[ Page 553 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Protest on legislature lawn. Hon. Mr. Witch –– 554

Mr. Skelly

Oral Questions

Teacher-government relations. Mr. Jones –– 555

Lunch program in schools. Mr. Clark –– 556

Soviet submarines in local waters. Mr. G. Hanson –– 556

Protest on legislature lawn. Mr. Sihota –– 556

1987 tourist information. Mr. Chalmers –– 557

Protest on legislature lawn. Mr. Sihota –– 557

Ministerial Statement

Tribute to opposition leader. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 557

Mr. Skelly

Presenting Petitions –– 558

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

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 558

Ms. Smallwood –– 560

Mr. Huberts –– 562

Mr. Sihota –– 564

Mr. Dirks –– 568

Mr. Barnes –– 568

Mr. De Jong –– 571

Mr. Stupich –– 572

Mr. Crandall –– 576

Mr. Cashore –– 578

Select standing and special committees (members list) –– 578

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts this afternoon we have Mayor Alex Stuart of Ladysmith, as well as councillor Max Settler from the Nanaimo Indian band, whom I had the pleasure of meeting with earlier today. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. JONES: I have the great honour to introduce some distinguished visitors to this province and to this Legislature. Although they are visitors, they are watching very closely the proceedings of this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Frank Garrity, president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation and past president of the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation; Sheena Hanley, president-designate of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, from Quebec; Gerry Cooke, who is president of the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, from Saskatoon; John Fauteux, first vice-president of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, from Toronto; Peter Murphy, coordinator of the teacher welfare department of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, also from Toronto; Jim Head, vice-president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, also from Toronto; Harvey Weiner, president of the Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers from Quebec, who resides in Montreal; Jim Ross, president of the Prince Edward Island Teachers' Federation, from Charlottetown; Roger Grimes, president of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, from St. John's; Allan McDonald, president of the Northwest Territories Teachers' Association, from Yellowknife; Paul Nugent, president of the Yukon Teachers' Association, from Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory; Bert Haratty, past president of the New Brunswick Teachers' Federation, from St. John; Rose Marie Cool, past president of the New Brunswick Teachers' Federation, from Bathurst; Karen Willis, president of the Nova Scotia Teachers' Union, from Halifax; and from Winnipeg, Wally Pindera, who is general secretary of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. I hope the House will join with me in bidding them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery is an educational administrator of great renown from the riding of Burnaby-Willingdon, Mr. Stanley French, who works in the Vancouver school system. I'd ask this House to bid him welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are grade 10 and 11 students from Crofton House School for Girls in Vancouver, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Mennie. I would ask the House to join me in bidding them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I know we're all extending our welcome to the teachers who are visiting here today. I too had a fine discussion with an excellent teacher and good friend, Mr. Ken Walach, president of the Richmond Teachers' Association, who is in the galleries today. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS: In the gallery this afternoon are long-time community-minded citizens Patrick and Rosemary Alley from North Vancouver. Would members welcome them.

MR. ROSE: In the gallery today is Jacquie Boyer from the BCTF, who is helping the Canadian Teachers' Federation delegation find its way around this maze of buildings, along with Kim Manning, who is also originally from Coquitlam in my riding, and was an intern here, I believe, two years ago.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the House today Mr. Jim Cameron, executive assistant to Hon. Gerald Merrithew, Canada's Minister of State for Forestry.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mrs. Rose Charlie, a long-time president of the B.C. Indian Homemakers' Association. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming her.

MR. PETERSON: In your gallery today are four members of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture I had the pleasure of meeting with. I'd like to introduce Mr. Edgar Smith, Mr. Bill Brederhof, Mr. Ian Christianson, Mr. Brian Edwards, and would the House join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine and of the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), a determined young man, a man who has been indicating to the government and the people of British Columbia that he is opposed to uranium mining in the province of British Columbia. I would like the House to welcome Mr. Lloyd Hart.

MR. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House from the jewel of the Fraser Valley, the wonderful constituency of Chilliwack, Mr. Bill Coombes, the president of the B.C. Association of Broadcasters. Please make him welcome.

MR. VANT: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some very fine friends from the southern part of our great Cariboo constituency: Mr. Ken Callaghan from Green Lake, Bonnie L'Heureux from 70 Mile House, Vera Brundage from Clinton and Linda Krupp from Watch Lake. Also, Mr. Speaker, from Rick Hansen's home town of Williams Lake, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a large group of students from the Anne Stevenson Junior Secondary School. They're all grade 10 students and their teachers are Mr. Dick Schut and Mr. Cal Dey. I know the House will give them a royal welcome.

MR. WEISGERBER: I'd like to introduce two groups of people today. From the city of Dawson Creek, the mayor, Bob Trail, and his administrator, Harald Hansen. Also from Dawson Creek, chairman of Peace River–Laird Regional District, Bob Petrick, and his administrator, Moray Stewart.

Also in the gallery today are four more members of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture visiting the members today: Mr. Jay Hill, Mr. Jim Collins, Mr. Ken Cameron and Mr. Geoff Bodman. Would you please make them welcome.

[2:15]

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I would like to ask the House to welcome here today Mrs. Espronce

[ Page 554 ]

Webster from West Vancouver and Mr. Patrick McGowan from Richmond.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Occasionally when legislation comes to the House there is a contrary opinion on how it has been drafted or written, but we've never had a major problem with the major drafting, and with that said I'd like the House to send sincere best wishes to Allan Roger, our former chief legislative counsel, who has taken a brand-new, exciting position in the Crown colony of Hong Kong and will be leaving us shortly. Could I ask members to send him off in fine parliamentary style.

Ministerial Statement

PROTEST ON LEGISLATURE LAWN

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. I wish to reiterate the government's position expressed in the House yesterday by the hon. Premier on the matter of tents and similar structures being erected on the grounds of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly. The grounds surrounding this assembly are owned by the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia, administered by the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services. They are entrusted to the government of the province of British Columbia to be used on behalf of all people of British Columbia.

We are fortunate in having one of the most attractive legislative precincts in the whole of Canada. The lawns and gardens surrounding this building are a delight to behold, and we as the government intend to take steps to ensure that they remain in that condition. The Premier stated yesterday that the lawns of the Legislature are not going to become a tent city. It is incumbent upon government to ensure that the rights of all citizens are protected, and to this end we will exercise our duty.

A lot of loose words have been bandied about, suggesting that this represents a restriction on lawful assembly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The right to lawful assembly, in my view, does not carry with it the right to set up habitation in tents on the front lawn of this legislative structure. Lawful assembly and trespass, which is what these tents and other structures are, are diametrically opposite to each other. We may have many rights in this province but, without being flippant, in no statute have I ever seen a right to tent on the front lawn of the Legislative Assembly. We as government are not opposed to legitimate dissent. It's part of the democratic process; we hope that that continues, and we know it will. That is a part of the democratic process. And we will simply not allow the precincts of this building to become a campground, Mr. Speaker, for any group whatsoever, from whatever segment of society.

MR. SKELLY: We thank you for the statement made by the Provincial Secretary. The position that's taken by the New Democratic Party . . I can recall a time a few years ago when the Mining Association of British Columbia set up tents all over the front lawn of the Legislature; the appearance left something to be desired. In considering the issue, it was felt that the people of the province had a grievance against the Crown and wanted to demonstrate that grievance in the only way that they felt was available to them and that the government should not interfere with their right of free assembly.

I can understand that the government sometimes feels embarrassed, and that the buildings may look a little bit cluttered, but that is the price of freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of dissent in a democratic society. There are ways of avoiding the kinds of demonstrations that take place on the lawns of the parliament buildings: that is, the government acting truthfully, in a consultative, cooperative and listening way with the people who make those presentations out there, throughout the province of British Columbia. The government not only has to listen and to consult but they have to give a certain amount of weight to what they hear out there when they're making their decisions. The people who came to the lawns of the parliament buildings — whether they brought tents or briefcases, or whatever — were concerned about an arbitrary decision that was made behind the closed doors of government. They did what every citizen in a democratic parliamentary system has a right to do: and that's to come to the capital in Victoria — possibly a city far remote from the areas where they live — and to demonstrate to the legislators here, because we are the important people here. We represent those people outside, not the government. But those people have a right to come to the capital to express their concern with the decisions made by the government.

As I say, it may sometimes be inconvenient; it may sometimes even appear messy; it may sometimes offend the sensibilities of gardeners and even some government members; but those people have the right to come to the corridors of power and to make their wishes known.

But I agree, I was offended by the fact of seeing our Sergeant-at-Arms personnel being used by the government to remove people physically, and in fact at some points using excessive physical force to remove those people from the lawns of the parliament buildings without telling those people under what authority they were acting, without acquainting them with the statutes which the government felt they were violating.

They were doing exactly what is contrary to the British system of justice. If we want this building to be respected and if we want this system to be respected, then it has to treat its citizens with respect and it has to treat their views with respect. We are not here to represent the fine furnishings and the imposing buildings and the beautiful gardens and the beautiful flowers and the possibility of this being a tourist attraction. We're not here to represent all those things; we are here to represent the citizens of this province who have a democratic right to express their concerns and to express their dissent to what the government and the Legislative Assembly is doing.

I do hope that when the Provincial Secretary is considering ways, or when this special committee is considering ways, of managing the precincts, they give full thought to the fact that this building, its grounds and the people who occupy this building — the government and the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia — will remain fully accessible to the people of this province, whether they agree with the government or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday afternoon the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose under the provisions of standing order 26 relating to a matter of privilege, and described recent events which had taken place on the lawn in the front of the legislative building. First, I wish to thank the

[ Page 555 ]

hon. member for his courtesy in advising the Chair of this matter prior to his raising it in the House.

Hon. members will appreciate that privilege belongs to members of the Legislature individually and collectively. The individual privileges are freedom of speech in debate and freedom from arrest. The collective privileges are: access to the Crown, the right to provide for its due composition, the right to regulate its own proceedings, the power to punish for contempt, the power to summon witnesses and those privileges enumerated in the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of parliament are rights which are — and I stress this — absolutely necessary for the due execution of its power. They are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members, and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.

The question the Chair must address is whether or not the privileges enumerated above have been breached by the actions described by the hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Chair must also observe that the Speaker's jurisdiction in British Columbia has never been clearly defined. The problems relating thereto were placed before this House and a report filed under the Legislative Procedure Review Act in 1984. On page 41 of that report it was recommended that the legislative precinct be defined as the land and buildings bounded by Belleville, Government, Superior and Menzies Streets, and further recommended that the definition be included in an act establishing a board of internal economy. The Chair feels that the matter raised yesterday by the hon. Leader of the Opposition could have been examined by such a board, and experience in other jurisdictions of the Commonwealth lends support to that conclusion.

The right to demonstrate and protest are integral parts of a parliamentary democracy. The question the Chair, and indeed this assembly, must address is whether or not they wish to circumscribe limits to these rights, particularly when the actions in question directly impact upon the precinct of this Legislative Assembly. The Speaker is, and will remain, the servant of this assembly, but is placed in an invidious position when the extent of his jurisdiction remains uncertain. It is hoped that the Premier's statement relating to the formation of a board of internal economy will hasten the resolution of many of these uncertainties. The matter raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition has brought into sharp focus these jurisdictional problems. But the matter described does not, under the authorities, qualify as a prima facie breach of privilege.

For the further assistance of all members, I refer them to a comprehensive treatment of this matter contained in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by Joseph Maingot; Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, nineteenth edition, page 92; and Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition, page 11.

The Chair must make a further comment in relation to a fresh incident reported by the hon. Leader of the Opposition during this morning's sitting, which, as the Chair understands it, amounted to a repeat of yesterday's incident on the lawn of the Legislative Assembly. As a result of this last-mentioned incident, the Speaker has issued instructions to the Sergeant-at-Arms that neither he nor any of his staff are to become involved in the forcible removal of persons or articles from the grounds of the Legislative Buildings. These instructions will remain in place until the Chair has been given different instructions by this House or by a duly constituted board of internal economy.

Let me emphasize that this in no way derogates from the Chair's acknowledged responsibility for security matters within the walls of the legislative building, which will continue in accordance with the standing orders of this House and well-established custom and usage.

[2:30]

Oral Questions

TEACHER-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

MR. JONES: I would like to ask a question of the Premier. Given the climate of anxiety that exists in the education community in this province today, and given the goal that's been expressed very strongly on both sides of this House of undisrupted education services for the students of this province, can the Premier give this House any indication of a conciliatory attitude by this government toward reasoned argument that could be presented on the part of teachers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Repeat the part of the question....

MR. JONES: Can the Premier give us any indication of a conciliatory attitude toward reasoned argument presented on the part of teachers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, all things we do are reasoned, and certainly we have given ample opportunity for meetings, for the necessary input into all of the proposals we bring forth. I am sure that there is great support for this type of approach, and we intend to continue with it throughout the whole of the province.

MR. JONES: I will try the question again, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member might realize that he is treading very closely, unless it is a matter of urgency... that it is a matter that is before the House.

MR. JONES: What I was looking for in the question, Mr. Premier, was some indication of conciliation, which I believe is needed in this province at this time. I was looking for a conciliatory attitude from all parties concerned with this dispute at this time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, frankly, I don't follow the line of questioning too well, unfortunately.

I think we may have some disagreement. There are those who view what is being proposed differently from how it is viewed by us on this side of the House, representing British Columbians.... Frankly, I don't see a dispute. I think there are a lot of people throughout the whole of the province who totally agree with the approach that is being taken by the government that represents them.

MR. JONES: A supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Certainly Premiers of provinces of Canada are an august body of people, and our Premier has indicated in the past the desire for consultation and for making phone calls.

[ Page 556 ]

I'm wondering if it is possible that the Premier has decided to consult the former Premier of Ontario, Mr. Davis, or the former Premier of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed, who may be able to give the Premier some helpful advice on current matters.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, neither Mr. Mulroney, nor Mr. Broadbent, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Bourassa, or Mr. Getty — it doesn't matter how much I respect and love these gentlemen — are going to be running the affairs of the province of British Columbia.

LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

MR. CLARK: I have a question for the Premier. The Vancouver School Board has investigated the matter of hungry children in the schools, and they've determined that the problem is in fact widespread and not isolated to one or two schools, as the Premier seems to have indicated, and needs to set up now a school-based lunch program to deal with it. The chairman of the school board has indicated that he's doing this because he hopes it will spur the government to act. Has the Premier decided now, in light of the school board's unilateral action, to ask his minister to conduct a comprehensive, provincewide survey of the problem with a view to setting up a school-based nutrition program provincewide?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I commend the action of the school board or the school or the principal or the parents or the parents' group for taking action where they see there is a problem. Certainly it's recognized that we all have a role to play, from the parents right through. What I've said in the past, however, is that we're not about to adopt massive programs for the whole of the province, but that obviously if there's a problem we wish to address it and to address it properly. I'm very pleased that our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) and the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) are looking at this problem in an appropriate manner through the offices and through the use of their good people within the ministries, and we'll be hearing from them further in future.

SOVIET SUBMARINES IN LOCAL WATERS

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. It's with respect to some very disturbing information that Canada's security may have been breached routinely by the Soviet Union, having submarines coming through the Juan de Fuca Strait. Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: what action has the minister taken with respect to these very serious and dangerous allegations that the Soviet Union has come through tracking Trident missile submarines?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm delighted that the member and I have both had the opportunity to read the same newspaper. Having said that, I will advise the member that in due course I will be in consultation with the Minister of National Defence, who has responsibility over our national defence, and that includes the Juan de Fuca Strait.

MR. G. HANSON: A new question. As the minister is aware, the Bangor Trident submarine base is a central target in terms of east-west military relations. Each U.S. Trident nuclear submarine carries 24 intercontinental ballistic missiles with 192 nuclear warheads. Has this government pressed the federal government to ensure that the sea-launch cruise missiles are included in arms control talks between the United States and the Soviet Union?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I detected a question in there, but I am not sure that the member.... The member assumes that I am aware of the priorities of the Soviet Union in terms of their targets. You may have some access to that type of information, but I don't.

MR. G. HANSON: You know, the minister may find that amusing, but there are many people in this world who are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Bangor, Washington, is not that far away from my own community — in fact, from any point in British Columbia. I think it's shameful that he is frivolous about these kinds of things, and we're asking for him to press the federal government for these to be included in arms control talks. That is not a frivolous question. Has he decided to do that?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I was being frivolous about something which perhaps should have been brought up during my estimates but certainly wasn't a question worthy of question period. There was, however, a glimmer of question in your statement, and the answer is no, but I'll take it under consideration.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, given the attitude of the minister, I'd just like to ask him if he still owns shares via Forrest Investments in Helix Laboratories, which does the control systems for cruise missiles; or has he divested himself of those shares?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

PROTEST ON LEGISLATURE LAWN

MR. SIHOTA: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday during the course of questions I asked him on the protest outside, the Premier said that in his view municipal and provincial laws may have been violated. Could he tell the House which laws were indeed violated that allowed the government to take the action that it did yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will defer to the Attorney-General.

MR. SIHOTA: I ask the same question of the Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH: First of all, Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, if I was to go in his front yard and set up a tent and he owned that yard, I would have the property right to remove his tent from that yard. This property is owned by the Queen in the right of the province of British Columbia, and there is a right to remove structures and overnight tents. There may not be a right to remove people coming to exercise freedom of speech, but that's not what we're doing.

There is also a right, pursuant to section 41(l) of the Criminal Code, to peacefully remove people who refuse to leave real property at the request of those who own it; and if you don't leave when you're requested to leave by someone

[ Page 557 ]

exercising his property rights, then you're deemed to commit an assault. So there's ample common law and criminal law to remove people who want to turn the lawns of the parliament buildings into a campsite.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the people on the lawn own the lawn, not the government. Nor were the provisions of the Criminal Code applied. And let me tell the Attorney-General that the Trespass Act. . . .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll ask the question then. The Trespass Act allows for the removal of people from property but not property from property, and I would draw that matter to the attention of the Attorney-General.

My question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Did the Premier seek the prior approval of the Speaker before ordering the Sergeant-at-Arms staff to remove the tents from the lawns of the Legislature? Was that prior approval of the Speaker obtained yesterday and today?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

1987 TOURIST INFORMATION

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, as everyone in this House knows full well that tourism is extremely important to this province, and because many small business people are right at this moment trying to make plans for the summer months, could the Minister of Tourism share with us any information as to what those people might expect in this year's tourism that might help in making their plans?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for sun and all good things in British Columbia, I want to make certain that all members of this House and all people in the province get the true story of what's happening to the economy as a result of tourism influx into British Columbia in 1987. In response to that good question from that member, some of the great things that are happening.... There are business people out there who want to know if the positive mood that this government has is catching on — are people coming back because of the good mood, the good attitude — so I want to tell you some numbers. Rogers Pass, for instance, is bringing 38 percent more tourists into British Columbia from that section of Canada than at any other time in our history.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the minister please take his seat. It is question period, Mr. Minister. A question can be given to you that can lead you .... Members of this House might be very interested in the information that you have, and it might be well to table that information so that all members could benefit.

HON. MR. REID: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I take your direction. I will table the information for the courtesy of the House.

PROTEST ON LEGISLATURE LAWN

MR. SIHOTA: Back to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Did the Premier, on his own authority, ask the Sergeant-at-Arms staff to remove the tents from the steps of the Legislature yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: Then on whose authority were the issues given to the Sergeant-at-Arms staff to remove the tents from the lawns of the Legislature yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Responsibility for this is with the Provincial Secretary, and the matter was referred o him.

MR. SIHOTA: Did the Premier refer the matter then to the Provincial Secretary and instruct him to issue the orders?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Speaker.

Ministerial Statement

TRIBUTE TO OPPOSITION LEADER

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

I suppose today is the last day for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) to be the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to take this opportunity to express, on behalf of those of us on this side and certainly on behalf, I am sure, of British Columbians everywhere, our appreciation for the effort which has been put forth during the years by the Leader of the Opposition in the chamber and outside of the chamber.

I appreciate that we've not always agreed, I suppose. On most matters we've disagreed. But I certainly have a great respect for the Leader of the Opposition, for the job that he has done. I was involved with the Leader of the Opposition in the campaign, and I must say that throughout it he was a gentleman and I was certainly appreciative of that as well.

I know that he has put forth a tremendous effort on behalf of all British Columbians in his role, and I think I can speak for everyone when I say we are appreciative of a fine job done over the years by the Leader of the Opposition, and we wish him well.

[2:45]

MR. SKELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Premier and the members of the Legislature for the kind tribute they have paid to me after my short tenure as Leader of the Opposition over the last three years.

I can truthfully say that I have enjoyed every minute of it. It has given me an opportunity to meet with many fine people of all political persuasions in all parts of the province and in fact people engaged in public life in many parts of the world. I think it has been a terrific experience for me and certainly a terrific experience for my family. I want to express my appreciation to all members of the Legislature on all sides of the House who were of assistance to me when I was Leader of the Opposition, and also to the staff people and the people in the precincts who help us every day in any number of ways to make this job a lot easier than it otherwise might be, and to

[ Page 558 ]

thank the people of British Columbia, who are always prepared to sit down and listen to your arguments, and look at your arguments, and test them and possibly even in some cases support them. Hopefully, more of that will happen in the future.

I also want to thank this Premier for the way he has conducted himself, both during the election campaign and since, because I think that gains have been made, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature. Even though the election did not turn out as we had hoped on this side, certainly some gains have been made. We've been talking in the Legislature today about things like a bureau of internal economy and the Premier's courtesies in inviting the Leader of the Opposition and opposition debate leaders to attend first ministers' conferences. While we don't always agree on the presentations made at those conferences, I think it's important that both sides of the House are allowed to participate.

I'm going to be around for a few years yet. I'm not leaving these hallowed precincts yet, and I look forward to working with all of you over the next two years, although I have indicated that I will not be contesting the election in Alberni next time around.

I would like to introduce someone in the gallery today, my wife Alexandra Skelly, who has been supporting me through this whole effort over the last 15 years. Unfortunately my children are not here today — Susan, who is 13 years old; and Robbie, who is 11 — but they've spent all of their lives in a political family. My daughter was born at the Western Premiers' Conference in Calgary; my son was born during sessions of the Legislative Assembly. I managed to rush over to Victoria General just as he was being born, and then to come back and to be able to make a speech in the assembly. So they've committed their lives to a pretty intense political career, and I'd like to thank them for all the support they've given me.

One of the reasons that I will not be seeking the election in Alberni next time around is that I think that over the next six years or so I'm going to turn it around a little bit and pay back the debt that I owe to them, by supporting them as they go through adolescence and high school. I'm going to try to be as much support to them over the next few years as they have been to me.

Again, thank you to the Premier and thank you to the House for your kind words and for the tribute. I'll look forward to working with you and against you over the next few years.

Presenting Petitions

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I seek the floor to present a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, this petition comes from approximately 300 residents of Vernon, practically all of them teachers, and I'm presenting it on their behalf. These teachers are from the Vernon area and make a vital contribution to the well-being of their communities. These teachers are both professionals and employees. They are vitally concerned about the future of education in this province, and they are all members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation and want the right to remain that way. The petition states:

"To the hon. the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in legislature assembled, the petition of the undersigned on behalf of 299 residents and teachers in the city of Vernon states that they are concerned about aspects of Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987, and Bill 20, the Teaching Profession Act, and the precipitate action of the government in forcing this legislation through the hon. House without the openness and consultation which the Premier promised.

"They are concerned that the government is destroying the B.C. Teachers' Federation, that the government has removed security from teachers and is arbitrarily taking away such things as earned sick leave. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House delay consideration of Bill 19 and 20 to allow for appropriate consultation with the BCTF and other groups with an interest in education. Dated this 9th day of April, 1987."

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. REID: I am pleased to take my place to speak in opposition to the hoist of Bill 19, and I am interested in the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I was surprised that his final closing comment was that he was going to finally cross the floor because we were doing all the things that are right in the province, and he was agreeing with all the things we are doing. So I'm surprised he's not deciding to do that today, but probably in the very near future.

With respect to Bill 19, it is to bring about a process of open government and democracy in the workplace in the province of British Columbia. For the first time, it will inject fair play into both labour and management for the labour negotiation process in British Columbia. I think it can be emphasized quite strongly by virtue of the comments made by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) when he said that since 1973 the Labour Code has been amended 16 times, and in those 16 amendments not all parties were pleased and not all parties were offended.

The process which is required today in the province of British Columbia indicates to us that this is a problem-solving bill, and it indicates quite strongly that there are no simple solutions. The trade unions have asked and called for quicker response to decertification. This bill does provide that. It is designed to create and establish a new climate of labour relations in the province of British Columbia — long, long overdue.

I guess the most important point of all, one that I don't think can be emphasized strongly enough and often enough, is that we have to make British Columbia a place that's very attractive to the investors that are just on the periphery of British Columbia. They have told us in record numbers that they want to come here, they want to be part of a growing population, a positive province, a positive attitude, and the only fears they have . . . .

[ Page 559 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Name them.

HON. MR. REID: Do you want me to name them? I've got a list of them here. Do you want me to name them? Anyway, I've got a list.

The most important aspect of the bill is to help the economy create more jobs.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can't even name one.

HON. MR. REID: We're transferring one from your corporation over to B.C. Hydro; that's one of the good ones. Labour relations improvements in the province of British Columbia, as I said earlier, are long overdue. We have reams and reams of letters and recommendations from corporations and industries that have shown a tentative interest in coming to British Columbia but have had to withdraw because of the labour climate in the province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID: If you will pay attention, I'll tell you something. There was a study conducted in 1985 of 14 major cities in North America, with 22 corporations, two banks, two industrial associations, one economic development coordinator, one trade commissioner; and the surprising number — to the opposition, pay attention — was that 95 percent of those people surveyed advised that labour problems in British Columbia — surprise, surprise — are the most negative aspect of the investment climate, and that in a number of cases was the sole reason for not relocating here.

That tells us, if we're listening not only to our own people who conducted a survey as an around-the-province team, a qualified team listening to every community of the province, listening to all the problems of the labour climate out there after the worst economic strike to ever affect the province of British Columbia, costing us more than $100 million of income which we would have loved to put into social services in the province of British Columbia, had that not happened. . . . That forced us to listen to all those things being offered to our study committee and told us that there are some changes drastically needed in labour relations in the province of British Columbia; and as you know full well, nobody listens better than this Premier and this government to what our people, all the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia, want as a result.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID: There are no simple solutions. When I say there are no simple solutions — the simple solutions that those members on the opposite side offer constantly — we are convinced that the labour climate in British Columbia requires more democracy on the part of the employee, more democracy in the workplace, a right to have free certification and decertification with the same right of a private and secret vote that is in fact a total secret vote; an opportunity before certification for the members to discuss with the management as well as with the fellows with baseball bats whether in fact....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID: I want to make sure I don't miss a point from over there, so I will slow down. As a matter of fact, the labour climate in the province of British Columbia, as has been indicated to us by all major investors in the world.... And that's the people we listen to because the economy of the province of British Columbia is destined to be resolved by investment and employment. If you people on the other side are convinced that employment is in fact a way to survive in the province of British Columbia, then we first of all must address those questions which continue to harass the province in its opportunity to get ahead with further employment. It takes investment by primarily the private sector to draw in employment to pay the bills, but also money from other sources in the world which is intent on coming here providing this province can offer, which we do with Bill 19, a proper labour climate which offers fairness to both the workplace and to management.

MR. WILLIAMS: What if it doesn't work?

HON. MR. REID: If it doesn't work, this government listens. We will correct anything that shows up in 20 years from now, because that's how long it's going to take. This is such a perfect bill, it will take so much time for a loose end of this to come out. The loose end is over there, and when this bill is made law, you fellows will be so convinced that you should be on this side. There will be so many good things happening in the province of British Columbia that you will wonder why you ever opposed anything in this bill that was being offered. I find it difficult to believe that there is really even one line in this new bill, after all the work that's gone into it by my colleague the Labour minister and all of the people of the province who offered him suggestions on how to improve the labour climate in British Columbia, with a brand-new Labour minister who was listening to nobody, no pre-conceived notions....

[3:00]

He went out there and with what he found out, boy, did he have some answers. He put them all down and he called it Bill 19, and he's brought it in here and asked us to look at it. It was so great we wanted to advance it and we were hoping, before your convention this weekend, that you'd stand in this House and agree to support it, vote for it, and go to your convention with already a positive mood to give to a brand-new leader as to how to get this province on a roll and to be a partner in developing the economy of the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

As the Minister of Tourism, I can tell you that the economy of the province and the people I'm speaking to, who are sitting on their wallets at the moment waiting to spend in the development of tourism in British Columbia . . . won't come here, won't come onto the shores of British Columbia because there's a possibility that we will withdraw this bill and send it back out. Look, we sent the Labour minister around the province for months listening to the people out there; he got all the answers. We're convinced; it's so fine-tuned that we're surprised that you don't want to vote on it today. As a matter of fact, I think we could get consensus to vote on it today if you were convinced as a result of my arguments that really there is nothing to oppose.

So you know your hoist motion is frivolous; you should withdraw it; we should get on to the business of the day, vote

[ Page 560 ]

for the resolution, take it to your convention, convince your delegates out there how great things are in the province of British Columbia and how the economy is going to be turned around, and why things — like up in the community of Trail — are going to be so much better now that the labour climate has been improved and....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Well, the member there from Trail knows how the confrontation has been up there, and this will smooth out all the problems that that member's had.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vancouver East.

HON. MR. REID: Vancouver East. You can go home to your own community and hold your shoulders high and be proud of representing the province, because you've got something that works. You've got something that's going to attract tourists into the community of Victoria, where this member is begging for the economy to be improved. Mr. Member, we've got your answer right here. Your economy in Victoria will just .... Don't leave; I'm going to tell you more. It's going to be so great that you're going to wonder why you're not a Socred. Because you'd like to take credit for it but you won't be able to if you don't change your mind today or tomorrow.

So I tell you, my colleagues, this bill is meant. It's a good-news bill; it's one that we've waited a long time for. It has to do with fair play, democracy, expansion of economy, creation of jobs — that little coined phrase that we give you to use, although we are the ones who bring it about. You can use it, but you've got to agree with us sometimes. If you're going to create jobs, you've actually got to believe in that. And to believe in it, you've got to have fair play, democracy in the labour place and labour peace. And the way to have fair play and labour peace is to vote....

AN HON. MEMBER: For any price.

HON. MR. REID: No, not for any price. No, it's for equality in the workplace for both management and labour. So, my colleagues, repent, repent. Withdraw this ridiculous hoist motion; go back to the original bill and vote for it, and go to your convention with a clean conscience. Thank you very much.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm afraid that's going to be a difficult act to follow — difficult, Mr. Speaker, because I'd like to talk about some of my concerns, and my concerns I think are serious ones. And it's a difficult act to follow because I don't intend to try to sell anything to the people of B. C. I intend to go out and ask the people of B. C. what their concerns are. I think that perhaps it's appropriate for the previous speaker, given that his background is one of salesmanship, to continue to try to sell a product, to sell the government's program — the government's package, as it has been described. However, I would like to speak to the hoist motion; I'd like to speak to our appeal to this government to delay the rush, to delay their intent to push this package through, and instead to take a deliberate line with the province and people of B. C. and go out and explore what this bill really means.

I have some really grave concerns, when we talk about this bill in the House. I'm concerned that none of us, whether on the government side or on the opposition side, truly understand the depth of the impact that this legislation will have on this province. I understand that the Minister of Labour has gone out and talked to people in this province about what their ideas about the legislation could be. However, in no way has the government actually gone out and asked for support. Again and again we have heard the concerns of labour leaders and business leaders — big business, small business — that this legislation will not cause labour peace, management peace, will not encourage investment in this province.

I guess my concern as a new member in this House is that there's an awful lot of talk, of rhetoric, and yet we are not seeing the commitment to that rhetoric, to open consultation — the kinds of rhetoric we have heard for the last six months. This, I think, is a really good test. It concerns me that constantly in the last few weeks we find speakers getting up and saying again and again: "This is a good test." This government and these speakers on the government side constantly and incessantly fail the test to consult. Again I will make an impassioned plea to this government to support the hoist, to support consultation, indeed to acknowledge the reality of what is going on outside of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I will not talk about the substance of the bill itself. I haven't had the opportunity of actually looking at the bill clause by clause. I have not had the opportunity to avail myself of legal advice. I have not had the opportunity to speak to the different sectors in our province to realize the full magnitude of this legislation. What I will speak to, and what I would like the opportunity to talk a little bit about, is what we are facing here in this province, and indeed what Canada and perhaps the whole of North America is facing.

We are on the cutting edge of significant change in our industrialized society. We are on the cutting edge of a revolution that perhaps has not been seen in our society for at least a hundred years, perhaps longer. I'm talking about the technological revolution that our society is undergoing. Our society is undergoing such significant change that our government in turn has an opportunity to show some leadership. I am concerned that this government is either totally oblivious to this technological revolution that is going on, or — perhaps even worse — facilitating a direction that this province does not want to undertake.

I would take you, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps some of the members in this House back to the throne speech debate, where there was discussion about the ongoing unemployment in this province and the fact that the majority of jobs in this province in the years to come will be in the service sector. Those facts are not a reflection of a market downturn; they are not a reflection of some kind of a boom and bust that we have seen historically in this province or in Canada. I believe strongly that what we're seeing is a reflection of the impact of technological change.

Several times in this House speakers have referred to the management dispute, the problems within the forest industry that we have witnessed in the last year. If you look at the number of people employed in the forest industry over the last few years, at the productivity and, indeed, at the profits made over the last few years, that does not reflect an economic downturn. What that reflects is the technological change in our forest industry. The increase in productivity is in direct relationship to automation, and indeed to the commitment of

[ Page 561 ]

the working people in that sector to make it work. By repeatedly saying there's a labour problem out there, that we have to get this province back on its feet again and pointing at the management dispute in the forest sector, this government is undermining the relationship the working people had with their companies. They are totally disregarding the realities out there. They are totally ignoring the fact that the companies are making record profits. And they're making them because of their ability to automate their workplace, because of their ability to reduce through attrition the number of people in their workforce. I think that that is a really good indicator. I think that that is significant. It is a significant issue, and it is significant in that this legislation that we are talking about has not begun to address those significant realities in our society. We have got to, if indeed the issue is one of management-labour peace. If indeed there is a commitment out there to getting this province back on the road, to looking for new ways, to being able to resolve problems, we have got to grapple with the problem — and indeed I perceive it as a challenge — of technological change in our society.

All of the indicators, all of the studies that have been done over the last few years, indicate that the growth in employment, not only in our province but in North America — perhaps in all industrialized countries — is in the service sector. They have gone as far as to suggest that by 1990 the growth in the service sector will have increased, so that up to 70 percent of the workforce will be in service-sector or service-related industries. I'm sorry that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) has left, because, quite frankly, that indicates that his ministry, the Tourism ministry, will be one of the major employers. However, Mr. Speaker, without dealing with the impact of technological change, without dealing with the fact that the major impact of technological change will be in the service sector, we cannot move forward. Indeed, if we are committed to getting this province back on the road again with this legislation, we cannot make the next step in economic development in this province.... Without acknowledging the major impact that technological change is going to have on our society, any step that we take will be a faulty one.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of work done in the last few years with community groups, with small business groups, with municipal organizations, with unions, with corporations. Again and again the message comes back, whether it's a federal task force on the economy, whether it's communities themselves taking the initiative to try to get their communities back on the road again . . . . There have been many initiatives to try to deal collectively with reaching a remedy, reaching some kind of community peace, some kind of community direction. I am concerned that all of that work has not been represented. I am concerned that some of those major directions that have been undertaken have not been acknowledged. I believe that it is incumbent upon this House to take advantage of that work, to take this legislation out, to listen to what people have to say, and to come back to this House with a document that truly represents the collective wisdom of our province. I believe that we've already had enough indicators from the public that there are grave concerns.

As a new member in this House, I am not only concerned; indeed, I am frightened by the direction that this government is taking. I am concerned that what we are seeing, with protests around areas that are very dear to me, will be played out in the weeks to come with many of the different sectors in our province. I believe that if this House, if this government, refuses to listen, then we are doomed to that kind of heightened anxiety. I believe all of us are well aware of what has gone on in the last three our four years in this province, and I don't think any of us want to relive that. If this House and the government do not listen to the pleas of the opposition for consultation, if this government does not listen to the concerns expressed by labour leaders, by community groups, by small business and big business alike, then regardless of the government's sales pitch, regardless of the Premier's references and calls for the business community to get behind this bill to help him stave off the pink pickets, and regardless of what kind of pitch this government can make, there will be no change. The people of British Columbia are not stupid. They will be heard. If this government does not hear them when they speak civilly to them and does not listen to reason or to information, Mr. Speaker, I believe that more desperate stances will be taken. As a new member of this House, I don't want to be in the position that I have found myself in in the last couple of days.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on the hoist motion. I am asking for the government to acknowledge that there are negative aspects and to acknowledge the realities that we are undergoing some significant change in this province, that we will continue to face massive unemployment unless we take a different direction, and that the direction cannot be a simplistic one. The government has talked about its labour legislation as a package that you can't take out of context with the rest of their program. Indeed, we on the opposition benches have not heard what the government's package is, other than positive thinking and a sales pitch for the business community to get behind them to stave off the pink pickets.

I as a member of the opposition would like to understand. I would like them to explain to us. I would like to have the opportunity of dealing with this legislation as a fully informed member of this House, and that has not happened so far.

Mr. Speaker, we have in this House undergone a process of looking at the government's budget and beginning to understand what the government is talking about when they talk about the employment statistics and their concern over that. I think one of the comments made by one of the leaders of business in our community also expressed a concern that what we are seeing here is a foreign bill — a foreign ideology. I believe one of the previous speakers talked of concern about legislation coming in from Alabama, and there has certainly been a reflection of that in the public's concerns expressed as well.

I think that it would behoove this House, beyond going out there and talking to people, to take a look at the impacts of technological change, not purely automation but also the impacts of the international scene — the push of this province to bring in secondary industries, to encourage investment from the Pacific Rim, and to compete within the international market. I am concerned that what this legislation is doing is putting this province on the international scene, competing fully with countries of the Third World, with the kinds of assembly-line workers who get $1 or $2 an hour for their work, with no health and safety or union protection. I believe that that kind of debate has to be brought to the consideration.... We need to look broadly at the implications. I don't believe that taking rights away from organized working people of this province is going to lead either to labour peace,

[ Page 562 ]

to management peace, or indeed is going to make our climate any better for investors.

I have spent a considerable amount of time taking a look at what indeed is happening with some of the technological, high-tech industries in Silicon Valley or some of the other leaders in the high-tech industries. What I'm seeing is that it is of international scope, that many of those industries that have their head offices in either Silicon Valley or on the east coast are industries that ship out their work. They look for the best advantage. They look for advantages in the labour market; they look to the Third World countries for reduced labour. Certainly that has been the case in the past five to ten years.

Ironically, what those leading industries are saying is that that no longer is the advantage to them. They no longer are looking for that reduced labour rate. Indeed, what they're looking for — and this reflects what some of the members on the other side have been saying — is a climate that they can be assured is stable, a climate that they can be assured has a good educational base; that they have the resources, indeed the brain power, that can allow their international corporations to prosper.

I believe that what we're seeing with this package does not support what these industries are looking for. Indeed, if we are going to be on that cutting edge, if we're going to be in a situation where we can move forward — and I'm hesitant to say compete — internationally, and if we can assure a stable economy, what the best tack would be is one of building consensus. What we need is leadership from this government, as I said, that acknowledges the realities that we face out there, that takes that courageous stand and goes out and tries to build consensus, so that it is not a sole government, a sole political perspective, an individual, but instead is a consensus, the province moving forward.

I believe that takes time, and I believe that we have that time. This is a new government. This is the first session of this House. We could easily undertake a program that is a program of consensus-building, that involves not only management, as has been, I believe, proven to be the bias of this government, but includes all working people of this province, big business and small business, as well as community groups; one that allows people who care about their future, their community's future and the future of their children to participate in this new reality that indeed we will be facing.

We're in a situation in B.C. that I believe is just beginning to come to the consciousness of the citizens of our province, where parents are grappling with what this new reality will mean to their children, where we have young adults who are looking for work and realizing there's no place for them. This has everything to do with the direction our province takes, not only in superficially trying to deal with management problems and labour relations; it has everything to do with the definition of work, the definition of the workplace. It has everything to do with education, with the support that is needed for part-time workers, the support that a government could lend to the security of working people in providing pensions, in providing a reduced work week at the same pay and in playing a role in health and safety in this province.

The ramifications of the new reality that we are facing are awesome. It touches us in every aspect of our lives, and I believe that this government would be derelict if it did not begin to try to grapple with this. This is a very serious problem and, indeed, this could be an opportunity for a government not only to provide leadership but to take up the challenge. I think for us not to take up that challenge, not to recognize that there is significant change out there, is selling the next generation short.

As a new member in this House, I welcome the opportunity of trying to meet the challenges of change. I welcome the opportunity of rolling up my sleeves and doing the work that is necessary. I realize that what I'm outlining here is an enormous task. I've begun that task by trying to make myself aware of the situations that we're facing. I don't, for a moment, profess to be an expert either on labour legislation or, indeed, on the impacts of technological change. I do know enough to know that this is not the right tack. I do know that without dealing with the new realities, we are making a grave error.

[3:30]

I can't say strongly enough how important it is for this House, not solely the members of the government or a committee that is hand-picked by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, to get behind the building of a consensus in this province. It's a big job, but it's a tremendous challenge with tremendous rewards. We could set the stage; we could be the example for every other jurisdiction in North America by acknowledging that we are on the cutting edge of change, by acknowledging that our society is undergoing tremendous tensions, by not exacerbating those tensions but supporting community groups, by supporting small business, by supporting every working person in this province, by supporting schools, by recognizing that children — our next generation — have tremendous pressures on them. We could provide the leadership.

This House could undertake a project that would lead us into the next generation, that would set the stage for a rewarding experience for our young people. I think this is a tremendous challenge, a tremendous opportunity, and I think that for this government to ignore this hoist motion, to ignore the realities that are going on out in the province, to instead belittle any attempt to deal seriously with the impacts of the change, to continue with the rhetoric of a fresh start, to continue with the rhetoric of salesmanship, is missing that chance.

I think it's a challenge that I would like to put out to this government, a challenge that I'm hoping some of the leaders on the government side will take up. I'm hoping they will support this hoist motion and will undertake the opportunities that are out there. I am hoping that these opportunities don't pass us by.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak against the hoist motion, and I want to speak strongly in favour of Bill 19.

Our forefathers must have had a tremendous ability to look into the future, because they recognized that there would be such negative things in this room that they built these strong pillars so that this building would continue to stand. I am just happy to stand here today to be somebody who would be on the positive side.

The Minister of Labour never said that this would be a panacea. He never said that this would be the answer to everything. What he said was that it would deal with the problems that we have at hand, and that is precisely what this bill is doing. He has gone throughout the province; he has spoken to numerous people. Everyone had an opportunity to be there, including the opposition, and they weren't there —

[ Page 563 ]

they were late again as usual. He spoke to them, he got 700 oral and written submissions, and he said: "I am going to deal with these problems. What do you recommend? I am ready to do whatever is necessary."

I have nothing but praise for the Minister of Labour. Everything about this bill is positive, and yet they want us to wait. Wait for what? There are some people who get on with the job, and there are others who sit on the job. The Industrial Relations Reform Act strengthens democracy — that's what we all want, isn't it? — in the workplace. It recognizes the rights of both employers and employees, both important. Just as important, this act recognizes the protection of the interests of the public.

For far too long individuals, families and communities have become hostages in labour disputes. While both parties in a labour dispute are concerned with their own well-being, often neither group has any concerns for the innocent or for the interests of the public. The end result is that innocent bystanders suffer significant hardship. For examples, we just have to look back. One of the prime results is the loss to the provincial economy. Every single British Columbian is involved because of the loss to the province. During protracted disputes, millions of dollars are lost forever, never to be recouped. Why? Because two parties refuse to compromise. If we look at the IWA strike — and it should be recent enough in the opposition's mind, but they seem to have forgotten it already — millions of dollars were lost, thousands of people were out of work. The result was misery, suffering and loss, and they want six more months of that in the future. I am therefore very pleased to see that our government will take major steps in ensuring that the rights of innocent third parties and the public at large are protected. There is no reason that those people who are not directly involved in the labour dispute should have to endure financial hardships.

Mr. Speaker, clarification on rules on informational picketing and the limiting of picketing activity to the employer's main area of operation are also two welcome and overdue measures. These measures, too, will ensure that the rights of the innocent third party and of the public are protected. Innocent third parties will no longer have to worry about the threat of secondary picketing.

Another positive feature of this new act that I strongly support is the fact that strikes and lockouts will be prevented during the period that a collective agreement is in place. And this act provides additional means of redress other than job stoppages.

The banning of strikes prior to good-faith bargaining is a positive step, another reason to get on with this legislation. I believe it is important that parties engage in discussion. A business cannot expect to be competitive, nor can workers be expected to be productive, without dialogue between the two. Through the process of consultation, employees and employers can reach agreements that are fair and equitable to both sides. Both groups must realize that there must be give and take. A work stoppage should be a measure of the last resort, and far too often it is the measure of the first resort. I am confident that under this new act labour stoppages will be less frequent, and that will be good for British Columbia.

The provision for the establishment of a 40-day cooling-off period is another positive thing. Under the new act, the two parties involved in a labour dispute will be allowed to settle their differences through the process of bargaining.

This 40-day cooling-off period provides an additional opportunity for negotiation to take place. Moreover, it will prevent needless financial loss to both employers and employees.

I believe the new Industrial Relations Council will prove to be an effective mediating body. This council will encourage mediation efforts between parties — notice the word "encourage." The new council will also have the power to intervene in disputes when disputes escalate to the point that the public at large suffers. While it possesses great powers, I am confident the Industrial Relations Council will act in an impartial and responsible manner. Not only does this act take into account the interests of the public, it recognizes democratic rights, and that's what we're here for: to recognize democratic rights of individual workers and employees.

Yes, our party and our government are very concerned about the working man. It ensures that individual workers and employees are free to voice their opinions without fear of retaliation or reprisal from either the employer or the union.

Interjections.

MR. HUBERTS: Yes, member from Victoria, we are very concerned about our women; we are particularly concerned about your women. Yet the opposition like to keep it this way; they'd like ten more years of strife. If they can stall it, that's what they would prefer to do.

The provision providing for voting results to be tallied only after all balloting is completed is also a move that I welcome. This provision of the act will ensure that each member's ballot is of significance.

I'm also pleased to see that this act takes into consideration the issue of technological change. In this ever-changing world, it is inevitable that technological change will take place. Our government has shown its concern for individual workers by ensuring that employees receive 90 days' notice of technological change from their employers. In addition, under this act employees receive full details of the impact of this change.

This act will be of benefit to those most in need of employment: our youth. If you recall, during the throne speech we continued to hear from the opposition: "What about our youth?" Now we're talking about youth, and yet they want to stall things for six months. Employers will be allowed to hire apprentices irrespective of union hiring practices. This will help provide training opportunities and meaningful employment for our youth.

I believe the Industrial Relations Reform Act will prove to be instrumental in attracting even more business to British Columbia by creating a positive climate of investment. We heard it in the throne speech, and we've heard the Premier speak about it before. He has been to Holland, West Germany, England. There are thousands of people who want to invest in British Columbia, but they have one concern, and that's our labour instability. The other concern probably would be that the opposition would stay opposition, and I can appreciate their concern.

Our province requires this investment so as to increase employment, to diversify our economy and further enhance economic development. Economic development is more than just buzzwords; it ensures that there are greater economic opportunities for all British Columbians. The riding that I represent, Saanich and the Islands, has great economic potential, particularly in the field of light manufacturing and high tech. My constituency offers significant opportunities to

[ Page 564 ]

potential investors. With the more stable labour climate that the industrial relations act will bring, I'm confident that investment in our province will increase and in turn further enhance employment opportunities.

As part of this emphasis on economic development, I am pleased that our government will establish a productivity centre. This centre will be used to study and advance more productive enterprise in all sectors of our province. Our province has tremendous economic potential, but because of our reputation for labour strife we have not always attracted the investment that we should and could have. A stable labour climate is necessary in order to further economic development in this province.

Sometimes I wonder why the opposition is against this bill so much. Or is it that they're afraid it might work; is that their concern? We must inform potential investors that British Columbia is a good place to invest, and one way of doing this is by having a stable and productive workforce. This industrial relations act removes the shackles that far too long have restricted economic growth in our province. We continually hear about a cooperative spirit. We have a cooperative spirit; we are listening, but we want to hear something with substance. We don't want to continue hearing about quotes from the Sun and the Province when you've been given $100,000 to do some research. Give us some research; give us some substance.

[3:45]

In closing, I believe this legislation is reasonable and equitable, and that it will provide a blueprint for a stable and prosperous labour climate in British Columbia. I believe the Industrial Relations Reform Act will help in providing longterm stability in our province, and in turn will make British Columbia an even more desirable place to live and to work.

MR. SIHOTA: In particular I appreciate the applause from the other side; I guess I must be making my point over there somehow. Hopefully it will be there after I finish my speech this afternoon, and hopefully they will have seen the light by the time I'm finished.

Mr. Speaker, to no one's surprise I am going to speak in favour of the hoist motion. I am going to be doing so for a lot of reasons. I am glad to see that the minister is in the House today, in light of the fact that he is the one responsible for the introduction of this bill. I don't know if he is responsible for the full drafting of the bill.

I am going to be talking a little later about a book that is really a textbook when it comes down to labour law matters, in my view. It is a well-written work on labour law. It is called Reconcilable Differences, and it was written by the former chairperson of the Labour Relations Board, Paul Weiler, who had the opportunity not only to bring in the provisions of the previous Labour Code but to serve under both administrations in implementing the provisions. I guess that should really be the current Labour Code, because of course we have not yet passed the legislation before the House, and hopefully we won't. I think if one were to go back in retrospect and read what he had to say, good and bad, about the previous Labour Code, a lot can be learned, and we can put a lot in perspective with respect to where we are going now with the legislation before the House today that we are going to be speaking on.

However, I am not going to start off by talking about the provisions of the old Labour Code, nor the comments of Mr. Weiler. I am going to do that a little bit later.

First of all, I am going to talk about a matter that I am sure.... I opened my comments by talking a little bit about the cooperation or the joint applause that came across, and I am sure that everybody here in the House agrees that we have got a fundamental responsibility to ensure that there is ongoing and substantial economic development in this province. Often the difference of opinion is really found in the way one goes about achieving that economic development, and as it relates to the legislation before us, how an instrument such as the Labour Code or labour legislation can be utilized to achieve the type of economic development that we all want to see in this province.

I guess the thrust of my submissions is going to be that the provisions that are before the House.... I will say this at the outset: some of them I can live with, and there are others that I can't, in all fairness. The some that I can't live with are ones that are worthy of review, and subsequently warrant a re-examination of the material that is before the House right now, and hence the support for a six-month hoist on the bill and a thorough re-examination of it.

I say that because I really do think that we all recognize that the Labour Code, or labour legislation as it sits before us now, is very basic to this province. I think we all recognize that in order to bring about the type of economic development that I referred to earlier, we have got to have a harmonious labour relations climate. The trick of the trade, it seems to me, is to be able to draft legislation that does its best to ensure a harmonious labour relations climate in the province — something that both management and labour can live with, something that government can be proud of and something that keeps the field level, as they say in the business, to ensure that there is no undue favouritism between one of the bargaining powers in labour law matters and the other. That is really the challenge. Therefore it seems to me that the appropriate thing to do at this stage of the game is to take the legislation that the government has introduced in the House and put it in front of the public and invite response, in much the same way that the government members went around the province and asked for input on the matters of the labour legislation.

I note that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) says: "Sure we did." I know that you did. But I think the view that ought to be embraced now is the view that says: look, we went around the province and listened to what the people had to say. We tried to come up with legislation that achieves that very delicate balance I talked about a minute ago, in terms of keeping the playing-field level. Do you think we've done it? And if you haven't, where do you think we've gone wrong, and let's talk about it. In other words, a White Paper approach to the legislation, instead of simply trying to go through .... I won't call it a charade, because I will impute an honest intention on the part of the members of the committee and the Minister of Labour.

Going through the exercise of listening to people, and then turning around and introducing labour legislation, and then being bent on putting it through the House, is not consistent with the hearing process that led up to the introduction of the legislation that's before the House. It seems to me it would be far more consistent if we did engage in a consultative process. As I said earlier, I think all of us are interested in making sure that the legislation is fair and decent to all people, and that includes people in the unionized sector, the non-unionized sector, business and government.

There is a view that causes me some concern, and that relates to the way in which the legislation before the House is

[ Page 565 ]

being dealt with. There is obviously a desire on the part of the government to move quickly with the introduction and then the passage of the labour legislation we've got before us in the House today. That's evident from the comments that the Premier has made before and after the legislation was introduced in the House. He said, if my memory is not mistaken, that he wanted to proceed with this as quickly as possible. In my view, that's unfortunate, given what one is trying to achieve with labour legislation.

I think it's fair to say that we all want to put an end to confrontation in this province, in particular labour-management confrontation. The question, of course, is whether or not this legislation does it. It is, in my view, evident that those within the field who are involved with and touched directly by the provisions of labour legislation . . . . From what I read in the newspapers it seems to me there is a view among them — and I know all the members opposite have heard it so I don't want to attempt to quote it, not at this stage in any event — that this labour legislation does not result in that level playing-field we're talking about. It doesn't, and if you don't have that level playing-field, then you're inviting the very thing that's happening today outside the steps of the Legislature. You have a constituent group in society upset about Bill 19 — let alone Bill 20 — and you have the types of comments that are coming from the mouths of labour leaders in this province and from some of the business leaders in this province.

Other people read the newspapers besides those of us who spend time in the Legislature, and they read about what's happening in British Columbia. They read about that in Toronto, New York and Hong Kong. If the intent of the legislation that was introduced before the House was to create the impression in the business community.... The members opposite say that that's who they're trying to appeal to, in terms of coming here and investing. Well, what they're reading now is that the business community in this province have some very substantial concerns about the provisions of this legislation. I say that we don't want to send a signal to them that says this Legislature, particularly the members opposite in the government, want to ram this legislation through and keep the taste of chaos that now surrounds this piece of legislation.

Hence, of course, the motion to delay this bill for six months, to try to come back with a revamped model of the legislation. If you want to send a signal to them that you want economic development in this province — sure, as I said at the outset, we can have another debate at some other time as to how you achieve that economic development — if you want to send a signal that B.C. is a good place to invest in, that the labour climate in this province is a healthy one, and that relationships between government, business and labour are indeed at a historic, positive level, it seems to me that you've got to pull this bill out, redraft it and introduce it in a fashion that takes into account the outcries of business and labour — and certainly, to the extent it's warranted, the outcries from this side of the House as well. I appeal to the members opposite, simply on the basis of the desire to bring about cogent economic development in this province. . . . Aside from everything else, take a look at the impressions and the messages that are going out there.

I'm sure all of you — and I know that, being a representative for Esquimalt, I have the ability, which some of you here don't share, to go every day into my riding . . . . The basic impression is that this labour legislation is causing chaos. People don't understand the complexities of it. They don't always understand the niceties of legislation, and they don't understand the legalities of legislation, which I'll talk about a little bit later on. But they do understand that there is not a unanimous reaction to the legislation, and that causes them concern, because I think they, like everybody in this House, want to see economic development; they want to see people investing in this province. I can tell you that if I were to invest in this province . . . . And I certainly had clients when I was practising law who wanted to, and one of the things they always asked about was labour-management relationships.

Therefore it seems to me prudent, in light of our desire to achieve that economic development and in light of our own recognition of the need for harmonious labour-management relations in this province, to vote in favour of the motion that's on the floor right now, to delay the passage of this bill for a period of six months, with the hope that the minister will see fit to come back a second time with legislation that adequately deals with the concerns of all the parties.

I want to say, in addition to that, that I have some other concerns about the legislation that's before the House that I think ought to be brought to the attention of the minister at this stage of the game, and which, in my view, also warrant a further delay of six months in the introduction and the passage of the bill. I know that not all members of this House are familiar with and versed in legal matters, but I do want to try to quickly cover one legal concern that rises to the forefront. When I review the provisions of the bill, in particular the role of the commissioner, Mr. Peck, or whoever it's going to be, that, needless to say, causes me a lot of concern.

I would hope that the Minister of Labour is familiar with section 96 of the British North America Act, which of course is the constitution, which defines the various powers of the provincial government and the federal government. It sets out in very basic terms what it is that a province can do and what the federal government can do. Unfortunately, people in my profession have used that sometimes to complicate and grey what I think is a relatively straightforward document, in terms of appropriate powers.

Section 96 of the British North America Act talks about the powers of the judiciary and says that it is within the purview of the federal government to make judicial appointments. A question always arises, when you are dealing with legislation of this nature, as to whether or not the powers provided to a particular individual or entity within the legislation are similar to the powers that are given to the courts. If the powers provided to the entity — let's say, in this case, the commissioner — are similar or akin to powers that are given to the courts, then the courts have said: "Well, that's a section 96 matter, and therefore it is within the purview of the federal government, not the provincial government, to appoint or to grant these judicial powers to the commissioner." To that extent, that portion of the legislation is deemed to be diseased, or ultra vires, in legal lingo. The question here is whether or not section 96 of the constitution, of the British North America Act, is offended by the provisions that appoint the commissioner.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence in this, because it seems to me that the argument I'm about to build speaks in itself of a reason to delay it. Because I think there is a basic flaw, from a legal point of view, within this legislation, aside

[ Page 566 ]

from all of the other ones that my colleagues have talked about over and over again.

There is a fair bit of case law on it. I think that some members of this Legislature may be well advised to refer to — and may have already heard about — a case that came down in 1980 entitled "Concerned Citizens of B.C., Albert Head Ratepayers' Association and Colwood Ratepayers' Association v. Capital Regional District." Admittedly, all this sprung from my riding, but I wasn't a member of the Legislature at the time.

But in any event, the provisions of section 12 of the Pollution Control Act were reviewed, and whether or not the powers provided under the Pollution Control Act both to the cabinet and to the administrator of that legislation were ultra vires, and whether or not the powers provided therein were consistent with the powers of a court judge. The courts held, in that case, that the legislation was ultra vires, and that indeed the powers prescribed there were clearly powers that were consistent with a section 96 function, which is accorded only to the federal government, not to the provincial government.

The question then, of course, is: in taking a look at that decision, how do you reconcile it? I'm not going to go through and quote the entire decision or anything like that. How do you reconcile that with the powers that are provided to the commissioner in the legislation that's before us? The commissioner, it seems to me, has several powers that are consistent with the powers that are accorded to judges. That's the first test. When the courts look at section 96 matters, that's the first thing they take a look at. They say, if I can actually quote directly from one of the decisions: "One must determine whether the impugned power or jurisdiction conforms to the powers or jurisdiction exercised by superior, district or county courts at the time of Confederation. If it does not, then there is no breach of section 96; if it does, then one must consider step two...." And then it goes to step two and three.

Let's take a look at the powers in this legislation that are provided to the commissioner. The commissioner has the ability to determine whether or not the public interest is threatened. Of all of the powers that are given, that is the power, in my view — and there are others, but certainly in my view — that most accurately and closely resembles the powers provided to judges. Judges are asked to make decisions all the time on matters of public interest: whether it is advisable in the public interest, for example, to issue a particular injunction, or to provide a particular remedy. I want to say to the Minister of Labour that if he looks at the cases . . . . I've cited one case, and there are several others that I don't want to cite which I'm sure the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) will know about, because these are matters that all of us who are involved in constitutional affairs understand. If you take a look at the decisions and you compare that with the power provided to the commissioner to determine what is or isn't in the public interest, those powers are awfully close, if not totally overlapping. I use that language with an abundance of caution, because it is quite easy to say that they do totally overlap. But that aside, there is a tremendous overlap between section 96 powers given to judges and the ability of the commissioner to make a public interest ruling.

I say to the minister: take a look at that section, consult with your solicitors, and let us know whether, in their humble opinion, there is a violation of section 96 or if indeed there is an issue as to whether there is a violation of section 96.

HON. L. HANSON: You should read it again.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: If the minister is saying to me that there is legal advice that he's got on the matter, then that's great. I'd like to know what the jurisprudence says. But I want the minister to understand that there have been at least two cases that I'm aware of that are hallmarks in this area, which have challenged similar powers, admittedly without success, of labour boards with respect to inconsistency with the powers under section 96 of the Constitution Act. There is, of course, the landmark decision of the Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan in the Saskatchewanv. John East Iron Works case, and then of course there is Tornko v. the Labour Relations Board of Nova Scotia, which is a 1975 decision. Since then the law has changed substantially.

The minister says: "I don't think we've got a problem there." I think that you do, and I think that it's worth taking a second look at. Certainly that provision in itself . . . . I promised to be a little bit different when I talked. The potential concern there is certainly worthy of taking a look at this bill a second time and delaying passage for another six months. The worst thing from the minister's point of view, if I may suggest that, would be this: if the legislation were to be passed and then the first thing that happened right after that is that you've got a section 96 problem on your hands in that somebody has taken the matter to the courts. Then there is the issue of every decision made in the interim being potentially flawed, and that for every matter that comes before the commissioner, Mr. Peck, there is an argument with respect to section 96. That in itself will allow every matter to be appealed to the courts. Because the government by its own doing in the legislation has allowed easier access to the courts, it will delay a lot of decisions being made because of a section 96 issue.

I'm saying that aside from the political arguments that you've heard from this side, and aside from the arguments that you've heard from the labour and business and management people in this province, it's not in the government's interest to pass this legislation in light of that potential violation of section 96. It would seem to me that the last thing the government would want to do is to pass this legislation and find itself in that kind of a problem.

Madam Speaker, I've talked, first of all, about the need for all of us to work together in terms of appropriate economic development, and the impression that this legislation leaves, and hence the need to delay it on that ground. There is, of course, the need to take a second look at this legislation, as I mentioned earlier, under the provisions of the Constitution Act.

There has been a lot of discussion within the chamber about the other provisions of the legislation. There have been a lot of comments made in a number of areas. There have been a lot of comments made about arbitration. There have been a lot of comments made about democracy in the workplace. There have been a lot of comments made about mediation, about innocent third parties, and a lot of comments about the ability or the right of an employer to speak to employees during the certification process. Those, it seems to me, are the fundamental issues that are dividing us across

[ Page 567 ]

the floor: the extent which the labour legislation that's before the House interferes with those "rights" — the individual rights versus the group rights.

I see that my time has gone faster than I had anticipated, so I want to talk about some of these things. I said at the outset that I was going to draw the minister's attention to the matter of Mr. Weiler's work: Reconcilable Differences. There has been a lot of talk about the fact that unions in this province are not democratic, that the operations of unions in this province — their business and their affairs — are not conducted in the most democratic of fashions; hence, some of the changes to the Labour Code.

I want to quote from something that Mr. Weiler said, for the reference of the minister. It's on page 33 of the book Reconcilable Differences. I think the words are important, because they are not words uttered by someone who has an interest at stake; not someone from the labour community, the business community, or indeed anyone who represents a particular political party. They come from someone who has had experience over the years of adjudicating on labour law matters. Speaking on democracy in trade unions, he says:

"There are few institutions as democratic as the typical Canadian union, as accountable to their constituents, whether one considers the corporation, the university, the professional association, or even our political parties and governments. Employees choose by majority verdict whether they want union representation. They often have the opportunity to vote in favour of a rival, raiding union. They elect the officers who exercise authority in the local union and send delegates to conventions which select national officers. More important, it is the employees themselves, not these officials, who make many of the key decisions in their collective bargaining regime: to ratify contract settlements, to authorize strike action, to raise their union dues, often to discipline individual members, and occasionally even to set the salaries of their officers."

Here's a chap that has studied, been involved in and conducted the affairs of labour relations across this country, and he says there are few institutions in society that are as democratic as trade unions. Later on in the book he talks about the particular attributes of democracy within British Columbia trade unions

So that's one thing. Secondly — and I remember that the member who spoke before me commented on this to some extent, so I thought maybe I'd quote this provision as well. Here again we have someone who is unbiased in this matter. We've heard a lot of chatter in this Legislature about whether or not employers should have the ability to talk to employees while a certification vote is being considered or is underway. In other words, do they have the ability to say: "Hey look, if you do this, I'm going to go broke"? That's the argument that flows from the other side. Obviously you know what our position is on that. You've heard from the other members. But let's take a look at someone who is unbiased.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: My position is consistent with Mr. Weiler's here, Mr. Provincial Secretary. I quote Mr. Weiler:

"I have always found it incongruous that the employer should be given a central role in the representation play, even if its campaign is perfectly legal, without a whisper of economic coercion of the employees. Suppose the employer simply mounts a sophisticated Madison Avenue kind of electioneering, complete with highly paid lawyers, consultants, psychological survey teams, perhaps even films. Is that consistent with what collective bargaining is all about?

"In making up their minds about union representation, the employees are really choosing how they will deal with their employer, how they will participate in settling and improving their terms of employment. The employer and employees have an inherent conflict of interest in that topic. Clearly the employer is affected by the employees' judgment about whether they will be represented by a trade union. Yet surely that collective employee choice should be as off-limits to the employer as the employer's choice of a vice-president of industrial relations is off-limits to the employees."

Now you've heard several of the members on our side of the House talk about that principle, and you have heard it said in terms that I think are fairly put — I am trying to be fair in my presentation here today, which I am sure some of you will say is unusual; I see only one head nodding, so I am sure that it reinforces my belief that only some of you think that way — but obviously couched in some terms that can fairly be described as rhetoric. But here is someone who has looked at the matter, who examined the situation as it stood in 1968, as it stood in 1972, in 1977 before he left — yes, if the member opposite didn't realize, I am quoting from Paul Weiler — and then looks back and reflects on the matter.

One other quote that I think is of particular importance — I must confess I had several others, but of particular importance I think on the issues that we are debating here — has to do with the matter of mediation. The government has talked over and over and over again about the need for mediation in these matters.

What did Mr. Weiler have to say? He talks about Social Credit policy in this section of the book; it appears on page 8. He was talking about the Social Credit government and its policy at the time with respect to mediation, and then subsequently the new NDP administration and the approach taken by the party opposite with respect to the introduction of the Labour Code at that time.

[4:15]

"That quiet message did not forestall the fierce struggle for the soul of Social Credit labour policy. The big unionized employers, those represented by the Employers' Council," — it is interesting to hear what he has to say now — "had been happy with the overall drift of the Labour Code. While they wanted some refinements, some changes in emphasis, they did not want to return to the old days of the labour injunction and the Mediation Commission."

The Employers' Council was saying it then, Madam Speaker, and they are saying it now. They didn't want it. I see that unfortunately my time is up, and it is regrettable that I didn't get to talk a little bit about what Mr. Weiler had to say about final offer. I think the minister would be well advised to look at that, particularly pages 230 and 67, and page 66 about limiting the right to strike. I will leave it at those two matters because I do feel the pressure of time here, except to say that there is therefore (1) an economic argument, an economic development argument, that warrants

[ Page 568 ]

delay; (2) a constitutional issue that warrants delay; and (3) the opinions of an independent person who has gone through the matter of the Labour Code and who says: "Look, some of the things that are being introduced in there now in retrospect don't make sense." He wrote this book somewhere in 1980, of course. They just don't make sense. So for those three reasons, I implore the minister to support this motion and to take a second look at the legislation, and let's introduce something that levels the playing-field.

MR. DIRKS: I am a little confused here this afternoon. I was under the impression that we were debating a motion to hoist. Under that motion, we are simply talking about time and delaying for six months. I didn't know that we were debating the bill itself or articles of that bill.

I find this whole debate that is going on rather insulting because the only thing that I have heard is that there hasn’t been time for input. As part of that committee, let me tell you, Madam Speaker, there was input. There was great input, and I find the remarks by the loyal opposition not only insult that review commission that went around, but the tremendous number of people who spent a lot of time and energy in preparing briefs, in meeting with us at weird times of the day and night. Tell the people up at Dawson Creek who came to present their briefs at 9 o'clock at night that they weren't given a chance for input or that that input isn't important. Or the people in Vernon. You laugh, and it's amazing.

I heard the previous speaker talking about the greatness of the review committee. I was surprised that a party that keeps priding itself as the only party that speaks for the people never once mentioned the fact that those people did work hard to present briefs to this committee. I guess they criticize, Madam Speaker, because to the best of my knowledge we didn't receive one oral presentation from a member opposite, and I can't remember seeing too many of them in the audience. Therefore I can understand their frustration. Somehow, today and yesterday and the day before, they're very aware of what's going on in the newspapers, but they failed to see all the advertisement that went out about that review, or they were just too busy for input.

I submit that the opportunity was there — nine locations, and there were no restrictions. We didn't say you had to be a certain colour or belong to a certain philosophy in order to appear in front of the committee. We sat there and listened, and we paid attention. You'll see that embodied in the legislation. How can they criticize when they were not there? How can they criticize when they were not part of that process?

And if changes are needed in this bill, why do we delay that debate by this hoist motion? Delay will simply bring confusion. Time and time again throughout this province — and it didn't matter whether the presentation was from labour, organized or unorganized, or whether it was from management — the need for action was stressed. Can the loyal opposition honestly tell me that they want to see the disruptions that we've had in our labour market continue through this year by stalling this debate? We need action. The system we had was not working. The failure of that system to work last year, even in the forest industry, we're feeling today.

We need some action. We need to get on with debating the bill. That's where the changes can occur. But all we're debating on is time, and time is something that I think is running out. We need to get on with the debate of the bill. Brevity is the soul of wit, and I haven't heard it from the other side. Madam Speaker, I speak against the motion to hoist.

MR. BARNES: Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in the opposition in supporting the motion to hoist Bill 19.

I must say that the member who just took his seat seeks to leave the impression that sufficient input has been taken with respect to the bill before us. However, I don't think the member would disagree with the suggestion that now that the bill is before us we're finding that very little in it reflects the requests of those petitioners who made their cases in advance of the introduction of the bill. So it's only logical that now that we have the bill, which really should have been in the form of a White Paper, perhaps, or at the very least subjected to the scrutiny of one of the standing committees in order for us to familiarize ourselves with the contents of the bill . . . . I'm sure that the members of the House will recall the attempts of the Leader of the Opposition when this session opened, suggesting that additional committees be struck in order to deal with matters such as this, and the Premier suggesting that any matter that the House felt was contentious or of such a nature that more time was required could be submitted to some of the committees that were going to be approved by the House. I think this is what we're saying.

The member is quite right that we're not really here to debate the content of the bill, because for one thing we're not that conversant with the content of the bill. The bill has been introduced, the government has committed itself to pushing it through, and there is speculation among some of us that the government will allow us to discuss the bill for a certain length of time and then we're going to be faced with yet another exercise of awesome power by that government when it invokes its mandate by using closure. So we've got problems in this House in a number of very serious ways.

The bill has been discussed at some length by our very able Labour critic and by others in the House with extensive experience in labour matters. So when I think about the comments that have been made by experts in the field — in the industrial field — on the side of management as well as of the working unionists, who themselves are saying that the bill is very complex and that it's of such a nature that they're just not sure what's going on . . . . They're having to use general expressions and are reacting to the bill in terms of appearances and perceptions. The perceptions, rightly or wrongly, Madam Speaker, are the things that we're dealing with. Let's face it, the government is bringing this bill in while knowing full well that there hasn't been sufficient time to digest it, but knowing the situation in this province and how the government has been able to use with great skill and adeptness the political science, of smoke and mirrors. It knows the tricks. It knows how to get public opinion, and it knows that people's memories are short, and it knows that no matter how much opposition we put up, a headline or two.... You let things cool off and you carry on.

But I want to say, as an opposition member looking at the bill on the basis of perceptions, on the basis of appearances, on the basis of tradition and of the things that we're familiar with — not as an expert, but perhaps more like those people who are going to be reading their papers and trying to figure out what's going on here anyway — that what's really going on is that the government is making a major grab for confiscation of the whole collective bargaining process. Those are my terms. I say "confiscation" because it is taking over a democratic process — cumbersome, awkward and frustrating though it is. They are now going to expedite that process by putting serious limitations on the so-called principle of

[ Page 569 ]

consensus. Consensus, to most democratically minded people who respect this process, means that we arrive at a resolution to matters of difference where there are considerably different points of view, and that at some point there is a cutoff by mutual consent, and that in that atmosphere we know that the democratic process still prevails and gives us the security to know that when decisions are made and we sign our names on a resolution, what we are doing is committing ourselves to the duration of that agreement for whatever length of time, and we are bound by it. Now that is a democratic process; that's due process; that is the thing that gives us confidence in one another even though we have dissenting points of view, and that's what should be happening now.

As the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Dirks) pointed out quite rightly, we're talking about time. We're not really talking about the stuff of the bill or the essential elements in the bill. We're talking about time so that we can understand what it is we are trying to vote on — and I can assure you, that is not clear in the minds of even the experts, let alone those of us here in the House who are desirous of trying to do our jobs and who respect and represent the different points of view among our constituents.

[4:30]

So what's the difference? What has the government decided to do to replace the democratic process? The fellow we all know very well, Mr. Ed Peck, who was the chief behind the compensation stabilization program for a number of years and who had at that time the awesome powers of imposing controls on wage increases and having the ability to act arbitrarily . . . . We now find that he is going to be the new Industrial Relations Council head, which is even more awesome.

In fact, the magnitude of this is still beyond most of us. I can suggest to you, though, Madam Speaker, that when you sit down at the bargaining table you don't like to feel that there is a hammer of Thor over your head. I don't think any of us would like that. To suggest to people who are going to exercise their fair and equal democratic rights that somebody in the back room is saying: "If you don't come to an agreement in the specified time, we're going to impose an agreement on you".... That should be by mutual agreement; that should not be by force. It's so fundamentally simple. That's the perception out there, and that's what we're saying. I don't think that the Legislature should be giving powers like that to one individual, in any event.

It's analogous, in my view, to the Premier saying that we've been very patient in trying to encourage the protesters on the precinct lawns to leave, that they've made their point. And if they don't leave after a certain time, then we feel that we've done our best and we can now .... I know, Madam Speaker, that this is digressing a little bit, but I'm going to get back on the time element. The comparison I'm trying to make is that just because government gets frustrated, just because we get frustrated with the democratic process, nonetheless the democratic process is our salvation. That's my point. the law is still the law, and it's only by the rule of law that we can function in a democratic society — no other way, not by personal points of view or shortcuts or using leverage or, in this case, as I've said, by using smoke and mirrors and deception.

Madam Speaker, I'm very discouraged, quite frankly, to have to take this step, because I feel it has been a long time since we've sat, in the first place, and we've got a lot of work to do. Asking for this hoist is not because it's something that I feel would be necessary had we had a different process, a different system, or if the government had for instance been inclined to realize that there was going to be this kind of backlash. In fairness and in keeping with the Premier's promises, especially in the last campaign, that we would have an open government and that consultation and cooperation would be the rule, the government should have come forward in a more cooperative frame of mind. In fact, there was speculation before Bill 19 and 20 were introduced that they were going to be a problem for the community, and the Premier suggested that he himself thought there might be quite a bit of conflict; he thought there might be come contention and some concern. We had no idea that what he was getting ready to do was undermine the whole collective bargaining process to this extent.

We've had some pretty harsh words passed back and forth across the floor with respect to the government's ulterior motives. I haven't got a crystal ball; I don't know what the government's motives are. But perceptions are perceptions, and it does appear, Madam Speaker, that the government intends to take away the clout and ability of the unionized worker. It appears that way. It appears that way because the government is now saying, for instance, that employers can now have subsidiary operations that will be non-union, whereas in the past, if you had unionized operation, then you respected all related activities with respect to your operation.

This "double-breasting" is a term that I'm becoming familiar with. What it reminds me of is the old sleeper play. I have to try to use analogies that people can understand. Those of you who have played a little football know what the old sleeper play was. They had to outlaw it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us what it was.

MR. BARNES: The sleeper play was when you never let . . . . The whole game of football, in the first place, is deception, Madam Speaker. There are parallels that you can draw between the smoke and mirrors of the political process and the military game of football. The old sleeper play is this: you have a scrimmage play; all the players run all over, they go down the field, and one of the players very quietly goes near the sideline, lies down and inconspicuously hides. Everybody goes back to the huddle, they call another play, up jumps this player who never came back to the huddle and slips away and grabs a pass for a touchdown. "Oh, well, didn't you see him?" — something like that. That type of stuff was outlawed because it wasn't fair. It was a trick, that's all it was.

Now what you're doing with this double-breasting is very similar. You're allowing a unionized business to be able.... For instance, I'm just asking . . . Remember, I'm lay; I don't know about these things. I'm trying to learn. This is why we need some time, so we can understand what the heck's going on. What would happen if I were a unionized shop and my employees decided to strike? What could I do? Would I be free to start up another business somewhere else, put all my assets and resources in that business and avoid the losses? Could I keep paying myself a salary through a subsidiary? How much could I do? Someone is shaking his head over there, but I wonder about that. I think we need time to make absolutely sure, because the experts are not sure about this. This is the kind of thing that bothers me.

[ Page 570 ]

I must comment on the fact that the government has been desperately trying to find something that works. I think what's happening now is that the government is under a lot of panic; they've got to do something and now they're getting rough. They've tried everything.

In the early 1980s times started getting bad for the government. The government came in in 1983 with what we called the dirty dozen, firing about 600 public employees. We thought we had a dirty dozen with the first six pieces of legislation that came in, but we found out that there were extra pieces, so the "dirty dozen" tag didn't last long. But for the first 12, they were awesome enough. We went all the way up to something like 28 or 30 pieces of legislation in July of '83. You know, all that legislation did was show how ideologically committed the government was to taking control. It still believes in the concept that governing means doing it with power and determination; not through cooperation, but through a kind of purely executive dictatorship.

Harsh words, but you know as well as I know that your leader, the Premier, is a man who operates best by himself. He does not operate through consultation; there's no example of it. In fact, he couldn't even get along when he was a minister under Bill Bennett. He couldn't get along with him, because he called those guys gutless. They didn't want to support his new planning strategies for the province. He wanted to introduce all kinds of new ways of centralizing control under his ministry when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

So we still have the same personality. We have a guy who is a master at rhetoric, an absolute master, a great communicator. Whether there is any substance in what he says is academic. The point is that it works for the time. He is the type of guy who understands the media and how it works. Two-second clips, that is all that matters. Hit them with it today, forget about it for tomorrow; that's another day. This is why he can stand up there and make all kinds of promises, and this is why it soaks in so slowly that the public is dealing with somebody who is not committed to the things that he is saying. But he knows that by saying them, using the right language at the right time, he is going to be able to get by for the day, and that is really what it is all about. That is what you think is going to happen with this legislation.

You believe that after you give us a little time to debate . . . . You notice all the talk is on the opposition side. You have interspersed the odd member from the back bench standing up, making a two- or three-minute prepared speech — nothing impassioned, no great desire to save the economy and put people back to work. You don't get the feeling that there is a whole lot of champing at the bit. There is a lot that the management are out there waiting for this legislation, so they can raise the revenue for the province; that people are beating down the borders of the province to get in here to invest their money. We don't see any of that. There is no real commitment other than the fact that the government is going to put labour in its place. It is going to go blindly on with the strategy that makes very little sense. This is my perception of what this legislation is doing. You've got people upset; you've acted arbitrarily, and in my view you have committed a serious offence against the democratic process, Madam Speaker.

You are going to be hearing a lot of it — us talking about the democratic process — because it is the only hope for the working people in this province. It is the only hope, really, for the legislators, despite the fact that you are very flippant with these principles. I don't see how this Mr. Ed Peck can be sitting comfortably knowing that you vested in him power that we don't even have in the Legislature.

Madam Speaker, I must say that there should be sufficient time for us to review this very complicated and premature piece of legislation. It anticipates that people have reached the level of sophistication and understanding that they are going to sit down in a trusting atmosphere and come up with very complex decisions. That perhaps would work if we were more committed to humanity, if we had prepared ourselves to cooperate from the pre-school right through to elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels. If we had a society of goodwill and cooperation, then perhaps this bill would be more in place.

But you have built a society by your attacks on workers, by your cutbacks in social programs, by your excuses for saying we can't afford to fund essential services because we haven't got the revenue — one thing after another — to the point that people have become distrustful and cynical. They have become in some instances greedy. They have become desperate, and you are still building on that fear. You are still building on that cynicism and lack of hope when you bring in things like the gaming commission. You say: "Look, we're going to bail ourselves out of this disastrous economic situation by extracting more money from people through another form of taxation called lotteries and casinos and you name it." These are the initiatives that we have seen in the last six or seven years from this government.

[4:45]

So where are we? We have a population out there that is going for itself. You are not going to get cooperation. You're going to have imposed resolutions of disputes; you're not going to have a serious dialogue between the parties with respect to finding reasonable answers. The whole process will be a farce. Ed Peck has been given the hammer of Thor. He's going to be perceived as the enemy, no matter where his heart is or how hard he tries. He's going to be perceived as a threat, and no matter how much you try, you cannot expect to build cooperation by threatening people. We don't want that in a democratic society. I certainly don't want it.

I think you've made a mistake. You should be realizing you've made a mistake. It's not too late for you to do something about it. Submit this bill to a six-month delay. Give us a chance to study it. Be responsible. You've said in the past that you're committed to cooperation, to an open-door policy that allows everybody an opportunity to have input. It was not fair to try to circumvent your duties by suggesting that there were sufficient hearings and input in the past. I can assure you that until the bill itself was constructed, until your intentions were known, until the elements were drafted, people had nothing tangible to work with. The things that they presented to you, especially the teachers, you have not delivered. In fact, you've done everything you can to divide them. You've given them a catch-22 type of proposition. But that's another bill, Madam Speaker, which we will be addressing.

I certainly will support the hoisting of this bill. I think only by realizing that you've made a mistake, and that you're prepared to stand up and face it, will you have a chance to recover. Don't be strident on this thing. Don't be hard-nosed. Show us that you really mean it when you say you're going to cooperate. Show us that this assembly means something, that you can be reached, that you do listen, you do pay attention. What a surprise it would be if you were to change your mind and go out and say: "Look, we've been convinced that there's no hurry, that this isn't going to essentially change our

[ Page 571 ]

economy overnight." Let's go out to the people. Let's really talk about cooperation. Let's really talk about pulling up our bootstraps and getting our show together. Let's work together; let's not do it by using the hammer of Thor. Let's do it by showing some support for one another and some trust for one another. This is a term that we don't use enough — trust. Let's make it a real thing.

MR. DE JONG: Madam Speaker, I'm delighted to be given an opportunity to speak against the amendment placed before the assembly by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I can appreciate the concerns expressed by the other side of the House...

AN HON. MEMBER: Corner of the House — not side.

MR. DE JONG: Okay, I'll use the word corner from now on.

...and why they wish to postpone this important piece of legislation. After all, Bill 19 alters significantly the labour laws erected by the New Democratic government during their three-year reign; even though there have been some minor changes over the years, this is a major overhaul. The fact is, though, that with this hoist motion the opposition has offered no suggestions for change other than in broad terms. Several have said that specific points in this bill should be reviewed and changed, but they have brought no specific points to the floor.

However, as a result of the efforts put forth by this government in holding public hearings throughout the province, the public has indicated a strong desire to effect changes to the present Labour Code, something that's long overdue. I would like to congratulate the committee that has, in the very short period of two and a half to three months, visited throughout the province. In addition, they have reviewed 700 submissions, which is indeed a great task, and I think we all in this House owe them a debt of gratitude.

Getting back to the government that reigned in 1973 and that initially created that piece of labour legislation, which I'm sure had its opposition from this side of the House at that time, mainly because the NDP have always been and still are and probably always will be the mouthpiece for labour, not necessarily for the labourers . . . . The opposition of that time, which was this side of the House, criticized the labour legislation because it was one-sided: a document primarily in favour of labour and organized labour, and not necessarily benefiting the labourer. The bill — and I'm speaking of the original labour bill in 1973 — provided little or no consideration for those who were putting up the bucks to provide the jobs essential to the economy of this province.

It is unfortunate that it has taken so long for this government to come to grips with the inequities that were contained in the labour bill of 1973, even though some amendments were made reacting to specific situations. I believe that as a government we have the responsibility to be pro-active rather than reactive. It is indeed refreshing to see this open and accessible government act on what many people, including many of those in the workforce, have been anticipating.

This bill provides for freedom in the workplace for the workers as well as for the employer. This is something all British Columbians have been looking forward to, for who in his right mind would argue against freedom, other than perhaps those directly benefiting from organized labour — commonly referred to as labour leaders or labour bosses, who have responded to the bill at this point, at least according to the opposition. It's the B.C. Federation of Labour, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, those organizations which were never intended to be bargaining agents in the first place. They were organizations to benefit the profession they were concerned with.

Also, one of the reasons Canada has been chosen by so many people from all over the world is that they came here for freedom. They came here to enjoy freedom, to avail themselves of the opportunities available in business, labour and agriculture, and to find jobs in those industries. I therefore take issue with the statement made during this debate by the House Leader of the opposition, that those who have come here to Canada and to British Columbia were the "urban and city losers." I believe that such a comment is an insult to all those who have come to this country to make a contribution, whether it be in labour, industry, commerce, agriculture or politics. I would like to believe that on both sides of the House we have many winners that have come to this country, either their ancestors or directly.

The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) stated that the bill leads to centralization. In fact, it provides for exactly the opposite. Up until now, the powers of the individual in the workplace were vested in the union boss or representative. The individuals in the unions did not have freedom of expression of opinion, which they now have through the secret ballot which is provided for in this bill. Every local will now be able to negotiate and finalize their agreement at the local level, where it rightfully belongs. In the event that an agreement cannot be reached, the commissioner may refer the matter to the disputes resolution division, which has the power to mediate and monitor all disputes, as well as to designate essential services.

Madam Speaker, I believe that removing that part called the essential services act from this bill . . . . The point has often been criticized by the opposition when there were additional segments of society added to that particular section of the bill, yet we have had no compliment from the opposition that this in fact is removed from the new bill before us. I believe it is a step forward. At the same time, in this bill there is protection for those industries and other matters which are essential for a process where perishable crops or seasonal, or anything of short lifespan, can be processed without being under the hammer, or under the gun, by the unions. Too many times have the processors been placed in the untenable position of having no choice but to accept a contract not in the best interest of the industry or the producers supplying the produce.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) stated in his submission: "Why this haste?" Perhaps this member is not aware, or perhaps he has forgotten the problems experienced at the Expo site during 1985, particularly during the construction period. He may remember, though, that the Expo site was declared by this government as a site where union and non-union would work side by side. Why can't such freedom be extended to all of British Columbia? After all, shouldn't all British Columbians be afforded equal rights — labour as well as management?

Why should the second member for Nanaimo wish to delay this bill and support the amendment? Does the member wish this government to continue, after 13 years of labour

[ Page 572 ]

unrest in this province, with a labour bill which was one of the reasons his government got defeated in 1975? Could it be true, perhaps, that the opposition is using reverse psychology in this debate, recognizing the errors they made in 1973? 

[5:00] 

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have several reasons, on this side of the House, not to allow this hoist motion to go ahead. I would just like to quote from an article in a magazine, where a survey was done. Some 100 industries were surveyed; 77 of those responded. Ten were from municipalities, eight from developer-architects, 19 from general contractors, 25 from trade contractors and 15 from manufacturer-suppliers. I'm not going to read the entire article. However, there are some pertinent points that I would like to quote. It's under the heading of "Legislation and Labour."

"The Labour Code continues to be a major concern for the construction industry. With the continued growth of the non-union sector, reduced construction volumes and increasing competition, union contractors find the restrictive clauses in the Code severely limiting their ability to compete in today's highly competitive market."

Those are the firms that are supplying the work for many union workers.

"Fifty-one percent of those polled feel that immediate amendments to the Labour Code are critical if union contractors are to survive. A further 34 percent commented that the general labour unrest in B.C. is a major detrimental factor discouraging investors.

"'Unless and until stability and competitive costs are demonstrated to those with investment capital, our ability to attract new, or the expansion of existing industries, is limited.'

"The industry is looking for assistance from government in attracting outside investment, as well as encouraging expansion of existing business and development of new business and industry in B.C. We have a new government in Victoria . . . and although it is too early to predict how they will answer this challenge, the industry is encouraged that a priority of the new provincial government is a review of the Labour Code. 'The success of the construction industry in all its segments, ' notes Don Findlay, senior vice-president of Reed Stenhouse, 'is directly tied to the ability of the government to provide pathways to circumvent or hurdle the obstacles that are before us.'"

So it is very clear that they are talking about some of the things that have been before us for too long.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, Bill 19 in its present form is a fair and equitable piece of legislation. It provides for free, collective bargaining at the local level. It supports the concept of unionism as a tool to effect good working conditions and fair compensation for services rendered. This bill provides for democracy in the workplace and democracy for the individual within organized labour. Therefore, I am against the amendment put forth by the House Leader of the opposition.

MR. VANT: Could I please request leave of the House to make some very special introductions of some very special people?

Leave granted.

MR. VANT: At this time it gives me a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to introduce to the House Her Worship Mayor Ethel Winger, the mayor of Rick Hansen's home town, Williams Lake. Also with her in the east gallery is Mr. Reg Mitchell, who is the administrator of the city of Williams Lake. I know the House will join me in giving them a warm welcome.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, well might you remind us some time that it is the hoist motion we are discussing, and I will try to keep my remarks to the hoist motion, because indeed it is a hoist motion. It's not a motion to withdraw the bill or to change the position but simply a motion to the effect that we consider this bill six months hence rather than at the next sitting. There's nothing new about it. It's been done many times before.

I must confess that when we were discussing the possibility of doing that, I was one of those who felt that the government just might do it in this case. I have been listening to the speakers on the other side give us the reasons for opposing this. We knew from the beginning that the government House Leader did stand up and say that the government would not accept this motion. That is not surprising.

I still have hope that the government will follow the advice of this hoist motion, even though it does not accept the motion itself. To save face, they have to show that 47 is more than 22, so they will win the vote when it comes to a vote. There is no question about that. But to save British Columbia, they might decide that it is a better course of action to actually delay the passing of this bill, so that there will be better opportunity for people to feel that it is their legislation, that they understand it thoroughly, and that it then can work. It can't work if a significant number of people affected by it are determined that it won't work. It just won't work.

A lot of us are confused about labour legislation; I must admit that I am one of them. The previous member that spoke, the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong), is confused about the existing labour legislation in some ways. He is confused about the legislation that was introduced by the New Democratic Party government. He argued that that legislation was imposed by the government, by the party in alliance with organized labour, and that it was opposed totally by the Employers' Council, by the employers and by business people generally.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jim Matkin wrote it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, you know that just wasn't the case. You will recall the story about the three wise men who were appointed by the Minister of Labour of the day, with the support of cabinet, of course, and with the support of caucus. The three wise men went out and talked privately. I'm not saying that is the best way to go. The now Minister of Labour says he went out and listened to the community in public hearings, but there was no opportunity for the kind of discussions out of which legislation could arise. That wasn't the way the system worked this time. But those three so-called wise men who went out and listened to business and industry, to employers, to employee organizations, to all people who would be affected by labour legislation, were the three people who were responsible for drafting the legislation.

As has been pointed out by my colleague the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), one of those was the

[ Page 573 ]

person who is currently president of the employers' council of B. C., James Matkin. They came up with something that was acceptable to almost everybody, except some three or four members of the NDP caucus who felt so strongly about a few sections that they actually voted against those sections when they were being discussed in the House — that could happen in the NDP.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm getting lots of help with this.

From time to time, you will have noticed in your time here, one or two members of our group will vote at variance with the rest of the group. As far as we're concerned, that's fine. They're still very welcome, very important members of our caucus. We treat them the same way as before. The only caveat we have is that they let us know that they're going to vote a different way before we get in the House, so that we're not surprised. It was the same thing when we were government. There were members who chose on different occasions to vote against the government on different issues. But as long as they told us in caucus that they felt that strongly on a matter of principle and were determined to vote a different way, they did and that was fine. Some of them became cabinet ministers afterwards. But I have yet, in my 21-22 years in this Legislature, to see a single member on the government side of the House, a single member of the Social Credit Party, ever vote against his government. I have heard and seen lots of them stand up and speak against what the government was doing, but have yet — and I think I will not be here long enough — to see a single member vote apart from the direction, or whatever it is, of caucus. I think that will never happen.

I did want to say that about the way we developed our legislation. It wasn't done by the Premier. It wasn't done by the Minister of Labour or the cabinet. It was done essentially by the so-called group of three wise men who went out and listened to the people who would be affected. Those people and those organizations did support the legislation, and the legislation worked to a greater degree than any legislation previously introduced in the province of British Columbia.

I'm not suggesting that we didn't have problems after that. Certainly we did have problems. But the legislation worked better. Above all, I suppose, one of the things it achieved was to get labour disputes out of the courts and into the Labour Relations Board, where these disputes belonged and where we would like to see them continue.

The same member said that this legislation provides for a secret ballot in trade unions, as though that were something brand-new, or that nobody ever thought of it before. The labour relations act now provides for a secret ballot — on one side. It insists that in the case of a strike vote, there will be a secret ballot among the trade union members, because their organization is not to be trusted, and not to be trusted to the extent that it will be government-supervised. That's in the legislation already. What are we adding that is new or better than what's in the legislation already in that respect? We're certainly not adding the other side of the coin. We're not saying that the members of the employers' council, or the members of a bargaining agency for the forest industry, have to conduct a secret ballot among themselves when there's an offer being considered. We're saying that only trade union members and trade union organizations can't be trusted. That's in there already.

Mr. Speaker, we had plenty of reason to be aware that labour legislation was coming down. It was forecast in the throne speech. It was forecast in the budget speech. It was forecast during the election campaign — even before the election campaign. It was forecast in advertisements used during the campaign. But always, at least when the Premier spoke about it, there was his recognition, his promise and his assurance — his reassurances, if you like — that before any such legislation would be brought down, recognizing that it would only work if this did happen, there would be consultation. Now the minister says there was consultation: "We went out." But there wasn't consultation about this legislation, because as well as consultation he promised cooperation. There certainly has been no opportunity for the Minister of Labour to take this bill to the trade union movement, to the employers, and ask for their consultation in drafting it and their cooperation in supporting it. It hasn't worked that way. It was a surprise to both parties, to people on both sides of the fence.

The hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), when he spoke in second reading — he hasn't spoken in this debate yet — quoted representatives of the employers' side of the bargaining table to the effect that this bill will create havoc. Obviously they hadn't seen it. They weren't aware of what the terms of this legislation would be. And they, no doubt, will try to support it, because they're anxious that there be a continuation of work. They don't want there to be any stoppages of work, any more than the employees do. On one side of the coin you have the people who know that if the employees are kept at work there's no problem, and if the might of government is used to keep them at work, then they'll get along. So they aren't going to oppose it to the same extent as the organizations on the other side of the bargaining table, who recognize that if legislation such as this does work, then it is the total destruction of the trade union movement. That's not good for any of us.

All of us, I know, have heard stories about how the trade union movement has progressed in this province and how important it is. Perhaps some of us have had personal involvement in it. I haven't, but my father did. The second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) spoke about the terrible strike in Nanaimo from 1912 to 1914-15, and what happened there; the fact that the company did win, if you like — if you can call that winning. It's something like a grey war: who wins a grey war? In any case, they were supposed to have won at the time. But that wasn't the end of the fight. As much as the companies watched . . . . Again, stories about how it didn't matter how much you talked about socialism if you were a miner, but if you talked in any situation — in your own home, when you were out visiting someone, in any kind of a meeting — if anyone heard you saying anything pro-union in that community, then your job was gone. There were people who were quite prepared to pass on the word that a certain miner was talking favourably about trade unions, and when that happened that person was out of a job. It was that tough.

[5:15]

When they were trying to get the union reorganized, they had a system of cells, if you like, and my father met in the home of one of his fellow miners. Nine of them met there once a week to talk about the progress of what they were doing. The other eight didn't know anyone else in the proposed union organization; they knew only the host for that

[ Page 574 ]

meeting, and he in turn knew another higher echelon of people. They had to be very careful lest they lose their jobs. They went through a lot of trouble. They financed it when they couldn't afford it, and they built up a trade union movement that has been good for British Columbia.

I was at a meeting in Nanaimo a couple of weeks ago, and I think the hon. second member for Nanaimo spoke about this as well. Jim Matkin from the employers' council and Ken Georgetti from the B.C. Federation of Labour, speaking on the same platform, were very well received by all of the people in the audience. Mr. Matkin talked about the progress that has been made in Ontario and how good their economy is. He said wages have been held down in British Columbia for the past four or five years, so that Ontario wages and B.C. wages are now roughly on a par. So we really made progress in B.C. by not giving any wage increases of any consequence to anybody, in our community for the last four or five years, even the MLAs, and that has been good for B.C. But as Mr. Georgetti pointed out, during this four- to five-year period of steadily increasing wages in Ontario, their economy has prospered every year compared to ours. We've been in the doldrums. We've been held back, in part because our trade union movement has been so savaged by the Social Credit government that it hasn't been able to do anything positive for our community.

When they're called upon to cooperate, they do cooperate. When the IWA were invited to cooperate in what amounted to a reduction in their workforce of something like 30 percent, they cooperated. Never once was a work stoppage in any IWA operation that I'm aware of brought about because there was going to be a reduction in staff while maintaining the present level of production, if not actually increasing it. They knew they were producing something that was being sold in international markets, and the only way to improve their situation was to accept new technology. Indeed, they complained that the companies were not accepting this new technology quickly enough; that there should have been more progress. B.C. is still behind in some respects. The trade union movement will cooperate if it is invited to cooperate, but the bill before us has not, to this point, included any invitation to cooperate.

I said earlier that I sincerely hope that the government, while it may be determined to defeat this motion to save face, will, once that has happened, refer the bill the Select Standing Committee on Labour, and that that committee will have an opportunity to listen to people from all walks of life who will make representations. The committee in turn may or may not bring recommendations to the Minister of Labour or to the House for changes in the legislation. I hope that will happen, because if that process does happen, then it can work.

I haven't heard all of the speeches from the other side, but I've been waiting day after day for someone to tell me why it had to be done quickly. The only response I've heard that I can recall particularly was one member who said — and I'm paraphrasing — that the business world is waiting for B.C. to show that it has taken control of its trade union movement and that there will be labour-management peace in B.C. They ordain it. As a result of this legislation there will be peace.

I don't believe the business world is waiting for B.C. to show that it has taken control of its trade union movement and that there will be labour-management peace in B.C. We have ordained it: as a result of this legislation there will be peace. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the business world is waiting for that kind of message if at the same time as it is seeing that message in the legislation before us it is also seeing meetings springing up around this province and statements from trade union leaders and statements from people on the other side of the bargaining table, the employers, expressing fear that it will not work. We had that situation in 1983. Do we need another solidarity period in this province? That set us back tremendously, that period when the attention of the world was drawn to British Columbia and to the unrest that was developing here.

I'm not suggesting that that's going to happen again. I don't know how the people of the province are really going to react to this as it's going on. But the statements we've heard this time would indicate to us that a significant body of organized labour and — perhaps on another bill, the education bill, but happening at the same time — the teachers as well are going to take some action that will do nothing but harm for the economy of British Columbia. Is that why we're in such a hurry, because we want all that to come out and happen right now? Can't we wait for that kind of trouble? Are we really in that much of a hurry to get into that much trouble?

Nothing else is going to be achieved by hurrying it. There is no trade-union management dispute going on right now that this bill will have any bearing on. None of the large ones are coming up in the months ahead. This is a good year to take time to reflect, and that's really what we're asking in our amendment. We're saying: "Take time to reflect. Take time to consult. Take time to listen to people. Take time to make changes." If those changes are presented in a way that the Minister of Labour and his government feel is reasonable, and if they get some quid pro quo, if they can get a word from the people that they are talking to that if certain changes are made then they will try and make the legislation work, that kind of process is possible. That's the sort of thing we did with the three wise men, but it could work here, and the suggestion we're making now, the suggestion I think that every one of us has advanced, is that the process this time should be to refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Labour.

We've had reason to believe that the government believes in that process. We've been reassured over and over again that this time the select standing committees are going to have material referred to them. This time there will be something more than the once-a-year meeting during the course of which we elect a Chairman and a Secretary, and then the word is: "Well, we'll see you next year — same time, same place, same Chairman, same Secretary." For most of the committees, that's all we've done year after year. But this time we've had the word from various members from the government bench that it will be different — that we will be using those committees. Mr. Speaker, what better job to give that committee on labour than to refer this bill to them and to ask them to hear witnesses, to see if they can't come up with something, or to see if they can't sell this?

We're not suggesting in this instance by moving the hoist motion that the bill has to be radically changed, or even changed at all. The thrust of our argument — although some of us may get carried away sometimes — should simply be: "Take six months to listen, to talk, to discuss and to see whether or not the document you have is saleable in its present form, or whether it can be made saleable by making some changes." It's a process that has been promised to us.

It's a process that was promised to us during the election

[ Page 575 ]

campaign, when the then Premier said: "We need to put aside partisan interests and adopt a new spirit of cooperation." Well, indeed we do. Every one of us can agree with that. There's been a lot more cooperation in this House since we met after the last election, and that's something that was overdue. There's no question about it.

I believe — and whether there's anything in this or not, it's just my personal feeling, at least — that one of the reasons that the Premier led his party to victory in the last campaign was that the people of this province felt that we had had enough of confrontation inside this chamber and in our community, enough of the confrontation between labour and management, enough of the confrontation between the Social Credit and the NDP in this chamber. I believe people really felt that it was going to be a new look — that it was a new broom coming in, in spite of the fact that the Premier had had six years' experience in this House and those of us who were here saw no sign that that was the kind of person he was. Nevertheless the voters were persuaded that we were having a new look, that we were going to have a new era of consultation and cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I think that to save face the government has to defeat the amendment that's before us right now. But the government could do nothing but gain, and the Premier could do nothing but stand higher in stature, and the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services could do nothing but stand higher in stature, than if they said, after listening to the debate in this House: "We believe there should be some time taken to make sure we're on the right track." We feel confident that if they're in a hurry, it must be because there is some weakness. I don't know of any other reason.

Since there is no dispute before us now, it would seem to me that if they really feel strongly about this, if they really feel they have strength, if they're not concerned that some people in the community may actually get at some of their members and make their caucus members ask questions within caucus meetings.... If they have no fear of that, if they have no fear of losing the vote in the House — and with 47 to 22, they'd have to lose an awful lot to lose a vote — and if there is no immediate need for this kind of action, then why not show how strong they are by saying: "Yes, we'll accept the challenge. We'll give this some time"?

We're going to be here for a while; the session will not adjourn in April and may not even make it by the middle of May 1987. There will be time, and we could even be called back, and in the meantime there is not anything that can go wrong if we don't proceed with this legislation. If they're really concerned about the effect on the world of business that's waiting and looking at B.C. and wondering what's going to happen in B.C., if they're really wondering about that, there is nothing that would convey a stronger message to the business people.

I don't believe that's happening; I don't believe that's the reason. But if that were the case, if you felt.... Not you, Mr. Speaker, but if the members on the other side of the House felt that they had to give some reassurance to those people, what better reassurance could they give than a sign of strength, a sign that says: "We know we can do this. This is what we want to do, and we're so strong in our belief that we're prepared to take this bill out to the community and listen to them, discuss it with them item by item, line by line, section by section. We're prepared to open ourselves up and listen to that kind of examination, and then to proceed. We're determined to proceed, we have the strength to proceed, but we want to reassure the people of British Columbia" — I'm speaking now of the government, Mr. Speaker — "that we're doing this properly, carefully, with due consideration. We want to reassure possible investors that there isn't going to be any further warfare in British Columbia between employees and employers. We want to give them that reassurance"?

The best way to develop that reassurance, in my mind, is to take time. They don't have to support this amendment to take time. Once second reading has been completed, it can sit there. Mr. Speaker, you have seen bills sit on the order paper, die, and then be reintroduced the next session. That could even happen, although I think it shouldn't have to take that long.

It would be a sign of strength; it would be a sign that the government knows what it is doing and is confident in what it is doing. It would be a sign of strength if it went to their own friends. Whether those friends are all on the employers' side of the table or the employees' doesn't matter right now. We're all British Columbians, and we all have to be concerned about what is happening in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I can't help but be concerned right now, because I have seen what has gone on. I have been around long enough to have seen a lot of confrontation in this province, and I am worried. I am worried right now that because of this promise of consultation and cooperation, B.C. was just starting to feel a little bit better about ourselves. This legislation, because of the reaction from the people who are going to be most directly affected . . . . All of us are affected indirectly. The reaction from them to date would indicate to me that it isn't going to work because they believe it won't work. And if people don't really believe it is going to work, then it won't work.

You can't legislate people to do what you think they should do because you think it is good. You can legislate people to drive somewhere near 80 km/h if you put a sign up on the highway, and they will drive near that speed. I try to stay within 10 km/h of that, and I think most of us do. There are some that pass me regularly. But if you put a sign up saying the maximum speed is 40 km/h, Mr. Speaker, it would not be of aid. People would not think that was a reasonable speed to be driving that highway, and if people don't think it is reasonable legislation, it won't be obeyed; it won't work.

[5:30]

Perhaps the strongest person in the world, the one who has the most authority over all mankind, is an American President during wartime. He's held down by Congress and Senate and all that when there is no war on, but during a war he has absolute power. Yet when he took on the leader of a trade union movement, a leader who had supported that president up until that time, and threatened to use the army if there wasn't obedience from the trade union movement, the response of the trade union leader, John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers — my father was a mineworker — was: "You can't mine coal with bayonets."

Mr. Speaker, you can't legislate obedience. People who are being legislated in our form of democracy, in our country .... In some parts of the world you can get away with it; all you have to do is kill half of them, and the other half will start obeying. But it doesn't work in Canada, and it doesn't work in British Columbia. If the government persists in hurrying through legislation that organized labour feels so strongly about that it mobilizes against it and is determined not to obey .... You can't legislate obedience. You can fine them, you can put them in jail, but then what do you do, Mr.

[ Page 576 ]

Speaker? How do you put them back to work? You can be rough with them, you can try to scare them, you can make things very tough. What will that do to the business climate in the province of British Columbia?

You can't legislate obedience. You can sell it. If you gave people the opportunity — and our suggested method is with the Select Standing Committee on Labour — if you sell it to them and make them feel not that it's something that's being imposed on them by a government that's friendly to the other side of the bargaining table, if you make them feel that they're part of the process, if you make them feel not just that they've had an opportunity in many hearings around the province to express their point of view . . . . Not knowing what the government's agenda was is not good enough, but if you consult them now about the legislation that we have, make them feel that they have had some opportunity to discuss it in detail with the people who will be implementing the legislation, make them feel that they're part of the process, then it's in their interest to make it work as well. I don't know how far this bill would have to be changed to accomplish that, because I haven't had sessions with those people either.

Mr. Speaker, all of us are concerned about labour-management disputes in this province, not because there are a lot of them, but because when we do have one it grabs the headlines. We help make those headlines, but they do become important. Certainly last year the forest industry dispute was one that grabbed the headlines and was important. It did hurt British Columbia. The Premier did try to get involved in it. He considered calling the Legislature, and felt that that was not the best way to go.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us as it's drafted now and without any consultation . . . . I'm positive in my own mind that the employers' council and the trade union movement had nothing to do with the suggestion that one czar be given the authority that the Premier felt was beyond his authority as Premier and beyond the authority of the Legislature. If the dispute was so bad or so difficult to resolve that calling the Legislature together — the supreme body in British Columbia — couldn't deal with it, then how can the Legislature give its authority to one person and say to that person: "You can do anything you want. We can do nothing. You can do anything you want. It's up to you to resolve it"? That person, even if he were a Solomon, wouldn't survive. What's more important, I fear that B.C., while it will survive, is going to be damaged for a long time to come, if so close on the heels of what we did just three and a half years ago . . . is repeated in 1987.

I urge the government: go ahead, defeat us in this motion; pass second reading. But take the time to consult the trade union movement, consult the employers, and bring forward a bill, after such consultation, that all of us — all British Columbians — will feel we've had a hand in; a bill that will work, so that we will have labour-management peace in the province of British Columbia, and then we'll all prosper. This will have the opposite effect, That's my concern; that's why I'm speaking today. But we can do better. B.C. can do better. B.C. can be better.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Cariboo has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. VANT: I just noticed another very fine gentleman from Rick Hansen's home town in the members' gallery: it's Gordon Helm, who is president of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Teachers' Association. I ask the House to welcome him.

MR. CRANDALL: Since the Legislature was called into session on March 9, this is only my second time to speak, and it's the second time that I have followed the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). The last time that I spoke, though, he had left the Legislature by the time I spoke, because I believe it was the following morning. I want to restate a comment that I stated that day: I believe the House appreciates the long service that that member has given to it. The previous member for Columbia River and he joined the Legislature at the same time. He is now the senior member, I believe I'm correct in saying. I just wanted to make that point while he's here.

The first member for Nanaimo has spoken quite eloquently about the reason for passing these bills now. I want to address that point as well. I think it's important to recognize that British Columbia is a province that has often led Canada in passing progressive legislation.

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL: I said "progressive."

I want to make that point again, as I did in my first speech, because I was one of the people in this province who was in the riding in 1983, when the previous Social Credit government passed the legislation that came to be known as restraint legislation, legislation which led this country in providing good financial management. I want to say again that that government was one of the few in North America that took a strong leadership role in recognizing the importance of financial management. Because that government took that stand, this government that follows now can pass a budget with a deficit of $850 million while some of our neighbouring provinces have deficits that quadruple our deficit in British Columbia.

I also want to speak against the delay of this legislation for six months. I believe that if we delay it, we will not change any of the positions. I think we should go ahead and put this legislation into place now. Industry in British Columbia needs it now; industry in British Columbia has been waiting for it and has been asking for it. I think it's important that we move on it, and I am not in favour of delaying this legislation for six months. When I think of delaying a decision that I believe in, I think of the many business decisions that I made as a small businessman over the years — between the years 1968 and 1986 — and I know that when I believed a decision was right I wanted to move on it immediately. I believe that this legislation is being presented at the right time for British Columbia and, speaking on behalf of my riding, I am very supportive of it and anxious that the legislation go ahead at the present time.

I'd like to speak just briefly about this legislation as it's seen in my riding. I, of course, represent Columbia River, which is that fine little riding up in the mountains, comprising Golden, Kimberley and Invermere.

Interjection.

[ Page 577 ]

MR. CRANDALL: Yes, and Athalmer, Windermere, Wilmer and Spillimacheen — all those good towns. I want you to know....

MR. WILLIAMS: You represent mountains, not people.

MR. CRANDALL: I'm not sure if Hansard will record the comment of my colleague from Vancouver East, saying that I represent mountains and not people.

I've learned one thing since I've come to this House. I've learned that I represent a riding of approximately 25,000 people, and those people are not a complaining people. I've been very happy since I've got here that while I have to represent them in dealing with all the ministries in this province — and that's different than it is for my colleague the member for Vancouver East, who does not have to deal with many of the ministries, such as Forests and Environment, or whatever, in his riding — I've been pleased to realize that I deal with 25,000 people who do not complain unless they've got a reason to and who do not phone me unless they've got a reason to. I want to report that until today I had received not one single phone call about this labour legislation.

Today I did have three schoolteachers who took the time and effort to come to Victoria and sit down and talk with me for two hours. I believe it was an educational process both for me and for them. Out of that two hours I came to a very definite conclusion, and that's that I'm convinced that we have responsible schoolteachers in this province. I'm also convinced we have responsible school boards in his province. Those are two good reasons for being able to proceed with this legislation at the present time, without waiting for six months.

MR. WILLIAMS: Was that what the teachers wanted?

MR. CRANDALL: Well, I can say that the teachers were at least able to convince me that we have responsible teachers, and I'm sure there will no undue work stoppages because of this legislation.

I mentioned to you before that I'm anxious to proceed with this legislation because I believe in it. One of the reasons I believe in it is that one of the thrusts behind this legislation was increased mediation and efforts to have parties settle on their own, without coming to government and getting government-settled decisions such as binding arbitration or whatever. That's one of the major things that I like about this legislation. I think it's important that the commissioner . . . .

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL: Can I not have my foot up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. CRANDALL: I've been scolded by my House Leader to take my foot down from the chair. I have done so, and I have dusted that chair.

I think it's important that the commissioner is going to be able to appoint a fact-finder who will be able to meet directly with parties in dispute. I think it's important that at the request of the employer the commissioner can direct that the employer's last offer be voted on. It's important that the commissioner can order a 40-day cooling-off period. He can ban strikes or lockouts during a cooling-off period, and suspend strikes or lockouts which have started.

I mentioned earlier that my riding has not taken exception to this legislation, and I believe that if these kinds of things that I've just mentioned were in place within the last year, we might not have had some of the work stoppages in our riding that we did.

It's also important that the commissioner can direct a panel of the council to designate essential services.

MR. WILLIAMS: What does the IWA in Golden say?

[5:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. CRANDALL: Let me ask the member what they've said to him, because the IWA in Golden has not called me or sent me a letter, and that's part of what makes me believe that we should move on this legislation, and we should move on it now. Not only has the IWA in Golden not called me, but the BCGEU in Golden has not called me, nor in Kimberley, nor in Canal Flats. Nor has any other labour union called me to argue with this legislation. That's why I believe that when the people voted on October 22, they expected the B.C. Social Credit government to take a leadership role, as they did in past years, and that's why they keep getting elected, in 1975, in 1979, in 1983 and in 1986. I might add that in those elections since 1975, the B.C. electorate elected a Social Credit government after having lived through an opposition government for three years — from 1972 to 1975 — and they went back to the kind of history that they'd had from 1952 to 1972.

This is the kind of legislation that our people have asked for. The people in my riding — and I say again in my riding — had not called me until the three schoolteachers came today, and we spent two profitable hours. I believe in this legislation, and I believed in it before today.

I think some of the other things in this legislation in terms of fairness are things that people in this province have asked for. This legislation is going to require fairness in hiring-hall and dispatch procedures. I think that's good. It is going to allow employers to hire apprentices, irrespective of restrictive union hiring practices. I think that's good. This legislation is going to prevent non-affiliation agreements except on construction projects. There's a host of other things that this legislation is going to do that will put more fairness back into the workplace and back into labour relations.

This legislation is also going to provide for certification or decertification votes within ten days after an application. A lady in this province who is a shop steward — she's not in my riding — contacted me in the last six months. She knew that her union local wanted to take a decertification vote, but they wouldn't take that issue to their people; the shop steward knew that if the issue was lost, she was virtually out of a job. This legislation is going to provide some fairness in those kinds of situations, and I believe that sense of fairness is what the grassroots people in this province want. There are a lot of grassroots people around this Social Credit table.

This is the kind of legislation that the people in our province want. This legislation is going to ensure voting by secret ballot. What fairer thing can we ask for than that kind of fairness in labour relations? That is going to be provided in this legislation. It's also going to require that voting results be tallied only after all balloting is completed. It's going to require employers to provide 90 days' notice of technological

[ Page 578 ]

change and the details of the impact of technological change. I think those things are all positive. It's also going to prevent strikes or lockouts while a collective agreement is in place.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation is going to provide fairness. I think it is legislation that our province has asked for. Certainly, when we do the kinds of things that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services has done, to go around this province as much as he has done, to receive 700 briefs . . . . Surely that is a good representation of what the people in this province really feel. I appreciate the comments that the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) made a few moments ago about ending confrontation. I think it's important, though, to recognize that confrontation is not only a responsibility of the governing party. Confrontation is a shared responsibility within this House on both sides.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's your primary responsibility.

MR. CRANDALL: I'd like to know whether the opposition, whom we value — and I've said that before....

MR. GABELMANN: You'll tolerate us, eh?

Interjections.

MR. CRANDALL: I would like to know whether the opposition will help to reduce the confrontation. Or will they simply use this legislation for political purposes, working towards the 19-whatever election that's coming? I hope that the opposition will use this legislation to help bring labour peace, to help improve the labour relations climate in this province. I hope that they won't use the media to help stir up opposition to it. I hope they will recognize that many tidings in this province are like my riding, with little opposition to this legislation.

I hope we can work together in this House to pass this legislation, to pass it now rather than six months from now and help B.C. continue to improve our economy. The people in our workplace should continue to see British Columbia grow, so that we who are in the workplace now can prosper and so that when those who follow us — the young people who are out there growing up — get to the workplace they can prosper as we've done and work together.

MR. CASHORE: As I rise to speak on this hoist motion, and it being late in the afternoon, I would like to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. REE: Today commemorates an event that took place 70 years ago in France. It was one of the first major battles towards the conclusion of the First World War on behalf of the Allies. Canada participated greatly in that battle at Vimy Ridge. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to lead this House in a moment of silence in memory of all those Canadians who served at Vimy Ridge 70 years ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Will all members please stand. Thank you, members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, before moving adjournment, may I offer my best wishes to the members of the opposition in their upcoming convention. I hope it's productive, fruitful, a happy weekend, and a good meeting for you.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
SELECT STANDING COMMITEES

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRANSPORTATION
AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. D. Mercier (Convener)
Mr. R. Blencoe
Mr. H. Dirks
Mr. M. Harcourt
Hon. R. Johnston
Mr. N. Loenen
Hon. G. McCarthy
Hon. C. Michael
Mr. D. Miller
Mr. C. James,
Clerk to the committee

LABOUR, JUSTICE AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Ms. K. Campbell (Convener)
Mr. L. Chalmers
Mr. C. Gabelmann
Hon. L. Hanson
Mr. J. Jansen
Hon. S. Rogers
Mr. M. Sihota
Mr. R. Skelly
Mr. J. Weisgerber
Mr. C. James,
Clerk to the committee

AGRICULTURE
AND FISHERIES

Mr. T. Huberts (Chairman)
Mr. H. De Jong (Secretary)
Mr. L. Guno
Hon. S. Rogers
Mr. M. Rose
Hon. J. Savage
Mr. C. Serwa
Mr. D. Stupich
Mr. J. Weisgerber
Mr. C. James,
Clerk to the committee

HEALTH, EDUCATION
AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Mrs. C. Gran (Convener)
Mrs. L. Boone
Hon. A. Brummet
Ms. K. Campbell
Mr. J. Cashore
Mr. D. Crandall
Hon. P. Dueck
Mr. B. Jones
Mr. D. Mowat
Mr. C. James,
Clerk to the committee

[ Page 579 ]

TOURISM
AND ENVIRONMENT

Mr. I. Messmer (Convener)
Mr. E. Barnes
Mr. G. Bruce
Ms. A. Edwards
Mr. A. Pelton
Hon. W. Reid
Mr. C. Serwa
Ms. J. Smallwood
Hon. B. Strachan
Mr. C. James,
Clerk to the committee

FORESTS
AND LANDS

Mr. G. Bruce (Convener)
Mrs. L. Boone
Hon. J. Davis
Mr. C. Gabelmann
Mr. N. Jacobsen
Mr. H. Long
Hon. D. Parker
Mr. N. Vant
Mr. R. Williams
Mr. C. James,
Clerk to the committee

ENERGY, MINES AND
PETROLEUM RESOURCES

Mr. D. Peterson (Convener)
Hon. A. Brummet
Mr. G. Clark
Mr. C. D'Arcy
Hon. J. Davis
Mr. L. Guno
Mr. A. Ree
Mr. S. (Bud) Smith
Mr. N. Vant
Mr. C. James,
Clerk to the committee

FINANCE, CROWN CORPORATIONS
AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. S. (Bud) Smith (Convener)
Hon. M. Couvelier
Mr. C. D'Arcy
Mr. G. Hanson
Mr. J. Jansen
Mr. J. Rabbitt
Mr. A. Ree
Mr. D. Stupich
Hon. E. Veitch
Mr. C. James,
Clerk to the committee

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ms. D. Marzari (Convener)
Mr. L. Chalmers
Ms. A. Hagen
Hon. S. Hagen
Mr. G. Hanson
Mr. J. Hewitt
Hon. R. Johnston
Mr. H. Long
Mr. D. Lovick
Mr. D. Peterson
Hon. C. Richmond
Hon. E. Veitch
Mr. C. James,
Clerk to the committee

STANDING ORDERS, PRIVATE BILLS
AND MEMBERS' SERVICES

Mr. D. Crandall (Convener)
Mr. R. Fraser
Mr. D. Mercier
Mr. M. Rose
Mr. A. Pelton
Mr. M. Sihota
Hon. B. Smith
Hon. B. Strachan
Mr. R. Williams
Mr. I. Izard,
Clerk to the committee