[ Page 619 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Committee on privatization. Mr. Sihota –– 619

Lunch program in schools. Mr. Cashore –– 619

Mr. Clark

Funding of post-secondary education. Ms. Campbell –– 620

Committee on privatization. Mr. Sihota –– 620

Social housing. Ms. Marzari –– 620

Mr. Cashore

Hospice for AIDS victims. Mrs. Boone –– 621

Committee on privatization. Mr. Williams –– 621

Ministry of Highways subcontractors. Hon. L. Hanson replies to question –– 621

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987. Second reading

On the amendment

Hon. L. Hanson –– 621

Mr. G. Hanson –– 621

Division –– 625

On the main motion

Mr. S.D. Smith –– 625

Mr. Clark –– 627

Mr. Rabbitt –– 630

Mr. Miller –– 631

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 634

Mr. Lovick –– 635

Mr. Jacobsen –– 638

Mr. Sihota –– 640

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery on the east side today is a very distinguished gentleman who met with you earlier in the day and is meeting with me, the Premier and other members of cabinet as the day progresses. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Rashed Saleern Khan, who is a counsellor and charge d'affaires of Pakistan and who's now situated in Ottawa.

MR. BLENCOE: In the precincts today, and in the gallery later on, we have a group of seniors from the James Bay Lodge here in Victoria, in James Bay just to the south of us. They will be listening and watching with interest, and they are accompanied by Mr. Stein from the James Bay Lodge. Will the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery today are three representatives of the B.C. Recreation and Parks Association — three hard-working volunteers: the president, Kevin Pike; the executive director, Bill Webster; and the past president, Bob Vaughan. Would the House please make these gentlemen welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL: In the gallery today are students from grades 11 and 12 from Fraser Academy in Vancouver, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. de Putter, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. GRAN: In the gallery today we have Dr. Jim Cunningham from Trinity Western University and his wife Rita, who is a nurse at Langley Memorial Hospital. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. JACOBSEN: We have with us today Mayor Danny Griffin from Maple Ridge and Mr. Jerry Sulina, the administrator from the district of Maple Ridge. Would the House welcome them, please.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In the precincts today are the members of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission and also the executive of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Yesterday I had the great pleasure of introducing my youngest son; today I have another son, Steven, with us in the precincts, and his guest, Colleen Williams. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a constituent from the great constituency of Comox, a resident of the town of Comox, Mrs. Shirley Robb.

MR. R. FRASER: It's with great pleasure that I introduce the vice-president of the Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia, a group that's contributed much to the province. Would the House please welcome Frank Willis.

Oral Questions

COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, if he's in the House. Yesterday a task force was announced that would be looking into the matter of privatization. The minister at the time indicated in his press release that those who had participated in the task force will be allowed to acquire corporations that are privatized. The question is: does the minister consider it proper for these people to use insider information to then turn around and acquire enterprises that they recommend be privatized?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's an excellent question and, on behalf of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers), I'll take it on notice.

LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. During the debate on his estimates, the minister made the rather disturbing and shocking assertion — and I quote from Hansard — that: "...the superintendent of child welfare is not an advocate for children." Can the minister confirm that this unfortunate misunderstanding of his department's responsibilities is the reason for his failure to do anything other than review the problem of thousands of B.C. children going to school hungry every day?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, the member is confusing two issues that are entirely separate. Technically the statement is correct: the superintendent is not an advocate for children.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. The Premier has repeatedly assured us that the minister is accumulating information on the extent of this crisis. Is the minister planning to make a full report on this crisis to this assembly today? If not, when will he stop studying this situation and start acting?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, the superintendent is there to administer the Family and Child Service Act, an act that is much misunderstood. If the member would read the act, I'm sure he would understand what the responsibilities are of the superintendent.

In answer to the second question — am I prepared to make a statement to the House on the situation today — the answer is no. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and tell this Legislature and the people of British Columbia that my staff have been looking into this situation for quite some time. We are very aware of the extent, the nature and the location of the problem, and in due course we will be making recommendations to deal with it.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Minister of Social Services. The attitude of the government, of the minister in particular, has prompted the Vancouver School Board to keep secret the identities of hungry children for fear they will be taken away. Has the minister decided to instruct his officials

[ Page 620 ]

to stop intimidating educators and parents, and to deal with the real problem?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I am really surprised and shocked that the president of the largest school board in British Columbia would not make contact with my ministry to find out exactly what we do in this ministry and how we function. It surprises me that he would make irresponsible statements, such as he did make in regard to the operation of this ministry. I think he has brought into disrepute the professional people in my ministry and has cast a doubt on their abilities and their function. I think before a president of a school board, an elected person, makes statements like that, he or she should find out exactly how this ministry functions.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the minister. It is precisely because of the attitude and the comments of the minister and the government that the school board has no confidence. The questions that are being raised by social workers to principals clearly indicate a trend towards apprehension, and that kind of attitude on the side of the government. It is time now for the minister to make a clear statement....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member get to his question, please.

MR. CLARK: Will the minister make a clear statement now that instructs school boards across this province that they have no intention of dealing with the problem by apprehension, but rather by introducing some kind of school-based nutrition program?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the professionals in my ministry have one goal in mind when dealing with children and families: to keep the family unit together. Statements made by the chairman of the Vancouver School Board and others, including that member, that my professionals are intimidating people and heading towards apprehension are completely concocted and a figment of their imagination — done for purposes, I would suspect, other than the welfare of the children.

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training. It is some time since the minister dissolved the Universities Council of British Columbia. Would the minister advise the House as to what processes he has put in place or will be putting in place to ensure the coordination of funding of our post-secondary institutions?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. The Universities Council was dissolved as of April 15, as a matter of fact. It is being replaced with the University Advisory Council, which I have appointed; I will be announcing the names shortly, probably this afternoon. It will be advising the minister on university matters of any kind.

COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier. Yesterday the government announced the formation of a committee on privatization. I'm wondering if the Premier could kindly give this House an assurance that none of the participants on that committee will be allowed to acquire any of the entities or enterprises that are recommended for privatization.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I can't.

MR. SIHOTA: If the Premier cannot give us that assurance, can the Premier give us an assurance instead that all of those who will be participating on the task force will be required to file full disclosure statements consistent with the act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I can't.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary to the Premier. Under the provisions of the Municipal Act, aldermen and members of municipal councils are immune from entering into contracts that they can benefit from whilst they're on councils. Ought the same principle not apply to those who are serving on this committee?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, these members have been sought out — they're volunteers, they certainly have a great deal to offer the province and the people of British Columbia, and at the end of the assessment process, which the committee might be involved with, we could potentially go to a tendering for the various things. It could be privatized, but no decisions have been made in that regard, nor will they be made for at least some time.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary. Does the Premier see no conflict or potential conflict in the fact that some of these people on this committee are going to be setting prices for the sale of these corporations? Is it not in their interest then to set the lowest price so they can turn around and acquire it? Is it not a potential conflict for them to have access to this insider information?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I now, Mr. Speaker, appreciate why the questioning. Obviously the member doesn't realize the intent of the committee. It's not the intent of the committee to establish the price.

SOCIAL HOUSING

MS. MARZARI: This question is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Recently the minister made the announcement that in 1987 we would develop 1,886 units for needy British Columbians. Now we've decided not to go ahead with North Park on False Creek because it's not seen somehow as commercially viable. Did the government or the department develop plans for social housing units on the B.C. Place site? If so, what is the status of those plans today?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To the best of my knowledge and recollection, none of the units planned for this year were planned for that site.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary. In this United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, governments throughout North America are recognizing the problem and coming forward with some very imaginative programs for

[ Page 621 ]

those who live in substandard housing. Why is this government refusing to take action to provide decent, affordable shelter for the people who need it, and why is this government refusing to put the construction industry back on its feet with a major housing development on the B.C. Place site?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again, the member seems to mix two or three subjects into one question. The responsibility for the B.C. Place site lies with another minister, so I would recommend that he ask his questions of the appropriate minister. We are building this year, as your own member just said, 1,886 social housing units, the great majority of which are in the lower mainland. They are built in the areas, of course, where the need is the greatest and where the vacancy rate is the lowest.

The United Nations year of the homeless pertains mainly — and I have read some of the papers written on it — to Third World countries. Even where it does overlap into industrialized western countries, the problem is far greater in areas other than in British Columbia.

HOSPICE FOR AIDS VICTIMS

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Health. On March 19 in this assembly, the minister was asked about his intentions to build a hospice for AIDS patients in Vancouver. At that time, you said you were considering it. Has the minister completed his review, and are you making plans to provide a hospice in Vancouver for AIDS victims?

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, I did mention that we were considering it, and we are still looking around for a location. It's still under review.

COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION

MR. WILLIAMS: Will the Premier not reconsider his previous answers in terms of the insider information that will be available to this committee that will not be available to other potential buyers for the Crown corporations? Can the Premier assure us, with respect to B.C. Place and the Enterprise Corporation, that the members of that board will not be allowed to acquire any of the assets or land of B.C. Place either, where the same conflict potential exists?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can assure the hon. member that all things will be dealt with fairly and honestly.

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS SUBCONTRACTORS

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a question that was put to me recently by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) regarding the hiring practices of certain contractors working on the access road to the Alex Fraser Bridge.

I believe the hon. member tabled a copy of the form and it contemplates a contractor/subcontractor relationship between the contractors and an unnamed party. The form also provides for an exclusion or a release for the contractors as it relates to any union involvement or agreements that pertain to the second party. On the face of the form there is nothing illegal about that arrangement, except if it were determined that under the Labour Code or the Employment Standards Act the second party to that agreement was in fact an employee or had a dependent contractor relationship. If any persons who have signed a form of that type have concern that they do fall into the category of the employee or dependent contractor relationship, I would suggest that they take that concern to the Labour Relations Board for a determination of their status. Of course, the agreement would be null and void if that were the determination.

Orders of the Day

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. L. HANSON: I rise to speak against the hoist motion.

Interjections.

HON. L. HANSON: Does that surprise you?

In Bill 19 it's obvious that we have not chosen sides, either with labour or management. We have recognized the public interest and the democratic rights of the individual, and we believe those are keynotes in Bill 19.

I believe the statement was made by members of the opposition that the 1973 Code was introduced after consensus was reached. I would suggest to members on the other side that they refer to their research department and get some clippings relating to the introduction of the 1973 Code. If they read those, they will certainly see that no consensus was arrived at.

There were also words said to the effect that the commissioner of the new disputes resolution council was receiving too much money — too much "pay" was the word, I believe. I would suggest to hon. members that they get copies of the B.C. Federation of Labour and B.C. Business Council presentations, because one of the concerns expressed in both was that we did not recognize the importance of some of the positions currently held by labour relations people and were thus not able to attract the best people to those particular jobs. We have responded to that by putting it in the legislation that the pay for that commissioner is tied to a Supreme Court judge's stipend.

[2:30]

As a result of many briefs, we on this side of the House wish to withdraw the compensation stabilization plan, the Essential Service Disputes Act and the Public Sector Restraint Act. Any delay will delay the withdrawal of those particularly onerous acts, as related to me by many of the presenters.

I believe that government is expected to act. I believe that delay will only emphasize uncertainty. I believe that we must put mechanisms in place that are clear, so that everyone understands the rules of the game and British Columbia can get on with its growth, as it should. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the House and to members on the other side that there should be no further delay. We should get on with the debate and thence into committee, where we can deal with individual items piece by piece.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, as members know, we have had some substantial debate initiated by this side of the

[ Page 622 ]

House, asking in our hoist motion that the government consider the advisability of withdrawing this legislation for six months. This motion was made in good faith, based on the concerns being expressed on a daily basis throughout British Columbia.

As you know, this piece of legislation takes us back well before the introduction of the Labour Code of British Columbia in 1973, closer to the time around 1968 when Bill 33, the Mediation Commission Act, was introduced. The net result of that 1968 legislation, which was ostensibly introduced to create labour peace in the province — in much the same way as the rhetoric of the government around this piece of legislation suggests it was introduced to create labour peace and prosperity — was to increase the number of strikes in British Columbia by 500 percent.

We are asking the government in this motion, we are imploring the government, to take the time because of the size of this bill. This bill has 75 clauses, each one of which individually has an impact on various industrial unions, craft unions and public sector unions. In fact, this bill impacts every aspect of work life in the province of British Columbia.

Why would the government at the very start of its mandate — a government that went to the electorate in October 1986 and received a mandate — be in such haste to alter and affect in every way, and in a negative way, work life in our province? Mr. Speaker, each clause is so far-reaching in its implications that we are only now finding out some of the impacts that this language will have. It has only come to our attention in the last number of hours and days that this bill will actually have the same effect as Bill 3, introduced in 1983 in those horrible months when the budget and the 26 bills were introduced here in this House in the restraint package. Bill 3, which was one of those 26 bills, authorized the firing of workers in the public sector without cause — in other words, firefighters, police officers, government workers, teachers, people working directly for Crown corporations or for the public service. The language was to authorize firing without cause — to expedite restraint.

In spite of the opposition mounted on this side of the House — and many members sitting in this House can recall the all-night sittings, the travesty of sitting all night to ramrod legislation through and to bring about such odious provisions as firing without just cause — it is now brought to our attention that the net result of section 35 of Bill 19 will have exactly the same force and effect as the firing without cause that was in Bill 3.

The public, the organized workforce and the unorganized workforce of this province have the right to express their concerns to the minister and to this government. Yes, the minister held public meetings; but you know, Mr. Speaker, when I read his report and when I see the philosophy expressed in the minister's report of February 28, 1987 entitled, "Labour Legislation Review: A Report of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services to the Premier of British Columbia," I see no connection whatsoever between the philosophy expressed, the goals and objectives that the new government was attempting to achieve, and the provisions and the language of this bill.

Somehow, Mr. Speaker, when the cabinet minister who was stewarding this bill went to cabinet, he did not get support for the approach that he wanted to take. It's clear in his report that he wanted a more consultative approach between unions, business and government. It's in the interest of all three parties to have stable, predictable and peaceful labour relations in this province.

Let me read you a couple of the paragraphs from his report, which laid out what the government was attempting to achieve. I think that his comments were commendable, but you'll see from my specific examples in the bill that there is no connection whatsoever between the philosophy and the language legislated and put before this House. He says on page 5:

"Any law, without the support or at least the acquiescence of the majority of those whom it purports to affect, will inevitably be opposed, and this opposition will guarantee, in this case, the failure of the larger objective."

What he was saying is what is echoed throughout every modem industrial state that has sensible labour relations — in Scandinavia and in Europe where they are much further ahead of us, and where we were trying to catch up with the Labour Code. When the Labour Code was introduced in 1973, yes, it was a tough time, and the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) was correct when she pointed out that not everybody agreed at that point on the implications of that Code. But you know, Mr. Speaker, the objective, not only in philosophy but in the language of the bill, was to provide a balance between workers and the employers, to provide some balance in equal power so that they would be forced to negotiate at the table, that there would be direction to seek agreement to negotiate on behalf of the employees, and the employers' interests would be somewhat in balance.

It's a delicate balance. It's a balance that's being sought all over the modem world. When the balance was tipped as it was in the Mediation Commission Act of 1968, no reasonable purpose was achieved. What was achieved was industrial chaos. That is exactly what we do not need in this province, Mr. Speaker. We want labour peace; we want stability. We want job creation, We want investment. We want rational economic policies and strategies. We want a modern approach that involves workers in an industrial democracy. But what is happening, Mr. Speaker, in this bill is a rolling back of the clock from what was done in 1983, in the amendments to the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, under Bill 3, and so on. Now we've gone back to around 1968 under the Mediation Commission Act.

Mr. Speaker, I had the Legislative Library do some clippings, because at that time, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, we did not have a Hansard in this House; we did not have a verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this House; all we have are newspaper clippings. Looking through that debate — which was led in opposition by a member of this side of the House, a very fine member by the name of Rae Eddie, from New Westminster — this side of the House pointed out that progressive labour relations in this province would not be achieved. And their arguments were borne out to be true. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the arguments we are making to the government, in imploring them to withdraw this bill because of the negative impact it will have on our economy and because of the lack of sufficient consultation with all affected parties in the community, will have the same effect. This province does not need that kind of disruption in our labour relations.

Mr. Speaker, let me just read you a couple more comments from the Labour minister's report. On page 4 he says: "...while these attitudes cannot be created by legislation,

[ Page 623 ]

they can be destroyed by legislation which does not allow the parties to reasonably advance their own interests, or which subjects one party to unfair or unequal treatment compared with the other." This is how the minister summarizes the views of a widely encountered segment of responsible opinion, both business, labour and ordinary people.

We're hearing a lot about the Business Council of the province, the Business Council and its president, Mr. Matkin. The Business Council is a council of representatives of the very largest corporations and industries in the province of British Columbia: the forest industries, the mining industries, the railroads, and so on. It is a who's-who list, in terms of the largest corporations in our province. As I said, those individuals in the Business Council have one overriding interest and that is to have predictability and stability in the economic environment of British Columbia. They talk on a daily basis with corporations all over the world that are interested in our products, in investment here, and in doing business in the province of British Columbia. They want stable labour relations, Mr. Speaker. Internationally, the Business Council has a network that send signals to each other on stability. They have sent, through the president, a signal to the government that this legislation is a minefield that they really don't need, and that the clauses within this bill harbour a sense of foreboding.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour minister stated that he felt that the interested parties — the labour movement, the business community and government.... Unless there was widespread consensus and support for provisions of labour legislation, it would not work. So why doesn't the government heed the communication that is being expressed from this side of the House and give the people of the province six months' breathing space, six months' reflection, on this bill? And the various sections of it that should be pulled out would be allowed to be pulled out at committee stage of the bill.

Based on the reaction so far, Mr. Speaker, does the government seriously argue that there is no danger of disruption of relationships and that the longer-term investment climate is being put at risk by this bill? The commission is similar in structure to the days of the Mediation Commission of 1968-72, during which levels of disruption due to lockouts and strikes went up 500 percent, compared to the period immediately preceding the passage of that act.

Mr. Speaker, this minister has admitted in this House that when you make strikes illegal, that doesn't mean you're going to be without strikes. It just means that the strikes are outside of the law, which makes them that much more dangerous. Labour historians have shown us, even in recent history.... For example, when the B. C. Ferry workers did not have the right to strike, we had job action on the ferries. That just put the job action in a dangerous situation outside of the domain of law. What the Labour Code did was to codify the procedures of labour legislation to provide for a disputes resolution procedure that would make things within the law. It is dangerous when action occurs without the law. Members in this House are lawmakers and must always advocate for action within the law. But for anyone to assume that because the right to strike is withdrawn in law we will not have strikes is foolish and is taking us down a road which is fraught with danger.

[2:45]

I alluded at the beginning of my remarks to only recently determining that section 35 of this bill essentially reintroduces firing without cause. Let me try to explain. Again, this is an extremely complex bill. I would ask every member to refer to section 35 of the bill. This refers specifically to the public sector, because the amendment gives statutory authority to the government or any body.

All members of this House are aware that a municipality, a school board, or any other statutory authority established by this House that has the discretion to hire and fire staff, by section 35, is given the provision to override a collective agreement. What that means is it just turns on its head what previously was in existence, that collective agreements had in place the disputes resolution procedure: what took place when an employee was suspended; what took place when an employee was terminated or dismissed; and what rights that employee had; what appeal through a grievance procedure and through arbitration for reinstatement; or to have the burden of proof on the employer for just cause. But what happens now is that any statutory authority that can hire or fire can override collective agreements.

The net effect will be that all of the collective agreements that are in place — say, for example, the hospital workers, the union of public employees, the government's own employees, the professional employees, the nurses, and so on.... The various school boards and boards that administer the collective agreements, under the provisions of the proposed section 35, can override the collective agreement, and the gap between the expiry of the collective agreement and this legislation coming in before the expiration of the agreement means that the employees are at risk to firing without cause. That is the legal opinion that has been obtained on this section. I don't think that the government has thought this through sufficiently. That is why we're moving this hoist.

Section 35 alone is one of the most dangerous provisions of this bill, because it puts all public sector workers at risk from arbitrary actions of an employer without just cause. In every modem society, certainly every society under the umbrella of the United Nations— the industrial-labour relations community of the United Nations — every employee is entitled to just cause for suspension and termination. Otherwise what do we have? People arriving at night in a black limousine, driving a nail into your door with a placard on it saying: "Goodbye"?

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am upset about this particular section 35 is because as the debate leader for this side of the House when Bill 3 came in, I had the responsibility for speaking on that bill. As some members will recall, one morning, at about 4 a.m., I had to speak for two hours straight on a hoist motion. I was the last speaker on the hoist. Then we went into second reading and I had to speak seven and a half hours in a row in opposition to that bill. And now it's back in section 35 of Bill 19. I'm very angry about it. What right does this government have to do this kind of thing?

We've implored this government to be rational, and we've been calm. But for heaven's sake, what kind of industrial relations are we going to have in this province if section 35 of Bill 19 passes? I'll bet you that most of those backbenchers sitting there receiving their scripted speeches from Social Credit research aren't even aware of the implications of section 35.

The reason we have this provision is that there's been inadequate consultation with all sectors of our society. The labour movement is upset about it. So the government says: "So what? They have a vested interest. It's just the leadership." Mr. Speaker, it is ordinary British Columbians who

[ Page 624 ]

have come together in free association in the trade union movement. British Columbia has a long and noble history of ordinary people coming together and seeking to better their working conditions — their conditions of safety, their pay and their benefits. We've traditionally had a large portion of the workforce organized into unions. This government says that's a bad thing. This opposition, the New Democratic Party, says individual rights are the rights of individuals to freely associate themselves into a union to protect themselves and to benefit themselves — for safe working conditions, for pay and for other benefits. There has always been in British Columbia a direct spinoff of those health and other benefits to the broader community, and the people of British Columbia have always benefited from the strength of working people to protect themselves from the relatively few corporations that people work for in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we have put forward a hoist motion to call on the government to consider this bill six months hence. Our debate leader on this bill, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), is very well acquainted with labour law, and has done a very fine job in this House representing the opposition.

I would like to just touch on a couple of clauses, Mr. Speaker. When people are in a work environment.... Let's just say, for example, that the employer, for one reason or another, has been abusing his employees, and those employees decide in a free vote that they want to organize themselves into a union. It was always accepted by the Labour Code, and by every other modern jurisdiction in northern Europe or Scandinavia, that the employer should not interfere with the democratic rights of employees to assemble, to discuss and to decide democratically among themselves if they wished to have a union. Now we have in this new bill a section, called section 5, which allows the employer to wage a campaign against the presence of a union and indirectly intimidate the employees into not joining a union. They have the audacity to call this a freedom-of speech clause. This is a greatly expanded employer right. The old Code took the view that the decision to join a union was a decision that the employees took about their legal....

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my understanding is that we are on a hoist motion to the main motion on the bill, and that subsequent to that we get into committee for clause-by-clause study. My impression of the speech by the hon. member from Victoria is that he's doing a clause-by-clause study now and is possibly out of order.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the comment of the Whip, but I think he realizes at the same time that the reason we are asking for consideration of this bill six months hence is precisely the ill-conceived language of the 78 clauses of Bill 19, one of which directly affects the freedom of individuals to come together and democratically decide that they want to form a union, without interference and intimidation by an employer. That is precisely.... I see the Premier following my debate, and he certainly is the one to signal to the Minister of Labour that, yes, the persuasiveness of the argument being put forward by the opposition, the 78 clauses and the massive impact that each one of these clauses has on industrial relations in the province of British Columbia.... He could certainly indicate to the minister that this bill should be hoisted for six months.

We'll likely have a fall sitting; it could be referred to the labour, justice and intergovernmental affairs committee. That committee, which is constituted with the Minister of Labour and the debate leader from this side of the House, could hold hearings around the province. We are certainly outvoted in that committee by a six-to-three ratio— six government, three opposition — but it would give the people of this province an opportunity to understand and to be persuaded by the government side, if they can be persuaded by the opposition members of that committee to call witnesses, get the best possible testimony and ask the people of this province to join with the government and the opposition in that process, so that we could come together and have the best possible industrial relations legislation anywhere in the western world. Why not? If the best industrial relations legislation would bring about peace and a definite role for business, labour and government, why not? — to the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me take another clause. The old Code looked at successor rights. This government, in its attempt to deunionize the province — and that seems to be the ultimate objective, to de-unionize rather than stabilize industrial relations.... It was always deemed by the Labour Code and the board that an employer shouldn't be allowed to skate around the labour legislation and their obligations under it by setting up dummy companies or altering the administrative structure in such a way that they could pretend that it wasn't basically the same company.

But what the successor rights in this legislation, which is section 29.... The successor rights have been severely restricted by this amendment. So rather than talking about the old Code, for example, provided that the sale of a part of a business would be enough to attract successor rights, as would the same person operating a similar business at the same location or if a new operator took over a business following bankruptcy.... All of these are gone. The language, which purports to protect workers against an employer making "a deliberate attempt to evade collective bargaining obligations," is absolutely a hollow statement. "Deliberate" is new.

Now what can happen is that an owner can have two companies, but the mere fact that there is a separate superintendent administering them means that successor rights are no longer in place. So what does that do? I would think that when a person is looking at buying a business, and if a business has been successful and is desirable in terms of purchase, in terms of the acquisition of the company, then surely the employees who have invested their livelihood in the success of that company have a stake in that company.

[3:00]

HON. B.R. SMITH: Don't be so gloomy.

MR. G. HANSON: The Attorney-General says: "Why so gloomy?" The gloom is that with this legislation the government does not have any cars and will not listen to the arguments being put forward by this side of the House in our hoist motion, and the gloom is that this government is taking us on a road that we don't have to go on, that we shouldn't be going on. We want a government road which is laid out in consultation and which provides stability through consultation with the labour movement, with the business community, with effective community organizations; we wouldn't then see this kind of legislation in this House.

[ Page 625 ]

The government recently appointed a very, very able, competent individual to the Public Service Commission of this province. This gentleman is with the International Union of Operating Engineers. His name is Mr. Fred Randall, a very highly regarded business manager for Local 115, and he has written an extensive letter critiquing the bill which he made available to all members of this House.

"As the elected business manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115, representing 10,000 members in the province, I have some serious concerns regarding the recently introduced legislation.

"First of all, no one understands it, including the press, who feed the information to the public. The legislation should be put on hold until it is fully understood by the public, the legislators who will vote on it and the elected representatives of the workers of the province."

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up. It is now time to put the question.

MR. G. HANSON: In conclusion, as the last member on this side of the House to speak on the hoist motion, I would just like to advise the House that every member on this side has taken their place asking the government to reconsider and have this bill considered six months hence. We implore the government to do that.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 37

On the main motion.

MR. S.D. SMITH: It is with some pleasure that I get around now to the opportunity to rise in support of the principles disclosed by Bill 19 and to speak briefly about how I see those principles working.

As I begin, I want to refer to a statement made this morning by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) in reference to the old mediation services commission and the labourer industrial relations era of W.A.C. Bennett’s government and that of Mr. Sands when he was the Deputy Minister of Labour: "...I felt they were making wrong decisions.... In fact, when I looked back at some of those times, I think that in many cases they made the correct decisions." I suspect that many of the people in this House who feel so strongly about some of the problems they have apparently identified in connection with this bill will find that the reflection the member for Rossland-Trail made today...that down the road they too will be able to say that in many cases the correct decisions were made.

I want to restrict my comments in connection with the principles disclosed in this bill to a discussion about the rights and responsibilities of the parties who are involved in industrial relations, to a discussion about serving the public interest instead of just the interest of the private parties who are involved in industrial relations disputes, and about having well-defined rules that are, yes, fair, and which tend to push the parties towards settling their own disputes. Because, Mr. Speaker, in the Kamloops constituency we felt a certain amount of frustration over the last number of years at the seeming impotence of leaders to advance the common will in the face of disputes that involved competing single-issue, private groups. I refer you to some fairly recent examples when I say that.

We had a dispute between the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the OMMLRA just last fall. It began as a strike in Penticton and advanced as a lockout through the rest of the region. That dispute ended up being settled by an agreement that could have been achieved by the parties on the day they went out. And yet for five months the public was inconvenienced. People lost their homes, their credit and the things they had worked for all their lives. The third parties who were affected continuously felt as though they were spectators in their own home, as two groups impacted on their lives without regard for the common good.

[3:15]

In 1984 we had a pulp industry dispute which began as a dispute between the companies and the unions involved in that industry, but which very soon escalated into a dispute whereby the unions themselves were brought into conflagration — one against the other — as the picketing escalated from the place of employment at the pulp mills and the pulp unions involved, to the Place of employment of the mill workers who were involved with another union. We still feet the results of that dispute, because there was enormous bitterness developed between workers at that time. Once again, the public interest could not be served, or would not be served, in the face of a dispute between two parties.

But if those two examples don't interest you, perhaps we should cast our minds further back to 1975 when, during the fall of that year there was an enormous disruption in this province in industrial relations. The issues went on and on, and more and more people went out on strike or into lockout, and still others threatened to go out, until ultimately the impact on society became so unbearable that the Legislature was recalled and the government of the day passed the most far-reaching, onerous legislation — forcing people to go back to work — that has ever been introduced in this province.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

[ Page 626 ]

Each case took place under the philosophy that threads its way through the present Labour Code — namely, that it is the purpose of that Code primarily to achieve harmonious relations between the parties. It is that seeming single purpose of the Code which I believe results in a number of the problems that the principles of this bill attempt to address.

Three of the results of that philosophical underpinning to the Code are that we tend, in labour relations in this province and in our industrial relations community, to emphasize and demand our rights while we ignore and diminish our responsibilities. We tend to conduct our industrial relations in a kind of vacuum, somehow independent of society and somehow without regard for the overall public interest. We tend to disclose through that legislation the lack of a process— short of legislation itself — being made available to resolve differences before they hurt widespread, uninvolved parts of our society.

In each case it also clearly showed that when society's public interest is sufficiently adversely affected, government will intervene without regard to political ideology, without regard to partisanship and without regard to who happens to head the government of the day. Mr. Speaker, if my friends in the opposition do not believe that, I urge them to revisit the fall of 1975.

By resorting to legislation as the only known process to resolve broad third party, public interest disputes, we have achieved a number of unintended consequences adverse to this province's interest which I believe are being addressed by the principles contained in this bill. Those adverse consequences include, among other things, that before we get to the point of using the Legislature as the only tool to effect the public interest in these disputes, we always have first an enormous strain, a dislocation, rancour and political bad blood generated by the dispute — all this before government feels compelled and justified in calling the Legislature. Again I say, cast your mind to 1975 and the fall of that year, just to underscore that point. Think back to the kind of rancour, ill will and ill-tempered discussion that took place that fall before the Premier of the day, David Barrett, was prepared to do his duty and call this place into session to deal with the issues.

As well, Madam Speaker, there is a cost to our internal economy and to innocent third parties that results from that warfare being waged by single-issue, private groups. That cost is real and it is growing each time one of those disputes arises. There is a perception created among our trading partners that as a society we are so cavalier about our public responsibilities and our duty to be reliable suppliers that we are prepared to stand by idly and let our society get hurt by the private fights of individuals in an industrial relations dispute.

A further consequence of that kind of a practice, that lack of a process to deal with these issues, is that there is a diminished confidence by investors, whom we need to have in order to create the jobs that we want, because we appear to be powerless as a society in the face of apparent war between privately led armies.

All of those things are the consequence of having as your only process the recall of the Legislature in order to deal with these broadly based, public interest, third-party disputes. As this bill discloses in principle, we need more and better and greater flexibility from our tools in order to deal with the issues that underpin these disputes, in order for us to get at them earlier in the process. Our record of dealing with these disputes, I think everyone will admit, has not been good. We suffer from our record. We have a responsibility therefore to try to improve our record; and this bill, Madam Speaker, contains principles which allow us to pursue that challenge.

The principles in this bill direct us to broaden our scope when handling industrial relations. Its principles challenge us to go beyond harmonious relations between the parties and to address our responsibility to consider, among other things, the public interest; to consider individuals and groups' obligations as well as their rights; to consider that we live in a competitive market economy; and to ensure that when adjudicating industrial relations disputes, we attempt to make all efforts we can to minimize the harmful effects industrial disputes can have on persons not directly involved.

Madam Speaker, the principle of this bill is nothing less than a demand to all of us to mature in our relations by embracing the public good as tightly as we clutch our private rights. This bill also provides the tools we need in order to address that challenge. The principles of this bill include a process by which the public interest can be addressed through prevention, before a dispute escalates to the point where the blunt instrument— in terms of industrial relations — of legislation becomes the only tool available. The principles supporting this bill support the granting to a commissioner — Mr. Peck — a veritable arsenal of tools that can be used to deal with issues before all-out war is joined. Surely we ought to embrace that process of prevention for industrial relations, just as most of us demand and give speeches about prevention in relation to the delivery of health care and services to people in need. I ask you, Madam Speaker— through you to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) —   why it is that some of the same people who consider preventive medicine nirvana also believe that preventive dispute resolution will inevitably be Armageddon.

The principles in this bill are fair to both sides, and therefore apply equally to both parties involved in a dispute. If the parties don't like the powers of the commissioner, Mr. Peck, then the solution, it seems to me, is obvious: solve your own disputes without him; do such a good job of industrial relations between the parties that Mr. Peck becomes about as busy as the Maytag repairman.

Madam Speaker, I am heartened to hear both sides in our industrial relations community sound the alarm at the principles underscoring the commissioner's powers, because it suggests to me that when both parties recognize the same issues, they'll each make an effort to avoid his intervention. This bill, in its principle, will over time encourage the parties to self-resolution precisely because they want to stay away from imposed settlements, as well they should. I say that very cognizant of the risks. As the Minister of Labour well knows, there are risks inherent in this kind of legislation. I am mindful of the old mediation services and the Mediation Commission Act, and I recognize that either or both of the parties can destroy the process if they consciously choose to do so — there can be no doubt about that.

I am also aware that the public demands that each of us in this House leave behind our defence of the status quo. Isn't it ironic to sit in this House and see who today defends the status quo as strongly and deeply as they attacked the very legislation they dispended not two years ago? Let us leave behind our defence of the status quo, from whichever side we view it.

[3:30]

[ Page 627 ]

The public also demands that we embrace the opportunity to challenge ourselves and seek improvement by making changes. They, the public believe, will fairly represent their interest in the field of industrial relations.

In closing, Madam Speaker, we all talk about finding a better way. Each of us recognizes that there is room to improve our industrial relations climate. None of us denies that there is a negative perception abroad in respect of our industrial relations record. Yet invariably we fail to take the risks, to accept the challenges and to follow the steps that are needed to confront and improve our own sorry record. The time is now to begin the process of changing and improving, and the place for us to begin our contribution towards that change and those improvements is right here in this House. I would suggest to you that not one person who sits here now, or who has sat in this place over the last 15 tumultuous years, can fail to look into a mirror without thereby recognizing someone who has contributed in some part to that record, be it small or large.

Let us begin along the path to find the way to real, lasting, progressive change by setting aside rhetoric, by leaving alone the temptation to score political points and by dismissing our natural lack of resolve to reach out and test ourselves. Instead, let us begin here to embrace the change, the chance for improvement through change that is disclosed in this bill by ensuring that the principles of this process are clearly understood, and by making certain that the system that is developed does not fail. May each of us understand that if this system fails to succeed for the people of our province, none of us here will be able to claim victory.

MR. CLARK: Before I begin, I would like the House to make welcome a constituent of mine, a strong supporter of the New Democratic Party in Vancouver East, Glen Anwick.

I thought I would try — although it is not in my nature — to follow the kind of remarks that the member for North Island made just before lunch, which I think has been the kind of debate we have seen by some other members, including the member who spoke previously: that is, as best I can, to try not to be partisan and use language in a pejorative way, but to deal in a more rational way with what I think are the various serious flaws in this legislation.

I think the legislation really runs counter to the history of British Columbia labour law and the history of law in the western world in terms of the degree of government intervention. That in itself is not necessarily bad, but in a minute I'll go through why I think it is. It represents, I think, a kind of gamble, a very serious gamble with the way in which we've conducted business in British Columbia and the way in which this bill will attempt to shape the future of British Columbia. It's a gamble because I think it's predicated on the belief that unions, and to a lesser extent management, are the problem, a problem that must be dealt with severely through this kind of state intervention. I think that it's perceived that way because there is an attempt here to emulate the Pacific Rim countries. I don't say that is an attempt for us to move to a minimum wage economy, or anything else, but an attempt to move in that kind of direction.

I think what Matkin said about this is instructive. He said that that may well be the future of British Columbia, that where we move to is increasingly a less unionized society, and increasingly a small-scale society in terms of small business and those other components being more significant than they are today. That may in fact be desirable, in terms of the government's perception. It may not be from my perception, but that may well be the trend of western society. It may well be the trend in British Columbia. The problem is — and this bill, I should say, might be an attempt to deal with that new reality, to use a phrase that was used a few years ago — of what the perception is in British Columbia. But it's quite clear to me, and I think to Mr. Matkin, that we're not there yet. We're not at this stage where there is a significant degree of less unionization and more small businesses and less of an influence.

So what do we do now, while we still have a relatively highly unionized workforce in British Columbia? It's a gamble because it implies then that we're moving in that direction and that the government supports that and wants to expedite that kind of process towards deunionization. I think not deunionization because that's desired inherently or necessarily by the government, but because they perceive that that's the direction that we're moving in and it's the future of British Columbia to become more of a Pacific Rim province.

I think it's a gamble because we're not there yet, if we're going to get there at all. and that this bill then is predicated on a false assumption. It doesn't deal with the reality in British Columbia today. I think, as the member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) mentioned earlier, that the heart of the legislation is very clear in section 18 of the bill, section 27 of the new act. What it says here is that:

"The council, having regard to the public interest as well as the rights of individuals and the rights and obligations of the parties before it and recognizing the desirability for employers and employees to achieve and maintain good working conditions as participants in and beneficiaries of a competitive market economy, shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed on it under this act so as to achieve the expeditious resolution of labour disputes...."

I agree with the member for Kamloops that that indeed heralds a new approach to labour relations and doesn't talk about harmonious labour relations between the parties as the critical feature. Rather, it broadens it and says that the critical feature is to have a competitive market economy in the world. That's critical because, having some experience with the previous Code, that section of the act is really the guiding principle which courts use, and which the council will now use to determine how different clauses and sections of the act will be interpreted.

The problem is, it seems to me, that you cannot legislate good labour relations. Nor, for that matter, can you legislate or attempt to use labour legislation to ensure a competitive economy in the world marketplace. I think my colleague for North Island mentioned that as well, that labour legislation is not a tool for economic stimulus or economic direction. Clearly it sets a pattern and sets the framework for the economy, in terms of how it functions, but it shouldn't be the primary focus. Because again you cannot legislate a kind of consensus among the parties. Good labour relations in a democracy depend upon consensus. It depends upon a kind of mutual respect and trust between the parties. It depends, I think, upon a kind of a level playing-field, in terms of how the two parties can shape their labour relations.

In a sense it's not a science. It's not something that the law can rigidly impose upon the parties. I think that's what this attempts to do. It attempts to deal with a . . . . It's perceived to be a real problem and I think we all agree with the attempt to bring about more labour peace, but it attempts to do it in a

[ Page 628 ]

way that leaves out the two components: the labour move merit and the management side, who are the critical players in attempting to do that. In fact, what will happen, it seems to me, is that this act will harden the positions of the parties. We can go through that — and I intend to when we get to clause by-clause reading — in terms of how that will harden. Many sections of the act really inhibit collective bargaining, it seems to me, and promote a kind of reliance on the govern merit to intervene, particularly with respect to the final mech anism, arbitration. What collective bargaining means is that both sides trade things off to attempt to achieve a compromise — in a sense, a consensus — between the parties, one that both can live with. But if the final adjudicator is going to look at the positions of the parties, then there is less incentive to do that trade-off; in fact, there is an incentive to keep things on the table so that they don't give them up now for fear of giving them up later.

So I don't think it accomplishes the goal of promoting that kind of expeditious resolution of disputes; in fact, it does the opposite. I don't think the bill will work. It quite simply won't work, from my experience. Every attempt throughout history to stifle collective bargaining or to try to impose a government solution on individuals in the collective bargaining process has led to more conflict.

I think it's fundamentally a mistake to try to perceive labour relations...that a government can step in through an institutional mechanism in legislation to deal with the problems. The critical point that the member for Kamloops missed in his argument, that even Dave Barrett and the NDP government brought in legislation, is that that was dealt with politically by politicians in this chamber. It wasn't dealt with in an attempt to impose an institutional mechanism where we have one person or one set bureaucracy that tries to deal with the problem.

This legislation stems from a form of lack of understanding or comprehension — I was going to say "ignorance," but I'm trying not to be pejorative. It really is a kind of ignorance — again, I don't mean that in a pejorative way — or a kind of misunderstanding of the collective bargaining process. I think it's a sort of small retailer's mentality. Again I'm trying not be pejorative, but it really is that people with no understanding or no experience with the kind of complex.... There needs to be an understanding of how labour relations work in the real world and how complex negotiations are dealt with.

Collective bargaining works in 95 percent of the cases in British Columbia. I have participated in a number of them, and I think it's actually quite an exciting interplay of human relations. It really is a way in which both parties can come to grips with their collective problems and deal with them. In most cases— in fact, in 95 percent of the cases — it's resolved. What this does is say that because of the 5 percent that aren't resolved, we're going to try to impose a settlement or impose some other kind of view— a bureaucratic view, in my view — to the settlement.

[3:45]

If you foist a settlement on the parties, then no one will be happy, neither the management side nor the labour side. What happens now, of course, is that frustration develops, but the lid is kept on because we know that collective bargaining is coming up and there are many problems that could develop over the course of the collective agreement. People wait until collective bargaining takes place, and that's why we have reams of things on the table every time negotiations take place. What happens now is that if settlements are foisted upon the parties or laid onto the parties by some other agency, hen it means that that frustration will continue to grow. You cannot legislate; you can't say: "You can't be frustrated." You can't say that we're going to stop frustration or this kind of unrest through labour legislation. I think it was Kennedy who said that you can't legislate the hearts and minds of men. I think that's very true. What this legislation fails to recognize is that it is really dealing with human relations, which you have to set a broad framework to deal with and not try to deal with them through any kind of state intervention, at least state intervention across the board. State intervention in my view should be the very last resort of a parliamentary democracy in dealing with individual disputes, and shouldn't have the kind of across-the-board approach which this legislation sort of adopts.

The kind of approach that we see here really is reminiscent of the Mediation Commission Act. That act didn't work, and I think for the same reasons it won't work here. Again, it's a kind of gamble that it will work without any comprehensive understanding of the way in which collective bargaining takes place right now.

I want to deal with a couple of the sort of broad implications of the bill. I recognize that we'll get to that during the committee stage, but there are some themes there that I think are worth exploring. The first thing I want to just briefly touch on is the uncertainty and disarray in the regulatory environment that I think clearly will happen with the passage of this act. Speedy passage particularly will throw the whole environment into a kind of disarray. The bill proposes to replace the LRB with the new Industrial Relations Council and immediately makes all cases now before the LRB the jurisdiction of the council. I think that is clearly going to cause confusion, if not chaos, and no doubt, in my view, more disruption.

What happens if you're a union or an individual who is in the middle of a dispute and you no longer have the remedies that you've been used to for 15 years? I think the remedy which most trade unionists would adopt — not necessarily the leadership — would be to deal with it in their own terms, which usually ends up being wildcat strikes or those kinds of things. Certainly that's the direction we're already hearing about from rank-and-file trade unionists whom I've talked to, that they won't rely on.... In the past they've relied on the Labour Relations Board in many cases to assist the parties. We know the ground rules; they've already been established. Because we know that there have been 15 years of precedent, we know that certain things are acceptable and certain things aren't.

When this new council takes place immediately, then I think there's going to be a period of real disruption. It's another argument for delaying the passage of the legislation and having a chance to deal with it clause by clause in a public forum, in terms of trying to get a handle on it so that all the participants in the process of labour relations can get an understanding of it at the very least and hopefully make recommendations to change it.

We have 15 years' worth of cases establishing precedent in British Columbia. Those cases have been fought over; they've been appealed to the courts; they've been decided upon in many cases. The very few cases which were won by trade unions at the courts — the 10 or 15 significant ones that I have looked at — have all been amended in this legislation to basically favour the employers' position before the courts.

[ Page 629 ]

Now it seems to me that we start over again with this new and I think very unwieldy legislation to try to deal with it. We have a bureaucratic structure which I find hard to believe will work, given my experience anyway in the labour relations community. I think lawyers well do well by the legislation; hundreds— a virtual army — of bureaucrats will have to be hired, given all of the functions delineated in the act.

So I think that clearly this legislation is going to be a very expensive proposition, at least in the short run and probably in the long run. The bill, however, is a very sophisticated piece of legislation. I think it's biased, as I said earlier, in favour of management, but it's not biased in any ham-handed way; it's very sophisticated.

I'll just give you an example of that, if you will look at section 23 of the bill, called the privative clause. I think the member for North Island may have touched on this, but not being a lawyer, I read this and it says very simply: "...a decision or order made by the council is final and binding." Well, that sounded to me to be fairly reasonable; that sounded good. This council has jurisdiction to hear labour relations questions, so surely they're final and binding; that means that they've removed it from the courts and given it to this council. But in fact, the lawyers I've talked to tell me that that's the weakest privative clause possible in a quasi-judicial forum like this. It's one that goes against the trend in labour relations.

The first major piece of legislation that had strong privative language was the Labour Code brought in by the NDP government, and that was an attempt to deal with the very real frustration of the courts intervening consistently in labour relations matters. To a great extent, it gave the Labour Relations Board significant power. Now this new council has been substituted for that very strong clause, the weakest possible clause in the labour relations field. I think it takes us backwards, in any event. It means that every decision is open to appeal by the courts, and in fact many decisions will be appealed. Given the strength of the privative clause now and the number of court appeals and the escalation of those appeals and the movement towards the courts, this clearly will expedite that trend again to use the courts. This is extremely time consuming, incredibly expensive and again will allow the problem to fester and likely result in industrial disruption and unrest. It is back to the days of court review of labour relations matters. The courts don't, I think, have a very enviable record when it comes to dealing with labour legislation - and I don't think that necessarily says anything inherently bad about the courts; it's just that that's the history, and I think that history, under this legislation, will be repeated again.

Another example of how heavy-handed the legislation is that, consistently, decisions made freely between the parties won't be allowed. I want to spend a little time on this, because I don't quite understand the rationale behind it. Section 35 of the bill says: "Where a provision of a collective agreement would, if implemented, have the effect of preventing, or in any way limiting the exercise by any person of a power, authority or discretion that is conferred by an act, that act prevails...." In other words, it makes the act take precedence over collective agreements, and it makes any act of the Legislature take precedence over the collective agreement.

It is not a question, it seems to me, of whether you agree with things like hot edicts or things that say you must buy your coveralls from this manufacturer. I mean, you may say that the collective agreement shouldn't do that, but the collective agreement was agreed to by the parties. It was negotiated. The trade union gave something up in order to get that clause included in their collective agreement. What right does the government have to tell the parties that they cannot agree mutually to buy their coveralls from a particular place? I don't understand that. That's what the act says. The act says that you cannot enter into any agreement that impacts on a third party. What permanent public interest requires this kind of legislation that says that the parties cannot agree amongst themselves to do something?

Worse still, it's not just this act that says that; it says any act takes precedence. That means that the Municipal Act, which gives discretion to municipal managers to lay people off from the workforce, takes precedence over contract language that prohibits it. So the two parties negotiate hard and firm and fast and tough negotiations, the union gives up their wage demand in order to get a clause in the collective agreement that says you won't lay anybody off for the life of this agreement, and this act says that that is now void. This act says that other legislation, any legislation passed by government, takes precedence over collective agreements mutually and freely agreed to between the parties. How does that enhance stability in labour relations harmony? How does it even enhance us getting to a competitive economy?

I think this goes right through the act as well, not just with respect to section 35. That same section, of course, is the clause that the member for North Island mentioned was the "without just cause," because that section in fact gives municipal managers the right to lay off without any cause whatsoever, because that is what is in the Municipal Act.

Section 9.1 of the act allows contracting out, again overriding collective agreements. So contracts that now contain provisions that stipulate that contracting out must be to union companies, for example, will, after this act is passed, be void. It seems to me that, again, you've got a situation where pulp mills or other industrial agencies have had years of bargaining— trades of trade-offs.... Every year everything is on the table, of course, especially in this economy we see now. So every year the employer tries to say: "We don't want to just hire union-only contractors; we want to be free to hire non-union companies." And every year the union has to give something up to get that right in the collective agreement. Both sides agree to it; both sides freely sign the collective agreement. There's a consensus that this clause is okay between the parties. Now this act has a specific clause that says you cannot do that, and if you've done that, then retroactively it strikes out, it seems to me, those hard-won gains agreed to by employers. Now the government specifically in this case, I think, takes the side of the employers. Even though unions have given things up with respect to getting that in the collective agreement, there is now a retroactive clause making that particular section void. Again, it's heavy-handed legislation that voids collective agreements brought about jointly between the parties.

Exactly the same kind of pattern prevails in section 4.1. It's called "Secondary boycott agreements prohibited." Let's take, for example, the plumbers' and pipefitters' collective agreement, of which I have some knowledge. They put sections 15:05, 15:06 and 15:07 in their collective agreement in 1927, and believe me, in virtually every negotiation the employer tries to get those three clauses taken out of the collective agreement. Those clauses say that the construction company that wants, for example, to build a pulp mill must

[ Page 630 ]

buy its pipe from a fabrication plant unionized by the plumbers and pipefitters. Now you may not like that. There may be some problems with that for different people. But it is freely negotiated between the parties that the construction company will use only union-fabricated pipe. All of the pulp mills in this province were built under that collective agreement, with no real problem. Most of the motivation for including that clause is to try to ensure that the pipe is manufactured in British Columbia and at a wage rate that makes it all competitive within the same wage rate. This legislation says — again, retroactively — that those clauses that have been included in every collective agreement of Local 170 of the pipefitters' union will now be null and void — struck out, erased from the collective agreement, even though both sides have agreed to them.

Just a couple of years ago they wanted to build the Skookumchuck pulp mill with Japanese-fabricated pipe — 70 percent. A tremendous number of jobs would have been lost, but because of that clause in the collective agreement they were required to buy pipe fabricated in British Columbia. If this act passes, I don't think anything will prevent the loss of hundreds of pipe-fabricating jobs to foreign companies. In fact, if you've looked recently at the capital expenditures of pulp companies, because of the profits they're making, for the first time in many years you're looking at significant capital expansion in the pulp sector. So there's all this work waiting to be done, and the companies will probably wait to see if this act passes, because it will be a significant reduction. That may be what the government wants, but it means that hundreds of jobs — if not, I suspect, close to a thousand — will be lost in the pipe-manufacturing industry in British Columbia.

[4:00]

Once again, even if you don't like that — even if I, or anybody else in this House has some problems with that — what right does the government have to say that those parties who have negotiated in a very tough environment, but who have mutually agreed to include that in their collective agreement, shouldn't be allowed to do that? Not only will they not be allowed to in the future, but it will be retroactively struck from their collective agreement.

Section 137.96(l)(b) instructs arbitrators to consider "the need to maintain an appropriate relationship between occupations or classifications" on a worksite. What does that mean? Arbitrators are now required by law to look at the appropriateness of classifications and wage rates between classifications within the same operation. What does that mean? It means that any attempt to narrow the gap on behalf of the unions, between women and men in the workforce, will potentially now not be allowed. If it's different from the historic pattern, then arbitrators are required by law to say that that's not allowed.

Let me close by saying that, looking at this legislation, there are 93 changes to the Labour Code. They are so complex and so dramatic— and, I think, in many cases are so radical — that no one can possibly understand all of them. My colleague from North Island made this point; I want to make it very strongly. I have worked in the labour relations community for four or five years; my father worked for 20 years before that. I understand, probably more than most people in this House, the Labour Code and how it works. We now have a bill that makes 93 changes to that Code. No one can possibly understand the kind of nuances, the kind of changes that are going to be wrought by this legislation.

There are so many changes that I don't think the government understands the impact of all of them.

How can we vote on something...? How should we vote on something that we don't fully understand? Shouldn't there be time to fully develop, to fully digest, all of these changes and fully hash them out? Clearly, I think saner heads should prevail, and that we should take some time— maybe not six months; the motion to hoist was defeated — to put it to a parliamentary committee, to take it around the province, to debate it, to look at the ramifications. I think some of them were unintended by the government, not deliberate attempts to undermine trade unions; I think some of them might have been, but some of them probably weren't.

Clearly, because it's so complex, because there are so many changes.... When they put them all together, they have quite a devastating impact, and I don't think that was intended. We should take some time, and not rush through this legislation — take some time and put it to a committee. That's what I think should be done with this legislation before we rush it through the House.

[Mr. Mercier in the chair.]

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of Bill 19 and the principle it puts forward. One thing is very apparent: members on both sides of this House, despite their party affiliation, want to see a marked improvement in labour-management relations. The difference is in our approach to attaining this goal. I wish to commend both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) on bringing forward a reform package of new legislation that is dearly needed.

I wish to speak today to the principle of Bill 19. This new legislation will bring about long-term stability in the workplace in both the public and private sectors. This is the stability that I have had workers, housewives and the owners of small business tell me they must have if their lives are not going to be continually tom apart. I have had both union and non-union workers in my riding ask me to work as hard as I have to see that this government brings about peace in the workplace. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will set the format so that this goal can be attained.

When the Premier decided that the hon. member for Okanagan North was to be appointed to the cabinet as the Minister of Labour, he gave the hon. member a very difficult task. That task was to bring about labour legislation that, firstly, was fair; and secondly, that would create long-term stability in the British Columbia workforce. The minister is meeting this challenge, by first canvassing the entire province and obtaining views, both oral and written, from all sectors of our society. After considering all submissions, the minister carefully and thoughtfully put together a package that meets British Columbia's demands but still recognizes the individual rights of workers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to an article in the Vancouver Sun, dated Wednesday, February 25, 1987. It says: "Labour critic Colin Gabelmann (North Island) said he hopes upcoming changes to the Labour Code 'will realize that the objective isn't to meet the ideological concerns of some people on the right in Social Credit."' The article continues: "Gabelmann said he hopes the changes will address the question of ending prolonged strikes and lockouts on an equitable basis." I suggest to this House that that is exactly what this legislation does.

[ Page 631 ]

This government is being accused of a power grab, and I ask you: is this so? By guaranteeing individual members the right to speak out without fear of reprisals from employers or unions? If that's the case, then yes, we are guilty. If they mean by making unions more accountable to their members, then again, yes, we are guilty. If they mean by giving teachers the right to bargain and the right to strike under a union of their choice, then again we are guilty. We are guilty of making both employers and unions responsible for their actions, not only to one another but also to the third party, the public— the people who have been caught in the middle of conflict for far too long. The power grab is not putting power into the hands of the government. The power grab is putting power back into the hands of the workers, back into the hands of the public via the courts of our lands, and I suggest this is a good move.

I have served on both sides of labour-management tables. I have negotiated for both labour and management. Through my own experience I have learned that the present legislation is not adequate in meeting the challenges of today. Changes are required. I feel that over the years I have paid my dues. I have earned the right to stand and speak in this House on the subject of labour-management relations. As the head of Local 6523 of the United Steelworkers of America, I saw the toll that a long strike took on my members. As a truck-logger in the last IWA strike, I saw both union and non-union workers suffer drastically. I am now in a position, as a member of this House, as a member of this government, to try to assist, to see that conditions that brought about these senseless conflicts will change. I will stand in this House or in any forum in my constituency to defend the legislation and the government that is bringing it forth.

I do have a grave concern regarding this particular labour legislation package. Some of the newspaper headlines have been very reactionary. In the Province, April 3 of this year: "Labour Talks Tough." In the Times-Colonist, April 3: "Labour Law Will Spawn Disruption, Defiance." Following this, we hear remarks from the opposition such as: "I am afraid what is happening is a punishment of the BCTF for its activities in the past." Another quote: "It's union-busting." I suggest that remarks such as these are totally political and emotional and do not constructively add any value to this debate. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I believe the union movement is a very essential ingredient in our society, and I will not stand by and see it destroyed. I will, however, see that the voices of many workers in my riding are heard, and will strive to meet their many requirements.

As I see it, my obligation to the teachers of our great province is to see that they are granted their rights to bargain, including the right to strike if necessary, and these are full bargaining rights under a union of their choice. Let us make it very clear to the BCTF that my obligation is to see that teachers get a fair shake, not to protect specific organizations such as theirs. The BCTF has the same rights and obligations as any other labour organization in our province. If they want to represent all the teachers of this province, I suggest that they go forward and organize the same as any other labour organization would.

There may be some corporate leaders who are not satisfied with the extent of the changes in this legislation, and there may be some labour leaders who cannot live with these changes either. To these dinosaurs I say this: get out and make way for a new generation of workers and leaders in industry, in the labour movement and in government who, with the help of this new labour legislation, will lead our province into the next decade and the next century successfully.

I suggest that when the dust has settled and after this legislation has been passed by this assembly and has been in force for a few years, it will be noted for bringing responsibility and accountability to labour-management relations. This is a very complex subject and this is a very complex labour package. I do not have all the answers, and I can assure you the opposition does not have them either. Let us hope that common sense will prevail and let's hope that we can get on with the debate of Bill 19. Let us get into a clause-by-clause debate in committee and let us clarify the intent and the meaning of Bill 19. I can assure you, again from my personal experience, that the more employment we can create through a positive investor climate, the more opportunities our workers will have and the easier for labour to bargain.

The time has come for government to show leadership, and this government has. Let us all work together to make British Columbia a better place to work and to live. Let us bring together labour and management for the benefit of all.

[4:15]

MR. MILLER: Like my colleague for Vancouver East, I'm also going to try to avoid a strident speech and perhaps go over the same ground that's been covered already and try to explain why we think it's critical that this bill not come into law. In doing so I'm conscious of the fact that as I listen to some speakers on the opposite side it seems to me that some have given an indication of a willingness to listen and others have not. Because we are debating this bill in this House, I think the remarks of members opposite are pertinent to the bill and to their feelings or intentions behind the bill.

I would like to start off by referring to some remarks made by the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) who I thought was straying somewhat into the health care field but nonetheless did come back to the subject of this piece of legislation. He talked about prevention as being very important. I hope I don't offend anyone by suggesting that the best prevention we could embark upon at this time is to put a condom on this piece of legislation.

The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) talked about the question of democracy. Democracy in the workplace is a question that has been raised many times on the opposite side of the House. The bill is designed to restore that democracy in the workplace. Unfortunately she used an analogy to the Soviet Union. Again, I'm referring to the kind of tenor of the comments that are made all too often. We on this side of the House, and I think people in the labour movement, hear themselves categorized in those kinds of terms, that somehow because they are undemocratic it's just like the Soviet Union. I can't help but recall that that member also said, I believe during the run-up for the leadership of her party, that "working people would find me just as boring as I find them." So I question the relevance of her remarks given that kind of background.

AN HON. MEMBER: She didn't say that.

MR. MILLER: I think she did say that and she may want to correct that on the record. But again, a remark aimed at the nub of this bill, that's been expressed on a number of occasions, is the desire, the attempt, or the feeling that it's necessary to restore some semblance of democracy to the workplace in terms of the individual workers relationship with

[ Page 632 ]

their union, the fact that somehow they're being deprived of that democracy or they are being manipulated in terms of trying to express their wishes in that union.

I refer to the remarks of the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers), who in his speech said that when the condition of employment is holding a card in that union or association, it is no surprise to any of us that they are afraid to speak out. I have to say that I reject fundamentally what that member was saying; he seemed to be saying that because the union existed, because people had a union card in their pocket, that it followed that those people were afraid to speak out.

It is that kind of language, it seems to me, that does more to inflame the climate in this province than to try to insist in bringing about what I think essentially we all would like to see, and that is a level of harmony in terms of labour management relations that would allow us to go on and really deal with some of the essential issues in this province.

I might say to that member, does holding a card in the Social Credit Party make you afraid to speak out? Because you are a back-bencher in that party, are you afraid to speak out? He would reject that. I am certain he would reject that, and yet he wants to cast those stones at members of unions and particularly at people, many of whom I know personally, who have put in a great deal of time in terms of serving the interests of their membership in an executive capacity at the trade union level, whether that is locally or nationally.

There are some other comments, but I want to move on to the remarks that I had prepared. But I just think that it is worth considering that the tone of what is said sometimes causes people to believe that there are motives other than those that have been expressed by the government.

Mr. Speaker, despite the warnings that have been issued with regard to this bill from many quarters in British Columbia, not only the main spokespeople for the trade union movement and the main spokespeople for the employers groups but others as well, statements have been made by the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and statements were made by Mr. Walker of the Fraser Institute. Quite frankly, I most often reject statements made by that person because I think his views are somewhat archaic.

Nonetheless there has been a body of criticism in this province surrounding this particular piece of legislation. Whether or not the government is prepared to admit it at this point, I suspect that they are starting to get some kind of message in terms of the major objections that people have with regard to this legislation.

Again, I want to return to what was said in this House and to repeat my belief that all of us are here as MLAs, as representatives of the people in our constituencies, to try to do the best job we can, and that we clearly have a desire for some kind of harmony in terms of labour relations. I return again to comments that were made by the new Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker), I think a particularly strident, a particularly vitriolic — and I hope I am not out of order when I say that, but that was my sense of the comments.... That is how I heard them — inflammatory rhetoric directed against working people and their associations, their unions. That person as a member of the cabinet of this government would have me believe that their only interest is in trying to bring about some labour peace.

I can't help but contrast the remarks made by that minister with the much more thoughtful remarks by the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) in his maiden speech when he acknowledged, I believe, the role and the contribution that labour unions have played in this province. Given that member's background in the forest industry, I can't help but wonder out loud whether or not the wisest choice was made for that portfolio.

In any event, my remarks are aimed at those who are prepared to listen. I think that that's fundamental, because it brings into question the role of this Legislature, and that role is being questioned by this piece of legislation.

One of the fundamental flaws in the bill I think is the abrogation of the right of this Legislature to an industrial relations commissioner. You know it's been a point of pride, in my opinion, in western democracies that the heavy hand of the state — if you like — should only be exercised through legitimately elected assemblies. I've heard enough members on the other side agree with that position, or at least pay lip service to it, many times, and lots of those members have stood in their places and talked about democracy— going back again to what I've said about how according to the government spokesman and many of the back-benchers who've spoken, one of the nubs of this bill is to restore democracy. So it seems to me that there's a consciousness out there about democracy. And it's somewhat surprising that I often find myself, as a member of a social democratic party, defending the rights of democracy to a greater extent, I think, than our parties are generally given credit for.

Again, one of the remarks that was made by a number of speakers on the other side with their consciousness about democracy is that this bill will restore democracy in the workplace. I take offence at that. I've said that I feel offended and insulted by that kind of reference. I think that democracy exists now. And what disturbs me is that despite all these people saying this, not one member has cited one instance where that democracy does not exist. The only reference that's been made is to some ballot boxes marked "yes" or "no," and to the best of my recollection there was a situation that did take place to that effect and I believe it was in the United States during a presidential election or an election of a candidate for one of the two parties. So despite the rhetoric and despite the statements on the other side that this is to restore democracy, it would be interesting to hear at least one instance where democracy has been denied.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: And I'm glad to see that the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) has now been woken up and is going to search his law books for as many references as he can find.

But as I said, Mr. Speaker, if these members have this overwhelming preoccupation with the restoration of democracy, why do they want to give up the legitimate rights of this assembly? I guess I would also have to ask — without any reflection on the gentleman in question — why Mr. Peck would want to assume it. I read a newspaper article just recently that outlined how bravely Mr. Peck's father fought for that very principle, democracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: A hundred thousand reasons.

MR. MILLER: A hundred thousand reasons, my colleague from Nanaimo tells me — and I think they're in dollar bills, are they? But surely some of the members opposite can grasp the significance of this point. This House and this

[ Page 633 ]

House alone should determine if an industrial relations dispute has gone to the point where it threatens the public good. We are the representatives of the public. We were elected by the people of this province to represent them, to air their views. No one else in this province was elected to fulfill the role that we have.

What happens at the federal level? I recall that when the grain handlers occasionally get into a strike situation and the federal government decides that that can damage the economy, they call the federal House into session. They call the members into session, put it to the elected members of that assembly and say: "Look, we think this is having a detrimental effect on the public good; we propose that we legislate these people back to work." It's debated and a bill is passed.

As representatives, we have the opportunity to stand in our places and either agree or disagree, and there are precedents in this province for that. My own party, as government, undertook to do that. The party opposite has undertaken to do that, and it's not something that is taken lightly; it's something that's taken very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, another item that disturbs me somewhat is our constant portrayal as interventionists. Surely the thrust of this legislation is very interventionist; it's statist legislation. I think it's continuing a trend that really started about a dozen years ago, where more and more the decisions that are fundamental to the public have been made behind closed doors. They've been made in the cabinet chamber, they've been made by unelected people, and it seems to me that that's a disturbing trend if you look at the kind of suspicion that exists in our society in terms of the role that politicians should play — that we should be more and more out front and more and more prepared to take responsibility for our actions rather than thrust them into the hands of unelected people.

[4:30]

In a way, Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling that this legislation is kind of Bill Bennett's revenge. You know of the solidarity workers in the streets of Vancouver and the kind of turmoil that existed in this province as a result of some of the policies that were instituted by that former Premier. I'm sure he must feel that he had to get even with the labour movement.

I recall the former Premier displayed a fair amount of interventionist characteristics himself when he rode down from Kelowna in his red shirt and interfered in the marketplace, denying the legitimate business interests of Mr. Sinclair and saying B.C. is not for sale. Well, it was sold anyway, but I recall as a worker in a pulp mill being somewhat amazed that a Premier would take that kind of interventionist position in the free market. I was a bit puzzled about it. I understood the politics of it, but I was puzzled.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: No, I'm not puzzled any more, Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch). In any event, the legislation is very interventionist and very statist, and I think that's another reason why it won't work.

Moving on, Mr. Speaker, in terms of labour history I think there's a pretty good reason why we've arrived at where we are today, and in some sense I feel that we are making progress; but it's useful to examine the history of the labour movement in terms of their struggle for some of the things that we now take for granted.

Some of those things that we now take for granted were won after a terrible struggle. I'm sure my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), being somewhat of a historian, could detail them much more eloquently than I, but I recall from my reading where people died in the Haymarket riots in Chicago in terms of achieving the eight hour day; where things like the Triangle Shirt Waist factory highlighted in a shocking way the kind of conditions that existed in factories and workplaces; miners in Colorado I believe fired on by the Pinkerton men because they fought for union recognition. The unions were forged in that element, and I think that that's very important in terms of trying to understand their position and their reaction today to this kind of legislation.

It's significant that those gains that trade unions — our working men and women — have won over the years really have been won in the face either of legislation that particularly prohibited them from doing what they were doing, or no legislation and an environment of some lawlessness. Yet despite that, these people waged a terrific battle, and we all owe, I think some members on the opposite side would agree, a tremendous debt to the kind of effort that was put in in terms of where we are today. It's important to restate the fact that that climate has shaped the labour movement and the natural suspicion that they have when governments bring in legislation that they see as trying to inhibit their right to bargain collectively for their membership.

I don't think this bill is a new solution; it's not innovative. Look around at other parts of the country. Look at Australia, where they've tried to reach accommodation in terms of a number of fronts— the coalition of government, business and labour; perhaps we could say that it's tripartite in nature. They've had some success in terms of meeting that problem in their country. In the Scandinavian countries, worker involvement and planning have created a forest industry that realizes significantly more benefits to the economy than does ours. Western Europe has its long tradition of workers on boards of directors— not isolated workers, but part of what's happening, part of the economic decision-making. Japan has its reliance on security of employment and its insistence that managers assume more of a burden for bad decisions.

I'm not suggesting that we have to go to other countries and copy what they've done, but surely we have the ability to be innovative in our own province, to come up with better solutions than restrictive labour legislation. I think it's quite possible for us in British Columbia to find our own solutions to industrial disputes. I think it's possible to find our own solutions to 213,000 unemployed people in this province. I think we can find our own solutions for 64,000 young men and women in this province.... Can't we find our own solutions to hungry children in our schools or food banks in our cities? Does the government have us believe that the solution to these problems lies in interventionist labour legislation that tips the balance in favour of management, in favour of the employer? I don't think this legislation will do that job.

A number of speakers on my side of the House have highlighted some aspects of the legislation. I want to run over some of those as well because I do think they are important.

Freedom of speech, section 5. Here again we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Somehow the government feels that through the legislation it's fair for an employer to become involved in whether or not unions want to have a union, or whether people in a particular workplace want to organize and have a union. Certainly it should not come as a surprise to some members that that process is indeed very,

[ Page 634 ]

very difficult. I've never gone out on a drive to organize unorganized workers, but I have talked to some people who attempted to do that. The climate of fear that exists, par ticularly in some sections of our economy, when people actually get together and start talking about "I'd like to have a union," is incredible. It's true that despite legislation that might exist to protect them, which says the employer can't discriminate, people in our society have lost their jobs be cause they proposed that. I know people who have lost their jobs.

This legislation seeks to put into law the efforts of the employer to interfere in that process. It's clear that the result will be that it will be more difficult for working men and women in this province to get together and organize into a trade union so that they can negotiate collectively with their employer. No wonder the union movement is saying there is an anti-union bias in the legislation.

Apprenticeships: it's an issue that I raised in my maiden speech. I had intended to raise it again — not particularly under this legislation, but I will now because there is a reference to apprenticeships in the legislation. I think it's a particularly odious one because it will allow employers to take on apprentices and not require those people to be members of the trade union.

Now I think we have a problem in British Columbia in terms of apprenticeship, and I also think that it is too bad we do, because it is an excellent way for young people to acquire a skill. Generally the jobs that go along with that are relatively well-paying, and more importantly, I think, relatively meaningful. We have not paid enough attention to putting more apprentices in place in this province. I recall going to a conference that the former Minister of Labour, Mr. Heinrich, organized in Richmond a few years ago, and I was pleased at the direction that we seemed to be going at that time. We recognized that there were significant shortfalls and that there were benefits to getting a program into place. Unfortunately, nothing came of it.

I read the comments of the present Minister of Labour in the newspaper the other day, where he talked about looking at the possibility of a levy grant system, and I thought to myself, I appreciate that and I would support that. But I must say that I won't be able to support that kind of initiative if this legislation remains the way it is now, where apprentices will not be part of the trade union movement.

From my own knowledge of labour relations matters.... It is not as extensive as that of many in this province, but I did play a fair role in my local union in Prince Rupert, bargaining and resolving grievances, and I learned a fair amount over the years. I learned that you can't always sit across the table and shout at the employer, and neither can the employer always try to sit there and gouge you when he thinks the opportunity is right. We used to have a couple of sayings: that the worst thing you could do was shoot from the lip, because generally that just inflamed the climate and didn't get anybody anywhere; and that there had to be a commitment on the part of the parties to resolve the problems. In terms of dealing with that collective agreement and problems you get into when trying to interpret clauses and all the rest of it, fundamentally underlying the whole relationship was this commitment to resolve. I have often heard employers acknowledge that, in terms of a strict legal definition, whether it is from a labour board or what, you can be right, but it doesn't solve the problem.

That is the other major point that we are trying to make on this side of the House: that no amount of legislation.... If you refer to my earlier remarks, where major gains were made really in the absence of legislation, no amount of legislation of a restrictive nature will improve the labour climate in British Columbia.

The efforts that are underway currently, which I think are in some jeopardy as a result of the introduction of Bill 19, should give all of us some cause for optimism. The employers' council and the Federation of Labour, as a result of last year's prolonged dispute in the forest industry, got together in an attempt to show that they were concerned about that aspect of business in B.C., and that there are other ways of meeting the problems. I believe that if that process had been allowed to develop on its own without the threat of this interventionist legislation, it would have borne fruit for this province. But now that that process has been undertaken by the government, there is a threat, and I think it is a real threat.

It seems to me that the clear signals are that a number of people don't like this legislation. Just recently, going back to April 8 in the Times-Colonist, a number of people were quoted in terms of their attitude towards the legislation. "Lorne Lacey, B.C. Chamber of Commerce president, said that the chamber members 'seem supportive.' But there is concern over 'what appears to be the almost exclusive power' of the Industrial Relations Council." Another spokesman, Michael Walker — we all know him, from the Fraser Institute — "said he shared concerns about the 'intrusive elements' of the legislation, questioning the appointment of a commissioner with wide powers to intervene in a dispute."

[4:45]

Most recently, in yesterday's Province it appears that here was a meeting between the Minister of Labour and representatives of the employers' council where the employers' council strongly stressed their objections to this legislation.

Summing up, I think that getting on to second reading of his bill, the members on this side of the House have tried to demonstrate in some pretty clear and rational terms why there are fundamental flaws in this legislation. We've cited specific instances where the legislation is clearly discriminatory. There is a whole area that has yet to be dealt with, in terms of his legislation being tested in the courts. I wonder, given the kind of evidence that has been presented, why the government would still want to proceed. The path ahead can only bring disunity and disruption to this province.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It's certainly a pleasure for me to enter the debate on this very important subject. If I had one suggestion to members on both sides of the House, I suppose it would be this. Let's get on with the debate. Let's get on with he legislation. Let's get on with the people's business in the province of British Columbia. Let's give this bill a chance. Let's give it a chance for 12 months; have a fresh look at it in 1988, and look at the track record to see how we've done. Time will indeed be the test as to whether the contents of the bill will succeed or fail.

There are several things that I think of when I look at revisions to the Labour Code. I certainly think of one as being he word "democracy." I believe it's long past due that we should be democratizing the free collective bargaining process. It's a fallacy with me that we have a situation in the province of British Columbia today where a trade union in the early stages of collective bargaining, before any serious

[ Page 635 ]

offers are placed on the table, can go to its membership with a ballot with the following words: "Failing a satisfactory settlement, do you authorize the negotiating committee to call a strike?" Mr. Speaker, that's just not good enough in this day and age. It's my view that it's the right of those trade union members to have the final say on the final offer of the employer, whether they accept that offer or reject it, giving their union the opportunity to call a strike at that time. So I have no problem with that particular section.

I will go on from there and say this. In all my travels during election campaigns throughout my constituency, when I talked to the craft union members.... Mr. Speaker, whether they're right or wrong, there is a clear perception in the eyes of those craft union members that all is not well in hiring-hall practices. I think it's the responsibility of government to give those people the assurance that all is well, as far as hiring-hall practices are concerned.

One of the other things I've listened to the trade unions talk about, particularly the industrial unions: they talk about the forced and locked-in accreditation of employers. Once they're in they can't get out; if only they could bargain with those people independently and privately again, all would be well. Mr. Speaker, the intent of this legislation is clear in that respect: it does give the employers the option to opt out, and I would suggest that the unions will have that opportunity to bargain with those employers. At least the employers won't have that as an excuse any more for not leaving the various associations across the province.

Mr. Speaker, if there's one thing that stands out in the reports that we are getting back from people who travel internationally, who are looking outside of the province of British Columbia for that much-needed investment to cause those jobs and economic activity, the one and single greatest message.... The number one concern of 95 percent of the international investors is the labour relations climate in British Columbia. I think it's incumbent upon this government to bring in a new labour policy, a new labour bill, to give the international investors the signal that we have taken control of our own destiny in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this bill. Let's give it a fair chance. Let's give it a trial run for a year; come back in a year from now and have a look at it.

MR. LOVICK: To begin my remarks, I must confess that I stand here in some amazement. It would seem to me that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) both ought to welcome this opportunity to defend this piece of legislation, pushing the clock to the absolute maximum. However, I discover, much to my surprise, that the total elapsed time for both speakers seems to be approximately ten minutes, and I wonder if indeed it is the case that those individuals cannot in fact muster half an hour's worth of time to try to find good reasons to support this legislation. I'm sure you can understand my reasons for being suspicious, Mr. Speaker.

I am horrified to hear myself starting my remarks this way, because I too was resolved to be as conciliatory and understanding and pleasant and non-confrontational as we have come to hear about in this House— certainly in the last few days. However, I must again confess that I find that rather difficult to do, partly and primarily, I should point out, because the closer I look at this legislation, the more sinister it seems to me is the purpose that animates, motivates and promotes it. I shall have more to say on that point as I proceed, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just begin, then, by making brief reference to a few of the comments that I picked up from the other side of this chamber. I am always suspicious when I hear any politician or person charged with making decisions begin by using the old cliché, "Let's get on with it; let's get going," because even though that may sound like a summons to action, even though that may well indeed suggest a kind of decisiveness on the part of the speaker, what it also suggests and states to me is: "I don't really want to think about this. I don't really want to debate and discuss and reflect on the implications of this. Instead, let's get on with it." Action is easy. It is reflection and common sense that are more difficult to summon, I suggest.

I'm also worried when I hear somebody saying: "Let's give it a chance. Time will be the test." Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that if time will be the test, we're really in trouble. I would like to think that intelligence and rational analysis ought to be the test, rather than time. Surely we are creatures of our own destiny, surely we all have the analytical and intellectual abilities to examine this piece of legislation and determine whether it does indeed make sense, whether it is indeed desirable or rather whether it might be repugnant and dangerous.

When I spoke for the first time in this House, Mr. Speaker, I recall that it was on an amendment to the throne speech, as it happened, rather than what is traditionally referred to as a maiden speech. One of the points I made in the course of those remarks was to say to members opposite: "Where are you guys?" I said that because it seemed to me that we had not heard much from the government side of the House in response to the questions my colleagues and I had posed. I would offer the same observation today.

It seems to me that a number of points have been offered from this side of the House, and they have not been responded to. I'm sorry to hear that. We have now spent considerable time trying to delay this bill, trying to persuade members on the opposite side of the House that there were indeed good and obvious reasons for holding back, for thinking seriously about this legislation, for not trying to push it through precipitately. Sadly, all of those reasons seems to have been ignored. Unfortunately, nobody has been listening to what we have to say.

Our point in making those comments and our central reason for arguing that the delay was indeed desirable was just that this legislation was perceived to be confrontational, combative and indeed inflammatory. We have stated that again and again and again. Moreover, we have attempted to show why that perception is held. The members opposite, of course, predictably have said simply: "That's not true. This is not combative. This is not confrontational. This is not inflammatory." Unfortunately, all of their denials, all of their claims that this legislation has the opposite intention, have been effectively undercut, if not downright contradicted, by their actions.

For example, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Kamloops, the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond), introduced a theme and restated the theme on many, many occasions, a theme that has also been picked up by, I think, all of the other speakers from the government side of the House. The theme which indeed has a kind of centrality in the other side's argument is just this: that this legislation, this bill, is being opposed not by the workers, not by the rank and

[ Page 636 ]

file members of the trade unions, but only by their leaders. Sounds familiar, I am sure, to you, Mr. Speaker; you have heard it as often as I. For example, the Minister of Tourism, as I said, had a regular refrain in his remarks, and the refrain was "Cliff and the boys," referring of course to a fairly major and high official in the B.C. Federation of Labour.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

What I want to emphasize here is really a question: what message do you think is being given to the B.C. Federation of Labour when you say that? When you say to the rank and file of a trade union movement, "We don't believe that you are really involved in this; rather, it's a conspiracy on the part of the leadership; it's Cliff and the boys taking over," what message are you giving them? Well, you're telling them first of all that they're stupid. Second, you're telling them that they are in fact not adult and intelligent enough to pay attention to what's going on.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that either of those statements is inflammatory and is more likely to provoke a reaction than it is to get anybody to come along with the point of view you have apparently been trying to articulate. Words like that, especially from a minister of the Crown, are insulting. They're uncalled for and insulting. They're especially insulting insofar as the same minister has the temerity and the effrontery and the gall to stand there and suggest that this legislation is good for the workers. On the one hand the minister is insulting people, telling them implicitly that they are stupid, ignorant and are being misled; on the other hand, he's saying: "We really are supporting you. We really believe in your cause. We're looking out for your best interests." Clearly, the contradiction between those two is absolutely mind-boggling, to coin a phrase.

[5:00]

We warned of that. We warned that what this legislation would do would be to literally wave a red flag in front of an angered bull, and that people would indeed be upset and would respond in the only way that they can when they feel they are threatened, namely by retaliating and fighting back. We suggested that danger. We suggested that inflammatory rhetoric of the kind we heard from the minister was not desirable. We suggested that the legislation itself was inflammatory and was likely to provoke that kind of confrontation. All the claims about not being anti-labour don't matter very much if the manner and the words used by the speakers who claim to be the friends of labour are, in effect and in fact, insulting labour.

Let me give you an example. As I said, we warned that this would provoke a reaction, and, of course, the truth is — the obvious truth, and we have the evidence — that it has provoked a reaction, a reaction, frankly, that causes me some concern and indeed frightens me somewhat. I am referring specifically to a series of rallies planned by the B.C. Federation of Labour. I see that they're taking place throughout the province. These rallies are scheduled for places like Port Alberni, Kamloops, Fort St. John, Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo, Campbell River, Kelowna— and there will be more. Indeed, the message from the B.C. Federation of Labour is that there will be more.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Of course, they might even try Prince George — at least one half of that community, to answer the member opposite's comment.

The point, I guess, that we have to draw from all this about the rallies is the impression it creates of the province. Let's go back to the theme enunciated by government. We are told by this government: "We want to foster a new, harmonious climate of labour relations. We are all friends here. There are no hidden agendas. We are not out to destroy the trade union movement, because we want to have that harmonious climate which will indeed encourage people to come and invest their money in the province of B.C." Those arguments obviously don't hold up, Mr. Speaker, if we have rallies with thousands of people protesting the action of the government.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the members opposite for demonstrating their attention.

What kind of impression are we going to make with potential investors in this province if the response to this so-called new era of peaceful labour relations is rallies of thousands of people protesting the draconian impact of that legislation?

In short, this has been badly played. It has been politically inept, to put the matter most charitably. What the government has done, despite warnings from this side of the House, is blindly and bull headedly pursue a course of action that we predicted would simply arouse hostility. I am sorry that that has happened, but we should not be surprised that it has happened. Indeed, we predicted it would.

I want to turn now to the major question we are supposed to be grappling with today; namely, the general principle of this legislation.

I failed to take note of what time I began, Mr. Speaker. May I get some indication of that from you, please? Oh, my God! I am a little surprised to discover that it has indeed taken this long to get this far. I suppose that comes from having had two hours the last time I spoke in the Legislature. Let me then collapse my comments somewhat, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I have been on the point, to draw attention to that person speaking. Perhaps complex argument, multisyllabic words and sentences longer than 11 words lose that member; but the fact is, my comments have indeed been germane and relevant to the point at issue.

I want to again refer briefly to the minister's statements about this bill and, indeed, the comments from all the members on the government side of the House. We know them all, the great litany of comments about what this legislation is for. Let me, however, quote you a statement from Hansard for the morning of Tuesday, April 7, at which time the Minister of Labour stood up and provided us with the justification for this bill and the so-called principles of this bill. Let me quote very briefly what he said. He talked about the consultative process whereby input was got from the wider community, and said: "In the process our attention was directed again and again to certain views of labour relations in British Columbia." Note just in passing, Mr. Speaker, "certain views" — he didn't say "all the views," or even "the predominant or majority

[ Page 637 ]

views," but rather "certain views," which causes one to be somewhat suspicious.

Then, of course, we hear what those certain views are.

We hear about, for example, the adversarial nature of labour relations. We hear about the resistance to change, the heavy reliance on industry-wide bargaining in both the private and public sectors, its prominence in the day-to-day affairs of the province, the potential for damaging the public interest and the impact on citizens other than those directly involved in the dispute, and finally the adverse impact on our trading partners and on the potential for foreign investment. The trouble is that when we look at all of that, we discover that none of those arguments, as we have demonstrated, I think, quite clearly, really holds up to close scrutiny.

For example, if you are talking about improving labour relations, you don't do that by threatening one side to the point that they hold mass rallies throughout the province. Clearly, we haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that this kind of bill is in fact going to do anything to improve the economic climate. Rather, it might have the opposite effect. It might indeed scare off investment.

I struggled for a very long time to figure out what the principle of this bill is. You recall, Mr. Speaker, that when I began my remarks I said I wished I did not have to be confrontational; I wished I could be more conciliatory. Instead, however, I suggested that I saw some sinister kind of motive here, and I do.

I want to draw the attention of members of this House to what I think is the real principle, for want of a better word, behind this bill. On page 473, quoting again from the Minister of Labour's introduction to the bill — and I am delighted to see the Minister of Labour in the House; I hope he will indeed listen to the point — the statement is offered that the bill is a blueprint for reducing public frustration with labour relations, not for ending strife, not for satisfactorily resolving legitimate claims of the two sides in industrial relations. I suggest that that is a very dangerous principle.

If by itself that were all I had to base my case on, then I could understandably be called and referred to as perhaps being alarmist. Unfortunately, there is other evidence, also in Hansard, that supports and substantiates my claim that this is indeed the agenda. For example, this morning I listened to one of the more astute and cerebral of the members opposite, somebody who indeed has training in law, talk about the reason for this bill. I want to quote just a little bit of what that member said. I am referring, of course, to the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell): "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." The member for Vancouver-Point Grey then proceeded to quote to us Decima Research polls.

The question, if we reflect on it, is that we aren't being given a government policy that has right and value and worth on its own. Instead, we're doing something apparently as a sop to the monster called public opinion: we're trying to quell dissent, to quell public opinion and what is perceived to be some displeasure with labour relations as practised in this province.

I fear that the motive force behind this bill is simply this, to use a sentence that was provided by the wife of the former president of the United States when talking about the current administration of the United States: "The trouble with those kinds of policies" — in this case referring to what are called Reagan's right-wing policies — "is that they make us conformable in our prejudices." That, I fear, is what we have in this bill. This is an effort to take a particular sector of society that is perceived to be unpopular and to use that perception in order to gain political advantage and also some economic advantage for a certain sector within this society and this economy.

That is just inexcusable. That is dishonest. It is an abuse of the public trust, and I have great difficulty in maintaining any kind of equanimity, any kind of tolerance, any kind of understanding for a government that would use that kind of policy, that kind of technique, as a deliberate, contrived, conscious choice. I think there is something demonstrably definitely wrong with that. The reason is that we all know why it is that systemically, trade unions will necessarily always be unpopular. It is in our prejudices to look to trade unions as the enemy within. That's always the case; it always has been. It is certainly the case when we today are dealing with a high unemployment situation and we suddenly discover a certain sector of the economy, a highly visible sector of the economy, apparently earning good salaries, apparently having some protection. It's very easy, of course, to find the unemployed, the disadvantaged and the underemployed who will look to those individuals who appear to be comparatively well-off and see them clearly as their enemy.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: It's a scapegoat, precisely. And it has always been the case, because trade unions have always been an easy target. There are lots of reasons for that. Anybody who's ever done any study of industrial relations knows that. We know that. We know, for example, that in any dispute between labour and management there is only one side that appears on the front line. It's always the case that somebody out there is depriving the public of goods and services, and those are the individuals, accordingly, who are going to be considered to be the villains of the piece. You certainly don't see the management or the holders of the capital in a given operation standing out there preventing the people from getting their goods and services. You only see workers. Understandably then, people talk about "labour" disputes. They don't talk about "labour-management" disputes. Again, that's systemic. That's built in to the system.

[5:15]

We also know that people are minded to regard trade unions with suspicion simply because we live in a liberal, individualistic political culture. That's what we are as a society. Whenever anybody talks in terms of collectivities, whenever anybody talks in terms of group rights, we therefore understandably and naturally look upon them with some suspicion, if not downright hostility.

We also know that it is easy to get away with attacking labour today simply because there has been a concerted and very effective campaign for the last number of years in North American society that has succeeded rather well.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: It's very easy to explain why: partly because the campaign is very well-heeled and well-financed; partly because of course when you have a significantly high percentage of people who are regularly unemployed, and

[ Page 638 ]

who apparently in their own minds can't get employment because the trade unions are there and depriving them of jobs or maintaining artificially high wage levels, then those disadvantaged individuals are going to look for the scapegoat, and they'll find it in trade unions. That's why. There's no mystery there. It's pretty elementary stuff, so I suspect the question was rhetorical.

There are lots of reasons, in short. More scary and more threatening, I think, than just the fact that this is a government that is prepared, apparently, to make use of the public perceptions that unions are indeed not good for the public weal, or the common good, or whatever terminology one cares to use, is the fact that this bill would seem to want to be creating a society which is simply illusory, that cannot exist. We are told again and again that we will come up with a solution to labour problems that will effectively mean an end to the adversarial relationship. That, of course, is ludicrous, Mr. Speaker. We have trade unions, we have interest groups competing within our society, as a price we pay for a free society. It's just that simple.

If we wanted a completely quiet, passive and docile society, I would suggest to the members opposite that what we should perhaps do is simply provide cost-free Valium treatment or some such thing, and simply dope or otherwise drug the population. However, we decided a very long time ago, in terms of our history, that what we want is a free society in which the tensions and the conflicts between individuals are recognized, over the long term at least, as being beneficial to the advantage of all of us. Blake, the famous romantic poet, said it a very long time ago: "Without contraries there can be no progress." We prosper, we become successful, we produce the exciting and wonderful things in society because of competing interests— because people do indeed struggle one with the other.

If we wanted complete peace and complete harmony, clearly we would have to find another mechanism than the one suggested in this bill, because this bill is suggesting that what we will do is simply outlaw any kind of discord, any kind of labour strife. We will use the powers of the state, the powers of government, to effectively say: "There will be no more dissent, there will be no discord, because if you can't straighten out your affairs within the first 28 or whatever number of days it is, then by heaven, we the government, or the industrial relations commissioner, will do that for you." I suggest that kind of society is not really the one any of us, if we pause to think about it, finds desirable, Mr. Speaker. Rather, I think it's a society that has within it a repressive quality— a negativism that holds us back from discovering what our potential is, what kinds of things we might other wise accomplish. It's a bad approach to government.

It's reminiscent, Mr. Speaker, of all those arguments that, ironically enough, were adduced about democracy some 200 years ago when that was a revolutionary idea in terms of human history. How people argued against democracy at the time was that there was a tyranny of the majority; there was a capacity within that system for people to repress what was best and noblest and most exciting in human beings, a tendency to make us all into rather dull and unadventurous creatures. Ironically, what we have here, in the name of some kind of democracy, is an effort to repress particular minorities and groups within our society who do not happen to share the same view of society that we in positions of power might.

And that's dangerous. That's a dangerous precedent, a dangerous practice.

I see my time is about done, Mr. Speaker. I want to just touch on one other small part of this bill, and when we get to the clause-by-clause analysis, I promise the members opposite who are feeling deprived that I will give them much, much more.

The issue is that one individual is given so much discretionary power, and whether we like Ed Peck or we despise Ed Peck is totally irrelevant. The issue is that no democratic society and democratic system ought to invest that kind of discretionary power in one person's hands, especially a non-elected person.

If I may just make a final statement to summarize and conclude this, Mr. Speaker, my comment would be that the history of western democratic government has been based on the premise that we want a government of laws, not people — not men. What we are doing is turning back the clock and doing the opposite.

MR. JACOBSEN: It's a pleasure to stand and speak on this legislation. It's been an experience sitting here for the last week and a half listening to a lot of experts talking on labour matters. Certainly we've heard a lot of opinion from a lot of people, and as I say it's a pleasure for me to come here and express my views on it.

I should say at the beginning that I come with a background of being a logger; I'm proud of that. I've spent thousands and thousands of hours with a power saw and an axe and the tools of that trade in my hands, so I think that I can say I know a little bit about how the people who work in that industry feel. Also, for the last 25 years I've been an employer, and for more than half of that it's been with a union certified company that has had, I believe, a very good relationship with the IWA— a relationship that I very much value, and I want to make that clear at the outset. That's not to say that we haven't had some disagreements; we have, and we've settled those. But overall, there have been a lot more pluses than there have been minuses.

I'd just like to tell the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), because he made such a big point of it, that given the choice, I would not trade my union-certified company status for a non-union company under any circumstances. I just am not interested in that. I think unions have an important part to play in our society, and labour has to have some kind of a formal structure if this society is going to prosper and do well and I say that in all sincerity.

Let's look at this legislation from the viewpoint of its effects on the worker, not whether it's going to stimulate trade in the province, or stimulate our economy, or bring new investment into the province. Let's just look at it from the one aspect, the effect on the worker. The reaction from organized labour up to this point has been pretty dramatic. I've read things like: "It's almost declaring a state of war." I think I read one place: "We're going to make Solidarity look like a tea party"; and, "We're going to hit the bricks; we're really going to take some dramatic action." I've listened to the members of the opposition stand up one by one and condemn the legislation, each one obviously serious about what he or she is saying, but each one condemning it. So you begin to wonder what everyone is condemning. What is all the excitement about? What is the point here that everyone is getting?

MR. BLENCOE: That's the point.

[ Page 639 ]

MR. JACOBSEN: That's it; okay. Well, it seems the point is that power to authorize strike votes is one of the things mentioned in an article I was reading; order to end strikes and lockouts; designate a mediator for sensitive negotiations. I guess, when you look at it all, it boils down to one thing: it's the threat that perhaps this legislation will mean an end to the long and extended strikes in this province.

What are the effects of long strikes? Who suffers most from long strikes? That's the question we ought ask ourselves: who really suffers most? Let's just take a look at the record. Last year's forest shutdown has been talked about much, so let's just examine that one. What was the effect last year on the major integrated companies in the province of British Columbia that the strike was mainly against? Well, their financial statements are out and each one of them has shown a profit for last year; perhaps not as big as they would have shown had there been no work stoppage, but nevertheless they have shown a profit. But what was the effect on the IWA workers? Well, I can tell you what the effect was on the people that I employ. They were out of work for four and a half months. They returned to work for eight days. They were then faced with a two-month winter closure. And now they're back to work and they're paying $5 a day plus their union dues to cover the cost of last year's strike. I want to tell you that these people will not be back to normal by Christmas of this year. They will not have recovered from what they went through last year. By Christmas, they will still be suffering the effects of the strike last year.

I personally know the situations of many of them very well, and I don't know how they survived it. It almost brought me to tears to see the situation that many of those people were being exposed to. I'd like to invite the members of the opposition to sit down with one of those loggers, sit down with their wives and with their families and tell them what a great thing it is for them to have the privilege of staying on strike for month after month on these long, extended strikes. Tell it to the loggers and their families, and see what kind of reaction you get from those people. Explain to the people of that industry who were tied up in the strike. Tell them that you're doing everything you possibly can to maintain the status so that it will all have the opportunity to happen again someday.

MR. WILLIAMS: What did Judge Hutcheon recommend?

MR. JACOBSEN: Just tell these people what the consequences.... That they will have the opportunity....

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want to answer that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He was there.

MR. JACOBSEN: Well, I want to tell you that I've been watching the labour scene for some time, and I don't think that I can ever recall a situation where a long strike has ever benefited the worker. They usually don't benefit anyone, but certainly they never benefit the worker.

What would have been the consequence of that strike had it continued? Well, there's a suspicion on the part of many, a real concern, that it may have caused irreparable damage to the International Woodworkers of America and that, had that happened, it would have created a situation in British Columbia that would have been a disaster for the forest industry and something that we would be years trying to recover from and adjust to. But that was definitely a distinct possibility.

If this government would have considered only the interest of the people who were on strike last year — nothing else in it, and there's lots of other things you have to consider. But if we had considered only the effect on the people that were on strike, the best interest of those people that were suffering the consequence of it, we should have really ordered them back to work a couple of months at least before it all happened. I want to tell you that people were phoning me daily, hoping and asking whether the government was going to put an end to this strike because they couldn't bear the consequence of it any longer.

That's the reality of what happens when the strike is on. It's the workers that suffer. And for the opposition to sit here and pretend that they're supporting the workers and at the same time demand the right to carry on the long extended strike is just not being accurate at all. Those are not the facts.

[5:30]

The question of third-party intervention by having to go towards mediation on a strike issue is one of the best incentives there is to promote meaningful negotiations, because the records show that both sides are concerned about having a third party involved in a dispute. Labour feel they never get a good deal and management feel they don't get a good deal. It's one of the best incentives there is to get the parties to sit down and negotiate meaningfully.

There's a section in this legislation that calls for making provisions for trainees, and that has been criticized. You know, I think it's an absolute disgrace for people to sit in this House, with the number of unemployed young people that we have in the province of British Columbia, and say that there shouldn't be a provision in the Labour Code that allows young people to enter the workforce. One of the mistakes that we have made over the years is that we should not have accepted any collective agreement that did not show a proper and reasonable opportunity for young people to enter the workforce in the years gone by. That's one of the reasons why we have this unemployment.

I don't want to be too hard with the people of the opposition. I just want to say that this business of this conscientious issue, where people do not pay union dues because of religious beliefs.... That particular clause I think is rather weak. I'd have to agree with the opposition. I don't think that that's much of a clause, because I really don't think it deals with the problem. I have never personally had the experience of meeting anyone that objected to belonging to a union for religious reasons. Undoubtedly there are people like that, but I have never met one. But I have sat down with a number of loggers who have told them: "Listen fellow, I've got a contract with the IWA, and if you wanna work here, you become a union member or you have to go. There's just no other way." I have talked to a number of union members who have been unhappy about their union membership. It hasn't been because they were against the union per se; it hasn't been for religious reasons. But every one of the ones that I have talked to have condemned.... They didn't want to be providing resources for a political organization that they don't share the beliefs of; that is their objection to it. The legislation doesn't answer that, and I understand those people's concerns. Maybe we should have dealt with that, but we chose not to.

In closing, I just want to say that the opposition have had their chance. They have each stood up; they have spent hours

[ Page 640 ]

talking about this legislation. Let's go ahead now and pass the legislation. Let it go out into the workplace and let's have the test there. Let's see what happens when it is put into the workplace. Let it pass, and in two or three years from now, when the legislation proves a benefit to the province of British Columbia, I hope these people who have spoken against it will stand up and still acknowledge their position at the very beginning, the position they are holding today. Let's not make this into another Expo when it turns out to be a success.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have quite a few comments I want to make. I want to address the points raised by the member who spoke just before me. But I notice that the Premier is in the House, so I want to start off by talking a little — there he is; he is in the back corner — about a comment or two of his that I heard on the radio this morning.

The comment — I think it was in Nanaimo yesterday — was basically along the lines: "Well, I understand that labour doesn't like the legislation," which of course the Premier knew all along. "I understand that business doesn't like the labour legislation," which is interesting, because that was the first time I heard the Premier actually acknowledge the fact that the business community was upset about the labour legislation. I would be pleased to hear a little more about what the business community had to tell the Premier. In any event, he says: "Well, labour doesn't like it and business doesn't like it. They are upset about it, and therefore everybody else must like it." That was basically the thrust of the comment, which to me is contorted logic. If the two major constituent groups in society that are affected by provisions of the Labour Code and the announced changes are not happy about the impact the bill will have on them, then I fail to see how the bill can be any type of positive accomplishment in the eyes of the government.

I want to say to the Premier that if labour and business are indeed unhappy, then the House should not be happy, nor should the Premier be overjoyed.

There's a flaw in the legislation that all parties are now beginning to recognize and point to. It seems to me only common sense to begin to take a look at changing the legislation, instead of continuing on what is clearly, in my view, a mission to ram this bill through the Legislature. It just doesn't make sense. If everyone's upset about it, why move on it? Why not defer it? Why not put it to committee? Why not delay it? Why not take it off the floor of this House and come up with something that everybody can live with?

I don't really want to make the same speech I made the other day, but the bill has always been, presented as a piece designed to stimulate economic development in this province. What kind of signal, I ask the Premier, is being sent out to New York, Toronto or Hong Kong? That's where you want to send your signal. The signal to them is that labour is upset and business is upset. Is that the type of climate that invites investment in the province? Of course it isn't. You want to reverse that signal and send a more pleasant signal to people in the investment world who are looking to invest in British Columbia. It's not even achieving its so-called economic purpose, but for some reason the government thinks that by merely passing the legislation, they've done wonders to create the economic climate necessary to invite investment here. You haven't done wonders, because people aren't going to look at whether or not the bill passed; they're going to look at whether or not both business and labour find the bill one that they can respect. You're not achieving that by doing what you're doing. In the larger context, that is the major flaw in the legislation that the government has put forward— and the reaction to it.

I want to talk at some length about some specific provisions of the bill. But before I proceed to deal with some of the other matters I want to address, I want to talk a little bit about the comments made by the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) as I sat here and listened to him. The argument made was the one on strikes, saying that what we've got to do as a government is reduce the time of strikes; therefore the working person won't be affected by the injustice — if I can put it that way — or the economic downside of a lengthy strike.

I don't think anyone in particular wants to see strikes. I don't think anyone in general wants to see lengthy strikes, and I don't think that's necessarily the issue. The member says we should be listening to the working people. Maybe we should be listening to the people who represent those working people — the trade unions — and see what their concerns and fears are about the legislation. Perhaps by taking those fears into account we can develop a better system of reducing the time-frame for strikes, a system that is superior to what is being proposed in the legislation. Really, what's being proposed in the legislation is a specific time of 28 days, and then after 28 days we can bring in all sorts of mechanisms to end strikes. It seems to me that that hard and fast measure is not consistent with a desire to listen to what people have to say.

But what bothers me even more about that comment is the fact that there's an underlying premise in favour of eliminating strikes altogether, and suggestions that the strike that took place in the woodworking industry last year had little or no effect and hurt workers more. That's not the case. Those strikes and those fights and those efforts set the rates of pay in that industry; they set the conditions of work; they defined the working benefits. They not only did that for those members in the industry, they also set the standard for those in the non-unionized sector; the rates within that collective agreement define the standard to be expected by people in the nonunionized sector. It seems to me that therefore there is some merit in the process that we've gone through, and that there is not a lot of merit in saying: "Look, there's an expiry date on all strikes."

Of greater concern to me is the comment — and I heard it not only from the second member for Dewdney but from other members of the House — that the opposition is anti-youth; that we're opposed to programs for youth. What I find most astonishing about that comment is that the only time the matter of programs for youth — work for youth — has ever come up was in the context of this apprenticeship section in the Labour Code. Now, is that the Social Credit policy for youth employment — this one amendment, this one provision within the Labour Code?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says it's one step. Sure, if you want to look at it that way, it's one very small, minor and largely irrelevant step. There are a lot of people out there looking for work, besides young people. What the government needs to do is to come down with a program for employment that's specifically designed for young people, one that recognizes in particular the difficulty that young people have in getting access to their first job. The labour

[ Page 641 ]

legislation doesn't address that matter, nor should it. But that provision should not be viewed as being the sole provision — and it is to date — that's designed to create jobs for young people. It's not going to create a lot of jobs or many opportunities for young people. Clearly, if you want to wave the banner of young people, which I hope you do.... I hope the members opposite and the government will implement a program for young people. If you want to do that, don't use this provision. It is not the type of provision or the type of program that's necessary to put young people to work. I think it's somewhat frivolous and, frankly, unfortunate that the centerpiece of all of the discussion that I've heard from the government, with respect to its programs for young people, flows from this provision in the Labour Code. It's got very little to do with the comprehensive, concrete program that we need for young people in the province.

I've spent a few minutes deviating from what I wanted to talk about. I want to move into some matters that are of greater concern to me, in the way they relate to the provisions of the Labour Code. I'm glad to see that the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) is here, and the Labour minister, but particularly the Attorney-General. I know that there are debates among all of us about to what extent the Charter should apply. But I think there are some concerns that flow from the provisions of the Charter of Rights that ought to be considered, in light of the amendments that have been brought to the Labour Code.

It's fairly clear that there are certain provisions of the Charter that are always brought to one's attention when looking at labour legislation. There's the matter of freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Certainly in the United States, and to some extent — I'm going to talk about this a bit later — in Canada, those provisions of the Charter have been used to analyze the various powers of trade unions and have been used to bring down legislation that tends to strip away the powers of trade unions and workers' organizations. So there's an interesting question, at least from my point of view: to what extent do the provisions of the Charter have an impact upon the provisions of the Labour Code?

Members of this assembly, I'm sure, are quite well aware of the fact that last week the Supreme Court of Canada came down with a decision that talked about the applicability of the freedom of association and freedom of expression clauses in the Charter and the so-called right to picket. The court held in that decision that no constitutional right to picket was guaranteed under the Charter.

I've had an opportunity to quickly canvass that decision, and it's interesting to note that in that decision three of the judges felt that there was no constitutional right to picket; three of the judges, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, felt that those provisions of the Charter that I just outlined did ensure and guarantee the right to picket; and one judge ruled on it from a totally different perspective. He looked at it sort of from an evolutionary point of view in terms of the way in which the Charter has evolved and didn't deal with the question in the same direct fashion as the other three had, but he agreed with the majority in his decision. As a consequence of that we get a 4-3 decision; but it's really a 3-3-1 decision, which in my view has left the matter somewhat up in the air.

[5:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That decision did not deal with one of the provisions in the Labour Code that's being attacked this time around, and that's the matter of secondary picketing. In December 1986 there was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that dealt with the matter of secondary picketing. It's now known by those in the field as the Dolphin Delivery decision. In that decision, not only did the court say that picketing is consistent with the freedom of expression provisions in the Charter; it also said that secondary picketing is part of, and included in, the freedom of expression and association provisions of the Charter. It went on to say that those rights are subject to reasonable limitations. It cited, interestingly, one of the reasonable limitations as being the limits that are stated within the B.C. Labour Code— the old Labour Code, not the one that we're dealing with now in terms of the proposed amendments. It said in passing that one could perhaps embrace those provisions as being reasonable limits on the right to secondary picketing.

Of course, the amendments to the Labour Code that are now before the House go a lot further than what was before the court in the December 1986 decision of Dolphin Delivery, because in this case, as I understand it, the provisions of the Labour Code restrict secondary picketing and basically say that picketing is allowed on the home site, and you can picket other people who are coming into the home site at the time they arrive, but you are restricted severely and essentially cannot move your pickets to the secondary site. Therefore, you cannot secondarily picket. One has to ask how that is consistent with the Dolphin Delivery decision of December 1986, which acknowledged the constitutional right to secondarily picket. There seems to me to be a constitutional issue and a provision that can be attacked under the provisions of the Labour Code.

I want to tie all this in a little bit later, as I wrap up in about 10 or 12 minutes' time, in terms of how I think this has an effect on the material before us.

There is another provision within the Charter that impacts upon the changes in the Labour Code. As I am sure the Minister of Labour is aware, the definition of "person" under the Labour Code has been changed so as essentially to exempt federal companies. Therefore companies like Canadian Pacific or a large number of the transportation companies, particularly those involved in transportation to other provinces, shipping companies and the like, are now exempt as being persons and hence under the confines and the auspices of the Labour Code.

Having removed that, you remove companies, as I said, like Canadian Pacific, away from the secondary picketing aspect of the Labour Code. There then arises, at least in my view, an issue as to whether or not that provision and the elimination of some companies from being affected by the Labour Code and the allowance of other companies to be allowed within the provisions of the Labour Code triggers a whole set of Charter questions in relation to section 7 of the Charter— the equality one. It poses the question of why you distinguish between one group and the other. Why do you exempt federal companies or federal activities, transportation companies, and eliminate them from the Charter, and allow for other companies to be incorporated under the definition of persons under the Charter?

The test in court has always been that there must be some reasonable reason as to why some companies are exempt and others are covered. Once again— and I'm not too sure what the precise reason on the part of the government is in this case

[ Page 642 ]

— that provision is now vulnerable to attack under the provisions of the Charter of Rights, particularly the equality and freedom of association provisions. Of course, it raises a side question as to whether or not, by excluding all transportation companies, one is keeping the playing-field— as we keep on talking about it — level. So there is, in my view, an issue there again that impacts on the Charter vis-a-vis the provisions of the Labour Code.

In addition to that, there are the retroactive provisions that the government has brought in under the provisions of the Labour Code. Once again, I don't want to sound too legal, but it raises a very interesting question. By bringing in those retroactive provisions, which can take us, let's say, back to December 1986, it raises a very interesting legal issue. That is simply this: if the provisions of the Code are retroactive to December 1986, does it not raise all sorts of civil liability and, hence, damage claims? Let me give you an example: if the provisions of the Labour Code are retroactive, let's say back to December 1986, and if the law in December 1986 was such that you could indeed engage in secondary picketing — which admittedly it was; I don't think there's much dispute about that — and if as a result of that secondary picketing there was economic damage inflicted upon the company that was secondarily picketed, then technically in law that company now, because of the retroactive provisions, has the ability to commence an action in damages against the trade union that picketed.

The question is this: ought the retroactive provisions to be interpreted in that way, to say that something that was once legal and fine, and hence not subject to an action in court for damages, now is deemed to be illegal and opens up an action for damages? Is that fair? Is that what the government intended to do? Is that indeed its intention behind the retroactive provisions? Is it indeed its game plan to allow civil actions and damages to arise because of the changes in the retroactive provisions?

I'd like to think that wasn't the case. I'd like to think that there were other reasons the government brought in the retroactive provision that takes us back to December 1986, because I think that the government would like to be fair in recognizing the fact that a legal activity has now been deemed to be illegal, and it opens up an avenue that wasn't there before. Once again it raises a political issue in my mind: recognizing that that now is a legal issue, what was the political rush in moving on this legislation? And in light of that retroactive provision, is it not far more prudent for the government to consider amendments to the legislation, to send this matter off to committee so that we can analyze those provisions with a little bit more depth and so bring about the appropriate amendments designed against the very thing or the very loophole that's now created by that provision? It's a very dangerous provision.

I've talked about the Charter and the retroactive provisions. Let's move a little bit further, because it seems to me there arises again an issue of public policy as it relates to the powers of the commissioner, and particularly Mr. Peck. It really is one that sort of underlines what I understand to be the normal rule of law. The normal rule of law basically says that if there is a dispute between two parties, then the best way to handle that dispute is to send it to a neutral adjudicator, who then investigates the facts, listens to the submissions from the parties and makes a decision.

Let's take a look at the powers that Mr. Peck has. Mr. Peck, first of all, has the power to adjudicate. Nothing wrong with that; I'm quite willing to accept that as legitimate, acceptable and consistent with the normal rule of law that I outlined earlier. He also has the ability to control mediation, and I have only minor.... Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there's nothing significant to argue with respect to that, because I think that's also consistent with the normal rule of law. But he also has the power to engage as an interest arbitrator. What that says is that he can sit down and hear your submissions. He can listen to what you've got to say. He can operate under the normal rule of law and say: "Yes, I agree with the submissions that you make; yes, the submissions you're making are perfectly consistent with your legal rights." Up to there we're fine. But then he can turn around and say: "Notwithstanding your legal rights, I disagree with you." That's what the interest arbitration provision of Mr. Peck's powers allows him to do.

There's a public policy question here as to whether or not the government ought to extend that type of liberty to Mr. Peck. Secondly and more precisely, the public policy question is this: ought Mr. Peck's powers to be allowed to go beyond the normal rule of law? They're okay with respect to adjudication and mediation, but there's a clear problem when it comes down to the matter of interest arbitration. Clearly, from a public policy point of view the answer to that question must be no. And I'm sure the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) will agree when he reads this tomorrow in the Blues.

There are other provisions within the Labour Code that cause me concern relative to the provisions of the Charter. I realize that once again we're pushed for time, so I'll try to move a little bit more quickly on this one. At the end of the day, as I read the Labour Code.... I agree that each one of us comes from a particular point of view and a particular interest, but I think that any piece of legislation ought to be examined from all those interests and points of view; that's only fair. There are, of course, labour, legal and business points of view, and each one of us sees flaws and, hopefully, supportive portions in the legislation. But let's take a look at it from a point of view that says you have no right to strike, or a very limited right to strike. That same point of view says that you can't picket, and certainly you can't engage in secondary picketing. That point of view also goes on to say that you can't declare an item "hot." Now when you combine those three provisions together— and indeed, that's the way the legislation can be and has been interpreted by a lot of people — one basic point emerges, and that is that it undermines the basic economic clout of the trade unions that has kept the playing-field level. When you've got those provisions, when you allow that to happen....

Mr. Speaker, I see that we're almost at 6 o'clock, so I'll continue with these words tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Sihota moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.