[ Page 643 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Committee on privatization. Mr. Sihota –– 643

Mr. Williams

MGS Woodworking. Mr. Lovick –– 644

PWA/CP Air employee layoffs. Mr. Harcourt 644

Memo to government staff on Bill 19. Mr. Gabelmann –– 644

Ministry of Highways subcontractors. Ms. Smallwood –– 645

Presenting Petitions –– 645

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

Mr. Sihota –– 645

Mr. Loenen –– 646

Mr. Jones –– 647

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 651

Ms. Smallwood –– 651

Mr. Long –– 654

Mr. Cashore –– 654

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 656

Mr. Guno –– 658

Mr. Vant –– 660

Mr. Stupich –– 661

Appendix –– 665

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery on the east side is a very important diplomat who has just been posted to Vancouver from Copenhagen, Mr. Odvar Mosnesset, consul-general for Norway. The consul-general, who took up his posting at Vancouver on January 12, 1987, entered the foreign service of Norway in 1960 after some years in private business. He has served in Paris, Washington, D.C., Cairo and lately Copenhagen. I would ask the House to welcome him. I believe his wife Ella is with him.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery this afternoon is Miss Colleen McKilligan from my home town of Houston. I ask the House to make her welcome.

MR. PELTON: Visiting us in the Legislature today are two longtime friends of my wife and mine, Bob and Emily Hawes. I would appreciate the House extending them a warm welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL: Visiting today in the precincts we have students from Lord Byng Secondary School in Vancouver. I believe that about half of them — they've come in great numbers — are in the gallery at this moment and I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, there are days when you would like to bend the rule of brevity during introductions, and today is one of them. My niece, Ann Hoy, who has already shown herself to be an achiever — the only anglophone ever to graduate from the University of Montreal in the translation classes — is here, and I would ask that the House make her welcome.

MR. LONG: I would like the House to welcome today a good friend from Powell River in the Mackenzie riding, Grant McNab, who is in the east gallery.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to welcome to the House two dear friends of mine, Neil and Joanne Roos. Neil is the business agent for the Christian Labour Association of Canada. Please make them feel welcome.

Oral Questions

COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION

MR. SIHOTA: My question is to the Premier, and it relates to the matter of the privatization committee that was struck a couple of days ago. The question is this: does the Premier see no conflict in the fact that these people who serve on the committee will be able to glean information from the committee that may then put them in an advantage position when it comes to making bids to purchase these enterprises?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's certainly encouraging to see such enthusiasm and optimism for the potential of so many purchasers. Frankly, I don't think there'll be that large a number, and the chances of someone there being a purchaser are probably quite remote. However, I appreciate the fact that there could be, potentially, information available to committee members, or to people who have done legal work for various Crown corporations or government agencies, or to people who have provided accounting services to various Crown corporations or government agencies, or to others who may have in some way contracted for Crown corporations or government agencies. So I suppose, potentially, it could be a considerable list. Therefore, even though the numbers of potential buyers may be extremely small, there definitely is that potentially long list, which is why I think it's important that we come up front immediately, as we've done, to suggest that really the test will be, and the control will be, in the fact that all of the pertinent information from the committee — all of it — will be made public at an early date, so that there's no chance of that, or certainly that we reduce the risk of anything like this.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary on that matter. The reason why the Premier introduced guidelines for cabinet members was because of the same concern about potential conflict of interest. The Premier's guidelines on conflict of interest do not apply to these people. Will the Premier give an assurance to this House that he will apply those guidelines to the people who serve on the committee, particularly the guideline that prohibits people from getting involved in acquiring things six months after they've served their term? Will you amend your guidelines to cover these people?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I guess as a government we could run things in a way whereby all people involved in any activity that requires them to volunteer to do anything would be subjected to some extensive set of guidelines. Those who serve on the executive council of government certainly are required to meet the guidelines that have been established, but I don't think we would want to extend those guidelines to all people who serve in some capacity, volunteer or otherwise, on behalf of government in some particular effort.

So no, I can't say that. All I can say is to repeat that as we have been previously, and continue to be now, and will continue to be in future, it's open government. You make the information available, and certainly openness provides a greater protection than anything else.

MR. SIHOTA: I am not convinced that openness does.

Let me ask the Premier this question. During the course of the Sinclair Stevens inquiry, it became apparent that a conflict of roles with respect to a member on the federal privatization committee, when he put in a bid to buy Canadair.... That bid was subsequently withdrawn. Is the Premier not concerned that British Columbia is vulnerable to the same type of problem under the privatization committee that he has just struck?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, let me reiterate. I don't start from the premise that people can't be trusted. I start from the premise that most people are honest and above board and want to do a good job on behalf of fellow British Columbians.

But again, in that particular process, I don't think that is a good parallel, because what we are saying here is that all of the information will be made public at an early date. That

[ Page 644 ]

really is the best test. It is better than a set of rules which someone who wanted to be dishonest could overcome, get by with or get through with. I think instead the openness will be the best test.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to follow up on this point, in the case of consultants who are in the business of advising a range of corporations, it would appear that consultants that were involved in the task force would have had access to information that no other consultants would have. That would give them advantage over other consultants. Could the Premier not agree that in those cases these people should not make themselves available to consult with those who would buy the corporations?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, how far do you want to take this? I am sure that some could suggest that those involved in planning consulting.... There are a number of people involved in planning consulting. If somehow they could have available to them certain information as to where one might establish a pub, would we automatically suggest that this is related to privileged information? How far do we want to take that? I have never suggested that. I would never suggest it until or unless there was absolute evidence of this. But I think that to say that no planning consultant can ever start any sort of enterprise on his own which may be related to planning or community planning, because they had some privileged information, is to label the profession unfairly.

MGS WOODWORKING

MR. LOVICK: My question is to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. MGS Woodworking of Nanaimo has advised my office that job applicants are being asked if they are prepared to work two or three days without pay to give that employer an opportunity to find out if the employee would like the work. My question is this: has the minister decided to advise employers now that he approves of this kind of volunteerism?

HON. L. HANSON: The answer is a very clear no.

MR. LOVICK: In a supplementary, I want to know in what ways the minister has decided to enforce the existing legislation — namely, the Employment Standards Act — which very clearly requires an hour's pay for an hour's work, and whether the minister has decided to give a personal undertaking that any worker who is let go as a result of appealing under that particular legislation, invoking his or her rights under the Employment Standards Act, will indeed by protected if the employer cannot show just cause for allowing that employee to be let go.

HON. L. HANSON: To the hon. member, the people of my ministry certainly will investigate the charges that the hon. member has raised. All I will say to him is that I will ensure that the rules and regulations are followed.

PWA/CP AIR EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask the Premier about the Canadian airline job losses. A memo that came out of the federal Department of Employment and Immigration indicates that the PWA takeover of CP Air may result in the loss of up to 3,000 jobs, and many of them will be from B.C. — as a matter of fact, from Richmond and the Vancouver area. It's unfortunate that deregulation in the airline industry will cause unemployment and decreased service. We'd like to know what the Premier has done to ensure that this takeover does not cost B.C. thousands of jobs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the opportunity very often to watch television, but it so happened, coincidentally, that I too took out five minutes to watch television last evening. I saw that the same question was asked in the House of Commons, and the response to the question from the minister responsible was that he had researched the suggestion of this in fact occurring and that there was no basis for it. So I can't really respond to anything as hypothetical as that, even though the question has been previously raised by an NDP member in the Commons.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm very pleased that you're taking advantage of good New Democrat research. Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier will have to realize that there will be some job loss. B.C. was the only province not to appear before the Commons committee on this matter, and we would like to know if you have had any meetings, Mr. Premier, with Mr. Eyton and PWA about that job loss.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, certainly we have ongoing discussions with people in the industry, but I take this question seriously enough that I don't really want to go on some hypothetical thing. If I do arrange to meet with the executive members or an executive member of that particular corporation, I don't want to go on some hypothesis that was raised in the Commons. I'd like to have some further information on this; in fact, we're looking to get further detail. Apparently it was researched by people in the appropriate ministry federally, and that information is forthcoming to us.

MEMO TO GOVERNMENT STAFF ON BILL 19

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. I have a memo which was sent to senior management staff in the government instructing them to not allow debates or voting on Bill 19 at the worksite. Can the minister confirm that this memo was issued with his knowledge and approval?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I can't, because you're addressing the wrong minister. The responsibility for employees within the government falls to another ministry.

MR. GABELMANN: I assume the Provincial Secretary is discussing the transfer to IGR of the operation. I understood the Public Service Commission and the operation.... There's a fair amount of duplication in this. I would direct the question, then, to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Do I need to repeat the question?

There's a memo that's issued within the Ministry of Health instructing senior management staff not to allow debates or voting on Bill 19 at the worksite. Can you confirm, Mr. Minister, if this memo was issued with your knowledge and your approval?

[ Page 645 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, it was not with my approval.

MR. GABELMANN: I understood the answer to be not with your approval.

The memo prohibits voting and discussion even if it occurs on the workers' own time. Why has the government chosen to try to dictate to public employees what they can or cannot do during their own time?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I was not aware of the memo. This is the first time the information has been brought forward. I will investigate. I think it's incorrect in its assumption. I will report back, perhaps tomorrow morning.

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS SUBCONTRACTORS

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) told the House yesterday that labour only subcontracting should complain to the Labour Relations Board if they felt aggrieved about the subcontract they had signed. Article 49 of the minister's standard agreement requires that all subcontracting be approved by the government's engineer. Has the minister given approval to Sonny's, Ike Unger and Maximum, who are operating north of the Alex Fraser Bridge?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I thought that we had covered that adequately on past questions and with the press. The firm in question is primarily a trucking firm, and there are no percentage requirements for subcontracting when it comes to gravel truckers.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What the minister has said is that this is not illegal, despite the fact that the contractors themselves have stated they are violating article 49 –– I understand that the minister has looked at article 49, and I would like to know if the minister is contemplating raising the 35 percent level to 50 percent.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Not that the question of raising the 35 percent to 50 percent has anything to do with trucking firms, because trucking firms are clearly exonerated from the requirements of section 49, but regarding the question of whether or not 35 percent is a fair requirement in trying to keep control in the hands of the primary contractor, yes, I am looking at that figure. I am not convinced that 35 percent is an adequate control figure.

Presenting Petitions

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here that I would like to present. It represents the same feeling that has been put forward in these 220 letters which actually represent approximately the full membership of the Cranbrook District Teachers' Association. May I read it?

Leave granted.

MS. EDWARDS:

"To the Honourable Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, in Legislature Assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned members of the Cranbrook District Teachers' Association opposes the separation of teachers' professional responsibilities and bargaining rights as reflected in the proposed 'college of teachers'; the changes in the membership, role and duties of principals and vice-principals; and the retention of wage controls over teacher bargaining for another year.

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House withdraw Bills 19 and 20."

The petition is dated April 10, 1987, and signed by the president of the Cranbrook District Teachers' Association, Chris Johns, and the local association representative, Jack C. Sandberg.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled an answer to question 4 on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Orders of the Day

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

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
(continued)

MR. SIHOTA: I take it I've got about five minutes left. The point I was at yesterday in my presentation was really to talk a little bit about the provisions of the Charter of Rights and how they relate to the Labour Code. I had brought to the attention of members of the House a number of sections of the Code which were, in my view, in violation of the Charter of Rights.

When you start to web together the fact that under the Labour Code, from one perspective, there is no right to strike, or a limited ability to strike, the fact that there is no ability to secondary-picket, and the fact that there are limitations on, if not total banning of, "hot" declarations, a particular theme emerges. That is that the balance is tilted away from the trade union movement, and the field we keep on talking about is no longer level. That being the case, you then, in my view, undermine the position of trade unions.

When you do that, it seems to me that that in itself raises a constitutional question related to freedom of association. I indicated earlier in the course of my presentation on this matter that freedom-of-association clauses have been interpreted in the United States and also in Canada — and I brought to the attention of members of the House the Dolphin Delivery decision — in such a way as to reinforce the right, the freedom and the ability of people to form trade unions so that they can engage in free collective bargaining. When you begin to take those three features away, you then undermine the very essence of trade unions, and hence begin to violate the freedom-of-association component of the Charter of Rights. It's on that point, it seems to me, that the government regulations run afoul of the Charter of Rights.

[2:30]

Secondly, on another matter — and I'm running out of time on this — there is a concern that I have relating to section 37, I believe it is, which deals with double-breasting. I think a careful reading.... I said earlier on that I'm not an expert in labour law matters; it's not an area that I practised in. But certainly my reading of it and consultation with other people suggests to me that when you begin to shift the test away from

[ Page 646 ]

ownership to management, you make it easier for double-breasting to occur. In fact, you make it quite possible for it to occur once you've changed that test. I realize that the wording in the section is nominal; there doesn't appear on the face of it to be a major change or shift in the wording of the legislation. But essentially it shifts from ownership as a test, and now the test is management. Once you've done that, it seems to me that at that point you make the test a lot easier and indeed you open up the avenues for double-breasting.

I would certainly urge the minister to take a very close look at that provision of the legislation and to ask himself whether or not it achieves what it is that he has said publicly he didn't think was going to happen with the provisions of the new legislation: namely, that there was not going to be any double-breasting. That was what the government said, but on a careful reading of the section, it appears that indeed the opposite can occur. So I would implore the minister to take a look at that section and, once again, to embrace the position that we've embraced; to pull the bill away from the House and look at it quietly and bring forward amendments that would deal with that. In fact, in our view, the entire legislation ought to be defeated, rescinded and all that kind of stuff.

The final point that I want to make, as once again I am feeling the pressure of time, is the whole matter of limiting the right to strike under the provisions of the new legislation, and what effect that has on the powers of trade unions. Earlier on, when I was talking on the hoist motion, I talked about Paul Weiler. Let me end with this one very short quote:

"Let us carry the inquiry just a bit further to be absolutely clear on that last point. If the law were just to ban strikes by employees, that would effectively end collective bargaining. It would deprive the union of the ultimate lever it has to extract concessions from a recalcitrant employer. In the eyes of trade unionists it would leave the employees with no more than the right of collective begging."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the House that the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services will be meeting this afternoon for organizational purposes, and I would ask the House for leave for this committee to sit while the Legislative Assembly is sitting.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, it's an honour and a delight for me to speak in favour of the motion that's before us. I consider Bill 19 to be innovative, positive and, above all, responsive to the needs and the wishes of the people in our communities.

Our mail and our calls into the local constituency office are very supportive; the ordinary people of this province welcome this legislation. In fact, we're being asked not to give in, not to capitulate on this. The Social Credit government is not for big business. It's not for big labour. Social Credit government is big on the ordinary British Columbian.

We have been told that this legislation, Mr. Speaker, holds an anti-union bias. This legislation is not anti-union; it is a bias against irresponsible unions — and rightly it should be. The vast majority of the unions are responsible, but there are some that aren't. Some neglect the public interest and put their own private interest ahead of the public interest. Some neglect to look after their own members' interests. Those are big weaknesses that we must address on behalf of all people: the question of the public interest and the question of the individuals who at times are not well served by their unions.

When it comes to public interest, we ought to recognize that all of us are interdependent. We live in a society where no person and no group is an island unto themselves. No union, no membership — no matter how righteous their cause may appear to be in their own eyes — can claim that somehow everything must bend to their will. There is a public interest to protect, and it's government that has been uniquely appointed and that carries the authority to protect that public interest. This legislation is designed to do that. We have a duty to the people of this community, this province, and we intend to carry it out. Last year $2 billion was taken out of our economy because some one group wanted to see it all go their way; we simply cannot afford that. This is the type of thing that creates uncertainty, that tarnishes our image. It creates and generates a feeling of mistrust. When we live, as we do today, with an economy that is still very fragile, and when we have unemployment around 13 percent or 14 percent, we cannot stand idly by and allow one sector of the community to have it all come their way and damage and cause injury to all the rest. This legislation is designed to make sure that that does not happen.

A 1985 survey among foreign investors showed that the labour-management climate in this province was their number one concern when it came to asking if they should invest here. We ought to recognize that. We ought to recognize that we live in changing times. We are pulling out of our economic slump. We are recovering. More jobs are being created. Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, in February there were 24,000 more jobs in British Columbia than there were in January of this year; in March there were some 21,000 more jobs than there were in February.

I want to say something about the right to strike, Mr. Speaker. Repeatedly we've been told from the other side that somehow the right to strike is sacred. The NDP views this as an inalienable right. I don't believe it is.I don't think it ever is. I believe that we have to balance the interests of the various groups within our community, and the right to strike is not an absolute right. Yesterday and again today the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was defending strikes; in fact, he was saying that strikes had been a good thing; that somehow it was the road to progress. That kind of thinking, Mr. Speaker, is archaic. In today's sophisticated world we must devise better ways of solving our disputes than to resort to strikes. And then to point to strikes as somehow the road to progress....

I also want to just briefly comment on some of the remarks that were made just before I spoke. We were told that somehow this proposed legislation, Bill 19, is in violation of the Bill of Rights, whereas we were just — I think it was last week — told by the Supreme Court of Canada that it clearly is not. I don't understand how a member of the legal profession can mislead this House by suggesting that somehow this proposed legislation might be in violation of the Charter of Rights, when the Supreme Court has just said it is not.

I want to say something about Canadian trade unionism, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to our U.S. counterparts who are responsive to changing market conditions and who are far more pragmatic. Canadian unionism has suffered from dogmatism, has always followed outdated creeds and not been responsive to changing conditions. We live in a world where

[ Page 647 ]

we meet new challenges, and we must create a system that is responsive to the new challenges that face us. We cannot simply hang on to outdated dogma.

This legislation does not outlaw strikes. The emphasis of this legislation is not on the big stick wielded by Ed Peck. The emphasis of this legislation is on mediation, on fact-finding, on all kinds of innovative ways of resolving these long, drawn-out disputes: the cooling-off periods, the secret ballot votes, and on and on it goes. This is positive legislation. To suggest that somehow these awesome powers are going to be constantly used is to mislead this House and to mislead the public. The analogy can be drawn to a policeman who is given a revolver; we give a policeman a revolver not so that he can use it on anyone who runs a red light....

AN HON. MEMBER: But the potential's there.

MR. LOENEN: But the potential for grave conflicts is there, and in case it's needed, it's a darn good thing that a policeman does have a revolver. That is how we must look at this legislation. To immediately cause this hysterical, emotional response of suggesting that somehow these powers are going to be used constantly is to do a disservice to this province and to the many good union people who are out there making a contribution to our economy.

Just a word, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that there are some unions that do not represent their individual workers well. I know that from talking to people and from the kind of comments that come from my constituency. You know, union power is awesome, because the unions have been given the right to dictate and to control whether someone's livelihood will be there or not. That's an awesome power, and we all know of instances where unions have abused that power using fear and harassment. This legislation aims to do what is best for the individual worker, and if we want to speak up for the little person in this province, then we ought to back this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to many of the speeches from across the way. I thought that the most thoughtful remarks by far were made by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I appreciated his very thoughtful comments. In his latest speech he raised a number of issues that I feel some sympathy for, but what we ought to remember is that the kinds of issues that he raised are more properly addressed in third reading, where we go clause-by-clause. They certainly did not touch the main thrust of the legislation. I have yet to see cogent arguments for simply turning down the entire legislation and not even wanting to talk about it, as has been suggested by the people in the labour movement.

In short, Mr. Speaker, we simply must look to new and positive ways in which we can create a healthy climate for job creation and investment. I have previously urged that we look at employee stock-ownership plans, profit-sharing and productivity bonuses as ways of meeting the new challenges that are before us. If our unions — they are losing ground, and we all know that — wanted to continue to play a positive part, they would look at some of these innovative ways and continue to make their contribution in a new and changing environment.

I urge all the members to reflect on the fairness of this legislation and the need to get on with this vital job of strengthening our economy in the interest of all the working people and families in the province. Let us be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

[2:45]

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I rise in sadness today to take my part in the debate on second reading of this bill — sadness because of the motion in this House yesterday. I think we lost a tremendous opportunity, an opportunity to pull back a little bit, to rethink, to reflect on this legislation, to give it a chance to be understood by the people in the province. That opportunity was lost yesterday, and I hope there will be other opportunities for this Legislature.

In the debate that we've seen on this bill, we on this side had been suggesting that we have a sick patient here — a patient who has a number of deadly symptoms. Perhaps there is even a cancer in this bill. We've been saying: "We have to examine this patient. We may even have to perform some surgery. We need some time for consultation with other experts in the field." The government side has been saying: "This patient is not sick. This is the healthiest patient I've ever seen. All this patient needs is to walk out in the sunshine, to get a little fresh air and exercise, and this cancer will not have any impact." I think it's been a blind attitude toward a very serious sickness in this bill and a potential for serious problems in the province as a result of passage of this bill.

Our role as opposition, as I see it, is still to try to persuade the government that there are problems that need to be looked at. I think everybody in this Legislature has talked to a variety of people. I have talked to labour leaders, business leaders, labour relations experts on both sides — on the management side and on the labour side — and I have talked to constituents. Everybody that I've talked to sees serious problems, problems that need a rethink, a relook.

I think the tone, other than has been suggested by the previous speaker, on this side has been by and large temperate and thoughtful. We are trying to persuade. We're trying to use our powers as opposition to have the government rethink the serious problem that they're getting this province into. I don't want to be repetitious of the points previously made by my colleagues, and I don't want to reiterate arguments that are well understood, but it's hard not to, because they keep reappearing. If we look at yesterday's Sun, for example, we see two major articles on this bill that I think speak very loudly of the views not only of people with knowledge but of the general public.

I'd like to quote the article by Vaughn Palmer with the heading "New Labour Law is Fatally Flawed." Mr. Palmer saw three major problems with this legislation. It does not meet the goals that the government is suggesting, and I think they are goals that we all agree with and would like to see achieved with labour legislation. First of all, this legislation won't bring labour peace. Secondly, "the legislation won't encourage the efficient resolution of disputes." I think he makes some excellent points here — points that I've also heard from labour relations experts, primarily that this legislation "takes away ultimate responsibility from labour and management and also removes the incentive to compromise." This legislation is not facilitating labour peace and harmony, as we all want; it is making it more difficult for labour and management to achieve the goal of bargaining, which is a collective agreement. Thirdly, Mr. Palmer suggests that this legislation will not encourage investment; in fact, just the opposite will happen. He suggests that "discriminating investors will also know that the prospect of a three-year battle between government and labour is reason enough for investors to park their dollars somewhere else."

[ Page 648 ]

I think it's sad that we are facing legislation that is roundly criticized on all quarters, even by Jim Matkin, president of the Business Council of British Columbia, in yesterday's Sun. After meeting with the Labour minister.... This is from a figure who I think is well respected on all sides of labour relations matters. He suggested that "the real success of labour-management relations in B.C. is in the private settlement of disputes by the primary parties," and that this law, meaning Bill 19, "is of secondary importance." He also suggested that "collective bargaining is working fairly well in B.C., contrary to the forestry strike, which is an unusual dispute." He said: "Most of the time we're settling without strikes or lockouts, most of the time the settlements are lower than the cost of inflation...." Mr. Matkin is suggesting that this bill isn't necessary; that collective bargaining, even with the legislation we had, was working well.

Mr. Palmer suggested it was flawed, and my colleague from North Island yesterday suggested it was flawed. Mr. Palmer doesn't know the half of the flaws in this legislation, because half of them haven't been uncovered yet.

My colleague from North Island yesterday uncovered what I call son of Bill 3. Son of Bill 3 is section 65(2.1), which brings back the right to fire without just cause. This was the legislation we saw a few years back that brought thousands and thousands of public sector employees onto the lawns of this Legislature. I don't think we want a repeat of that kind of thing, and I don't know why the government has brought back this kind of legislation.

I'd like to turn your attention to another major flaw that has really not been uncovered in this legislation. It's on the last two pages, under the heading "Consequential Amendments." It's sections 72 and 73. These amendments are slipped in as more or less housekeeping amendments, just clearing up some loose ends at the end of the legislation. This is introducing changes to the Financial Administration Act that are supposed to be a consequence of Bill 19. In fact, what these changes to the Financial Administration Act do is sanction the Treasury Board to control all activities of independent bodies like school boards, municipalities and hospitals. This is not relating to a labour relations matter.

I would call this legislation the son of the Curtis directive. Perhaps you remember the Curtis directive of a few years back, This is where the previous Finance minister, Mr. Curtis, tried to run school boards of this province by directing those school boards to spend moneys the way he suggested from the Treasury Board office. The highest court in this land suggested that this decision was wrong. I'd like to read from that decision of November 21, 1985, where the Hon. Mr. Justice Hutcheon suggests: "In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that if the Legislature is desirous of transferring the power of local self-government from school boards to the Treasury Board, it must do so in clear and express terms." Well, I think that's exactly what we see come back in sections 72 and 73; the son of the Curtis directive is enshrined in this bill.

These amendments are not consequential amendments. They are not housekeeping, cleanup matters. They are not even related in any way to Bill 19. This legislation is being slipped in for some other purpose. In fact, they are sections that give the Treasury Board unprecedented powers in this province. These amendments aren't about labour legislation; they're about the ability of Treasury Board to undermine the autonomy and control the activities of hundreds of autonomous institutions in this province, from school boards to hospitals to municipalities to universities, from specialized societies to professional groups — in fact, anybody receiving money through votes of this Legislature.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I wonder what sort of consultation has taken place on this section of the act. Have the mayors of this province been consulted?

MR. REE: Point of order. I understand that we are in general debate of Bill 19 and not in committee, and references to specific sections would be out of order in general debate. Possibly the member could be so advised.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. We are here to discuss in second reading the general principles of the bill. As long as all hon. members are aware of that, we will be all right. Would the member continue, please.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, your point is well taken, as is the member for Capilano's. But starting with the minister, who made a great many references to specific sections, there has been a great deal of latitude allowed by the Speaker during this debate on this particular bill. I hope that there will not be a double standard in this House, with a certain latitude for government members not being extended to members of the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member for Rossland-Trail is well aware.... He is absolutely correct, of course, that the trend was established when the bill was introduced for second reading. Subsequent to that the Chair has been, I think, very, very fair in this regard, and will continue to be that way.

MR. JONES: The theme and the principle that I am trying to point out here, Mr. Speaker, is that this legislation is flawed, and I intend to point out a number of examples, as have previous speakers on this side of the House. It should not be approved by this House. In order to develop that theme I have to point out a number of specifics. Some specifics are so horrendous that they need some detail in order to point out how disastrous they are. I think it's to the benefit of the members of this government to get that information, because they're not aware. The Premier was reported in the news yesterday as not being aware of the implications of this section. If it's not given an opportunity to be debated here, neither side of this House can do its job in considering this legislation properly.

As I was saying, the sections of this bill give tremendous power to the Treasury Board, power never given before in this province and, in fact, ruled illegal by the highest court in this province. What we see now is these tremendous powers being transferred without any consultation, perhaps even without any consultation of the Premier.

I wonder how the mayors of this province would consider this legislation. The province could come in and affect zoning in municipalities by the threat of withdrawal of funds. I wonder how hospital boards and their therapeutic abortion committees might be treated if they were told that their operations were going to be under review and there was a possibility of withdrawing funds, or even fines, as was proposed under the Curtis directive.

[ Page 649 ]

I think these amendments are dastardly, to give power to Treasury Board, not this Legislature — not open government, not open debate, not cabinet, not the executive council, but simply the Treasury Board sitting in some room in the basement of these buildings making decisions on the lives of perhaps a major sector of this province that depends upon this Legislature for its funding.

[3:00]

The Treasury Board gets control of these matters by putting conditions on grants that force those once autonomous bodies, those bodies that are given autonomy in other pieces of legislation.... They now are directed by Treasury Board and can be penalized by that board for not behaving according to government directive.

So son of Bill 3 is one of the flaws in this legislation that I pointed out, and I am sure we are going to see more in-depth discussion of son of Bill 3 and son of Curtis directive in third reading of this bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: They're busy working on the amendments right now.

MR. JONES: We're going to have amendments to son of Bill 3; we're going to have amendments to son of the Curtis directive, and we are also going to have amendments to son of CSP.

One of the pieces of literature that was handed out with this legislation when it was introduced is called: "Ending the Compensation Stabilization Program." I was very pleased when I saw the heading: "Ending the Compensation Stabilization Program." I think we have heard Orwellian words in this House in the last few days; certainly the compensation stabilization program was the biggest brotherism that this province has ever seen in the public sector.

It was introduced in 1982 to restrain and stabilize wages in the public sector. Another word for "compensation" is "wages," and another word for "stabilization" is "control." So what we saw was "wage control" from February 1982 on. What happened was that this Orwellian body was set up as an arm of government to in fact act as a buffer between government and the public sector, in fact to do the government's dirty work for it. The government did not have the intestinal fortitude to freeze wages, which is what in fact they were trying to do during that period. But they brought in the compensation stabilization program.

One of the statements that accompanied this bill suggested that the public sector settlements now no longer lead private sector settlements. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to check that out and consulted with the library and determined that in two of the three years before CSP, the private sector led the public sector, and that the compensation stabilization program did not change that one iota. So we had Big Brotherism without any effect in this House.

A number of members of this Legislature were school trustees and board chairpersons during that period, and it was certainly one of the worst periods of education history in this province. Many of those people have since left their roles on school boards, as I have, because of the tremendous frustration during that period. Not only did we see cutbacks to funding, not only did we see the compensation stabilization program and directives like the Curtis directive, but we even saw Socred MLAs going around to lobby in a negative way those school boards that were trying to improve education in their districts. What we saw under the compensation stabilization program was an unworkable program.

Perhaps the words of Crawford Kilian in his book School Wars might amuse some of the sports fans in relation to the compensation stabilization commissioner. Mr. Kilian suggests on page 57 of that book:

"The new post of compensation stabilization commissioner had the effect of inserting a hockey referee into a football game. Boards would still go through the motions of negotiating within the new provincial limits, but any agreement they reached would have to be second-guessed by the commissioner, Ed Peck. Failure to reach an agreement by a legal deadline would require the board and its teachers to go to arbitration, an expensive and time-consuming process — and again, Mr. Peck would be the ultimate arbitrator, the Monday morning quarterback and referee rolled into one."

That process went around and around and around. Arbitration, back to Mr. Peck, back to arbitration, back to the parties; it was a tremendously frustrating process that led the B.C. School Trustees' Association of this province to suggest in its brief to the Labour minister that we should do away with the Compensation Stabilization Commission.

It was this same piece of legislation that suggests the compensation stabilization program will end in October 1987, but in fact, teachers are going to be under wage controls in this province to July 1988. The health employees' union is going to be under wage controls until April 1989. The Health Sciences Association and the B.C. Nurses' Union are going to be under wage controls until April 1988 and the Vancouver city police are going to be under wage controls until January 1988.

So it looks like the compensation stabilization program is coming to an end. But is it really, Mr. Speaker? In fact, under this legislation the Industrial Relations Council will review all public sector interest arbitration awards. Again we see Big Brotherism injecting its ugly head into labour relations in this province, And the reason that the Industrial Relations Council is doing that is to ensure that these awards are in conformity with the principles of the public sector interest arbitration now set out at length in this act. Guess what one of those factors is, Mr. Speaker. In fact, guess which factor is paramount in the minds of this review process. It suggests that where the ability to pay of the public sector employer is in issue, then the ability of the public sector employer shall be the paramount factor. So again we have the worst feature of the compensation stabilization program coming back into effect in this legislation. This is son of the compensation stabilization program, with its interference in the free collective bargaining of the public sector. In fact, this whole bill smacks of son of CSP. We do see tremendous interference on the part of government.

Ability to pay is the worst factor in the compensation stabilization program, because it replaces the long-standing practice of fair comparison. Fair comparison is the basis on which arbitration awards have been made as a result of these things being worked out for decades by labour relations neutrals. It suggests under the doctrine of fair comparison that the public requires certain services and that the public must, in fairness, pay the going rate for those services. We should not have this one-sided kind of legislation that is unprecedented in Canadian industrial relations.

[ Page 650 ]

Public sector employees are not second-class citizens. Ability to pay is primarily determined in this province by the provincial government; so I don't know why, if that's how you want it, the provincial government does not just legislate wage controls. Why not set wages? Why not be honest? That's the whole motive behind this legislation. If we did that, we could save perhaps a tremendous bureaucracy. The Premier doesn't like these bureaucracies. He's paying the commissioner two times his own salary. Let's do away with that. Let's be honest. Let's just set wage controls in this province. Let's outlaw strikes. This is what it seems the government wants, and government members opposite want. So I don't know why we don't just have the intestinal fortitude to be honest; have open government. Bring in that kind of legislation, and we'll see how the people feel about it. We would save that tremendous bureaucracy, and we would not have to pay Mr. Peck two times the Premier's salary.

Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to point out that both business and labour leaders in this province disapprove of this legislation. The press is able to pick out the major themes that are flaws in this legislation. The members of the opposition have done their homework and have found a number of flaws in this legislation. This legislation is too important and affects too many people in this province to be rammed through this House and not given full consideration by the public.

I'd like to raise a couple of other concerns, if I have time, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to raise just a couple of small points that are impacted in this legislation. One of the sections, of course, gives teachers the right to strike, or supposedly does. It categorizes teachers to be included in Bill 19; and this is a change from previous legislation. Government members are enamoured with saying to teachers of this province: "We gave you what you asked for." In fact, Mr. Speaker, teachers of this province did not ask for the right to strike; they asked for the right to bargain in a free, collective way. In fact, they asked for the choice of strike or arbitration. That point seems to be missed by members opposite and the press, but that was the desire of the B. C. Teachers' Federation in this province, a choice — at the point of a labour dispute, at the point of impasse in labour relations, to have that choice of whether to proceed to arbitration or whether to proceed to a strike action. What we see in this legislation — and another flaw, Mr. Speaker — is that in the education sector that I think we are all very concerned about, the only mechanism for resolving disputes is a strike-lockout mechanism. I think we can easily see, Mr. Speaker, that this is going to be tremendously disruptive to the school system.

The previous speaker suggested that the right to withdraw one's labour was not a fundamental right. Well, I disagree with that, Mr. Speaker. I think enlightened countries around the world would also agree that that is a fundamental right. But in this province any strike can be prevented or ended by the commissioner — not the Minister of Labour, not this Legislature, but the commissioner — any time he deems that such action would be a threat to the welfare of residents. The Premier is quoted as saying that a strike would not be in the public interest, and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is quoted as saying that he will deal with any job action if it arises. Teachers asked for the right to bargain; they asked for choice. And they were given an opportunity in this legislation that is an illusion of a right. It is an illusion of the right to strike, without any substance in it, and it has been suggested that the only time teachers are going to be allowed to strike in this province will be in July or August.

When I look at this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I try to think of the mental set that went into this on the part of the government. I can understand the frustration that everybody in this province felt during the forestry dispute. It was a long, protracted dispute; it did hurt the province. Nobody benefited — not big labour, not management. I think the Premier worked hard, and I think, although his motives were suspect because it was at election time, he did try hard to resolve that dispute.

It is in the public interest that at some point there may be a time to intervene in those disputes. The economy did suffer. But I think the mind-set was that British Columbia is the centre of the universe, that we're not part of labour relations in this country or in this continent, and that we did have a fresh start on October 22, so we can ignore all the history of labour relations in North America. So the desire was to intervene sooner. Perhaps these motives are honourable. The method chosen, of course, was the super-body with the super bureaucrat, so it won't look like the government is interfering. Again, we'll have a bureaucrat doing the dirty work for the government. It won't be the Legislature; it won't be the Minister of Labour. It will be a bureaucrat who will be blamed for intervening in disputes in this province.

I think it's sad, Mr. Speaker, that under our system of government we are so polarized in this province and that we cannot easily look intelligently at this kind of legislation. I think it is difficult for all of us to appreciate the tremendous implications that some sections of this legislation have. I think it has been pointed out in this Legislature, and outside in the media and by labour relations experts, that this legislation does favour employers, that it does create an unlevel playing-field, and that it favours the non-union sector and gives unprecedented powers to a non-elected official.

This Legislature is the one that should be determining when the public interest is in dispute, not a bureaucrat. What is our job here as elected representatives if it is not to determine the public interest? Why not have the courage as government to assume those responsibilities that the electorate gave to us to determine the public interest in labour disputes, and not hide behind the commissioner? That's not open government, Mr. Speaker.

[3:15]

I'm also suspicious of the timing of this legislation. We had discussed the budget. We were into estimates, and there was a tremendous amount of concern from a wide variety of people in this province — from home-buyers, from seniors, from small business. Everybody in this House, I'm sure, has been getting a tremendous volume of mail on this concern, and certainly the introduction of these bills deflects interest from those profound concerns that the average citizen, who is concerned about issues other than this legislation....

I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation does not achieve the goals that the government suggests — and that we all agree — are desirable: to bring about labour peace and harmony, to bring about labour relations that are fair and just, to have democracy work in this province in the work sector. It is not acceptable legislation, and it is seriously flawed. We have seen that in son of Bill 3, son of the Curtis directive and son of CSP. It is too important. It impacts on too many lives to be rammed through this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed in principle to this legislation, and I hope some system can be devised to give it a good look, so the government and the opposition can work together to bring about the kinds of goals that we all agree on.

[ Page 651 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey. [Applause.]

MS. CAMPBELL: I thank my hon. colleague for his support, but I am actually just seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier this afternoon that there were students in the precincts from Lord Byng Secondary School in Vancouver. They have come in such numbers that they are coming in and out of the galleries in shifts. I'd like the House to welcome a large number of students from Lord Byng Secondary School who are now in the gallery with their teachers, Mr. Robbins, Mr. Downey, Mrs. Mouat and Mrs. MacDougall. Will the House make them welcome.

MR. REE: If I might, Mr. Speaker, relative to the introduction my colleague from Point Grey made: possibly for the education of those from Lord Byng, the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and myself are both Lord Byng graduates — and this might happen to you someday.

HON. MR. REID: I take my place in support of the Industrial Relations Reform Act, Bill 19, even though I have not attended Lord Byng — but I certainly give credit to the college of higher education and learning and hope that you pick up something here today.

In reading the bill, Mr. Speaker, it certainly addresses.... After a strong public survey undertaken on behalf of the minister in different forms around the province, strong recommendations were received about labour management and public input and consultation relative to industrial relations in the province of British Columbia. And the one thing that it did point out to us, especially on this side of the House, who are so strongly concerned about the economy of the province and about job creation, is that it's time that as a government representing that sector of the community that the previous member spoke about — public input.... It also addressed so strongly the question of big labour bosses, big management bosses, and primarily it addressed the public interest and consultation with that public interest, which was the creation and formation of Bill 19.

The paralysis of the economy last summer that the previous member referred to, with a loss of income to the province's economy of over $100 million, and with no apparent resolve.... No matter what process the Premier and this government tried to implement over that six-month period, there was no process available to allow the economy of the province to get on with the job.

Mr. Speaker, the rank-and-file members of the labour movement out there, including the non-union labour movement which has a strong voice in the province of British Columbia and should always have — the labour movement entirely; I don't say union movement, but I say the labour movement — is the one that we're listening to. And we're listening to the rank-and-file member out there who's tired of being dictated to on an ongoing basis about his democratic rights and his right to finally make a decision on whether he can go to work or not.

Unfortunately, the soap-box operation of democracy that they operated before needed some addressing and that's why it's addressed in Bill 19. This bill addresses the question of democracy; this bill addresses the question of employment; this bill addresses the opportunity for creation of jobs and the ongoing opportunity for the economy of the province of British Columbia. So as a result of that, I speak in favour of Bill 19.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Unfortunately, I am unable to speak in support of the bill. I'm sorry that we've been put in the position of opposing the government's bill on labour; I'm sorry because I think that it was a tremendous opportunity — an opportunity missed.

I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the things we've heard in the last while from some of the speakers on the government side, and I'd like to start off by talking about quotes that we've heard again and again: that this bill has been put in place to protect the public interest; that this bill has been designed for the majority of people in this province, the people who are not represented by the big business bosses or the big labour bosses — indeed, the people whom I represent, the people in Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

Well, I've had some time to talk to those people, and I assure you that many of my relatives, including those in my immediate family, are those people, people who work in the mills, in the construction industry, in department stores, in social service agencies. And those people believe very strongly that in the issues of industrial relations in this province the only way that they can have a voice, the only way indeed that they can have strength, is by joining a union and by having collective strength. Because it's very clear that when the government talks about instances of violations of the Labour Code, instances where we've heard of violations of human rights or Charter issues, as individuals they have very little strength. They're in a situation where it's very difficult for them to function within a government bureaucracy, or indeed in the courts. But by joining a union, by actively participating in ensuring their democratic right in their chosen organization, they indeed can be part of a solution. They can be part of policy-setting in B.C., and historically have been part of policy-setting in North America.

I find it really interesting to hear members on the other side talk about their commitment to democracy while they're undermining democratic institutions and organizations of working people in this province. I find it ironic that members on the other side talk about their commitment to young people and demonstrate that by a clause in the bill showing that young people have a right to undermine the collective organization of their forefathers. In reality, many of the opportunities young people have in our society have been brought about by the commitment of working people's organizations of unions to labour law amendments, to labour laws that have taken them out of the mines, that indeed have taken young people out of work situations which have been dangerous to them personally, and who have fought for the rights of young people to good public education and apprenticeship programs supported both by workers and by employers. I find it ironic that the representatives on the other side find themselves now talking about trying to undermine those hard-fought victories that democratic working organizations have gained for all of us.

In the discussions we've had over the last while, we've talked about different implications that the bills bring on

[ Page 652 ]

B.C. residents as a whole. The bill itself talks about public interest, as have many members on the other side. I've been trying to hear from the members of the government side what that public interest is. I've been listening for a definition as to who in their minds the public is represented by. It's very clear that in the minds of the government the public is not represented by those who oppose the bill, and that list grows daily. It's not big business; it's not small business; it's not big labour; it's not the teachers; it's not professional organizations. As the days go on, the list grows longer and longer. I think the challenge is out there for the government to define public interest, and to do it in a way that we can all understand so that the public interest, so-called, is not defined on a daily basis at the whim of any particular minister or government representative.

Another quote that I want to take exception to, and that has been spoken of by other members, is that this legislation is a package to deal with problems of attitude. I think it's really important for us to make it clear that any problems of attitude are learned by governments that impose legislation on the population, on democratic organizations, on organizations that are supporting either professional groups or management groups or indeed labour groups. Those attitudes are learned, and I think one of the things we have to commend at this time is how the people who are being put at risk by this legislation are dealing with a government that is uncaring, a government that is unprepared to listen to criticism, indeed unprepared to try to grapple with some of the solutions that have been pointed out.

I would like to commend the organizations that are systematically trying to inform and educate their members as to the implications of this complicated legislation. I would like to commend them for their commitment to insisting that they have something to say in a democratic society. Again I would like to add voice to their concerns, and ask the government to listen to and indeed to join in a partnership with the people of B.C. to look for solutions.

[3:30]

I think what has to be acknowledged when the government is dealing with any labour legislation is that a collective agreement is a consensus document. It is a document worked out by two democratically appointed representatives. That document is one that strives to deal with the needs of both management and labour, and that it is a legal document and has to be respected as such.

I spoke earlier, when we were asking the government to consider the kind of discussion and dialogue necessary to reach a good Labour Code for the province, about some of the changes that our province and, indeed, all industrialized societies are undergoing and have to deal with. I think that as much as there are reasons to oppose the bill for what it does have in it, there are also reasons to oppose the bill for what it does not have in it; and that the government has failed to seize the opportunity to create a framework for dealing with technological change. While the bill requires that 90 days' notice be given to unionized workers, it substantially weakens the legal protection given to workers during introduction of technological change. Adam Smith's unseen hand of the marketplace has a new tool; it is the unseen hand of technological change.

People in workplaces throughout B.C. often don't see technological change coming. However, the change in the workplace has significant impact, not only on their working conditions but also on their own personal lives. For example, the forest industry was shut down for over four months last year, but the Council of Forest Industries reported that there was very little effect on total production or sales, which were very close to those of 1985 and 1984. The reason for this success was the tremendous technological capacity of our forest industry, which is now a thoroughly modem industry. However, the successes were achieved with about 1,400 fewer people working, and that's just in a two-year period. I think that members opposite who talk about the impact of that strike are not acknowledging the fact that union and management were in a struggle in which they were unable to reach a consensus, a consensus affecting their work lives, and were grappling with issues like technological change. It is very clear that the forest companies were not hurt as the working people of this province were.

If the government is truly concerned about working people in the forest industry, the people who fought for the things they believed in — and I don't think that point has been dealt with sufficiently by representatives of the government.... This group of people were on strike for four months. They had trouble meeting their mortgage — my own relatives, my own family. They supported the organization that represented them. They were prepared to withstand personal hardship. They were prepared to fight for what they saw as their economic and workplace realities, and for their right to have some say in issues that spelled out not only their own future but also the future of young people following them. Unfortunately, what we saw was one group of people in this dispute suffering greatly while the other side made mammoth profits. If the government were concerned about the majority of people in this province, clearly they would try to change that imbalance; clearly they would put in place labour legislation that would help share the profits made through the technological advances of this industry. The people of this province are suffering because of the changes our society is undergoing. People in the forest industry were prepared to stand up and fight for their jobs, and to fight for a share of that profit.

I submit to you that they paid too highly, that working people in this province have been paying and paying, and this legislation will make them pay more. The working people of this province will not be, as was suggested by a quote from the Premier, quieted. Either we have labour legislation in this province that reaches consensus, that deals with the issues that are important to working people and management alike, or we will have further disruption, because people in this province will not lie down and play dead.

The impact on the forest industry by technological changes is only one example. We're seeing it throughout all sectors of our society. We're seeing technological change in industries that are predominantly jobs for women. We're seeing it with industries such as the communication industry. I realize full well that it is under federal jurisdiction; however, I think that it's a really good example to take a look at, and that is the example of B.C. Tel and what is happening with the ongoing changes in that industry due to technological change.

Before I talk about B.C. Tel, though, I think that it's interesting to look at the overall statistics for Canada. Figures provided by Statistics Canada for the 20 years ending 1980 show a disturbing trend. The average annual employment per million dollars of real capital dropped from 82 jobs in 1960 to 37 jobs in 1980. In forestry the drop was even more pronounced: a million dollars capital provided 175 jobs in 1960,

[ Page 653 ]

and by 1980 the equivalent capital, allowing for inflation, provided only 57 jobs — roughly one-third. In the mining industry there was a similar drop: from 24 jobs per million capital in 1960 to just eight jobs for the equivalent amount of capital in 1980.

Again, I want to emphasize that we're undergoing substantial change. The change that our society is undergoing has to be seen in context, has to be part of the so-called package that is put before us, and we have to begin to grapple with those. If indeed what the government is saying is that it is trying to encourage investment, encourage international investors, I have yet to see any indication that has been put before us — perhaps the members on the other side can show me exactly where in the bill the flags are — so that international investors can see that this is a good place to invest.

The impact of technological change for B.C. Tel. As I indicated, there's a consistent pattern there as well. This pattern has emerged for work being consolidated in large urban centres, to the detriment of communities like Cranbrook and Vernon. Many workers were women in two-income families unable to relocate. Many of them wound up either on unemployment insurance or in forced part-time alternate employment.

What this is saying to us is that not only is the forest industry showing huge profits because of their ability to put in place automation that is causing workers not only to lose their employment but also causing them to fight for principles such as contracting out and fight for a share of those profits, but we're also seeing some real displacement of workers. The 90 days that this bill provides for does not in any way allow workers to have some say. I think that one of the things that this government has to acknowledge is that working people in this province have something to contribute to the decisions that are being made, and indeed sometimes have a lot more to say about their workplace and the kinds of skills and decisions that are made in their workplace. I would hope that this bill would talk a little bit more about actual democratic involvement in the decisions that are being made at the workplace by workers.

Again, this bill in no way lends itself to the sharing of decision-making. It in no way acknowledges that democratic workers' organizations should have some say in decisions that are made about massive technological changes in their workplace. And the bill in no way indicates that working people should have some say in management decisions that are made. It is clearly one-sided. It clearly supports capital and management, and does everything possible to weaken organizations that working people have and indeed fractionalize and undermine the ability of working people to have a say in their workplace.

[3:45]

There are some fundamental decisions that our society has to face, and I think that our government should be in a position of supporting collective actions by democratic organizations. What we are beginning to hear now throughout B.C. is that the initial concerns raised by the representatives of business, community groups, teachers and labour organizations are beginning to be reflected throughout all segments. We're hearing people saying things like: "We agree. You have our ear. We are concerned. We'd like to hear more." The government has denied people in this province that option. They have denied them the option of participating meaningfully in the development of a bill that could serve their needs and acknowledge the fact that we are undergoing significant changes in our society. Again I say to the government side that it's not too late; it can withdraw its legislation, it can postpone, and it can join in a process of consensus-building in this province.

It's important that if we do acknowledge that there is significant change going on out there, we acknowledge too that it is a very fragile time for our society. Everything that government can do to support and help the people of this province work through this fragile time will be a step forward. The economy is not stable, and we need to send signals, not only to people in B.C. but across Canada and internationally, that we are committed to doing the kind of slogging or work that is necessary to reach consensus. Perhaps it's not glamourous or glitzy, but that's what's needed. I think it's a commitment to reaching a joint agreement, a platform, a position to move forward. I believe that the time spent on that will be time that will bring us into the new era and will bring B.C. as a whole into a position of shared prospering that will stop the momentum that I believe is now undertaken, a momentum that is dividing our province, clearly putting one small group of people in a group of the haves and a larger group into a group of have-nots. It's a time, as I said earlier, for opportunity. That opportunity can be a shared opportunity and to the benefit of the majority. But people have got to start grappling with the new technologies that are coming at us so quickly, embrace them and move forward with them, ensuring that the technologies that are made by people serve people.

I think the opportunity that will be ahead of us where we go clause-by-clause, looking at the impact of the bill, will be a time where we can look at the specifics. I hope that the government will listen to the people of our province. I'm concerned that we are not seeing any indicators right now. The government indeed is not proceeding on its own agenda, an agenda that doesn't reflect the needs of the people of the province...that are not hearing the cries out there, the cries for consultation, the cries for consensus. I hope that over the Easter weekend the government can have a few moments to itself, to contemplate the things that it's heard, to reconsider, to open the process and indeed be the government that they talked about, the government of consultation — to show that the words we heard of openness were not just rhetoric, that indeed the government is committed to my neighbours, to my relatives, to the people that are working in the mills of this province, to the people who are working in the many industries that are indeed the backbone. Because regardless of the investment or, indeed, of the power that management and capital wield in this province, the working people are the backbone, the people who will build the future for all of our children.

I will just wrap up and again ask that the Minister of Labour — I see him sitting over there — have a good Easter weekend, and maybe an opportunity to read Hansard, some of the speeches that have been made by members of the opposition; an opportunity to contemplate some of the very good points that have been made by my colleagues and by many people who have first-hand experience with the different sectors in our society. I think a good indicator of the measure of any government is their ability to listen, to take all of the points into consideration and be able to amend, for the betterment of all of us. I think it is a sign of strength and of commitment for a government to be able to say: "We put a bill to the House. We listened to the people. We listened to the reactions and the concerns expressed by all of the people

[ Page 654 ]

of our province, and we agree; we want it to be the best that it possibly can be." I think it is an opportunity for the government to show that it is indeed committed to the principles that it says it is committed to, and to take the next step and formulate a bill that is a consensus document, a document that reflects the needs and concerns of our diverse society. It is an opportunity to acknowledge that a tour which the government undertook was only an introductory step, only an opportunity to open some doors, to begin dialogue; that it wasn't the only dialogue going to be out there; that it is prepared to put itself in a position of acknowledging that the advice it has had to date is not the only advice out there; that there are talents and strengths in our communities, our society, that have to be tapped; and that this bill is only the beginning, only an opening statement instead of a closing statement. If indeed it is the closing statement, then I'm fearful for what will happen in our province, what will happen to working people's daily lives, their workplace, their influence and their opportunity to have some say in what goes on in their workplace.

I'll just wrap up with that, and look for an opportunity to discuss some of the impacts of the legislation clause by clause.

MR. LONG: I rise today from this side of the House to speak to Bill 19. I don't know why some of the other members on this side of the House don't realize there are people on this side of the House that are for the bill, and I think they're for the bill because it's good legislation.

I think it's fair legislation. It's fair for industry and it's fair for labour. Industry needs stability in its markets. The people who buy our goods overseas have to have stability; if they don't, they're not going to shop here. And if they don't shop here, we don't have jobs for union people or for any people of British Columbia. That's in the long term. This has happened in the past. We've had problems, and we've lost a big market share in the world. It's starting to come back, and we've got to make sure it's going to be there in the future. It's fair to all of the public — the union and the non-union sectors of British Columbia. They need our support in this bill.

One of the biggest areas it's fair to is labour. I've been a labour person for 20 years, and I still am today. In the labour industry you have the top end and you have your companies, but not too many people are talking about those people in the middle, the people working and doing the job. No one is asking what they want in this bill. What they want is stability. They want stability for their lives. They want to be able to buy and pay for a home; they want to be able to raise their children; they want to have their cars and their holidays, without these huge interruptions in their life that stopped labour causes.

I heard the hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) say that they never heard from this side of the House on public interest. Well, the public interest is everybody in British Columbia, be it union, business, the non-union sector or our social services. If we don't have stability in our province, we don't have the moneys to make the social services work. With all the labour interruptions through the argument between big business and big unions — not the working people; they're just held as pawns in the game — this is what happens: we lose our funding.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend Bill 19, and I think it's a good piece of legislation that can do the very thing that we're looking for for the working people in this province. I think it's time that the big union bosses and the big company bosses realize that these are the people who make our economy, and they're the ones we've got to look after. So I think I can speak for a lot of union people, and I think that if we proceed with this bill it will bring stability very quickly.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off my remarks in speaking against Bill 19 by saying with all sincerity that I appreciate very much that the Minister of Labour has been present in this House throughout most of the debate to hear the comments of the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I think that in doing so he has set a standard that is going to bring good repute to this House, and I appreciate it very much.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to stick pretty closely to my notes this time, because I've been finding that when I don't, I don't end up saying what I wanted to say, or I miss out on quite a bit of it. So please forgive me for staying so close to my notes.

I rise to speak against the principle of this bill with real sadness. It's not a pleasant task in a democracy to have to argue and plead for consultation. This is sad, Mr. Speaker, not only because you shouldn't have to argue for democracy in a democracy, but also because the Premier of this province promised to end confrontation. Members of the labour movement have responded with openness and trust to the Premier's stated intention. They participated in joint initiatives. Labour, management and government participated together to create real jobs. They worked at it. Were it not for the embarrassing, inappropriate and naive incursion into the forest industry dispute during the election, therefore prolonging the day of settlement — were it not for that one unfortunate series of events, where the Premier dug a hole with his silver shovel, only to fall in.... But we do recognize that he did climb out. He did dust himself off and he started again, and labour and management welcomed him back and continued to cooperate.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for the Premier and his government to inflict an insensitive, unnecessary process on the workers, the employers and, yes, the oft-mentioned third party — the public. Many government members have referred to the third party — the public. The use of the phrase "the public" by the government doesn't guarantee that the public interest will be protected. You can say those words as often as you like, but if they're merely words, they don't guarantee any type of protection for the public. The public is not asking you for this kind of help. Why? Because it won't help. Help like this the public doesn't need. We could write a new title for this legislation. I've put a lot of thought into this, and I think we should at the very least recognize that we need a new title on this bill. The title, I submit, should be "The Helping Hand Strikes Again." I think that would be a more appropriate title for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, no one who has spoken on behalf of government has indicated that the public specifically called for a sledge-hammer to kill a fly. Certainly some people want changes, but this is overkill in the extreme. The people haven't asked you to dismantle the Labour Relations Board and render useless 15 years of experience with the Labour Code. The people you refer to haven't asked you to do that. The public did not call on you to destroy the ability of workers to decide, free from employers' interference, whether or not to form a union. The public didn't call on you to invite the courts into labour relations, didn't call for government interference at every phase of bargaining, didn't call for a super-

[ Page 655 ]

bureaucrat to rewrite collective agreements, didn't call for employers to be enabled to fire while denying arbitration protection to workers.

[4:00]

Do you think the public really wants to experience the continued erosion of the wage base in this province, Mr. Speaker? Much has been said about the Expo project and its example of industrial harmony, but many of those who worked at Expo received wages so low that in the case of students, they couldn't save to go back to college. In the case of single parents, in too many instances they found themselves among the working poor. There are many other examples.

This bill will result in continued erosion of the wage base in this province. This will result in the continued drift toward the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. On the one hand, the government lowers taxes for the very rich; on the other hand, it raises taxes for working people. While this is unfair, it is the fiscal policy of government. How does government expect to raise tax revenue by enacting legislation that will erode the wage base, thus lowering revenue and, at the same time, promoting disharmony?

Mr. Speaker, I understand that government members are calling for us to be positive. How can we be positive when we see a government behaving like a runaway train — a runaway train that will be derailed by job loss, investment loss and a general loss of quality of life for the majority of our citizens?

If the government feels that it is speaking for the people in inviting this kind of disruption, it had better think again.

Mr. Speaker, small business generates most of the jobs, by far. If this legislation lowers wages and scares off investment, then bankruptcies will continue at a high level in B.C., and the multiplier effect that we hear so much about will need to be renamed the divider effect, because it will cease to provide the kind of stimulation that is so desperately needed.

I would just like to refer to the comments made by John Mika in the Times-Colonist on Monday on this point. He said:

"When you strip away the verbiage, the naked political motive is to provide cheap labour and services for the big and powerful interests outside this province. That points to peonage, with its characteristic rising unemployment and declining wages, for more and more British Columbians, while foreign fat cats, stock marketers and other non-productive types skim the riches of this province."

Mr. Speaker, this legislation sounds very much like the grandiose plans of the Bill Bennett government. Cause confrontation, play around at being tough-guy.... You people don't need to dust off your macho image over there. Why would you do that? Why send out a message that the Premier is a wolf in sheep's clothing? Why continue to go down that path?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

To go back to the runaway train image, when the train fails to arrive at the station, what do you want the people you constantly refer to to say? Do you really want them to say:"Bill Bennett lives"? Is that what you want: confrontation, to make a point? You know that tough-guy strategy won't work; that's why you got rid of Bill Bennett. You knew the public was tired of that non-consultative, hurting, damaging, counterproductive approach. Is that what you want: the people you claim to protect saying: "Bill Bennett lives"? Is that what you really want?

To change the metaphor again, the Social Credit leopard tried to change its spots and to go with a new leader — a leader styled on non-confrontation, styled on consultation, openness and cooperation. Are you now admitting that that was only style, and that there really was no substance, that Bill Bennett is alive and well. I don't think you want that; I think it is out of character with what you say you are.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has registered his concern that this legislation violates the International Labour Organization covenants. Because this legislation severely limits the right to strike, and in some cases removes that right where it was not prohibited before, this law violates our signature on those agreements. If we wish to maintain our good name in the arena of international affairs, then clearly we must avoid any intemperate action that will sully our name abroad. Clearly that's in the best interests of British Columbia.

We know the government is concerned about investment on a global scale. We know from the statements that were made about the budget that it was designed to enhance and increase the amount of foreign investment. While we argued from our side of the House that that really wasn't the case, that it wasn't going to work, we know that the government genuinely does want to increase international investment. That's a legitimate concern. But our economic self-interest, perhaps not to the same extent but to a significant extent, will be damaged if we are known as the province that won't keep the agreements on international covenants.

I have listened in this House, and I have read Hansard, and to my knowledge no one has answered the question concerning the effect the bill will have in removing the incentive to bargain in good faith. If you are in a dispute and if you are aware that if you don't reach an agreement you face compulsory arbitration, then there is no incentive for you to trade off any items during bargaining. Why would the government insist on that? Surely this government has different available avenues leading to the opportunity to save face.

One was the hoist motion, and that was rejected. But here is hope; there is light at the end of the tunnel. There are procedures for changing, for pausing and reflecting. That opportunity has not passed. Another change that is needed involves the guidelines for the public interest inquiry board. Apart from the question of the appropriateness of this procedure, the guidelines are broad in that the board can determine its own procedure. Section 137.99(6) should assure that the real rules of natural justice shall prevail.

I know that with the support of the legal counsel, this right can be argued. I know, having been the senior chairman of the British Columbia mental health review panel in public earnings of that nature that do involve persons who are not trained in law, that it is very important to have stated very clearly in the legislation, or at least in regulations governing that legislation, that employers and workers would be assured of their right to retain legal counsel and to cross-examine witnesses. I think it would be very, very disturbing if we found in the carrying out of that procedure that the rules of natural justice were not being followed in the most appropriate way possible.

We have looked at this legislation from many different angles. We have considered the way in which it impacts on the public. We have considered the way in which this legislation will cause disruption and dissension. We've considered

[ Page 656 ]

the way in which there are signals coming from the employers that indicate that they have very serious doubts about it. Obviously our approach in opposition is to call for this legislation to be withdrawn and to recognize, as the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) said in an earlier speech that he made, that sometimes you just can't get there from here.

That would be our hope, but at the very least I think that several different key parts of this legislation have been identified as being severely problematic, and at the very least it would be a gesture of good will on the part of government to start to indicate that there is a willingness, on the basis of the kind of very good listening that has been going on by the minister, to make some significant changes. I think that that kind of indication would send a signal to the public of this province that you are not hard and fast, that you are willing to listen and be influenced by the process of public dialogue that is taking place. I think it is incumbent upon you to do that, and to pay very close heed to some of the very startling concerns that have been raised during this discussion.

In his column last night Vaughn Palmer mentioned three basic points, and with regard to these three basic points there is a growing consensus in this province. One is that the legislation won't bring peace. The second is that the legislation won't encourage the efficient resolution of disputes. The third is that the legislation won't encourage investment, because the dispute-settling powers are so unprecedented that investors are more likely to be shocked than impressed.

Madam Speaker, I think that concerns are being raised from virtually every sector and segment of our society. These concerns are to be taken seriously. I do not believe that the Social Credit government is going to enhance its position, either as a body that produces legislation or as a political entity, by insisting on this approach that seems to be hell-bent on going along that track leading to a very, very dangerous situation.

I think that one of the time-honoured values of the democratic legislative process that is being affirmed in virtually every speech by members on both sides of the House is that that process involves the public. Having heard the term "the public" used so many times by members on both sides of the House, I wonder what the public is really feeling about its role in all this. I would expect that members of the public, the people who really are out there — and some of them are represented by folk in the gallery today — would be people asking this question: "Between elections, does anybody really listen to us? Does anybody really care?"

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: I'm glad to hear the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) say: "Absolutely, we do listen." I would expect that the next thing the hon. Provincial Secretary would say is: "And because we listen, we are about to make some announcements that are going to bring a sense of stability and hope to the people" — which you so often refer to — "and an awareness that there is indeed light at the end of the tunnel," and that you are not going to proceed to take us down this track leading to something that is going to be very, very detrimental for the fabric of our society and for our future.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Are you looking for a lottery grant in Coquitlam?

[4:15]

MR. CASHORE: I think that the people of Maillardville-Coquitlam expect fairness with regard to all aspects of what would be done by government within this province. Certainly they would expect fairness with regard to Bill 19. They would expect fairness that would assure them that justice is not only going to be done but seen to be done, knowing that they are being listened to, that their opinions are valued, and that those opinions are capable of getting through to a government that seems bent on enhancing an image of toughness.

As I said before, I think that it has been made very, very clear that the Social Credit Party wanted to turn over a new leaf. They wanted to get away from that process, which they admitted was not a helpful process, that had been operating in this province for so many years. In going with your new leader, in a very real sense — and I think that pundits have mentioned this on many different occasions — you were saying that you had become your own opposition taking over from that government which you didn't approve of before. In this new age, we are now going to produce consultation and cooperation. It seems to me that that's what you were saying during the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CASHORE: As you thump your desks, I would hope that would carry forward to you using your influence with the Minister of Labour and his colleagues to ensure that the voices of concern that are assuredly coming to you in letters and phone calls, which you are not referring to in your speeches, will be passed on to the minister, so that the minister would know that there is a ground swell of opinion out there that is extremely concerned and worried about what this legislation is going to do to this province — not only to this generation but to future generations. There are people who are concerned about the way in which this legislation is going to have a detrimental effect, the price of which will have to be paid not only by our children but also by our children's children. That is a sobering concern, and I would urge you to take that very seriously.

Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure to be able to rise and speak against this bill in this House, and to do so again in the awareness that my comments are so well received by the members of the government. I look forward to the continuing debate.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987.

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member. He is very articulate; he is well trained. I don't have a licence to preach, you see, so I am not quite in the same league.

MR. CASHORE: I handed mine in.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You handed yours in? When did it expire?

MR. CASHORE: On October 22.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, don't give it away for good, because you may have to go back to it again.

Anyway, the hon. member mentioned voices. At various times we hear various voices. But I have been listening to the voices too. I have been around this place for a long time —

[ Page 657 ]

not as long as the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has. You haven't been around too long, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: You come second.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yeah, second. I have listened to a lot of debate, and I have seen a lot of bells, and I have heard the cries of Chicken Little that the sky somehow or other is going to come crashing down upon us if we proceed with some particular type of legislation. But you know, hon. member, for all but a brief hiatus of some three and a half years, some 1,200 days, Social Credit has been accepted by the people of British Columbia. They put their faith in this government, and they will continue to do so.

MR. CASHORE: That's why the sky is falling.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, hon. member, it isn't. It may be in the circles that you travel in, now that you've left the church, but it certainly isn't with our group and it certainly isn't with the people I speak to. I have never in my time in public life seen two pieces of legislation — I will refer to this one; I realize I don't want to offend the House by referring to the other piece of legislation — that had the general support across the wide spectrum of people that this particular bill has at this point in time.

You know, Madam Speaker, whether we like it or not, we live in a global village, as our friends talk about from time to time across the way, and that global village is not just a village of social problems and everything else; it is an economic village. We've got to realize that we are not alone in this province. We're not alone in this country. We're just a small economic part of it.

Just like Caesar's wife, if we are going to compete in this very competitive world, we not only must be pure, but we must be seen to be pure. That is true from the point of view of industrial relations as well. I firmly believe, and the studies that the government has done point out, as the minister has enunciated time and time again, that the single inhibiting factor that will put some water under that boat, that will rise up and help all people, is the perception, if not the reality, of the economic problems that occur in British Columbia from time to time. This bill goes a long way to addressing those problems and to bringing fairness to industrial relations that....

I believe it was envisaged back in the time of Bill King, and I think that from his point of view and from his political perception and perspective at that time he felt he was doing exactly the right thing, albeit labour flared up and they had strikes and they finally had to call an election to try to straighten the whole mess out. But I believe he thought he was doing the right thing. What happened was that, because of a particular bias, tons and tons of case law accumulated that made it impossible in many cases to do particular things that would provide employment, would provide taxes and would provide help for people who can't help themselves in the province of British Columbia. I believe that the labour climate brought about by a variety of reasons has done more than anything else to mitigate against economic welfare in this province. This is the time to change it. This bill goes a long way towards addressing that.

You know, we talk about fairness. I don't know how much fairer it could be than for a minister to travel thousands of miles around this province and to talk to literally hundreds of people, listening to their views in an open way with a fresh start, looking for solutions and asking the people who really count, the little people, the big people....

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Grass Roots.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This Mr. Grass Roots right here is at last bringing grassroots democracy to a labour movement and a labour situation that's needed it for far too long.

MR. CASHORE: Why don't you ask them now?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I've asked them, hon. member. But you've got to go beyond that. You've got to stop talking to the special interest groups. You've got to talk to all the people out there. That makes a difference. You see, sometimes we forget that there are other players. There's not just labour and so-called management. There's a whole bunch of other folks out there who can he affected by the way that these two gangs operate, you see. That's where it's at.

Those are the people who make the difference in this province, in this country or in any jurisdiction, hon. member, and sometimes, because we have narrow interest groups that practise self-enlightenment, we forget about the people who really count in the system. The people who work every day and go to school and pay their taxes are just sick and tired of all this labour noise and labour mess that's brought about by management on one side and labour on the other. It's inherent upon government to bring some sense and worth and reality to all this, and Bill 19 goes a long way in that direction, in my opinion.

There are no easy answers to this. There are no easy answers to labour problems. Somehow or other, I've heard on the other side all of the.... The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) said that he was a quasi labour leader or a labour leader at one time, and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was involved in the labour movement. But, you know, you don't have any strings on that situation. We have a gentleman over here who, aside from being a canon in the Anglican Church, was also a boilermaker and worked in that system.

Believe it or not, when I first came to British Columbia, I came to work for a union — not in British Columbia but in western Canada. That union is now extinct — I didn't have anything to do with that; I'll just say that in passing. It's gone, but that was the reason I came here. I worked in the labour movement, and I know how the situation operates. The labour movement has gone a long way in this country and in North America towards the betterment of the working people and all people. But, you know, there are other people, as I said before, who are involved in this whole.... You have to have individuals; you have to take into account not just the combatants and their views. You have to take into account the people who count, as I've said before, and that's just the common people on the street, the people who....

I believe that there's been a call out there for change. There's been a call for change ever since I've been around this Legislature, since 1975, with some brief time off — forced retirement. But there's been a call for change, and we haven't responded to that call for change very well. I want to say that it takes a tremendous amount of courage to bring forth a piece of legislation like this, because it would be much easier to just sit back and do nothing, and let the two combatants —

[ Page 658 ]

management and labour — fight it out and hang with the people who count. But this minister and this government have had the courage to bring forth legislation that, sure, we're going to get heat about.

You know, there are other parties.... I believe this bill, Madam Speaker, serves that true interest, which is the general public interest that we have out there. It goes a long way towards enshrining real, true democratic rights in the workplace, and those people who are affected by the mitigation of those rights....

We talk about free speech, and we have every right of free speech in this province. We have every right to say what we think, but employers have not had the right to express their opinion to their employees, and for a long time that has been something that, to me, is not free speech at all. It may have been free speech for an organizer; it may be free speech across a bargaining table. But the two people who really count — the employees and the employer — are not at this time able to get together and sometimes talk things out before a strike comes into place.

I worked for a while in a post-secondary institution that worked with apprentices, and I can tell you that one of the problems we've had in relation to the youth of the province of British Columbia is their lack of opportunity to get into trades training. It wasn't because there wasn't a need out there for these people or a desire to hire them; it wasn't because the young people didn't want the opportunity to get involved. It was because a craft union stood squarely in the way of progress and help for these young people. This bill changes that, and that's courageous.

If you want to talk about the rights of people and free speech, what about the rights of those young people who wanted to become apprentices and were unable to do so because of antiquated labour laws that couldn't respond to the desires? They didn't know why they couldn't have these opportunities. They just knew that they couldn't join the union; they had to go to the bottom of the list. They just knew that they couldn't go out and talk to an employer who would hire them and apprentice them so that they could become journeymen. They just knew that the system wasn't working for them. Hon. members talked about the rights of our children and our children's children. How about the rights of those young people who seek nothing more than the opportunity to go to an employer, to receive trades training, to become journeymen and better themselves and their families and those who follow after them? I think this bill goes a long way towards that, and I congratulate the minister.

[4:30]

We are in a changing world. We talk about something that may possibly have been right for 1973 or 1974, for 1983 or 1984. We talk about the industrial revolution; we talk about a whole bunch of things. Some of those things may have worked at that point in time, but we're in the latter part of the 1980s, and this type of legislation is a bill for the times that we're living in now. I want to congratulate the minister. I want to congratulate the government. I want to congratulate that great majority of people who, once this legislation is enacted into law, will support it and this government for many, many years to come.

MR. GUNO: I would like to say that I'm also proud to rise today to vote against this bill. Yesterday the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) delivered, I thought, a measured analysis of this bill. It was an excellent exercise and in some way a moving plea for sanity. In addressing some of the serious implications of this bill, he called for a measured pause, a sober second look, if you like, but of course the hoist motion was defeated. Now we on this side of the House have the serious task — the sad task — of trying to convince the other members of the House to reconsider their support of this bill.

I've tried to understand the government's reason for introducing such a complex and radical bill, one that would so drastically alter the whole fabric of industrial relations in British Columbia. I have also tried, but futilely, to understand why this government is in such a hurry to ram through a bill like this, which even the government members must concede is a complex one that would have wide ramifications for the people of this province, that would have a serious impact on the prospect of significant economic recovery in British Columbia. The only question I could come up with is: why the unseemly haste? Why is the government trying to ram this through without more public input, in spite of the daily outcries since this bill was introduced? I cannot make any sense of the contradictions between the government's rhetoric and its actions. I can only suggest that people who are trying to make any sense of that watch what they do, not what they say.

I believe that many people really believed the Premier when he said he was offering a fresh start, an open government, one that would be consultative. That is what he said, but his actions belie his words. Pushing this radical bill through with such unseemly haste raises a question about the credibility of this government. The government speakers talk reassuringly about public interest, yet not many of them were able to define in any clear way what they meant by "the public interest." Nor is "public interest" defined in this bill. There is no question that the public interest is of paramount interest to all the members of this House, and I have a feeling that the vagueness of the government, in terms of trying to define what they mean by public interest, stems from their inability to distinguish between what I would call private concerns and genuine public interest.

I would suggest that the government members should come to realize that "public interest" is a multifarious concept; it's a collection of differing interests. The job of any responsible government is to try to reconcile these differing interests, to strike some balance so that we can attain a measure of social harmony, not to pick sides, to try to weigh or stack the odds against one sector of society, which this bill will ultimately result in.

In handing over to Mr. Peck such awesome powers under this bill, this government, I would suggest, is committing a serious abdication of its responsibility. In fact, I would suggest that such action may be open to constitutional challenge at a later date under certain sections of the Charter.

Someone challenged this view when it was presented by a colleague of mine, but I would suggest, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling last week — it has in effect said that the right to strike is not constitutionally protected — that this is a different question. We are talking now about this Legislature delegating that right to deprive people of the right to strike, and I think that's a totally different question and still open to court challenge.

Under this bill, Mr. Peck would have total control of the destiny of the public and private sector members who bargain collectively. He can impose a collective agreement without workers having the right to vote on it. I would challenge any

[ Page 659 ]

government member to name another jurisdiction in a free democratic society where a non-elected official has such power over people's lives. I would challenge them, and I have yet to hear any speaker address that serious issue. This part alone represents an unprecedented attack on the whole collective bargaining process, and it makes a mockery of the claim of the Premier to a fair and open society.

Yesterday my colleague from Victoria compared this to the Mediation Commission Act, which was introduced in 1968 by the Social Credit government. It resulted in even more industrial relations strife for the province. Now, almost 20 years later, we have the same ideological group, in the name of a fresh start, introducing the same solutions under the same premises. I am reminded of Yogi Berra's famous saying: "It's deja vu all over again." In this case, maybe he'd be more apt to say: "It's Bill all over again."

Do we really need to go through that experience again? Experience must count for something with the government. Surely by now they must see that cooperation is infinitely better than coercion, and it has been pointed out by a number of my colleagues here that it is so mystifying that this government is bringing down such draconian measures, in light of evidence that both management and labour were moving toward a more cooperative attitude. I would suggest that if the Premier is serious about reducing confrontation, about involving more people, about consultation, he should have shown more courageous leadership and seized an opportunity to sit down with the two parties to foster that spirit, a spirit thus far that has been so rare in this province. He had that opportunity, but again I would suggest that he has ignored an opportunity to unite the people of this province and instead is driving a huge wedge between them. I would suggest that it is not what he says but what he does that counts. We wonder why people are so cynical about politicians in this province.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

I got a call this morning, Mr. Speaker, from someone in my riding who wanted to be described as an ordinary citizen. She has no political axe to grind, is not affiliated with any union, and just wanted to respond to the Premier's "so far nobody has shown me what is objectionable about Bills 19 and 20." She states that her objection — and it's shared by a lot of her neighbours and friends in the small community of Atlin — is the way this government is pushing through a bill that would have such wide ramifications for all people in this province, without giving them more input.

This is even more so for the people in the north. I gather that the Minister of Labour travelled throughout the province, but I have yet to meet anyone from my riding who was able to make any presentation to that process. I also would raise the question about the nature of that kind of consultation, whether or not it was as open as the government speakers would have us believe. As I understand it, it was quite a wide-open process. But we have yet to see any kind of evidence as to the mix of that particular consultation: how many labour organizations were actually able to make presentations; how many people from the north were able to have the opportunity to have a say, if this was truly a wide-open consultative process.

For many of our people in the north, and I know in Cassiar this is true.... The members of the Steelworkers of America, who are the collective bargaining agents for the mill there.... When I spoke to them just five days after the bill was introduced, they still hadn't received the copy of that bill, yet by the time they have the opportunity to read it, to try to analyze it and to bring forth their concerns about it, this bill may be fait accompli as far as they're concerned, again depriving a very significant segment of British Columbia of the opportunity to have a say in such a vital piece of legislation. I think that the point she raised about the haste with which this government is trying to ram this bill through is a good point, and this government will have to answer that one day.

I've been speaking with enough people in the last few days to realize that the government has misjudged the readiness of this province to accept such a radical overhaul of the collective bargaining process. I would repeat my colleague's point that this government did not receive the mandate to introduce such a radical overhaul of the collective process.

[4:45]

I've also read, Mr. Speaker, the reaction of the wide range of citizens of this province — and again, I've listened to the various speakers there talk about the public and then begin to exclude from that public a significant segment of it: management, union, teachers and anybody who's opposed to this bill are not part of that public. I would suggest that that is a very narrow view of what constitutes public interest.

At any rate, the wide range of views has recognized and expressed concern about the serious flaws of this bill. There seems to be a growing consensus that this bill will not mean more labour peace. The point has been driven home over and over again by the speakers from this side of the House: it will not mean more harmony in the workplace, but it may in fact mean more industrial strife for the province.

If there is to be industrial harmony, there has to be that ability of the two parties to bargain in good faith. The context within which that can happen can only be where there's not that kind of intrusive government presence. I think the Minister of Labour recognized the need for some form of consensus, if any changes are to be made in the collective bargaining process, especially among those who are directly affected. On page 5 of his report, the Minister of Labour writes: "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" surely have a detrimental effect on the overall objective.

I want to address some of the specific concerns I have about this. One of them that I feel very strongly about — one which I think needs some very serious analysis, which I don't think can be done under the kind of hurry-up process in which we're forced to debate this bill — is the concept of tinkering with the principle of firing without cause. As a member of a minority and a person who has worked in a number of workplaces, including a cannery, as a commercial fisherman and in a pulp mill, I've thanked the union for keeping my job, because there were a number of circumstances in which I could have lost it arbitrarily. I've seen instances of this. Later on, when I moved from working for a living and became a lawyer — I worked briefly as a labour lawyer — I took on many cases relating to firing without cause. I know the problems. I know that eliminating that kind of protection would introduce again the kind of uncertainty in the workplace that leads to loss of productivity and to people having to protect themselves all the time in the workplace. I want to reserve any specifics about these various sections until clause-by-clause debate.

[ Page 660 ]

Mr. Speaker, this massive assault on the rights of the worker also represents — and I know that several of my colleagues have pointed this out, but I think it's worth repeating — an infringement on basic human rights which are recognized by the International Labour Organization, of which Canada is a signatory and which had the assent of all the provinces. I want to refer to some of the background as to why the need for such an international organization was recognized. It was organized shortly after the Second World War, which saw the defeat of an ideology that refused to recognize the concept of human dignity.

This sort of process was recognized by some very able politicians and thinkers early in the century. One of them was Woodrow Wilson. In a presidential campaign speech of 1912, he had this to say about attitudes and why we need to have a balance between the interests of the employers and the interests of the workers. I'm not a student of American politics, but I think what he had to say applies here:

"The treatment of labour by the great corporations is not what it was in Jefferson's time. Who in this great audience knows his employer? I mean among those who go down into our mines or into the mills or factories. You never see, you practically never deal with, the president of the corporation.... The only thing that you know is that by the score, by the hundred, by the thousand, you are employed by some agent of an invisible employer. Therefore, whenever bodies of men employ bodies of men, it ceases to be a private relationship, so that when a court held that working men could not peaceably dissuade other working men from taking employment, and based the decision upon an analogy of domestic servants, they simply showed that their minds and understandings were lingering in an age that passed away two or three generations ago...."

I would suggest that 75 years later we have here in British Columbia people who still have their minds lingering more than just several generations ago, and they are trying to introduce drastic legislation that will inevitably lead to chaos in this province. A lawyer friend of mine — who, I'm pleased to mention, is a card-carrying Social Crediter — said: "It's an overreaction by this government to an imagined problem. It's like trying to use a sledge-hammer to kill a fly." We need to guard against this kind of overreaction of government. I'd like to close by quoting John Locke again. He's not a social democrat theorist, but certainly what he has to say here, I think, makes some sense: "Greater crimes have come from zealous rulers than from rebellious citizens."

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to rise and speak 100 percent in favour of the spirit and principle of Bill 19, the labour relations reform act of 1987. I'd like to at this time say that there are only five members sitting in the socialist comer of the House, but I'm glad that the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) is here, given that he has a genuine labour background.

Of course, the hoist motion was defeated in the House, and second reading will pass in time. I am very much in favour of this bill because it's balanced, it certainly upholds free collective bargaining, it does not permit freedom to double-breast, it is not right-to-work legislation, but it does give a very excellent framework for right to a choice for all those involved in labour relations, particularly the worker.

This bill is the product of provincewide hearings, plus substantial review of labour legislation. I want to compliment the hon. Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. He sat in this House hour after hour, very carefully listening to each and every opposition member speak on this bill or on the motion to hoist it.

This bill gives a conformity with the other Canadian provinces, because the 1973 Labour Code was vastly different from any other labour legislation in Canada. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that accounts for its not functioning extremely well. This bill is a result of listening to the rank and file as well as to union and business leaders. Bill 19, I'm convinced, has been carefully considered and very carefully designed, not hastily conceived. I beg to disagree with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota): it's not being rammed through this House.

We will get into the chapter and verse during third reading, and I must say I look forward to that. I'm sure that it will stand up to very careful, close scrutiny at that time.

The bill provides mechanisms to produce a reasonable degree of stability in labour-management relations. I would describe this bill as not imposing, but rather it is enabling legislation. It is a people bill, for sure.

When you buy a crane, Mr. Speaker, you don't necessarily buy the operating engineers' union with it. People on a site or at a workplace are certified — so be it — not the machinery and not the building. Indeed, whoever buys or leases a Safeway building, say, doesn't necessarily inherit the retail clerks' union or the meat cutters' union.

The emphasis of this bill, it seems to me, is on preventive mediation, increased mediation and efforts to have the parties settle on their own. Yes, there are many timeframes within this legislation. I alluded to them when I was speaking against the hoist motion. I'm very pleased that, concerning certification and decertification, this application is addressed within just ten days after an application is submitted. That is excellent. It makes provision to prevent strikes and lockouts while a collective agreement is in place.

But I must share with the House that from time to time wildcat strikes have taken place, and also what we term wobbles take place, even though there is a collective agreement on stream. I recall once in Prince George when a pulp mill was under construction. There were no fewer than 1,200 men in that camp, and owing to very poor food some 18 men found themselves in hospital with ptomaine poisoning, and on the job site there were lineups to the portable washrooms. Under those very extreme circumstances, drastic action seemed to be necessary concerning the quality of food being served in that camp. I remember reaching for a piece of pie, and underneath the crust it was all mouldy. Something had to be done. So there was a wobble, which was very short. It was a work stoppage. It had nothing to do with the collective agreement in force per se, but the result was that the very next day a new caterer was very properly on that site.

[5:00]

I found in my firsthand experience that there was often conflict not between the union and the employer per se, but between one trade union and another. A lot of people criticize this legislation because there is third-party involvement. Believe me, even on the job site you would get arguments between, say, the boilermakers and the pipefitters over a pipe up to the first flange, or an argument between the boilermakers and the ironworkers over structural steel being attached to a pressure vessel. Nothing to do with the employer,

[ Page 661 ]

except that if the tradesmen are fighting among each other, not too much is happening on the job site. So labour relations can at times be very complex.

Also, I recall going to a union meeting which had a very important agenda concerning workers' concerns, and lo and behold, the union leaders had a surprise guest speaker. Guess who it was? An NDP candidate. I must say, the rank and file did not welcome this imposition on the very legitimate concerns of the workers.

Apprentices and trainees can get through the door of a closed shop, thanks to this Bill 19; but if that particular shop and the workers have certified a union, then of course that apprentice will properly have to join the union that is certified in that place. I see no problem with that, Mr. Speaker. Also, of course, in conjunction with our many junior colleges, with their vocational courses and so on, we, through this apprenticeship open-door program, will have union journeymen training apprentices using the facilities of those junior colleges. They have been and will continue to be involved. So I see no problem with this open-door policy for our young people.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew spoke the other day about this being all that this government has to do with the employment of young people. That's certainly in conjunction with doubling the funds for JobTrac, doubling the funds for apprenticeship training. It goes hand in hand with many other programs to create more and more jobs for our young people.

The members opposite — or, I should say, in the socialist comer of the House here — made frequent reference to Jim Matkin, who is currently working for the Business Council of British Columbia. I certainly remember that at one time he was the Deputy Minister of Labour, not only under the Bill Bennett government but under the previous government, and the Hon. Alan Williams kept him on. He would, of course, be very familiar with the creation of the Labour Code of 1973 and the many subsequent amendments. He has described the presence of a third party in this new labour bill, a significant third-party interest, as a new, innovative approach which may work very well. I'm optimistic, the more I study it, that it will indeed work very well.

This bill is not a union-bashing bill. A union's primary responsibility and primary role, after all, is to represent the workers. Indeed, I recall that when I joined the boilermakers' union I paid an initiation fee, and the receipt came from Kansas City, Kansas. That was very good news to me at the time, because I knew that the NDP didn't get any of that initiation fee. I'm happy to say too that today the boilermakers' union is not part of the B.C. Federation of Labour, but of the non-partisan B.C. Council of Labour. So none of my union dues end up in the coffers of the socialist party here, and that makes me very happy.

This bill gives the tools necessary for the job to be done. After all, even the Maytag repairman has a tool box. It gives the commissioner the tools and the means to monitor collective bargaining in a comprehensive manner. Many different interests are involved in this labour bill, and all of the interests out there have to be considered; I recognize that. Recently I got a brief from the pipefitters' union, Local 170. They had only one concern regarding Bill 19; it was concerning non-union prefabricated pipe fittings being used on a union job site and their right to declare them hot. Well, I recall working on a brand-new oil refinery project where the cracking towers were shipped all the way from Japan and then shipped on the railroad to the job site. It never occurred to us to even look into whether those prefabricated parts for the cracking towers were union-made or not. All I can remember is that the flanges fitted perfectly, and it was one of the best jobs that I ever worked on.

We have to be aware that we live in a wide, wide world, and we have to have equal opportunities for workers throughout the world. I see no problem in accepting parts from other parts of the world, because trade, after all, is reciprocal, and we ship a lot to developing Third World countries. With the development of those countries, of course, there are new trading opportunities. It works both ways and, like this Bill 19, it has to be balanced.

This bill, too, is about responsibility. Unions and employers equally have responsibilities to all our people throughout this whole province of British Columbia.

Finally, it's been almost 14 years that we have been under the 1973 Labour Code. Too many people in the rank and file, the working people, have suffered long enough. Now is the time to get on with the second reading of this Bill 19 so that we can proceed with the third and final reading and welcome this new bill to bring in a new era of labour relations in British Columbia.

MR. STUPICH: I rise to take my place in debate today against the second reading of Bill 19, and at this time it's not a speech that I wanted to make. You may recall, when I spoke in support of the amendment to hoist the bill, that I expressed the hope that the bill would sit on the order paper until some time next fall before it was finally disposed of. I admitted then that the government was certainly going to win the vote on the hoist amendment and that the amendment would be defeated, and I predicted also that they would proceed with second reading and that they would win the vote on that as well. But I'm still hoping that the community as a whole will win the battle and that this will not be proceeded with until people generally have a better idea of what is in it.

Anticipating that I might be speaking yesterday afternoon, I listened more closely to members on both sides of the House, and in particular on the government side, and the first one to speak was the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond). He didn't speak long, but he gave some very good arguments as to why the amendment should be supported. He said that people in general, workers.... I think he called them "the average person." The average person, when he has had time to go through the legislation clause by clause.... In saying that, he is saying that people haven't had time to understand this legislation. The average working person hasn't had time to study the legislation. That's true. We in the House haven't had time to study the various sections. There will be time later on in committee discussion, but by then we've gone too far down the road to make any changes. We just haven't had the time. That minister, I thought, gave one of the best speeches in the House in favour of the amendment; he then proceeded to vote against it.

The average person will find it good for him. Well, that is more of a threat, I think, than a promise. I can recall almost 60 years ago being persuaded by my mother that castor oil was good for me, and to this day I can't drink orange juice without thinking of that castor oil almost 60 years ago. Maybe it was good for me, but I'm not sure that the medicine wasn't worse than the disease that it was supposed to be curing. And I'm not sure about this legislation; I'm worried

[ Page 662 ]

that the medicine may be worse than the problems that it's trying to deal with.

He went on to say, also, that it takes power away from those at the top, those who have been making the decisions. I don't doubt that there are some trade unions where that is the way it works, where the people at the top make the decisions and they stay at the top and there's not nearly enough opportunity to make changes at the top. I don't doubt that there are some unions like that. But I know also that there are some unions where that is very much the opposite of the true picture. I attended some of the meetings when the IWA forest industry strike was in progress and listened to the discussion at those meetings. I heard the IWA officers being roundly attacked by their own membership because they weren't being forceful enough in pursuing that particular struggle; they were wanting them to shut down more of the forest industry — not just operations where the IWA were involved, but forest industry in total — and wanting them to shut down those plants that were allowed to operate because they had signed separate agreements. So the discussions that I heard — and they were large, vocal meetings — were discussions where the officers were trying to plead for moderation, not to plead for an escalation of the conflict that was going on.

Those leaders are elected by ballot. They have to fight for their positions as leaders, and they stay there only as long as the membership believes they are doing the best possible job for the membership. So while the minister may have examples of some trade unions where that isn't the case, certainly with respect to the dispute that has come into this discussion time after time in this Legislature during discussion of Bill 19, the IWA is a very democratic organization.

The first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) was the next speaker that I made some notes on. That member mentioned some commonly held perceptions. I would agree with her; these are commonly held. The first of these is that the NDP owes big labour a debt. The second perception is that the Socreds owe big business a debt. She went on to say that since the bill is opposed by both big labour and big business, it proves that the Socreds owe nobody a debt.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.] .

Mr. Speaker, there are some flaws. I am sure the member will not agree with me when I change that around a little. I believe that all 69 of us in this Legislature owe the people of British Columbia a great debt, a very great responsibility. We may be right in proceeding with this legislation, and we may be wrong. If we act in haste, we may have a good deal of time to repent at leisure. If we are wrong, if we let this sit for a while and waited, little damage would be done to the present state of union-management relations in the province. But if we act hastily and create a lot of trouble, then we are not doing the best job for those 2.7 million people in the province to whom we all owe a great debt and on whose behalf we are all here and we are all governing.

[5:15]

It is not an argument between me and that member; it is simply a different way of phrasing the same thing. I am sure that member would not disagree with my turning her remarks around that way and saying that while neither one of us feels that we owe anything in particular to any particular group, we all agree that we owe everyone in total a great debt, and one that we're doing our best to discharge as members in this Legislature, on both sides.

The member went on to mention the opposition to the Land Commission Act and how it turned B.C. upside down, and that it's now widely supported. Well, that's true, Mr. Speaker, but there was a bit of difference in the way that was handled as well. That legislation was introduced and passed, but it was over a year before the implementation of that legislation all around the province of British Columbia was completed. After the legislation was passed, it was then a matter of holding public hearings and meetings in every regional district in the province. The regional districts actually drew boundaries which were then submitted to the Land Commission, the Land Commission submitted them to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet and cabinet eventually adopted the boundaries. It was a very long process. I know there was great unrest in the province. There was a great deal of opposition to the legislation.

MR. ROSE: There still is.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, there is still opposition to the Land Commission Act, but I'm sure in general it's supported by most people.

MR. ROSE: Opposition by developers.

MR. STUPICH: Well, not even by all developers. I'm going to run out of time if I'm not careful here, but I can remember one very large developer, one of the Block brothers, coming and having a meeting with me during that discussion and urging me to hold fast and saying that they didn't want to develop any farmland and that as long as the same rules applied to them as applied to every other developer, then he would urge his people to support the legislation. It took more than a bit of urging, because I heard from some salesmen in his own organization who were leading the parades against it. Be that as it may, there was some support at some of the higher echelons of even the developers in those days.

But the process was different, Mr. Speaker. We did have the public meetings, we did have the hearings, and we did have the committee meetings afterwards. I think it was done the only way that it could be done. Had we forecast the legislation and then left it for a year to sit before we brought it into effect, then I fear that a lot of good agricultural land in the province would have been lost during that period when people knew the law was coming but was not yet in effect. We had to move the way we did. None of us liked it, but it had to be done that way.

The member went on to say that although the NDP strongly opposed Bill 19, it may turn out well. I made particular note of that word "may." I agree that it may. I don't know that I'm right in saying that I think it will be wrong, that I think it will be bad for B.C. I don't know that the 5,000 or whatever number of thousand people who gathered yesterday evening in Vancouver in opposition to it are right. I think the member opposite doesn't know that they're wrong, because in using the word "may," that member is admitting the possibility that some trouble could come out of this legislation.

None of us knows. As the hon. Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) said, people haven't had the opportunity to study the bill in detail. They need time. They need more than time, Mr. Speaker. If I were to spend a whole year going over those sections, I wouldn't

[ Page 663 ]

understand it. As other members have said, they're not experts in labour law. I wouldn't understand the ramifications of it; I wouldn't understand how it worked. But I would need time to discuss it with people who do understand this kind of legislation. What I'm hearing, secondhand and thirdhand, from some of them makes me worry more than ever about this legislation. We need time.

It is markedly different legislation than anything we've had in the province so far, and there could be a good deal of unrest. There could be a good deal of opposition if the government proceeds quickly with this. If they proceed slowly, then it will be much harder for anyone on either side to generate much activity against it.

The member went on to say that the NDP has an opportunity to join with the Socreds in an attempt to persuade the people of B.C. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to work cooperatively, in consultation, to try to create the kind of labour-management climate in this province that we so desperately need. We can't do it together if, without any cooperation and consultation, one side of the House brings in legislation and says: "Cooperate and consult on our terms." That isn't cooperation. That's not the way to arrive at a joint effort to bring about labour-management peace in the province, and it's not the way to get it.

The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) talked about the NDP method of dealing with this same problem some 14 years ago, and went on to say that at that time the labour movement wanted referral to a select standing committee. It wasn't done; therefore it's not being done today. The fact that we didn't do it 14 years ago is the reason for not doing it today? I can't believe that. For that matter, maybe there are some different conditions. Maybe it wasn't right to do it 14 years ago, and maybe it's right to do it today. Maybe it's the other way around — I don't know.

There are enough maybe's and may's, enough questions and enough concerns about this, that, in my mind, we should not be proceeding beyond second reading. We shouldn't have proceeded this far, but we should not be proceeding beyond second reading until there has been ample opportunity, to use the words of the Minister of Social Services and Housing, for everyone — that is, at least, those who are interested — to have an intimate knowledge of the sections of this bill, so that when they are acting on it, they'll have some good idea as to how it's going to affect them.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), speaking in the debate on the hoist motion, said that when the NDP legislation was introduced there was need to hurry, because it was a period when there was a great deal of labour-management unrest. It was a very serious situation. He mentioned one ugly scene that took place during the campaign that I remember, when the then Minister of Forests was physically injured at a picket line when the Premier was going in to speak at some meeting. Those were ugly scenes.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The question was: "Who's responsible?" It doesn't really matter now. That was the temperature between labour and management at the time. There was a fair amount of that going on in the province. There was a need to bring in some new legislation to deal with a very explosive situation, so we had to act quickly. But even then, we took the time; we let the legislation sit on the order paper from the spring, when it was introduced, until the fall, when it was finally adopted.

As the member pointed out, the periods of greatest trouble between labour and management coincide with the times when government decides to move in and change things dramatically. In our case, we waited — we didn't wait, but when we did make the changes, it was to deal with an explosive situation.

But as to labour-management problems in general, they seem to arise whenever the government opposite decides it's time to make a change. Currently, rallies are being conducted all around the province; in 1983 the Solidarity movement went on for several months all over the province; and we can go back in history and talk about similar occurrences when the government of the day decided that things were running along a little too smoothly and it was time to shake them up a bit, I don't for one moment believe that's why it was done, then or now.

I can appreciate that the Premier has some feelings of frustration. He made several attempts on his own to resolve the IWA forest industry dispute, unsuccessfully. He had the power, but he didn't have the influence. So I can appreciate his feelings of frustration. Here he is, the Premier of the province, and he's unable to deal with a situation that is very bad for British Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker, handing over the authority to deal with something like that to another appointed person is not going to make it any better than had the Premier called the Legislature into session and passed a law to the effect that they should go back to work — a cooling-off period, if you like. It wasn't very popular when we did it, but at least the government had the authority then and still has the authority to do it.

As the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) said during discussion of second reading, you can't pass a law saying that there shall be harmony; you can't pass a law saying that there shall be no more strife. It just doesn't work that way. What you really have to do is remove the cause. That is the direction that we chose in 1973. There was a lot of labour-management strife. There were people who thought, on one side, that the labour legislation of the day in the way it was working was very much out of balance; that the trade unions were not being evenly, fairly treated as opposed to the employers. That was the reason for the unrest. So we brought in legislation that was as evenly balanced as we could make it at the time, in our opinion. There were a lot of questions about it. It has been pointed out that the trade unions didn't like what we did, and the employers didn't like it. But at least we gave them six months when the bill sat on the order paper. They had lots of opportunity to talk among themselves, to examine the legislation in detail, to talk to MLAs individually or in groups, and to try to get changes made. And changes were made. The bill was not passed in its original form; amendments were made.

We believe that is the way to go. There will be opportunity for amendments in committee stage of this bill, and all I am asking is that we not proceed with committee stage until there has been adequate discussion within the community, so that people generally will have had time to review, to study and to bring forth recommendations for amendments that will be good for British Columbia.

The second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) said — and I took it down as well as I could: "I can't recall any situation where a long strike helped the workers." Well, Mr. Speaker, no worker goes out on a long strike. Nobody wants

[ Page 664 ]

any strikes. Nobody wants a long strike. Long strikes don't happen on day one or day two, but each day they are that much longer. Certainly the IWA did not expect to be out for four and a half months, and I am sure even the industry didn't expect it to last that long. There have been all kinds of reasons suggested as to why it did last that long and whether or not interference made it longer than it should have. I don't know, but for him to say that no worker profits from a long strike is true. The people on the firing-line don't.

In the end, had it not been for long strikes that have taken place over years of strife in the province of British Columbia, in Canada and in all democratic countries, the workers would have made very few advances. Sometimes a group of workers do have to put their own lives on the line, economically speaking, and they do get involved in a long strike, not of their choosing. It is not a deliberate thing to go out on a long strike, but sometimes it happens.

It is unfortunate for everybody concerned when it happens; it is unfortunate for the community. But for him to say that no worker profits from a long strike.... Individually he doesn't, but he is making a contribution to the lives of not just organized workers but everybody working in a community, because everybody in the community gets an increase in.... Their living improves as gains are made by organized workers.

"Let's test the legislation," he said. "Let's take a chance," is what I heard, not the words he used. He said: "Let's test." What I heard him saying, and what I have heard others saying, is: "Let's take a chance. Maybe it will work."

We went through a very serious period in 1983 when the government brought in the budget and the 22 pieces of legislation — when the government took a chance. I think everyone will admit now that B.C. would have been better off had they handled that differently. It could have been done; they could have accomplished everything they wanted to do without making a frontal attack on the whole community. They didn't have to attack every group in the province all at once just to show their power. Certainly government has the might. It has the legislated right to do these things. But government also has a responsibility. Government, by definition.... They have a majority, so they have the authority to pass laws. They also have the authority to pass laws in favour of the majority — that's what laws are.

I remember Tommy Douglas saying that every time you pass a law to help the majority you step on somebody's toes, and that's the price. A few people lose something whenever the majority gains. It's the responsibility of those in government, those that have the majority, those that have the authority to pass these kinds of laws, to make sure that the price paid by individual members in the minority is not too high relative to the gains made by the majority. That's the responsibility of government. The government may be right — I've said that. I doubt it very much. Certainly I have yet to hear any credible person in the community outside.... I don't doubt that the members opposite are getting letters, but I have yet to hear any credible organization, or an individual in a position of any kind, who is coming out and saying openly that he or she totally agrees with the legislation. I've heard lots of people saying they're concerned about parts of it, and others that they're concerned with all of it.

[5:30]

In spite of all that, the government may be right. If the government is totally satisfied that they are right in pursuing this legislation, and if there are no labour-management disputes to be concerned about at this time, then why not wait? Why not test it without implementing it? It's here. It's on the table. It's being widely disseminated. It's being discussed. It's being examined. We're going through that process. There's no need to bring it into effect today, tomorrow, or even at the end of this month or some time in May. We could wait until next fall. I agree with testing it. The government has gone too far to say: "We're not going to test it." I accept that. Test it, but test it before you implement it, not after. You may be right — and even some of the members opposite have used the word "may." You may be right, but you may be wrong. The government may be wrong. The price that British Columbians paid from 1983 to 1986 is too high a price for something that "may" be right. My concern is that the price that British Columbians may be asked to pay with the legislation before us now may be much too high for something that may be right.

It isn't worth the gamble, because we don't have to do it now. We can wait. The members on both sides have talked about different sections of the legislation. I am not going to do that at this time. I talked about the way it is being handled and about what I would like to see done. I agree that the bill.... It has been said that I'm being too generous. Okay, but there are those who argue that the bill may be right. There are those who argue that it is right. But most people would admit that they can't really foretell the future, and they don't know what is going to come of this. Most people will admit that they don't want to go through what B.C. went through in 1983, 1984 and 1985 after that budget and after those pieces of legislation were introduced. I think most of us will admit that we don't want to go through that again. That price was too high.

My concern now, Mr. Speaker, in saying that we may be right and we are going to go ahead because we may be right, is that the government is making a terrible mistake, a mistake that will be bad for the people of British Columbia. As I said in the beginning, or near the beginning, we're here. We owe a debt to the people of British Columbia. We mustn't make mistakes that can be avoided when there is no need to make those mistakes at this time.

I mentioned in the previous debate, and I am going to repeat it now. The Premier was elected and led his party to success in the election campaign in part because he promised a new way, a new era. He promised a new spirit of cooperation. He promised consultation. When it came to labour legislation, according to this ad, he is quoted as saying: "Let's bring representatives from labour and management together to set a new tone for industrial relations."

Mr. Speaker, I can agree with all that. The Premier won support from the people of British Columbia because they were tired of confrontation. But the Premier can maintain that support by showing that he is still willing to cooperate and consult. There is no need today or this week or in the immediate future to proceed down this path — no need to hurry. There is time to wait. We have time to reflect; we have time to study the legislation.

The Premier can show his strength by having second reading passed, then proceeding with committee stage and proceeding with the bill to the end. He can show that he is strong enough to do that. But in my opinion, he would show that he is a much stronger person if, as leader of this government, he decides that there is no need at this time, that we can test the legislation without testing British Columbia, and then

[ Page 665 ]

arrive, perhaps with some changes — changes supported by both parties; not the same changes by both parties, but both parties would be involved in the changing process.... We might come out of it with both parties — and when I say both, I'm talking about labour and management, not about all the rest of us — feeling they had some part in the process and some responsibility for making it work,

That can be done. We can indeed start a new era of consultation and cooperation, and a new life for the people of British Columbia. The Premier has the responsibility, and he also has the opportunity. This government has the opportunity to start B.C. on a new road. But if the government is determined to proceed with this, I fear that they are going to be leading us down the same road this same party led us down starting in July 1983. It will not reflect well upon the government; but it will be disastrous for the people of British Columbia, the people to whom we all owe everything.

Mr. Messmer moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

4       Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following question:

With respect to the Gabriola Island Ferry: For each of the years 1984, 1985, 1986 and to date in 1987, how many vehicles and how many passengers were carried?

The Hon. C. C. Michael replied as follows:

Ferry statistics on passengers and vehicles are retained on a fiscal year basis, not calendar year.