[ Page 4771 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Bids for Systems Corporation. Mr. Stupich –– 4771

Television advertising. Mrs. Dailly –– 4772

Brief on Mainland Magazine publications. Ms. Brown –– 4772

Community involvement program. Mr. Barnes –– 4772

Sale of ICBC general insurance division. Mr. Cocke –– 4773

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills

Mr. Pelton –– 4773

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs

Mr. Blencoe –– 4773

An Act Respecting Central Trust Company And Crown Trust Company (Bill PR402).

Committee stage

On section 1 –– 4774

Mr. Howard

Mr. Parks

Mr. Macdonald

Third reading –– 4775

Labour Code Amendment Act (Bill 28). Committee stage

On section 3 –– 4775

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Mitchell

On section 5 –– 4781

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Brown

On section 7 –– 4783

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cocke

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Sanford

On section 8 –– 4787

Mr. Gabelmann

On section 10 –– 4788

Mr. Gabelmann

On section 11 –– 4790

Mr. Gabelmann

On section 13 –– 4791

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cocke

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Brown

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1984

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we are very privileged this afternoon to have with us on the floor of the chamber the Hon. Brian Peckford, Premier of Newfoundland, and Mr. Tom Siddon, the member of Parliament for the British Columbia constituency of Richmond–South Delta. Newfoundland and British Columbia are the bookends of our great country, and I would say it is the best country in the world in the estimation of everyone in this assembly. Notwithstanding the fact that we are located at the extreme boundaries of our land, we are mightily representative of all Canadians.

Premier Peckford is on a quest of seeking fairness and a capacity for the province of Newfoundland to achieve its full potential within confederation, and we're totally supportive of that fact.

Also in the members' gallery is a group of officials travelling with Premier Peckford, and I would certainly ask all members of the House to give a very warm and rousing welcome to our distinguished visitors. We are delighted to have you aboard, sir.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, some 27 years ago I had the pleasure of spending two years of my life in the province of Newfoundland. As a matter of fact, my eldest daughter was born in St. John's. So on behalf of myself and my family I would like to offer a very warm and special welcome to Brian Peckford, the Premier of Newfoundland.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce today a constituent of mine who has just achieved a new post; he is the newly elected leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia, Mr. Art Lee.

MR. REYNOLDS: In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are a number of my constituents who are here to meet with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) this afternoon. In fact, just about your whole gallery is from West Vancouver. I'm going to take the House's time to introduce them all because they so seldom get over here.

From the West Vancouver–Howe Sound Parents' Association we have Mrs. Susan Brown, Mrs. Pamela Clark, Mrs. Jeanie Ferguson, Mrs. Barbara Howard, Mrs. Alice Jennings, Mrs. Alden May, Miss Shelagh McClenahan, Mrs. Fay McCracken, Mrs. Peggy Marfitt and Mrs. Pat Pearmain. We also have trustee Margot Furk, and we have the principal of Sentinel Secondary School, Mr. Doug Player. They're all from West Vancouver. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Also here this afternoon, from another area of my constituency, that great area of Pemberton, from the Pemberton Secondary Parents' Advisory Group, are Max Halber, Lydia Dennison and Sandra Spetifore. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: From the Malaspina alternative program in Parksville there are 18 students from Grade 11 and college level who are visiting in the precincts today and are in the gallery at this moment. They are accompanied by their teacher Gordon Buzzard. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: Before we adjourn for the supper break, I wonder if the House would make welcome and wish well Dr. Terry Howard, who is the new executive director of B.C. Research and is here visiting our parliament buildings in that capacity for the first time.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are two people who were formerly resident in my constituency and are now in the Langley constituency. I would ask the House to please welcome John and Mary Vertin.

MR. VEITCH: In the event that we have missed anyone in the gallery, I would like to bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

BIDS FOR SYSTEMS CORPORATION

MR. STUPICH: I've been waiting for some time for this opportunity, and I welcome the Minister of Finance. While the House was in recess, the minister announced rejection of all bids for B.C. Systems Corporation and announced that the corporation will continue to be in government hands. Will the minister confirm that the taxpayer will continue to be liable for the $80 million in liabilities as a result of the minister's rejection of all offers?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, without confirming the precise figure mentioned by the hon. member for Nanaimo, quite clearly there is a liability which rests with the Crown and therefore with the people of the province. But it is wrong to draw the inference that with a sale of the Systems Corporation as was originally envisaged the liability would have disappeared with the snap of a finger.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, one would have expected that if there had been a sale there would have been some asset come into the Crown to offset at least some of the liabilities.

The minister also announced that over half of the Systems Corporation business will be directed to private suppliers. Turning over half of the business to private suppliers is turning over an asset. Does that still mean that the public will continue to be liable for the total debt, whether it is $80 million plus or minus a dollar?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to relate the two, because the ongoing contractual opportunities which will be available for the private sector in the systems field will have built into them a certain return to the Crown. Just what that is I cannot identify at this particular point in time. But it is a positive move, and I think it is a move which will, to a significant extent, generate increased activity in the private sector in this very rapidly developing area of individual activity.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty following the minister's logic. It would seem to me that there is not going to be any more activity generated as a result of this. It's true that it will be in the private rather than in the public sector, but I would have thought that if something were

[ Page 4772 ]

being turned over to the private sector there should be some measurable return. Is the minister telling us that the business is going, and we're left with a building that is essentially empty? That's another question I'd like to put later on. We're left with a building that has some tenants; we're losing the business; we're getting nothing at all for the equipment. Yet we're turning all the business over to somebody else who is going to use their own equipment to do the work. Does that mean that we're left with equipment that will be worthless and we still owe $80 million?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not mean that.

MR. STUPICH: I'll ask the minister this question then. We do have a new building. That's agreed to. It did cost us $39 million, according to the financial statement of B.C. Buildings Corporation. What proportion of the building is currently being used, and by whom?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In precise percentage terms of square metres occupied, I'm afraid I don't have that information readily at hand. The member in the preamble to his second set of questions identified the building as being virtually empty. That is not the case. One ministry has located in the building already, and it is expected that other government activities will be placed in that portion of the building which is not required by the B.C. Systems Corporation over time.

MR. STUPICH: I'll accept something less than precise if the minister would tell the House how many floors are currently occupied by tenants. It's a four-storey building, I believe.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that information is readily available in terms of the number of floors. I undertake to provide the member, at the earliest possible opportunity, with the closest approximation of occupied space in the B.C. Systems Corporation building. I can have that information tomorrow.

TELEVISION ADVERTISING

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Labour. Currently appearing on Canadian and American television channels is an advertisement featuring the voice and likeness of the Social Credit member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), apparently making some partisan political arguments about a bill which is presently before this House for debate. Will the minister advise whether any taxpayer moneys have been used in the airing and preparation of these ads?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. DAILLY: Can the minister name any other jurisdiction where standards of government propriety are so lax that partisan debate on a bill before the House would be carried on television at taxpayers' expense? Do you know of this taking place anywhere else by any other government?

[2:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that there is any television program running with my likeness on it which is partisan; far be it from me or any of my impersonators ever to be partisan on television. But we do have a serious responsibility to make sure that the people of British Columbia are informed about the activities of their government and are up to date in the ways in which their government is looking after their interests.

MRS. DAILLY: As taxpayer moneys are being used by that minister to put over his side of the argument on the Labour Code, would the minister be prepared to offer equal time for the contrary view under similar circumstances so that the opposition would have an equal opportunity? After all, we're all taxpayers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I expect the television station might want to offer the member for Burnaby North equal time; I don't know. That would be up to them. There are no partisan statements being made. It's not the opposite side being told on television commercials, it's the people's side.

MRS. DAILLY: Since the NDP got 45 percent of the vote, I don't think the minister can say that he's giving the people's side when he speaks for everyone. If the minister is offering me or our labour critic an opportunity to go on and talk about the Labour Code — it would be our critic — may we therefore bill the Finance ministry?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I didn't make any offers. I said they might want to approach the television station and talk to them about that.

BRIEF ON MAINLAND MAGAZINE PUBLICATIONS

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for a couple of days to ask a question of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), but he hasn't been in the House. So working on the assumption that he has resigned his responsibility for this ministry which he handled so badly, I would like to go to the backup, who is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if he's willing to take it.

The North Shore Women's Centre submitted to the Attorney-General a brief dated May 9 pointing out several specific publications distributed by Mainland Magazine under the ownership of Jim Pattison, which appear prima facie to contravene section 159, subsections (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, as well as the Attorney-General's own guidelines. Can the Attorney-General or the backup for the Attorney-General advise why charges have not been laid against these magazines previously?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the hon. member for her thoughtful question. I shall take the question as notice, make inquiries and report back.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. On previous occasions the minister has indicated that the community involvement program for persons with varying degrees of handicaps and on GAIN, terminated during the restraint program, would be reintroduced. I

[ Page 4773 ]

am asking the minister when that program will be reintroduced, and to what extent it will cover those people who have been applying for it in the past.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and assure him that the commitment made by the government to bring back CIP in one form or another will be honoured. There will be a public statement in the next few days on that, and all details will be shared with the member in his office.

SALE OF ICBC GENERAL INSURANCE DIVISION

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question. Surprise, surprise!

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: A filler! Outrageous! The behaviour of this government, Mr. Speaker, and he calls it a filler.

In the course of making a decision to sell the ICBC general insurance division, what consideration will the minister give the role of ICBC general insurance in providing essential insurance services in areas where the private industry does not assume the risk? We're talking about prior to 1973. Are we going back to those dark ages?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, two things. First of all, in making that decision to divest ICBC of its general insurance division, we obtained from the Insurance Bureau of Canada and its members assurances that no British Columbian would be disadvantaged by the government's getting out of the general insurance field. ICBC doesn't just write all the high risks or possible risks in the province of British Columbia. We write 7 percent of the market, of which some is in the rural areas and some in the lower mainland. Therefore the private insurance companies that write 93 percent of the total insurance in this province are also accepting some responsibility. What we're saying is: why are we in the marketplace competing with the general insurance people when they write 93 percent of the business, and we're the government that makes the laws by which the private sector operates? I for one don't accept that philosophy, and I'm very pleased we made the announcement yesterday to get out of the business.

MR. COCKE: It was embarrassing to them. It was a money-maker in the first place, it was a window on the industry in the second place, and in the third place it has provided an expansion of insurance coverage across the province.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I'll ask my question in due course.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question, please.

MR. COCKE: What mandate does the government have to deprive British Columbians of the locally owned and controlled insurance option they presently enjoy? It's going back.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We won the election, in case you didn't notice.

MR. COCKE: No, the insurance companies won the election; we know that. You're their representative, and always have been.

Anyway, would you give us an answer to that?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll remind hon. members that at question period, in pressing a question, it must be a question, not an expression of opinion, representation, argumentation or debate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member prefaced his remarks by talking about the period prior to 1972-1973. I think it's fair to say that at that time there was a problem, and it was readily identified that there were some areas not being properly served. In the view of the corporation and in our discussions with the Insurance Bureau of Canada and its representatives, we felt assured that those private sector companies, which are run by responsible businessmen and businesswomen, will ensure that people in British Columbia have adequate coverage. I also said very firmly to the members of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in my preliminary discussions with them, that if they don't accept the challenge and if they don't ensure that British Columbians are protected in the general insurance field, then they have to recognize whatever moves the government may make if they fail in that responsibility. I can assure you that they're aware of that as well, Mr. Member, and they have accepted that offer to come back in the general insurance field. We're moving out of it, and, as I said before, we should be out of it.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Pelton, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented Report No. 5, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"That the preamble of Bill PR401, intituled Bill No. 1, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, has been approved and the bill ordered to be reported as amended.

"All of which is respectfully submitted, F.C. Austin Pelton, Chairman."

Mr. Blencoe, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs presented the committee's second report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs begs leave to report as follows:

"The committee has received correspondence from John A. Bovey, dated April 6, 1984, chairman of the public documents committee established under authority of section 3 of the Document Disposal Act, and, having read this submission on behalf of the

[ Page 4774 ]

public documents committee, recommends that, in accordance with the provisions of the Document Disposal Act, approval be given for the destruction of various public documents as listed in the submission to the Public Accounts Committee for 1982 and 1983 insofar as the following ministries of government are concerned: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Labour.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. Robin Blencoe, Chairman."

MRS. JOHNSTON: May I ask leave to make an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon I see one of my constituents. This gentleman is a very involved community worker and is also a very loyal and hard worker for Social Credit. I would ask the House to welcome Zyg Skrupski of Cloverdale.

MR. PELTON: I would also beg leave to make an introduction.

In the members' gallery today is one of many fine school trustees that I had the pleasure of meeting when I attended the B.C. School Trustees Association convention on behalf of the Minister of Education. Her name is Vicki Kuhl, and I would ask all members to make her welcome to the House this afternoon.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill PR402.

AN ACT RESPECTING CENTRAL TRUST
COMPANY AND CROWN TRUST COMPANY

The House in committee on Bill PR402; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I want to put a question basically to all of us and ask why it is that we need to go through the process in a legislative way of dealing with the incorporation of private corporations or private companies, that it would seem.... It may be cheaper for the company to do it this way. There may be some reason for this to occur, but it seems to me that we should be examining our own mechanisms for proceeding with respect to trust companies. Surely if a trust company wants to become incorporated — and that's what is occurring here, in a sense — there needs to be some procedure for the transfer of the business of one company to another. That might more properly be dealt with through the normal letters patent process rather than consuming the time of the House in dealing with the matters. I'm just talking in a general philosophic sense.

At one time in the dim past, I understand the Parliament at Westminster spent most of its time dealing with private bills, demarcating boundary lines between people's property, determining what legitimate children were and all sorts of funny things. But we've moved far beyond that, and this Legislature should be spending its time dealing with the broad question of public business. I simply want to put that forward as something that probably needs to be examined. I do know, of course, that the Legislature established a committee, gave authorization in terms of reference to a committee, a committee with which you are very familiar, that might want to look at this mechanism here and search out some other way of having these companies conduct their business rather than taking up the time of people who should be dedicating their time and effort to public rather than private business.

[2:30]

MR. PARKS: I think it should suffice to say to the hon. member that I appreciate the tenor of his comments, but in fact this legislation will enable the individual private citizens affected not to have to incur tremendous legal expenses by each and every one of them applying for court consent. In this legislative stroke, we are able to, in effect, gain a community-wide approval of the transfer process. So I can understand and concur in the tenor of the hon. member's comments, but the true purpose of this bill is to bring about a speedy resolution of a very unfortunate situation that originally occurred in Ontario.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, further to that question and the answer, the amounts of money saved in terms of the transfer of titles and so forth and the land registry office are probably immense. We're probably looking at $200,000 to $300,000. I don't know what the amount would be. But why should this procedure be available to trust companies? It isn't available to all of the companies out there when they merge or transfer their assets one to the other.

We're giving a very great boon in terms of relief from public fees....

AN HON. MEMBER: Section 6.

MR. MACDONALD: In section 6. We're almost at section 6; it's a very short bill. Have you read the bill? It's very short.

Anyway, it's a very great relief in terms of public revenue. I thought we lived in a time of restraint where the government needed these revenues from trust companies as they do from other companies that have to go to the land registry when they merge and file their titles.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 4775 ]

Bill PR402, An Act Respecting Central Trust Company and Crown Trust Company, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 28.

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 3.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying at the time of adjournment, this change in the Labour Code is opening a loophole. It repeals the old section 5, which said that no person shall use "coercion or intimidation of any kind that could reasonably have the effect of compelling or inducing a person to become, refrain from becoming or continue or cease to be a member of a trade union."

Under the new provisions of the Code there will be some restrictions on a trade union and on members of a trade union, there will be some restrictions on employers; but there will not be restrictions on third parties who could disavow any interest, such as happened in the case of the Association of Commercial and Technical Employees, Local 1728, against "Dr. Pat McGeer," a labour decision of September 26, 1979. They found that there was considerable pressure put on the members of a union called FANDU — the Faculty Association of Notre Dame University — which was a certified union. At the time, the government was attempting to close down Notre Dame University and create a transition to what later became David Thompson University Centre. There were many documented accounts of the minister, the deputy minister, the executive assistant Mr. Jim Bennett, acting on behalf of the minister, in telephone conversations with aldermen, mayors and people — such as Donna Graychick — who were associated with the then Save Our University Committee. They were communicating with Alderman John Neville, Mayor Louis Maglio and others. Over and over again the message was given that....

For instance, in a speech in Nelson on June 1, 1977 — this was a wide open public meeting — the minister said that he suspected that one of the problems in getting other institutions to move in and take over third- and fourth-degree programs — that is, the three major universities — might be that the professors represented by the Faculty Association of Notre Dame University were the only ones in B.C. to unionize. "'Nelson might have to make a choice between FANDU and the university,' McGeer said. 'If FANDU is standing in the way, that should be known.'" In other words, there was a coercion, and that is exactly what the Labour Relations Board found. The minister accepted full responsibility for the statements made by Mr. Jim Bennett and his deputy minister, and by one or two others. It was said also.... For instance, on June 1, 1977, "Mr. Jim Bennett, executive assistant to the Minister of Education, told Terry Peterson, president of the Notre Dame University Student Union: 'If FANDU decertifies there will be third- and fourth-year programs in Nelson next year.'"

On June 2, 1977, the Minister of Education made the following remarks: "None of our existing institutions are interested in FANDU, and I certainly would not wish FANDU upon any of the existing facilities." Later he said: "Universities want to hire their faculty on the basis of merit, not because they belong to a bargaining unit recognized by the Labour Relations Board." The minister's remarks were reported in the Province, the Vancouver Sun, the Nelson Daily News, all dated June 3, 1977. This is evidence from the hearing of the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Chairman, that had the effect.... Testimony was given by the then president of FANDU, Mr. Vincent Salvo, that it put tremendous pressure on them to give up the right to a trade union; in other words, it created a coercion. In spite of the attempts by the minister to hide behind parliamentary privilege, which was rejected, I understand, by the late Justice J. Kirke Smith, and despite other attempts to change the rules retroactively, the board nevertheless proceeded toward a very profound decision. There were objections originally. Quoting from the report, "Dr. McGeer, Hardwick, Bennett and Armstrong objected to the board's jurisdiction to hear the complaint," so they objected to the Labour Relations Board having that jurisdiction. Then Dr. McGeer filed a petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, seeking to quash the board's jurisdictional judgment, and that petition was heard in June 1978 and was dismissed. In his reasons for judgment J. Kirke Smith said — and I'll give the full quotation from the report here:

"The thrust of Dr. McGeer's position before the board and on this hearing before me is the contention that he is protected by the absolute privilege traditionally and by statute conferred on our legislatures from being answerable for the comments attributed to him which are here complained about. The board decided that is not so, and I respectfully and completely agree...."

They were made outside of the Legislature. The notice of appeal to the court of appeal was subsequently filed but was later abandoned by the minister. Thereafter the complaint was heard by the board on its merits.

Mr. Vincent Salvo gave testimony of the pressure that was placed on members of that union, of the fact that of the 23 who were members at the time the closure of Notre Dame was announced, only four were still teaching within the province; that the previous president had suffered heart problems as a result of the anxiety and pressure. The judgment says:

"The statements referred to therein, says counsel for ACTE, are patently coercive and intimidating. Coercion within the meaning of section 5, so the argument goes, can be either economic or social in nature."

Indeed it was social as well as economic. In fact, as a result of some of that I think the marketability of some of these skilled professors was diminished and their job options were somewhat restricted, although most of them have found fairly decent employment or alternative employment. Some of them are practising law and doing other things like that. But the fact is that counsel referred to the testimony of Vincent Salvo, the president of FANDU at the time of NDU's closure, and he said:

"...that all of the statements complained of became well known to the faculty at NDU; that the public campaign against FANDU had a 'chilling effect' on the faculty members, some of whom began actively to discuss decertification; that they faced the might of the government coming down hard on them when they simply wanted to teach and do research;

[ Page 4776 ]

that the former president of FANDU had suffered stress-related heart attacks; and that of the original 23 faculty only four remain involved in education in this province. Salvo was not cross-examined by counsel for Dr. McGeer, and we are asked to apply the usual rule and accept the testimony as factual."

[2:45]

It talks about a balance in terms of free speech, that people certainly do have a right to speak out. It says:

"...the concept of free speech has traditionally been seen as a necessary protection of the individual from the state, not vice versa. It was never intended, so counsel argues, that a minister of the Crown would shield himself behind a free speech argument in order to emasculate or attempt to emasculate individual rights under a statute, e.g. the Labour Code. In any event, free speech is not absolute. It is always subject to statutory encroachment. Here the Labour Code has struck a necessary and delicate balance between the right to organize on the one hand and freedom of speech on the other. It is submitted that Dr. McGeer and his officials did not respect that balance, and it should be so declared."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment, please. Even when quoting documents one should avoid mentioning the name of a member of this assembly, and I'm sure we can refer to the member by the riding or portfolio and remain quite clear in the argument.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm reading a document.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Using one device, though, to do something which is not parliamentary is still unacceptable.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, with all respect, I find it a very uneven-handed application of that rule. I hear many of the sycophants of the opposition lauding "Premier Bennett." You're not in agreement? I'm not trying to be derogatory; I'm not editorializing. I'm just reading fact from a finding of the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not trying to be difficult either, hon. member, and I appreciate your comments.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, a great deal is said in this very lengthy finding, which goes on for some 40 pages. I've glossed over the first 23 in the five minutes we've been going on this. But this is the section which is going to prevent this. It has been very clearly pointed out that this section as it has been interpreted applies to any person, not just to unions or employers, and not just to agents of employers. It is also very clearly found in this judgment. At the bottom of page 25: "First of all, in sharp distinction from, for example, section 3 of the Code...." In sharp distinction from section 3: that is the form that's going to be taken on now in the amended form of the Labour Code. In other words, everything will really be like section 3 in the present Code. It applies to any person and not just to employers or trade unions. So that is what we lose if this current effort to repeal section 5 of the Code goes through.

"Section 5 is an umbrella prohibition against any conduct reasonably likely to coerce or intimidate employees in the exercise of this fundamental freedom, whether the conduct is by the employer, a union or an outsider." That's the thing we're going to miss. No matter what the interpretations are of what's contained in section 3, or what's going to be contained in the new section 5, the outsider is going to be left to run free, rampant, irresponsibly, and immune to any kind of prosecution.

It is also said in here that the language of section 5 is not materially different from that contained in section 6 of the old Labour Relations Act; that is the old Code which existed prior to 1973 or 1974. So we're really going back a long way in terms of the rights we're taking away. We're not just repealing rights that were granted or won by labour and included in an NDP-introduced Labour Code. These are rights and interpretations that existed prior to the NDP ever becoming government: that is, under the old Social Credit government. That's how far back we're going.

The conclusion of the board was that "Some forms of social pressure, if sufficiently persistent... will constitute a violation of that provision if they have or could reasonably have the effect of compelling or inducing an employee to exercise the freedom guaranteed by section 2(l) in a particular way." They say that "there evolved what can only be described as a program of public coercion, the clear purpose of which was to mount intense and irresistible community pressure on the FANDU membership to give up that membership." I suppose I was also under pressure to cut and run from 23 individuals who were in trouble, but I didn't. I always gave them support. While I might have had some differences with some of them as individuals, I felt they had certain rights, and they were well within their rights to fight for them.

There was, however, considerable community pressure, and I certainly felt it. It was very reassuring to know that there was a Labour Code, that there were rights and remedies, and one could point toward legal remedies. One could counsel that people give the law a chance. But if the same circumstances were to arise, if this section 3 goes through, killing section 5 of the present Code, those remedies will not be there. I think we're opening a loophole that probably hasn't existed in this province for over 20 years. The board accepted that "the statements must have had the chilling effect alluded to in the testimony of Salvo" — that is, Dr. Vincent Salvo.

"There can be little doubt that an employer who tells his employees, 'Quit your union or I will shut the business down,' has committed an unfair labour practice. Although..." — there's that name again, Dr. Blank; maybe I can put it like a Victorian novel would — "and his officials were not acting as an employer, we agree with the argument that the positions they held afforded them a far greater degree of influence over the FANDU membership than ordinary strangers to the employment relationship."

So this section creates, I think, some very dangerous areas for interference. I've been aware, for instance, of two occasions when the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) has interfered. I believe once was in the case of some supermarket in his riding; I think it was Overwaitea. People informed me that a minister of the Crown came in and talked about them and about their union certification — whether they were applying for certification or decertification, I don't know. That's been reported to me, and now I hear of other reports dealing with some sort of fast-food outlet or something — the same person. That is an unfair labour practice,

[ Page 4777 ]

and it should not be permitted. It really should not be permitted when a person is a minister of the Crown; it's even worse, I think, than an employer. In many ways — in keeping with the conclusions of the Labour Relations Board decision — a person like that is sometimes in an even greater position to influence a decision.

At any rate, they reached the conclusion and said: "It is our conclusion that in the manner and to the extent earlier indicated, a violation of section 5 did indeed occur, pursuant to section 38 of the Code. We so declare." Other reasons for judgment were summarized, and it was signed by Donald R. Munroe — not, I think, as chairman — and Alcott and Smith as members of that board. I think these are rather respected people, usually by both sides, people normally held in pretty high respect.

This is the kind of decision that opens a tremendous loophole. Somebody stepped beyond the proper bounds. Instead of letting them have their punishment, I suppose we give them their revenge, by killing that offending section of the act which compelled a minister of the Crown to behave as, I guess, all persons were expected to behave. It had that humbling, levelling effect, which might be an insult to one who has enjoyed a lofty position for some number of years; but it has a reassuring effect on the general public of British Columbia to know that the law is equal to all.

So, Mr. Chairman, for that reason I certainly do not support this amendment. I am not reassured by the minister and the comment he made on section 2 that everything remains as it always was. If everything remains as it always was, you could have the safety of some redundancy. Section 5 was not all that long; it's not that many lines, and it wouldn't take up that much more paper, but it would certainly reassure people a great deal more that we have equal justice for all.

MR. MACDONALD: First I want to be sure that I do understand the section correctly. It seems to say that notwithstanding this dispensation of dues, when somebody signs up in terms of a certification application, that person would have to make up initiation fees and one month's dues — and possibly two months' if the certification application took some time — which would mean the applicant looking at $50 or $60 sometimes. If that is right, why is that kind of roadblock being placed in the face of people who seek trade union protection?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think it would be up the union and the member to decide how and when they would pay their dues and initiation fees. What this seeks to amend is the Christmas-gift idea of a dollar: "We're only going to charge you a dollar to sign up for the union."

MR. MACDONALD: Temporarily.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, not temporarily, on a permanent basis. What we're saying is that it's got to be upfront from now on that the members know exactly what their dues are and exactly what their initiation is. I assume that then the decision could be made about how and when they're paid.

[3:00]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it may be that the dollar under the constitution of a particular union would be all that member would pay until the union was certified, because he has no protection up to that point. But what were the abuses? What was the problem that caused you to say that a new member who still hasn't got certification for his particular business where he works, who has still not got the benefit of any union contract, must pay full fees right from the word go, without any assurance that he's going to have union protection? What's the reason for that? Am I not stating it correctly? Say it's in the XYZ enterprise and there are 20 employees and the union fees are $25 a month and there's an initiation of $25. You're asking that person who signs the application in a union organizing drive to put up the $50? Why not? That's what the section seems to say to me.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, it's up to the person and the union to decide how and when the fee, whatever it is, will be paid. What the section says is that what has happened in the past is that when an organizer.... I'm not saying this is widespread, but it does happen and has happened. An organizer goes into a plant or a store or whatever it is and says: "Look, I'm only going to charge you $1 if you sign up now." And to the other guy, who says, "I don't really want to sign up, " he says: "Look, I'm only charging $1 now, but if we're successful in our drive, we're going to charge you $50." That's not fair. It should be upfront.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it is. They understand that.

MR. McCLELLAND: No. It's used as a coercive tool, and that's what we're attempting to stop. As for whether or not the person has to reach in his pocket and take the money out at that time, that's not up to us and not up to this legislation.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, one of the requirements when there is a union drive to organize a place is that the members must be in good standing in the trade union. Here you say the trade union can't apply a different fee or initiation structure with respect to those people who are being signed up in an organizing drive. To me, that means they've got to be in good standing in the trade union and they've got to pay all that money upfront. There's no abuse. You say they can still pay $1 or $3, as they can under the Canada Labour Code and as they could in British Columbia all these years. Is that what you're saying? I don't think that's what the wording of the section says. It seems to me that you're saying here that you can't discriminate before or after an application for certification in terms of fees or initiation fees. The person has got to be a full member right from the time he applies as part of a group of employees applying for certification. If so, you're putting a tremendous financial roadblock in the way of organization.

MR. GABELMANN: In his response the minister said it's used occasionally — he didn't use that word — not always but occasionally, in effect, as a coercive tool by the organizing drive. If in fact it is a coercive tool, there are other sections of the act that deal with coercion. Unions are prohibited in the law from using intimidation or coercion. We've been through that debate this morning. So if it's a coercive tool, it's covered and you don't need it here.

Dealing with the issue as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the union has a three-month period in which the organizing drive can take place. They go in, they sign people up, people make a commitment in writing to join the union. They pay

[ Page 4778 ]

usually $1 — sometimes it's a different amount — but $1 is common. They receive in that period no benefits for their membership fee. They receive no benefits for their initiation fee.

Should the application be successful and certification is granted, then they and all the other employees who are covered by that certification, starting on the date of the granting of certification, pay the full monthly fees and the initiation fees. The people who chose to sign a card are out a dollar. That's what it cost them to demonstrate their commitment. The people who did not choose to sign save that dollar. Nevertheless they get the benefits that come from the certification and a subsequent collective agreement. But they both pay the initiation fees upon the completion of the certification process. They both pay full membership dues. Under this proposal the minister is saying that those people who want to demonstrate a commitment to the union have to pay the full monthly fees in advance of certification. If the campaign takes three months, my interpretation would be that they would pay $75 if it's a $25-a-month fee plus the initiation fee. Often the initiation fee covers a whole variety of other benefits that may not come to them. I suppose the minister could say that that money could be returned, but the act doesn't say that. The fact is that this section is designed whether the minister knows it or not, to put a financial impediment in the way of unions organizing. People who need unionization are poor people for the most part; they don't make very much money. That's why they're interested in forming a union. If you tell people to put 50 bucks up front, and the campaign takes three months before certification is granted, they put in a total of perhaps $100. People are going to say: "I can't afford it." That's the way it reads. If the minister doesn't intend that, then he should write legislation stating what he intends.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, it doesn't say that in the legislation. The legislation doesn't care whether they pay it today, next week or next month. What the legislation cares about is that everyone is treated fairly and equally. The case the member for North Island stated, in which full initiation and membership fees are paid sometime in the future by everybody, is not what's happening. Quite often what happens is that the guy who signs the card, and obeys whatever the dictates of the organizer are, pays the dollar, and that's all. But the rest of the members, who perhaps haven't signed the card, pay the full initiation fees and the full membership fees once the certification has taken place, and that's not fair. What we're saying is: treat everyone fairly. The legislation doesn't deal with whether the money is paid up front; the legislation doesn't address itself to that.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, if they apply for a vote, don't they have to be members in good standing in the trade union and show 45 or 55 percent — whatever it is.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. MACDONALD: They don't?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't see why.

MR. MACDONALD: They used to have to be. If you've changed something it's news to me.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I stand to be corrected by my staff, but I don't know where the act requires them to be members in good standing of a trade union. The act requires that the board be persuaded that a majority of the people in an appropriate bargaining unit wish to apply for a representation vote, and that's really all.

MR. MACDONALD: Following that same point, section 39 is the usual section whereby you apply for certification. It says: "A trade union claiming to have as members in good standing...." You can't be in good standing now without being paid up in your dues. How come you're not in good standing unless you do that?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: This act doesn't go into the affairs of a union in that way. The act says "claiming to have as members in good standing," and I assume that the union itself can decide under its constitution who is in good standing at any particular time. I believe that the board requires only that a $1 initiation fee be paid in order for a member to be in good standing. That's a board regulation at the present time. We're not changing that. All we are changing is that everyone must be charged the same fee for initiation and for membership. They can't say that one person who has signed the card in advance will get in for $1, but because you were naughty and didn't sign the card, you're going to pay $60. That's all we're saying.

MR. GABELMANN: I think this exchange demonstrates the problem we've got in this bill. First of all, the minister said that you don't have to be a member of the union.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Claiming.

MR. GABELMANN: If I claim to be a member in good standing of the NDP but I haven't paid my dues, I'm not a member in good standing. It's the same in any organization.

The minister then went on to say that the board will be able to determine that having paid a dollar means you're a member in good standing. But when you read section 7 of this bill, which will amend the representation vote before certification, it says: "...not less than 45 percent of the employees in the unit were members in good standing of the trade union making application...." Then if the trade union has as its rules that in order to join a union in a campaign you only pay a dollar and that makes you a member in good standing, and once the certification is reached you then pay the regular fees as does everybody, that's one thing. That's not what we're saying here. Go back and look at this wording in section 3(4): "where a trade union charges, levies or prescribes different initiation fees, dues or assessments...." Let me do the reverse argument just to see if this gets through. The person joining the union is going to have paid a discriminatory fee because he will have paid one dollar more than the person who didn't join the union in the organizing drive. That's an effect of this.

Mr. Chairman, this is important because on first perusal this section, in my mind, requires that whatever the monthly union dues are and whatever the initiation fee is must be charged in an organizing campaign. The minister shakes his head. Read me the words where what I'm saying is not true and I'll be delighted to sit down.

[ Page 4779 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there are no words which say what he says. We can back and forth like this for a week and a half, but the dollar referred to, which is the board practice, is a down payment on the future dues and initiation fees. If what happened in the community was the way the member for North Island describes it and that after a successful certification drive everybody paid the same, we wouldn't need this legislation. But that is not what happens in the community. In fact, in some instances there are discriminatory fees charged based on whether or not you were an active part of the membership drive. When that happens it's clearly discriminatory. That's what we want to stop. Look at the dollar as just an expression of being a member in good standing, which the board accepts. All we're saying is that everybody who is a part of that appropriate bargaining unit should pay the same fees and not be discriminated against.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, just so that when this issue is dealt with, as it no doubt will be, later on.... Let me see if I understand what will happen in an organizing drive. It will still be legal for a union, in the minister's opinion — I'm trying this on; you can agree or disagree — in an organizing drive to sign individuals up for a dollar, described as a down payment on both their membership initiation fee and on their first monthly dues, as long as every employee in that unit pays the same amount for the first month following certification in respect of the monthly membership fee and also the same initiation fee, with the exception that the person who signed up during the organizing drive pays a dollar less because he's already paid a dollar. Does that sum up the minister's interpretation of this section?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: By George, you've got it.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm glad we have extracted that, and I want Hansard to note that the minister agrees with that summary, rough as it may be, of what this means, so that there is no misunderstanding whatsoever about what is required in an organizing drive and so that employers don't point to this section and say to their employees: "Look, this isn't even legal the way they're doing it. You have to pay $50," or whatever the amount will be. The minister is agreeing that the dollar down payment signalling an intention to join the union is still appropriate as long as in the first month after certification every person covered by that certification who is a member of that union or whatever pays the same amount.

[3:15]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I am content with the minister's assurance too. I'm very concerned about the language, because if somebody goes to work when there's already a union agreement and he reports in that plant, he obviously has to pay his full dues and initiation right then and there. That sounds discriminatory as opposed to somebody else who has to be in good standing for the union. You say it isn't going to be so, and I don't think you've worded it very well, but I accept your assurance that if it isn't so you'll come back and amend the legislation.

MR. GABELMANN: Can I take another tack now on this section? I am still not completely satisfied with the third party involvement in unfair labour practices. I guess I want an indication from the minister as to whether or not he intends that uninvolved parties — uninvolved in the sense that they're not acting on behalf of the union or the employer — can now not be charged with an unfair labour practice. Is that the intention of the minister?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know how far you'd go with that. The object of the Labour Code is to regulate and to try and make as peaceful as possible the relations between an employer and an employee, particularly those who have a collective agreement in place or want to have a collective agreement in place. It seems to me that those are the areas where most protection is needed. How far down the line do you go? Can we stop you in this Legislature from saying that you think somebody's been a bad employer because he did something to his employees? Can we stop the newspapers from commenting on labour disputes? Can we stop the radio hotliners from...? We're going to dig deeply into the freedom of speech in this community if we go as far as that member seems to want to go. If that's the question that I'm being asked, I don't agree that we should go that far. I do believe, as I said in the previous section, that we have made it very clear now what an employer can and cannot do. We've made it very clear what a union can and cannot do, and should they violate that, I guess they do it at their own peril.

MR. GABELMANN: Again the minister wants to move it into the area of labour disputes. We're not talking about labour disputes. We're talking about organized unfair labour practices in organizing drives or in decertification campaigns — same principle. The way the legislation will now read, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications was not committing an unfair labour practice. The Minister of Municipal Affairs was not committing an unfair labour practice in the Pizza Hut matter. To take it outside the realm of this chamber, because it's a broader issue than that, one of the things that I, as an MLA, am absolutely scrupulous about is to make no comment — pro, con or indifferent — about any aspect of an organizing or a decertification guide. That could be perceived to be — no matter if I intended it neutrally or not — interference in that matter.

There is no preclusion any longer under these amendments. We will have a situation where organizations will form. There are people in this province who don't like unions and who would like to defeat organizing drives, even though they may not be acting on behalf of — as the language of the Act refers — a particular employer. Those people will be allowed free range to interfere in either an organizing drive or a decertification process without any recourse to the Labour Relations Board, because they are not acting on behalf of that employer. They are acting on behalf of their political belief.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: My staff just reminded me that I should have probably raised this in the previous section. With your permission, the legal advice that we have is that section 381 of the Criminal Code does extend into the field of labour relations and covers coercion or intimidation by a person, which was formerly covered under section 5 of the Code.

MR. GABELMANN: So what? We're not talking about coercion or intimidation, as those words are defined. We're talking about influence. There is a big difference. I don't know 381 of the Criminal Code. We can belabour it forever, and I don't have any intention of doing that. I think it is quite

[ Page 4780 ]

clear that representations were made on behalf of, if not by, the Minister of Universities and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to allow them to involve themselves in these kinds of matters. That's why we have these amendments.

I want to ask another question. I have legal advice from lawyers — a firm I have some confidence in — who state: "In our view, section 5 interferes with the internal affairs of trade unions to such an extent that it may" — and they use the word "may"— "breach the freedom of association protections under the Charter of Rights." Has that question been referred to legal counsel within the government?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, not specifically, but certainly it's a matter that has come up for discussion on a number of occasions. As a lay person, I find it very hard to believe that under a freedom of association rule you would.... I assume you're talking about the prohibition of a union to fine or otherwise penalize a member for refusing to take part in an illegal action, and I would find it very hard to believe that the Charter of Rights would ever contemplate that anyone should have the right to discipline another person, whether they're a member of an association or not, for refusing to break the law. That's really all we're saying.

MR. GABELMANN: On the surface, it's fair enough, Mr. Chairman, but unfortunately with these amendments all the loose ends aren't tied up. For example, a person refusing to handle goods that are declared hot prior to a declaration, presumably under section 90 of the act — it could be elsewhere, but presumably under section 90 — where no declaratory judgment has been made by the Labour Relations Board in advance but is then made subsequently — as I read the Code when it will be amended — is in effect going on strike. A refusal to handle hot goods is a strike, in effect. This is the way this is going to work. Now if that happens, what's the status of that member in that case?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There wouldn't be a status at that point in time, because it would not have been established whether the act was legal or illegal. I would assume that if there was the kind of dispute that the member refers to, and someone felt that that dispute was an illegal dispute, the normal practice is for the employer to go to the Labour Relations Board and ask for a ruling. If the board ruled that the dispute was legal, and one of the members of that union had, in fact, refused to do something in advance of that, then I assume the union would have the right to discipline under its own bylaws or constitution. If the board ruled that it was illegal, what we're saying here is that the union would then not have the opportunity to discipline that employee, having found that the action was illegal.

MR. GABELMANN: Under the new picketing sections, prior to secondary picketing you are required to get approval from the board before you can set up the picket line. No similar sections relate to hot declarations. Presumably there is case law which states that hot declarations are a form of secondary picket, but I don't know. It's not clarified at all in these amendments. If a union member refuses to handle hot goods, or because a strike will be lost without establishing a picket line immediately prior to a chance for a board to make a decision, presumably that union member will be breaking a law. His partner decides to anticipate, on the other hand, and goes against the union policy. Under this ruling, even though the decision would be made later by the board, the union cannot discipline that second member for refusing to participate in that secondary boycott or in that hot declaration or in fact in that flying picket line. Right?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, yes, that's correct, and I don't think we'd want them to. The employer would have to first make the application — and I'm reminded that it is under section 90 that the employer would make the application — and it would only be following that. Presumably under all union constitutions that I know of, there is some method of justice in which there is a trial or a hearing of some kind or other, and nothing could take place until that happened anyway.

MR. GABELMANN: Fair enough. I think we agree about what the implications are. What that means, Mr. Chairman, is that strikes or lockouts in the small industrial sector of our economy will last for a long time, because the only way you can beat those strikes is with flying picket lines and with secondary boycotts that have to be put up within minutes so that you can exert pressure on the employer. I'm sneaking into a debate on principle, and I will avoid that. I think the minister and the people who helped him prepare these amendments fail to understand that that prohibition on a member to go along with the majority of his colleagues in a particular action — and the prohibition is there, and a prohibition against the union too in terms of all kinds of penalties — will mean that strikes that might ordinarily be settled quickly will drag on interminably because the employer will have escape hatches in terms of the ability to carry on selling his particular product or service.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member is really saying: "Hurt anybody you want and hurt them as much as you want." It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not, just hurt them, because you want one employer to give in. That's really what you're saying. Yes, we are attempting to correct that under this legislation.

[3:30]

MR. GABELMANN: Just to clarify it, that's not what I'm saying. I think there have to be rules, obviously. But if you have to get permission before you can set up a picket line, you've got nothing, because the truck is gone.

In any event, let's leave that alone for the moment. I just make the point in order to demonstrate yet again that here's another section that tips the balance remarkably.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The principle of section 5, if there is a principle in a section, is that the government wants to interfere in the internal affairs of unions in a way that is unprecedented in Canadian labour law. I'm curious to know why, in a recently adopted statute in this province — the Companies Act — the government is quite content to not impose the same kinds of prohibitions as to what management can do to shareholders. I've gone through sections 141, 148 and 149 of the Companies Act to see if there's some even-handedness. In fact, there isn't. Every act of a director is valid. No limitation or restriction on the powers or functions of the directors shall be effective against the person who does not have knowledge of the limitation or restriction. There is virtually unlimited

[ Page 4781 ]

power for treatment of shareholders by management, and no desire on the part of the government to restrict their behaviour in the same way that they're saying the behaviour of trade unions should be restricted.

I acknowledge that the situations aren't entirely parallel, in terms of the Companies Act and the labour act, but what the government is saying in this legislation is that they don't believe the trade unions are mature enough or democratic enough to run their own affairs. In fact, they're a hell of a lot more democratic than any company I know of in this province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, on the day that the member for North Island brings me the first case of a company which has taken one of its shareholders to court in a kangaroo court and fined that shareholder, and given him other punishment for doing something illegal, I'll recommend to my colleagues that we change the act.

MR. MITCHELL: It's interesting to sit back and listen to the various legalistic and academic arguments, and then to the blatant remarks the minister came out with when he referred to the problem that I still have — although I spoke about it in an earlier section — regarding taking out the present section 5 that pinned down the idea of intimidation and coercion. The minister said very blatantly: "Oh, that's covered by the Criminal Code. It's all right for the employer; he'll be charged under the Criminal Code." But he insisted and demanded, and they steamrollered it through, that that section he now blatantly says is covered by the Criminal Code must be in there to control the trade union movement.

As I said yesterday in second reading, union busting is a million-dollar industry. We in society do not want to see the return of the goon squad and the union-busting tactics of large companies. As it said in articles I read yesterday, it's a hundred-million-dollar business in North America to bust unions, to decertify unions, to oppose certification. We have to have some control over that whole society, not only one segment of it. We can't afford to take that section out. If he insists, we can bring in additions to section 5, but we can't delete the present section 5, which pins down coercion and intimidation of anybody — anyone who may be hired indirectly, who may come in from an eastern company, who may appear on the docks. If you read the history of the trade union movement and organizing workers, the goon squad was employed by both sides.

I say that we can't afford to go back to it. Let's go back to some sanity in this province. Let's go back to some openness. Let's go back to some cooperation. Let's bring into the Labour Code something that is going to encourage cooperation and not have a double standard. You have a double standard when you say that in one section we don't need it because it's in the Criminal Code, but in another section, we need it to control the trade union movement.

I thought it was quite interesting when he was talking to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). He said it's unfair if some person gets into the union for $1 and doesn't pay the whole initiation fee. But he hasn't the same legislation on the books to control private industry. Every day of the week you read in the paper that if you sign a contract and buy something before the end of the month, you get it at a cheaper rate; if you sign a mortgage now, the rates will be cheaper. These are business practices. They're all part of business practice and the administration of a business is a business practice. The running of a trade union is a business. The breaking and destroying of a trade union is a business.

So let's make sure that we do have legislation that is equal, that is fair, that when it ends up in court — which a lot of these sections will eventually do, or before a labour board.... When they go through the reports of the debates in Hansard, some of these fears that a lot of us are expressing now — the interpretation that is put on it as you go down the line; and there is a different interpretation when it's read in its very narrow, legalistic manner and not interpreted the way the minister does in the debates.... I find the offhand remark that it's not important for the business community to have section 5, to give protection for the general public, that anyone can come in and coerce as long as he's not a member of the union.... That's not important because that's covered by the Criminal Code. But he insisted in an earlier section that it has to be in there to control the trade union movement, which I think is blatantly unfair and a double standard.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. GABELMANN: First of all, I want to ask the minister if his intention in this section, amending section 40 of the Code, is to open another door for what is in effect raiding.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Raiding? No.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister answers that no, it is not his intention to open another door for raiding.

Let me cite an example. If an industry in which the employers bargain collectively has within its ranks three or four different unions and the employers decide that one of those unions is their choice to bargain with in the entire industry, what would prohibit them from asking, in concert with that one union, that one union to apply under section 40 for multiple-employer certification? Because of the desire on the part of the organization of employers to accomplish that goal, all of the employers agree. Right? So we take a vote. When you read the section, the vote is taken by every person who is not a member of the union. Presumably this would be the trade union making the application. It is not likely, but theoretically it is possible to think of situations where those members voting, who would include in the bargaining unit any who might not be organized, and that's possible....

All those represented by the other unions could vote to in effect have one certification, and the union making the application would be granted the certification for the entire industry, despite the fact that there may be components of that industry in which the workers prefer to have another union. I acknowledge it's theoretical and not very likely to happen often, but in reading this and consulting with the few people that I've had a chance to talk to about this particular section, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible. I'm not going to name an obvious industry, but it may come to the minister's mind quickly. That could happen as this is written and as I understand it, and I would appreciate it if the minister would help me to understand this better.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the scenario that the member puts forward could happen

[ Page 4782 ]

under this legislation. If there is an allegiance to a specific union, all of the employees would have the right to vote on whether or not to be represented. I assume that you couldn't take a dummy union and have a phony vote in that way, because everybody has the right to vote, if I understand the member correctly. Really all this does is prevent this section from being used as a tool for organization. It means that everybody must consent — both the employees and the employers — before this section can apply. It cannot apply against the wishes of either or both parties.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, 5(a) establishes a new subsection (2): "Where an application is made under this section and the board (a) is of the opinion that the unit is appropriate for collective bargaining, and (b) determines that all the employers of the employees in the unit consent to multiple employer certification" — so far that is the situation I've described — "it" — the board — "shall order that a representation vote be taken among the employees not already represented by the trade union at the time application under this section was made...."

So we have an industry in which there could be three or four unions certified at different establishments within that industry. We theoretically could have some non-union establishments within that industry; everybody except the members of the applicant union would have the right to vote, as I read those words. Right?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that the member go back to section 40, which says "a trade union" which makes application, and that's the trade union that's referred to in this section.

[3:45]

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to be able to establish in this discussion, Mr. Chairman, my initial premise that I believe this section can be used for raiding purposes. Where there is an agreement between an employer or an employer's organization, and all of its component members, and a union within that particular industry — and more likely it would have to be the union with the majority of the employees in that particular industry — it is theoretically possible for that union to make application under section 40, because it says: "A trade union claiming to have as members in good standing a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining...." That's the entire industry. It may be the majority union; there may be two or three minority unions and some unorganized, and for the purposes of the industry they may persuade all of their members not to file an objection, and therefore the application would proceed.

The majority union would probably make the application. If — and there's a big if, I grant you — the majority of people voting, and these are the union members in the other unions and the possible non-union people there.... If the certification were broader it could include some previously excluded people. If that's what the board determined would be the new unit, it's possible technically to use this section as a raiding section.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: My staff probably agrees that it is possible, but raiding is not against the law in British Columbia. I guess it is possible, because section 39 also applies to this section which is the area in which that certification is sought normally. Technically, the member is correct: it could be used for that purpose. I'm not so sure that would be the most preferred way for any union to attempt to displace another union.

MR. GABELMANN: I agree that it wouldn't be the most preferred way, but I wanted to establish that the way it is written this section could be — although it's not likely to be — used as a raiding section. I have no problem with the concept of people having the right to change unions, obviously, but it seems to fly in the face of the stated intention of the minister to try to further the establishment of the relationship between individuals in a workplace and their employers. I guess there's some nervousness on my part about what the minister's overall intentions are in this respect, given his TV interview one day in which he talked about the desirability of closer relationships in bargaining between employees and their employers — seemingly a direction different from that established in the accreditation section which comes later. I'm just curious about what's on the minister's mind. Some of these sections really hint at future activity.

Why the absolute requirement that every employer participate? Why not discretion to the board?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I guess it goes back to the heart of the amendment, and that is that the whole idea behind many of the changes in the amendment is to make sure that people have the right to have a representation vote before they have either an organization imposed upon them or one taken away from them. In this instance, under the current legislation, it would have been possible for an organization to be imposed against the wishes of one of the parties. That's what we're attempting to correct.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put something into this debate. I get the feeling from the members opposite that most of the will of the employers is not well motivated. In fact, it is suggested that there are evil motives that employers have. I suggest to you and everyone else in the room that that is not so. There are large numbers of employers with few or many employees who, in fact, use the collective bargaining system well and effectively and will retain it. The motives given to employers generally, by the arguments I hear, are not ones that I accept as a citizen, an MLA or an employer. I do not see subversion in the bill at all. As I see it, if the members of a given bargaining unit wish to trade representation, that is their right. Those in management or unions that would oppose the will of the members will feel their wrath. I would not impugn the motives of either labour or management on this one.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't have much problem with the member for Vancouver South's comments. If every employer was like most employers, particularly the larger ones, we could probably do without a Labour Code. The whole thing could be done voluntarily, which, it seems to me, might fit well into the philosophical.... The problem is that when we deal with these things we have to deal with the "worst case" scenario.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On both sides.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd have no problems with that. I wish the government could agree to that.

[ Page 4783 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's the content of the bill.

MR. GABELMANN: I wish the member for Penticton would go back to sleep.

What we're saying here is that the majority of employees in a bargaining unit established by the labour board as a bargaining unit appropriate for bargaining use section 40 for application if one employer says no. Is that right? The minister nods his head. Why? Let me phrase the question more fully then; I was trying to be brief. On the one hand, why would the minister deny the right of the majority of employers within that bargaining unit to exercise the majority right to have a union organized; on the other hand, why would he deny the right of perhaps a potentially overwhelming majority of workers in that industry — which has been defined as a bargaining unit — for multiple employer certification under this section? I don't understand what his motives are.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can't explain it any more than I did earlier. If in fact an overwhelming majority of the employees wish to be represented by a trade union, they have the normal opportunity to apply for certification in the trade union and get that application. What we're saying here is that employers should not be forced into a common relationship against their wishes. That's not denying the right of the employee to organize under the normal process,

MR. GABELMANN: Now we're getting somewhere, Mr. Chairman. The minister says an employer shouldn't be forced into participating in the collective bargaining against his wishes — in the employer collective bargaining.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The group.

MR. GABELMANN: In the group. Why not complementary changes to the accreditation section so that if MacMillan Bloedel no longer wishes to participate in FIR — the pulp and paper industry negotiations — they can't have the same right as an employer who is covered by this section?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That can happen now under the present legislation. They can go to the board and ask to be let out of that accredited group.

MR. GABELMANN: "And ask to be let out of that accredited group" — by the discretion of the board, as opposed to the mandatory language of this section. There's an inconsistency.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, one's in and one's out. What we're saying is that you can't be forced into a group. Once you're in the group I think you've got some obligations to the group, but you can go to the Labour Relations Board and ask to be relieved of those obligations.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not going to pursue it, Mr. Chairman. I think I've made my point. It's quite clear that in the certification of multiple employer units an individual employer has a legislative mandate to avoid that multiple employer bargaining, but once you're in, you stay in. I guess I'm interested because I think it's an important area of policy determination that I sense is slipping in. The comments made by senior management of MacMillan Bloedel following the resumption of work in the pulp industry, in which they called for an end to the multiple employer — they didn't call for it, but they at least suggested that it seriously should be considered that there be an end to the multiple-employer negotiations in the pulp industry, if not the forest industry — combined with the minister's stated views both on television and in this House of wanting the negotiations to get closer to the employer and the employee, combined yet again with this section relating to multiple-employer certifications: is this now a policy direction of the government to move toward the end of accreditation, if we haven't done it in these amendments? Should I take from this that this is a direction the government is seriously considering?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Again, I've been consistent in what I've said in public: that is, that we want to leave matters up to the parties as much as possible. My own personal opinion is that I don't think we've gained much by having huge accredited units, huge industry-wide bargaining. I've never believed that that was the best way to go or that it got us any better deals on either the union side or the management side than we might have had, had we not had them. But that's not a policy of the government, and I've never put it forward as a policy of the government. It's never been discussed by the government at this point. It's just a personal opinion, and it seems to he shared by some other people, at least in the forest industry at this present time.

But the member is correct that these amendments don't deal with that, and it's probably out of order to even talk about it.

MS. BROWN: Could I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, because I'm not quite sure what this means. Could the minister explain to me or give me an example of when the board would take it upon itself to amend the description of the unit contained in the collective bargaining agreement? Give me an example of when the board would have the right to do that, just to clarify it for me.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The board always has that opportunity, and has had in the past. For instance, the union may come during the time of or after the representation vote.... It may be that one side or the other may apply to the board and say: "Look, we made a mistake. This unit should not be in the form that it's in. It should be something else." And the board has got to have that flexibility to make those changes.

MS. BROWN: So it's triggered by a request. The board doesn't unilaterally do that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The whole test in all of this — and always has been — is the appropriateness of the unit, and the board has to make that determination. It may in fact be asked to reconsider the appropriateness of the unit, and at that point it can — and it can do that throughout the Code, really.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

[4:00]

On section 7.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, section 7 is a major section in this legislation, one that in my personal view is at least as important as any other provision in the act. I spent

[ Page 4784 ]

some time in second reading debate talking about the principle of representation votes as opposed to applications based on cards, and I won't repeat those arguments at any length at all. I want to deal with that issue toward the end of my comments, but I want to clarify a few things first. I'm correct, I assume, Mr. Chairman, in reading section 7 of the bill — the new 43 of the Code — that I have to read it in conjunction with section 55 as amended by section 11 of this bill, in terms of the way in which the representation vote is conducted, and of some necessity there will be some slopping over between those two sections.

As I understand it, under this representation vote before certification, if 45 percent of the workforce is signed up and the board is satisfied that that's the case, a representation vote shall be held, and no requirement exists as to how many days following the certification application the vote must be held — unlike the Nova Scotia legislation, which requires five days. And in that intervening period, with the board's consent, additional employees can be hired and can vote, if they're working in that operation on the day of the certification vote. Am I correct in that?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think the member is correct, in part at least. I, too, would skip around here a little bit. First of all, the operative part of section 55 is subsection (3), which says: "All persons who are employees within a unit at the time an application for certification or decertification is received by the board...." Subsection (4) does allow the board — in its discretion only, and only upon application — to include other people who may be bona fide employees at the time the vote is taken. Quite often, after a representation vote is taken or during the time in which a vote is to be taken, there are serious questions about what is the appropriate unit and who were bona fide employees at the time the application was made. I think that the board needs some discretion, in order to be able to receive an application either from the union or from the employers, to be able to include others who may have been omitted, who may in fact have been hired in a bona fide way in the two weeks or one week or whatever it takes in order to get the vote taken. So from that point of view the member is correct. I think the safety net, though, is that it is in the board's discretion, and the board can only include those employees, should they be proven to be bona fide employees in the board's opinion.

We've given a fair degree of thought to the matter of time limits. Because the government sets the rules for taking votes, I've instructed my staff to look at that provision and to ensure that if necessary we can build a time limit into the regulations governing representation votes. It's interesting that there were arguments against time limits as well, including — I believe I'm correct — from some members of the trade union movement who have given us advice that time limits are not appropriate. We're studying the whole matter of time limits, and if it's appropriate we can build the time limits into the regulations, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Strachan in the Chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, here I am preparing the compromise position, which is really the Nova Scotia position, before I make the argument against the initial premise that the government has adopted, which eliminates the ability of the board to certify automatically. Maybe 55 percent for an automatic certification bothers the minister. Why not 60 percent or some number like that, if the minister's worried about the narrowness of 55 percent? The automatic certification procedure eliminates an immense amount of bureaucracy, work and additional staff needed at the Labour Board, if in fact certifications continue at the rate that they have. I'm given to understand that at the present time 90 percent of certifications are automatic. I asked one lawyer about how these two sections worked in his experience. He said: "In all the time I've practised labour law" — and that's all he does — "I've never been involved in a vote." The automatic certification provision has been there, and there are very rare cases where there's a problem.

The board needs to be given some discretion in that respect; they have it. They don't have to award certification if there's any doubt as to the true intentions of the employees. But when you don't allow the board to make an automatic certification, with the exception of section 8, if there's an unfair labour practice proven, as I read it.... When you don't give them that authority you then open the door for more lawyers than any of us will ever want to see involved in the labour relations process. Immediately an application is made or before, the company's going to get a lawyer. They're going to find every way they can to delay the vote. They will raise all kinds of objections, as only lawyers can. It's totally inappropriate, in my view, to the process at hand. I have no problems with lawyers being involved if there's a legitimate dispute as to the validity of the intentions of the employees. But there the board has the discretion under the current legislation.

It sounds so democratic, Mr. Chairman. That's one of the beauties of this section from the political perspective of the government. It sounds so democratic to say that if 45 percent want to decertify you get a vote. The majority rules. It sounds so good and democratic that if I didn't stop to think about the details I'd say fine, it's great, perfectly within the democratic system we have. But when you have elections they have to be conducted fairly. We've opened the door for employer interference earlier in the amendments.

MR. R. FRASER: Would you go for automatic decertification?

MR. GABELMANN: If in the board's opinion there was an overwhelming desire, not influenced by the employer, for a decertification, yes. I have no problems with that. I believe in being consistent. This is consistent, but it's consistently wrong — that's the problem.

In a sense it isn't consistent. I'll deal with the decert later when we get to that section. In my own mind they go together, but we try to keep in order in the debate. We're just dealing with the applications here. What we're doing with this.... I don't always agree with Paul Weiler, and we had a discussion in second reading about Paul Weiler being on our side in one issue, and on your side on the other issue, and true, he was. He took different positions than we've taken in some sections and he took different positions than the minister took in some other sections. One of the compelling arguments that Weiler makes in reconcilable differences relates to the issue of cards versus votes. He pleaded in that book, he's pleaded at every opportunity he's ever had to talk about it, and he pleaded again the other day in Vancouver for Canadians to reject this American approach to trade union organizing. What we will end up with is a repeat of the rogue employer situation we had. Here I think about the member for

[ Page 4785 ]

Vancouver South. I'm not talking about the overwhelming number of employers. I'm talking about rogue employers like J.P. Stevens, who were characterized in that movie Norma Rae. Although there were a lot of things wrong with the way the movie portrayed the law, it nevertheless was an emotional confirmation of the problem.

What we do here is allow for rogue employers — if they exist, and I believe some do — to thwart the democratic desires of a majority of people in an operation from exercising their right to join the union. The board needs to be given the discretion, and if the problem is that 55 percent is too close — in a 25-person operation, 55 percent is just barely a majority and therefore there's a problem — then change the percentage. Narrow the discretionary powers of the board somewhat if that's the intent. I plead not as eloquently or as forcefully as Paul Weiler can do, but I plead for the government to recognize that what you do here by this section is open up jungle warfare in organizing drives. There will be intimidation through the use of lawyers, because the process will take so long. I think the 90-day provision is still intact, so after 90 days all the members will have to be signed up again. We'll have organizing drives that last forever, and in the final analysis, for the most part, we will be thwarted despite the democratic decision of the people involved.

To deny the board its discretionary role in this just does not make any sense at all. A compromise obviously is the Nova Scotia position. I'm not that happy with it, but I think it could be accepted. There are criticisms of it from both sides of the table, and the minister made that point. But it is certainly better than this. The minister is not prepared to put time limits into it like Nova Scotia. Even though he talks about maybe building it into the regulations or whatever, can he justify why he would deny the board — he controls them in terms of its appointments; they're not permanent appointments — the discretionary power to certify automatically when there's a clear indication?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, what clearer indication can you have than a vote by the people involved? That's a pretty clear indication. I think it would be great for us to go out and take a public opinion poll, and if the poll said that we should be re-elected, we wouldn't bother going to the polls any more; we would just automatically become government again. That's easy, simple and cheap, you know. But it doesn't matter if democracy is a little more expensive and a little more time-consuming. We believe that everyone should have the right to make their own decision and not have someone else make it for them. There's no clearer way of indicating your wishes than by putting a piece of paper in a secret ballot vote. I don't know why the members opposite are so afraid of that. Nor do I understand why anyone would be afraid of having a fair vote to make that kind of important decision — and it is an important decision, probably the most important decision some people ever make in their lives. So I just don't know why people are frightened of democracy.

If there is a problem with time limits, we have the avenue to address that problem, and the same thing is true with regard to disputed votes. I'm sure that under the regulations we have an opportunity to look after that as well, perhaps by sealing the ballot boxes for a period of time or something like that. But those are technical problems which could be addressed at a later date.

The heart of the matter is that we believe that an employee should have the right to express his wishes in a secret ballot, and it's as simple as that.

[4:15]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the minister believes in democracy. If you read the bill, you sometimes wonder. But the fact of the matter is that the minister is arguing that it's far more spectacular for them to have a secret ballot some time down the road. Don't give us the old stuff about the fact that regulations may bring it closer to the day of the application than would otherwise be thought. The regulations, Mr. Chairman, will have to take into account all of the legal process that goes on in a situation like this.

What could be more democratic than the number of signed cards?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the secret ballot doesn't assure me of any protection at all from the employer's coercion during the period, and I'm talking particularly now about a small business.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The employer isn't bound the way the union is in this bill. The employer has subtle ways of doing it: not only that, they can stack the vote, because if it's close they can hire a few anti-union people for the time being, or whatever.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think that this is just to thwart the organization of small businesses. No matter how many assurances you get from the minister about the fact that the vote is going to take place shortly, how can he be sure of that — no matter what his regulations say? Once you go this course, in my view there is nothing that can be done otherwise than make it very difficult for you to hold the people who've made a decision, particularly when economic pressure gets on them, and in a small business where they almost know what everybody is thinking and certainly what everybody is talking about. It takes the employer very little time to find out who is on which side, and then the old screws can be put on. I'm not saying that every employer will do that, but I think significant numbers will.

MR. R. FRASER: I disagree with you.

MR. COCKE: Then tell me why there is such a very great difficulty, even with the liberal rules that we have now, in a small firm by virtue of the close contact that management or the owners have with the people who are working for them. The only protection working people have over the years is the protection of being able to get together in a union and make their case. They can't do it individually. As far as I'm concerned, this device here is to make them do it individually. They don't even have a provision here for a rerun of the vote if there are any problems.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this section is making it almost impossible, particularly for small firms. Let's hear what the member for Vancouver South has to say.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we've heard some comments about coercion and what the employer can do to

[ Page 4786 ]

the employee and things like that, but there are two things that should be remembered when you talk about businesses, particularly small ones. One of the things you want to avoid is business disruption, and you avoid it in all sorts of ways, by having good personal relations with employees, employers, etc. You do everything to keep the business going, for starters. The driving, motivating force in any business is to keep it running and not to have discord; that is one of the reasons that small businesses survive.

If you want to talk about getting rid of coercion and you suggest that it's mainly on the part of the employer, which I happen to reject, you would want to do something that would prevent the employer from having any effective mechanism by which he could coerce employees. So in spite of what might be said around the floor, the office, or whatever, you want to give the employee a chance to do what he wants to do in a way that is secret to himself. In my view that is not signing the card, Mr. Chairman; it is taking the vote. You can say whatever you like, but when it comes down to it and you mark your X that's your personal decision. I suggest to you that those decisions aren't known by anybody except the worker, unless he cares to disclose it himself, because that information cannot be taken from him without his consent, That is why I like the secret ballot idea.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I once participated in a certification vote where there were two employees. We got a voluntary certification; we took a vote. Now our employer at that time happened to be friendly to the idea of a union. If the vote had been 1 to 1, since I was the one who was actively pushing for the certification the employer would have known who voted for and who voted against. That would not have been a secret ballot. In fact it wasn't a secret ballot, because the vote was 2 to 0. The employer knew exactly how I voted and he knew exactly how the other guy voted. That's an extreme example, but it happens all the time.

Increasingly the people who need to be organized in our society now work for employers who are small. Increasingly you are talking about 7, 8, 10, 25 or 30 employees, and no one will ever persuade me that those votes are secret, particularly now when you read this in conjunction with section 55: "....and to allow the use of facilities owned by the employer." The vote is going to be taken on the employer's premises. Mr. Chairman, we have more democratic elections than that in the Philippines.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The tenor of the crossfire and the exchange that's going on right now, just so it's clear in Hansard, is that.... The implication is that I think all employers behave that way, or that I pick the worst-case scenario. It's required that in dealing with legislation we make clear what can happen, not what will happen in most cases. I talked earlier of the rogue employer. If anybody wants to see a rogue employer, they deal with J.P. Stevens. And the J.P. Stevens scenario is now possible here in British Columbia under this legislation — for the first time in Canada. We allow the rogue employer to behave in a rogue fashion.

The minister says: "What can be more democratic than a vote?" Agreed — if it's secret, if it's on neutral territory, if there can be no indication, ever, that the particular preference is known and if there was no unfair influence. The member for Vancouver South talks about unfair influence from both sides. The union doesn't have the power to imply to a worker that joining or not joining a union could impact on his job security or future employment. The union has no power whatsoever. The union organizer visits that employee once in the course of the organizing drive — in his home, most likely — and doesn't see him again. The employer sees him every day.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, the chirping from the member who has never organized a union in his life is really quite irrelevant, because he doesn't understand the process. The process requires that you go around and sign people up, almost always at their home, and when you've got your 55 percent you file application — at the present time. It doesn't leave you time to go back and talk every day to the people you've signed up. It requires that you carry on and see the ones you haven't seen yet.

The presumption in the government's statements about what can be more democratic than a vote is that the rules that apply in a parliamentary election apply in a certification vote. They don't, for a variety of reasons. Let me talk about some of them. There is no regulation of the campaign, first of all, in terms of unfair influences. It's a far less regulated system. There are no common-law checks and balances — no legislative checks and balances, either, but primarily no common-law checks and balances. That's an argument that by itself I wouldn't make, but it's just one in a series of arguments that taken together, I think, make a compelling case. Not always, but often, employers — and this is especially true of small employers — are paranoid about the prospect of a union. They're prepared to do almost anything they can to stop it. This electoral mode, where the vote takes place some weeks or months after — or even longer, if the company's lawyers are on the ball — gives ample opportunity for all kinds of quiet influence: "You really don't want a union, do you." That is now legal.

I discussed the secret ballot; that's another issue in these notes I'm following. There's no such thing as a secret ballot in these small operations. If the minister says that when you organize a pulp mill and there are 1,000 employees and the vote is 600 to 400, you've got a secret ballot, sure, I agree. But those kinds of operations have been organized, for the most part. We're now talking about the small sector. And everybody knows who's for the union and who's against it. It's quite clear. So there's no secret ballot, and any pretence that there is is simply that — a pretence. The opportunity for automatic certification by the board allows those people, in fact, to have some measure of secrecy, which they aren't allowed if they have to cast a vote which is then counted and known to the employer.

The opportunity, even though it's up to the board in its discretion, for the employment of anti-union employees between the time of the application and the time of the vote is there. All you have to do, if you're a small owner in the manufacturing sector, is start producing more goods, even if you have to stockpile them. You hire more people to produce more, and you make an economic argument that it's an appropriate thing to do. The board isn't going to say that you can't have those new employees. But they'll be laid off as soon as the vote's over, you can be sure.

[ Page 4787 ]

It seems to me that the appropriate voting unit we are talking about in this case is the unit that was there on the date of the application. None of those loopholes should be allowed. I don't understand why they are. Even in the U.S., with their lousy card system of organizing, as the member for New Westminster made reference to, there is an opportunity for a rerun vote if there is some problem, but there's no opportunity for a repeat vote here. In the U.S. the penalties for improper conduct by employers is considerably more severe than it will be under this legislation. Even with those more severe penalties you get the kind of situation that we had with J.P. Stevens.

I wonder if the minister has ever had a discussion with the former Minister of Labour, Allan Williams, and asked him about this question and why he rejected the same proposal when he was Minister of Labour and maintained the present system. I make those points. We could go on and on and repeat ourselves, but I don't intend to do that.

In conclusion on this particular principle, we are into some murky grounds that will further legalize the process. We are into a procedure that will make it more difficult to organize, and we're into a situation that will create industrial havoc in a small way in areas that are attempting to become unionized. You don't create peace this way. You don't create a leaner system, you don't create a cheaper system, and you don't allow the democratic wishes of a majority to prevail as a result of the built-in advantages to employers.

[4:30]

MR. COCKE: I am totally convinced that this is aimed at small business. I totally agree with the member for North Island, who indicates that major industrial or large businesses are already, for the most part, organized. This particular section is aimed purely at the heart of the small business organization. The member for Vancouver South said it best: as far as he is concerned the employer wants to go on with no problems, and unless he has something like this he is going to have problems. And I agree. The fact of the matter is that that employer may be only too delighted to be paying the lowest rate of pay that he can possibly get away with and feels that that's the way you have a good business situation.

For the employee not to have access to organizations that could improve the workplace for the employee and also improve their wages is wrong, in my view. I think that most employers are reasonably good people, but many of them suffer a real paranoia about trade unions. I think what we're doing here is protecting that employer. The bias is obviously there.

The minister hasn't persuaded me, in any event — and, I'm sure, not many others — that this is a good move. All he does is get up and talk about democracy and secret ballots — heaven only knows when they're going to take place — and then totally ignores the fact that if you have more than the required number signed up, what's the percentage? What's the need? There should be automatic certification at that time.

I think this is an unfair roadblock in the way of organizing the smaller business. I don't think it's good at all, because all it's going to do is make those people second-class citizens forever compared to their peers in other businesses.

MS. SANFORD: The minister has not explained to us the need as he sees it to change this particular section. Has the Labour Relations Board expressed concern that the 55 percent now required under the act is not a high enough percentage? They were granting automatic certification as a result of receiving 55 percent of the unit signed up through the signatures on the cards. I don't understand. Is the concern there with the Labour Relations Board? Do they feel that 55 percent is too low? Do they feel that they have been certifying units when in fact there was not the desire of the majority of those people to become certified? Where does the problem arise here?

Mr. Chairman, the percentage of those people in the workforce who are certified has remained approximately the same during the ten years that this Labour Code has been in effect. There hasn't been any sudden change in the certified percentage of the workforce. If there was some concern here that all of a sudden we had a large percentage increase that was somehow an indication that certifications were being granted when they weren't being asked for.... We've had no explanation from the minister as to why this section is necessary. I know what I think. I know the attitude of the government towards trade unionism. I know the attitude as expressed by so many of the people on the back bench. It's just an attempt to place another roadblock to ensure that the percentage of the people organized in this province goes down rather than stays at the level it's been at over the last ten years or so.

Has the minister considered how many additional employees are going to be required at the Labour Relations Board as a result of this requirement that a vote be taken even though 55 percent have signed cards? What consideration has the minister given to raising that percentage, as my colleague for North Island suggested, to perhaps 60 percent if he's uncomfortable with 55?

I have never heard from any of the people serving on the Labour Relations Board that they are concerned about this particular provision of automatic certification when 55 percent of the employees are signed up. It's never been a problem for them. They've granted that certification. The ramifications have not been evident to me or to any of the people serving on that Labour Relations Board that I'm aware of. It's just a deliberate attempt, Mr. Chairman, to put another roadblock into the already very difficult process of applying for certification or at least signing up unorganized sites as organized sites. It's a very difficult process. How many more lawyers are going to be involved in the jungle that is going to result when we have this kind of requirement?

I wonder if the minister would mind responding to some of those questions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I've answered the basic question I don't know how many times, and the member obviously wasn't listening. The government believes that every person has the right to vote on a major matter such as whether or not he wishes to belong to a trade union. I've been saying that for 18 months, and the government has been saying that for a long time, including during the last election campaign. It's as simple as that.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

[ Page 4788 ]

MR. GABELMANN: I have some questions on section 8. Does the union have a choice whether it applies under section 39 or section 45?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, the choice is there, Mr. Chairman, and it would be the employer who would apply under this section for that kind of automatic certification for the life of the project. But they can go either way.

MR. GABELMANN: I must have not heard that. The employer applies for certification under section 45; is that what the minister said?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Or the trade union, whichever.

MR. GABELMANN: If an employees' group, a trade union, applies under section 45 and that fails, can they revert to section 39?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I see no reason why not, Mr. Chairman. Yes, they can.

MR. GABELMANN: What's the effect of the provision of section 45 on provincewide or geographical certifications? Has that been considered?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't see that it has very much effect, if any, on geographical representation. I just can't see the application. I expect that any employer who wants to have stability for lengthy periods of time — and most employers would want that — would want to be certified under the normal manner rather than under this section. But a small company, which can now get certified in almost the same manner as this section indicates, is certified until some decertification action is taken. I think there is similar legislation in other provinces, where they refer to it as voluntary recognition. That's really all we're saying here. It's an option; it's not a course that an employer or an employee is forced to take. It's simply an option to deal with that kind of need for an employer to become certified in order to win a job, for instance, and then he would carry that certification for the life of that job.

MR. GABELMANN: Every day that goes by I learn a little more about the intention of the amendments. I've just learned something else that I hadn't thought of. I have to read this section in light of the fact that this is designed — I guess I should have twigged a few minutes ago, but I didn't — to allow the employer to say to all building trade unions: "I want to use the hiring hall, and I want not to be affected by the affiliation clause. Therefore I'm going to apply...." The minister said the employer can apply for certification on behalf of the workers. I'm just trying to figure out how this is going to work.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The act is clear on how this section gets triggered. The board has to be satisfied that 55 percent of the employees wish to be represented; only then can they certify that trade union as bargaining agent. What happens at the board now — in practice at least, as I understand it — is that an employer may wish to become certified, for whatever reason. They do make the initial approach at least, but it's the employees who trigger the certification. It is under this section as well.

MR. GABELMANN: I guess I was puzzled before when the minister said the employer could make application under this section. In fact, it's the employees — the union — that make application for certification and not the employer. I recognize now....

My problem, Mr. Chairman, is that I take so many things on faith, and I should learn from some of my colleagues who don't. I assumed that this section was designed to deal with the fact that a lot of construction jobs are of short duration and that this was an opportunity to avoid the vote requirement as is applied everywhere else for certification; that there could be an automatic certification granted upon proof of 55 percent or more; that this was designed to allow the union to make sure it could be certified before the job ended. That's what I thought the intention was, but now I pick up that in fact the major motivation of the section may well be so that small contractors — or large ones, for that matter — can avoid the problems contained in the affiliation clause. I'll leave it at that.

[4:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The process of what happens between jobs in terms of whether they're union or non-union is one that is murky at best, in my view. It may well not be. If certifications die with the job, has the minister considered what implications that will have in the long term when taken together with section 10, in which probably 1,500 or 2,000 certifications will automatically die? Has the minister taken into consideration the impact on apprenticeship programs, which for the most part are now jointly funded between union and employer? In fact, the construction industry will be largely non-union. When the recovery does come, if it ever does, and the present defunct contractors go back to work with non-existent collective agreements because of section 10, has the minister taken into account the problems when the certifications die with the job, and the job is narrowly defined as a very narrow part of a construction project, taking into account the implications for the treasury, if nothing else, on the apprenticeship programs that at the present time are run by industry and its unions?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, because that particular certification dies the union doesn't die. In the construction industry a person is represented by the union and certified to the union, and those members move around from job to job, which is one of the reasons why in the construction industry you have the hiring-hall practice — because of the very nature of the construction industry. So those people would not lose their union representation; the employer's certification would die. You know, there are a lot of employers in the construction industry who don't have any employees, never have had and probably never will have. Those who do, I would expect, would certify in the normal manner, but in other cases where the employer may be as transient as the unions in some terms, then they will have that opportunity for an option or a choice.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

[ Page 4789 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I guess the best way of characterizing section 10 is that it's the decertification section. The first concern, among many, that I have about this section is this. Do I read this correctly that upon 45 percent of the employees in an operation indicating a desire to decertify, a vote must be taken, first of all?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Right.

MR. GABELMANN: The answer is yes; it's obvious. I just want to set this up slowly. If the vote is taken and the decision is that a majority wish to retain the union, do I understand then that it is ten months before another application can be made?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's right.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that what you will have again in smaller, stable operations, especially in the small manufacturing area where there is a possibility of a continuing 45 to 50 percent who wish there not to be a union.... They will have the opportunity every ten months for a decertification bid, and what you will have then is a continual process at work of: "Should we or should we not have a union?" That will be the focus of attention in a case where there is that narrow fifty-fifty kind of arrangement, even though the results of the vote may well be every time, every ten months.... What's there to stop an application being made continuously? A ten-month period is not long in terms of a campaign.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to stop that. Maybe you could take it as a parallel situation to the rules regarding raiding. There is nothing to stop a predatory union from raiding continuously, even though that union may continually be rejected. There are of course time limits before they can raid again during the life of a collective agreement, but still there is nothing to stop that from happening over and over again. And again the wishes of the people will prevail.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, this is difficult for us lay people, and it is a difficult section inasmuch as it deals with both raiding and decertification; this section impacts upon both elements. Let's just deal with the raiding at the present time. You now have to apply in the seventh and eighth months for a raid to be considered, and you need to have 50 percent signed, and there is a 90-day limit on the cards. This amendment will allow that raid to take place in the seventh and eighth months on the basis of 45 percent of the membership as opposed to 50 percent. The opportunity to raid in the seventh and eighth months of each year of a collective agreement, based on 45 percent as opposed to 50 percent, will undoubtedly lead to more frequent raiding, because you only need 45 percent instead of 50 percent. Is the minister not concerned about that disruption? I don't deny the right — in fact, I fully support and encourage the right — of people to change unions. If a majority of people in an operation desire a change in unions, they must be given that opportunity — no question. The present system allows that to happen upon a demonstration of 50 percent support in the seventh and eighth months. It now allows it on the basis of 45 percent. I ask the minister: isn't that likely to mean a lot more raiding applications and a lot more activity of an interunion-jurisdictional nature, rather than dealing with some of the other things that they should be more interested in dealing with?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Again, the important factor is the vote. The vote has to be a majority.

MR. GABELMANN: Marcos would say that too, I guess.

One of the things that the Labour Code has to attempt to do is try to be a referee, try to ensure that there is as little disruption as possible, while balancing that on the other hand with fairness and democracy. When you say 45 percent, in an operation with 100 employees, let's say, and there's a permanent minority who want to change unions — or, for that matter, to decertify — and that number sits at 47, 46, 45, or 49 percent, they will be able to raid every seventh and eighth month of each year of the agreement, and for decertification every ten months. If they're really clever, as I read this bill, a raiding union could use both provisions.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: No? I think they could, although under the decertification provision they'd have to wait until they could apply for recertification. But if they're determined, that option is open to them, as I read this particular section. I'll leave that part of it for the moment, Mr. Chairman.

Why under subsection (8) has the minister decided upon a two-year figure for cancellation of certifications in the construction industry at a time when literally thousands of contractors have not worked for a couple of years? I could see that in a full employment economy perhaps, or I could see that at another time. It's curious to me why a two-year figure is picked just after we've had two years of economic downturn. The union contractor who built our house hasn't had a contract for two years. Why should his certification terminate just because the mismanagement of the economy by various governments and the high interest rates have prevented him from getting jobs? So why does the certification die? Why does he have to go through this whole process all over again? Unless it's designed simply and solely as an attempt to deunionize the industry. It's clear to me that that's what the intent is. I'll just leave that for the moment and see what the minister has to say about that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: From the point of view of the last question, regarding the two-year period.... The member referred to this dealing with the construction industry but there's no reference to the construction industry in the bill. First of all, there shouldn't be any reason why a certification should be a lifetime certification regardless of the status of the business involved. There should be, in the opinion of the government, a period in which someone who has been inactive, not working, whether for reasons of bankruptcy or insolvency or simply because there was no business can have his certification cancelled. How long should that be? The reason that two years was picked is that two years seems to be, in all of the research that we've done, about the maximum length of time that recall provisions in a collective agreement extend. Most of them extend for only one year. They generally drop a year a month. In some industries — the forest industry is one and the fishing industry another, I believe — those extend beyond one year and up to 18 months

[ Page 4790 ]

at least. I'm not sure that there are any that actually go for two years. We want to make absolutely sure that all of the provisions of a collective agreement which might have been in force will be recognized, and for that reason we've chosen the two years, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not going to argue with the minister, but I don't accept at all that that's the motive behind this particular section.

I would like to ask the minister a drafting question. Section 10(6): "'Unfair labour practice' means an act prohibited by section 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7." Does that mean that a breach of the famous section 7 can be determined an unfair labour practice, leading to...? Just let me look at this again: "The board can refuse to cancel the certification...." Let me phrase it a different way, Mr. Chairman. My problem with this section is that I don't understand why section 6, which refers to subsection (5), includes in it the provisions contained in section 7 and in the new section 5, which is section 3 of this. Why are those provisions included in subsection (6)? It doesn't seem to me that the practices of the union should impact upon subsection (5).

[5:00]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd refer the member to the Code section 8(4)(e), which is exactly parallel to the change which is in this section.

MR. GABELMANN: I concede that point, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me that an employer can deliberately refuse to bargain in good faith and then use that as a decertification petition under these provisions. When you take together 52(6) and (7), and their reference as well to (5).... I don't pretend to understand this very well. This stuff is largely Greek to me, quite frankly, but as I read these provisions an employer can achieve a goal that he or she wants to achieve in a roundabout way as a result of the way this section is worded, including particularly (5) and (7) in the subsection (6) here. I'm going to leave it because I don't thoroughly understand it, but I would like some consideration of....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We're talking about a totally different section. We're not talking about that section. I'm going to leave this now, Mr. Chairman, because the advice I've had is that this is not at all worded the way it was probably intended to be worded. I concede, quite frankly, that it's an area that unless you work on it every day and participate in the Labour Relations Board every day, or have had the benefit of 62 drafts, or whatever it's been, and the discussion that goes with that, and beyond that to have advisers helping you, it really makes this very difficult.

I want to just make the point on this section that there is concern about the implications of the way it is drafted. There does appear to be a loophole for the employer. If I'm wrong, I'm delighted about that, and I'll never say another word about it.

I think that's all I wanted to say on section 10, Mr. Chairman, which is a long section dealing with decertification, other than to conclude by saying that I think the idea of decert or raiding votes based on 45 percent is going to lead to continual tumult and turmoil in a lot of areas that we don't necessarily need, when the same result of a democratic decision of the workers can be achieved in another way through the present system of signing up 50 percent. I regret very much that the minister has decided to pursue that course of action. I think that's all I want to say on section 10, Mr. Chairman.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, may I confess that this is hard work. Might I just put in a plea for additional funds for caucus research so we could hire a couple of lawyers to help us through some of these more difficult times.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm afraid it might. One of the things I confess quite frankly right now is that in the few days we've had, I've sought advice from lawyers. That was the first mistake I made, I guess. I've got reams of paper in front of me from lawyers, and as is always the case, much of the advice I've been given is contradictory. It makes difficult the debating of legislation as important as this is to a lot of people's lives. It makes it difficult to have the opportunity for a proper review of the impact of the legislation. I'm out of order, so I won't say more than that about it. I just wish we could take a little time about these things in order to understand them better, and perhaps some of us on this side wouldn't make the mistakes in interpretation which we have made and I have made, and we wouldn't miss other elements that are going to slip through because we haven't perceived them. We could more calmly reflect on the implications of the bill.

Section 11 of the bill — section 55 of the Code — deals with representation votes. I guess in earlier sections I've made some of the points that I want to make under this particular section. One is that representation votes can be stacked — not necessarily, but they can be — by the employer following a representation by the employer to the Labour Relations Board that in fact those people should be allowed to vote. They will be able to vote at some indeterminate time — way down the pike in some cases — when the situation may have totally changed.

Another concern is that in the last words of this section the employers are compelled to allow the use of their facilities, presumably for votes: "may require...." It's "may" in a technical sense, but if the cabinet decides it's "shall," then it's "shall." The legislation "allows" the cabinet, but once the cabinet does it, it's "shall." It's "may" in the legislation and "shall" in the regulations, in a particular case.

I have some concern with requiring that the vote be taken at the employer's place of business, as I would have concern that it be taken at the union hall. I think that both are wrong. The expense of renting a neutral meeting space in a hotel or community hall is well worth making in a representation vote. So this provision, while it appears in its wording to be stacked against the employer, is really a favour to the employer.

Why is it that the Lieutenant-Governor "in subsection (1) by adding at the end 'in accordance with regulations made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council'...?" Section 55 says: "All voting directed by the board under this act shall be

[ Page 4791 ]

by secret ballot, and the board or a person appointed by it shall conduct the taking and counting of a vote" — in accordance with regulations made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Why the authority of cabinet as opposed to the discretion of the labour board? It seems to me that there may be situations where rules could or should be different. If you have confidence in your labour board to administer the act, you should allow them to do that. Why take that power into the cabinet rooms, again leading to an impression that if there is a Socred government in power, the regulations are going to be made on one side? I'll concede that on the part of some employers there would be a sense that if an NDP government were in power, the regulations would be made favouring the other side.

Hopefully, what we try to do in labour relations is to set up a labour relations board which does not have a political taint and, therefore, is respected by both sides, and both sides have some confidence in it. But when you inject the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, you inject the political element, because the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is nothing more than 20 NDPers or 20 Socreds or, if Art Lee were still here, he would hope 20 Liberals. I don't understand the desire to take that power into cabinet — a similar provision in a new subsection (5) of this bill.

Let me ask this: how much of this section was influenced by Downie Street Sawmills?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, to be perfectly honest, I guess the Downie Street Sawmill case was one of the cases that we looked at during the whole review, out of the 300 or 400 letters and briefs and other kinds of input that we had. No single matter influenced us in any of the decisions made in the legislation, but it certainly would be dishonest to say that we didn't study the Downie Street case as part of our review of the Labour Code.

On the matter of regulations being made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, it's mostly a matter of consistency. The Labour Code is a government bill and the practice of making regulations belongs, I believe, with the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council in a government bill. That's just a belief that I have and obviously the government shares it.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. GABELMANN: Economic development projects. Let me see whether I understand what this means. With the provision of 83(3) as amended — and I think I should properly.... I'll try to separate the debate between 13 and 15, although they have to be taken together.

First of all, I want to see that I understand the legislation. Where the cabinet decides that a construction project — and I use the words "construction project" as opposed to economic development project — should not be treated as a common site, for purposes of the affiliation clause they can parcel that construction site into component parts; and the affiliation clause can apply within each of those component parts but can't cross the boundary from one to another. Right? That's the guts of the section. Furthermore, apparently no limitations curtail cabinet's decision about what kind of projects could fit into economic development projects. There don't appear to be any suggestions that limit it to the Expo, Duke Point, Tumbler Ridge, Whistler type of situation. In fact, the bridge being built in my riding at the present time could, under this section, theoretically be declared an economic development project. Now we get to the nub of it, I think: the concrete work could be designated one project and the surfacing of the bridge another. That's effectively denying the affiliation clause on that particular project. What would stop the cabinet from going that extra step?

[5:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think if you really stretch the outer limits you could agree that that's possible, but it is certainly not the intent of this legislation and it simply won't happen. I think we've demonstrated our good intention, again with regard to affiliation clauses in the construction industry, by the changes to 83. So we've made it clear that we do want the security that's built into the construction industry. If that's what the employer and the union agree to, then we want that contractual agreement to take precedence.

MR. GABELMANN: My first concern was to make sure that we understand the ramifications of the section. I'm not dealing here with the principle, which I dealt with in second reading. I think it is inappropriate in this particular section, other than to register my objections to the wide power granted to cabinet in respect of this. I'll leave that at this point, as long as I can get back to it in respect of section 15. My other comments would be more appropriate at that time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is a section that I think has worried all of us. It's a new approach, as I see it, to bring the province into what the Premier considers to be an area of open competition. However, it creates a climate of hostility by pitting people against people. It creates a climate that in the long run is going to be detrimental to business in B.C. as opposed to making business, as the Premier says, more competitive. I suppose the way you make businesses more competitive is that as many of them as possible are not organized. Get them working side by side and the unorganized construction companies start getting predominant because of the fact that they have an unfair advantage of lower labour costs and so on, just by virtue of history.

I would hate to see us having economic development projects all over the province, but I'm afraid that's what is going to happen. This isn't aimed only at the Expo site; this could be aimed at construction sites much, much smaller than the 160 acres down at Expo. Even there it's going to create a great deal of confusion and antagonism. I wonder why the minister and the Premier have their minds set on going this route. It isn't the route that I think is going to be good for business. It's misnamed: economic development projects. The economic development aspect of it, I'm sure, is going to be badly hindered, for one thing. If the Premier had wanted legislation purely for Expo, why didn't he bring in legislation just for Expo? Instead of that they enshrine it in the Labour Code, which I think is going to create a lot of problems for us in the future. Think of smaller construction sites where you have fenced around different contractors working on the same project. I believe this is not in the best interests of economic development in B.C.

I think it would be in our best interests if we took the economic development aspect right out of the bill. I would

[ Page 4792 ]

have put forward an amendment, except that I just don't see how anybody can amend a bad bill. This bill has all the earmarks of a very bad piece of legislation all around. This particular confusing element of the bill, I believe, should never have seen the light of day. I think the minister owes us some explanation about what he really wants. It says here that if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers any construction work or related activity to be of special economic importance, he may by order declare that it is of special economic importance. Well, they can say that about any work that's going on in the province — particularly a province like ours that has been absolutely smashed by this government. Any project is an economic development, be it a bridge, a small construction site or a building. How confusing can it get? For example, will we have a series of different contractors come on to a construction site, do their work and then have to leave before somebody else comes on? I can see that in a much smaller framework than that 160 acres.

In any event, I don't think that this does the job the minister indicates by its title it's going to do. I think if anything it's going to herald more antagonism and more anger than it's worth. The construction unions, I think, bent over backwards over the fair wages idea to make a deal in terms of the development of Expo. It's used federally, it's used elsewhere, and it works. It creates an opportunity for at least proper competition. At this time in history, in any event, the non-organized construction companies are not doing the quality of work that the organized construction companies are. This, I think, really pulls us back into a economic situation I don't think we deserve or want to be in. So I hope the minister can try to explain to us just what he's getting at in this particular section.

MR. R. FRASER: I'd like to add something to this debate by suggesting to you that there are words that might indicate to you what the intent is; the intent is "special" economic importance, which I suggest to you would probably mean large.

With respect to the aspects of competition raised by the member there, I think it would be useful to remember that large contractors cannot compete with small contractors because of the overhead costs involved. Similarly, small cannot compete with large because they can't handle the financing. So irrespective of whether you're union or non-union, some companies cannot handle some projects because of their physical size. It's got nothing to do with unionization especially. So in effect, if you have a project where something has to be done by both large and small contractors, maybe this opportunity would be welcome to everyone, and be more useful to us in general.

MR. COCKE: I'm delighted that the member for Vancouver South has explained that "special" means large. I must go to one of my legal friends and ask whether or not the actual definition of "special" is large. I just don't understand that at all.

MR. R. FRASER: You just don't listen.

MR. COCKE: Of course I listen. But you don't put those kinds of interpretations into statutes. If we want a new statute in British Columbia where in the definition section we see that "special" means large, then maybe we can all understand it.

Now I would like to ask what the hell "large" is. Some people think that this is a large glass of water. Other people think it's a small glass of water. My colleague from Vancouver Centre says it's the opposite of small. Great. Now that you've given us those words of wisdom, will you kindly stand up and tell us how big "large" is or how small "large" is and how large "special" is? That's the definitive word in there. "Special economic importance," he says, is large economic importance.

MR. R. FRASER: I didn't say large, I said probably — a definite maybe.

MR. COCKE: The special secretary to the Minister of Labour has told us that the whole question is large. He's been jumping up and down all afternoon. It seems to me that he almost has a vested interest in this legislation.

I want to ask this one question: what in the blazes is this section doing in the Labour Code? If you want something special for some special project, for heaven's sake, this government is a past master at using bills that come in mass quantities under statute law amendment acts, so bring them in there. If you want a special thing for Expo, bring it in separately. If you want a special thing for some great project that is going to happen in Prince George, bring it in separately and let us debate it.

MR. GABELMANN: The Westminster developers.

MR. COCKE: Yes, wouldn't it have been interesting. The only problem is that the government doesn't know how to develop. The Westminster development has been going on for years and years and nothing has happened. It's a scar.

MR. R. FRASER: Are you arguing in favour of private development again?

MR. COCKE: Am I doing what to private development? They walked away from it. The fact of the matter is that it had a good chance, but unfortunately you people took over with your lack of planning and industry and lack of understanding of anything that goes on, and you are showing it again here, particularly when the member for Vancouver South gets up and gives us that inane definition and description of what is going on in section 13. It shouldn't be any part of the bill, for sure.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I get more confused as time goes by as I listen to all these.... The one word that my colleague the member for New Westminster forgot was "possibly." "Possibly special projects." That's not how you write legislation. The question we're asking is: how are you going to define a special project?

If we go back to definitions, you're full of lengthy definitions on terms, but there is nothing to define what constitutes a special project. What we're talking about here is giving carte blanche to the minister to pick anything out of the hat and call it a special project. On that basis, what sort of possibilities are we looking at here? Sure, we can have confrontation and all the difficulties that may occur as a result of trying to fit people into slots, but I have a concern that this is a little more far-reaching than that, and that is the one of safety.

[ Page 4793 ]

[5:30]

I go back to my days at Hydro when we had construction going on in energized substations. Because of the fact that the contracting out clauses were not thoroughly entrenched, certainly not in legislation or in the contract, we had contractors coming in there on the initial stages of the construction work, where, in spite of the best efforts of the trained staff, who recognized what was alive and what was dead in that station, they were not able to communicate with the people who were in there on the construction end, because they were not qualified people. The same thing could occur, it seems to me if a Hydro project.... As a matter of fact, in the instance was talking about there was a death as a result of that. The crane contacted with the high-voltage transmission bars.

The same situation could reoccur if in fact such a construction in a Hydro station was designated as a special project and the minister allowed a construction firm to come in there that was not qualified. It would be a special project because it was separate from the other operation. As I read this section, that would allow that to happen. We could well have the same kind of occurrence because of lack of knowledge of the energized portions and how to deal with that sort of hazardous situation. It frightens me a bit when you think of the possibilities under this vague wording and it's left to the discretion of a minister who may be upset because he thinks a project is going to cost too much or because he is determined that he is going promote this idea of having union and non-union working side by side, or very close to side by side. Those considerations may well not be considered. There is nothing in here at all to indicate that that couldn't happen, as far as I see in reading it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the members opposite seem to think that this section does an awful lot more than it does. It does nothing more than allow a site which is chosen as an economic development project to be a mixed site — nothing else. The minister doesn't decide who is qualified or who should get a job, who should win the bid. The owner prequalifies the bids, no matter where that job might be or what the project might be, and it's the owner who makes the decision about whether or not someone is qualified or whether the bid is too high or too low. This just doesn't give us that opportunity. It gives only one opportunity: that is, to ensure that the site can be mixed.

I don't share the member for New Westminster's (Mr. Cocke's) views that because people may be non-union or union and work side by side it necessarily should lead to trouble. If it does, we've got a pretty sick society, if you ask me. Mr. Chairman, I point to the project which has recently been completed, and while the members opposite never really agreed with that project, the northeast coal project it was in fact a mixed site, ruled so by the Labour Relations Board. That project was completed on time, on budget and with no serious labour difficulties, even though there were non-union and union people working pretty well side by side in that project. That's the way it should be, in my opinion.

MS. BROWN: What we need to know, Mr. Chairman, is what kind of guidelines the minister is going to have in deciding what is of special economic importance. We are in the middle of a period of great unemployment in this province, especially among the building trades. Is the minister going to suggest that every job which comes along now is going to be of special economic importance? I think it will be. I think that every job we can create in this province at this time is of special economic importance, because we desperately need every job we can get. If the minister is not going to designate every job as being of special economic importance, that's because he has specific guidelines. All we're asking him to do is to share with us....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, tell us what they are — that's all we're asking him to do; not to keep us in the dark, not to treat us like mushrooms. Tell us what these guidelines are. What constitutes a site which is of special economic importance? Give us a hint — that's all we're asking.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the member listened to my last comments, because she obviously misunderstands what this section does. From the point of view of comparison, I've already said publicly that it's expected that the cabinet will rule Expo to be a special economic project in order that that site can remain mixed and still protect the union security that is built into construction unions through the use of their non-affiliation clauses. So we're not taking anything away from unions. We're just ensuring that the policy of the government to have opportunities for every British Columbian to work in this province under the rules which are laid down under the terms of the Labour Code and under free collective bargaining will be ensured.

MS. BROWN: So we know that Expo is going to be thus designated. What was the criterion that you used to decide that Expo was of special economic importance? If you can tell us what that criterion is, we will be able to anticipate further designation on the part of the cabinet. Or is it just Expo? Are you never going to use these powers again?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know.

MS. BROWN: Okay, but if you use certain criteria to zero in on Expo, what were the criteria that you used? That will help us understand where we can see you surface in the future in terms of designating a site to be of special economic importance.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I suppose that the easy answer to the question would be common sense and 60,000 person-years of employment and perhaps 15 million to 20 million visitors to British Columbia during the six months that Expo is going to be in place, and literally millions and millions of dollars of investment and opportunity of those dollars coming to British Columbia from all over the world.

MS. BROWN: So we can conclude that any time in the future the cabinet will not designate a site to be of special economic importance unless there are millions of visitors involved, millions of dollars involved and thousands of man-hours involved. Are those the criteria?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can assure the member that we will never designate a site as a special economic project unless it makes good common sense.

[ Page 4794 ]

MS. BROWN: That is precisely what's wrong with this section. The government's idea of good common sense may not necessarily be what is in the best interest of the province or what is in the best interest of working people in the province. That's the reason why we need to have better criteria than that. This is the minister who ploughed millions of dollars into a heroin treatment program because he thought that was good common sense. Now those are not good enough criteria. We need to have better guidelines from the minister than just his telling us that he is going to use good common sense. We've experienced his common sense, and there's nothing good about it.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to deal with the detail, but I'll leave that aside since we're on to this other thing.

The government had a problem, it thought. It perceived there to be difficulties at the Expo 86 site, because it wanted to achieve certain policy directions which it was able to achieve at Whistler and at Tumbler Ridge, both mixed sites. You only had to go to Whistler to see all the non-union activity up there — and at Tumbler Ridge.

Certainly the decision of the Labour Relations Board in respect to Tumbler Ridge opened that site, so let's recognize that no legislation is required in order to open the sites. The Labour Relations Board has moved in that direction lately, and they make those kinds of declarations. They have made them in a couple of cases at least. What's the objective of the government in respect of this section? Their stated objective — and I believe their honest objective — is to attempt to get Expo built on time, on budget, etc. Does this section achieve that? No, it doesn't. Does this section ensure labour peace? No, it doesn't. Does this section allow for those whatever the numbers are of dollars, visitors and jobs that the minister so proudly trumpeted a few moments ago? Does this section guarantee any of that? No. In fact, what this section does is potentially impair that. That's the problem.

I am always very careful — at least I try to be careful about predicting consequences of actions, because sometimes predictions have a self-fulfilling nature about them and I don't want to get into that. I think we have already seen evidence and indication that these changes — and this one in particular — will lead to the opposite conclusion from the stated objective of the government.

The minister said Tumbler Ridge was built mixed, on time and in budget. We all know that the stadium was built union, on time, in budget, without these kinds of sections. We know for a fact that the people involved in building such a site, both the trade unions and management, were close to, if not already at, a deal — "deal" is a loaded word; an arrangement, an agreement — to do at the Expo site what was done at the stadium. The trade unions were even prepared to concede and to give up one of their long-cherished principles. They were prepared to go a step that very few people in this province ever expected they would go, and that was to work alongside non-union trades people as long as they were paid the going rate. They said so and made it clear. So if the objective is Expo....

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The minister has said that this section deals with Expo and not much more; he certainly didn't name any other cases. If it's Expo that we're talking about, building it by May 1986, that could have been accomplished. But by bringing in this section and these amendments, the government has, I think, raised at least the spectre of impairing its ability to achieve those goals. So why bring it in? What's the need? It tidies up, I would agree. If you're looking for neatness, it tidies up the way in which the whole question of open sites is dealt with and makes it mandatory and required; it makes it a cabinet decision rather than a labour board decision. It tidies it up but it doesn't accomplish the goal. It doesn't meet what I think should be unanimous agreements in this House that we all want to see cooperation. We all want to see the projects built. It doesn't accomplish that. And the minister agrees that it doesn't accomplish that, so why have it? What's it there for? Why inflame a climate that doesn't need inflaming?

I'll leave that, having made what I think are.... I often make arguments that are rhetorical and just part of debate, but in this case I think I'm making an argument that is beyond reproach in terms of its validity. The fact is, it's going to be more difficult to achieve the goals of the government as a result of this section.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member is right. We never said that a labour code should be used to do the kinds of things that that member has suggested be done: that is, to ensure that Expo is built on time and on schedule. The Labour Code isn't meant to do that. I would hope that the negotiations between the owners, Expo Corporation and the building trades will achieve that objective, and that's the way I've said I wanted to see that objective achieved right from the beginning. We all share those views. As a policy the government has said that Expo — and perhaps some other sites in the future; I don't have any now, but who knows what can happen down the road — will be mixed construction sites. It simply isn't fair for the government to announce that kind of policy and then leave the thing open for the Labour Relations Board to have to take on the responsibility. We don't ask the Labour Relations Board to monitor or to promote government policy. What we ask the Labour Relations Board to do is to administer the Labour Code, so what we need to do is make it entirely understandable that it is government policy that is enshrined in the Labour Code and that we do have the opportunity as a government to declare mixed sites.

[5:45]

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has said that this will not promote Expo. It has been pointed out, and the minister has agreed, that Expo could have proceeded as a mixed site without this. I think the crux of the thing is that the government is not prepared to leave the decision-making on what is a mixed site to the Labour Relations Board. They want to take that decision into their hands. They are not prepared to let the Labour Relations Board administer the Labour Code. If they were, this whole thing could be dealt with the same as northeast coal, Tumbler Ridge or Whistler. It could go ahead. This section simply gets people's backs up. It is antagonizing them. This is not needed to accomplish the thing you say you want to accomplish. The union was prepared to.... They had taken a long step; they had agreed to working with non-union for the sake of getting Expo built.

All you're doing with this is grabbing a little more power into the hands of cabinet, taking away the administrative powers of the Labour Relations Board, putting more of the decision-making into the cabinet on specific items — and not even very specific, because certainly this section is wide open. It can be used at any time. The labour board will never

[ Page 4795 ]

know where it's at until the cabinet decides, tells them where to jump and then they can jump, but they're not going to be allowed to make those decisions on their own anymore. That's what this is really about: more power for cabinet.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this section as it is worded is open to abuse. The point I raised about the guidelines not being spelled out, I think, is one that the minister should give some serious consideration to. I know he's not going to amend this section, but it's in regulations or somewhere. This is some positive, constructive criticism that I'm offering, that he should draw up some guidelines. We should know what criteria he is looking at when he designates a site to be a special employment site. It's just a suggestion I am making to the minister. He is not listening, but I hope he is hearing anyway and will take it into account.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.