[ Page 581 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr.

Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 582

Oral Questions

Lunch program in schools. Mr. Harcourt –– 582

Mr. Clark

B.C. Place development. Ms. Marzari –– 583

B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Ms. Marzari –– 583

Protest on legislature lawn. Mr. Sihota –– 583

Colony Farm. Mr. Rose –– 583

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

On the amendment

Mr. Cashore –– 584

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 587

Ms. Edwards –– 590

Mr. Messmer –– 593

Mr. Guno –– 594

Mr. Peterson –– 595

Mr. Skelly –– 596

Mr. Weisgerber –– 599

Mr. Williams –– 600

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 603

Appendix –– 606

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First thing, I would like to extend our congratulations to the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harcourt) and to wish him all the very best in the thousand-plus days ahead. We've been involved in various activities together, from time to time, and I know that we can both look forward to working together. I'm very impressed with the fact that the new leader has said that we want to work in a cooperative spirit for all British Columbians. We certainly look forward to that, realizing that undoubtedly from time to time we'll have our differences. But always the bottom line will be and must be the same: the people of the province. So I look forward to working with the new leader. I'm sure that he will do an excellent job, not only for his party and for his constituency, but for all British Columbians. We wish him the very best.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to thank the Premier for his very gracious remarks. I'm pleased that he was able to tell us that there will not be an election until 1990 and that he won't call an election over the labour legislation.

I had an opportunity to have an informal, impromptu session with the Premier this morning in Vancouver at a radio station, and we expressed these remarks to each other: that we're here to make the government and the Legislature work for the people of British Columbia. I hope we can continue the very good relationship that has been built up between ourselves, the House Leaders, the Whips and the chairmen of our caucuses, to make this Legislature work even better.

In that spirit of cooperation, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say to the Premier that if he's prepared to give me some gardening tips, I'm prepared to give him some tips about his golf game and the hitches appearing in it, particularly that slice that keeps going further and further to the right.

MR. BARNES: First, if I may, I'd like to just congratulate the first member for Vancouver Centre, who, as our campaign manager in 1972, was successful in getting Gary Lauk and me elected. He's come a long way, I would say. The first member for Vancouver Centre is doing all right.

As well, I would like to introduce the House to Dr. Ernie Epp, MP for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, who is the multiculturalism critic for the NDP. At one time Dr. Epp was a professor at Notre Dame University. I believe that he has the former Premier, Mr. Bill Bennett, to thank for his political career, because as I recall, the Premier closed down Notre Dame University, where Dr. Epp was formerly employed. So would the House join me in welcoming Dr. Epp, who is touring the western provinces promoting the idea of full participation of all Canadians in celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the Canadian Citizenship Act. Let's make him welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we too welcome Dr. Epp, and we wish him well in his endeavours on behalf of culture in our province.

I know that we have many visitors in the galleries today, but I want to take this opportunity to extend a big welcome to one group in particular who are with us today: Mr. Alan Boyd, a director of Cariboo Regional District and chairman of the Northern Development Council; support staff of the Northern Development Council; His Worship Mayor Len Fox of Vanderhoof, president of the North Central Municipal Association; and Mr. Mike Hillman, president of Pacific Congress Projects Corp.

[2:15]

MR. GABELMANN: I have three separate sets of introductions I'd like to make this afternoon. The first is that in the galleries behind us on this side is a group of students from the four high schools in Campbell River. This group is here thanks to Crown Forest Industries, which for years, until the recent recession, had student tours to Victoria. This group is here accompanied by two teachers: Mr. David Brown of Robron and Ms. Lesley Bird of Southgate. Also Mr. Bob Jakubec from Crown Forest. I'd like the members of the House to make this group particularly welcome.

The second introduction I'd like to make is Mr. Ted Conover, from Quadra Island in my constituency. I'd like the house to make him welcome.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this a filibuster?

MR. GABELMANN: This is not a filibuster.

My third introduction is a very special one for me, and I don't get to make it very often. I want members of the House to recognize my parents, Fritz and Honorah Gabelmann, who are here in the gallery this afternoon with my wife; I have never introduced her to this House, but I'd like today to ask members to make Robin Geary welcome as well.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a former boss of mine and long-time associate in the post-secondary education system in British Columbia, Mr. Henry Justesen. I'd like the House to bid him welcome if you will, please. Also a constituent of mine, John Leech, the executive director of Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like you to join in a very warm welcome to Thelma Pankiw, who has served the members for Vancouver Centre as the constituency assistant for almost a decade. She's over here to arrange my new schedule after the New Democrats' very successful weekend.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce Kevin, the youngest of my three sons, who is in your gallery. Would the House give him a warm welcome.

MR. REE: In the gallery today we have 50 students, 25 of them from Balmoral Junior Secondary School in North Vancouver, under the guidance of their teacher, Tom Moore; the other 25 are from the College St. Charles Gamier of St. Cyrille, Quebec, under the guidance of their teacher, Rodrique Samuel. I'd ask the House to welcome them to Victoria and this Legislature.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today is a good personal friend of mine and former president of my riding association, Dennis David.

MR. PETERSON: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are three very close and dear personal friends of mine, Mr.

[ Page 582 ]

and Mrs. Paquette from Sidney; and Mr. Charlie Johnson, who resides in Victoria. Will the House please join me and give them a very warm welcome.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today Ann and Bill Venema, who are up in the gallery. I'd like to ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have a dynamic businessman from the constituency of Surrey, Mr. Ed Kisling. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions today. The first is a group from the Prince of Wales Mini School, with their teacher, Mr. G. Lewis. With them, visiting from Nequac, New Brunswick, with their teacher, Ms. Nicole Marquis.... There are 50 students in total. The students from New Brunswick are on exchange. They're visiting our parliament buildings today, and I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Mr. Ed Kisling, vice-president of the Social Credit Party. I'd ask members to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (FINANCE
MEASURES) AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a number of minor word changes in a variety of acts. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today

Oral Questions

LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, it becomes clearer every day that the Premier's attempts to confine the crisis of child hunger to a few schools in east Vancouver just won't fly. There is solid evidence from a number of sources — the Vancouver Sun and many others — that this is a problem in schools from Victoria to Fort Nelson. Will the Premier now admit that the time for study has passed and assure British Columbians that the government will support a provincewide school-based nutritional program for children?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've certainly had figures presented to me right here in the Legislature, in fact from theVancouver East constituency. I've not got figures for Victoria or Fort Nelson, but certainly the ministry, as I mentioned last week, is getting the information, and we're very pleased to see that principals are reporting these matters now. Unfortunately, perhaps, this might have been done a lot earlier, but we're grateful for the information. We'll follow it through. It may also be something that the Royal Commission on Education will be looking at as a part of its mandate.

MR. HARCOURT: Principals are indicating that as a general rule 5 percent of their students are hungry. To extrapolate that, generally it means about thirteen and a half thousand elementary school students, and if you include secondary students it's about 20,000. The time for study has passed. So we're asking Mr. Premier: the time for a reliance on band-aid charitable solutions has passed; how are you going to continue to justify relying on that band-aid when the facts are in? What are you going to do? We'd like to know. No further study. What are you going to do?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think there are a number of things. Certainly our first concern must be for children who in fact are not getting the necessary and proper nutrition, but, similarly, we must find out why it is that if the figures that have been quoted are correct and 5 percent of children are going without proper food and coming to school without lunches or not having had breakfast, this might have gone on as long as it has — I'm sure it didn't happen just last week — without reports coming from the principals, the schools or the offices in the area. Certainly that matter should be addressed as well, because if the matter is as serious as 5 percent, then obviously something in the system is amiss, in that it should have been drawn to our attention, or to anyone's attention — members of the opposition, members on this side, or the ministries.

So the ministry is properly addressing that, and we'll get more information on it soon.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, it is embarrassing to admit you are hungry if you're anybody, and particularly if you are a kid.

There are many studies from SPARC and others that show that if you haven't had a welfare increase for four or five years — you've had one that brings you up to the 1982 levels — it is not sufficient funds.

Has the Premier decided to stop scapegoating parents and educators and accept that it is the government's responsibility to make sure that the poor have decent social assistance rates? Are you prepared to look at increasing those social assistance rates so there can be food for children not to go hungry?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, there was obviously ample opportunity for members of the Legislature to canvass that question under the estimates for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. It has been canvassed, and I am very pleased that the government was able to provide, unlike governments perhaps elsewhere in Canada, additional moneys in the budget this year to assist people on welfare.

MR. CLARK: On a supplementary, that attitude by the Premier is exactly the kind of attitude we have seen in terms of blaming the victims for the problem. The Minister of Social Services has directed his senior staff to investigate and to interview principals in Vancouver East to find out who talked and why. Will the Premier direct his minister to call off his officials, stop scapegoating principals and parents for the problem, and deal with the very real problem of hunger in Vancouver and elsewhere in British Columbia?

[ Page 583 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought forth through the media a week ago. When it appeared in the media, we did get the matter raised in the House. After it was raised in the House, we immediately responded that the ministry would investigate this whole question not only as it applied to the one particular case brought forth at the time but as it might apply elsewhere in the province - the cause of it and how it could best be addressed. Obviously we've heard from the opposition a number of examples as to why it might be, but I think it's incumbent on us to really do a proper job through the ministry and get all of the information and find out the best approach to this problem.

B.C. PLACE DEVELOPMENT

MS. MARZARI: The Premier has personally promised local city councils that they would get more decentralized control over their planning procedures, but his Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is ignoring the joint planning process that was established with the city of Vancouver with regard to the North Park development on B.C. Place land. The person who held that planning process together, Stanley Kwok, has now resigned. Has the Premier decided to take personal charge of the planning process for B.C. Place, so that we can ensure that his promises to local councils are fulfilled?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the question should be directed to the Minister of Economic Development, although I certainly appreciate the question being asked. Frankly, while the Premier may be capable of many things, and is obviously required to do many things, I don't think I want to get into the planning process.

MS. MARZARI: I must pursue the line of questioning. In that planning process, social housing had been built in. Now that these plans are unravelling, because social housing has suddenly become uneconomic, I want to know if the Premier is going to ensure that those plans for social housing are incorporated.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I understand it was upon the recommendation of the B.C. Enterprise board, following their review of the plans and all of the economic studies that have been done with respect to those plans, and considering also the future of the whole of the B.C. Place development.... It was based on that that the recommendation came that we not proceed with that particular part of the proposal as it was planned.

[2:30]

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MS. MARZARI: This is a new question. I am glad that the Premier has mentioned the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. This is a question to the Premier about that corporation. Because it is such a sensitive corporation and because it is dealing with a very sensitive acreage in the city of Vancouver as well as 120,000 acres of provincially owned land, has the board of BCEC been required to file disclosure papers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will take that question as notice. I don't have that information.

PROTEST ON LEGISLATURE LAWN

MR. SIHOTA: My question is to the Provincial Secretary. The other day in question period, the Premier said that he did not authorize or order the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff to remove the protesters from the lawns of the Legislature. Did the Provincial Secretary make those orders on the first day, and if he did, did he do it without consultation with cabinet and the Premier?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is new here, and I understand that, but he must understand that there is such a thing as discussions that take place in cabinet, and every minister is obligated not to make known discussions in cabinet. So as much as I would like to answer the hon. member, I am unable to at this time. I am sure he will understand why.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a new question to the Premier. The Premier would understand that in the cases of picketers outside of corporate offices, one would normally go to court to obtain an order to remove them. Now if due process is a responsible action in that type of situation, why is it that the Premier does not consider due process to be the responsible action with respect to removal of picketers from the lawns of the Legislature?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, this was not a labour dispute.

MR. SIHOTA: The question was not a labour question. The question to the Premier is simply this. There are instances where due process is exercised, and I just gave you an example of one. Could the Premier tell me why in this instance due process was not exercised?

MR. SPEAKER: I might mention to the member that he may want to put that question to a different minister. If he wants to refer to May, page 331, section 10: "It is not in order to put to a minister a question for which another minister is more directly responsible, or ask one minister to influence the action of another." He may want to redirect that question to make it in order.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that no one has assumed responsibility for this action, I would wish to put the matter and the principle of the matter to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order to the Premier.

Did you rise on a point of order, opposition House Leader?

COLONY FARM

MR. ROSE: No, I wouldn't do that in question period and abuse the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Premier is getting a lot of attention today, and I have another question for him. It has to do with Colony Farm. You read all about it in the newspapers. I know that that may not be a basis for a question, but there are a lot of concerns about the possible commercialization of Colony Farm — possibilities of two or three racetracks, hotels; we've even

[ Page 584 ]

heard the word "casinos." What it is is the commercialization of land which is currently in the agricultural land reserve. I'd like to know if the Premier is aware of what's happening in these proposals, and if he intends to support this kind of application to change the nature of that property.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I understand the proponents have made representation to the councils of Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam. We've also had representation made to us in the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, but I don't have enough of the details. Frankly, I'm not sure that they're sufficiently advanced in their plans to make a thorough request to council, which would in turn need to then take it to the other appropriate bodies. I don't believe it has gone that far.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I could ask a question, a supplementary, to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the Minister of Agriculture decided to support the removal of the lands of Colony Farm from the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To the Hon. House Leader, no, I have not.

MR. ROSE: Can the minister assure the House that he will not?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That's future policy, Mr. Speaker, and no decision will be made until such time as we have a concrete proposal in the first place.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on the amendment to second reading of Bill 19 –– I believe adjourning debate was the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. CASHORE: It's a great honour to rise in this House and speak in favour of this hoist motion. I'm sure that my hon. colleagues in government have had the opportunity to do some sober reflection over the weekend and will now recognize the value of the wise counsel that we have been providing here as we have risen one after the other among the ranks of the New Democrats to bring some logic and some common sense into this hallowed chamber. I hope to carry on in that tradition.

In speaking in favour of this hoist motion, 1 have been trying to come up with some kind of an image, some kind of an analogy that would enable me to characterize the way in which I see this issue that is now before us. What is happening, partly because of a well-intentioned pride, is that the members of government seem to be intent on operating much in the manner of a runaway train. I think what is happening here is that the train is going down the track, it's picking up momentum and we have, through some pretty careful experience and pretty careful searching, come to find out that down the track there are dangers, that the bed under the track is not in good shape, that the pilings on the bridges are rotten, and that if you were to persist with the intention that is within this legislation, there needs to be a warning and that warning needs to be heard.

This, Mr. Speaker, is not the kind of a warning that one makes when one is involved in saying: "If you don't do this, we'll do this." It's a warning that is saying that given the circumstances within our social structure, given the circumstances further down that track, the fact is that if you continue on this track with this very cumbersome train which is picking up speed, it will get to a point that you will not be able to recover from the mess that you are going to create with this legislation.

So I am appealing to government to take another look at it, to do what you can to stop that runaway train before it gets to that point on the track where it can no longer be supported and where it will be derailed, much to the detriment not only of this government but to the detriment of the fabric of industrial relations within this province.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that for reasons of pride, that is far too great a price to exact from the people of British Columbia at this time.

Mr. Speaker, as we began the debate on the legislation with regard to Bills 19 and 20, the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) rose in his place and he gave what I felt was a model of a parliamentary speech. I was very pleased to see during the ensuing debate that members on the government side said that while they did not agree with that hon. member, they commended him for the craft that went into the development of that speech and of that statement. And I would like to remind the hon. members that in making the points that he made, it was not a strident attack on the government; it was a reasoned presentation of a perspective that was put forward in all seriousness.

Continuing to honour that seriousness, it would behoove each member who is potentially going to vote in favour of this legislation to ask himself or herself if they have addressed each of the questions that the hon. member for North Island has raised, not to address them in the sense of trying to beat down an argument or to ridicule an argument but in the sense of really looking at the points that he made and asking if those points are not points that really are cause for sober reflection. The purpose of this hoist motion is to enable members of this House to participate in a time-honoured activity in parliamentary, democratic jurisdictions throughout the world, and that is the tradition of participating in sober reflection — taking a second look, giving an opportunity for the healing process that time can provide, to perhaps heal some of the wounds that may be there, some of the breakage already becoming apparent where there are cracks and deficiencies within the structure of this legislation.

Some of the points that the hon. member for North Island made would include the following. He said that it interferes with freely negotiated contracts between employers and employees. I have not heard that issue addressed in this House. Therefore I think it is incumbent upon us to hoist this motion and give an opportunity to reflect on that. The member for North Island also pointed out that there was lack of consultation in the presentation of these two bills. I know the argument has been made that there was all kinds of consultation, that indeed, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Hanson) went throughout the province and received briefs in places. I've even heard it mentioned that some 700 briefs were presented, and I would grant you that that is consultation. But I think that consultation is a process, if the

[ Page 585 ]

perpetrators of this legislation are to be respected, that happens after the fact as well as before the fact. I don't care if you listen to 700 briefs, or 7,000. If you do not heed the people of this province bringing you the substance of their concerns about labour legislation, then it can't really be called consultation — it's consultation in name only.

I have received a number of letters and briefs prepared since this legislation came forward, pointing out — and these are coming from people who have a great deal of expertise in the labour movement — what they feel will be really serious problems with this legislation. They are not saying that these will be problems for them; they feel that these are going to be problems for all of us, in terms of their ramifications for industrial bargaining within our province. In all fairness, I think that when we're talking about consultation.... When the product the government puts forward is such a radical departure from present conditions, which do offer a very considerable degree of stability in labour-management relations, surely members of the government should be receiving 700 proposals or briefs and going out to the people of this province after they have produced the product, so that they can find out exactly what the people of the province think about it.

[2:45]

I think the point has been made that were there conditions at the present time that indicated a great urgency, that somehow this had to be done right away, then there might be an argument against this consultative process that this hoist motion would enable. But it has been very clearly demonstrated — indeed, nobody in the government has responded when this has been demonstrated — that there's nothing coming down the pipe in industrial relations that anyone could use to suggest that it's a matter of urgency to rush these bills through. Hence the logic of hoisting the motion and allowing the healing to take place that can take place through consultation, and allowing that sober second look to happen that might result in something far better for the future of this province.

One of the points that the hon. member for North Island made was that it was quite obvious the Premier had solicited support from management against what he expected to be a reaction from labour. Now that was a tacit recognition that this is a pro-management bill and therefore goes very dangerously in the direction of removing the delicate balance that needs to exist if management-labour relations are to be intact. The Premier actually sought management's support.

When we recognize that that kind of a process was taking place prior to and at the time of the introduction of this legislation, we really need an opportunity to stand back and reflect on that — another reason to support this hoist motion. The point that the Premier had solicited support from management has received no response that I'm aware of, and it is an important point. I would think that it is as important a point to management as it is to labour.

Another point that the hon. member for North Island made was that to rush this legislation through at this time would be provocative and confrontational. There is no need at this time to be trying to provoke confrontation in this province. This is not something that will serve the needs of the province at this time. We do not need confrontation; what we do need is an opportunity for dialogue, a dialogue of the kind that the Premier has been talking about during and before the election campaign, dialogue of the kind that opposition and government both indulge in talking about.

When we as members of this House toss around words like "dialogue," is it simply to mean that we're doing this because we want people to think that we're using a word that is going to somehow win us recognition or affirmation? When we talk about dialogue, do we really mean it? I'm saying that to both sides of the House. Do we really mean that we want dialogue? Because if we do, six months is not too great a price to pay to create that opportunity, not only for members of government and opposition but for the members of the populace of this province who increasingly are expressing an amazing amount of concern about this.

When we talk about rushing this through, the only reason that I could possibly expect would have any credibility whatsoever is a very disturbing reason. That would be the reason that would say: "We must get this legislation through the House as quickly as possible before those who are going to oppose us get their response together and before there is a tidal wave of concern being expressed. That might happen, and that might mean that we aren't able to put this package through in the way it exists now at some future date — if that tidal wave of public opinion ever has the opportunity to really get rolling, because we will know at that time that both politically and logically we won't be able to put forward the package that we had wanted to put forward."

If that is the thinking, I would remind this government that there have been very good governments and legislatures and parliaments throughout the world who have achieved a tremendous amount of respect by having had the presence of mind to take a sober second look. Very often the kind of reasoned response that we should be inviting from the public at this time is the very kind of response that will inform the government and enable this government to produce the kind of legislation this province really needs at this time. Therefore I urge you to seriously consider that there really is not a good reason for rushing this legislation through.

I understand that there are reasons, but no one in the debate on this hoist motion has come forward with a good reason for rushing it through. I would like to ask that the next member of government to speak, who probably already has his or her speech ready, talk to somebody and include in that next speech the government's reason for feeling that this must be rushed through. Respond to my suggestion that perhaps the reason is that if you don't rush it through, there's going to be such a groundswell of public opinion that you will have to change it. If that is the only reason, I do not think the members of government can logically support that reason.

Another point that has been made is that the bill is a move toward the deunionizing of British Columbia. I understand that that point has been disputed in the speeches of many members of government. I recognize it is a point of argument, but I think we really need to look at the history of trade unionism within this province and recognize that there have been some unfortunate incidents over the years in management-labour relations. The public perception often seems to be that the fault lies on the side of labour, yet I think an objective look at history would find that an unfair, biased assessment. I think it would be tragic if this present dialogue — which we are hoping will continue to be dialogue after the hoist motion — ended up producing the judgment that trade unionism is somehow suspect, when really one of the ways we can get this province working together is for the government, as well as the opposition, to tacitly recognize the marvellous contribution that the trade union movement has made to the development of the fabric and structure of the

[ Page 586 ]

society in which we live and which we enjoy. I think it's very important that that recognition be made, and be made clearly. But I think there is a danger whereby this legislation could he seen to be anti-union, and a major sector of our society could be downgraded by words, which I think is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate at this time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should hoist this legislation.

Another point that was made is that Jim Matkin of the employers' council is warning about the bill having the potential to create industrial havoc. It would seem that he recognizes there is an intent here to achieve a goal of ending unions in B.C. I'm not saying he has said that, but I am saying that obviously he recognizes that the delicate balance between labour and management is endangered by this legislation. I think he's concerned about it, and I think the warnings he has issued are important for us to heed. Therefore, again there is reason to hoist this legislation and take the healing of time to reconsider it.

A valuable term in our language is "consensus building," which for me is not a buzzword. I really do believe that all members of this House would hope that in the best of all possible worlds we could be involved here in a process of consensus building, where we would come out with what would truly be best for British Columbia: that there would be a building of consensus and that a maximum number of people within our province would feel their words had been listened to, their hurts had been heeded, their concerns had received some due compassion, and their hopes for the future would have an opportunity to be realized because of the consensus that would be built. I think the role of consensus building is a role that this legislation would give us an opportunity to be involved in if it could be hoisted, if there could be that six months of dialogue. We are reminded that the 1973 Labour Code developed through that kind of consensus process. There is nothing to be ashamed of in a government taking the leadership to open the doors to the refreshing breezes of consensus, so that we might participate in that in a way in which all of us can become winners.

Following up on that point, we also have another word that I think is very important in the lectionary of our history in this country of Canada and in British Columbia. That word is cooperation. I think that we need to look into the history of labour-management relations and discover where those experiences of cooperation have been, and learn how to build on those experiences where they have taken place, because if we really look at it — and I know this isn't always that newsworthy — we will find that there are far more examples of cooperation than there are of disputes. As a matter of fact, the member for North Island reminded us that 95 percent of labour negotiations do not end up in some form of dispute or some mechanism to deal with the dispute.

I think that we need to be looking in good faith at the possibilities of cooperation. For instance, instead of hearing in speech after speech after speech from the government side of the House a reminder of the IWA strike, which somehow creates the impression — or perhaps is put out there to create the impression — that the big, bad IWA has really done it to us again.... We really need to recognize, as the hon. member said, that through consultation and cooperation — and again, no one has addressed this point — the IWA gave up literally 10,000 to 15,000 jobs because of recognizing the need to make the industry more competitive.

[3:00]

The trade unions and management cooperated in that process. I think it's a disservice to single out this one incident in a way that seems intended to reflect far more negatively on labour than on management — which I think is unfair — when there are obvious reasons that are far more dramatic, far more succinct and far more worthy that show us that there is a history of cooperation between management and labour in this province. If we can go about the task of affirming that cooperation where it has existed, we can discover within the seeds and the roots of that cooperation where the solutions for the future really do lie.

We don't have to set out to destroy something that has been working when what we really need to do is to try to do that which develops the healing process within that instrument. That is what this call for a hoist motion is all about, because we believe that there is an opportunity for a healing process; not only a healing process that would happen within the fractures that exist when there are political polemics, but a healing process that needs time — I think all of us know that healing needs time — and that can help out.

As you go throughout the length and breadth of this great province and really hear from people with regard to what they think about this legislation, it might be that you will find out that there some aspects of it that they like. I'm not able at this time to say what those aspects would be, but you might find that out. You might find out that there is some affirmation in that process, and that might be a very worthwhile experience for you. But if you really do believe what you are saying, that it is as good as you say it is, then surely six months in the long, long history of British Columbia is not going to in any way hurt you or hurt this legislation or hurt the people of British Columbia. It can be a healing process, as I said before.

Mr. Speaker, another point that has been made is that there really is a considerable degree of trust. We can talk about the degree of mistrust, but we can also talk about the considerable degree of trust that exists between management and labour in this province. The member for North Island made the point that because of that trust that does exist, there is within the present circumstances the opportunity cooperatively to make our plant in British Columbia modern. I think that is something we really need to look at. We are facing the very real difficulties and the opportunities that are afforded by technology. There are the difficulties, because as technology develops there is disruption in terms of the workplace. There are the possibilities, because technology when used wisely and founded on positive ethics can help to produce a much more worthwhile society and a much more worthwhile set of mechanisms whereby our society functions. I think that is something that we really need to give an opportunity to happen. But it is going to be difficult for that to happen if we do something that breaks down that trust, or that impacts on the balance that enables that trust to take place. Trust is a very delicate part of human relationships, and it is a very difficult value to save once it begins to be lost. 1 think that is tremendously important.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left? Two minutes? There are some other points that I have wanted to make, and I will be planning to make those points when I have another opportunity. But I did want to conclude my remarks today with a reading from the late F.R. Scott, a distinguished Canadian, a leading figure in law, labour and politics in Canada and one of the architects of the practical

[ Page 587 ]

compassion that is fundamental to the CCF/NDP. He said this in a poem in the 1930s:

From those condemned to labour
For profit of another
We take our new endeavour.

For sect and class and pattern
Through whom the strata harden
We sharpen now the weapon.

Till power is brought to pooling
And outcasts share in ruling
There will not be an ending
Nor any peace for spending.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and — in his absence, as no doubt he is very busy today in his first day as new leader — to express also my congratulations to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt) on taking the mantle of his party at a hard-fought convention on the weekend.

I regret that I was unable to enjoy that convention. I kept turning my dial, thinking I had the wrong week, and all I could see was the Masters golf, the Family Circle tennis and the hockey game. But I couldn't see the first member or his acceptance speech, and I regret that the media didn't give more coverage to their convention. I think that is wrong and that they should have. I think it was an important convention, even though it wasn't contested, and it is too bad that when you have a contest, they're there night and day, but when you don't, you barely get a look-in at the six o'clock news.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

To speak on the hoist motion, I feel sure that having reflected over the weekend and having listened to the moderating, terribly sensible tones of their new leader, the members opposite are probably going to decide that some of their criticism of this bill has been a little bit hasty, that they have pressed their buttons maybe a little too quickly, that the shrill cries that have been heard from their constituency — and which indeed we have heard from the Employers' Council as well — may be a little bit off the mark and a little bit wide, and that this bill is not as bad as any of them think.

I remember in 1973 when the Labour Code was passed by their government, that the minister of the day, Mr. Bill King, faced very much the same kind of criticism from labour and from business. They said that this was a monstrous, undemocratic bill, that it was taking away rights, that it would produce chaos in the construction industry. I can remember those comments being made at the time, and all sorts of dire predictions were made for the future of the legislation.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is really an attempt to profit and learn by some of the experience that has taken place over the ensuing 13 years. It's an attempt to make the Labour Code of 1973 a document that is more in keeping with the needs of industrial relations and commercial activity in British Columbia today. In 1973 that bill may have been the bill for the day; Bill 19 is the bill for 1987. If you look at that bill carefully, and reflect on it and consider it, you'll see that it really does not challenge the underpinnings of industrial relations in this province. It still puts harmony between employer and employees as a very, very high priority. It still puts a good impartial method of solving disputes in the form of an adjudicative board, one of the prime divisions of the new council. It still provides for voluntary arbitration between the parties, although it improves that somewhat and streamlines that somewhat in that it encourages more single arbitration.

It also still provides for a good deal of give and take in the administration of collective agreements. It provides also for a much better framework, in my view, to deal with complex industrial relations in the 1990s.

In 1973, when the Labour Code was brought in, and we had the experience of that Code and interpretations under it.... You'll remember that the first chairman of the board was Mr. Paul Weiler, who was a professor of law from the University of Toronto. He presided as our first chairman for a number of years. In his day, you had a chairman who was very much in sync with the objectives of the legislation — indeed, had been consulted as to the drafting of the legislation. By the power of his intellect and by his sheer ability, he was able to bring under that legislation a fair degree of control over labour relations in the province; at least, to provide a direction for them.

His predecessor, Don Munroe, was also a remarkable figure in the field of labour relations. He was a very hands-on type of chairman; he was out doing a lot of adjudicating and also a lot of settling and arm twisting. He had a very strong influence on labour relations that went beyond his adjudicative function. I think that in the years that have gone by since the passage of those two, there have been increasing difficulties in finding personnel for the Labour Relations Board and attracting people to the board, and I think we've got very backward in the kinds of salaries and opportunities that we've been providing for people to take these positions.

So I'm delighted, Mr. Speaker, to see that this bill provides that the commissioner is going to receive a salary the same as a supreme court judge. I would hope that the divisional chairmen are going to receive considerably higher salaries than people on the LRB receive now, and that we will attract a high calibre of person to administer this act. I also see that the commissioner has some tenure by statute, and that he will be anything but a clone of the government; that he will be a person who will be able to act independently.

He's going to have some advantages, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Weiler didn't have. He is clearly going to be at the top of a pyramid, with two divisions: one division that can go out and can mediate and can try to settle things; and the other division that will clearly have to adjudicate. The problem that Mr. Weiler had in his day was that he was expected to do both. One of the criticisms I can remember, as a Labour Relations Board practitioner during the seventies, was that you often couldn't get decisions out of the board on adjudicative matters. You couldn't get illegal pickets taken down. You couldn't get a clearly illegal job-action stopped, because there was so much negotiating going on. The board was coming over and having little chats and informal meetings, but they would never rule on the illegality. Well, you see, under the new setup, Mr. Peck will be in a position where he can put his mediation side in, and he can try to settle things, but if an employer or a union wants to have their legal rights decided, they will not be delayed in doing that. They will be able to go ahead and get a ruling that some action by the employer or by the union is legal or illegal. I think that will be much better.

[ Page 588 ]

Another one of the problems that arose, and one of the criticisms that arose under the old Labour Code, was that parties didn't have clear access to the courts at any stage. There was a very strong privative clause that kept the courts out, and you couldn't sue for wrongful action without the permission of the board. I notice that those provisions, which I consider to be probably contrary to the Charter, have today been removed, and it will now be possible for people who have an error in law or jurisdiction, or a denial of natural justice, to go to the courts for a ruling. Also, it will be possible to sue for breaches of the Code without the permission of the board. I think all of those things are steps in the right direction.

As a result of the Labour Code of 1973, the interpretations that grew up under it and the practitioners who specialized in labour law, it's fair to say that what happened in the field of Labour Relations Board interpretations is that they became increasingly legalistic. I know that when the minister conducted his tour around this province he heard the same thing from labour, management and third parties: "Please save us from the over-legalistic drift of this board." It's impossible to go before that board now unless you're a John Baigent or a Bruce McColl or somebody of that kind of skill. You get in there and you're faced with seven or eight different legal arguments, and it has become a very specialized tribunal.

So I hope that out of this new council and the two divisions will come not only high-calibre people, but people who will give a sense in the hearings that the layman can be there or the non-legally trained person will have a chance to appear, or that the little guy who's bringing an action under a collective agreement won't have to have these high-priced practitioners but will be able to speak for himself. That may be a vain hope, but I still have that hope. I think labour relations boards should not be too legalistic.

[3:15]

Some of the results that occurred during the period of excessive concentration on legalistic matters in labour relations is that we got a number of rulings, of concepts, that created difficulties, and there was a lot of criticism as a result of the administration of the act. A criticism heard continuously by employers, particularly small businessmen, was that sign-up campaigns were the fastest thing the Labour Relations Board dealt with, that a certification application was dealt with almost overnight but that a decertification application took forever. You were told, "Don't come back; we'll call you," and sometimes no votes were held on decertification. As a result, employers felt they were quickly finessed into a union, often without votes because there was no provision that required certification votes to be taken, and there were never decertification votes either. So it was a once in, never out kind of proposition. I suppose there are always good reasons for having certification matters dealt with swiftly. For instance, if you let them linger for a long time, you allow opportunities for intimidation, unfair labour practices, this kind of thing. Nevertheless, I think it was generally admitted by most people in this field that the law had gone far too far in the direction of penalizing a small employer particularly, making him totally subject to an instant sign-up campaign.

Also, of course, for a long time the law was thought to be that a small or a large employer faced with a certification drive couldn't say anything to his men, couldn't talk to them, couldn't communicate to them at all. If he even said "good morning" to them on the way to work, he was maybe going to be up before the LRB on an unfair labour charge. I'm glad to see there are some really good union democracy provisions in this bill, provisions which.... It has been said that this is radical. I have a lot of respect for the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), but I think his characterization of the radicalism of this bill is quite misplaced. If you look at the restrictions contained in section 7 of the bill on discriminatory practices that prevent employees from losing their jobs if they aren't treated equally by a trade union, that provision is now in place in almost every province in this country. Manitoba has a provision like that; Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I, Newfoundland, and it's in the federal bill as well. So there's nothing radical about those kinds of protections for democracy in the jobplace.

In my view, the minister has done a very good job of balancing various reforms and taking into account the need to have more democracy in the workplace to protect individual rights. If the minister hadn't done that, no doubt applications would have been made to the courts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we don't want labour matters ending up in Charter challenges under the courts. I was delighted to see that the Supreme Court of Canada handed down decisions on Friday in a host of cases involving Alberta, the Public Service Alliance and a Manitoba matter as well, in which the sum and substance of the decisions and the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada was this: that neither the right to strike nor the right to bargain collectively is something that a legislature or parliament can't take away if they wish, that that is not freedom of association and freedom of expression under the Charter. The right to bargain collectively may involve those things, but it is not in substance those things. The power to limit the right to strike is something that Parliament or the Legislature can do if it wishes to take the responsibility to do that. I therefore think that the best forum for deciding these things, for deciding if there is going to be some limitation on the right to strike or on certification, is in parliament and not in the courts.

The reforms brought forward here, the democratization of procedures, are very good and very much in keeping with Canadian practice. They are not in the least radical. I notice that there is a limitation in this act of the non-affiliation clauses for construction. That can hardly be described as a radical assault on the fabric of labour, as I have heard said. I've heard that kind of charge from some people in the labour movement who know better — and who would tell you privately they know better That is hardly a radical departure, because these non-affiliation clauses, odious as they may be, have been around for some time. They permit a group of trade unions that are certified for a particular construction project to provide in their collective agreements with their employers that the employers will not bring on that job any people who are affiliated with non-union labour. That is a reality in the construction industry. The construction industry tried to deal with those matters in the courts. In the ironworkers' case in the late 1970s the courts upheld them, and now they are part of the construction industry, like it or not. But they have never been part of the collective agreements and labour relations of other segments of society, nor indeed should they creep into those. There may be times, such as the Expo occasion, when those provisions cannot be used to override major projects, any more than single-site concepts can be used. Those are kept here in this legislation, and so is the right to peacefully picket.

[ Page 589 ]

The right to picket under this legislation is now limited basically to the employers' places of business. It does not extend to secondary picketing, nor to boycotting and hot-goods edicts, whereby someone who has peaceful labour relations in some other part of the province, is minding his own business, has a collective agreement with his employees and is treating them well and is suddenly faced with an edict that he cannot handle the goods, which he has been handling for many years, of some customer of his in the lower mainland, hundreds of miles away, who has a labour dispute. That's gone. But again, in doing that, we're in the mainstream of developments in labour relations in Canada and around the world.

These sorts of changes have been made over the last three or four years in the United Kingdom, and they've been made in other provinces. So I see the bill as very, very positive, and there are many positive features in it which I don't think we're examining from a fair point of view.

I also notice that there is some clarification of successor status, but there is no elimination of successor status. There hasn't been a revolutionary change in the law of successor status which is now going to allow employers to circumvent certifications and double-breast all over the province. In fact, one of the criticisms we've had from the construction segment is that we haven't gone far enough. But the fact is that we have clarified the law of successor status so that if you have a particular skill, it won't be caught by successor status; or if you happen to have a piece of equipment, such as a crane, that's not certified.... A certification is not a communicable disease which you can never get rid of, so that it never leaves anything you do. It doesn't leave a jobsite, a tool or anything else. What it does is attach to the business and the goodwill. You can't carry on the same kind of business somewhere else under a another guise; you can't have some kind of phony bankruptcy or liquidation to try to avoid certification and then open up business tomorrow, because bankruptcy ends certification but not colourable bankruptcy. So there are lots of protections here for the trade union movement and for the working man.

The main theme of this bill is that there is a whole new constituency out there in the field of labour relations: not big unions, not big employers, but the public, who suffer from bad labour relations when you get an employer and employee who can't come to an agreement and they decide to harass each other and harass the rest of us and we have a long and bitter strike.

I can well remember, as I'm sure people in this room can, the trouble that Mr. King had in 1973 when he brought in new legislation, got it passed and then put it into practice, and how it was supposed to bring about labour peace and it was supposed to keep everybody happy because it provided so much greater sort of collectivization for the labour side of the equation. But what it really did, unfortunately, was raise aspirations. Instead of having peace, we had: "Give me more, give me more, give me more." We had settlements of 25 and 30 percent. We had civic strikes. I remember we had one in Victoria here in 1975, where the union was asking seriously for an increase of 45 percent. That strike went on for weeks and weeks. I can remember Mr. King inviting us down — I was a mayor at that time — saying: "Please, couldn't you people be reasonable? Couldn't you compromise and maybe pay them 30 percent?"

This kind of thing went on. We didn't get labour peace by that kind of legislation. You don't really buy labour peace by passing legislation that the trade union movement, or the employers, may like. You get labour peace, I think, by having fair legislation that protects the public, with rules that are fair, and with fair, reasonable people who will operate those procedures.

Who in this province could be better, and who is better equipped, to head up this new structure than Mr. Ed Peck? He was trained by Paul Weiler; he served as his vice-chairman. Ed Peck had many years experience on the old LRB, and he has now had the experience of the compensation stabilization program, which has ended. He's always kept his oar in the field of labour relations. He's been an arbitrator and a mediator. He understands the importance of solving disputes by other than strikes or job action. He understands mediation, intervention — this kind of thing. He'll be able to use that part of the new apparatus, Mr. Minister of Labour. He'll be able to use it with great effectiveness. Under this new regime and Mr. Peck, we are not going to have a whole bunch of disputes that we can't settle coming onto the desk of the minister for some kind of statutory intervention.

Because I've listened to the employers' council and also some of the spokesmen for the B.C. Fed, I know that they look upon this large council and the imposition of the will of the government in the final analysis as destructive of collective bargaining; that this will destroy and impede collective bargaining, and that we will not have proper collective bargaining; the parties will wait for Big Brother to intervene and then they'll hammer them with this solution. That is not going to be the case, Mr. Speaker. The legislation has all kinds of mechanisms for resolving disputes, for intervention, for public interest inquiries, for boards, and for persuasion. It has a cooling-off period. The cooling-off period is not new to labour relations; it was there before in the public sector.

I've also heard the argument that we have gone too far in intruding into solutions for the private sector; that we should stay out of the private sector in labour relations. The private sector is no business of the public: that's the proposition. Mr. Speaker, we saw last summer and last fall the kinds of results that can flow from that sort of thinking, because there we had a major dispute in our major industry, which shut down a number of plants and really decimated a number of towns and meant that no money was flowing to families all over the interior and the coast of this province. Absolutely nothing could be done at one point in time because there was no Legislative Assembly; there was an election going on. Unless the government can have some control mechanism at times like that, where it's a strike that cripples the entire economy of the province, so that government can finally, after lots of safeguards, as there are in this legislation.... After Mr. Peck does all his things, mediation, public interest inquiries and all these things take place, and then there's still no solution, and then he recommends that he cannot settle the matter, at that time the government has to assume responsibility. If the Legislature isn't sitting, or if the Legislature is dissolved, you can't have a legislated solution. The bill has safeguards for a solution by cabinet too, because the solution has to be laid before the Legislature when it next sits and has to be approved. If the Legislature is sitting, the decision won't be made in the cabinet chamber; it'll be made in this chamber

I'll tell you that I think we're hearing a lot of smoke and mirrors. What we're hearing is the rhetoric of two sides that are not looking at the bill, and not trying to understand it but are terrified of any kind of change. That's what it is. They

[ Page 590 ]

don't want any kind of change. I'm equally critical of the Employers' Council as I am of the B.C. Federation of Labour. This is not radical legislation. This is not going to change their lives. This is not legislation that's going to hurt their members. It's legislation that provides a better, more modem framework for trying to get on with things in this province.

[3:30]

Look at the objects of the bill, Mr. Speaker. The objects of the bill tell the whole thing, because the greatest object now of labour legislation is not just harmony in collective bargaining.... That's important, but it says: "...having regard to the public interest as well as the rights of individuals and the rights and obligations of the parties...." It says also — and it's central to this bill — "the participants in...a competitive market economy," and it recognizes that both management and labour are participants in a competitive market economy. And unless we have legislation that deals with the competitive market economy, we're going to be going on doing things in our old way, the way we were back in the seventies. We're going to be locked in some kind of warp in time, when the rest of the world is outcompeting us, the rest of the world is outhustling us and we're not able to change, and we're caught in our own way of doing things, the way they are in parts of the Maritimes or in some of the eastern states, where their industries are locked in — or the way the British were with their mineworkers for so many years, and it erupts in violence when change is finally brought about.

You have to be able to bring change about or else we're not going to compete in the world, and we're not going to grow, we're not going to have a decent standard of living, and we're not going to attract capital from abroad.

The bill is a good bill, and I cannot support the hoist motion. I thought long and hard over the weekend. I listened to the news clips of Mikey, waiting and waiting and waiting for some new evidence to come forward, but I cannot support the hoist motion. I must urge all members of the chamber to support this excellent bill, which will allow us to go forward with better labour relations and will allow free collective bargaining to replace collective bludgeoning. That's what it will do. So I urge you to vote against the hoist motion and support this excellent bill.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I can't go ahead and debate the bill and answer some of the points that the Attorney-General just brought up, but I'm speaking to the amendment to the motion. I'm speaking to the amendment to the motion on behalf of my constituents who.... And I'd like to just mention to the members of this House that when you're in Cranbrook, Victoria is a very remote community. In fact, some of the news about the two bills that have been put forward — but particularly Bill 19, which we're talking about right now — has not got through to these third parties that the government is talking about.

You've got to remember that when you're in the corners of the province from which Victoria is very remote, in fact what happens is something like.... A bill is introduced in the Legislature on a Thursday; by Friday it's in the newspapers; by Saturday those newspapers might arrive in my community. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have been talking to a number of the people in my community, and they have not yet absorbed the implications of Bill 19. It is not because they are not able to do it as fast as anyone else; it is because the implications are very complex, the bill is complex. In fact, there seems to have been no particular attempt to let the people know what was in the bill before it came out, and there's been no particular effort to now decide whether or not they do know what's in the bill. That is why I'm supporting the hoist motion.

There are a number of reasons, and that will become more clear as I go along, but mainly I would like to say that if in fact members of my community, who are those third parties who are so important in the bill, were to have finally decided that they had read the newspaper and found out more details about the bill which they might not have gotten with electronic coverage, and that they might want the bill sent to them, and they could get it, it would probably take two weeks. Now if they had even noticed the radio on the day that the bill was introduced and decided that they wanted it and had phoned immediately, and it had had to go by mail, it would probably be this coming Thursday when the bill would arrive.

Mr. Speaker, I put it to the government: that is a fact of life. It's a fact of communication in the province and is one of the reasons that we deserve to have the bill delayed until all of the people of the province have had an opportunity to examine it and to take a good look at the implications.

In my examination of the bill and where it came from and so on and so forth, Mr. Speaker, I took a good look at the labour legislation review that Mr. Hanson put forward on February 28, which was released, as we will all recall, the same day that Bill 19 was introduced into the Legislature. If you remember, the labour legislation review was announced on December 12, and in fact said that Mr. Hanson would expect briefs up until January 16, and he would make recommendations by February 28. His itinerary was announced on January 7. All of this looks like a very rush job, Mr. Speaker, as you can see. December 12, as everyone knows, is at a time when very few people in a community are going to have their attention taken away from the major celebration of our society, the Christmas season. So they probably weren't disturbed by the fact that they did not know where or whether they were going to be able to make presentations to Mr. Hanson's review process until January 7. What happened was that the oral presentations, which were not more than 15 minutes, went on until February 7. On February 7, after Mr. Hanson had travelled the province to the number of places where he went, and had in fact had private meetings on two days in late January, he then had three weeks to make a presentation to the Premier.

I would like to compare that with the process that went on with the major labour legislation of 1973. Everybody refers to it a lot, and they say it is a similar process because it is such a sweeping change. It was a sweeping change. In 1973, the bill was introduced in March. From March until October there were numbers of two- and three-day conferences held throughout the province, and people were able to sit down and talk to each other. They were able to discuss, back and forth, the implications of this bill. It wasn't simply a series of hearings put together at a month's notice or so with organizations that were already busy having other social functions and doing other work, and just at the drop of a hat were expected to make presentations. They were given warning from March 1973. They had conferences so that they could exchange views and not just make presentations. By the beginning of October the legislation was introduced in the House, and it was debated for seven weeks in the Legislature.

That legislation had a considerably better.... I guess I can't predict, can I? We don't know. This legislation could all

[ Page 591 ]

of a sudden begin to get some positive response, but it hasn't happened yet. People are alarmed and concerned. The whole timetable was rushed. After February 28, when the report came in, we had one month until the legislation was introduced into the House, and it is already being rushed through the House. We think that that is too fast. We need to take at least six months to take this legislation to the people - not just to the companies, not just to the people who work for the companies, but also to this third party who keeps being mentioned.

We've been talking also about the crucial role of this particular bill, and that is not really a difficult thing to talk about. I think that Mr. Hanson saw that it was sweeping legislation, and it is fairly clear that there was a recognition in all the comments that this legislation is going to make a huge change. In fact, in the letter that Mr. Hanson wrote to Mr. Vander Zalm on submitting his report, he said: "More than anything else, I have been mindful of the crucial role which we know our industrial relations climate plays in the decisions of foreign investors, upon whom so much . . . ." That term is used there. When we go further ahead, he also says in the beginning of the report itself: "In recognition of the broad and substantial impact labour legislation has on the people of British Columbia.... He says: "Hearing times were solidly booked." We know there were more than 700 submissions.

He certainly indicated that he was well aware that there was a broad and substantial impact that was to occur because of this hearing process, because of the whole review process. The whole thing was recognized not just as something that was going past, but as something that was going to make a major difference.

"The basic assumption and motivating factor behind the present review...is that our industrial relations climate must be improved, " he said. He made other comments both here and further in his report indicating that he recognized the importance and the significance of what was going on. He said most individuals and organizations felt positive steps could be taken; he recognized it was a broad and important thing. On page 17 of his report he said that "it is apparent that the world of industrial relations is a complex one"; but they wanted to be "fair and reasonable to all concerned." Changes to the Labour Code, changes to other legislation and nonlegislative changes have all been recommended, and "great care will have to be taken."

All of these words, Mr. Speaker, indicate that Mr. Hanson was well aware that this was an important process and that it was going to make some important changes. He said, in the releases that came with the bill as it came out, that the changes were wide-ranging and significant. He said: "The council will have sweeping powers to act." You could go on and on, and on a regular basis make comments about how it affected all parts of the labour climate and our labour negotiations and labour activities in the province. So I think to suggest that this is going to slide through and that it isn't very important goes against all the evidence that comes otherwise.

Mr. Hanson also recognized particular problems with going through, and he made it clear that it was not going to be an easy thing to put these recommendations he had into legislation. In fact, he said that he is satisfied that the need to improve is widely, if not universally, appreciated. He said that there is less agreement, however, on the best method of bringing about this improvement. He then went ahead to discuss the kinds of change he had considered. He had considered legislative change, and he said that he would accept that to some degree. He said that there had to be a change in attitudes, and he said that attitudinal change cannot be created by legislation, but he said it can be destroyed by legislation — that's on page 4. He made that very clear: this was a problem that was going to have to be dealt with, and he was treading a very fine line.

[3:45]

He ended up by suggesting that in fact he was taking a middle ground, and he said both legislative and attitudinal changes are required to accomplish the necessary improvements. And he said that there are no panaceas or simple solutions, that removing the right to strike does not eliminate strikes. He went on to indicate that this whole business, which would have to be analyzed into a number of directions and a number of ways to approach the problem.... So it's very clear from this report, this review, that was presented by Mr. Hanson that he understood that there were many difficulties and that those difficulties were very severe.

He named in particular some problems that we all know happen to us and complicate the way our lives go as we go along. He said that the communication process is a difficult one. He said: "Communication is not a process which can be easily mandated by legislation." He pointed out — in a number of occasions but in particular one spot — that we must avoid the problem that appearances may differ from the reality. I mention that because this is such a simple issue — you know, to recognize the complexity of it. It's so simple that, as I say, we know that when somebody says to a spouse, "Your dinner is ready, " that spouse could read a million meanings into that simple statement. Did the statement really mean, "All right, now I've done all the work; you can come and eat it," or did it mean, "Now you can go ahead and eat your dinner; I have a whole lot more work to do," or did it mean...?

MR. MESSMER: Who would think that?

MS. EDWARDS: Any woman, I think, whose husband cooked her dinner might think that.

So I think that.... "You can stop doing what you like. Here is an offer of the best that I can give you." It means any number of those things to the person who receives the message. That, of course, as anybody who knows anything about communications knows, is very different from any number of messages that might have been meant by the person who sent the message. So when we get legislation that tells somebody to say, "Our offer is on the table, " we know that this communication problem has not been licked and cannot be licked, as Mr. Hanson says, by legislation.

He says that any law without the support of the majority will be opposed, and the larger objective will fail. Actually he says: "Any law without the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the majority of those whom it purports to affect will inevitably be opposed." I think that this indicates very clearly that there are some major dangers. I don't think the government can say that they have in fact addressed this issue and that they know they have majority support or acquiescence in this province, because the initial responses have not shown that people in the province support or acquiesce in the legislation.

There are other problems, and I wonder if these have been addressed. I certainly can't imagine that this one is not going to be.... This is just an example. A recommendation on

[ Page 592 ]

page 22 of the report says: "Distinct and separate divisions of a corporation should be treated as separate employers for picketing purposes." Picketing, of course, occurs if there is a labour dispute. Now that may be very clear for labour legislation in this province, but my experience on unemployment insurance boards of referees indicates that it will create untold problems with that legislation. In fact, I wonder if there has been any sort of coordination, or any sort of look at other legislation that's been brought in. I think we should be sure that that kind of coordination, that sort of look ahead, has been done.

One of the more interesting things about the way the bill was brought in is that the Minister of Labour said "on a regular basis," and I think it's fair to say that one hopes this is true, believes it to be true that Mr. Hanson wanted a fairer, more stable workplace. He uses the words "fairness," "mutually agreed upon," "government's desire to establish nonconfrontational climate" and "equitably." All these words come in. The interesting part about fairness is that fairness doesn't count for anything unless it's perceived to be fair by both sides arguing about fairness. Again, there is that great communication problem. If the minister wants that kind of perception, wants people to know and believe that the legislation is fair, we've got to look at a few of the spots where there seem to be a few gaps.

First of all, there are a number of recommendations made in the labour legislation review put forward by Mr. Hanson — and perhaps they come into the legislation — which indicate that it's not as easy as it might seem to avoid confrontation, and that in fact, appearances may differ from reality. It says: "Although recognizing that appearances may differ from the reality of the bargaining process, the possibility of slipping in a major confrontation without serious attempts having between made to resolve the dispute is perhaps too easy...." I would like to suggest that it's just as easy to slip into a major confrontation with legislation that has not been taken to the public as it might be under any labour code that doesn't have the right words to prevent people slipping into confrontation.

In the same part of the review the role of government in the process of collective bargaining is referred to as "an area to which considerable thought has been given and about which a series of recommendations are made." One has to guess who gave that consideration. To my way of thinking, it only means that the ministry and the minister did it. If, in fact, somebody outside the ministry did it, I think we need to know that that happened, and we need to know who added to the considerations mentioned in this review.

There's another example of this. In recommendation No. 9 of the review, which, as I say, we assume should be the original basis for the legislation, the comment is made that the Code should emphasize that every person has a freedom to express his — it doesn't say his or her, but I assume it means his or her — views. If that is the case, I'm not sure why every person should not have the freedom to express his or her views now that the legislation has been brought out and now that we see what this new labour legislation is.

There is another problem with credibility which occurs following a comment about the problems that were faced by Mr. Hanson in putting forward his review, and he said he wanted to.... The recommendations are intended to strengthen the rights of individuals within unions without weakening union security. If that is Mr. Hanson's recommendation and that is his intent, I would suggest that he should check out whether the unions — the people who are going to know whether union solidarity lasts or not — perceive that that is the case as well. I think that probably he would want to do that, and a six-month extension would allow him to consult.

Also in the review there is a statement that Mr. Hanson recommended the extension of collective bargaining rights for teachers, and I believe that it has been said a number of times by the government that they believe they have done this. The teachers have said very directly and very clearly that they do not believe that to be true. I think that there should be some consultation over this, because there doesn't seem to be any doubt in the minds of teachers that that intention — if it were truly the intention — has been achieved. So that leaves us with a bit of a credibility gap, Mr. Speaker.

We have some problems with statements such as the one about pickets being limited: "Picketing must be restricted to limit the economic impact on the province and to protect the legitimate rights of third parties." I think there are a number of people who might wonder if there were not other reasons that should be considered if one were to take such a serious and significant step as to limit picketing. The minister says in his review that the arbitration process should be improved as far as cost is concerned and as far as time is concerned. Many of the people who have read the legislation — the bill anyway — assume that the arbitration process will be made longer and more costly, so perhaps that goal will not be achieved.

Perhaps as important as any is the idea of whether or not legislative change was believed to be what we needed, or whether we needed a different kind of change. In order to look at that, I think we should go to chapter 4 in the review. It says: "Confrontation and its results...was an area where most individuals and organizations felt positive steps could be taken, primarily outside of the area of legislative amendment." Now that's interesting, to suggest that that was where the changes should have come, and this was in the review.

So we can look further on in the review and see if that ever appeared again. Under the section on the construction industry, and Mr. Hanson's comment that the construction, industry must be viewed as the area where the greatest differences were apparent, he said: "This report recommends a vehicle for an in-depth analysis of this complex industry, one which can offer a comprehensive solution, particularly if actively supported by the various interest groups within the industry." So this report itself suggests that there be a careful analysis of overall ramifications — not legislation,

In fact, recommendation 43 says:

"The often unique problems of the construction industry should not be addressed by legislation at this time, but should be referred as soon as possible to an industrial inquiry commission, which should be required within a reasonably short time-frame, and after full consultation with all affected parties, to make a report with recommendations as to how the problems of the industry might best be resolved by legislative or other means, having always in mind the overall public interest."

Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if in fact the overall public interest would have been served by delaying any legislative change as it relates to the construction industry, there is a major credibility gap between what the review recommended and what the bill actually came out with.

What it does besides, Mr. Speaker, is make us all wonder who is defining the public interest, because the public interest — I would hate to be considered to be speaking in a narrow

[ Page 593 ]

sense — needs to be defined. Nowhere in the legislation or the recommendations do I see a real definition of public interest. The credibility gap goes along with that, because those comments have certainly been made.

[4:00]

We have to look a little further to some of the things that Mr. Hanson said were happening, really improving the way things were happening and the kind of thing that has happened with the introduction of this bill, because it was suggested that we needed some kind of labour-management forum which would seek to combat the negative image which attaches to our province in the eyes of foreigners and Canadians alike. The basic purpose of this forum was to be to pursue an improved investment climate and so on and so forth. Five goals were set out as the objectives of this group that was visualized, and this was expected by the minister to bring together the people who are responsible for our industrial relations climate, and in fact to improve the climate that surrounds industrial relations in British Columbia.

There was some indication that there was going to be progress toward a Pacific institute of industrial relations. That was going ahead until such time as the bill was introduced, and it is not going ahead now. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of counteraction to something that was going ahead is something that should be addressed. It is obviously not going to be addressed if we are going ahead full-scale, pell-mell, as fast as possible with Bill 19. But it should be addressed, and it is not being, because of the way the bill has been introduced.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in favour of the bill and against the hoisting motion.

I am proud that our government recognizes that changes in industrial relations in British Columbia need to be reflected in the new act — changes which did not just take place overnight but started in the boom days of the 1970s. It seems that labour and management have not adjusted to the economic realities of the eighties. Neither side has been able to agree among themselves that adjustments and compromises are necessary. The result has been that the workers of this province have suffered.

In the last several years, it is individual workers who have been the most concerned about the direction labour relations have been taking. We have heard their concerns, and I believe we are responding to them. Because of the changing labour climate our province has been experiencing, these modifications are necessary, and in fact have been requested by the people in our province: employees, employers and the working people.

It has been said repeatedly by the opposition that the public was not given an opportunity for input into these changes or the amendments being presented to the House. Mr. Speaker, I believe this to be untrue. As we all went around and campaigned before the election, it was the number one priority. Since that time, the minister has set up a task force which went around the province of British Columbia, hearing once again from the employers, the employees, the unions and the management people; and the same thing has come home, it is true.

The people have spoken, and we have responded. I believe that we have taken a leadership role in bringing before this House labour legislation more in line with labour reality. The existing Labour Code has outgrown its usefulness and has resulted in clear examples of abuse. The new Industrial Relations Reform Act will increase the democratic rights of workers throughout the province. It will also serve to further protect the public interest and the innocent parties. It is my belief that those who are the heads of unions and management organizations have sometimes abused the powers given to them by their respective members.

Mr. Speaker, it is all too often that the workers themselves pay the penalty for the union reps' political games. We have heard their concerns time and time again, most recently I believe as the minister travelled around this province. In this bill we have responded to the concerns of the workers, the often-ignored silent majority. We are protecting workers' rights, rights that have been slowly eroded over the years by the sometimes irresponsible actions of labour and management representatives.

Labour negotiations used to involve representatives from both sides sitting down and discussing the issues of the contract. If all else failed, they had the option to strike or to lock out. Today, almost the opposite is true. Strikes and lockouts occur before the negotiating process has even begun. So much for bargaining in good faith; so much for looking after the interest of the rights of the workers, Strike votes are taken prior to negotiation, prior to final position, prior to telling the workers what the demands or offers of management are. Unions prepare well in advance to have long lists of unsettled grievances, and these are to be used as bargaining tools. The demands on both sides are long in number.

What often happens is that a union will not pursue a worker's grievance through the normal channels — the example is the arbitration process — but will wait until it's time to negotiate a contract before bringing up the grievances as a lever. It seems to have become the name of the game; therefore this bill seeks to address that problem.

This legislation addresses all of the above issues and emphasizes the negotiating process. It is also my belief that the interests of the public have been too often ignored, even injured, during labour bargaining conflicts. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has presented a bill which I believe should be supported by all members of this House, regardless of political affiliation.

This bill will also ensure the workers that there is a greater fairness in the democratic voting system. This bill will prevent strikes or lockouts while a collective agreement is in place. It also bans strike and lockout votes prior to good-faith bargaining. This will prevent undue and unfair leverage prior to bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will protect the workers in the province of British Columbia. They will no longer be used as pawns by either labour or management in our labour negotiations. In the past few days, during the debate of the estimates of the Minister of Social Services and Housing, the opposition members have related to some individual hardship cases. In the case of labour disputes, we could describe at length the extreme unnecessary cases of hardship caused not by the lack of demand for the product but by the role of demand at the bargaining table under contract negotiations.

During protracted labour disputes it is the public interest that suffers the most. These disputes accomplish little for the parties involved and have a detrimental effect on the province as a whole. Too often when a labour dispute takes place, it has been common practice to attempt to harass those not directly involved, the so-called innocent third parties. In the past it's been easy to define a third party as an ally to the employer,

[ Page 594 ]

and this has allowed picketing activities to take place, to cause hardship to innocent third parties, all in the hope of attracting media attention and placing undue economic pressure on the struck employer.

This new act will clearly protect the rights of the innocent third parties, individual employees and the public interest. It will bring about long-term stability in industrial relations in British Columbia, and in turn make this province an even more attractive place in which to invest and do business.

Private and public organizations and their employees also suffer hardship; it takes years to recover from the financial losses that result from such disputes. Some employers never do recover, ending in lost customers, lost sales, and ultimately, in some cases, to bankruptcy. The employees also lose. After years of working they find themselves unemployed, looking to start all over again, and when an agreement is finally reached in some cases and work is resumed, it may take years for the trust among the parties to be renewed. Even with pay increases, employees rarely recover the wages lost during a dispute. Businesses — and we all know this — cannot compete effectively, and workers cannot work productively without an understanding and appreciation of each other's position and the dynamics of their relationship to a competitive economy. Mr. Speaker, changes are necessary. They're necessary in order to reduce the hardships that happen during a labour dispute. The bill helps us in this case by providing for a 40-day cooling-off period, as well as other methods of ensuring that a dispute has every opportunity to be settled.

Mr. Speaker, labour disputes arise from the lack of give and take in the collective bargaining process. If permitted, the collective bargaining system can work. I think we all know that. It can promote cooperation and understanding during the terms of the collective agreement. This bill will perfect the collective bargaining system to better reach its potential and to function effectively.

Investors inside and outside of British Columbia have always perceived in the last few years that we have had long and non-productive strikes and lockouts in British Columbia, creating a climate that is not attractive to long-term investment. The message very often heard by this government from potential investors and trade partners is the reluctance to make British Columbia a home for their investment capital, due to that reputation. Mr. Speaker, we need those investors to create the jobs, to assist us to build new enterprises, to contribute to the steady growth and diversification of our economy. Economic recovery is more than words. It means more meaningful jobs for the unemployed. It helps to preserve the social benefits we now enjoy. We have to have a better way, and I believe that this bill provides that way.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to rise in joining my colleagues in supporting this hoist motion, and I just want, first of all, to say that I've worked in various fields. I started off as a cannery worker and was a member of the union then. I fished commercially for three years, and I was a member of the union then. Later on I worked for five years in the pulp mill in Prince Rupert and belonged to a union. I then moved up the ladder of life and became a civil servant, and I was a union member then. And what always struck me was the wonderful mechanism we call collective bargaining. I suggest that this bill is going to be the death knell to that important social mechanism.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to state, first of all, that I agree with my colleagues in labelling this bill as a radical, complex and really totally unnecessary response to a rather imagined threat. If we're talking about good industrial relations, we should recognize the fact that those kinds of relations depend on consensus. It means that a voluntary collective agreement is always to be a consensus document — something that both sides can live with. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this principle has been forgotten in drafting this bill.

[4:15]

I would suggest that we have to recognize the fact that the process is a delicate one as two parties move to an agreement. In fact the 1973 Labour Code, which our party introduced, incorporated this concept. This bill, I would suggest, injects the long arm of the government and the courts into labour matters on a fairly regular basis.

The government speakers have talked about protecting the public interest. I think it's worthwhile to examine exactly what we mean by the public interest. I would suggest that this bill actually does the opposite — that it jeopardizes the public interest — in that it will not be served, or will be poorly served, if the result is more chaotic labour relations. In fact, I think this was recognized by Jim Matkin of the Business Council, who has stated that the recent forestry dispute would have lasted a lot longer if this bill had been in place. So even the main business spokesmen have damned this bill with faint praise.

If we were to adopt this bill, the dispute resolution mechanism would be compulsory. Collective bargaining will be inhibited by such a process, in that the parties will be reluctant to engage in the kind of give-and-take that's so necessary in resolving labour disputes. So I would urge the members to support this hoist motion.

We talk about setting a good investment climate in British Columbia. This bill, in creating a poor bargaining climate, would make B.C. even less attractive to investment and to creating new jobs. I think the. mechanism of collective bargaining depends on both sides being able to be relatively equal in terms of the collective bargaining process. What this bill does is shift the balance of the bargaining system in favour of management. I further suggest that the public interest will be harmed by the fact that the government will be involved in more disputes, both public and private sector. What usually results from this involvement is that it unnecessarily lengthens them, and if the government is going to be involved anyway, there is less incentive for the parties to bargain and try to resolve their problems together.

The government speakers have often talked about reducing the government's intervention in the private sector. In fact, the government talked about it in the throne speech. I think this bill is contrary to that stated position, in that it will significantly increase the role of government in collective bargaining. I would repeat — and support the speakers on this side of the House — that this is a radical bill. It gives to a non-accountable, non-elected person the unusually broad powers that are usually exercised by the legislators, cabinet or a minister. The bill is so complex that it will take years for the courts to work out just what it means. So we're starting off again now at square one, virtually eliminating years and years of jurisprudence. The government, I would suggest, should have built on the emerging consensus that was starting to become a reality between the major players — that is, the

[ Page 595 ]

Business Council and the B.C. Federation of Labour — rather than start off on a radically new group.

In terms of Mr. Peck's powers, I would suggest that they are un-Canadian. No legislatures have given this kind of power to a public servant. I'd like to read an excerpt from the Canadian Parliamentary Review spring edition, an article by John Uhr entitled "Executive-Legislative Relations: Learning from Locke." John Locke, of course, is one of the founders of modem constitutionalism, and talks, I think, in a very significant way about the limitations of legislatures:

"The law must not confer on appointed officials unfettered discretions that require individuals 'to obey at pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of officials' sudden thoughts, or unrestrained, and till that moment unknown wills without having any measures set down which may guide and justify their actions.' In addition, the legislature shall not delegate its power to others, for the people have themselves delegated their power to it as 'being only to make laws and not to make legislators."'

So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we do appreciate the limits of what we can do in this House.

This bill, as I have stated before, favours non-union employers over their unionized competition in that it will create miles of red tape for the unionized contractors, contrary to the throne speech, which pledged to cut the red tape. I would suggest that this particular bill — if passed, and if we don't support the motion to hoist — would help firms break their union. Successive rights have been clearly weakened; hot declarations are made ineffective; non-union apprentices can be hired in the construction industry even when there are unemployed, more senior apprentices available at the union hiring hall. I would suggest that that would infringe on workers' rights.

The government speakers have stated that there is no double-breasting in this bill, but I would suggest that contrary to the minister's statement on the first reading, double-breasting is there in the unionized construction companies being able to run a non-union subsidiary.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that Bill 19 should be hoisted because it guarantees to destroy the stability that we have today. We have a chance today to be different, to be creative, to build a new, alternative economy which would create jobs and create a more positive atmosphere. Bill 19, I would suggest, goes in the opposite direction, because as I mentioned before, the structure of the Legislature puts the role and powers of elected legislators into the hands of one person who is not infallible and not accountable to the public for decisions made and actions taken.

It would destroy free collective bargaining, because no one will know what the rules will be from day to day. In other words, we will be faced with further hurdles and ladders: mediators, fact-finders, public interest inquiry branch, the whole series of hoops that would have to be overcome. It would wipe out all the major jurisprudence that is so fundamental to current labour rules. In other words, it would be just an open field now. No one will know or have any kind of way to conduct the bargaining process.

Mr. Speaker, I would also suggest that this bill will cause more confrontation, because it will not be able to prevent disputes. Contrary to the claims of the government speaker, I would suggest that B.C. does not lead Canada in terms of labour disputes.

We talk about consultation, and yet labour briefs, except for the certification vote within ten days.... Not a single labour point appears in Bill 19. The Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) talked about evidence. I would suggest that if they want to substantiate the justification for this bill, they make public all the briefs that were submitted.

This process, in calling for the hoist, would allow labour and employers to come up with a process or a new bill that can be designed in true consultation and build a consensus that has support of both parties.

I would suggest that the government, in introducing this, has conned the public. They've been disingenuous in terms of talk about consultation but ignoring many of the submissions that were made. If true consultation is to be a reality, it should be a consensus-building exercise. Here we have the unions opposed; employers are not supporting the bill. That would suggest it would increase confrontation. In other words, I would suggest that the government do what you say. Consultation is not asking for input from interested parties and just picking the ideas that the government likes. It has to be broad-ranged, taking into account the diversity of views that are presented.

As I stated, the double-breasting provisions will certainly cause confrontation. So I would urge that we hoist this bill.

Labour legislation should be designed to provide a balance so that the parties can resolve their differences expeditiously. If that balance is tilted to one party, then what will result is frustration and strife. If labour will not participate in the dispute resolutions, then it can't function as an impartial body. No bona fide labour appointee, and labour will have very little trust in the whole mechanism. If they don't, then we will have differences that will only be settled on picket lines.

Mr. Speaker, in urging the members to support the hoist motion 1 would suggest that dispute settlement cannot be imposed and still expect parties to resolve their differences in a way that they will accept. It will take years to repair the conflict that will inevitably result when the parties lose the belief that there is a balance in the playing-field. You can't legislate good will and cooperation. It takes years to rebuild what it takes minutes to destroy. I would urge members to support the hoist motion.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the hoist motion that the members of the opposition have brought before us is little more then a stalling tactic. Members of the opposition like to see themselves as being progressive in their outlook, yet by attempting to hoist this bill they're trying to block a bill that is both necessary and timely. This bill brings labour legislation in line with the reality of today's economic climate and labour relations as they presently exist.

[4:30]

This bill is concerned with the rights of the individual and the protection of the public interest. It was developed on the principle of fairness and equality. This is a fairness and equality that differs from the NDP conception. Our government believes in fairness and equality for everyone. When it comes to labour relations, it appears to me that the NDP adheres to the Orwellian concept that some are more equal than others. The NDP is trying to uphold a status quo that in fact no longer exists. In the past decade a great many changes have occurred in our economy, our labour environment and our approach to individual and collective rights. The amendment put forth by the hon. members of the opposition neither

[ Page 596 ]

member of the opposition neither addresses these changes nor attempts to meet the needs and the concerns of the majority of British Columbians. The changing times have made the existing Labour Code almost useless. It simply does not work. We can ill afford to sit by and watch as bitter labour disputes cripple B.C.'s economy and destroy the livelihoods and sense of self-worth of individual workers, simply because two parties are too stubborn to negotiate in good faith.

The new industrial relations act will assist the parties involved to reach an agreement that benefits the workers and the public. It is high time the members of the opposition realize that the demands and concerns of labour leaders are sometimes very different from those of the rank and file. Those in labour's hierarchy have often been there for a number of years; as a result, they occasionally lose touch with the members they represent. The members of the opposition have lost touch too. We've seen the results of the NDP's lack of management of labour relations in this province. If my memory serves me correctly, B.C. was in labour chaos during the years '72 to '75. The government was completely out of touch with labour, management and the concerns of the public. Obviously, as this hoist motion demonstrates, the NDP is still out of touch and, I would add, confused as to what their policies towards labour-management relations really are.

With this in mind, I'm not surprised to see that the party's chief spokesman on labour is none other than the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). This is more than ironic, when one considers the position that the hon. member took in 1975, when his NDP government forced, by statutory edict, trade union members back to work. Based on his past views on labour policy, which were divergent from that of this party, can we view his statements on Bill 19 as those of his party or those of his previous employer, the B.C. Federation of Labour? The main problem with the NDP is that no one ever knows — and neither do the members of the party opposite, for that matter — on whose behalf an NDP member is speaking. For instance, as Alex Macdonald pointed out in his book, My Dear Legs: "Too often we in the NDP say what we think our labour friends want us to say and clam up about what we think our labour friends don't want us to say."

The Industrial Relations Reform Act is designed to avoid the chaos and confusion that paralyzed our province between 1973 and 1975 under the NDP administration. This act develops mechanisms for dispute resolution that will help to avoid the direct government intervention into labour relations that was made so infamous by the NDP government. For example, three times in 14 months that government legislated workers back to their jobs, ostensibly to protect the public interest. It is ironic that the opposition is criticizing our government for addressing the issue of public interest, when as a government themselves the NDP went to such extremes to protect that so-called interest.

This Industrial Relations Reform Act will strengthen the negotiation and collective bargaining process; consequently, I must oppose the hoist motion that we are debating. If members opposite were realistic in their analysis of the Industrial Relations Reform Act, they would do likewise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the member for Alberni.

MR. SKELLY: It's been a long time since I heard the statement "the member for Alberni, " but I intend to say a lot more about Alberni in the House, Mr. Speaker, than I've been able to in the past little while.

I was going to quote a book written by a Social Crediter, but I couldn't find one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Remember A plus B?

MR. SKELLY: I was thinking of quoting from Major Douglas, but some of that is banned under current federal legislation because of certain races that it mentioned. But I'm always pleased when it's obvious that Social Credit members have read books written by the intelligent, witty and capable Alex Macdonald. I can suggest many other books he might read that might provide him with some good advice and information.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said that the NDP has simply moved a hoist motion in order to delay the passage of this legislation in the House. I want to remind that member, because he is a rookie member, that hoist motions are not lightly considered by the opposition. That's been the case in the past, and it's the case with this opposition as well. In my career in this Legislative Assembly, which spans 15 years, I can recall only 12 to 15 times, out of well over 1,000 bills, when the opposition felt it so important that the government take the opportunity to reconsider the principles they were presenting in legislation that the opposition took the important and considered step of moving a hoist motion. That is the case with this hoist motion which New Democratic Party members have moved in the House.

This is a responsible opposition. We do not take this kind of motion lightly. We do not take this kind of legislation lightly, Mr. Member. We would like to see the government, this Legislature and all of the people of this province have a certain amount of time to consider this legislation because of what we and many groups out there perceive to be the serious implications of this legislation for the economy, social relationships and industrial relations in British Columbia.

The Premier felt it was very important, when he was elected at Whistler to be Premier of this province a very few months ago, to convey an image to the people of this province that the leopard had changed his spots, and that far from being the kind of minister he was before, who brought chaos and confrontation to ministries such as Human Resources, Education and Municipal Affairs, he was going to be a Premier who was going to be consultative, was going to work with the opposition, work with the various groups in society that appeared to be at odds with each other, and try to bring them together to resolve the problems they and the people of British Columbia were experiencing. The people of this province clearly took the Premier at his word. They felt that the leopard had changed his spots and that he was going to operate in a way which was far more consultative and cooperative, far more designed to create harmony and peace in this province, rather than dissension, disputes and the kinds of problems we've experienced in the past.

I believe that the Premier's reaction to this motion puts the lie to the Premier's assertion that he is a changed man. He has an opportunity during the debate on the hoist of this legislation to consider a six months' delay in debating this legislation in second reading, and to consider a new, more effective process of consultation — more effective with the parties involved, more effective with the people of British Columbia and far more effective with the members of the opposition

[ Page 597 ]

who, as Mr. Speaker knows, represent 823,000 of our citizens, almost 43 percent of the electors in the province. That's a very significant group of people in British Columbia, a substantial group coming from all walks of life in this province — from business, labour, the academic community, agriculture. We do not take our duties lightly. We do not take this kind of motion lightly. We are concerned about the Premier's reaction to our suggestions which would create mechanisms for more consultation in the Legislature, consultation which we feel would improve the kind of bill that we're discussing today.

The Premier's response is important. What's happened to date is not very promising. The first day we came into the Legislature we made a motion amending a standard motion that is brought into this House on opening day, suggesting that Mr. Premier set up an additional select standing committee of the House that could deal with some of the difficult economic problems that are facing this province. That committee may have dealt with the issue of labour relations and how it affects, say, investment in the province of British Columbia, or consumer demand in the province of British Columbia.

The Premier had an opportunity on day one of the meeting of this Legislature to accede to a simple opposition request to set up a select standing committee. The Premier, as is typical, refused, and that is an example of the Premier's reaction to this amendment designed to hoist the bill to give legislators an opportunity to consider its contents for another six months.

Another example of the Premier's reaction to democratic dissent was seen on the grounds of the Legislature recently.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order, order.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am relating this strictly to the hoist, and I can understand why the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) might feel a little antsy about discussion of this issue in which he has been directly responsible and on which he has been dodging questions in the House.

The point of this is . . . .

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this hon. member just got through saying that he spent 15 years off and on in this Legislative Assembly. I suggest he is skating very closely to the wind. He is canvassing material that has previously been dealt with by this House.

MR. SKELLY: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the point of order. I don't think it was really a point of order, in any case.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is for the Chair to decide, hon. member. Would you continue speaking to the hoist motion?

MR. SKELLY: I will accept that as a decision.

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the response that the government has made to the hoist motion, and how it is comparable to the response and to the Premier's action in terms of other opportunities that he has had to consult and to deal on a consultative and cooperative basis with the people of this province.

At every opportunity, he has ignored establishing a mechanism or a process of consultation. When people have come to him to express their viewpoint, he has expressed very little tolerance with their viewpoint, and in some cases has brutally dismissed them from the precincts of the Legislature, using the instrumentality of the Provincial Secretary.

That, Mr. Speaker, gives us in the opposition some concern. Does the Premier really believe in consultation? Is this leopard really going to change his spots? Are we really going to have an opportunity to work with each other in this Legislature on a cooperative, face-to-face consultative basis, or is that a fiction which the Premier tried to convey to the people of this province during the last election, simply to get himself elected so that he could ram this kind of legislation down the throats of the people of British Columbia? It is becoming more and more clear as we proceed through this debate on the hoist motion that that is exactly the attitude the Premier has adopted.

We have taken a look at the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Our research people have reviewed it. We have consulted with experts around the province and experts outside the province, and we feel that this legislation is extremely dangerous to peaceful industrial relations in the province of British Columbia.

We also feel that the so-called process of consultation that preceded the introduction of this legislation was very definitely a flawed process. You simply cannot have a minister travelling around the province to various communities hearing briefs at large without giving sufficient weight to the major players in the process: those on the management side who are given the responsibility by their companies or their enterprises with labour management relations, and those on the trade union side who have the same obligation imposed on them by their members.

We feel that that process of consultation was flawed. In fact, I think it could be justly and accurately stated that the process was simply a show designed to cover this legislation, which had already been drafted prior to the Minister of Labour going on the trail and putting on what really amounted to a cover and a show. The Minister of Labour was acting as a shill for the Premier, whereas this legislation had already been drafted, had already been in the works prior to that so-called process of consultation, which was completely inadequate and completely unfair. I think that the minister should have been ashamed of the part that he played in providing that cover for the legislative process.

Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? Because this legislation bears a very strong resemblance to other legislation and legislative ideas that have been presented in extreme rightwing governments across Canada and around North America, legislation based on an idea of weakening the trade union movement and, in fact, of doing away with the trade union movement altogether. Those extremist governments and the organizations that back them and provide them with information believe unions are an infringement on the free market economy and should he done away with entirely so that the market can determine the price of labour by dividing workers and having them at each other's throats.

That's exactly the view that some organizations have taken, such as the Fraser Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and one labour relations law firm in this province, Jordan and Gall, who have been long-time advisers to the government. I was looking in the public accounts for the years between 1981 and 1985, and during that time Jordan and Gall, which adopts

[ Page 598 ]

the same kind of labour relations theories as the Fraser Institute and the Heritage Foundation — an ultra-conservative organization in the United States — have been paid over $207,000 in consulting fees by this government for the very purpose of drafting this kind of legislation. That's where the process of consultation took place for this legislation, and the process of consultation that involved the Minister of Labour was nothing but a cover, the Minister of Labour nothing but a shill. The real legislation was drafted by these people, who have been acting as consultants to the government for the last several years.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have a little problem here, Mr. Speaker, with an imputation against another hon. member, if I heard it correctly. I think a withdrawal would be in order. I realize the member has certain standards, but the House can't accept those.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the member is referring to the use of the term "shill." The Chair noticed and, thinking in the first instance that it might have been just a slip of the tongue, gave the member the benefit of the doubt, but it certainly would seem to be an unparliamentary word in my vocabulary. Perhaps the hon. member would withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: I wasn't aware that that word was in the list of many terms considered unparliamentary. Perhaps it's something that is perfectly acceptable outside of the Legislature, but if it's not acceptable in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw it and think of something else to put in its place.

The result of this kind of legislation in the United States and in individual states elsewhere is that the trade union movement has been seriously weakened, its representation reduced to about 15 percent of the total workforce in the United States. There is no question in my mind, in the mind of this party and in the minds of many people in this province that the object of this government is to seriously weaken the ability of trade unions to bargain on behalf of their members, to organize new members to protect the living standards, working conditions, occupational health and safety, and job security provisions of their members. There's no question in my mind and in the minds of many experts around this province that that is precisely what this legislation is designed to do: to weaken the effectiveness of trade unions in bargaining collectively and protecting the working conditions of their members. That is why we as an opposition would like to see the government reconsider — have the time to reconsider — the kind of legislation that it has presented today. We would like the government to have the time to go through a fair and equitable and adequate process of consultation, where all of the people involved are consulted and where due weight is given to the arguments made, especially the arguments made by the major players in labour-management relations in the province.

Our debate leader for labour did indicate that the principle of the Labour Code of British Columbia as it was presented back in 1973 and improved upon since then was to provide an umbrella within which labour and management could bargain freely and reach agreements that were freely negotiated and freely arrived at. That was the outline of the Labour Code of British Columbia. It acted as a framework within which people could freely bargain, and reach mutually agreeable conclusions to that bargaining, and sign agreements based on that bargaining.

This legislation introduces an element of coercion into the process that totally destroys the framework that existed in the past. It's not an improvement on the Labour Code, Mr. Speaker. It's not a natural progression of change toward making that Labour Code better. This is not that kind of legislation at all. It introduces an element of coercion which is foreign to the kind of labour-management relations that we subscribe to in a democratic society. It's absolutely contrary to the principle that's enshrined in the Labour Code and enshrined in labour legislation in democratic states around this continent and around the world. And that's why I say that this legislation, whatever the government may say about it, whatever words, including "individual freedoms" and "democratic rights" and "protection of the public interest, " they may say, using and perverting those terms in order to defend this legislation....

This legislation is coercive, and it is designed to do away with the trade union movement and to do away with their effectiveness and their ability to defend their members' working conditions, rights to occupational health and safety protections, rights to decent living standards and rights to a decent level of job security. It's that kind of coercive aspect to this legislation and that kind of aspect undermining the effectiveness and the ability of trade unions, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House are very concerned about. We feel that that change, which totally undermines the umbrella effect of the Labour Code and the principle of the Labour Code, is going to cause us serious problems in this province. It's causing us those problems now, and it's going to cause us problems in the future.

One of the members, in speaking to the hoist motion, said that he was concerned about the problems that we have today with labour-management relations in the province of British Columbia. He said it was scaring away investment from the province. He said it was causing too much down time and causing us to be an unreliable supplier to our foreign markets. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. There is more time and more productivity lost to accidents and illness on the job in this province than there ever has been in any year to labour-management disputes. In fact, this gentleman is inconsistent with the previous Premier of the province, who boasted that as a result of his so-called new reality we have had the lowest level of time lost to labour disputes in this province that we've had over the past 20 years. How can they be so inconsistent? The previous Premier said we've had less time lost to labour disputes in this province than we've had over the past 20 years.

A colleague of mine who is now House Leader — elevated to higher office than I am at this point — has at one time said: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's my line.

MR. SKELLY: And one of the plagiarists in the House opposite who's now elevated to higher office than he should occupy has now taken it as his line, but it should be all of our lines. If the problem isn't there, then don't take the kind of action you're taking now, which isn't going to fix it; it's simply going to screw it up even worse.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to disagree with my colleagues — and I do on a number of things — on the fact that this is radical legislation. We all know what the source of

[ Page 599 ]

this legislation is. As I pointed out, it's the Fraser Institute, it's the Heritage Foundation, it's Jordan and Gall, it's all those right-wing centres of interest who want to push this kind of legislation down the throats of people in British Columbia. But it's not radical legislation. When you look at the definition of radical, radical is legislation that is designed to get at the root of the problem and to resolve that problem. If that's the definition, then this isn't radical legislation at all. This legislation is the type of legislation that is part of the problem and is going to make the problem that much worse.

This is not radical legislation at all. This is almost a natural progression in the line of bills, in the line of legislation — hostile to labour, hostile to teachers, hostile to social groupings, hostile to local governments — that this government has been bringing in since it brought in the first restraint statutes back in 1983. It's part of the same process, Mr. Speaker. What it's designed to do is simply to undermine the trade union movement in the province of British Columbia and hopefully at the end of that progression to eliminate the trade union movement entirely.

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious to me that the government did not consult broadly, that the pseudo-consultation process that they went through with the Minister of Labour was simply a cover for what they had planned to do all the time. And for that reason, I believe that this government needs more time; they need time to go through a legitimate, real process of consultation, a process that involves all of the people in British Columbia, and the main players in the labour-management debate in this province, and also the main political forces in British Columbia: the government party and the opposition party. There are mechanisms in this Legislature which the government can use to do that. Those are all things that we would like the government to consider in reconsidering their decision to impose the hoist motion.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there's a last thing. I didn't intend to take up very much time in this debate, but there is a problem that I'm concerned about. I'm very reluctant to bring it up in the House because it could be construed as a personal attack; it's certainly not intended that way.

[5:00]

The Premier has taken a position on abortion that he says is based on the teachings of his church. I'm going to relate this to this bill and to this issue, because I have absolute respect for the Premier and for the position that he's taken and for the convictions upon which that position is based. But I want, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of members to another set of teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that bears very much on labour-management relations and on the rights of working people not simply here in British Columbia but around the world. I know that members are aware of the numerous encyclicals that have been brought down by the Roman Catholic Church that have supported the rights of people to organize freely into trade unions and to bargain as trade union members, to bargain with their employees and to establish decent levels of wages, decent living standards and decent working conditions for their employees. And the church has put the full force of its teachings behind that kind of right on behalf of workers.

His Holiness Pope John Paul, speaking in Australia last November, reiterated the encyclicals and the points made in those encyclicals of the Roman Catholic Church. His Holiness was in Chile a very few days ago and again reiterated that the encyclicals and the teachings of the church strongly support the rights of workers to organize into trade unions, to bargain collectively and to develop decent levels of wages and working conditions so that their members can enjoy a decent standard of living.

Those are incorporated into the teachings of the church, Mr. Speaker, and I say that you cannot select among those teachings. If you base your position on abortion on the teachings of the church, then you must do so on labour and labour relations and the right to organize into trade unions, and the right of trade unions to bargain collectively as well. You cannot select among those teachings.

I would urge the members of the Social Credit caucus to examine their consciences, to examine this legislation, to examine what the impact of this legislation is going to be on the province of British Columbia, on workers of British Columbia, on labour-management disputes in British Columbia, and to support the hoist motion that we have put forward here in the Legislative Assembly.

MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against this motion to delay passing of this bill for six months. I rise to speak because I do feel very strongly that it is important to this province and to the well-being of all British Columbians that this labour legislation be passed promptly and without that kind of delay. I believe that this legislation is really important to the well-being of this province, that this legislation was well thought out, well researched, well prepared and well presented to this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the initial response to this legislation given by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). As some of his members have noted  — and I agree  — his presentation was well thought out, well considered and seriously given. And before the last speaker leaves, I would say that it was the opposite of what we just heard.

The member for North Island did make a few comments that I would like to disagree with, the first being a comment to the effect that there are no impending strikes or imminent walkouts. The implication of that was that there was no hurry to act on this legislation because there was no immediate problem. In my belief, my understanding and my reasoning, Mr. Speaker, the opposite is true. This is the right time to go ahead with labour legislation: in that brief lull before major confrontations. I think, just for that very reason, that we should not delay passing the legislation.

The member for North Island also suggested that we should go out and listen to the people. We have heard that from a number of members speaking on the hoist motion: go out and listen to the people. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the minister did prior to bringing this legislation in. He visited all corners of the province, spoke with some 700 groups, took both oral and written submissions. There has been consultation. We have listened to the people. The minister has responded with new legislation that is fair and equitable for all concerned, legislation that should not be shelved until we are involved in another major labour dispute. Then it would again be the wrong time to do it because we would be tramping on somebody's toes.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Now is the time to put this legislation into effect for the benefit of all British Columbians, legislation that provides protection by giving democratic rights to all of the parties involved in a dispute. We have heard this before, and we are

[ Page 600 ]

going to hear it again. The value of the secret ballot is reinforced. Each member can now be assured that his or her ballot is secret, that no one knows how you are voting, that you are not forced to walk up to a "yes" box and a "no" box with somebody sitting in between intimidating you to vote the way they think you should vote.

We keep hearing: "Why do they talk about the IWA strike?" Because it lasted four months, and we had people coming to us during the election and since the election asking for some changes to legislation to prevent that sort of thing from happening again.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your boss made it worse; maybe he wants to make it worse again.

MR. WEISGERBER: No, I disagree with you. We are preparing legislation to address not only that problem but labour problems generally. If the members opposite can sit there with straight faces and say: "Why are you in a hurry to change the legislation? It is not so bad. It has been working good...." It hasn't been. We know, you know, I know and everybody knows that it hasn't been working, that we've had strikes that cost both sides a tremendous amount of money. And the thing that really concerns me are those people in the middle who didn't have any say in the settling of that strike — the grandmothers who phoned me because their grandchildren's businesses were going down, wanting help. That's what we're trying to address, not only the two sides that are involved but the public interest. Somebody says: "What's the public interest?" It's what's good for you and me and everybody else — what's good for the vast majority of the people. That's the public interest.

MR. WILLIAMS: That leaves out labour, eh?

MR. WEISGERBER: No, that doesn't leave out labour, and neither does this legislation. This legislation deals fairly with labour. It not only does that, but it protects employers and employers' groups. It allows employers to withdraw from associations. It's fair legislation, legislation that I'm proud of and legislation that I would be sad to see shelved for six months so that we can carry on with this so-called perfect system that we've been working with up till now. It isn't. It's not a good system, and it hasn't been working. You heard it during the election and so did I.

There have been suggestions by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann).... I respect him, because I think he understands labour legislation. I think he spent a lot of time studying this bill, and he responded honestly. One of his criticisms of the bill was that each section of it referred to a.... You could read in a particular dispute in each bit of legislation.

Again the member nods his head and says yes. The member would seem to indicate that.... Is there something wrong with that? Is there really something wrong with learning from your mistakes? I don't know. I don't think there is. When you have a four-month labour dispute, the least you should be able to get out of it is a lesson and some idea of how to prevent it in the future. Madam Speaker, this legislation goes a long way to doing that, and I would vote against this hoist and in favour of the bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, I had really expected the member from Peace to speak longer and support his arguments more thoroughly, but that might have been difficult to do.

I thought I'd like to spend a fair amount of time just reflecting on what Mr. Matkin has said about this legislation. I have to admit that labour legislation isn't an area that I've spent a lot of time on. My own academic interests and background are elsewhere. But it all kind of froze clearly for me when I listened to Mr. Jim Matkin, the head or chief staff person of the employers' council, talking about this bill on "Early Edition" on CBC on April 6. I'd listened to Mr. Georgetti and the member for North Island and other industrial spokespersons, and it still wasn't that clear to me, because it is complex legislation. It's intricate because it interweaves in several small ways so that the whole is much greater than the parts. As some people have said, the legislation is really quite devious. I'm satisfied that it is, but it didn't become clear for this member until I heard Mr. Matkin explain what it was all about.

We have to remember that this is the spokesperson for the employers' council. He said it generally meets what most employers had been asking for. Employers have been asking for certain things, and it was delivering it. You have to remember that Mr. Matkin is the man who was the prime author of the seventies legislation, the Labour Code, under the NDP government. Mr. Matkin was an academic at the University of British Columbia. He was hired by the government of the day, working with two others in consultation, and drafted the Code. He was the draftsman. So we're talking about a guy who is an expert in this field, who drafted the previous legislation and subsequently became Deputy Minister of Labour for some length of time. He talks about this new legislation a little more clearly than most and he is a little more informed than most.

He was asked about this question the member from the Peace River talks about: so-called public interest. He said: "Well, you know, labour is a part of the public interest; management's a part of the public interest." Maybe, when you think about those two primary players, they involve the biggest chunk of the public interest. The line being peddled on the other side is that there's a different kind of public interest, and that maybe labour and management are only 10 percent, rather than a much higher number. I found it fascinating that Mr. Matkin saw this that way.

He carried on on CBC on the 6th by saying: "The business community is much more appeased with the thrust of this legislation." Indeed — but a chunk of the business community. That's clear to me. That's saying that this is a one-sided piece of legislation.

[5:15]

What did he have to say about the proposed Industrial Relations Council and the proposed super-bureaucrat, or czar, Mr. Peck? He said: "The assumption is that long disputes would be prevented with the cooling-off period and then binding arbitration." But did Mr. Matkin think so? Did he think we would have cut back on the four-and-a-half month work stoppage of last year? The answer is no. One of the foremost experts in this province, a person on the business side, their spokesperson, said no. If you people are saying this is to deal with problems like the IWA-COFI stoppage of last year, you're wrong. This is what he said: "I doubt that this legislation would have prevented the long IWA strike. It may have indeed made it worse." That's reason enough to hoist this legislation for six months. When you get this person who's a spokesperson for the employers' council,

[ Page 601 ]

who's got the kind of background that he has, talking that way, that's reason enough to hoist the legislation.

What else did he say that morning? He said: "There's a bias against the unionized sector." That's terribly clear, Mr. Minister of Labour. This is what really startled me, listening to this man: "In effect, it envisions a society where there is no significant unionized sector at all." Imagine! This legislation "envisions a society" — and I'm quoting Mr. Matkin directly — "where there is no significant unionized sector at all." Those are incredibly dramatic statements. I'm sorry they were only on radio and not in print, but there they are.

Then he said: "In the meantime, how do you maintain a good relationship with the unionized sector?" — the 42 percent of this province that's organized, because the legislation envisions a society where that's not the case at all. This is very radical legislation, members of this assembly. And between the lines, that's what the president of the employers' council was saying: this is very radical legislation, a dramatic turnaround. He in effect sees trouble out of this legislation.

It's a tremendous change of direction in terms of, say, the modern history of western European and North American economies. The direction of the economies of western Europe and North America has been clear for a long time, in terms of assuring decent wages and collective bargaining rights for the trade union sector. I'd like to suggest a little later that, in fact, decent wages have been the engine of the modem economies in the western world. I don't know if the thickheads on the other side have ever had that go through their craniums. Since the Second World War the real engine of the economy in North America has been decent wages. Decent wages have driven management to become more productive and more efficient. That's the story since 1945. People were anticipating a depression again after 1945. Chuckle you might, Mr. Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Dirks), with one of the worst unemployment rates in the province, but professors like Samuel Bowles of Massachusetts have written in this area, along with others. You start looking at the data they pull forth and you start becoming satisfied that decent wages have indeed been a positive force in our society.

Should that be such a profound idea? It shouldn't be, in terms of being able to look after your family better than your father or your grandfather did. That's a reasonable idea. It's the kind of goal that most of us share — that we should be able to provide a better life for our children than our parents did, and so on. Part of the whole process behind that has been a growing unionized sector in society that could protect individual workers who previously didn't have protection, and this moves in a radically different direction indeed.

Mr. Matkin said the legislation moved to protect the nonunion side. That's a dramatic change of direction indeed. Then he said the legislation is in fact rather insulting to the trade unions. Imagine! The president of the employers' council said that. I think that's dramatic stuff. I'm surprised it wasn't on page 1 of the Vancouver Sun; I wouldn't have expected it in the Province on page 1, but the other major papers of the province, certainly.

I believe that is the most damning criticism to date of this legislation, these statements of Mr. Matkin of the employers' council. He said this legislation sees the long-term decline of trade unions — what he's talking about is essentially a nonunion economy — and presents it as a goal for society. Just amazing! It seems to me that it's taking the Pacific Rim and turning it 180 degrees; that the long-term intent of this legislation is to shift the Pacific Rim 180 degrees. It's a kind ofRepublic of South Korea direction in terms of the economy of the province, not the kind of historic, long-term, western direction that we've had. In a way, it’s a kind of Kerkhoffization of British Columbia. In the short run, the Kerkhoffs of this world get rich because they're essentially taking money out of the pockets of working men. They can bid a little bit under the unionized sector, and they keep the difference. They're the ones who get rich and go into land speculation to make even more money in this society. But in the long run everybody is poorer in terms of that change of direction, especially the small business community.

The small business community, if they really think about it, should realize that they're going to get into trouble as a result of this legislation, because under this administration the direction has been clear since '75. It's a direction of decline, in terms of take-home pay and disposable income for average working families. That has been the pattern under this administration, both with your present leader and your former leader. That's very clear. That has a tremendous impact on the small business sector. If the amount of disposable income after looking after food and shelter and basics isn't there, that has all kinds of implications for the small business community; they're going to get hurt as well.

I think I've made the point, other than to say that I think the B.C. Central Credit Union really summed it up in their last issue of March. I want to quote the first two paragraphs in their statement, because they confirm the decline in purchasing power of individuals and in wage levels of people in British Columbia. That's the first time that this pattern of decline in wage levels and income levels and disposable income has been the pattern since the Great Depression of the mid-thirties. Under this administration, another dramatic reversal: the disposable income and the real income of citizens has been declining.

What do Mr. Richard Allan and the B.C. Central Credit Union economic analysis people say?

"Residents of B.C. in the 1980s are not as well off as they were in the 1970s. Low wage settlements, high unemployment and a growing number of people relying on the service sector for employment have contributed to lower real wages and salaries. Since employee earnings represent almost 70 percent of total provincial income, income growth overall remains weak, and as a result B.C. residents are becoming poorer."

B.C. residents are becoming poorer. And do you people on the other side think that a deunionized society will raise wages? Not a chance. It will accelerate the decline in real incomes for average British Columbians.

In the second paragraph, Mr. Allan and the B.C. Central Credit Union economists say:

"Income growth and income distribution greatly affect economic activity and well-being." Of course. "Without increased incomes or the prospect of higher incomes in the future, B.C. residents will be hard-pressed to maintain their spending levels. Ultimately a decline in spending causes layoffs, lower incomes, increased public spending and further stagnation of the economy."

You're setting off in a direction that is continuing the sad direction of Bill Bennett and a decade of Bill Bennett. We had ten lost years in this province. We thought that at least with a change of the person at the helm, that might be redirected. It's

[ Page 602 ]

not happening. We thought the captain had changed, but the course is exactly the same.

No wonder Mr. Matkin is sounding the alarms and voicing his concern, and he is an expert in his field. The other economists are backing him up. Prof. Robert Allen of the University of British Columbia — if I have time, I'd like to get into what he has to say as well. Prof. Allen, too, has looked at the economic history of this province for some time and has come to some very solid conclusions about the question of strikes and their impact on the economy, and the question of whether it's negative or not.

I'm sure that most of the people on the other side of the House think that there are more strikes in British Columbia than there are in Ontario. This is a little quiz, folks on the other side. Are there more strikes in Ontario or Quebec than in British Columbia? I'm sure that we'd get the answer: "No, certainly not. Everybody knows British Columbia is the worst." Well, folks, that ain't the case. The data is there. I'll bet the drafters of this legislation never even looked at the data.

I suppose the folks over there would probably argue too that income levels are much too high in British Columbia and that's why we're not competitive, that's why it's a problem, that's why we can't get international investment. You're wrong there, too. I'm sorry to say that our income levels are lower than Ontario's. That has been a tragic change in direction, too, in terms of a declining provincial economy.

The facts generally don't bother the folks on the other side a heck of a lot. I think the new Leader of the Opposition made it very clear when he said: "There have been a couple of major errors on the Premier's part in the last few months." Very major, and this is one of them in terms of this change in labour legislation. You're going to pay the price for it. Even Mr. Matkin said in effect the same thing at the end of his article. At the end of his statements on CBC, he said: "If we're right, Mr. Vander Zalm may very well find it hard to get re-elected." Imagine, the president of the employers' council saying that. And then he said: "Or he may change."

MR. BLENCOE: Who said that?

MR. WILLIAMS: That's Mr. Matkin.

Then finally, in almost wistful desperation, he said: "But it's a democracy." Indeed it is, but the direction of the western democracies is changing under this administration and this legislation.

I can't help but compare those thoughtful words of Mr. Matkin with the inane, thoughtless words from the new Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) that we heard from the other day. I thought, like many people in British Columbia, that having a forester as Minister of Forests for the first time, we might get some thoughtful stuff out of this new minister.

But I think it is very clear that the new minister had to be in the way of a faller at some time, and either a big tree or a branch must have landed on his head, because I couldn't believe what he had to say here.

He said things like this: when the opposition speaks — he was talking about us — "nobody slashes their tires; nobody throws a plank out with a bunch of nails in it; nobody threatens their families; nobody makes threatening phone calls." That kind of inflammatory nonsense comes from a minister of the Crown in terms of his view and his perspective on labour-management relations. It is kind of sad; it indicates incredible confusion and incredible bias in that member.

[5:30]

I would like to get on to talk about what Prof. Allen had to say about these questions and get them on the record, because I am sure that they will be reinforced by other members on this side. Professor Allen, if you want to see the full article, wrote about this question in last Friday's Vancouver Sun.

Prof, Allen said: "B.C. has fewer strikes than central Canada." Imagine that. Put that into your old bias machine on the other side. Prof. Allen said: "Our wages are not especially high." Put that into your biases on the other side. Then he looked at the question of strikes between 1973 and 1982, and the numbers were as follows: in B.C. we lost 1.7 days per union member in that period, on the average. Pretty modest stuff: hardly the disruption of the provincial economy which the Minister of Forests or the other members on the other side would like us to believe.

In Ontario, it was significantly higher. In the same time period, they lost through strikes two days per year per union member. In Quebec, it was almost double the provincial number for British Columbia: 3.2 days per year per union member. So it is false to say that strikes are the heavy-duty, serious problem that the government side would like us to believe. It isn't so.

Strikes in B.C. are concentrated, however. Prof. Allen makes that clear. Some 75 percent of the days lost are in three major industries: construction, lumber, and pulp and paper. So that means that in the other industries — secondary manufacturing and the service industries — there have been comparatively few strikes.

The big strikes have given the impression that we have a more serious problem than we do, and a common argument over there is that these strikes are worse than they are and that wages are too high. Well, let's look at wages. In secondary manufacturing, in B.C. the average wage is $518.14; in Ontario it's $518 per week — significant. So we're less there. When it comes to the service sector, the difference is again similar. In B.C. the average weekly earnings are $400.31; in Ontario, $409.20. In the construction industry, it's a similar pattern: $502.60 per week in B.C.; $526.99 in Ontario.

Higher wages in Ontario? If we followed the reasoning of the members on the other side, one would assume that the highest unemployment rates in Canada would be in Ontario. Wouldn't that follow? You've been concerned about that; you've argued that: "Gee, there's too much money. We've got to reconsider, tighten our belts." But, you know, that's what disposable income's about; that's what generating the economy and providing more opportunities for small business are about. Having better wages stimulates the economy. There is a direct relationship, and the government side doesn't seem to have quite understood that.

In B.C. the manufacturing and service sectors are 87 percent of the workforce. So we clearly have an incredibly lower incidence of work stoppages in most of our industry than central Canada, because the numbers are distorted by the three major areas where most of our strikes are.

I think those are the main points that Prof. Allen makes, except that the fascinating one for me that he makes is around the issue of resource rents, and that's an area.... People in his chamber who have been bored by the hour on that subject by the member for Vancouver East can get another lesson on the question of resource rents. You people don't collect those rents — the value of our trees, the value of our minerals, the value of our waters — in terms of what these resources really

[ Page 603 ]

are. What happens is that capital and labour — or the corporations and the workers — fight for them instead. That's why we get the difference in our major industries in terms of these stoppages, because the Crown is not collecting what it could and should in resource rents. Those rents are argued over between the primary players outside of the landowner or the Crown — a significant difference there. That should really, you know.... We went through this whole exercise with the Americans, the issue of threats in terms of our lumber economy in British Columbia. At least we finally got $350 million out of a federal export tax, new money that the corporations were holding and taking as profit — or as inefficiency — within the corporation, I suspect equally shared between profit and inefficiency in the corporation. That's only the start. That's just lumber exports to the U.S., $350 million worth. But what Prof. Allen is saying is that because you're not doing the job in terms of collecting these resource rents, you're creating problems out there in the industrial relations climate. It's a fascinating argument.

But the strongest argument, I think, is around the ones made by Mr. Matkin, the man who fully understands labour legislation and the impacts. He doesn't hold much hope for this legislation of yours. He says, "If you think you had trouble last year with the IWA work stoppage, you're going to get it in spades next year if you carry on with this legislation," and probably not in those three sectors that Prof. Allen talks about in terms of lumber, pulp and paper and these major resource-oriented industries and mining. What you're going to do with this new legislation is extend the problem into the secondary manufacturing level, the service level. It's an amazing bull-in the-china-shop exercise. It's full of ironies, as are so many political issues. It does not address the core problems, the real problems. Mr. Matkin covers those problems clearly.

I can't help but reflect on the ads that were in your election campaign, Social Credit '86. What did you say under the Premier's signature? You said: "Let's bring together representatives from labour and management, to set a new tone for industrial relations." Well, maybe you did keep the promise. There's going to be a new tone, all right, and it's going to be more rancorous and mean and miserable and disruptive than we've ever seen. So that's why we're asking for the hoist, Madam Speaker.

It's very clear. The top-notch academics in the province, the people with the most experience in the province, are telling you.... Organized labour is telling you, if you haven't realized, more clearly than they've ever said before, that they can't tolerate this legislation — pure and simple. That's just trouble with a capital T. You're not listening over there. You're not listening to the top person for the employers' council. You're not listening to the top people in labour. You're not listening to the best academics, who thoroughly understand these problems.

The new Leader of the Opposition is clear: it's a major error, and you're going to pay a major price. Maybe it'll be in terms of an election down the road; but all of us are going to pay a price in the interim, in terms of chaos and cost, and declining incomes for the people of British Columbia — all things we simply don't need, if we want to turn this provincial economy around.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm pleased to take my part in this debate on the hoist motion. I'm going to be speaking against hoisting this motion for six months, because I feel that the time for change in the labour relations climate in this province is now, not six months from now. The member for Vancouver East who just spoke said that it is a change of direction in labour relations in British Columbia. I think that, more than a change of direction, Madam Speaker, it brings some responsibility to those at the top who make the decisions for labour and management, and more than that, it brings responsibility to the people of this province. The third party is finally going to be brought to the table in labour-management relations in this province.

The Minister of Labour spelled out very succinctly the specific clauses of the bill; and they will be gone into in much more detail, as we get into committee. So speaking against the hoist motion, I just want to address some of the comments that I have heard in the House over the last few days from both sides, but specifically from the opposition.

I don't think any of us on this side of the House are under any illusions that this is going to solve all the labour-management problems in the province. This new legislation is not going to end strikes; it may make them a little shorter. I feel it will. It will bring a little bit more responsibility to them. It will make the leaders more responsible, and I stress the word "leaders." All of the rhetoric that we've heard in the last ten days since the legislation was introduced has come from the labour leaders — naturally, because it is change.

You can look at the newspaper articles from 1973 when the New Democrat government brought in labour changes under the then Labour minister, Mr. Bill King, as was pointed out to us here by one of their members. You could lift the newspaper headlines from that day and transplant them to this day, and they read exactly the same: "Labour will fight these changes; everybody is against it except the people bringing it in."

Maybe 1973 was time for change, and change was brought in. I think that a lot of the Labour Code that the member spoke of, the one drafted by Mr. Matkin and Mr. Weiler — and I forget the third person in the equation — was good, but a lot of it was not good. In the opinion of many, it was heavily weighted to the side of labour. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) used a phrase that I liked: "We should play on a level playing-field." I kind of like that, because I think that's what this legislation is doing. After a long time it is finally levelling the field, and we're going to be playing on a level field for the first time in about 14 years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Those who don't want change naturally fight it. I think Machiavelli said it about 300 years ago when he said that those who have their own private reasons naturally resist change. I don't remember his exact quote; my memory is not that good. But naturally those who have something to lose resist change. Who do we hear all the rhetoric from? From those very labour leaders who have something to lose. Who are the opposition listening to? Naturally they're listening to the person who's beating the drum. They've got their marching orders, and big labour beats the drum. The big labour leaders beat the drum, and the opposition marches to it. This is exactly what we're hearing. Those who are against these changes in the Labour Code are those who have something to lose. They've had a tremendous amount of power....

[ Page 604 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Jim Matkin.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We'll get to Mr. Matkin. He was one of the very few sources you were quoting. I don't think you would have had a speech if it hadn't been for Jim Matkin, so you should write him a thank-you letter.

[5:45]

Madam Speaker, some responsibility is going to come in at the top now, and these labour leaders, with all the rhetoric that we're going to have this great movement in the streets.... What did I hear at the convention over the weekend? They're going to revive Solidarity. The former Leader of the Opposition said that the opposition had to move to the streets in 1983 and blamed the government for it. Yes, the opposition did move to the streets in 1983, but it wasn't the fault of the government; it was because there was no opposition in the House. I hear talk of them doing that again; because of these changes to the Labour Code, they're talking about moving to the streets again. These in here march to that drummer, oppose any change, not stopping to think if it is change for the better. It's just change, and maybe it diminishes our power a little bit, so naturally we don't like it.

Talk to the man out there on the street who is going to the job every day. I have, since this came in. I was in my constituency this weekend, as most of my colleagues were.

MR. BLENCOE: What?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm there just about every weekend, Mr. Member, but I can't walk out the door and be in my constituency, unfortunately. I envy you that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did you visit Bud Smith's office?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As a matter of fact, Bud Smith and I spent a considerable amount of time together this weekend, at some very good functions that we attended, Mr. Member.

When I talk to the people out there who are paying the freight, the guy who is going to work and paying his union dues, I get a totally different perspective on this bill, especially when he starts to read and understand it and starts looking at some of the clauses. Then you get a totally different reaction than you do from those at the top who are calling the shots all the time. The man or woman going to the job is going to be very pleased with this legislation when he or she gets a chance to go through it and understand it.

This bill, in my estimation, does not come down on the side of either labour or management. This bill comes down on the side of British Columbia, and I think it's about time. For the first time, the province is going to be taken into account when labour-management negotiations take place. And it's needed now, not six months from now as proposed by the opposition.

We hear the same rhetoric all the time, every time we want to level the playing-field, if that's term they like to use. For the first time in a long, long time the playing-field is going to be a lot closer to level than it has been. We have lived with the Weiler labour code — you can call it the Weiler-Matkin labour code — for far too long. We have seen the disruption that this has caused over the years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, you can pull any one year out, Mr. Member, and say there weren't that many work hours lost in any given year, but over the period of years.... We didn't gain this reputation that we have for nothing, and we have a reputation in this province that is being tougher and tougher to live down. It has been weighted in the wrong direction far too long. For the first time in about 14 years, we are going to bring some sanity back to labour management-negotiations in this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can tell you, Mr. Member from Victoria and from Vancouver East, that there isn't a member on this side of the House that is out to destroy trade unions as you would have people believe. I can tell you that unequivocally; from my own personal point of view and from knowing these people, there is not a member on this side of the House that wants to do any harm to the trade union movement. I personally am a very strong supporter of the trade union movement. I have never been opposed to it; nor would I ever be. I don't think, after listening to your former leader, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), today.... He is trying to leave the thought in people's minds that the Premier and this party are out to destroy labour unions, and nothing could be further from the truth. He even brought the Catholic church into the equation, and tried to tell the Premier to go and read his Bible and that it says in the Bible that people have a right to organize into trade unions. Well, of course they do, and I would defend that right of theirs as long as I have got a breath in my body.

But 1 also believe in an individual's right to work outside the trade union movement if he or she so desires. People should be free to join a trade union movement, stay in it or work outside of it if they so choose. Madam Speaker, just cast your mind back a couple of years to Expo 86 for a moment, and you will realize that both union and non-union people can work side by side in this province and do a first-class job and make first-class wages doing it and enjoy doing it the whole time they're working.

Look what was produced at Expo 86 over a great haranguing from the trade union movement that they would never work side by side with non-union people. Why not? Because they start believing their own rhetoric after a certain time, and believe that they're going to catch some communicable disease if they happen to work on the same site as a non-union person. I think Expo showed the way in this province. It was a landmark decision the day we decided to make that an open site, so that all people in British Columbia could have the right to participate in what was probably one of the greatest world's fairs ever built.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

If that set the stage for a more harmonious labour climate in this province — and I believe it did, Mr. Speaker — then this bill just puts it on paper that we can coexist in this province — union, non-union, management, government and the public of British Columbia. I find it difficult to believe that even people like Jim Matkin can say that the IWA strike of last year might have been made worse by this bill. I would love to sit down with him and have him explain to me exactly how that would have taken place. I mean that sincerely. I know Jim Matkin — not well, but I would sit down

[ Page 605 ]

any time and have him explain to me how it would make it any worse. I take issue with that statement, because I think he is incorrect. As much as I have respect for Jim Matkin, I don't believe he's right all the time, nor is anyone else. On this one I think he's wrong.

The member for Vancouver East alluded to the fact that perhaps, if we pass this bill, all of a sudden people's wages will go down. How can he make that sort of connection? How can you make that connection, when all we're doing is making people a little bit more responsible?

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a deunionized society, that's why.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: There you go again, Mr. Member, saying we're trying to deunionize the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Matkin said that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't care what Mr. Matkin says. Mr. Matkin is wrong. We're not trying to deunionize this province at all, and there isn't one clause in this bill that will deunionize this province. There is not one clause in this bill that will bring lower wages to the province of British Columbia — not one clause.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you please let the minister finish his speech.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill may make some of those union leaders — those guys at the top — a little bit more responsible to their membership.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I care about their membership, whether or not you do or they do, Mr. Member. This bill will make them be a little bit more responsible to their membership.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) said in his speech the other day that this will destroy the balance between the parties. I guess that depends on which point of view you've been looking at it from, Mr. Member. If you think there's been a balance there for the last 13 years, then you're sadly mistaken.

MR. GABELMANN: There hasn't been since '79.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: There hasn't been a balance since 1973, Mr. Member. I hate to correct you. I feel this bill will return some balance to the labour-management-government negotiations.

To repeat myself, I don't believe for one moment that this bill is going to solve all of our problems, because I don't think anyone is capable of writing a bill that's going to solve all of our problems. But it's going to go a long way toward bringing some responsibility back into the trade negotiations, and a long way toward levelling the playing-field after a long, long time.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: On Thursday, April 19, hon. members, the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) rose in his place and advised the House of his wish to present a petition. The hon. member then proceeded to read a statement describing the petition, after which he filed the statement and a series of signed mimeographed letters which presumably were intended to form a part of the petition.

An examination of the member's statement and the material filed therewith has led the Chair to conclude that the member's material does not comply with standing order 73. Standing order 73 (2) states as follows: "The petition must contain a clear, concise, accurate and temperate statement of the facts for which the intervention of the House is requested and the signature of all the petitioners." In addition, it is impossible to determine from examining the material filed whether the signatures were intended to be part of a petition addressed to the House or an expression of opinion in relation to certain legislation presently before the House. The introductory statement contains argumentative material in language which could be considered disrespectful to other hon. members of this House.

Accordingly, no entry will be made in the Votes and Proceedings in relation to the material filed, and the hon. member may wish to consider subsection (5) of standing order 73, which states: "Members presenting petitions shall be answerable that they do not contain impertinent or improper matter."

I might also add, hon. members, that all hon. members will be aware that the Clerks of the House are available for consultation on the forms that members propose to present, and I'm sure would be pleased to assist if members have any uncertainties in relation to procedural matters.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

[ Page 606 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

9 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations the following questions:

1. How much income tax revenue was received from each of the medical tax and the surtax in 1985 and what is the estimate for 1986?

2. How many individuals reported taxable income in 1986 in excess of $60,000, $80,000, $100,000, $120,000, $160,000 and $200,000?

The Hon. M. B. Couvelier replied as follows:

10 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations the following questions:

With regard to the surtax on provincial income tax—

1. How many individuals paid this surtax in the periods for which this information is available?

2. What was the total amount collected for these same periods?

The Hon. M. B. Couvelier replied as follows:

And then the House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.