[ Page 539 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Board of internal economy. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 539

Mr. Skelly

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Second reading

On the amendment

        Mr. Parker –– 539

Mr. Harcourt –– 540

Mr. Serwa –– 541

Mrs. Boone –– 543

Mr. R. Fraser –– 547

Ms. Marzari –– 549

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, visiting us from Manchester, England, is the William Hulme Grammar School rugby team. With us today are Mark Lovell, who is a utility back — that's the way I feel sometimes — and Tony Jackson, who is a wing. They are accompanied by Marisa LaVertu of Victoria. This is the one-hundredth anniversary of William Hulme Grammar School. They're touring British Columbia and playing against some of our B.C. high school rugby teams. I'd ask the House to give them a nice, warm Victoria, British Columbia welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the precincts this morning are several schoolteachers. I had the privilege of meeting with some of the Surrey representatives this morning: JoAnne Thomthwaite from the Surrey Teachers' Association; David Fisher, incoming president of the B.C. English Teachers' Association; and Doug Podetz, president of the B.C. Industrial Education Association. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are representatives of teachers' associations from around the province. They have delegated their teaching duties to others today while they are here to express their concerns; hopefully, also to become fully and correctly informed on the new legislation before the House.

MR. ROSE: On behalf of the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join in a welcome to the teachers who are here today to make their voices heard. I hope that their representations will be successful.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituency, I would like to welcome representatives of the Surrey teachers who are in the building today. I hope that some time between now and 6 o'clock we can put together a meeting.

Ministerial Statement

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement.

In the Speech from the Throne just a month ago, we announced our intention to enshrine the independence of this Legislature to ensure that it is given the power to manage and administer its own affairs. This is a significant step, Mr. Speaker, because it will allow this House, through its members, to operate under fair procedures and rules in terms of both its financial management and its administration. My government is committed to an expansion of the rules and roles of the all-party committees and intends to ask all members to become more involved in the business and affairs of our parliament.

A necessary first step is to allow this Legislature to look after and govern its own affairs. I am therefore very pleased to propose today that a board of internal economy begin work immediately to develop the necessary legislation that will lead to this situation. I further propose that this committee be chaired by you, Mr. Speaker, and include as its other members the two House Leaders, the two caucus chairmen, and the Provincial Secretary.

Mr. Speaker, I said this is a significant step, and it is. Our Legislature is the last in Canada to assume full responsibility for its own affairs, and this undertaking is long overdue. Through the actions of members on both sides of the House, we can now move ahead to develop rules and procedures that will allow our Legislature to function on an independent basis and at arm's length from the executive. I would ask that the committee act swiftly to begin its task so that the new rules and procedures, including formulas to fund the operations of the caucuses of government and the official opposition, will be in place by the next fiscal year.

The members of this committee, Mr. Speaker, are all experienced parliamentarians, and I'm sure that working together they can develop a system that will allow this House and all its members to do the best possible job for those who elected us: the people of British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: As the Premier well knows, Mr. Speaker, the opposition welcomes and in fact suggested the formation of a bureau of internal economy to make sure that the finances of the Legislature are managed appropriately and have the appropriate oversight mechanisms so that people can be assured that the funds used for the Legislature are adequately managed and that the precincts of the Legislature are competently administered. As the Premier well knows, the opposition suggested this, and we certainly welcome the formation of a bureau of internal economy to govern those types of things as they happen in the precincts of the Legislature.

I hope the Premier, in making his statement and in setting up the bureau of economy at this time, does not expect the bureau of economy to deal with the kind of incident that happened on the lawns of the Legislature yesterday, in which case members of the Legislature were embarrassed and disgraced by the sight of Canadian citizens with a legitimate right of democratic dissent being arbitrarily removed from the precincts, from the lawns of this Legislative Assembly, bringing embarrassment and disgrace on the members of this House and depriving the members of this House of their right of dissent. I was never more embarrassed as a legislator in all my life than when I witnessed what was going on on the lawns of this parliament building from the window of my office.

I would hope that the first minister does not see this effort to set up a bureau of internal economy — which is a good and a needed thing and something the NDP has asked for in this Legislature — as an effort to sidetrack an issue that has been brought before this House on a question of privilege.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 19.

[10:15]

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. PARKER: I rise in support of Bill 19 and to speak against the hoisting of this bill. It is most important that we

[ Page 540 ]

get on with the business of British Columbia in a good, strong, favourable labour climate.

This legislation ensures the rights of the individual, and it should restrict the bullies in organized labour. This legislation ensures the protection and well-being of individuals, those individuals who like to speak out, such as our neighbours across the House here, Mr. Speaker. When they speak out, nobody shouts obscenities; nobody slashes their tires; nobody throws a plank out with a bunch of nails in it; nobody threatens their families; nobody makes threatening phone calls. They have their opportunity to say their part. Definitely the individual in this province should have the opportunity to speak out. With intimidation tactics, democratic rights and the dignity of the individual are violated. We in Canada believe in the individual, and very much so in this government. We believe in the individual rather than the faceless socialist masses. It is the indomitable spirit of individuals which overcame the incredible difficulties of creating a modem nation out of what a hundred years ago was a wilderness.

This legislation is the result of thorough consultation by the Labour minister himself with the people of British Columbia, with organizations right across British Columbia and with individuals right across British Columbia. This legislation was not created in isolation. British Columbians — and I stress British Columbians — want their individual rights entrenched and defensible. This legislation gives them these tools.

As Minister of Forests and Lands, one of the first encounters I had was with an investor from northern Europe who explained to me the type of industry he had in mind and asked me to deal with it in confidence, but said that his concerns on investment in British Columbia had to do with the labour climate and that he was hoping to see some positive moves by this government, such as this legislation.

I've had occasion to speak with a number of teachers — I'm married to a teacher; she's a good teacher — and most teachers, Mr. Speaker, are good, solid, dedicated classroom teachers who like children and like what they're doing. They welcome the opportunity to have a professional certifying body, the college of teachers, wherein they have their professional standing established by their peers.

I applaud the withdrawal of the unit managers, the principals and vice-principals from the bargaining unit, so they can properly manage their schools and assess their faculty and staff in a professional manner.

This is all strong, positive legislation that respects and supports the individual, his or her rights and personal freedoms. This legislation tells each British Columbian that each has a real place in society and in the industries of British Columbia; that each person makes a real contribution to this province; that every person matters; that this government listens to and respects each one as a real person; and that their Social Credit government cares.

I urge defeat of this hoist motion, which is another negativism from the opposition –– I urge the swift passage of Bill 19 so we can get on with the strong, bright future of British Columbia, which this legislation helps to ensure.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver Centre. [Applause.]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I can thank the members of the Legislature for such a strong, positive response to the success of the New Democrat convention that is going to happen this weekend. Thank you very much for your congratulations.

I am sure that our friends on the other side of the House are looking forward to exchanging seats in 986 days, as we are.

I would like to say to our favourite member for Surrey White Rock-Cloverdale (Hon. Mr. Reid), it will be bye-bye indeed at that time. To the hon. member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker), I would like to say that I would prefer to be a faceless socialist than a two-faced Socred any day.

Mr. Premier, I see that, in your own words, as you said yesterday, you cleaned the litter off the lawns of the Legislature. That is a foretaste of what Bill 19 is intended to do: to clear the litter of working people away from this province. That's why we want to see Bill 19 hoisted, so that the people of British Columbia can see the vision that you have for this province, which you have not got a mandate to bring about and will not bring about. It will not succeed, because the people do not want to have the kind of province that you are envisioning.

I am going to talk a bit today about the impact of this bill. I'm going to talk about the real goals behind this bill; about what Bill 19 really does, not what we are told that it does; and about the very serious misjudgments, Mr. Premier, that you have made in the last ten days or so, including this horrendous piece of legislation.

I'm going to talk a bit about an area I know something about, and that is what the business leaders whom I have talked to want, not just those in the Asia-Pacific but in other areas of the world, who are investing or thinking of investing in British Columbia. It's not Bill 19, believe me.

Then I'm going to come back to ask you, Mr. Premier, to agree to the hoist of this horrendous bill.

The impact of the bill, in simple terms, is that you are handing the working people of this province a sugar-coated cyanide tablet. You're saying: "Take this." I'll tell you, the people of this province are not prepared to do that. The union and non-union sections of our province are not prepared to commit suicide gladly for the century of work that they have put in to build up a dignified way of life.

And the teachers — you say you've given them everything they want. What you have done is to take a grenade, pull out the pin and throw it among them, saying: "You're welcome." You have tried to explode the BCTF You have tried to divide and conquer You have tried to demoralize even more the educators of this province. That's the impact of these two hideous pieces of legislation.

Why have you done it? I think that Vaughn Palmer, about whom I don't usually say this, wrote a very perceptive column when he discussed the systematic implementation of the neo-conservative game plan for British Columbia. He talked about the downsizing of the public service by 25 percent and piecing it off at far more expense to the so-called private sector. He talked about the Compensation Stabilization Act and how that put a wage freeze on working people at the same time you lifted any protection against usurious rent increases and other measures. He talked about the Labour Act, where you tilted the playing field against not just the unionized sector but the non-unionized sector in this province. He talked about how you forced union and nonunion operations onto the same site and he talked about the disintegration of a lot of the activities in the construction area. This is now a further part of that vision that you have that

[ Page 541 ]

you're not discussing with the people of British Columbia, and that's to de-unionize the province of British Columbia.

Basically, you're declaring war on the middle class. You're saying that we want to eliminate the middle class and have an entrepreneurial class that works and makes the decisions — the 20 percent that are served by the professionals around them, and the rest are economic serfs. That is where this is leading us. It's not forward as you've said, Mr. Premier. It's not forward to the twenty-first century; it's backwards to the nineteenth century. I think people should see that.

Bill 19 does not bring about the kind of world that we would like to see. It's a fantasy world, just like the fantasy free markets you talk about that existed for ten years in England from the 1820s to the 1830s. It's a fantasy world of no unions, no strife and no conflict, because what you are doing is bringing about double-breasting. People who have worked and trained themselves for 15 to 20 years are going to be working for $7 an hour without any benefits. Apprentices will be used and abused. The use of picketing will be so severely restricted that it will be in name only, where strikes and lockouts are pro forma ceremonies that are dealt with by a czar and by a cabinet that is working in secret issuing orders in-council.

You have made two very serious misjudgments, Mr. Premier, in the last little while. The first was your refusal to deal with the native people of this province. That was a terrible destabilizing decision on your part, and it's going to come back to haunt us with those same investors that you want to see come into this province. This piece of legislation is going to do the same; it's going to further destabilize the province of British Columbia. In a ten-day period you have done more harm, sit, with those two decisions than could possibly have been imagined.

Let's look at why you say you're doing this: you say it's because business investors from other areas want to come to a stable British Columbia. I've talked to those business leaders, Mr. Premier, and they want to know what the ground rules are. They want to know that they're not going to have a lawsuit thrown at them if they come in and invest in a mine or in a tree-farm licence or to build a plant or get involved in tourism. As you forced the native people to now do and as you forced the business leaders.... If they come here, they want to know that they're going to have a stable and cooperative labour-management climate, not one of bitterness and strife. They want to know that there are three ground rules: don't exploit your workers, pay your fair share of taxes, and don't despoil the environment. Those are the kinds of guidelines they want.

Mr. Premier, as Mayor of Vancouver I have visited a number of, business centres and spoken to those same business leaders in Toronto, Montreal, London, the Hague, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Los Angeles and Seattle. You know, Mr. Premier, they said those things to me. They want stability. They want ground rules. They want to know what they can expect when they come to British Columbia. They don't want to see a bunch of lawsuits slapped on them. They want you, sit, to show some leadership with the native people instead of abdicating. They want to see you doing what leaders are supposed to do, which is to lead, not to practise wilful blindness about justice for native people; and they want to see you bring about a level playing field and fairness in labour-management relations and cooperation, not the destruction of that. The stability in our democracy is absolutely essential, sit, and you've missed that point.

[10:30]

Our own business community, when I traveled to Asia, met with business leaders in Hong Kong. I took with me the representative of the board of trade, COFI, of the accountants, the treasurer of the Law Society, the president of Simon Fraser University, the head of our Vancouver and District Labour Council, and we found that some of our own worst advocates about this area were our own Social Credit politicians. Some of the Social Credit business leaders were giving ten-year-old information about the state of labour-management relations, ten-year-old information about our port and our transportation capabilities. We had to send them the information that was up to date. That was 1985-86 and they were using ten-year-old information. It was our own business leaders who were saying that the port was moving goods slowly, that we had a terrible record on lost days and labour/management strife. They were ten years out of date with our information. Your own people should have supplied that information. We had to have the president of our Vancouver and District Labour Council go back and bring that information to the vice-presidents of our banks and our accounting outfits stationed in Hong Kong and throughout the Asia-Pacific area. That's not good enough, sir.

What we should have had from you instead of Bill 19 were some positive measures to bring back a level playing field for labour- management relations. If we had been able to do that, we could have then developed between the business leaders — not just the large sector but the small and medium-sized business sector — our trade union movement and non-union workers the kind of cooperation that they're starting to do now with the productivity council, with their requests to be going on joint trade missions and investment activities. You have killed those opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we are asking that Bill 19 be hoisted. Talk to the people of British Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Do they want this draconian vision of which Bill 19 is a part? No, they don't. Step back, damn it, before it's too late. Hoist Bill 19, Mr. Speaker. Hoist Bill 19.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the hoist motion.

First of all, before I begin my address, I would like to pay a compliment to the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). While I disagree with the content of his speech, I cannot but admire his ability and his adroitness as an orator.

As a tyro MLA I was very impressed also by the duration of his speech. I understand that the record for duration of speech in this Legislature — a speech of some seven and a half hours — is held by a sitting member of the opposition. I commend the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) for that record. I beg to inform this House that this member will not challenge such an awesome oratorical performance.

In his speech yesterday, the second member for Nanaimo was consistent in referring his concerns to only one element of a complex equation. I must point out that the basis of his debate loses credibility by the simple elimination of some 60 percent of the workforce of British Columbia, by the simple elimination of some 2.5 million people — the citizens of

[ Page 542 ]

British Columbia. For an opposition that purports to represent the interests of the ordinary British Columbian, this is a most lamentable exclusion.

Government cannot take such liberties in addressing their responsibilities. All of the people of this province matter. They matter a great deal. That, is why Premier Vander Zalm directed the Minister of Labour to address the Labour Code. That is why hon. Lyall Hanson and MLAs John Jansen and Howard Dirks set out on their quest. That is why they received submissions from all elements of society and from every region of this great province. They found that the people of British Columbia take labour relations very seriously, often with divergent views. They listened carefully. The minister has struck a balance, to increase fairness and equity.. Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Reform Act, ensures the democratic rights of people; it ensures the rights and freedoms of individuals. All of the people of this province matter.

I commend the minister for drafting this bill. I believe we now have a long-term framework that will eliminate frustration in industrial relations. All British Columbians will benefit, especially labour and management. In my opinion, the opposition has made a serious error by proposing the hoist amendment. It is simply a negative delaying tactic. In protracted strikes there are no winners, only losers — everyone surely realizes this. That is why we need this problem solving bill, as soon as possible, for the sake of every man, woman and child in British Columbia, for a new era of improved industrial relations, and a return to the steady growth of the economy and a return to prosperity in British Columbia.

The opposition has compounded their tactical error by drawing attention to themselves, and revealing over the last few days something that I found surprising. Every hon. opposition member who has participated in this debate has only represented special interest groups. It's representation to further special interest ambitions. In my opinion, the opposition party is in conflict of interest. The opposition party is as remiss as the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) when they refuse to address the welfare of all of the people of this great province. The absolute loss of credibility in the eyes of their fellow British Columbians completely defuses their position on the hoist amendment and on Bill 19. Government, on the other hand, has been consistent in looking after the public interest.

I would like to read an editorial in one of our local papers to support my stance. It's entitled "Long Overdue." It's good stuff.

"The labour movement in B.C. has little to gain with its immediate, blanket condemnation of the new labour laws introduced Thursday, and the threat of renewed Solidarity-style protests. Those 1983 'taking-it-to-the-street' demonstrations failed to sway the government or the public when former Premier Bill Bennett introduced his harsh restraint program, and it's not likely that his successor will back off from the clear need to improve B.C. industrial relations climate.

"Union leaders complain that Labour Minister Lyall Hanson has skewed the labour relations balance with the establishment of a new Industrial Relations Council, which will have the power to end any dispute not in the public interest. While the union movement perceives this as a retrogressive step which will restrict the ability of., a union to bargain with an employer, supporters say it's about time that the government took into consideration the interests of those who are not involved in disputes but who seem to be constantly hurt by walkouts and strikes. Far too. often the public interest has been held to ransom by industrial disputes, with irresponsible positions taken by both labour and management.

"The new program is aimed at both workers and employers, in an attempt to create a better way of handling labour relations. Secondary picketing is banned. Strikes and lockouts are prohibited as long as there is a collective agreement in place and until attempts at bargaining have taken place, and Indus trial Relations Council head Ed Peck will have the power to order a cooling-off period when no action can be taken, and to appoint a special mediator or panel to look after the public interest. These are long overdue measures which deserve widespread public support."

That's the support we are getting out in the hinterland in British Columbia.

The electorate supported this Social Credit government in 1983, and it is apparent in a stronger fashion in 1986. Why the strong mandate? It is recognized that this government is committed to representing all British Columbians. Need I say again that I believe hoisting is simply a method of unnecessary delay. This is a good bill. The philosophy and principles behind it are outstanding. The bill being discussed is a positive approach to industrial relations in this province. It reaffirms the concept of parity in labour relations. It will re-establish British Columbia's credibility in the international marketplace. A good provincial, national and international reputation is particularly important for the interior of the province, whose potential as an excellent location for economic investment is just starting to be recognized and developed. We want to encourage the growth of clean industries, such as secondary manufacturing, and technology based industries which require a stable workforce and labour peace.

The lengthy labour disputes such as last year's strike lockout of over 1,000 civic workers did not help our reputation as a place to invest. It is fair to say that in recent years, our labour relations reputation internationally has not been what it could have been. British Columbia has been perceived as a province with an unstable labour climate –– I believe that this has been a bit overstated. Nonetheless, there were problems that had to be addressed.

Far too often we have seen disputes drag on, where the individuals involved no longer supported the original action which was taken. Situations change over time, and the very people involved may wonder why they must still walk the picket lines or why they must continue to lock out their workers after months of fruitless negotiations. The new legislation will make it easier to re-evaluate the rigid positions which have been taken. There will be room for a sober second look. The new act will encourage negotiation and will encourage people who act as representatives of their member interests to make sure they know what those interests and views are.

I believe that union heads very often do not accurately express or represent the views and concerns of their rank and file. They often act as though they are using labour to reach

[ Page 543 ]

their own goals, ignoring what is best for their constituents. I would like to take a moment to quote the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who was quoted in the Vancouver Sun in 1973 as stating: "The needs of organized labour are not always the same as the desires of their spokesmen." That was true then, and unfortunately it is truer now.

[10:45]

Under the Code, once a labour dispute became entrenched, it was very difficult to resolve, outside of actual government intervention, as the NDP government found was only too true in 1974 and 1975. It is painfully obvious that some unions will vow labour war whenever there are any changes to labour legislation. One of the more vocal groups attacking this new industrial relations act is the B.C. Federation of Labour. This shouldn't surprise any of us, since this was their same reaction when the NDP government introduced its Labour Code in the early seventies. The B.C. Fed was bitterly critical of the Labour Code, calling it unrealistic, anti-labour and "an Alice in Wonderland document."

I have been noticing an attitude of cynicism pervading the speeches of the members of the opposition. They suggest that the Industrial Relations Council and the commissioner will be biased and will simply act as tools of the government. Unlike some members of the opposition, I find this attitude distasteful, particularly when it is directed towards people such as Ed Peck, who have so faithfully and honourably served the public.

I believe that the Industrial Relations Council will act in a just and impartial manner. Their manner is to protect the interests of the public when they are being jeopardized.

sincerely believe they will in no way abuse that mandate. It seems ironic to me that the Queen's loyal opposition, as well as some union representatives, would attack this new legislation with such vehemence when they haven't even seen the benefits it will create in terms of industrial relations stability and economic growth. I wish that for once they would give a piece of legislation such as this a fair chance. Let's avoid being negative simply for the sake of being negative.

I am in favour of this bill and opposed to the amendment, since this bill was formulated with the interests of all British Columbians in mind –– I believe that if the opposition truly cares about the public interest, they will facilitate the progress of this bill through the House.

MRS. BOONE: I am amazed that the government is opposing this hoist amendment. One of the things that I heard from my constituents when I was first elected was that maybe there was going to be a change in the government, maybe we would see some cooperation, and maybe the Premier really meant what he was saying when he was talking about having some consultation, about being an open government available to the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't believe that.

MRS. BOONE: I had some questions about that, but I was willing to give him a chance. The member for Victoria here was also ready to give him a chance, as all of us were.

Yet on a motion not to defeat this bill but to hoist it, to give it time so that the people can have a chance to digest and see what it is, we see tremendous opposition. We have seen throughout the few weeks that we've been in this House that any motion put forth from this side of the House — or this corner of the House, as you like to tell us every now and then — is aptly defeated without ever giving any of it a trial, without ever giving us a fair chance. This is whether we are talking in terms of adding a committee — a pretty easy thing that wouldn't have been very hard on you — or adding some terms to that committee. The House has stood united and opposed us on everything. I know you oppose us on this thing, too, because I know each and every one of your members do not think for themselves and will not stand for themselves and represent anybody in their community other than what the government intends.

We heard the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) a while ago ask the women on this side of the House whether we knew who we represented or whether we represented only the female members in our riding. Do you know who you are representing? Do you know who you are representing in that you are failing to take this message back? You are not willing to go back and ask the people in your riding what they think about it, and you're not ready to listen to what they say. I don't just mean the business community; I mean all people out there.

That is why it is so important that this bill be hoisted, and that an opportunity be given for each and every one of us —the members on this side and the members on your side — to go back to our constituents, to listen to what they say, to listen to what management says, to listen to what labour says, and to find out if this is the bill that is going to do the job and end the confrontation. We are hearing things out there, and it comes from management and the other side, saying that this is not what's going to happen, and that we are going to have more confrontation.

I think that's the same stand that we've had before; it's the same stand we heard from the previous government with the 1983 bills. We're in for trouble in this province because of it.

What I heard when I was campaigning was that we needed to stop the confrontation, and I really agreed with that. I think every single, solitary member in this House should be working to stop the confrontation out there, and we stop that confrontation through a consultative process, by giving everybody an opportunity to understand and to give their input so that they can say: "This is a good bill. I'd like to see this altered a little bit." Why are we so adamant that this is the only bill and that it must not be altered — that it is the only thing that can do the trick?

I am very fearful that we are going to have another 1983 here, that we are going to have another Solidarity. I think this province, I know my area of Prince George North, cannot afford to have another upheaval such as we had during that year. If by hoisting this bill we can avoid that type of confrontation, if we can get a climate out there so that people are satisfied, so they are listening and they come to an agreement that this is something that is good, then what has this government got to fear with another six months? There are no strikes out there now. There are no negotiations going on at this time that are going to shut us down. We do not have a labour climate out there that has problems.

In fact we have the opposite, Mr. Speaker. We have, for the first time ever, the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Business Council getting together, joining and trying to work out a solution to our problems. That's where the solutions to our labour problems come, through consultation with the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Business Council, with them working together to work out their own problems — not

[ Page 544 ]

with government interference; and this is what this government said they weren't going to do, to have government interference.

What is the rush with this bill? This government has announced a gaming commission that is going to bring a report down November 1. If we can have that much time for a gaming commission, if we have that much time to put together a commission on education, which is going to be, I think, over a year, why are we so rushed in putting together and putting out this labour bill that is going to enrage the climate out there and make this a province that people will not want to come to invest in?

Where is the chance to consult? In most cases, in many cases that I have seen anyway, there have been papers. We had an abortion committee report. A report was put forth; the report will be discussed; people have a chance to digest what it says', and then a bill is made up. This didn't happen; the people never saw the report that was made from the labour people who went around. All we saw was suddenly the report and the bill, all at the same time. Why didn't we have a report, a chance to discuss, and then a bill?

It's obvious to me that this government wants this pushed through. They do not want to give the average person out there the opportunity to discuss; they do not want to give the average person out there the chance to understand what the implications are

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again.

MRS. BOONE: No, I'm right again. But that's always untrue.

You talk in terms of democracy, and you're saying this is increasing the democracy in the workplace. I ask you: "What kind of democracy has a tyrant at the head of it?" How many democracies do you know exist with a lone supervisor there? And that is what we have. We have given Ed Peck powers extraordinaire, powers that nobody other than I think probably somebody that our member for Coquitlam (Mr. Rose) deals with quite frequently, who is inclined to walk across waters.... But I wonder, can Mr. Peck walk across waters? You know, does he do these things? I don't think he can, and I don't see any one person being given that kind of power. The power that this man has is just incredible, and I do not think the labour climate, the labour relations-management climate, of this province should be in one person's hands. The power is there to do things that previously even the minister could do. He now has powers to do things that the minister could do.

I notice with interest that the last member who spoke talked consistently about unstable labour climates — unstable labour this and labour that. We hear this all the time. You say that we are representing only one group of people. However, we never hear the members from the opposite side talking in terms of unstable labour-management climate. There is an unsaid thing all the time there, that it is constantly labour that's the problem. There are conditions and there are many times when labour is a problem. There are times when management is the problem, and there are times when both are the problem. But to say that one is worse than the other is ridiculous, and we should be trying to temper our speech so that we do not talk in terms of "labour problems." We hear that all the time, and it was just said by the last member. I would like to see us dealing with this, and I think that we've got to do it from a lengthy process. We have to give our people a chance to read what is said, to understand what is said.

One of the things that really worries me about this is the fact that I can see our legal people doing very well. We have quite a few lawyers on this side, and I'm sure they would like to be in private practice at this time so that they could clean up on the moneys to be made through this process. This will see many areas that should be decided through legislation, through negotiations, through mediation, taken into the courts. We will see things tied up in the courts. You have taken away one of the accesses. They no longer have to go to the Labour minister or the Labour Relations Board to get access to the courts; they can go directly to the courts. This means that we will be seeing many more things in the courts, and it's going to be much costlier. I don't think that this is an advantage, I don't think it's good, and I don't think it's something that we should be encouraging. We should be encouraging our people to negotiate and come to agreements among themselves.

One of the things that really concerns me is that we are going to have more strikes, and when I read this I can see it happening time and time again. That is why it's really important that this motion be hoisted, so that we have the opportunity to get this word out. If in six months' time you are able to convince me that this bill is not going to bring more strikes, then maybe this side might go along with it. Who knows? But if you can't prove to us that there aren't going to be more strikes and that it's not going to be to the detriment of society, then we can't go along with it. But why not give us the opportunity to discuss this? Why not give us a chance to get out there and find out what the people really want?

[11:00]

The way I can see there being more strikes I know there are many members on the other side who come from a car-salesman background. I'll leave it at that to give you the analogy. If a customer is negotiating a contract with a sales man, generally speaking the customer says, "I'll give you such and such, " and the salesman says, "I can only take a little bit less, " and they negotiate. Now if they felt that they were negotiating and if they knew that at the end of this negotiating process somebody was going to say, "We will give you $800" or "You only have to accept $900" or "We take the salesman's point of view and we think that this thing is worth $1,000, " then what impetus would there be for either of those parties to negotiate? Where would there be any push to change their minds? That's what's happening with the changes in the Labour Code here. There will be no impetus to negotiate. They will be sticking to their guns, because each of them will think that at the end his view will be taken, or that the other's will not be getting any consideration.

We just heard the Premier saying, that he was committed to committees. Yesterday we saw a list of committees, and one of those committees is Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations. Now why can't we have this bill go to that committee? This is obviously the place that this bill should be going, where we should be having a good solid look at it. If we're not going to put the new labour bill into one of those committees, if these committees are not going to be looking at the new labour bill, then what on earth good are they? Are they just a sham? Are they the same type of thing that we've had in the past, when committees only existed for people to look at and for you to appear to be cooperating with the opposition? Is that what you want to do? Is that the only use of committees? What are we going to do with committees?

[ Page 545 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Two meetings in three years.

MRS. BOONE: Two meetings in three years in the past. The Labour committee is an important committee. Surely the bill should go there. Surely this is something that that committee should be looking at. Without them looking at it, what is the point in having that committee? What is the purpose of committees if they're not to deal with bills and things of substance?

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Leave the member for Prince George alone.

MRS. BOONE: Leave the member for Prince George alone, my member says. I can handle myself, thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: She's a real woman.

MRS. BOONE: Thank you.

MR. BLENCOE: You know the real women she's referring to, don't you?

MRS. BOONE: I do.

I'd like to read some conclusions from a study on some of the deunionization that was taking place in the U.S.A. This came about because for some reason or other they started to deunionize, and I think that this is the push of this bill — to deunionize. To say it is anything else is not true. It is a deunionization bill. The analysis they did here showed that "unionism does three things to efficiency: on the monopoly side it reduces employment in the organized sector; on the voice response side it permits labour to create, at no extra cost to management, workplace practices and compensation packages more valuable to workers; and in many settings it is associated with increased productivity." Amazing! Actually, unions do increase productivity, they said.

"Although it is difficult to sum up these three effects, our evidence suggests that unionism on net probably raises social efficiency, and if it lowers it, it does so by minuscule amounts except in rare circumstances. This conclusion contradicts the traditional monopoly interpretation of what unions do to efficiency."

On distribution of income:

"On the question of distribution, we have found a definite dominance for the voice response face of unions, with unions reducing wage inequality and lowering profits, which generally go to higher-income persons. For readers to whom greater economic equality is a plus, what unions do here is definitely good. For readers to whom greater equalization of incomes is undesirable, what unions do is definitely bad."

So I guess it depends from what side of the account book you're looking at it. If you are someone on the lower-income side, unions definitely will bring your wages up, equalize them. On social organization:

"Our analysis of the internal affairs of unions has dispelled some of the negative myths about undemocratic practices and discriminatory and corrupt behaviour."

That's contrary to what you're saying. You're saying that unions and this bill here. . . . You're almost saying that unions are corrupt and that they need to have some more democracy in there.

"It has shown that unions, for the most part, provide political voice to all labour and that they are more effective in pushing general social legislation than in bringing about special interest legislation in the Congress." This is talking in terms of the U.S.A.

"All our conclusions are based, we stress, on comparisons of what happens under trade unions with what happens in comparable non-union settings, not on comparisons with some theoretical construct the real world has yet to witness. In an economy where governments, business and unions work imperfectly — sometimes for, sometimes against the general welfare — there is a place for unions to improve the wellbeing not only of their members but of the entire society, and to increase the total amount of goods and services, including the dignity and rights of workers.

"While our research suggests that unionism generally serves as a force for social and economic good, it has also found that unions benefit labour at the expense of capital. Unions reduce the profitability of organized firms, particularly those in concentrated sectors where profits are abnormally high. In addition, while some non-union workers lose from unionism, our investigations indicate that many non-union workers, especially those in large firms, benefit from the threat of organizing and from the information about workers' desires that comes from unionism."

I think all you have to do is look at our society to see the impact that unions have had on our workplace. All you have to do is look at the changes that have come about with regard to some of the WCB regulations. And this is one part of the WCB that I do recommend and that I think is good: their workplace safety program and what has happened there —how if you look around and go through a large company or organization, you will find workers are wearing safety goggles, safety helmets, safety boots. This has come about not because management said they were concerned about their workers. It has come about because the union as a voice for the common person has indicated their concern and has pushed for those changes. More recently you can see in the workplace, with regard to the "traditional" female job at the computer — and I hope there are more men sitting there now — that the problems that are emanating from those people sitting for days for hours and hours in front of those computers.... They are suddenly starting to realize what that type of workplace is doing to them. The concern is coming from the unions. It is coming because the unions are taking these as their own. They're taking them up, and the results are not that the concerns are strictly happening in the unionized workplaces, but that management, in non-union as well, now have to address these problems. Those are the things that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please take her seat? The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of privilege.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I raised a point of privilege in this House with respect to people being removed forcibly from the lawns of the buildings. Mr.

[ Page 546 ]

Speaker offered to look into the issue and find out who authorized the removals and the use of force. Will Mr. Speaker look into the current incident that's taking place? People are being forcibly removed from the lawns of the buildings while the Speaker has this under advisement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you take your seat for a moment, please, Mr. Minister, while we deal with this other matter.

To the Leader of the Opposition, I thank you for bringing the point forward, hon. member. Until the moment you came in, the Chair had no knowledge that this type of occurrence was taking place. I will undertake to see, as yesterday's incident is being investigated and will be reported on shortly, that this also is investigated and reported on.

MR. SKELLY: On the same point of privilege, there is a time when investigations should end, and Mr. Speaker should give an order to his staff that they should not engage in this kind of brutality and that they should not remove from the lawns of the parliament buildings people engaged in legitimate protest as Canadian citizens have a right to do on public property. The Speaker should give an order to his staff that they are not to be used, and that the brutal tactics that are being used out on the lawn of the parliament buildings are not used.

It is no longer a question of investigation, Mr. Speaker. It's a question of an order coming from the Speaker of this House to protect the privileges and the dignity of this House from the kind of embarrassment that's taking place on the lawns outside.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair must reiterate that it is being investigated. I hear very clearly what you're saying, and I'm sure that the Chair will be bringing forward an opinion which I would hope would satisfy all the requirements of this particular case.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today from Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale is one of my fine supporters, Mrs. Isabelle Ivanore. I would like the House to pay recognition.

MS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, what this province needs and what my area needs is good labour-management relations, coming with agreement from both sides. You cannot have good labour-management relations when both sides are saying that this bill will be creating more confrontation; that this bill is going to add to the labour strife in this province.

We need to hoist this bill. We need to give ourselves a chance to debate it. We need to give ourselves a chance to go back to our constituents, to listen to them, to hear what is being said from all sides, Mr. Speaker, not just from the corporate side. We need to hear what every person out there believes. We need to understand it. The public interest will be poorly served if the result of this bill is chaotic relations in our labour-management field. We cannot afford to have the Business Council indicating that had this bill been around, the problems that we had in the forest industry would have been lengthened. We cannot afford to have that happen.

The main thrust of this bill is to provide a non-elected and non-accountable public officer — and that is Ed Peck — with broad powers in collective bargaining matters that generally should be carried out by labour and by management. We are putting these powers into the hands of one man.

[11:15]

The dispute resolution mechanism is compulsory arbitration, and variations of it. Collective bargaining will be inhibited by this bill. The parties will be reluctant to trade off items, as I said before, for fear that in arbitration they'll find those things taken away. They will not be giving up anything at all.

I have sat at a table, and have been in an area with the teachers during arbitration, and I know that that's what happens. I know that both sides say, "I want this, " and the others say, "No, we want this, " and then you just keep on, knowing that at the end there is going to be an arbitrated settlement, and that maybe you may come off better; and that if you give away anything during that initial period, you might end up worse off down the line, because you can't afford to have that arbitrator come in and say: "Well, you've already given this up." The end results are going to be a disaster; we cannot afford that.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

We need the time, Madam Speaker, for the province to understand what the bill means. We need the time to take this and fine-tune it. There may be some minor changes that may make it acceptable to both sides. Why not give those sides an opportunity? Why not consult? Why not have that truly open government that we've been hearing about? We haven't seen that in the past four to six weeks that we've been here.

We think that it is an absolute atrocity that this bill is being pushed through. There are other bills. Why not deal with them? Why is this needed to be pushed through right now? As I stated, there is no necessity. There is no labour problem out there that we are dealing with. We do not have any need for this bill to come down at this particular time. If we are put in a situation where we do have our B.C. Fed up in arms, and we do have a similar thing to Solidarity, and we do have our people in the streets, what then will that do to the investors that are coming into B.C.? What will that do to our potential investors?

If you really are an open government, and if you really think you are, and if you really believe that you have the backing of your people, and if you really believe that if you go out there into your communities with this bill it will get solid support, then what do you have to fear from giving this bill another six months? The only thing you have to fear is that you are going to get out there and find that the people in your community do not support this bill, and you are going to have to come back to this House and vote against the people, according to your party standards.

We favour legal changes that will make it easier to unionize, because we believe continued decline in unionization is not only bad for unions and their members but bad for the

[ Page 547 ]

entire society. Because our research shows that unions do much social good, we believe that the union-free economy that this bill is moving towards is a disaster for the country.

This is going back into the U.S. findings after their decline in the private sector unionisms, but any serious decline in unionism deserves public attention because it is socially undesirable. We believe that the time has come for the nation to reassess its implicit and explicit policies toward unionisms, such as it has done several times in the past. We hope that such a reassessment would lead to a new public posture towards the key worker institution under capitalism, a posture based on what unions actually do in the society and what, under the best circumstances, they can do to improve the well-being of the free enterprise system and all of us.

I think we have seen many cases in the past of areas where the unions have worked together, where management and labour have worked together to improve communities and improve standards of lives in communities. It has worked to the advantage of all in a community, not just the unionized sector, because that runs over. The runoffs are there for the people on the non-union side. The runoffs are there: the social implications are there; the health safeties are there; their whole work element is improved as a result of unionism.

I am not saying that every company around should be unionized, and I don't think that everyone will be unionized. But I certainly think that every person in this province and in this country has a right to organize themselves without interference from the company, such as this legislation now gives. Without interference. . . .

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: Yes, that's fair — without interference. Labour is responsible to itself. Labour has a right to organize without having interference from its management, yes.

I believe that this bill has some radical changes in it, and radical changes are ones that can't be pushed through quickly. We must be given time to digest this. We must be given time to understand the full implications of this bill. The people of the province of B.C. must be given the opportunity to tell you what they think of this bill.

MR. R. FRASER: I speak against the hoist, Of course, and I speak in favour of passing the bill. I compliment the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) for a fiery speech, actually a little thunder and a lot of heart, and that's great. I would recommend that you run for leadership, and in fact I think the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) would be a really good candidate for leadership of the party too. Having seen the performance of my friend this morning, I feel for you slightly.

But what we want to do with respect to labour legislation in the province of British Columbia is to make it fair, to give people a chance to let the vote take place, to let the working people choose what they want to do. That's what the legislation says. Do you want to organize, yes or no? Can you organize? Yes, you can. Do you have to? No, you don't. That seems to me very simple. It's the choice of the working people.

In response to the member opposite who said let the B.C. Business Council and the B.C. Fed work together, I say let the employer and the employees do it. They know more about their circumstances than someone farther removed and taken away. I would say let them do it.

That makes sense to me. I was involved with a company that had a collective agreement with a trade union and proudly tell you that we did very well. We never had a dispute. We never had any kind of problems with the union/management relationship. We did disagree from time to time, but it never got down to a problem, because we both understood what we were doing, and most people do.

MR. MILLER: Supporting the hoist?

MR. R. FRASER: No, I wouldn't support the hoist. I'll tell you why. Why you can't have the hoist is because people want the government to get the program and the province underway and ongoing again. We're looking for something to make it work, to make it flow; and while we have 95 percent of the union problems or the contract negotiations resolved with no conflict, the 5 percent we have are occasionally so damaging to everyone that we simply have to provide the mechanism to get those resolutions in place. That's what we have to do, and that's what we're going to do. Why are we doing it? Well, I got a couple of phone calls last summer. One in particular was a heart-breaking phone call from a member of the IWA, who asked me about the Hodgson report, and I read to him the five recommendations that had come forward in that report. He agreed with them all, but he hadn't heard of them. He hadn't seen them, but he'd been told not to vote in favour of the Hodgson report, and I guess he did, like everybody else, in the ballot boxes marked "Yes" and "No."

That's why democracy needs to be placed in the hands of the working people. There's no doubt about that.

MR. MILLER: They are already.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, I'll tell you. I would happen to agree with you that in the main, in a wide percentage of the cases involved, unions are great and the management's clean and they work very well. But in cases where they're not, something has to be done by us, by all of us in this chamber, and it will be. That's why we're doing it: to make it work.

The gentleman you speak of, Mr. Peck, does not have the broad powers that you think. He may order a cooling-off period, but that's just about it. Other things take place. You can appeal to the minister or any MLA any time you want; you don't need to have everything formalized and institutionalized.

You know, the thing that disturbs and disappoints me about the presentations from the opposition is that there's always a little suggestion, a suspicion, in there somewhere that there's something underhanded. I say there isn't. I say it's right there in print. Look at it, read it and think about it.

MRS. BOONE: Past performance makes us wary.

MR. R. FRASER: Past performance — I'll tell you. You talk about the new resolution and the changes in numbers of days lost in B.C. going down. That's because of changes made by the government that were supported by this side of the House and members supporting the government. That's what made the difference.

If you have non-union and union companies working side by side, that seems to me to make sense as long as the people working for those companies want to work in that style. That's where the choice comes: not the B.C. Fed, not the B.C. Business Council, not you, not me, but the people on

[ Page 548 ]

the job should make the choice. That's what this does. When we talk about. . . .

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Mumbling in the background. I'll wait for you to speak.

The thing that I find amazing about the BCTF, for example, and some of the teachers. . . . There are teachers here; I met one on the way over this morning. They appear to be talking about having an illegal strike to protest legislation that would provide them with the opportunity to strike. Now that seems to be blooming well crazy — to protest legislation that would provide the opportunity for that if they wish. That doesn't sound logical. Teachers are well educated; they should be able to figure it out. And if they wish to belong to the BCTF in the future, they can; if they don't wish to, they don't have to.

I mean, when you think about it, you want to analyze it from one end of the spectrum to the other. You're going to say: "Do I want one teacher organization in the province and one bargaining agent for all the schools, or do I want a bargaining agent for each district?" It strikes me that you want to have a school board and a bargaining authority in districts that have some knowledge of what goes on in that district. That's why you want more organizations and more boards. I would not support the idea of a super school board and a super bargaining agent. That doesn't address the needs of the community, as I see it. There's simply no resistance in the legislation to all the teacher groups getting together to bargain if they wish, and all the schools getting together and bargaining if they wish. There's lots of opportunity to do these things.

I have a feeling that the BCTF will survive for years. Great, no problem. The teachers have been given a lot of very useful information to work from. They now will be able to provide teaching certificates to their peers or to people who will become peers; they didn't have that before. They now have early retirement provisions; they didn't have that before. They now have the right to form a bargaining association if they want; they didn't have that before. They have a college; they didn't have that before. They will have disciplinary procedures for their own members, their peer group, and they didn't have that before.

MRS. BOONE: They didn't want a college.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, as a matter of fact, I think they do want a college, Madam Member. I've got a funny feeling that teachers are more responsible than you give them credit for. I have; you should.

[11:30]

I look at the leader of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and I like what I see. He looks like a progressive, new young guy coming on, doing a good job — thoughtful, not running out causing problems. But just thinking he's being pushed by more radical union members and more radical union leaders than he is, I've got a feeling he's going to resist that, because he is bright. He's not going to bring people storming across the lawns for some mysterious thing that is presumed by the opposition members to be in the legislation. He's going to think about it and make it work, and that is what we have to do with this legislation and all legislation.

How do we make it work for the greatest number of people in the best possible fashion? That is what we do with legislation. No, Madam Member and members opposite, I do not support the hoist. I don't think — I know, in fact — that our people in British Columbia do not want to wait, wait, wait. We have had a tough time in the last few years in a recession brought on by conditions over which we had no control. World recessions are world recessions, not just localized here.

We suffered a lot; we learned a lot; we are all working harder now. We probably should have thought about it sooner, but if we try to make it work, it will. If we try to make it fail, it might. I learned this morning that there is not necessarily a constitutional right to form a union, or that there might not necessarily be a constitutional right to strike. Maybe that would depend on whether you are an essential service industry or not, but if we presume that some teachers want the right to have an assembly and some teachers want the right to strike, then surely we should make it legal and let them choose. Now they can. Surely we want the labour/management climate to be such that it will work.

That is why we can't support the hoist. We have to go now. I would agree, Madam Member, that there are some management groups that are dumb. I would also say that if that was true, you would have to say that some union leaderships are dumb, but there are enough smart ones around that it will work for the greatest number of people.

What I hear from the member opposite who spoke just a minute ago is the same old thing we hear from the opposition members year after year, day after day, the defence of the special interest group. That speech was all about protecting unions. I have no problem with that, as long as there is an equal protection on the other side. I certainly would not protect some of the older leaders of the union movement who now seem to me to be a little out of date. The membership should deal with that.

I want to get the opportunity for the workers right down on their ballot, not put there by you, not put there by me, but put there by them, so they can make it work.

I happen to be a proponent of collective agreements, having experienced some personally and having been a member of a union from time to time when the occasion presented itself. Many members on this side of the House support collective agreements, and many members support collective bargaining. That should come as no surprise to our supporters. How else would we get elected? They understand that.

We have slightly different points of view from time to time, but what you want to know about governments like this one and the one just before this one is that we make things happen. The ALRT in Vancouver is here because this government pushed it through, not some members opposite. The convention centre is in this province because this government did it, not some of the members opposite. B.C. Place, with its problems and its joys, is here because of what the government did, not because of the members opposite. It's going and doing things and making it work: that's how we get going in this province. The new industries, the education system, making it work, making the kids think. That's how we get going in this province; not hoisting, not delaying, not wasting time, not creating suspicion in the minds of people. Let the people think. Give them the chance. Give them the ammunition and let them go.

I speak for the bill. I do not speak for the hoist.

[ Page 549 ]

MS. MARZARI: Madam Speaker, given that we are debating a procedural motion, I will address the matter at hand and reserve my comments on the substance of the legislation for the appropriate occasion. However, it is inescapable, in addressing one aspect of the government's deeply flawed procedural intentions, that I touch upon a fundamental concern that equally applies to the legislation proper. That concern is purely and simply the matter of democracy itself. I'm aware, of course, that in a situation of contentiousness such as the government has created, wittingly or unwittingly — or perhaps to be more accurate I should say half-wittedly — the pitfalls to which one might succumb are many. They tempt both the government and the opposition.

It is a moment that demands particularly of legislators a form of emotional and rhetorical restraint that runs against our natural and professional impulses. In attempting to address the question of democracy as it applies to what we regard as the grave procedural flaws before us, the excesses of rhetoric bid us to be less than we imagine ourselves at our best.

On previous occasions in this House I have emphasized my concern for the integrity of this institution, and the necessity of mutual respect among the members gathered here in deliberation. I see no reason to depart from that invocation on this important occasion. In fact, it appears to me that the public forum is likely to be a mirror of the quality of debate we maintain in this legislative forum. If we fail by shedding more heat than light on the matter at hand, we can surely expect that that failure will be reflected in other venues, and that we shall be, as surely as we are the writers of the legislation debated here, the authors of consequent public disorder and disaffection.

The responsibility for the maintenance of mutual respect, of a standard of civility that the populace has a right to expect from us, is incumbent upon all of us. Rest assured that our use of the rules of this institution, while inevitably linked to the question of politics — it would be pointlessly deceptive to deny such a linkage — is hardly frivolous, as I hope to demonstrate in these remarks. But equally, it is the duty of the government not to fall prey, encouraged by superior numbers and sheer majorities, to its own intransigence. I can imagine no action more calculated to undercut mutual respect than one in which the governing party uses the devices of procedure, intended to be available to it only in moments of extremity, to curtail careful deliberation in order to inscribe in law the bill it has presented to the people of British Columbia with respect to the fundamental rules that are to obtain in the area of labour-management relationships.

If British Columbians see a government indifferent to the voices of a substantial portion of their elected representatives, that can only exacerbate the ill feeling that has already been provoked by both the presentation and form of presentation of this proposed legislation. The government, of course, will be sorely tempted to turn a deaf ear and tough it out. How grandly the slogans of toughness promised to ring. Imagine the proponents of such a course. But, of course, those slogans will ring but hollowly if the very deliberations to bring the legislation into being contribute to its self-defeat in practice. Not only do such slogans ring hollowly, they ring dangerously, for they will set precedent.

If these are the measures to be resorted to at the very outset of this first session of the thirty-fourth parliament, where will we find the integrity of the institution as the debates proceed? I have only to gently remind the present administration of the character of recent legislative sessions in British Columbia — in order, Madam Speaker, I hope — to call forth a measure of prudence that will serve all of us well.

I raised the broad conception of democracy at the outset of my remarks, and I do so pointedly. The misunderstanding of that conception that lies at the heart of the proposed legislation, which would accord unprecedented powers that undemocratically bypass this chamber, is also equally and inseparably present in the formulation of the bill.

Let's consider the problem of procedure in commonsense terms, Madam Speaker, and let me address this matter with some sympathy for the perspective of the government, since we on this side of the House fully expect to bear the responsibilities of governing in due course; I believe 976 days is the number. In its most concise form, the matter can be stated thus: the Premier observes the polarized and adversarial character of social relations in this province and determines, at least for the purposes of electoral campaigning — but let us even give him all benefit of the doubt, for the sake of argument, and credit him with sincerity — that an end to confrontation is both desirable and a necessity for economic progress. At the same time, he determines — and again for the sake of argument, let us grant him a degree of intellectual sincerity, even if we are in disagreement with his reasoning and conclusions — that necessity dictates a drastic and fundamental alteration of the rules that govern labour-management relations.

It is clear from his behaviour that even he understands the gravity of the measures he is about to propose. Declarations in praise of social harmony notwithstanding, on several occasions as the legislation is being formulated he darkly hints that his proposals will be "controversial" and "explosive," that they will "excite public debate." The question becomes: what shall he do? How shall he proceed? Clearly the matter of procedure becomes most sensitive exactly in such conditions. Its evident fairness, its ability to respect dissent, its need to preserve visible commitment to democracy, even as it proposes to alter a significant portion of public law, must surely be evident even to the untrained eye.

In such circumstances, Madam Speaker, a genuinely responsible administrator will want to devise procedures that maximize the possibility for cooperation among sizeable segments of society that are likely to disagree. In the end, of course, fundamental disagreements are likely to stand, but the legislative aim, unless the government is engaged in a vindictive exercise, will be to ensure that all parties find themselves admitting that the government of the day has provided to the forum processes for the widest possible debate, has created conditions in which all who are affected will feel themselves to have been, at the minimum, adequately heard. What I have described is the democratic process in its most rudimentary form. Has that process been observed? The degree of response to the proposed legislation which has been heard in recent days is patent evidence of the inadequacy of the process.

We have in hand not a simple resolution that merely grants unobjectionable rights to a deserving group. If that were the case, we should not be objecting in the manner we find ourselves compelled to undertake. But it is not at all a simple resolution that admits of disagreement; rather we have on the scales before us a 35-page bill that proposes to reconceptualize the crucial area of life in British Columbia. It is not only broad in scope but closely detailed, outlining a process

[ Page 550 ]

designed to successfully adjudicate thousands of individual instances.

Were it not for the matter and the manner of presentation, we should have occasion to congratulate the minister and his obviously hard-working civil servants for a considerable effort. Unfortunately the principles it advocates are so at variance with the views of British Columbians, and the process by which it is offered is so offensive to parliamentary sensitivity, that we can only call for reconsideration of the entire procedure in order to ensure that adequate, meaningful consultation occurs. But the rejoinder will be: have we not held public meetings on the matter; has not the minister responsible dutifully traveled to the province to receive the input of relevant parties?

Have we not — I have already heard the government offering its apologies on the airwaves — engaged in consultation? It's not my intention to try the patience of those opposite, but it is my duty to examine the nature of consultation and to distinguish between its mere form — its style, if you will — and its actual substance. We do not assume that the government is entirely naive in these matters. It is not simply that the bill before us is a self-condemnation of consultation as it has been practised to date, for we also attended to the briefs which list opinions and arguments of those who might be affected by resultant legislation.

[11:45]

What stood out for us with startling clarity, in ways that had been seldom experienced in this province and which clearly indicated that trade unionists and businessmen as well as the general public had indeed learned from the events of the summer and autumn of 1983 and were willing to accommodate the legitimate interests of each other, was the desire to establish the very climate of cooperation that the government claimed that it would foster in the days ahead. The evidence of this desire was abundant. Trade unions and business demonstrated their mutual willingness to engage in the establishment of institutional means that would enhance productivity in this province and encourage the degree of capital investment that all of us see as necessary for the restoration of economic health.

The very language in which these problems were addressed by trade unionists, businessmen, municipal officials and interested individuals and groups was characterized by a spirit that abjured the practices of the past. A remarkable opportunity was at hand. If the government had indeed listened to this chorus of advice — and I refer to listening that is other than one-sided, the opposite of listening that merely seeks to gather the arguments to refute the objections that will be heard after the introduction of predetermined measures —then it would have been in a position to bring before us amendments of a fine-tuning nature that would permit the sort of immediate debate that the government's now attempting. But that was not to be the case. Rather than concluding that the existing legislation, apart from the inevitable adjustments required from time to time to reflect current conditions, was workable in the main, the government chose to embark on an altogether other and extreme course.

As you will hear in the debate on substance, we are in principled disagreement with that course. But that's not the matter before us. Rather, we are arguing that with respect to procedure, having decided upon such a course, irrespective of what was the better part of wisdom, it was then incumbent upon the government to engage in processes that were fully commensurate with the fundamentals of democracy that represent the spirit of the law.

Surely, Madam Speaker, it is not as though the government does not have available to itself an array of devices within parliamentary tradition that would satisfy the conditions of adequate consultation. Indeed, the minister attempted to use one of those instruments, however inadequately, when he reported on his deliberations last February 28. In light of the bill he has actually presented, however, how flimsy and insufficient that report now appears.

What we have here is a failure on the part of the government to understand the magnitude of its intentions. I insist on this point not to be tendentious. There is indeed an understood differentiation of legislative intentions which call for appropriate procedures of development. Almost all of us in this House, having sat as members of various levels of government in other public bodies, understand these distinctions. Certainly I'm not introducing into this discussion unfamiliar concepts.

If the government in good faith perceived the need for a fundamental redrafting of keystone legislation, then surely the appropriate procedure for the measured introduction of such ideas was by means of a ministerial report or White Paper. I hope it will not be considered impertinent if we attempt on this occasion to offer our advice to the government about how it ought to go about the public's business. The function of such a White Paper is to provide a discussion document that serves to indicate the government's intentions with respect to a major area of public policy. Such a document also provides the sort of evidential substantiation that justifies the development of a policy of the proportions proposed. While it serves to indicate the directions of the government's thinking, it does not engrave those intentions in stone. It permits relevant parties to challenge the evidence as well as the soundness of the argumentation, and if those challenges are successfully made, it allows the government room to alter its proposals accordingly.

I can hardly think of another occasion when such a civilized instrument of policy would have been more appropriately called upon to do its work. That the government is proposing legislation of enormous complexity, which is perhaps the very nature of labour legislation, should have been all the more impetus for adopting the course I am recommending. The necessity for such an approach is made painfully evident by the response accorded these proposals. It is not simply the opposition that offers a critical evaluation of this bill, nor is it merely the intended victims of the proposed laws who cry out in protest. Even the supposed beneficiaries of these proposals have not hesitated to speak up in tones of caution. The president of the Business Council of British Columbia finds it necessary to wonder aloud if the unprecedented degree of government intervention proposed is not undue, and perhaps even dangerous.

Here we have a government that lays claim to having understood the concept of the public interest and to inscribing it at the heart of the proposed legislation. What an irony, when the representative of the employers of this province, a man who himself has had considerable experience in the shaping of labour legislation by virtue of his past association with the ministry, is constrained to point out that the government misunderstands the very conception which it intends to exalt. He points out that collective bargaining as it is commonly understood is itself an expression of the notion of public interest. Is not such criticism coming from a party that

[ Page 551 ]

could hardly be described as opposed to the government's broad intentions itself a cause for the sort of reconsideration we are advising at this time?

Given the range of public criticism, Madam Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear where genuine public interest lies. For if the government insists on proceeding at this time, will it not be the case that even the most impartial observers will be forced to see the government's intentions not as benign, not as well-intentioned, not as reflective of simple philosophic differences, but as vindictive and punitive? How will such a public perception contribute to the spirit of cooperation and non-confrontation promised by this government?

Madam Speaker, while I will heartily oppose, when we come to debate the substance of the bill, the specific proposals for cooling-off periods, is it not appropriate to suggest to the government that it take some of its own advice at this time and impose upon itself a cooling-off period so that it can reconsider this proposal in less heated conditions?

It is distressing to be faced with legislation that appears without evidential substantiation. But in the presence of what seems to be the most authoritarian labour legislation proposed for any jurisdiction in North America, surely one would imagine there would be a body of evidence justifying the extremity of the powers proposed herein. There would be scientific studies, argumentation about work days lost, demonstration of investment opportunities forgone. But there is none of that, Madam Speaker.

In fact, insofar as there is evidence, it points to contrary conclusions. What we have been offered in place of evidence is a series of casual comments and reflections on the part of the first minister of this government with respect to a single, lengthy labour dispute that occurred last year. I raise these matters because they are integral to the procedures involved in the contrivance of an extraordinary proposed apparatus to permanently prevent the repeat of such an occurrence.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, it is hardly necessary that I appear before this House as a champion of the province's woodworkers, since the evidence of last year's dispute indicates that they are fully capable of representing themselves. But in reflecting on those events in an effort to understand the government's motivation and proceeding the way it has, I must sincerely question our colleague's reading of that dispute. It is clear from the tenor of the proposed legislation that those events have been interpreted in a particular way that is evident to all interested observers, and yet when I examine the substantive matters of the forestry dispute — and I of course claim no expertise here — it seems apparent that in every instance where the issues raised by the woodworkers were submitted to expert opinion, the woodworkers were repeatedly vindicated.

Yet the government has chosen to introduce legislation that appears to penalize those whose reasonableness, as well as rightness, was demonstrated. Is this not evidence of faulty procedure?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me consider the matter of timing in the processing of the proposed legislation. Not only has the government failed to adequately explain the rationale for the legislation, but it has also failed to offer cogent reasoning for the apparent necessity to secure the approval of the Crown as quickly as possible. If it were the case that citizens of British Columbia were faced with impending labour negotiations that required us to have in place at the earliest possible date a mechanism for resolving possible disputes, this haste might be excusable. But the case is exactly the opposite: we are informed by all who are in a position to know that 1987 is expected to be a relatively quiet year with respect to major negotiations. All the more reason one might suppose to proceed with utter caution on legislation of such consequence. Can the minister responsible, Mr. Speaker, explain why he seeks to adopt an exactly contrary course?

Mr. Speaker, I'm fully aware of the difficulty of debates on procedure. Let me assure our colleagues that it was not at all our wish to be drawn into such a discussion. We no more wish to be tempted into delay for its own sake than they wish to be goaded into expediency for merely demonstrative purposes. But there is indeed public concern over these matters. It is not contrived; it is not mere posturing; it is not designed to embarrass the government. It is, as far as we are able to judge, a genuine expression of concern.

As one columnist, not known for his hostility to the government, suggested the day before yesterday, we pose to the government an intellectual challenge in the best legislative spirit. We stand ready to debate these measures, both in principle and in detail, with all the consideration they deserve, but we ask whether such discussion can freely proceed in the present circumstances. Is not the public interest better served by a reconsideration that incorporates the provision of a forum where debate can occur, other than under threat of imposition?

It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for the proposers of this legislation to make a gesture at this time that indicates their understanding of and respect for procedure. I do not make this suggestion lightly. I assure our colleagues that the reaction to this legislation which they are now enduring will not be infinitely repeated in case after case. I regard it as unfortunate that we are brought to this impasse so early in the session, before the habits of trust and cooperation have been given the opportunity to develop. But if there is any degree of sincerity underlying the government's abjuration of confrontation — and I must in the public interest take their previous statements at face value — then now is the time for it to signal to the people of this province that these are not empty promises to be invoked when it's convenient. Now is the time to deliver on these promises in deed as well as in spirit. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the government members I'll move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.