[ Page 607 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 607

Mr. D'Arcy –– 608

Ms. Campbell –– 610

Mr. Blencoe –– 612

Mrs. Gran –– 614

Mr. Gabelmann –– 615

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1987

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on the amendment to second reading of Bill 19.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just want to make a few more remarks, picking up from where I left off yesterday, on why I don't think this hoist motion should pass at this time.

I was talking yesterday, Mr. Speaker, about the key word in this legislation, which to my mind is "responsibility." This legislation will bring some responsibility back to those in a leadership position, not only in the trade union movement but in business, especially big business.

The average working person out in this province is not going to be very happy with the opposition and with some of the labour leaders when he finds out that they haven't been telling it exactly like it is. They haven't been telling it, Mr. Speaker; they haven't been telling everything about this bill. When average working persons out there start to go through this bill clause by clause, they're going to find out that it is indeed good for them. They're going to like it when they find out that so much of what they've heard is just rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, from Cliff and the boys, and the boys across the way, who march to the drum that Cliff is beating — when they find out that there's a lot of rhetoric out there, that everything about this bill is bad because Cliff and the boys say it's bad. Not true, Mr. Speaker.

When they start going through this bill clause by clause, and start to find out that it's good for the working person in British Columbia, then you guys are going to be the ones in trouble. You sit over there and say to us: "You're in trouble with this bill." Let me tell you, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, and the rest, you're going to be in trouble when the working people find out you haven't been telling it like it is. When they start to find out....

MR. JONES: Test it for six months.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We'll test it, and it will be tested for a lot longer than six months.

We're going to take some of the power from those at the top who have been making the decisions for a long, long time. Naturally they don't like anything changed. They just think this bill is bad because it's going to change their status.

AN HON. MEMBER: Big business and big labour.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's right.

They've had power, Mr. Speaker, without the responsibility that goes with power. Now they're going to have to have some responsibility for the people they represent, for their constituencies; they're going to have to have that responsibility. Naturally they don't like that; they love to have the power without the responsibility. But I tell you, the working people of this province will like it; they will like this bill.

They haven't found out all about it yet, Mr. Speaker, but they will. The word is getting out. As they start getting copies of this bill and start reading the various clauses, they will start to understand, and they are going to say: "Why did those people who purport to represent us not tell us that it was going to do this for us? Why didn't they tell us this?" Not only will finally the playing-field be level after 14 years, but now the people who really count will be able to play in the game; they'll be able to get in the game for the first time in a long while.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, somebody is saying to the people out there who go to work every day: "We care about what you think; we really care about what you think about this offer. We're going to ask you. We're not just going to ask Cliff and the boys; we're going to ask you what you think about it."

The opposition tries, through speaker after speaker on that side, to paint this side of the House as a bunch of trade union bashers. I touched on this yesterday, and I think it's important enough that I touch on it again. That is simply not true. The people on this side of the House have every bit as much respect for the trade union movement as people on that side of the House. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that when the working people of this province go through this bill, they're going to realize who their friends really are in this House. They're going to realize for the first time that their friends are on this side of the House, and are not the ones with the rhetoric on that side of the House. They will understand this bill once they've gone through it; they haven't had time yet to see it and go through it clause by clause.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It won't take them six months to go through it, Mr. Member. Within the next week or two they're going to be starting to ask you some questions. They're going to start asking you questions about: "Why do you want to hoist this bill? Why don't you want all these good things for us? Here's a government trying to bring some democracy to the workplace, to give us a say in what's going on, and you people don't want it." They're going to be asking you questions about why you want to hoist this good piece of legislation. So I know who's going to be in trouble.

The time for this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is now. It's long overdue, and to keep it on ice for another six months would not be serving the working people of this province. This bill has probably been overdue for about 14 years, since the bill drafted by Mr. Weiler and Mr. Matkin, who the member quoted at length the other day. I believe even Mr. Matkin is now starting to change his mind on this legislation, I am told.

AN HON. MEMBER: Big business, big labour.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Sure. This bill is not necessarily just in the interests of big labour and big business; this bill comes down on the side of British Columbians, Mr. Member. It comes down squarely in the middle and on the side of the people of this province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the members of this House — and I know they will — to defeat this absurd hoist motion and get

[ Page 608 ]

on with passing some labour legislation that has been long overdue.

[10:15]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate in the House with members from the other side, there seems to be a profound misunderstanding of what people do when they join or when they form a union. After all, none of us likes paying taxes, and none of us likes being charged automatically a deductible fee, which is what union dues amount to; but when people form a union or join a union, they do it because they're buying a service. I don't think it is any accident that the staff members who directly serve the membership of unions around this province are usually called business agents, because they look after the business of the union member.

1 believe this bill should be reviewed once again by the government and by the public of British Columbia, because it fails to recognize that labour law — one could even say management law — and practice in this province is to some degree only a codification of what has really been built up as a form of precedent, not just since 1973 as has been suggested by so many speakers across the way, but really as a series of precedents that goes back decades in this province, even into the last century. Quasi judicial bodies, labour relations boards and their predecessors, and the judiciary have made a series of decisions based on what they perceive to be genuinely in the public interest and in the public good — not the public interest that is defined arrogantly by people across the way as being a ministerial discretion. That's how they describe the public interest; it's anything that the government or a particular minister feels is preferable.

So here we have a bit of legislation — and this is fundamentally why I think it should be reviewed — that says that we don't really care what the real world has decided over a period of decades. Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that any body of common law or any law which is codified or sanctified by this assembly or any other shouldn't be reviewed and updated from time to time to meet changing conditions, because, after all, conditions economically and sociologically and technologically do change. But surely it is foolish in the extreme to fundamentally throw out the existing codified precedent and common law built up over decades — not built up by decisions made here, but by decisions made out there to meet changing circumstances, appropriate to different industries, different employers, different groups of employees over many decades in this century and, as I said, probably even in the last century.

Is the government so full of itself that it assumes that all these decisions of the past are no good and should be thrown out, that all the previous labour ministers, all the judges and all the labour relations boards made bad decisions? Undoubtedly they did make some bad decisions; they're human. But I don't think they made bad decisions by and large. I recall dealing with the Labour Relations Board — its predecessors — back in the 1960s under the W.A.C. Bennett government when Mr. Sands was the deputy, and at times I got very angry because I felt they were making wrong decisions: wrong morally, wrong in practical terms and wrong according to the law. In fact, when I looked back at some of those times, I think that in many cases they made the correct decisions.

There are some criticisms about the Labour Relations Board and the Labour Code in terms of practice which I would agree with. But, Mr. Speaker, that does not mean that you throw out that body of legislation. Just to give an example, I have wondered for some years how labour relations boards, or panels thereof, could be so rapid with some types of decisions and so slow with others. I think those are valid criticisms, because justice delayed is always justice denied. But that is an administrative problem, not a problem of doing away completely with a body of legislation.

I have to reiterate, as so many other people have said here, that most contracts are settled without difficulty. Those that result in work stoppages, strikes or lockouts, in most cases in British Columbia, in recent years at least, have involved the resource industries — very often a major tussle, not with indigenous resource operators but rather with resource industry operators whose primary interests lie outside this province. We need a "made in B.C." re, source-extraction, resource-development and resource-use policy.

I find it interesting that so many speakers across the way have used last year's COFI-IWA dispute as a reason why this legislation is needed. I would ask them to go back and look at that. That's why I want them to review this for six months, Mr. Speaker. Recently reports were published that indicated what so many of us knew all along: that in spite of that stoppage, which affected some parts of the forest industry in some parts of the province, 1986 was a banner if not a record year for the forest industry. There was more timber cut in B.C. in '86 than in any of the previous years. There were more pulp and paper products produced. Unfortunately, there were also more logs exported in the raw form than in previous years.

Yes, there were some major difficulties in those communities affected by the dispute. But the fact is that the forest industry in general did very well, and a strong case can be made. The stoppage in those plants, in those areas, that did take place was due to decisions, policies and attitudes which essentially were formulated in board rooms outside this province, not within British Columbia.

One of the primary duties of government, of the representatives of the people in British Columbia, is to protect the interests of British Columbians — young, old, management, workers, businessmen, whoever they are — and decisions made by governments or in board rooms in other parts of the world are highly unlikely to be in the interests of British Columbia. Government should recognize that and should not knee-jerk because a problem arises from time to time due to decisions made outside this province.

Not too long ago I was in conversation with a very successful, non-union construction contractor, an acquaintance. It was not a political discussion, I hasten to say, but we did discuss his business and how well he was doing. What he was telling me was that it was a lot more competitive and a lot tougher now than it was a couple of years ago for a non-union contractor in British Columbia. I asked why and he said: "Well, we are being underbid now, recently, and are losing contracts to major unionized contracting firms." I asked him why that was, and he said it was partly because of the recent, or fairly recent, agreement — last year, I suppose — between the building trades and the unionized contractors in B.C. that resulted in a wage reduction in certain trades for certain types of building and, he said, partly because they just have a whole lot more sharp pencils. So I said, "You mean there's a much greater balance right now between union and non-union contracting?", and he said: "Absolutely. It's a lot tougher for us than it was in 1985 and 1986."

[ Page 609 ]

So here once again we have a government reacting to a situation that no longer exists and, indeed, may never have existed. The fact is that the rise of non-union contractors in B.C. had a great deal to do with the very high unemployment of the last few years. We still have high unemployment in B. C –– 13.6 percent adjusted and probably heavier than that in the construction trades. Yet B.C.'s highly competent unionized construction firms — and when I say highly competent, I'm speaking of the superintendents and the management as well as the trades people who work for them — are in many cases underbidding the non-unionized firms.

Here is a situation which I'm sure the members opposite philosophically can resemble: the marketplace adjusted. That's really what happened. That's what this non-union contractor was telling me: the marketplace adjusted. The government across the way have decided that they're going to alter the marketplace now. Mr. Speaker, if the existing body of labour law and the operation of the Labour Relations Board was so bad, why was there not a major demand for change?

Are they saying that all those very high-priced experts over the years made wrong-headed decisions? The fact is they haven't — slow on occasion but not wrong-headed. They reacted to a public need, to a changing market situation in British Columbia, and to an essentially indigenously strong economy, an economy that in spite of the actions of government over the last few years, which have not helped the economic situation in British Columbia, nonetheless muddles along in a fairly capable way.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, what about the authoritarian aspects of the administration of this new labour law? I'm not going to attack Mr. Peck or anyone else who might hold his position. In fact, I wish him well, if the government must proceed and jam this through the House. But how can we anticipate that one human being — no matter how competent — can be so perfect as to improve on everyone who has ever had anything to do with the kind of administration he is going to be doing? How can we assume that? Are we to assume that someone who is appointed to this position has some sort of divine guidance, the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of a Gandhi?

We also find out from the legislation — and this is another reason why I think government should have a good look at it — that unlike deputy ministers, who are appointed at pleasure and presumably can be dismissed at pleasure of the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, probably at great expense to the public, but nonetheless they can be dismissed.... We find that this individual is going to have a tenure in office that goes even beyond the government itself. I'm not one of those who are going to predict the electoral future in this province, but members of this House who are elected by the public, we all know, are elected basically for three- or four-year terms, and are paid a quarter of what this labour administrator is going to be paid. If he does not do a successful job or is perceived not to do a fair or successful job, it won't be him that's turfed out of office; it will be the members opposite. How does that make you feel, boys and girls?

Mr. Speaker, that is an important point, because the interest of the people on this side of the House is the common good of the people of British Columbia. We aren't here merely to see you people turfed out of office –– I want the government to review this bill because I do not believe it is in the interests of all the people of British Columbia.

1 see my handsome friend across the way from Vancouver South is here. He's an engineer, so maybe he will relate to what I'm going to say. There are imperfections in any piece of law, any codification, but there are imperfections in buildings, ships and aircraft, and that does not mean we throw out all the knowledge we ever had and start all over again, because the occasional ship sinks or a plane crashes or a building has structural failures.

I have a concern about the use of the term "in the discretion of the public interest." I don't know if all the new members on that side or on this side are aware that in Canadian law — and maybe it's peculiar to Canadian law — we have the famous "notwithstanding" syndrome. You've heard that expression "notwithstanding." It appears in the constitution, and basically what it says is that it doesn't matter what the previous paragraphs have said, or previous chapters, or previous volumes; notwithstanding any of that, the government of the day can do whatever they please. When the expression "public interest" appears in the Revised Statutes of British Columbia anywhere, it's rather like the regulation section that appears in so much legislation, especially that passed by Social Credit in recent years. The classic expression is: "Notwithstanding anything previous in this bill, the minister has the right to make regulations in the public interest." What does that mean? That means the minister or the government can do anything they want.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

That's how the public interest is defined in Canadian law and in this assembly. It's not defined in what I might think or what you might think, or what the public might think, or even what a judge might think. It's defined by whatever the minister of the day thinks. I do not think that is good enough when we are dealing with the economy of British Columbia, the ability of our industries to be competitive, and the correct use of our raw materials in a responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who's ever had anything to do with law enforcement — whether they be police, liquor inspectors, health inspectors or game wardens — will tell you that they can only succeed providing the public wants them to succeed. Even though a great many people have criticized LRB decisions, and even court decisions, over the years, there has to be at least a grudging agreement that the decisions were made on the basis of fair rules. From what I have been told by people in the street, including business people, they do not feel that there is going to be a desire, or a will, on the part of the public for this legislation to work. That is another important reason that it should be reviewed. It's the old bromide: not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. There is a perception that there will be no justice from this bill.

I spoke earlier about the statistical success of the forest industry in 1986: the profits that were made, the commodity prices that were recovered, the high productivity levels, the efficiency of the management and workers in that industry. Mr. Speaker, the working people and the management in the forest industry, and indeed in other industries, are probably the most efficient and productive in the world. They have adapted to technological change. They have adapted to innovation.

There is no question that our wages and per capita income are no longer at the high levels that they once were, relative to other jurisdictions. There is absolutely no question about

[ Page 610 ]

that. Most continental European countries, certainly those democracies of western Europe and northern Europe, have higher per capita incomes and higher incomes in real terms than we have in British Columbia. Most of the northern states in the United States have higher per capita incomes and higher wage rates in real terms than we have in British Columbia. If we have not been overtaken by the Japanese, we will be soon.

Mr. Speaker, B.C. is no longer the expensive place to do business, from the point of view of personal incomes, that it once was. But there is an efficiency in terms of the businesses and the working people of British Columbia that these other jurisdictions don't enjoy. A tremendous number of business people — industry people, as well as small business people — over the years have told me that if they're getting production and if they're getting cash flow, wage levels or benefit levels are not significant; they simply want the production and they want the cash flow. In the B.C. resource industries, the cost of production, especially that related to wages and salaries as a percentage of the gross, has been going down, down, down in recent years. This is in part because of technological change, in part because of managerial efficiencies.

One of the reasons that we have had such a slow economy in my constituency in recent years has been production efficiencies with Cominco, the major employer in Trail. Twenty-two hundred jobs are not there today that were there six years ago; that's nearly $100 million a year in lost retail spending. If you take that out of downtown Vancouver, let alone a place the size of Trail, you make a major hole in the local economy. But, Mr. Speaker, production has gone up. Cominco today produces more lead, more zinc, more fertilizers, more specialty products such as gallium arsenide chips and germanium, more gold — and of a higher quality than they did six years ago — with 2,200 fewer people. As I say, part of that is technological and part of that is simply management efficiency.

A similar story could be told throughout the mining industry, throughout the forest industry, and I'm sure throughout many manufacturing industries in British Columbia. So British Columbians are competitive. We don't need this kind of legislation in British Columbia to change what has been a system that has worked very well and is working very well. Yes, modifications are needed. Yes, there are precedents that need to be made. But I'd like the government to have a good look at this legislation, because it is a quantum change in the attitude that we have in British Columbia.

The government perceives a problem or a series of problems to be there which simply are not there, and even if some of those problems were there, there are other and more efficient ways — better ways — to deal with them than using the hammer of this particular legislation.

Mr. Speaker, last summer and fall I constantly heard the Social Credit candidate for Richmond, who is now the Premier, talk about consultation, working together, and the inherent indigenous strength of British Columbia. I didn't agree with his politics, but I agreed with that part of his philosophy. Where is the consultation? Where is the sensitivity to the private citizens of British Columbia who have not demanded this particular change? I ask the government members and their Premier, who have to act in the interest of all British Columbians, to consider the rhetoric which they used last summer and last fall. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were sincere. I will. But remember what you said, and remember what your leader said. Then go back over this, because this legislation puts the lie to that rhetoric that was done last summer and last fall.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hang on!

MR. D'ARCY: It does, Mr. Speaker It puts the lie to that rhetoric, because there was no discussion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but I believe that even put in that way it impugns the honesty of somebody in this House.

MR. D'ARCY: I withdraw the term "lie" and say it puts in question the sincerity of that rhetoric of last summer and last fall. I guess we could all get picky about terminology, but I think the message that I'm trying to get to the other side of the House.... I want it to be abundantly clear.

For better or for worse, I have represented Rossland-Trail for nearly 15 years now. While I never inquire as to other people's politics, there are some people whom you observe from time to time, even though they're your friends, working for other candidates, for other parties. I think we've all had that experience if we've been around for a while. Some of the people who have importuned me about this legislation since it was tabled in this House are people who — perhaps you might think it none of my business –– I have observed working on behalf of Social Credit candidates as recently as last fall in my constituency. They are not happy with this legislation. They are not happy with the government. They are not happy with the attitude of the party they were hoping to get elected last fall. You can say: why should that be of concern to me? Perhaps I should be happy about it. I raise that point because I would like the people across the way to know that there are a number of people who worked for them, voted for them and believed in them — maybe still do, fundamentally and philosophically — who are not happy with and don't believe in this particular legislation.

[10:45]

Mr. Speaker, I'm not a lawyer, but I want to go back very quickly.... I've always wondered why, when they want you to stop, they give you a green light? I mean, it could be "forever amber."

When I say I'm not a lawyer, it's my understanding that the contract law is basically all common law, built up not only over decades but over centuries. I would suggest that the contract law that exists in the labour-management area is similar in nature. The state is not needed to interfere with contract law. The state is not needed. There are some things which we can all agree upon in this House, and I thought one of them was that there are certain areas that the heavy hand of the state government should not be involved in. I suggest this is one area that it should not be involved in.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the hoist motion of Bill 19. I would also point out to the member for Rossland-Trail that in fact the law which recognizes the rights of labour unions and the right of labour organization in this country is in fact statutory; it is not common law. The first bill in that respect was passed in Canada in 1907.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has suggested that this bill be deferred for consideration by this House for six months, and

[ Page 611 ]

they have presented a number of reasons which have a certain superficial plausibility, I suppose, to support that motion.

The first one relates to procedure. The opposition members suggest that this bill has not had wide enough consultation in the public, and that delay in consultation will make the bill more palatable, will make it more acceptable to people in British Columbia. In particular, they like to compare the procedure by which the New Democratic Party Labour Code was introduced in 1973, a procedure which I gather was preceded by travel around the province by what were known as "the three wise men" who consulted from March 1973 until the bill was presented in October of that year.

I find it interesting that the travel around the province of three wise men, who I understand consulted with labour and management in the province, is considered a very acceptable basis for drafting a bill which was, in its time, infinitely more revolutionary than this redrafting of the Labour Code. It was the first establishment of an administrative tribunal to deal with labour matters in this province.

But somehow the consultation done by the three wise men was all right. But our consultation, which consisted of a task force that traveled around the province, which held 250 meetings and received 700 briefs not only from labour and management but also from the public — a group not heard in the 1973 consultation — somehow isn't as good as the NDP consultation –– I would like to suggest that our consultation has been much more thorough and much more comprehensive.

I seriously question whether deferring the consideration of this bill in this House will in fact allay the concerns that have been expressed in the public, concerns which are very natural when change is proposed in sensitive legislation, because it certainly didn't allay the concerns in 1973, and I would like to remind the House of some of the responses to that 1973 legislation which was preceded by such ample and thorough consultation, according to my friends in the opposition.

I have before me a headline in the Vancouver Sun of October 2, 1973: "Union Leaders Charge: Labour Code Can Only Stoke Fires of Unrest." I will read just briefly from this article:

"Trade union leaders warned today that unless the proposed B.C. Labour Code is changed, it 'will cause increased labour unrest.' A preliminary analysis prepared by the B.C. Federation of Labour and parent Canadian Labour Congress described a number of provisions in the legislation introduced Monday 'detrimental to the working people' in the province. The unionists said at a press conference that the New Democratic Party government they helped elect 'has departed drastically' from NDP policies and its 1972 election platform."

I think there must have been a few holes in your consultation, hon. members of the opposition. On the employers' side, now we're being attacked because a few members of the employers' community have expressed some reservations, and rightly so. We are introducing new and innovative changes, changes which we will in fact be able to explain and justify very fully when this bill is debated section by section in the committee of the whole.

But on the employers' side in 1973:

"Leaders in the construction industry were also highly critical, but employers generally were maintaining a cool reaction. Charles Connaghan, president of Construction Labour Relations Association, said the Code will create 'nothing but chaos' in his industry and described it as a 'gigantic step backwards."'

And then William Hamilton, who was the Jim Matkin of that day, president of the Employers' Council of B.C., told another press conference:

"Employers generally will take a positive approach to the legislation. Hamilton said employers have reservations about some sections and are completely opposed to others, but will make representations for changes with the view that if the legislation can be used to minimize strikes and lockouts, 'we will be happy."'

Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is very little difference in the tone of that response to the 1973 bill and the tone of the response to Bill 19. Further on, union leaders were saying:

"Unless there are substantial amendments, the trade union leaders recommended the proposed Code be referred to the Legislature's standing committee on labour 'to enable the labour movement to make clear the potentially disastrous implications of many sections."'

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished and amazed. My goodness, our hon. friends in the opposition were not prepared to refer their bill to the standing committee on labour, but they certainly want us to say....

Interjections.

MS. CAMPBELL: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was extremely critical.

HON. MR. REID: What did he say?

MS. CAMPBELL: I've lost his quotation.

The point is that union leaders were charging that this administrative board, this new powerful board, which would be like a labour czar in British Columbia — oh, the echoes are so sweet, Mr. Speaker — "will have life-and-death power to restrict or prohibit picketing, the highly offensive power of public inquiry commissions and further power to intrude into the internal affairs of a trade union." I ask the hon. members of the opposition to give me a break on these arguments. It is extremely hypocritical.

Now the members of the opposition have also said that this bill ought to be hoisted because the legislation is complex. And it is complex. It's very complex because clearly they don't understand it. I suspect some of them haven't read it; I suspect after three pages their lips get tired. But I would point out, for example, that the hon. member for North Island, who gave what appeared to be a very dispassionate commentary on the bill, clearly doesn't understand the alterations to the privative clause. I am looking forward to engaging in that debate in order that the hon. members of the opposition will have a chance to understand what is in the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: It'll haunt you.

MS. CAMPBELL: It'll haunt you, hon. member. The sooner we get the detailed consideration of this bill in the House, the sooner all of the members will understand it and the better we will be able to carry the message to the people of British Columbia. It may be that when we look at the bill on a

[ Page 612 ]

section-by-section basis, we will decide there are some provisions that require further consideration; but the way to deal with that is not for the elected members to hoist consideration of this bill for six months.

The real reason we're looking at a hoist motion is because the New Democratic Party opposition is philosophically unsympathetic to this bill. That is the truth and that is understandable. They represent a constituency which feels very threatened by any changes in labour law. They felt threatened in 1973 and they do now.

The hon. member for North Island referred to George Orwell in his comments on the bill, and maybe some day we will have a debate in the House where nobody refers to Orwell, but heaven forbid I should miss my opportunity. The hon. member talks about 1984 being here today. Well, I'm reminded by the opposition of another provision in Orwell, and I am thinking in particular of Animal Farm, where the animals are exhorted to chant the ideological position: four legs, good; two legs, bad. What I hear from the New Democratic Party opposition is a very similar kind of chant, and that is: unions good; management bad.

I think we have to be honest about why these amendments are before this House, why they are required. They are required because there are many people in our society who regard unions as unfair and who feel there should be more government control over them.

This is substantiated by considerable research, Mr. Speaker, and I refer you to volume 35 of the Macdonald commission report, which is referred to in volume 17. It refers to a number of Decima reports.

"According to the Decima quarterly report, Canadians consistently express less confidence in the leaders of labour unions than those of any other institution when asked to rate their confidence in leaders of 20 institutions, including banks, schools, provincial governments, oil companies, federal government, multinational corporations, newspapers and the tobacco industry."

The second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) was recently airborne in expressing his concern about the lack of confidence the public has in politicians. Well, whatever ill the public may think of politicians, it appears that they think even worse of labour unions.

"Another recent Decima question asked respondents whether they favoured or opposed greater government control over labour union activity." More than 60 percent favoured more control. Even among union members a majority favoured increased government control over labour union activity. There is a perception in this society that labour requires greater fairness in how it operates in our economy. I think labour unions are extremely important. I believe that the development of collective bargaining ranks with the development of limited liability companies, developments in the law in our society which have made our economic growth possible.

But unions are no different from any other large corporate power base, Mr. Speaker; they can abuse their power. I look, for example, at the secret-ballot provisions of the amendments to the present labour legislation. We are requiring secret ballots in labour votes; no more yes-no ballot boxes. When I say "yes-no ballot boxes," I'm reminded of the way people vote in the Soviet Union. You know how people vote in the Soviet Union? They don't have "da" and "nyet" ballot boxes; what they do have is one candidate, and that candidate's name is printed on the ballot. So if you want to vote yes, you simply fold your ballot and put it in the box. If you don't want to vote yes, you have to walk past a table full of party officials and local notables who make a note of who is going into the polling booth in order that they can cross out that person's name; that's how you vote no in the Soviet Union. I think the yes-no ballot boxes in a union vote are very much the equivalent, and I would never, ever apologize for bringing in legislative amendments that would do away with that provision.

Mr. Speaker, the conceptual basis of many of these amendments is very consistent with what serious students of labour relations see as important. The emphasis on information-sharing, for example, is a very important aspect of forestalling labour disputes — the emphasis on conciliation prior to labour disputes. These are the essence of the dispute resolution division of the labour relations structure that's set up in this act.

All of these things are very much linked to what progressive people are thinking is the path to take in labour relations, and the time has come to look at the provisions of this act in a serious, analytical way in this House. This is the best way to clarify the meaning of the bill to the public. Hoisting the bill will not accomplish anything; it will simply defer the serious consideration of this bill by those who are responsible for it. Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

[11:00]

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID: In your gallery today are grade 7 students from the Pitt Meadows Elementary School; with them is the principal, Mr. John Parry. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the last speaker talk about past experiences, but there are some really major differences between this piece of legislation and 1973. We all use newspaper clippings and statistics for our own purposes, but with this piece of legislation there is no doubt in the minds of those who are experts in the field on both sides, labour and management, that it is a major intrusion into the rights and traditions of the collective bargaining process.

The member talked about other jurisdictions, and I think she particularly referred to the Soviet Union. She also said: "We need more government control." It seems to me that a few weeks ago I heard this government, with its smoke and mirrors and its PR job, talk about getting government off the backs of the people of British Columbia. Yet today we hear about "more government control." This legislation is classic statism, Mr. Speaker, a major move into the rights, privileges and traditions of the collective bargaining process which are upheld in every democratic system in the western world.

Here we have a member and this government talking about more government control. Well, why don't you support what your throne speech and your budget talked about: "...off the backs of the people of British Columbia"? This bill, Mr. Speaker, is Big Brother government coming in

[ Page 613 ]

and saying, as the member from Point Grey pointed out this morning, "...more government control over the people of British Columbia," and we can't support that. No way. We believe there is....

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The hon. member persists in distorting what I said, what I was reading, and in attributing to me a view that.... I did not say.... I was quoting public opinion research that the vast majority of people of Canada favour increased government control.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure we are all aware that from time to time we take issue with the presumed factual information that one member may refer to from time to time. Under the standing rules, I gather there is an opportunity, when any member is finished speaking, for any other member to get up and make the appropriate corrections, and I would hope that the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) would take that to heart and remember that in the future.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. It is in fact in the rule book. That is absolutely correct.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, whatever the member for Vancouver–Point Grey tries to correct now, the Hansard will say that that member said: "More government control." That's what the member was calling for. That's what this government is calling for. That's what all the members have defended over the last week — more government control, more government on the backs of the working people of British Columbia. That's what this legislation is all about, and that's why we're asking for this government to step back for a few months — give a little breathing time — to reflect on the legislation that you've brought in and surprised the people of British Columbia with, legislation that radically changes the face of labour relations in the province and affects thousands and thousands of British Columbians. We're asking this government, in keeping with the Premier's promise of open, fresh, consultative government, in keeping with the ads that you ran for the provincial election saying let's bring together representatives from labour and management to set a new tone for industrial relations, let's work together.... In our estimation, and it's why the hoist motion is before this House, this legislation is not based upon working with the working men and women of the province of British Columbia. It is based upon sheer dogma, a sheer right-wing perception — and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) stated it with some ridiculous comments a few days ago — of working people in the province of British Columbia. They're unfair perceptions, Mr. Speaker, in our estimation.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has put forth a hoist motion, and there is always a feeling on the other side, the government, that we use that often. In this instance, in this time, we are very serious about asking the government to step back and think about what they're doing. We're asking the government to reflect. It's a time to consider other opinions. It's time we had a government that lives up to the promises it has made of consultation. It's a time for moderation, a time for thinking about the actions of government and the legislation that you put forth that surprises thousands of women and men in British Columbia. It's a time to step back and it's a time for moderation. It's a time to see workers as our future — not to see organized labour and working people of this province as a problem, but as a solution to our problems. It's not a time to bludgeon those working people through legislation. It's a time to see those working women and men as real partners in enterprise in the province of British Columbia, as the true partners in the province of British Columbia in developing recovery projects and initiatives.

British Columbians over the past few years have seen far too much turmoil. They have seen the Social Credit government create chaos in the province of British Columbia, and we were promised by the Premier and this new government a fresh start. The people of British Columbia desperately want peace and tranquility. They are tired and they're overwhelmed by strife and disagreement. What this bill does is once again pit British Columbian against British Columbian. It pits thousands of British Columbians against the government again, in their attempt to try to get this government to rethink, to reflect, to slow down, to allow those groups and those individuals who are going to be dramatically affected by this legislation a time to consult properly with the government. Mr. Speaker, this motion is before the House because we on this side of the House are tired of the old battles. People want to get on with each other; people want to agree with each other; people want to work together. They want to flourish together, they want to work together and they don't want the old fights. They want a government that is moderate, not extreme. And that is what this bill is all about — it's extreme.

What we've got into, of course, is the usual battle in this House and in the province of British Columbia about who is right and who is saying the right things. Mr. Matkin is making statements that have to concern the government. Other business leaders are concerned. The government is defending, tooth and nail, a piece of legislation that they know, in their hearts and minds, should be thought about again. Those members across there today really know that there should be some reflection. If they quietly go out in the hall and talk person to-person to each other, I know they think there has to be some time for reflection.

Mr. Speaker, we don't need a continuation of the philosophical wars that have gone on in British Columbia over the last few years. We don't need those battles. But we have put this bill into the House, and once again, without proper consultation, British Columbia is on the brink of being in crisis.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is not the least bit impressed by the heckling. Let's give the second member for Victoria his opportunity to speak.

MR. BLENCOE: British Columbians desperately want peace in this province. You've got to listen to some of your own people. I don't know who you're listening to. The people of British Columbia have been surprised and hurt, and cannot believe that this is the new government that promised real consultation and a new era in British Columbia. It's the old methods in place again: bring the bill in; start the debate right away; try to get it through before people can really analyze all the sections and the people to be affected — thousands of men and women in the province — can have an opportunity to know the full implications. That's the strategy. You know, Mr. Speaker, we've had that strategy for years and

[ Page 614 ]

years in this province. It's time to end that. It's time to have decent consultation and trust.

[11:15]

The minister — and I expect he's very sincere — has said that he consulted, that he went around the province and met with interested parties. He believes he did a good job — I'm not going to doubt that; I'm not going to judge his sincerity. He may believe, and he obviously does believe, that he did a good job. But as hard as they work, and as many times as they talk to people, when they introduce a piece of legislation and get the results we are now getting in the province of British Columbia, even those who think they've done a sincere job have to step back and say: "Maybe we missed one or two points. Maybe there are some valid concerns being expressed. Just maybe."

Mr. Speaker, that is all we're saying: take a look at it. Take some time. We've been saying for years that we need a committee process that sees this kind of legislation discussed in a rational, intelligent way, rather than dumping it straight onto this floor, which, as you all know, can be the pressure cooker of the province of British Columbia. Which is okay, but when you are dealing with such important areas that run our province, that are central to our economic recovery, it takes time, it takes a balanced approach, and it takes an atmosphere where all the interested parties can get together with those who want to make changes — not an atmosphere of confrontation, but an atmosphere of trying to problem solve, trying to find solutions. That's all we're saying.

Maybe the minister — I'm not questioning his sincerity — in his desire to make changes may have missed a few points. Well, in our estimation, he missed quite a few.

Mr. Speaker, here we are in the House again, and we had the member for Vancouver–Point Grey trying to refute what we are saying, and everyone going back and forth; that's the system, and it works well. But I think we have to step back and sort out all the various pieces of information that we are using and quoting from various people. I could do it. The member for Vancouver East did it yesterday, very effectively — Prof. Allen. In that confusion sometimes, if you can sort it out, there are some opinions that have to be listened to. Again, what we are asking is for a degree of moderation in the approach to a very sensitive area: labour-management relations, the collective bargaining process.

Mr. Matkin has expressed concerns. I am not going to dwell upon that. His words still stand, Mr. Speaker.

MR. RABBITT: A dinosaur.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, he's a dinosaur. The member from wherever says Mr. Matkin is a dinosaur. The member is a dinosaur. I think Mr. Matkin will be interested in your comment, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, there is a feeling on this side of the House and in many areas of the province that this bill is being rushed, and that we need some time. That is what you promised in your election. That is what you promised as the Premier moved across the province during the election: we are not going to confront; we are not going to surprise people; we are going to take time to try to resolve our differences.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a couple of minutes to reiterate what was mentioned yesterday — some of Prof. Allen's comments. I think they are very useful in terms of the perception of this government. This legislation is based on two beliefs, according to Prof. Allen: that strikes are unusually severe in this province and that wages are excessively high. But the facts don't support that.

The facts are clear. B.C. has fewer strikes than central Canada, and our wages are not especially high. The statistics are there to back up those statements. In British Columbia we have less person-days lost per year than either Ontario or Quebec, or central Canada. Our wages in secondary manufacturing are less than Ontario, yet we don't appear to be at a disadvantage with our major industrial competitors. In service sector wages, we are below Ontario. What Prof. Allen points out is that the stereotyped perceptions that continue to be created by those on the other side are not accurate. Those kinds of statistics and that kind of analysis could be put into a committee process whereby all the viewpoints and all the information could be discussed within a more amicable framework. That's all we're saying.

Mr. Speaker, the captains of industry do tell that if you want investment, job creation and a flourishing economy, you have to have stability. You can't have the turmoil that we've had in the last few years. You can't have the confrontation. Perhaps the most important reason why we are asking for a delay in this legislation is that we are deeply concerned about its impact on the economy. Once again, the reputation that we develop outside our borders, and all that investment that we desperately require and want in this province.... The image outside is that this province hasn't changed. It's still a province that is destabilized; the various key components seem to be fighting with each other.

Well, we've got to stop that. We've got to stop confrontation. It's time for moderation. It's time for reason. It's time for a balanced approach to our problems and our problem-solving. It's time for fairness in this very important area of labour, of working people. It's time for a responsible approach to these critical issues. It's time to once and for all develop trust between government and the working people of the province. We need that, and we need some time to put things back on the track. Because with this legislation that engine of recovery is veering once again to the extreme right, and whatever this government says and whatever the member for Point Grey says she didn't say, this government is introducing more government control, more government on the backs of the people of British Columbia, and is walking into an area that traditionally has been an area where free collective bargaining is allowed to grow and flourish. We're asking this government to think, to reflect, to take some time and discuss with the experts that are sending a message.

They are sending a message: "Get back on the track. Don't do this without thinking about what you're doing." I support the delay; I support the hoist, and I think the people of British Columbia want that time. I ask the government members to search their minds and their hearts and to think about what they've been hearing over the last few weeks and support a consultative approach and a fair approach to this very important issue.

MRS. GRAN: I rise to speak against the hoist motion this morning. I'd like to preface my remarks with some perceptions from someone who is, I believe, an average British Columbian — myself. It has always been my perception that the NDP are supported by big labour and that they owe big labour a debt. Whether that's a reality or a perception, that's what I believe and that's what most British Columbians believe.

[ Page 615 ]

There is also the perception that the Social Credit Party is supported by business — small business, big business. So the perception in the public could well be that we're supported equally by special interest groups. What I'd like to point out is that this bill we've introduced has opposition from both big business and big labour, and I think that says that Social Credit doesn't owe anybody anything.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, recognizes average, everyday working people, both organized and unorganized. I feel very privileged to have been able to speak to the bill already, and that I have one last opportunity to speak to the bill through the hoist motion.

I'd like to say to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) that he put forward the best debate and opposition to the bill that we're currently talking about. I sympathize with someone as dedicated as that individual to the cause that he represents, and I have sympathy for people who come up against brick walls when they believe in something as strongly as that member does. I'd just like to say that I feel a little bit that way myself when someone from that side hurls "bible-puncher" at me. I feel very much the same way. The individual is not in the chamber right now, but I think that's something that we should all remember. Every one of us is here because we are committed to a cause. If we aren't, we shouldn't be here.

So I have sympathies for that side, for how they feel about this bill, and I'd like to bring up an analogy of what we're dealing with. I remember well the legislation introduced by the NDP government in the 1970s to do with the agricultural land reserve. That bill turned this province upside down, and I'm sure many members in this House will remember the opposition to that bill. I bring that up because I don't believe there's anybody in this room who would stand up publicly and speak out against that bill today.

The analogy that I'm trying to make here is that although the opposition is against this bill, it may well turn out to be a bill that you'll be proud to support someday, just as the Social Credit members are proud to support the ALR bill.

1 believe that the opposition has a unique opportunity to demonstrate the leadership that they would have us believe exists on that side of the House. Instead of assisting big labour in creating a war against this government, which will only hurt the people that we represent.... I heard that word "war" when watching part of the convention, and I recognize that the individual who used the word is not a member of this House, but nevertheless that is the kind of thing that is being said. I urge the members of the opposition to try in every way they can to stop both labour and business from creating a fuss in this province that is going to hurt everyone. I ask them to join us in voting against the hoist motion, and let's get on with debating the bill clause by clause and find out what really exists. Join us and give British Columbia a chance to work.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that this is not the first time that I feel good about some comments made by the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), both in the chamber and outside the chamber. I think if we all make some effort to be reasoned and calm in our discussions with each other, both publicly and privately, we will all feel better about ourselves, feel better about this job, and in fact make this place work more effectively, and hopefully, as an effect of that, make British Columbia work more effectively again.

[11:30]

In 1983, legislation was introduced in this House that did a lot of things. One of the bills had a clause in it which said, in effect, that public sector employees could be fired without just cause. That became a rallying point for discussion about the full package of legislation. Because of the public concern that was generated at that time about that and other issues, the government decided to pull back on some of the legislation, and in fact pull back on the section of that act that called for dismissal without just cause, where people could be fired at the whim of the employer.

I wonder if British Columbians and the members of this Legislature know that in one section of this bill, worded in a different way, that principle is back. Section 65(2.1), as proposed in section 35 of this bill, provides and allows for public sector employers to fire any of their employees without just cause. Proposed section 65(2.2) provides that a collective bargaining remedy can be implemented to deal with that issue so the employer won't have that right. No contract in British Columbia, to my knowledge, today has that particular clause, because they haven't faced the issue.

The day the bill is proclaimed, public sector employers will be able to fire public sector employees without just cause. That right to fire on that basis will continue until the employer and the employee agree to a collective contract that contains a remedy, as is provided for in section 65(2.2). But in the meantime, back in British Columbia on the date of proclamation on this particular bill — if it should pass and be proclaimed — we have a principle which was so repugnant to British Columbians in 1983 that 25,000 people came out here on the lawns to demonstrate their reaction. British Columbians today — and I suspect most members of this House don't recognize it themselves — have legislation that in that one respect is as bad. If I'm right about my interpretation of the proposed 65(2.2) — and I have had 13 lawyers advise me that I am right, because I've checked....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't hear you, I'm sorry.

If I'm right about that clause — and it was an implication of the bill that I didn't understand when I spoke in second reading last Tuesday because then we'd only had three or four days to consider it.... If I'm right about that clause, and lawyers tell me I am, then I think there is no more compelling argument for delay. How many more clauses are there in the bill that are equally not understood or known to the public? One of the most compelling arguments for taking some time with this legislation is that it, in fact, contains 25 or 30 different clauses which at best are difficult to comprehend, at best will be argued about for some time to come.

The argument should take place prior to the words becoming law so that we know what it is we intend by the lawmaking. If we make the decision, if we have the arguments about what the words mean after the fact, then the debate will take place in the context of the new Industrial Relations Council. The debate will take place there about a specific issue that might have been raised or has been brought forward to the council. We will be passing to this non-elected but appointed by order-in-council body the right to make a decision about what it is the law intends.

I think parliament should decide what it is it intends. If parliament is going to do that, and it should, and I think most members if not all would agree to that, then we need some time to consider what it is these clauses mean.

[ Page 616 ]

I've talked to lawyers until I've been blue in the face this last week or ten days, and talking to lawyers sometimes muddies your head a little bit. But I've done it because I've been concerned about my inability — and I've had some experience with these kinds of laws — to understand what the intent might have been and what the effect of the new law will be. I've talked to lawyers and they say, in a perplexed way: "We don't know either. We think that the drafters" — not the politicians, but the people who wrote the words — "had this intent; the politicians we think had the other intent, and we don't know which particular intent is going to fly. And it will depend upon the nature of the people who make the decision: the people on the Industrial Relations Council."

That's not good enough. We should be deciding here, in parliament or in a committee of parliament, that we agree about what it is the law means. And if we agree — by majority — upon an intent, we should be certain that we agree that the intent is covered by the words. That isn't the case in this particular section. And that's why I started my comments with the reference to 65(2.1), which reintroduces, as I've said before, the whole question of firing without cause. People can be fired without cause under that section. Enough lawyers have told me that that's correct for me to believe it.

Perhaps in a long debate in a forum where a professional opinion can be solicited — which is a committee of the House, not a Committee of the Whole House — we could ascertain one way or the other whether I'm right. If it's the government's intention to accomplish that purpose, that's one thing: we'll oppose it and we'll have a debate about it — fine. But if it's not the government's intention to accomplish that purpose, then wouldn't you like to find out, by some process, now, prior to proclamation, so that the issue doesn't come up after harming people's lives in the meantime and so you don't have to deal with it by legislation at a subsequent session? That's compelling argument, in a bill as complex as this one, for thorough and informed discussion, hearing from people who have some knowledge about the issues. And we can't do that in here in Committee of the Whole. We can do that through a parliamentary committee. The government may choose not to pursue that option; it may decide that it isn't happy about the potential political consequences of a committee of this House traveling. I can understand that, and with a bill this important I'm prepared to say: "Right, if you decide for political reasons not to do that but rather to choose a quieter mechanism to consult with the people in the community — all people; not just labour and management, but others too — if you decide to do that in some other way, bypassing the opposition, I would say go to it. Because this bill is so important, and its consequences so far-reaching, if that process would make the government aware of the implications, then I would say go to it. Some course of action of that kind needs to be undertaken.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

1 make that point in respect of 65(2.1), and I could make the same point with respect to a number of other issues. I'll just pick up another one for example. Section 70 of the bill, the retroactivity clause, allows for an incredible precedent in Canadian law. If you read that section combined with some other sections, decisions of the Labour Relations Board made any time in the last 13 or 14 years of its existence can be appealed, with no time limit on appeals. So somebody may have lost a decision five years ago; that decision will now be able to be appealed to the new council under this law, and a new decision made retroactively.

If I'm driving down the Island Highway and the speed limit says 80 km/h, and I'm driving 80 km/h and a policeman passes me and doesn't give me a ticket, and then a week later the speed limit changes to 50 km/h, that policeman comes back to me and says: "Last week I passed you doing 80. The speed limit is 50." I say to him: "Last week when I was doing 80 the speed limit was 80." He says: "Oh, that's fine. We've got a law that retroactively changed the speed limits. It's now 50. I'm giving you a ticket." A bizarre principle. No one would accept that lawmakers should have the right to do that. In our justice system that's repugnant and wrong, and it just doesn't happen. You don't get a speeding ticket retroactively.

This bill has that provision, by analogy. Section 70 of this bill, read with some other sections, has that principle: retroactive decisions can be made. I think the courts will throw it out, quite frankly. That's the advice I have on that question. Section after section, and we'll get to this — I hope not in Committee of the Whole, but rather in parliamentary committee..... However we get to it, we're going to get to it section by section. I could make these kinds of arguments about these issues on so many of these different clauses that parliamentarians — members of my caucus, members of the government caucus and I — don't fully understand yet.

For the government to move at the pace that it's moving to bring in a bill on a Thursday and begin debate on Tuesday morning, four or five days later, to rush it through, to reject calls for some delay, some consultation.... I don't expect you to vote for the hoist motion. I'm realistic enough to know that's not how this place works. But I do appeal, as strongly and, let me say, as non-politically as.... You may not choose to believe me about this, but I mean it: the best politics for me is for you to rush this bill through, proclaim it and watch the public reaction develop, which will lead to throwing you out. I'm actually not interested in the best politics in terms of this particular legislation, because it impacts on people's lives so greatly.

Let me give you another example. If a worker or a group of workers decide in good conscience that they cannot live with a decision made by Mr. Peck or the new council, and they don't obey it, or they obey it slowly, don't obey it fully or take a day to put the order into effect, who deals with that disobedience? Do the courts deal with it? Does the Industrial Relations Council deal with it in a judicious and judicial way under this act? No. Do you know who has the right to deal with the "lawbreaking"? The employer. Under this act, the employer can fire that employee, and that employee has no right to arbitration. An arbitration board can consider only one question. The simple and single question open to the arbitrator is: did the employee in fact refuse or fail to obey the order? The answer is yes; the firing stands. The arbitrator has no power, as arbitrators do in law in our country now, to vary the penalty. The penalty is that you lose your job. An arbitrator can't come in and say: "That penalty is too severe for that particular action. I recommend that it be a six-month or a six-week suspension," as they now have the right to do. Under this law, the employer can fire; the arbitration board can't vary the suspension. And the employee is gone, fired, for a "crime" or a violation of law that might warrant some penalty but may not warrant such a severe penalty.

[ Page 617 ]

Arbitration law is full of that kind of case. Yet here we have said that the mechanism for enforcement of this particular provision isn't the courts, isn't the Industrial Relations Council, but is the employer. The employee's rights to appeal are circumscribed so narrowly that in effect they don't exist.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It's taken 15 minutes to describe just three examples, and they're not necessarily the most severe. There are many, many more.

[11:45]

I don't believe the public knows about this law yet, and as I said a few minutes ago, I don't believe most members of this House know about all the implications yet. If they don't and we don't, what right do we have to be passing the law? Even if it takes another week for second reading debate and another week or so after that for committee stage, I don't believe that in that two or three weeks the full implications of this are going to be known.

I just want to talk about a few other things, which I think are all reasons as well for delay. Both delay and consultation are what are required. Consultation obviously would provide a form of delay.

There was reference this morning in an effective speech by the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), in which she nailed a little bit of us to the wall quite effectively. There was a bit of crying wolf, I think, in '73, and if you cry wolf, sometimes you get caught — and there you go. I give her some marks for having nailed a little bit of jelly to the wall. I don't entirely agree with her, obviously; her quotations were selective. Nevertheless, I think it wasn't bad. I wish more members on the other side had had the ability to enter into effective debate. I wish, frankly, that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey had gone beyond just one or two points and had dealt with some of the more significant issues of the legislation, some of the principles that are being implemented here. She didn't, but that's fair enough. We may get into that later on.

I want to go back to '73, as she did. When that legislation was brought in, it was brought in following three or four years of labour turmoil. We call it labour turmoil; in fact, it is industrial relations turmoil. Why was there turmoil? There was turmoil because government of the day had intervened and established a mechanism that labour couldn't live with, the Mediation Commission Act; combined with, in many ways as important an issue, the fact that labour relations questions were being decided in the courts, and they were often decided in the courts on ex parte applications and by judges who had no knowledge of or connection with labour issues. Labour people felt that they were being dealt with very unfairly, and the reaction to that and the distaste of having the courts involved in labour relations was such that, combined with the compulsory arbitration involved in the mediation commission, a revolt against the system developed. It led to some ugly scenes, including one in New Westminster where a cabinet minister was involved — ugly scenes that shouldn't happen in our society.

Why did they happen? They happened because there was compulsory arbitration, and because of the courts' involvement. So a major focus of the 1973 Code — in fact its essential principle — was to take labour relations questions out of the courts and put them into a quasi-judicial body, the Labour Relations Board, which would act as a court. A privative clause was written into that bill that severely circumscribed the court's ability to involve itself in labour relations. Obviously, courts can get involved; they have the final right. But the privative clause was quite detailed and specific.

As a result of that decision to get out of the courts, which was the underlying element in the Labour Code of 1973.... Every member of this House, including me, voted for it in second reading. Everybody in the labour community, both labour and management, supported the decision to get it out of the courts. As a result of that, labour-management relations began to calm down and to develop the maturity which still hasn't completely reached maturation — if I can create an awkward sentence here — a process toward maturation that I think has only recently been coming together. So what do we have now? We have a bill that introduces in a different form compulsory arbitration. That takes us back to 1968-72. We don't have a raw mediation commission in the same way. We give this new commissioner different kinds of power but essentially he has, should he choose, the same powers that the mediation commission had and, by a variety of changes to the Code, we also throw it back into the court.

We weaken the privative clause; without the council's discretion we allow employers to file decisions in the courts. We allow suits to be launched without the council having the right to say yes or no, so it's wide open to both sides, labour and management, wide open to the courts again on at least three.... Those are three sections of the bill that allow for that, and I think there are one or two others. So what have we got? We've got a situation where we're back in the courts — although not to the same extent as 1968-72. I'm not going to weaken my argument by overstating it if I can help it. It was wide open to the courts then.

There wasn't an adjudicative body with any clout then. There was one, but it didn't have the kind of clout that the board has or the kind of clout, in fact, that the new council has. I'll make those arguments at another time. So it's not as clear and overt as it was then, but it won't be very long before every decision ends up in the courts. The Paccar decision ended up in the courts on a trade union application. I'm not sure that those kinds of decisions should be in the courts. That's a labour relations question: does a contract end when the contract termination date arrives, or does it end when the strike or lockout occurs, or does it end when a new contract is imposed?

That's a question for labour law; that's not a question for the Supreme Court of Canada. But we've been edging back into the courts. This opens it wide again. I don't know why — I'm just trying to be calm and reasonable about this — the government would want a return to 1968-72.

Just reflecting on other questions that have been raised in the debate, questions such as we need to bring in a law like this so that we can have less turmoil and less disruption in our economy, think about the times when there has been the most disruption in terms of how the international investor or the local investor would view the turmoil. Think about what caused it, and in every instance the reaction to British Columbia's labour "problems" is caused by government initiatives. We had trouble in '59; we had trouble during the sixties — the Bill 42, Bill 43 debates. We had trouble again in '68-72 with the mediation commission bill; and I'm going to admit there was trouble over the Bill King bill — less warranted, I

[ Page 618 ]

think now in retrospect, than it should have been, but there was trouble. There was trouble during late '79 — again government intervention, government initiative. The '83 package, while it wasn't dealing with labour law, dealt with it on the fringe — again, trouble. In '84 we had that package of amendments to the Labour Code.

Those have been the issues, and again now today, that have caused our reputation. Why is it that we have this bad reputation? It is not because we have more strikes and lockouts. We don't; we have fewer. It's been said by other members, and the documentation is there, that there are fewer strikes and lockouts, fewer person-days lost than other provinces in this country over the last five years. You can pick isolated years where it's not true, but on the average it's the case in the last decade. This is not caused because of our high wage structure. We don't have the highest wage structure in Canada anymore.

I guess I just want to make the point simply: the problems that we've had have been created by government initiative, not by labour or management activity that they've initiated. It's been their response occasionally which has heightened the activity.

So if the government, Mr. Speaker, has a genuine concern — and I said in second reading that I thought it had — for developing a climate in our economy which is harmonious, one where people from outside can see that we get along here, that it's a good place to do business, then if that's the genuine goal and objective, shouldn't some thought be given to how you accomplish that goal and that objective? A decision to repeat the mistakes, especially the mistakes of 1968 and 1983, doesn't make any sense. Those mistakes were counterproductive in terms of the goal. I would argue that this bill is counterproductive in terms of that particular goal. That shouldn't be the only goal of labour law.

Labour law is not an economic initiative, or it shouldn't be, although I know some right-wing economists in the United States argue that labour law should be used as a tool of the economy, and the designers of the economy should strengthen and weaken labour law depending on what they want to have happen in the economy. So I don't accept that particular view.

But if the government does want labour law to play a role in economic issues, and I can understand that it might, then wouldn't it want to accomplish its goals, rather than subverting its goals? That is what I just don't understand. The outrage, the reaction that is beginning to come from people who see this legislation, is only the tip of an iceberg. When clause by clause study takes place in the public, and they see what changes have been invoked, there will be far more outrage and far more reaction and far more devastation to our economy than we presently envision. I hate to say that, but I can virtually guarantee it. It is an inevitable reaction to this.

The minister started this debate in the House in first reading by saying that this bill does not bring in double-breasting; this bill eliminates CSP; and this bill gives teachers a right to strike. All three of those assertions are wrong, and careful reading of this legislation will demonstrate that.

Double-breasting is wide open for big employers in section 37. Double-breasting is wide open for small employers in section 53, and I intend to demonstrate that case during clause by clause. CSP is included in the bill, the ability to pay is there, and the powers of the commissioner are as wide as they were. The teachers' right to strike is circumscribed by the mechanism given to Mr. Peck. I'm sure they'll have the right to strike from July 1 to August 31 every year if they want. They won't have it from September 1 to June 30.

AN HON. MEMBER: A couple of weeks at Christmas.

MR. GABELMANN: And a couple of weeks at Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have time to say more. I certainly have more to say — much, much more. I won't take the time now. I've tried, in what I hope has been a calm, reasonable and rational way, to say to the government that this is bigger than just a political debate between this side and that side of the House; that the implications of this legislation are larger, more profound. For those reasons, delay and consultation of one sort or another are essential.

[12:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, in the galleries, it is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Ron Downey of West Vancouver. And I noticed one of my constituents hiding behind the pole up there: the chairman of the greater Vancouver real estate board, Mr. Ted Burnham. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.