bill 28, B.C. construction workers will no longer have unions within a year or a year and a half."

It may well be that those predictions will come true. But is it really true that we will have no unions within a year or a year and a half? Is it really possible that the trade union movement that has elevated people from the sweatshops of the turn of the century — child labour and all of the exploitation that took place by capitalists and investors in human labour — are going to be terminated in this province? Is this the beginning of the end? It may well be.

Bill 11 — the so-called new Human Rights Act — is such a radical difference from anything else that exists in this province, and a year ago we didn't think that would be happening. This province has just about abolished human rights. Human rights can only be aggrieved through the Minister of Labour, who himself is at arm's length and cannot be held accountable for his decisions, and neither can any of the five people that he appoints to work on his behalf. There was a time when we had a branch concerned with human rights. We had a commission concerned with human rights. There was a time when we took the time to go out into the public to encourage them to respect this important principle of treating one another as you would have them treat you. We've lost that. Now we have the attack on organized labour. When will it end?

There are those people who are concerned about this government's position with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which will come into force on April 17, 1985. There is concern with respect to whether the attack on freedom of assembly will become an issue. This is also mentioned in this bill with respect to people's rights to political strikes. It is a major departure from anything that has happened in this province before. We are wondering who the government has been talking to. What does it hope to achieve? Does it really care about the people of British Columbia, or is it onto some kind of takeover of this province, not only of the resources and of the means to power but of the people themselves? I feel it's a calculated risk that the government is embarking upon. It's one that perhaps will succeed. The government has at its disposal all of the so-called intellectual academics who have access to all the most up-to-date information on public attitudes, the ways in which opinions are created and the ways in which you can influence the thinking of the public through the mass media and other means of communication.

I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker — with respect to yourself and the other members — that this debate has probably reached the point where we're becoming redundant. It's difficult to get the attention of hon. members on both sides of the House, and I can understand that. We are reflecting upon issues that we've been over several times. How many times can you repeat your fears about the loss of basic rights? It's a dangerous thing. I suppose that after a while, when you find a government that is as insensitive as this one is, you begin to lose faith in the system. You begin to believe that it doesn't really matter what you say, or how many representations we have, or how many telegrams we receive, or how many people stand out in the hall, or whatever. You may do it, but it does not really matter. That's the parliamentary system. The government was elected to govern and the Premier himself has said: "You've got to be tough and hard and make tough decisions. You can't be listening to those interest groups out there."

Mr. Speaker, you and I know that our society is made up of interest groups of all sizes, colours and stripes. So what is he talking about? They're all interest groups. The Fraser Institute is an interest group, and so are the various church organizations and societies in this province, and so are the members of the Social Credit Party, the Liberals and everybody else. They all have an interest. But what does the Premier mean when he says that he can't listen? What hope have we, those of us who represent 45 percent of the vote and have 22 seats? The government represents about 50 percent, and it has 35 seats. They intend to get even more with their new redistribution program. But the point is that we do represent people who vote in this province — and a large number of them at that. But what effect do we have on that government? What does the government care? We're not going to change the parliamentary system tonight. What I'm trying to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, is that redundant though it may be from time to time when we get on issues such as Bill 28, one that is so penetrating and frightening that it leaves people dumbfounded.... It upsets them so much that they can't believe it. We don't have a large crowd of people standing out there, because people have tried that before. It's not that they don't care or aren't concerned; it's just that what hope is there? You can deny people their rights long enough and they give up. Does that make it better for us? Is that what we want in this province?

I think the Leader of the Opposition is correct when he says that only time will tell. We aren't going to find out tomorrow what happens when Bill 28 is proclaimed and becomes law, but we will find out in due course. We will find out that the people who have been working through a system, through the Labour Relations Board and through the processes that have been available to them.... We had a good deal. The government thinks that it is going to improve upon that by arbitrary, unilateral actions, based primarily on the polling information that it has received through a cleverly designed series of questions about what people think of labour unions and the economic situation in the province. This kind of short-term gain for political purposes is an expensive game of Russian roulette to play with the future of this province. At no time, Mr. Minister, no matter how anxious we get to try to make political miles, should we give any indication that we are going to deny people their right to dissent and self-determination. Institutions that have been part of this province for so long should not be tampered with in the way you are tampering with them with this bill.

I wish that I could have some headline-grabber about how we're going to save this thing and eliminate this government and defeat this bill, as I've had telegrams requesting us to do,

[ Page 4752 ]

but I realize we can't do that. But the record should be clear: the opposition, to a person, has stood strongly against this bill and has appealed with the sanest tone that it possibly could in a responsible way....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: What have you got against Jack Gerow? What do you mean I've got to say this for Jack Gerow? Do you see what I mean, Mr. Speaker? There is this kind of contempt. They hold these people in contempt. They are British Columbians and are legally doing their jobs. Why does the minister have to make those snidish remarks about Jack Gerow, or anyone else?

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I'm speaking on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and I've said to you as well that there is always some merit in any position that you take, but the point is that you have to be fair. You don't need to take it unto yourself to dictate to these people with no consultation and no opportunity for input. Clearly this isn't even one of the demands that should be.... What about the economy itself? What about job creation? What is the government doing to improve the climate?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Do you think this is improving the climate?

Mr. Speaker, it's been a long debate; it hasn't been that effective. I would like to say to the House that it is a sad day when members stand on this side of the House, virtually holding this debate by themselves, with hardly any contribution from that side of the House, and find that when it's all over this government is going to come in and blindly demand the members in the back bench to stand up and pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members for their divided attention. I will be opposing the amendments, and I am sure that as time goes on, we will be back here in the new year.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, pardon me for interrupting you, but I would like to ask you if you could bring the Minister of Labour to attention. I think he has made several speeches from his seat, and I think that he should stand up at the close of this debate and try to give this House some kind of accounting for his biased attitude.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I missed that, Mr. Speaker. You will see where it is on May 19.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'll give them a minute. It sounds like it's all over now, Mr. Speaker, and it's safe to commence.

I rise, of course, to speak against this bill.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I would do it regardless. I'm opposed to this type of legislation.

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is a province that has an authoritarian legislative tradition. Traditionally the legislation in this province gives cabinet tremendous discretion. There is very little opportunity in the legislation in this province to allow for effective public involvement in decision-making, for consultation with the public, for legitimate appeal systems, and that type of thing. There's very little opportunity in our legislative tradition for the public to be involved in a democratic way. I suppose that's been one of the problems with the labour-management tradition in British Columbia over the years as well. B.C. has a poor reputation for labour-management relations, probably a bit of it undeserved, because I think even to this day there is still more time lost through accidents and industry-related illnesses than there is through work stoppages. So part of that reputation for poor labour-management relations is ill-deserved, but we definitely have the reputation and the tradition for poor labour-management relations.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think in part it derives from our conservative labour management tradition in this province. In this province management insists on its absolute right to hire and to fire and direct the workforce and to direct capital, and they absolutely insist on that right. I think if you read any collective agreement in the province, Mr. Speaker, you'll find that management's rights in some of the sections of those collective agreements are enshrined, and the right of management to hire and fire and direct the workforce and to direct capital are enshrined subject to the terms of the collective agreement, or those provisions which unions can negotiate, to limit the harshest exercise of management's rights, and that's one of our problems.

One of the problems is that the trade unions in this province also have a relatively conservative tradition that derives from British class society and from the trade union movement in Great Britain, where trade unions never really challenged management's rights, where they knew their place — and their place was to exact a little from management, but always recognizing that management had that right to hire and to fire and to allocate labour and to allocate capital. So I think a part of our problem in this province is that very conservative management and trade union relationship that hasn't changed over the years.

In Europe they have a different tradition. With the involvement of progressive governments and progressive management and progressive trade unions, they have a different trade union-management tradition. Consultative committees have been established, and there's been a kind of a merger between management and labour responsibilities that has resulted in increases in productivity and a concern on the part of both labour and management that productivity does increase and that those countries become much more competitive in world terms.

This new type of labour-management responsibility is now being exercised in the United States, which has come through a serious recession, and its manufacturing industries have come under serious challenge from manufacturing industries in Europe, Japan and other parts of the world. They

[ Page 4753 ]

are changing, in terms of how management and labour relate in those countries. I'll just refer to one paragraph of an article in Time magazine for March 26, 1984: "Detroit's factories are getting their workers closer to what they are making. At the plant where Pontiac builds its stylish Fiero, manager Ernie Schaefer has eliminated one rank of supervisors, forcing responsibility on line workers. The pressure is on, he says, 'to do it right the first time.'" One of the workers, speaking about his job of monitoring the reliability of springs, says he likes that responsibility because it makes his job easier.

There is a merging now, Mr. Speaker, in many parts of the world of management and labour responsibilities. Here in British Columbia we're not having that, because we still have that traditionally conservative management view of management rights and that conservative trade union view of their right to challenge, but only to a certain limit, the rights of management to hire and fire and direct capital and labour. As a result, management has a belief about workers in this province that probably reflects an old and conservative bias. They believe that the workers are lazy, that given the opportunity, they will not deliver the goods, in spite of the salaries they're receiving. That's the reason why we have this whole supervisory level of employees in this province: they're the management police; they're the people who make sure that the workers do what they're instructed to do by management. They make sure they don't go to the washroom more than once every hour, and they make sure that when they do go to the washroom, they don't smoke more than two cigarettes. In the telecommunications industry, if you're an operator in that industry, you have to put a little flag up to say you want to go to the washroom, and there's a supervisor to cut in on your conversations to make sure that you don't use more than three or four words with the customers. There is this kind of supervisory level, a management police force that operates to control labour because they don't believe....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I think we'll have to withdraw that one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the minister will withdraw that remark.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd be happy to withdraw that. But I can't believe what I'm hearing, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: Well, he spent so much time doing it in the heroin trade that I guess he feels he can practise it in the Legislature.

Because of the improvement in labour-management relations in the United States after the recession, they're beginning to eliminate that supervisory level and allow workers more management responsibility, more responsibility for the quality of goods that are being produced. In fact, these provisions are now being written into collective agreements in the United States, allowing a more direct consultative relationship between management and labour in the United States. That's not happening here in British Columbia, where we have that extremely conservative belief in management rights and also the fact that the trade unions over the years have not really challenged management rights. But a new style is developing around the world. It's developing around North America, and in conjunction with a new, more creative trade union leadership, great things are happening in labour management relations.

It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation seems to want to turn the clock back. They're ignoring the good things that are going on and the improvements in labour management relations around the world and around this hemisphere. They are turning back the clock to that time when management believed, in their conservative way, that all workers were lazy and incompetent, and unwilling to put in a day's work for a day's pay. It is unfortunate when a government takes that view, adopts that management bias and puts it in legislation, because it's going to destroy any possibility that we in British Columbia will have an opportunity to take part in those new developments, those innovations that are taking place in labour-management relations around the world. Unfortunately, it sets back labour-management relations in British Columbia for a long, long time.

I had an opportunity a few months ago to talk to a former chairman of the Labour Relations Board who had had many opportunities to read through the Labour Code of British Columbia that was brought down by the NDP government. He said that it was a fantastic piece of legislation; he could not believe that any government in British Columbia, in the kind of labour climate that we had, could bring in such an interventionist — as he called it — piece of legislation. Only the NDP could do it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who are you quoting?

MR. SKELLY: I'm sure you know who the person is. He was a former chairman of the Labour Relations Board. He said that only the NDP could bring down this kind of interventionist legislation which allowed — in a relatively unbiased way — labour and management to argue out their differences, and which had various appeal procedures that allowed resolution of differences. It was respected all over the hemisphere because it was an unbiased piece of legislation. Management was happy with it, labour was happy with it, and disputes could be resolved as a result of this legislation. Even the people who administered it were quite pleased with the way it was established, and were surprised that in the climate that we had in British Columbia, where there was so much confrontation between labour and management, a piece of legislation such as the Labour Code of British Columbia could be brought in and in fact have some useful effect in the province.

[11:30]

But now we have a government that has gone totally the other way. They have adopted the anti-labour bias of that old conservative management style, the belief that workers are lazy and incompetent and won't do a day's work for a day's pay. You believe in the worst of those management biases and are now attempting to write it into labour legislation, which is going to cause serious problems in this province over the next several years if this legislation passes. It will generate more confrontation. Certainly the government's attempt is to achieve decertification of trade unions, to decrease the number of people who enjoy the rights and protections of trade union membership, to eliminate a lot of the benefits that come from trade-union membership in this province.

It's unfortunate that this government has taken sides with the most conservative of the groups that express that type of management bias. When you look at what's happening in the

[ Page 4754 ]

trade union movement, there is a promising change. A new leadership group is emerging — not the old beer belly, chest thumping, union boss type that these people continue to portray across this floor as dominating this party and dominating the trade union movement out there. That's a style of leadership that's fading away. A new style of leadership is coming to the fore in the trade union movement in British Columbia, and I'm sure that this kind of legislation is going to thwart the emergence of that group.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Have you ever belonged to a union?

MR. SKELLY: Yes, the carpenter's union.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: When?

MR. SKELLY: These comments are stupid.

This is a new group and promising group that is emerging within the trade union movement. They'll do anything they can. They'll bend over backwards to avoid a confrontation with management that will result in job action along the lines of a strike or a cutoff of services. If you look at some of the things that have been happening in labour management relations over the last little while, some interesting job actions have been taken to avoid strikes which inconvenience the public, and I use the example of the telecommunications workers and their relationship with B.C. Tel. A few years ago they went on strike against B.C. Tel. Supervisors in the company attempted to run the operations, and they did it very poorly. The public attacked the telecommunications workers for the fact that they were depriving the public of service.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A few years ago, when they had difficulties again with B.C. Tel, the TWU sat in and ran the company themselves. They ran it on their own time, and they ran it better than the supervisors and management. The idea was to demonstrate to the public that they wanted to continue operating the company. They were even willing to do it although they knew they weren't being paid. It was a different kind of innovative job action that didn't inconvenience the public, but it showed the people of the province that they weren't having any success in dealing with management of B.C. Tel. It was a new and innovative kind of trade union leadership trying to avoid inconveniencing the public, yet getting their position across to the public that they wanted management to recognize their demands and to go back to the bargaining table and resolve those demands.

The same thing happened with the B.C. Government Employees Union at Tranquille a few months ago. Rather than walking out and leaving hundreds of profoundly mentally retarded individuals in the care of an inadequate number of supervisors, the BCGEU sat in and on their own time made sure that the needs of those people at Tranquille were looked after. In fact, they improved services to those people as much as they could. In many cases they volunteered their services beyond their eight hours a day in order to make sure that those services were kept up to par or better. I have tremendous admiration for those B.C. Government Employees' Union members who sat in atTranquille and did a fine job. This demonstrated to the public that there was a problem there that they were having with management. Instead of inconveniencing the public in order to demonstrate that problem, they made sure that they did the service they were hired to do and showed the public that they had interest in doing it and not inconveniencing the public.

The independent transit union is doing the same kind of thing in Vancouver against this very government. Rather than going on strike, inconveniencing the public and shutting down their operations, they are bending over backwards to keep that bus system going. They are bending over backwards to show the public that they want to serve them and maintain that service. But they're having difficulty dealing with an extremely conservative management, a management that's under the thumb of the provincial government and refuses to negotiate in good faith with those drivers. They're doing everything they possibly can, bending over backwards to prevent the kind of job action that will inconvenience the public of Vancouver.

An interesting thing happened with the Canadian Union of Public Employees in Kelowna a little while ago. In Kelowna CUPE decided that it was going to be in their interests to promote tourism. They took something like $40,000 of their members' dues, and they put packages together which would encourage people to travel to Kelowna. In these packages they put material from the hotel, motel and restaurant association, and material from the chamber of commerce, and they attracted tremendous public support from people in the Kelowna area. When it came time to negotiate with the CUPE union, the people who were across the bargaining table from them had tremendous respect for what CUPE was doing in a positive way. The public also supported CUPE for what they had done to encourage tourism and economic development in the Kelowna region. As a result, when it came time that negotiations broke down, the Okanagan Mainline Municipal Labour Relations Association was very reluctant to lock them out, because they had a tremendous amount of public support for the positive efforts they were making in promoting tourism in the Kelowna area.

We have a new generation of union leadership growing up that's interested in doing positive things for the people of this province, in changing labour-management relations in a positive way and in keeping people on the job. In fact, where it's possible to promote increased employment, they are doing that. I think this is an exciting new development in trade union leadership. The same thing is happening in management as well in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Management is changing as well, and rather than holding onto those conservative views about what trade union workers are like, they are encouraging more responsibility, and they are giving up more of their management rights to trade unions to encourage more cooperation and greater productivity.

Governments in Europe have taken a totally different tack than, in particular, this government here in British Columbia, which has completely adopted the conservative management strategy. They have assisted both labour and management by removing some of the critical issues from the bargaining table. For example, legislation has been passed in many European countries requiring the establishment of workers' councils in the larger industries, so that such things as mass layoffs and factory closures can be avoided through consultation with workers in the trade unions. Also other things have been taken off the bargaining table. For example, medicare premiums are handled by the government; income-tax

[ Page 4755 ]

based accident compensation programs are handled by the government, as are wage-replacement programs for illness and other reasons, and also pensions and daycare programs. All of those are things that are not negotiable. They are part of the legislation in that country, and they are either provided by the state or must be provided by the factories or organizations in which the workers work. So there are some fairly progressive governments around the world that have sought to reduce the conflicts between labour and management by removing some of the most contentious issues from the bargaining table and also by setting up avenues to negotiate outside of the wage and salary negotiations.

There are promising things happening all over the world, this hemisphere and North America, and yet this government has unfortunately chosen to turn the clock back for decades. It is unfortunate that it is doing it at this time, Mr. Speaker, when there are promising developments in labour and labour leadership. There are promising developments in management's approach to labour-management relations, and I think that what this legislation will do more than anything else is to frustrate those promising developments that are taking place or are about to take place. It is unfortunate that in this province, as a result of the legislation that this government is proposing, we're going to end up seeing labour-management confrontations continue and possibly accelerate over the next few years, as a result of this senseless, ideologically dictated legislation which is not designed to improve labour-management relations, but only to reflect the interests of a small group in management and society which would like to smash trade unions and has an unfortunate bias against trade unions.

I am going to oppose this legislation, of course. I think it sets back the province for years and years and destroys the promise that is emerging in both labour and management of a much better system for resolving labour-management disputes. It's very unfortunate legislation and I certainly oppose it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42(3), the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to respond to a lot of the comments that were made, because most of the comments had nothing to do with the legislation, but we — I mean Mr. Speaker — allowed them to go on for days and days. There are perhaps one or two items that I would like to respond to. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), who hasn't been here for most of this session, came running in to build up his ratings again. I guess he's going to be the Dick Clark of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, yes.

That member really didn't say very much again, except to try to build up his BBMs from the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement — and he'll do that. I would have expected something better for that member's swan-song, but we didn't get it.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I'll go right back to the official critic, because I think when the critic, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), made many of his comments.... I think most of them were repeated by other members of his caucus, and I would perhaps like to comment mostly about what the official critic said in just a couple of areas.

I don't quite understand why there is such a reluctance or a fear about people being able to vote for their own destiny. All we're saying is: "Look, if you want to belong to a union or if you want to ask to not belong to a union, you should have the right to the same democratic process that everyone else in this province has in many other ways." There's nothing wrong with that, Mr. Speaker. If there are some problems which result in terms of mechanics, we will try to fix them. I don't understand why everybody should be against people not being punished for not obeying illegal acts. That doesn't make any sense to me, and we're fixing that. I just don't understand it.

[11:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

One of the things that the critic from North Island said about me, Mr. Speaker, was that I don't know how to get involved in political disputes; I don't know how to insinuate myself into solving political disputes. He said that. Well, I guess because I don't believe in solving political disputes in the press or on television or on the radio stations....

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I just want to welcome the member for the Riviera to the Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, clearly that is a gross abuse of the rules of the House, particularly in the debate that is taking place at this time. I would commend to all members that the interruption of such a debate in such a manner is neither appropriate nor parliamentary and has no place in this House.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why fair and reasonable conditions of membership in unions should be resisted by that side. It isn't resisted in the public, and it isn't resisted by the union members. Workers' rights are extremely important, and what we're talking about here is not only workers' rights but worker democracy — giving the worker the chance to make his or her own decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I expect that the reason the members opposite have not once talked about the Labour Code in their debate is that they don't have any grounds upon which to talk. So they've talked about all kinds of things — including Chile and the southern United States — doo-dah! doo-dah! — the Boer War, and everything else, Madam Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) — but you haven't talked about the Labour Code.

This is an extremely important bill that we have before us. I believe that it is fair. I've said in the beginning that it is fair and even-handed and that it does restore some of the rights to the people who work in this province to their opportunity to govern their own destiny. I stand by that, and I don't think I need to say much more than that.

[ Page 4756 ]

I want to mention one item that several of the members opposite talked about, and that was that they referred to a person who has, I guess, become — somebody referred to him as the "garu;" I think " guru " was the proper word — the guru of labour relations in Canada, Paul Weiler. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), and others, said: "It's really important to maintain the delicate balance of power." Is that correct? Mr. Weiler himself said that he was not really unhappy with most of the changes. He said that he doesn't feel that the proposed act tips the balance of power, and that's what a lot of you rested your case on.

So, Mr. Speaker, I guess I rest my case, and I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 17

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered later today.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, it can't be considered later today without unanimous consent.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is correct. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

Bill 28, Labour Code Amendment Act, 1984, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 22.

YOUNG OFFENDERS (BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

(continued)

MS. BROWN: I would like to carry on, except, in the absence of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) I don't know if there are any other members on the government side who would understand the ramifications of this debate. I think I will let my words stand as they went before and not proceed any further.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On behalf of my colleague the Attorney-General, I close the debate and move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 22, Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House.

[12:00]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 26.

HOSPITALS AMALGAMATION ACT

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the Hospitals Amalgamation Act will permit the government to consolidate the activities of four hospitals in two new societies, one in the greater Victoria area and the other in the New Westminster–Coquitlam area. Mr. Speaker, the act will permit the repeal of two acts responsible for the operation of two of the hospitals and permit the consolidation of the Royal Jubilee Hospital and the Victoria General Hospital in this area and of the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster and the new Eagle Ridge facility in Port Moody. The balance of the Hospitals Amalgamation Act are those legal requirements to permit the transfer of assets, liabilities and such, and also to permit a method whereby the new societies will take ownership of those facilities. In effect, the consolidation has already occurred, yet still awaiting the new legislation necessary. The hospitals have been functioning in the Victoria area with a common board for a period of time, and the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster and the Eagle Ridge Hospital facility have been working together as one for a shorter period of time. This Hospitals Amalgamation Act will provide the legal authority necessary for those boards to carry out their functions.

I now move second reading of the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: As the minister has said, this is really just a formality. It's after-the-fact legislation, because of course we are all aware that this has already taken place. But I do have a couple of questions for the minister that I hope he will reply to when he concludes the debate.

Putting aside the pros and cons of amalgamation, because I'm sure there could be debate from either side on that issue, obviously the minister and his government have decided that the amalgamation of these — in one case major hospitals, the Royal Jubilee and the Victoria General, and also the Columbian and Eagle Ridge.... He's done it. What I'd like to know is, what kind of a study did you do before you did this? Why did you do it? None of these explanations was forthcoming in second reading. I think it would be of interest to the House, even though it's done now, to know what brought the minister and his staff to decide to make what is rather a major move to those who feel that they have lost their autonomy. Those former societies which have now been amalgamated feel that perhaps amalgamation might lead to the loss of community involvement and an autonomy which they had

[ Page 4757 ]

before. I personally do not have a strong feeling for or against amalgamation, but I would feel much happier improving this legislation even after the fact if the minister could tell us what kind of a preparation study was done by his ministry before they moved on it.

We also have a couple of questions on the whole matter of what happens to the societies. Are we going to end up with large appointed boards running the hospital? And as the minister has taken away the local autonomy from the smaller hospital and moved them together, how is he going to manage to keep the feeling of a community-type hospital when he's brought together two large ones — including Eagle Ridge and Royal Columbian, of course? These are questions that the people involved are asking. I also would like to protest that I don't know how much consultation was done by the minister. All I know is that for those involved I imagine it was kind of a traumatic experience, particularly for administrators and probably some board members. Those are a few of the questions that I would like the minister to answer for us.

I would also like the minister to give his ideas or philosophy to us on the present membership of boards. I know that the minister had to step in and put under trusteeship.... I don't know how many it is now, but I certainly know of one hospital where problems arose through people wanting to get on these hospital boards in a one-issue situation. I think we are all aware of what that one issue was. That causes a great deal of concern to many reasonable people who are concerned that a hospital board could be taken over by a group of people concerned with simply one issue. I recall talking to some medical practitioners at certain hospitals that had been subjected to this one-issue type of board being elected. They said they found it most disturbing, because when people choose to get on a board to promote just one issue which they are personally and emotionally involved in, I don't see how they can provide a general service as a board member and show an interest in everything else. It is very seldom that that one-issue person comes on with a realization of the true running and functioning of a hospital. I know this has been of concern, and I think it was a concern for the minister and caused him to make some serious moves.

I am wondering if through amalgamation the minister is also planning to move in and discuss the whole matter of how hospitals are going to be run in the future. I'd thank the minister if he would reply.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, to answer the questions of the member, we have had approximately a year's time with respect to consultation with the hospitals involved. I believe a year to be a fair period of time to discuss this with all the boards concerned. We met frequently with the executive committees of the boards, although not necessarily with the entire board each time. In the New Westminster–Port Moody area it was about a year's time from when we first advanced the concept to when we finally developed it, and similarly in Victoria.

The reasons we feel the hospitals can provide better services by way of amalgamation in some instances is that we believe that a common board will reduce the competition between the facilities in a similar region. They will be able to compete, but they'll probably compete for excellence rather than for specific specialties. I believe the medical profession have offered opinions on that as well. It is frequently far better to have the specialty consolidated in one facility where all of the sub-specialties could be available rather than to attempt to duplicate it elsewhere within the same region. We also believe they can share administrative costs, and there are many other areas of sharing. The hospitals seem to be much more cooperative when they work together in a common board setting.

The one-issue board question. I agree with the member that frequently we've had some difficulties with hospitals over one-issue boards, as they're known. I have spoken to members of such boards and advised them that when they accept the responsibility of being a member of a hospital board, they must represent the community at large. They cannot simply be there for one purpose only. They have to understand the hospital requirements. I pointed out to one member that he was not there because some people in the society voted for him, he was there representing the entire community. They must understand that.

A final comment, Mr. Speaker. Saturday was the twenty-fifth anniversary of the hospital in Surrey and the administrator made it very clear, as did the chief of the medical staff, that when a public trustee, Dr. Ray Le Huquet, was appointed a couple of years ago, they were on the road to recovery in that hospital. Since that time the hospital has been able to resolve almost all of its problems and once again is functioning as a very fine efficient community hospital. So sometimes it's necessary to get somebody in there as a referee.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 26, Hospitals Amalgamation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:11 a.m.