[ Page 667 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Members' constituency mailing. Mr. G. Hanson –– 667

Mr. Rose

Ms. Marzari

VSE investor confidence. Mr. D’Arcy –– 668

Members' constituency mailing. Mr. Crandall –– 668

Hospice for AIDS victims. Mrs. Boone –– 668

Memo to government staff on Bill 19. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies 669

Tabling Documents –– 669

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

Mr. Messmer –– 669

Ms. A. Hagen –– 670

Mr. Weisgerber –– 673

Mrs. Boone –– 674

Ms. Campbell –– 677

Ms. Marzari –– 680

Motion I - Committee on appointment of auditor general –– 683

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Rose

Appendix — Select Standing Committees, List of Members 683

The House met at 10.07 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery on the east side we have two very special guests this morning. First, a gentleman who has served very well as the consul-general for the People's Republic of China and is now going back to China for a reposting. The consul-general has done a simply exemplary job on behalf of his country and has cooperated very well with the people of the province of British Columbia. I would like this House to welcome, and for a very temporary time bid farewell to, Mr. Huang Yangzhao and Mrs. Huang. Would you please bid them welcome.

MR. CLARK: Very briefly on behalf of the official opposition, I have had a chance to meet the consul-general on many occasions. I am saddened as well to see him leave this province. He has served his country well. He's made contact, I think, with many MLAs. My riding is 20 percent Chinese Canadian, many from the People's Republic of China. We on this side of the House also wish him good fortune in his future endeavours.

MR. DIRKS: Would this House please join me in congratulating the Nelson Maple Leafs on winning the Patton Cup, emblematic of the western Canada senior A hockey championship.

Oral Questions

MEMBERS' CONSTITUENCY MAILING

MR. G. HANSON: A question to the Provincial Secretary. An MLA report recently sent out, presumably from the buildings here, from the members for Vancouver-Little Mountain included in it an application for membership in the Social Credit Party. My question: is it the government's policy that these reports, which are designed to provide information on MLAs' activities, and in this case mailed at public expense, should contain partisan appeals for memberships and money?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As the hon. member knows full well, the province of British Columbia provides once a year for mailing of these reports. It also provides a certain amount of money toward the printing, and it's extended evenhandedly between both caucuses or any member of this House.

As Provincial Secretary I must admit that I do not read all of these reports. However, I have read some from both sides, and I would question some of the statements in both of them. What a member puts in his or her report and the information that that member wishes to give to constituents, I would suggest, is between that member and the constituents. It ought not to be up to the government to snoop into the workings of members' offices as to what information they would disseminate to constituents.

MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I think it's important that the guidelines are very clear on that, and it's not my experience or the experience of this side that we've seen such membership application requests and appeals for money in the householders before.

I have another question. The ad highlights a Social Credit Party membership card as a social security card, which of course causes some confusion and alarm with some senior citizens into thinking they must have such a card or it's essential for their pensions. Seniors in Little Mountain were the ones who drew this to our attention, Mr. Minister. My question is: why is the government attempting to confuse the public and senior citizens in this way?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's not the government that's trying to confuse anyone here. If there's any confusion abounding, it's on the other side of the House.

However, having said that, I've read some of the information that has come from the other side of the House. It makes interesting reading. For instance. one of the members mentioned that he had obtained an icebreaker contract for British Columbia, or at least he gave that impression. Now I don't remember seeing any member of the opposition negotiating with the federal government to bring in icebreakers.

In this particular case — to my hon. critic — I think what's sauce for the goose might be sauce for the gander. I don't read these reports, and if you want to send that over to me I'll check with the member who put it out and ask them what their intention is. But I'm sure that there's a certain amount of security in belonging to any political party — even yours.

MR. G. HANSON: I think the Provincial Secretary misses the point in the question, which is that when seniors who rely so heavily on their social security card.... When the government puts in a householder which goes to every household — and my understanding is that it has gone beyond one particular riding.... That creates alarm, confusion, in the minds of senior citizens. Why would the government be wanting to dovetail clearly partisan activity with line functions of government like the social security and its benefits for the seniors?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm sure the hon. member is not trying to confuse this House in any way, and he knows full well that a statement that a member makes in a mailer is not necessarily a statement of government policy any more than I'm sure it's a statement of opposition policy when these things are put out. It's not the government at all. I'm not going to check on everything you say; I hope that you don't check on everything that I say, and if you do, I suppose that somewhere down the line the voters will decide who's correct.

MR. ROSE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister telling us now that henceforth members of the government and the opposition are free to use their householders to sell membership cards?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have looked at those papers from time to time and I would in many cases — pretty near all cases — describe them as being blatantly political. Certainly even the icebreaker was blatantly political. I have no intention of reading the papers, and if there is a problem, if someone here has offended the sensitivity of the member in putting in a membership card, then send it over

[ Page 668 ]

and I'll have a look at it. I don't think there's anything wrong with it; we'll have a look at it.

[10:15]

MR. ROSE: Did the minister vet and approve this particular householder, or is it only in future that he intends to do this?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We'll not now or in the future vet the householders. Anything you write, or anything anybody else writes on this side.... I mean, I don't know your intention; I don't know the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew's intention when he talked about bringing in an icebreaker and how he'd fulfilled one of his election promises. I don't know what he means.

MS. MARZARI: There are new members in this House, Mr. Speaker, who would really like to know. I haven't done a householder yet. I would like to know if I in my householder can put on the back page a membership for the NDR I would sincerely like to know. I don't like to see unfairness in the householder; I have noticed some irregularities even in the establishment of offices throughout the province. I would appreciate a clear direction from you. Can I sell NDP memberships through my householders?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I suggest you would have a hard time selling NDP membership anyplace right now.

But having said that, probably what you need to do is refer this whole matter to this board of internal economy, and if there is a problem, then I suggest that is the way it can be settled. That is what it is all about.

VSE INVESTOR CONFIDENCE

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, to the first member for Saanich in his capacity as minister responsible for corporate relations. The February resignation of the superintendent of brokers has now been followed by the abrupt resignation of the chairperson of the Securities Commission. What steps is the minister taking to restore confidence in B.C. as a stable place to attract outside investment and to retain indigenous securities and exchange business in British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The best possible step conceivable, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that there are good, competent individuals in those positions as the vacancies arise. I am pleased to confirm that the acting superintendent of brokers in the person of Mr. David Sinclair is performing a very valuable public service at some considerable personal cost to ensure that stability and continuity and monitoring of the Vancouver Stock Exchange is perpetuated.

Furthermore, I am delighted with the appointment of Mr. Hyndman to the position of chairman of the B.C. Securities Commission. He will be a very competent administrator and one who can, I think, bring some semblance of stability to the marketplace. Both of those appointments, in my judgment, will do and have already addressed the question of ensuring the continuity and the increasing maturity of the Vancouver Stock Exchange as a very key entity into our economic development strategy for the province.

We talked about a new look and a fresh start, and those two initiatives will ensure that they continue to take place.

MR. D'ARCY: It is not the intention of this side of the House to impugn any of the hon. persons who have taken part in the securities business as far as the government is concerned, present or past.

However, it is also not the intention on this side of the House to have to accept platitudes from the first member for Saanich and the Islands as to the operation of these offices. What we are concerned about.... I ask the minister again: what is he doing directly to restore confidence of the investment community, both in and outside British Columbia, that the government knows what it's doing when it sets up and establishes a Securities Commission under legislation passed by that government?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The persistence of the questioner on this one theme exhibits a basic contradiction or difference of approach in philosophy. I suspect there may well be individuals across the floor who will persist in clinging to their own narrow, parochial views about the role of a stock exchange and a securities commission. Of course, no rhetoric on this side of the House is going to change that perception.

On the other hand, I think that results are the best judge and will provide, in the fullness of time, the best indicator of whether the government is serious about the role of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the Securities Commission. Time will have to evolve to see which side is right. I look forward to the future with great optimism, and I will remind the questioner of the thrust of his comments in the fullness of time and where we both might determine who properly addresses and has the greatest concern for the problem he describes.

MEMBERS' CONSTITUENCY MAILING

MR. CRANDALL: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary, and my question arises out of the comments made by the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) in regard to clarifying issues such as this householder. One question that concerns me on which I'd like clarification from the Provincial Secretary is in regard to signs on constituency offices. I would like to know if it is reasonable and within the guidelines that we put party identification on constituency offices.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I think that this whole matter of what is allowed and what is not allowed in constituency offices and household mailers would be better cleared up if it was referred to your board of internal economy; once and for all this can be all straightened out forever. I think both sides would like that.

HOSPICE FOR AIDS VICTIMS

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Health. A couple of days ago I asked him what he had done with regard to the hospice in Vancouver, and he indicated that there was some action taking place. I want to know what kind of time-frame the government has for this. If you've developed a time-frame, would you please let the public know what that time-frame is — whether there are any deadlines with regard to construction tenders, etc. for the hospice in Vancouver.

[ Page 669 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: This is the third time that member has asked me about hospice facilities for AIDS patients in Vancouver, and I've mentioned each time that we're working on this particular issue. It's not something that can be resolved in a few days or even a few months. There are many things involved. There are questions to be asked, and I mentioned this to the hon. member once before. We're asking whether in fact we should have a hospice specifically for AIDS only, whether we should have hospice facilities strictly for people suffering from cancer, or whether there should be another hospice specifically for some other disease.

We recognize that AIDS is a very different disease, perhaps, from many of the others in that it is infectious, and it may not be completely in order to have it at the same place that the other hospices are now operating from. However, I must also remind the member that there are many diseases in this country that have not got hospices, so it's not just AIDS; you're zeroing in on that particular one. Generally they're operated by volunteer services, so we get involved in a very peripheral way in the hospice area. Although with AIDS, I must say we are looking at specific properties, perhaps, and we're in cooperation with AIDS Vancouver. I can't give you a deadline except that it is being actively pursued.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, you'll have no argument from me as to the requirements and the needs for hospices in many different areas. I think the decision can be made quickly as to where you're going to put this hospice, what you're going to do with it. I don't really care if you make it into a cancer hospice or a joint hospice or whatever, but get on with the business, because right now we are taking up acute care beds. Will the minister assure us that he will be taking some action in the very near future to make sure that a hospice is built in Vancouver? You can determine how it will be used once this thing is on the road, but just make sure you get a hospice built. We are taking up acute-care beds.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the capacity of Minister of Health I am as much aware as the hon. member that there is a need in that area. There's also the question of dollars involved. The ministry is a very large portfolio, but we still have to allocate dollars wherever it is most appropriate. We have roughly 200 patients who are afflicted with AIDS; I believe as of today 112 are still alive, so we're talking about 112 people. There could well be a society formed on a voluntary basis, we could get started in that way and that is up to the people themselves to get that started. Where we get involved is perhaps the facility; we're not sure. We've looked at some property but we haven't got a property in mind at this time; at least, we have not got a lease signed. I can only tell the member that in due course and as soon as possible we will get at it.

MEMO TO GOVERNMENT STAFF ON BILL 19

HON. MR. ROGERS: I wonder if I could answer a question that was put to me yesterday by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). The member's statement — and I'm reading from Hansard — was,"I understood the answer to be not with your approval," which is correct. This is a question about the strike.

The member continued: "The memo prohibits voting and discussion even if it occurs on the workers' own time." That's not correct or that's not the correct interpretation. A good example of it happened yesterday when the union executive arrived at the government personnel services division. Employees were invited to vote. The employer said that was perfectly all right if it was done on the employees' own time. The vote took place at the worksite but it was done at lunch time. This is consistent with instructions and memoranda that were issued at previous times — March 5, 1986, when there was a strike vote; July 24, 1982; October 5, 1983, and so on. So it's consistent. The wording in the memorandum sent out by the Ministry of Health to its people could have been consistent with the wording sent out by my ministry, which would have avoided the difficulty in the first place, I believe.

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as House Leader, I would say that we are going to treat today as we would normally treat a Friday, and therefore the adjournment will be at I o'clock –– I bring that to the House's information.

Hon. Mr. Reid tabled the British Columbia Heritage Trust annual report for 1986.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 19. The second member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Messmer) adjourned the debate.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
(continued)

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of Bill 19. Certainly over the last few days I have listened to the opposition about the history of labour in Canada, in British Columbia, and the early days of hardship –– I think both sides of the House will agree that the union has been instrumental in gaining fair wages for employees within the province, better working conditions and better benefits. Under those benefits they have the best holiday package that I know of. They have job descriptions, health benefits, retirement plans, disability and life insurance, long-term disability, job security with seniority, all won under the collective agreement. None of that will be taken away from them with the passing of this bill.

But the union demands today are different. They are not based on the above. They are now based on attacks of management's rights; the right to manage was really the basis for the long strikes in 1986, a clause that management told the union that they were never willing to give up nor were they willing to negotiate. Even with that and knowing that, the union decided to take us through one of the worst years in British Columbia's history in the year 1986. We had a four and-a-half-month strike, and the strike was about taking away management's rights to manage.

To me it is a little scary, because today we hear talk in the paper of the unions talking about pulling the province to its knees, having mass meetings to protest against this bill going through the House, even before we have debated it clause by clause.

[10:30]

They are against this bill. Actually I would say at this time that they are against anyone who challenges their right to govern, not our right to govern. This bill will protect all the workers, and it will allow them the same democratic rights to speak up against the union as they now have to speak up against this bill.

[ Page 670 ]

Mr. Speaker, union members are concerned for their well-being. We all know that the employer hires them. They have, in most cases, a very good job because of the benefits that they enjoy. But it is only the union who can pull their card if they disagree with what they are saying. This bill gives that person that right to speak up.

We all know that it is also true that even in a case of an illegal strike, the union can pull that person before their board and attempt to withdraw their card. If their card is lost, they can no longer work for the employer who hired them in the first place –– I don't believe that this is a democratic system. This bill changes that and gives that worker the democratic right.

When the IWA goes on strike, it affects everyone, and it certainly affects the province in the coffers. The news media play it up every day. Both sides have extreme strength at the bargaining table. But who pays? Ask the people of Greenwood in my constituency, who rely 95 percent on the forest industry, after a four and a half month strike. Who is out there now helping those people to survive after they have given up four and a half months of economy and in some cases lost their trucks and lost their vehicles?

Mr. Speaker, what about small business? Who protects them? The problem today is that when they have a strike, no one listens to them. Certainly the media doesn't listen to them. They don't play it up. The province doesn't get involved in it at that stage, and even within their own community, other businesses are afraid to deal with them because they may be classed as an ally.

In our city we had a strike of Slade and Stewart Ltd., and I feel quite confident that had this bill been in effect at that time, that company would still be in business and those employees who work for that company would be working for good, solid wages today. Instead of that, they are not working, Mr. Speaker, and most of them cannot find jobs within our community. It's very, very unfair.

Mr. Speaker, the old labour law did work, and the old labour relations board did work. The CSP did work. But unfortunately, it does not work now. That is the reason that this government is bringing in the new bill. Why did it not work? Because we have now reached a point where both sides are hiring the top lawyers in their profession who are in on the contract negotiations. We are now hiring highly trained professional negotiators who do the work for both sides, and it has been taken out of the hands of the people who are there to govern, whether it be labour or whether it be management. Mr. Speaker, this bill will give the public and the workers the right to know what is going on.

There was a remark made by the opposition that 95 percent of the contracts were settled over a ten-year period. Mr. Speaker, I refer you back to those days. Those were the good times in British Columbia when the employer could add it on to the top and could charge the public for his product. We are no longer in those types of conditions.

So Mr. Speaker, speaking in favour of this bill, this bill will ensure workers that there is greater fairness in the democratic voting procedure, free speech and democratic rights.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this second reading to discuss in the House today some principles in relationship to this bill. Let me first state, perhaps in response to the comments of the previous speaker, that neither other members of the New Democratic Party in this House are averse or opposed to amendments to the Labour Code or to changes in labour legislation. That is not the issue here today. I don't think it's been the issue since Bill 19 has been introduced.

In the history of the Labour Code since it was introduced in 1973 there have been extensive amendments, and on both sides of the House issues have been raised that deserve and require the attention of this House. I think there could be much agreement on some of those issues that require amendment and change.

I come into this discussion with the perspective that was provided to me by the Premier of the province, and it has indeed been reinforced by the discussion that has followed. That perspective was that this was radical legislation, and that it would cause confrontation. So it seems to me that philosophically the Minister of Labour and the Premier, in preparing and introducing this legislation, have themselves told us that they were taking radical measures in terms of the laws that govern the relationships between employers and working people. My remarks today are coming from that perspective, which I think has been borne out through the considerable analysis of the bill that we have now been able to undertake, as have many people in the province in the two weeks since the minister first tabled Bill 19 and its companion piece, Bill 20. There seems to be a rising perspective that bears out the analysis that we ourselves first had in reading this bill — that it was a radical departure, very significantly altering the relationships between working people and their employers, working relationships that in our democratic society have been freely entered into through a collective bargaining process with both those parties at the table.

I want to emphasize that it is my belief that the existence of an organized workforce in this province has benefited and will benefit the province itself. It will benefit the economy of the province and the well-being of people in the province.

One of the things that we are mixing up in our discussion of this bill, and one of the things that has perhaps taken us off track in our focus of the bill, is that we are trying through this bill to address some of our economic problems through the area of labour and management relationships. While I don't disagree that there is a relationship, it seems to me that there is a fundamental fallacy in looking at the economic situation in our province and assuming that some radical tinkering with labour-management relationships is the vehicle by which we can rectify the need for economic development, the need for a long-term economic strategy, and the need for us to look at ways in which we can deal with a post-industrial society and with very significant changes in our workplace.

Even in that context, I want to look briefly at an argument that suggests that unions should be partners in that enterprise in a way that recognizes that their collectivity and the principles and activities that they engage in as a collective group will be of support to our economic development. We often hear the words "good corporate citizens." That phrase encompasses a number of perspectives. It suggests that those people who are a part of the management side of our economy are involved with good labour relations, with good management, with entrepreneurial and progressive kinds of development, with keeping abreast of change in their industry, with concern for the environment, and with participation in community endeavours. I don't think we have a similar kind of phrase to address what I call good union perspectives, but there are many of them, and I think that very often they are not recognized for their inherent worth or, perhaps, for some of the ways in which they benefit the economy. I think, as I

[ Page 671 ]

address some of the good union perspectives that are of merit and importance in our economic and social development, I want to do it in the context of a perspective that I find in the principle of the bill, and that suggests that there is some major deficiency in the way in which organized labour manages its affairs.

Now I would be the first to acknowledge that in labour affairs, as in management affairs, we don't have perfection, and that there are indeed matters of concern and matters that need to be addressed, perhaps through some legislative processes. It was clear, when the labour bill that we have used as the model for this amending bill was introduced, that.... That balance, in terms of the role and responsibility of unions, was an inherent part of that bill. But as Mr. Matkin, who has often been quoted in discussion over the last number of days, says, this bill does not treat unions as an important part of the economy, and I think it's very important for us to recognize that their role and their importance is great indeed.

Of the two areas that I thought I might address to perhaps bear out that perspective in concrete terms, one is specifically addressed in one of the clauses of the bill. One of them is something that is not so specifically addressed, but I think, as I tie it to the loss of work days, it will be seen to be an important part of union activity. I'm going to start by talking about that particular activity.

Unions are very concerned with health and safety perspectives, and almost any union that I know of has, as a very active working group within its membership, a health and safety organization. It is larger or smaller, more formal or less formal, depending on the size of the union organization and, to some extent, the nature of their work.

To give some idea in economic terms of the importance of health and safety to the economy of our province, I think it might be good to read into the record just a few of the statistics that came from the Workers' Compensation Board in 1986, where they analyze in very cogent form, very briefly but tellingly, the number of lost workdays that occur as a result of people having injuries on the job.

[10:45]

In 1986 there were nearly two million of those workdays lost –– 1,920,989, to be exact — and well over a million of those were injuries that in fact occurred in that work year. The rest were complications of injuries in previous years, most of them in 1985. It's interesting to look at the percentages of days lost in various industries, and though I don't want to bring to this an intense analysis — because in fact I have not done an intense analysis — it is interesting that in the non-unionized sector, in the trade and service industries, there is a significantly higher percentage of workdays lost than there is, for example, in the forest industry.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think we would all acknowledge that perhaps in the trade and service industries the likelihood of injury, just by the nature of the work, might be less, and certainly the severity of the injury is likely to be less. Just to do a comparison, 26, 6 percent of the days lost came in the trade and service industries; 19 percent came in the forest industries. There has been some analysis done by the forest industry around unsafe practices and on the number of those unsafe practices that occur in operations that are not under a collective agreement. The pattern that is observed in that analysis is that the WCB's findings of unsafe practices — and again this is an independent body which is concerned about safety in the workplace and about minimizing the cost of unsafe practices — is that in the forest industry there are a larger number of unsafe practices in those workplaces where there is no collective agreement.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the health and safety committees, which through thick and thin and the problems of economic downturn maintain a watching brief on the issues of health and safety, are in fact contributing to the economic well-being of our province in a very significant way. If we were to look at the history of those health and safety committees, we would see that in many instances they have developed the kinds of practices, protocols and safety measures that have significantly benefited workers in this province. Thirty-seven people died in the forest industry last year. It's a dangerous industry, particularly when one is working in the coast logging division. A lot of people in the G.F. Strong Rehab Centre are there for serious rehabilitative needs because of injuries they have sustained. So even with the work of conscientious and hard-working union people, the incidence of injury and the cost to us is still high.

I want to tie this to workdays lost because of job action. On many occasions I've heard the other side of the House refer to job loss because of strikes. There is no question that job loss in 1986 was high because of the long work stoppage involving the Council of Forest Industries and the IWA. But even with that lengthy work stoppage, we are still looking at only 75 percent of workdays lost as compared with workdays lost because of injuries. If we were to remove from that particular scene that most unusual and, indeed, most economically damaging strike for workers and industry, we would find that the number of workdays lost was infinitesimal. In fact, last year — which was a fairly major bargaining year — there were only 11, 341 workdays lost due to work action, excluding the exceptional strike-lockout situation involving the IWA and the Council of Forest Industries. The point I want to make in discussing health and safety as an example of the kind of endeavour that occurs in an organized workplace is that by virtue of the commitment and the work of people in particular industries, working in cooperation with management — sometimes totally cooperative, sometimes with a lot of pressure on management — we have seen ways in which we can improve our economy by not losing those workdays.

In the same area, I think we can look at employee assistance plans, which are much more prevalent in organized workplaces. We know the cost of illness and of drug and other substance abuse to the workplace, the kinds of costs that has for the economy. Again, our organized workplaces, with union and management perspectives in place and working cooperatively, continue to play a significant role in cutting down on lost workdays.

There is no question, it seems to me, that people who enter into freely bargained collective agreements have responsibilities that go beyond just the terms and conditions of employment. One of the things that has been an historic part of the role that unions have played, right from the time of their organization a century and a half ago, is improving the terms and conditions of employment in the broadest sense. One of my union friends, who is an educator, notes also that the organized sector of our workforce takes a responsibility for the education of people in the workplace that is exceptional. Again, I think of the benefit to the province in the kind of

[ Page 672 ]

workers we have available to us. Some of that is in-house education. For example, one of the most effective schools in the whole country is run by the Canadian Labour Congress in British Columbia for three or four weeks of each winter in a school setting out of the lower mainland. There people learn many things that are of use to them in their responsibilities as people serving their co-workers in the collective agreement. They learn about shop steward work; they learn about how to effectively negotiate; they learn about how to effectively interpret.

These are skilled issues. They are issues that are complex. We acknowledge and know that they are complex issues. But surely people working collectively, democratically, with free choice, with opportunities to express their views on these issues, can effectively establish working relations in complex workplaces that are to the benefit of our economy; and I think we should not underestimate that in any way, shape or form.

In the bill that we are debating, training is an issue that is raised. It's an issue that has been very much to the fore in the last number of years, the last three or four years, the issue of training apprentices, training people to journeyman positions in the very many workplaces and work sectors of our province. I know that in one of the early editions of the B.C. Government News there was an extensive paper on the number of vocations and apprenticeships that exist within the province, and I was truly amazed at the range of those apprentices who are a part of our training system. The bill addresses this issue around a concern that people are not in certain shops where union membership is required and that people are not getting access to apprenticeships.

There has been, I think, in a number of speeches that I have read and heard, a great deal of confusion about what in fact this particular clause is intended to do. It appears that the intent of the drafters of the bill, the intent of the Ministry of Labour, is in some way to deal with making apprenticeships more available within particularly the building trades. But my reading of this particular clause, in terms of the apprenticeship issue, is that that is not likely to be its result.

Certainly the issue of apprenticeships in a period of economic downturn is a serious one. It's one that we have to look at because we are in fact training workers for the future, and we need to ensure that we have a sufficient number of trained people to replace the older workforce, which is now moving either to retirement or is into a kind of forced retirement because of the economic downturn. There have been numerous studies in that regard and they are in fact ones that we should be paying attention to. But I would submit that the process that is proposed in Bill 19, which amends a section and states that a provision of a collective agreement that requires membership in a specified trade union as a condition of acquiring employment shall not apply to a person engaged by an employer as an apprentice, or where there is no recognized apprenticeship program in a training capacity — that that particular clause will not in fact be of assistance to people who are seeking apprenticeships.

I just want to use an example that I'm very familiar with, because my office happens to be very close to one of the carpenters and joiners' locals and I talk quite often to those people about my interest in job training. They have had difficulty in finding enough positions for their trainees and there is no question that that is a problem. But because we have a system-wide program rather than a person working simply with a single employer, what they have done in this period, when opportunities for people to get their in-the-field work are limited, is to ensure that they have worked in the very best interests of those apprentices. If there isn't work with one employer, they have done everything possible to ensure that there is work with another employer. Where there are limits on the time-frame in which an apprentice must in fact complete his training, they have ensured that in no way is the apprentice's progress through that four-year period jeopardized. They have ensured in fact that the skills that that apprentice has acquired are not lost because there may be an extensive period in the midst of his or her apprenticeship where there may not be work available. They have made a commitment to those people to have them follow through the total apprenticeship without jeopardizing that training. It's interesting that in the period of the last five years, in spite of the construction industry working often at only 50 or 60 percent of its capacity, they have trained almost 1,000 carpenters through to the journeyman status; so that even in these times of economic downturn they have taken that responsibility on.

The pattern in the non-unionized workforce is in fact that there is not a commitment to the apprentice, and the pattern that we might very well expect with this is that the least number of apprenticeships will be offered. Depending on the rhythm of work for that particular employer, he will hire only those he will in fact need for the lowest volume of work throughout the year. He has no commitment to those workers for any length of time and may lay them off. I would submit, too, that the second part of that clause, which has been much misinterpreted by both the briefings and the comments of members opposite, that does not require a person who has successfully completed his or her training through an employer to remain in a workplace without becoming a member of the union, is a kind of right-to-work process by attrition. This would allow people to have the benefits of that workplace without ever having to take the responsibility of participating in that union sector.

[11:00]

The issue of training is a major one. It is an issue that needs to be addressed through the kind of review which the labour ministry has already undergone and through working relationships with employers and with employee groups. Let's face it, members of the Legislature, the people who have in fact supported the whole issue of apprenticeship with a very extensive program are the organized sectors of our workforce and they have taken responsibility as well for the kind of upgrading we need to have for the new technologies that are a part of our workplace in the changing kinds of technologies that we deal with.

Again, looking at the carpenters as an example, they have a workforce of approximately 12,000 people. In the last year they have provided almost 5,000 work weeks of training in upgrading to their workers. In many instances that upgrading is specifically designed by the trades councils that involve employers and employees and are developed in the interest of the industry to ensure that the kind of training that is required by the industry is in fact available and tailored to the needs of the industry as well as to the needs of the worker.

There is in the organized workplace a basic tool for economic development that we should utilize, but we should not try to deal with economic development issues only through this particular measure. We are dealing right now with an economy that is reeling. It seems to me that this legislation is designed to add to the instability and to the

[ Page 673 ]

problems that we face as we try to restructure an economy that has suffered greatly over the last number of years. We need to have good management in that economy; we need to have skilled entrepreneurs; we need to have well-trained workers; we need to have people who know what their rights are, what their responsibilities are and how to exercise them; and we need to have vehicles whereby people in the workplace can in fact exercise those rights and responsibilities.

But as a democracy there is no question in my mind that agreements that are entered into freely and openly are ones that fit the kind of society that we have developed. Agreements that are intruded upon by government through centralist or through intrusive kinds of procedures will not assist us in the kinds of structures being in place that will help us with the economic development that should be the cornerstone of our discussion and debate in this House. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that in this particular bill we are moving very closely to an intrusive approach and a change in a perspective on the agreements and the working relationships between management and their workers which will not benefit our economy, will not benefit the climate, will not benefit investment. We should pause and look carefully at principle and detail as we proceed with this debate.

MR. WEISGERBER: As is probably no surprise to anyone, I rise to speak in support of Bill 19.

I want to speak for a few minutes, as reasonably and as measurably as I can, about some of the impacts of this bill on people in South Peace River, the people who elected me to come down and represent them here. I want to look at the bill from that point of view.

I want to start talking about a few sections of the bill which I think are important and haven't had an awful lot of comment in this House. The first one is section 53, dealing with successor rights. It is only one of a host of good changes in the legislation, but it does affect small employers, probably more so than large employers.

Many small employers are happy with their union certification. But I want to tell you that there are a lot of small non-union employers who are terrified at the thought of being certified. They are terrified at the thought of someone trying to organize their business. They are terrified to the point where I suggest that probably a visit from Revenue Canada would be more welcome than an organizing committee in their business. They are scared of those changes because they don't really know how the procedure works or what to expect.

People should not be forced into a union situation because they lease a building and then find out that union certification was part of the lease that they took, or they buy a piece of equipment and find out that because they bought that equipment all of a sudden they are in the midst of a certification thing. I can't really see why anyone on either side would want to get into a union-management relationship that way. But apparently it has happened, and would continue to happen. I think it is right that these ground rules are laid down, so that it is clear to what extent, how much of the business you buy, what the previous use of the building was, whether you buy only one piece of equipment, whether there is a possibility of certification coming with that.

The small employers make up by far the largest percentage of people in South Peace River, whom I represent, and really make up the largest number of the people that the opposition purports to represent. Surely some of your supporters must be faced with these same concerns. What happens if someone comes to certify my automobile dealership or my store? How do I deal with that problem?

The employers' rights. Now I'm talking about employers with 10 or 20 employees. Where are their rights? They don't understand exactly where their rights are. They are told that they shouldn't talk to their employees about certification while this process is going on. I have worked in those kinds of businesses, and I have owned them. When you are directly supervising 10 or 20 people with the idea that you shouldn't talk to them about certification during an extended period of time, it is almost an impossible situation.

MR. ROSE: You know why it is.

MR. WEISGERBER: I can understand why it is, but I can also understand that the employer, the small businessman who has never had any dealings with a union before, is intimidated by a union organizer or perhaps two who make their living organizing shops, and that this person is now faced with a situation he has never been faced with in his business life. How does he deal with it?

It can be very lopsided the other way, and the members opposite have spoken about how lopsided it is when the employer intimidates the employee. But I suggest to you that the reverse works as well: the employee group, as a small part of a large organization, can tremendously intimidate a small employer who really can't take off five or six months from his business to decide whether the business is going to be certified or not certified. He really has to continue with the mundane problem of showing a profit and being able to pay wages to keep this whole business going, and really he can't take the time necessary to deal with the certification thing properly.

That is where the concern about the union movement is coming from. That's what the majority of the concern in this province and in Canada stems from. There are two completely different areas. There's big business and big labour; there's small business that unfortunately deals with big labour. I am concerned.

I honestly don't believe that the people on this side of the House are nearly what we are purported to be; nor those folks in the other corner.

You look at headlines, the ones that came out yesterday in the Province: "Labour Cheers Battle Vow."

"The throng of workers rose to their feet and burst into a spontaneous rendition of 'Solidarity Forever' as Georgetti wrapped up a speech laced with angry denunciation of the Socreds. Georgetti, whipping up the crowd in the PNE Agrodome, accused the government of being 'motivated by a hatred of trade unions.'"

That's just nonsense. It really is. If you folks listen — or perhaps it's not you folks, perhaps it's these folks, the big labour folks.... If they listened to what was being said in this House, they couldn't make statements like "angry denunciations.... motivated by a hatred of trade unions." I don't know anybody in this House who is motivated by a hatred of trade unions. I honestly don't. If someone can point him out I'd like to see him.

It's interesting that this sort of stuff gets great press while the speech by the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen), who is an employer of union employees and gave an

[ Page 674 ]

excellent speech the other day on his relationship with the IWA, doesn't merit a line. That's just a non-item. That's not a news item, an employer standing up saying: "I like my union. I enjoy working with them. I like the job they're doing." That's just not an issue. Nobody wants to recognize it. Nobody wants to talk about it. But if you stand up and make some wild statement....

MR. S.D. SMITH: It's not part of the plan.

MR. WEISGERBER: I guess not.

So in conclusion — and I'm not going to carry on and on — I do believe that this legislation goes a long way toward addressing the concerns of the small- and medium-sized employer as it relates to his relationship with trade unions. I don't believe for one minute that it's designed to bust trade unions or that it's to make it more difficult for them to organize; really, it's to make the relationship a little bit more reasonable and, as we've heard several times, to make the playing-field a little more level. I suggest to you that for quite some time for the small employer this-has not been a level playing-field.

I close, Mr. Speaker, by supporting Bill 19, which I believe goes a long way to addressing the concerns of the small businessman, the backbone of this province and this country.

MRS. BOONE: I appreciate the words from the member across the room. I can't say I agree with everything he says, but the concern is there throughout the whole of the province, and I think if people were listening to what we were saying.... If you listened to Mr. Gabelmann a while ago, he has some very reasoned responses. We are talking reason. We are not whipping people up into a frenzy, and we are not doing any of those things that you say the labour movement is doing. In fact, I don't think the labour movement is doing that. They are taking a fairly reasonable approach.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, just before you continue, I don't want to disrupt your train of thought but I just must mention to you — I think it might have been a slip of the tongue, but just in case you should do it again — we do not refer to members of this House by name.

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for North Island.

MRS. BOONE: Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The member for North Island — you're right.

As I was saying, we are taking a very reasoned approach on this thing. We are concerned. We are concerned about what this bill is going to do and its implications. The member is holding up the newspaper's heading which says that labour vows to fight a battle, and what have you, but I don't think you believe everything that is reported in the papers.

[11:15]

MR. RABBITT: Oh, shame!

MRS. BOONE: Do you? If you did, then you should read Mr. Hume, who is also indicating that there is a very reasoned approach to this.

There are some real concerns in this bill, concerns that I think the people ought to be looking at. None of us want to see any radical action taking place in this province. Nobody wants a return to 1983, and nobody wants to see that type of thing taking place in the province. But we are really disappointed about what's happened here. This bill was not what we were looking for, and I don't think it's what the people were looking for either. We were looking for something and I think everybody in this province was looking for something. People definitely wanted some action and some change, and basically they were deceived.

They were deceived into thinking that there would be consultation throughout the process. There was consultation beforehand; I won't deny that. The Minister of Labour went around the province and received briefs, but that report coming forth the same day that this bill was put forth did, not give any of us a chance to find out what was stated in the report and did not give anyone a chance to review it or to have their opinions put down so that they could be taken into consideration. We received the report and the bill on the same day. I don't think you should be surprised that there is some reaction to it.

There are no strikes right now. There's nothing that's imminent, that needs to be dealt with at the moment. The strikes that took place last year did cause a tremendous disruption, and they did hurt this province. And the strikers are looking for something different.

No one wants strikes. I don't think anybody in this room, whether they're on our comer of this side or the other comer of that side, wants strikes. But there are times when there's nothing else you can do. What we hear all the time coming from here is that those strikes are prolonged by unions, that they are prolonged because unions have unnecessary demands. In many cases it is not the unions that have those demands. In many cases those strikes were prolonged by unions and management. In the strike that took place in my area last year, workers suffered tremendously. The companies didn't. There was a tremendous drop in production at that time. They didn't need the sales. The companies in those areas did not hurt nearly as much as their employees did at that time. So there was really not a tremendous push to solve that strike.

What we hear all the time as well is that they like this bill because there's more democracy. I find this really interesting. The rule of the majority is what.... I looked this up in the dictionary. What is democracy? I think my idea of what democracy is obviously isn't the same as what the members on the other side and in that comer down here think it is: "The rule of the majority; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation involving periodically-held free elections." That is what democracy is, and that is what exists in the unionized workforce.

Democracy exists through elections. Union leaders are elected to their positions by their membership. If that membership chooses not to attend a meeting, not to take part in the process of election of officers, then they have to live with the decision of the other majority, as do the people in the province of B.C. who choose not to vote or not to go to the polls to voice their opinion — or the people of Canada — if they so choose. The people then have to live with what they get, which is what we are doing right now in the province of B.C.

I don't think you would consider that there's a tremendous amount of democracy in many corporate structures, that there is any form of democracy whereby people are elected to their positions. It's usually the strongest, or the most ruthless,

[ Page 675 ]

or the richest, or whatever. They're the ones that rise to power. But they are not being subjected to anything that forces them into democracy. The members on the other side keep saying that this bill addresses democracy, puts democracy in the workforce because the individual is allowed to not become a member of a union, allowed to take his fees and put them elsewhere. This is not democracy; this is anarchy, and anarchy is not something that anybody would choose to have exist in any province.

I put it to the members on the opposite side: how would you feel if some member who decided that they did not like the Social Credit government decided they were going to withhold their taxes or send their taxes to an organization that is different? That's democracy. Democracy is the rule of the majority. A rule of majority is what we believe in throughout the unionized force. It is the right.... It is more than a right; union people must make themselves heard. They must get out to attend meetings. They must make themselves heard so that their views are not subjugated by those who have a different viewpoint and so that the will of the majority does come through. If they want to change their union, if they're not pleased with what takes place in their union, they have every right to do so. They have the very manipulation within their own structure; they don't need any outside organization imposing its will on them, telling them how to behave. The unions are quite able to take care of themselves.

I'm reading from the Blues of yesterday, in which a member stated that he felt there were

"...many unions that didn't represent their workers well. I know that from talking to people, from the kinds of comments that come from my constituents. 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."

Now I've just stated that there is no way that a union can be awesome or dictatorial if it is operated on the basis of democracy and if there are elected people; and that's what takes place in the unionized workforce.

I'd like to address also the successor rights. The member across the floor just mentioned the idea that successor rights shouldn't be included; when somebody purchases equipment or buildings, the union should not necessarily follow. I find it interesting that when he talks of purchasing he is only talking in terms of the material things — the purchasing of the equipment, the purchasing of the building. There is no mention of the business, the goodwill or a responsibility to the workers.

I find this a little hard to understand, because those workers have chosen to become unionized through a democratic process, which the others keep saying they believe in. They democratically decided among themselves that they wanted to form a union and to bargain collectively, yet if some outside force comes in and takes over their business that many of them have worked in for many years, then suddenly those rights no longer exist; their democratic right to collective bargaining does not exist. I also take, exception to the fact that it appears that these members then have to start out to organize again, and they have to go through the process. Now if somebody purchases a company, then surely to goodness they have an obligation to their employees, and those rights should follow the person who is purchasing it.

I find this interesting, because they're talking in terms of democracy, yet this entire bill is putting such tremendous power in the hands of one man. Everybody keeps saying: "What power?" That one man now has the power to do what previously only the Minister of Labour or the cabinet could do. I believe that if we are looking at a democracy, then we ought to be looking at a democracy that really believes in democracy and in giving people the rights to their workforce.

I think we've missed a chance in this. Both labour and management were looking for changes, but they didn't want the changes that they had. What they were looking for was something that would guide them in democracy, bringing some democracy into the workplace and giving them some input into their lives, by having them sit on committees, by having unionized people participate in board selection, by having them participate in tech changes that are taking place, by having them be a part of the very workforce that they exist in. We missed an opportunity by not doing this. We missed it by taking it and imposing it on these people.

The whole basis to your bargaining rights is to rule by consensus, to try to get an agreement among people. That's not happening right now. We are left, through this bill, not with a consensus at all — in fact, if the consensus is there, the consensus is that this bill should go back to government to be reviewed. There is not a consensus out there that this bill will bring stability to B.C. or bring labour-management to a reasonable state. We need that; we need some stability in the province.

Talk about the public interests. I find it interesting, because I certainly agree that the public interests must be taken into consideration and that labour and management must be working together. If labour and management aren't working together, then the public interests are not well served. We cannot push to concede; we should not be compelling anybody to settle. They must come to a consensus among themselves, between labour and management, both at a bargaining table putting forth arguments, giving and taking. That is the process of bargaining.

In 1968 — I hate to go back to that — when the mediation was in there, there were five times the number of strikes at that point. I don't think that's what we want to go back to.

The member across said that nobody on the other side is against unions, and yet I heard the Minister of Forests and Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) indicating that there were bully unions. I found that amazing, coming from a minister who is supposedly there representing management and labour and people in the workforce. Yet he's talking about the bully unions.

That is the type of talk that makes for confrontation. That is the type of talk that makes labour upset and say that the Social Credit government is opposed to the unions. That is the type of talk that does it, not when you sit down at a table and try to work things out.

MR. RABBITT: Tell us what Bill King said.

MRS. BOONE: Bill King is not on this government right now, thank you.

There's obviously a move here — I don't care what any member says; there is a move — towards eliminating unions. That process began in 1983 and it is coming down the line

[ Page 676 ]

here, and there is a real concern out there, not just at the fact that labour unions will not exist but at what it's going to do to our economy, at what it's going to do to our society as a whole.

[11:30]

I speak as a woman in the labour force, a woman who was in a unionized position, and I know what's happened to the labour force and to the positions of women in the labour force with unionization coming in. Pay equity is not a fact, but in many cases it's much better than it used to be. There is not the discrimination that took place before. In many cases it's still there, but it's less. It's not as blatant as it was before; it's not able to be as blatant as it was before. There is safety in the workplace which has taken place because of the unions taking up the cause and insisting that people have safe working conditions, that they have proper eye protection, that they have proper clothing protection. These are things that affect every area of this province; they affect all areas in the private sector and in the unionized sector.

Without the unions there to negotiate on behalf of the collective person, when an individual is one voice out there speaking on behalf of only himself or herself, we are not going to be able to get these changes that make for safety in the workplace. We are coming into an era right now where tech change is having a tremendous effect. Some of it is good; some of it is taking people off things such as the green chains where I think nobody ever wants to work, and that's certainly a good move. But there are other areas where they are moving to eliminate jobs; they're moving into areas where they're putting people in with eye strain from the effects of the terminals, from the effects that are taking place in the workforce, with just the idea that people sit for long times at a terminal, unable to move, sitting there pounding into a machine. These are areas that unionized people must be looking at, and the unions are taking a look at those things. They are studying those things; they are coming up with recommendations to management in areas that can be fixed. These are things that won't be addressed without the unions there to assist them. They are areas that have a spinoff effect on the rest of the private sector or on the rest of the non-unionized staff. It's something that I don't think can be overlooked.

The throne speech mentioned that they're sharply going to cut government interference in the lives and activities of the people of B.C. and I really wish that was true. Yet this bill does the very opposite; this bill puts power into the hands of government over areas that previously only management and labour dealt with. Nobody wants to see more government interference in labour-management. Nobody wants to see things taken out of the hands of the two bodies that should be agreeing collectively. Nobody wants to see that happen.

There is a section here I want to mention because it came up yesterday, and doing so, I think it points up a lot of the areas. The bill is so big; it is so all-encompassing; there is so much in there. It is awesome. I don't think anybody, even the Minister of Labour, knows just what is in there in every single part. We are finding when we get into areas that clauses have implications that nobody thought they had. The lawyers are telling us that certain clauses mean certain things, that they react with other clauses in other areas and have a different implication. Even if there was no other reason, that alone should be the reason that this bill should be put to a committee and should be studied in depth.

If we don't do something along those lines, if we insist on pushing this thing through without having an in-depth study at a committee level, without giving people a chance to react to it, then we are doing our people a tremendous disservice. And we are leaving it to the law courts to decide many things. We are going to be putting into the hands of the law courts decisions that will be affecting the lives of labour and of management and of the small businesses out there that are struggling and having such a problem as it is; many of them will find themselves in court cases over things. Because we in here don't know what everything means. I can assure you that there are going to be various decisions coming out from various lawyers, and there are going to be court cases running throughout the whole of this province about the bill. That alone, Mr. Speaker, is the very reason why we must put this to a committee. We must not allow this to be pushed through. The part of the act that I was going to mention was the changes at the very back, that very last part that suddenly came through. The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) spoke about that. It's the changes to the Financial Administration Act, and it says:

"The power...to control or limit expenditures and set conditions for any kind of expenditure under an appropriation includes the power to require, as a condition of the payment of any grant, subsidy or other payment, that the corporation or other body or person receiving the grant, subsidy or other payment shall comply with the directions of the Treasury Board limiting or regulating, as to the manner or amount or in any other way, the application of the grant, subsidy or other payment by the corporation or other body or person...."

Just in reading that you can understand how easy it is to not understand that section and not realize what it says — and that's what the entire bill is like. But what this does say is that Treasury Board can deny grants to school boards, that Treasury Board can limit or deny grants to municipalities, and that Treasury Board can deny grants to hospital boards or to any other organization that receives money from the provincial government.

Treasury Board tried to do this several years ago, when they tried to tell the school boards that they were only allowed to hire a certain number of teachers and that if they hired any more than that number they would have their funds withheld. That was declared not possible, through the courts; this amendment now makes it possible. Where is the return to local autonomy? Where is the decision-making being returned to the local bodies and the decentralization that this government talked about — that they do talk about — and that they ran on in the election? Where is this decentralization taking place, when Treasury Board can tell any local body what they may or may not do and how they may vote — and that if they don't vote according to the way they want it, then they can withhold the money from them.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I see this bill as a move to reduce and eliminate the unions, and I see that as a move to eliminate and reduce the middle class. What we are seeing in this society is a total restructuring of our society. We've seen in the past few years tech change coming in. Tech change is eliminating many jobs in our society, many jobs that were previously

[ Page 677 ]

middle-class, middle-paid jobs. They weren't top-management jobs and they're not low-paying jobs.; they are middle-class jobs, where people get paid a fair wage for the job that they are doing. Those jobs are being eliminated due to tech change, and with that elimination comes increases in unemployment. With the increases in tech change come, surprisingly, increased profits to companies. And if you've got increased profits and you've got increased unemployment, you have an increase in job demand. Right now you have a situation where many people will work for lower wages and in some cases for wages that they can't even live on. But they accept jobs because they just want to work. Contrary to the popular belief that many people are lazy and don't want to work and that our unemployment is high, in fact British Columbians do want to work. They do want to be gainfully employed. They want to have incomes that make it possible for them to provide their families with the necessities of life — and beyond the necessities of life; they want to be able to supply their families with a good standard of living.

With that demand coming up, and the possibility that unions may be eliminated, or reduced considerably, that job demand means that wages are going to come down because that market is there, and the market dictates that. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs usually says,"the market dictates," and the market will dictate that there are less jobs there than there are people; therefore you can get people to work for lower wages.

When people work for reduced wages, what does that do to our economy? Does that increase our economy? Does that help our people? Does that help our small businessman or businesswoman? No, it doesn't. When people are working for lower wages, we have a reduced economy. We have less purchasing power. We have less ability to get out there and purchase a thing that makes it possible for small businesses to survive.

AN. HON. MEMBER: A miraculous discovery.

MRS. BOONE: It is a miraculous discovery, and I am glad you noticed it, and I hope you take that into consideration.

I am really concerned about this bill, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about what it is going to do to our economy. I am concerned about what it is going to do to our labour relations. We need to have stability in the province of British Columbia. We need to have a climate that people will come to invest in, and when we see such headings in the newspaper as you just showed me — whether they are right or wrong — that is not going to produce stability. That is not going to produce anything other than more uncertainty in our climate in an area where people are not going to want to invest, where businesses are scared, where people are scared, where unemployed people are scared.

The fear that has permeated this province in the past few years has been tremendous, and I don't like to live in an area where fear is the backbone of many of your decisions, where you take a job in any area strictly because you are afraid there is not going to be anything down the road for you.

This bill is radical; it has severe implications, implications that we haven't a clue as to what they are right now. We must refer this bill; we must get this bill put to committee. We cannot pass this through as we are right now without any consultation to our constituents.

[11:45]

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN: Visiting the Legislature today is Mr. Rod Byrnell and his daughter Jennifer from Maple Ridge, and I would like the House to give them a very warm welcome, please.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems of rising in the House to speak towards the end of a speaking-list is that it is very tempting to spend one's time allocation correcting the errors that have been made in the speeches of the members of the opposition who have gone before and taking them on in debate. I shall try to resist that temptation because there are a number of points that I would like to make with respect to the principles of this bill.

But I am very much looking forward to the opportunity to debate the bill in detail, section by section, in third reading, and at that time I would like to correct some of the misperceptions and distortions that I think have characterized the opposition members' discussion of the bill.

When one looks at the effect of legislation or any kind of activity or proposal or scheme, it is important to see it in two essences or two ways. One can look at what the bill wants to accomplish in terms of concrete action. One can also look at what the bill will accomplish in terms of the prevention of certain types of activities. One of the most effective types of legal regime is one which discourages people from doing things which are counterproductive to the interests of society.

I suppose the clearest example of this would be the Criminal Code, that if one knows that it is a crime to steal from one's neighbour, and that one will be punished for doing so, and one doesn't wish to be punished, then it is a very good disincentive to engaging in that kind of activity, or the risks are certainly clear.

Although I certainly wouldn't compare the Industrial Relations Reform Act to the Criminal Code, I would suggest that much of what it is able to accomplish it accomplishes by the same device of prevention in creating disincentives to unproductive activity in the same way as does other legislation. Much of that has been discussed to great effect, Mr. Speaker, by my colleague the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) on Tuesday of this week when he set out how the disputes resolution branch that is to be set up by this legislation will be effective in encouraging labour and management to solve their own labour disputes. That is certainly the intention of the act, and I believe it will be the effect and will be shown to be the case when it comes into force.

As I also mentioned in my own discussion on the hoist motion, the bill recognizes what has been recognized by industrial relations scholars, and that is the value of the sharing of information between labour and management, the value of early-stage conciliation in preventing labour disputes. This requires careful monitoring of the collective bargaining playing-field, as we might call it, in the province; and that is indeed the mandate of the commissioner of industrial relations and the dispute resolution branch. I believe that this early warning system, this ability to monitor, to collect information and to be involved in an early stage, when disputes are potential as opposed to real or actual, will be an enormously effective device for forestalling and preventing labour disputes in this province, and is one of the most

[ Page 678 ]

effective aspects of the bill. When the bill comes into force, we will see a number of years down the line that what it has accomplished has been measured in terms of what has not occurred in the province as opposed to what has.

There are other aspects of prevention that I think are also set out in this bill. One of them is the prevention of injustice. I'd like to address a number of the general provisions of the bill with respect to that. There has been a great deal of discussion in this House, particularly by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), about the privitive clause. A privitive clause is a clause in a statute that limits the right of people to seek recourse to the courts for particular kinds of resolution. The Workers' Compensation Board act, for example, has a privitive clause very similar to the structure set out in this bill. "Privitive clause" is perhaps a misnomer, because it's a series of sections in the statute which set out the jurisdiction of the board, the areas in which the board is the final arbiter of certain kinds of disputes. Contrary to statements made by members of the opposition, it is not true that every decision of the board will now be subject to court review. In fact, there is a very extensive set of core items which are the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the board.

The changes that have been made have largely been made as a result of very profound changes in Canadian law since the Labour Code was drafted in 1973. The most profound of these has been the adoption in Canada of the Charter of Rights as part of our constitutional law. For example, the Charter of Rights has been used to strike down clauses such as those in the current Labour Code, before the amendments now before the House, that allow the Labour Relations Board to take unto itself the definition of its own jurisdiction. In one sense, the comment of the member for North Island that the decisions of the board will all be open for review is true. They have always been open for constitutional review, and prior to the adoption of the Charter of Rights in Canadian constitutional law, those constitutional disputes were usually federal-provincial jurisdictional questions. In fact, it's a sort of cliché of Canadian history that we consume ourselves with worrying about whether matters are within federal or provincial jurisdiction. But since the advent of the Charter, the range of possible constitutional challenges has grown enormously. So it is possible that decisions of the Labour Relations Board may be challenged on constitutional grounds that are very much broader than existed at the time the Code was drafted. In that sense, yes, there is a growth of opportunities for people to take decisions of the labour board to court. But that is not the question dealt with in the privitive clause.

The most significant change in the privitive clause, though — and I think it is a very essential one — is the one dealing with the right to sue for damages arising from a labour dispute. The Code as it existed up until the time of the proposed amendments stated that the Labour Relations Board had the jurisdiction to decide whether in fact a violation had occurred, and that when it decided a violation had occurred, it had to — I believe the wording was "shall" — give permission to a party seeking to sue as a result of injuries, either to person or property, incurred in that violation. But it could refuse that consent to sue if the person who was being sued convinced the board that it would not be in the best interest of labour relations to allow that suit to progress. In actual fact, the board very rarely gave permission to sue. So an employer whose property was trashed or destroyed during the course of a labour dispute could almost never get the consent of the board to sue, because the board always had in mind the notion of long-term labour harmony, and therefore would find it not consistent with that to allow the injured employer or injured third parties to sue.

That has now changed, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that the effect of that will not be a large number of lawsuits in the courts. What I believe the effect of that will be is less property damage carried out during labour disputes, because union members will now know that there is no choice on the part of the labour board in granting the right to sue, that the ability to talk the board out of that required right is gone from the Code, and that they will have to face civil courts and civil suits for damages if they inflict damage to property in the course of labour disputes. Therefore it will not be in their interest to do that. I believe that is one of the examples of preventive medicine that exist in this statute, and I think it is a very effective and a very important one.

The member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) has talked about successor rights under the Code. Succession is also a very important area of justice, and I believe that the amendments return to the essence of the doctrine of succession. The doctrine of succession means that once a labour force has gone through the trouble of certifying itself — signing up members, having a certification vote, becoming a certified bargaining union — the employer can't get put of that by going through a sham sale of his business, or somehow making some kind of change that suggests that it's a new business. He can't close his business, open up the next day under a new name and evade the certification in that way. That is a very fair principle. But the principle has been taken to extremes, Mr. Speaker, so that we have had decisions from the labour board that attach successor rights to pieces of equipment so that a unionized business.... We've seen this in the construction industry in particular, where during a recession the scope of business has diminished, the companies have had large and very expensive pieces of equipment which they then wanted to sell to reduce their debt load, and they've not been able to sell them because the boards have ruled that certification traveled with that equipment, and therefore no one who was not unionized, or who was unionized to another union, would buy that equipment. I think the correction that has been made is a very just and fair one.

There's also been an adjustment of the rights of management to communicate with their labour force about issues relating to certification, as long as they are not intimidating. It is very interesting that we have created in our labour legislation in the past an artificial system of adversity: an adversarial system that requires labour and management to be at odds with one another. There are other ways of doing this. I think that this initial step of opening up the possibilities for honest communication between an employer and his employees is a great step in the right direction.

Everybody is quoting Mr. Jim Matkin as some kind of guru of labour relations. I can't resist the temptation to do it myself, because in an article which he published in Canadian Public Policy, Mr. Matkin talks about this artificially adversarial situation which we create in labour relations and how damaging it is to our economy. He compares it with the Japanese, for example, and their system of enterprise unions. He says:

"The key merit of enterprise unionism is the fact that the union tends to be solidly supportive of the interest of raising the efficiency in its own plant. Since the elected union officers are also employees of the enterprise, they are more familiar with the history,

[ Page 679 ]

personalities, operations and future prospects of the company. This contributes to a more informed input into the various union-management consultative forums which operate on a frequent, regular basis in many enterprises. The net effect of this structure is that union representatives play a far more active role in the management of the enterprise than do their western counterparts."

That's in fact a quotation from a paper by Prof. Joseph Weiler. But Matkin goes on to say:

"It is indeed remarkable that in Canada, Japanese-style enterprise unions are illegal because our laws prohibit a company from interfering with unions, which includes helping them by providing benefits. As George Adams explains, employer support for a trade union 'is fatal to an application for certification or the recognition of an agreement.'

"Unlike Japan, our law prohibits a close relationship between employers and unions even when the purpose is to assist the unions. The result of this philosophy is to strengthen the adversarial nature of our system of industrial relations, thereby discouraging the parties from sharing a common interest in the success of the enterprise. Union and management play the game in Canada like the offence and defence of opposing football teams."

Mr. Speaker, I do not for one moment suggest that the small change in the rights of management to communicate with their workers is going to create the opportunity for enterprise unions; nor, perhaps, should those happen in such a radical and immediate step. But I do believe that it is a recognition of the fact that management and labour are not always at loggerheads with each other; in fact, they share interests, and honest communication between the two is important. I believe that we have an enormous distance to go in this country in recognizing that if we are to be competitive — and not just competitive — we have to have happy and rewarding workplaces for the people who work in them and the people who manage them.

The question of public interest has been discussed in this debate, and also the question of how to define it. In the new bill, the decision as to whether a dispute ought to be ended as a matter of public interest will ultimately be made by elected and accountable people, as was the case in the Essential Service Disputes Act, which is replaced by the new bill. The bureaucratic function, the one which is given to Mr. Peck and his structure, is a monitoring and an advisory one. The key point is effective dispute prevention and resolution. This may, in fact, mean no intervention in a dispute. It is not necessarily the case that the identification of a dispute coming down the line will be accompanied by advice to interfere in the dispute. The important thing is the monitoring, the information function and, as I said before, the opportunity to try to head off disputes through information-sharing and conciliation.

We have to see how this activity works when it is in force, and it is my view that it will work extremely well. But the question of public interest has to be faced. I think it is rank hypocrisy to call on the one hand for additional government expenditures on programs for the poor, the sick and the aged, and then to suggest that it is none of the public's business when a labour dispute in a resource industry cheats the public out of vital revenues. Many of the members of my own party have spoken in this House about the importance of collective bargaining in labour organization, and I believe that the collected speeches, if looked at, would indicate that this is not a government which dislikes or hates unions but which simply recognizes that the playing-field has not been levelled, and is attempting to level the playing-field between the parties in industrial relations.

[12:00]

I believe that we are facing a crisis in the credibility of organized labour. When I spoke on Tuesday, I quoted some public opinion research from the Decima polls, and later that afternoon the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) rose and spoke in this House and suggested that when I quoted the public opinion research, which suggested that one of the reasons for responding with changes in the Labour Code was that there was large public support for changes in union organization and for greater government control over unions...that somehow an attempt to respond to that public concern meant that this wasn't government policy, it was somebody else's policy. I find that extraordinary, because surely we are here to respond to the concerns of the public. What the hon. member overlooked or failed to point out when he was discussing my remarks was that in that public opinion research union members themselves shared the view that unions were unfair and that they required greater regulation.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Imagine the government pandering to the people.

MS. CAMPBELL: I think that is the point. I think there is widespread public disenchantment with organized labour. The member for South Peace River (Mr. Weisgerber) talked about it from the point of view of small business, and I believe that it is that concern in society which has to be addressed in order to retain the credibility of organized labour, in order to retain all the benefits which I freely admit have derived to working people in this province from union organization.

I don't think there is anyone who would question that, and certainly the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen), as an employer of a unionized workforce, has given a most eloquent discussion of that in this House. There is no one in this government who is trying to de-unionize this province. The de-unionization is taking place. Union membership as a proportion of the working population is on the decline. That is not solely a reflection of disenchantment with unions; it is also a reflection of the changing types of jobs that are occupying the workforce. But I believe that anyone who cares about the credibility of organized labour has to address honestly certain factors.

I believe the credibility of labour organization depends upon successful dispute resolution. If it is not seen that organized labour can participate in the successful resolution of disputes, then the credibility will decline. I believe the credibility of labour organizations depends upon apparent justice and fairness in their operations, and that includes a willingness to recognize the needs of the market economic system. These are needs that are recognized much more clearly by the American union organizations, but for some reason or other there is hostility in Canada, and I think some of it derives from the origins of some of our union leaders.

Many of our union leaders have learned their labour organization and their social attitudes in Liverpool and Manchester and on the Clydeside. I should say that I lived in Britain for three years, and I understand the kind of class divisions and social tension which can create those attitudes.

[ Page 680 ]

But I think it is a great pity when they are transported to Canada and colour the perception of Canadian labour relations.

I believe the credibility of labour organization depends upon a willingness to explore new forms of relationship between labour and management. I believe that if we are to move into a progressive economy in the twenty-first century we must be willing to look beyond the traditional adversarial relationship and be willing to accept the fact that management very often does value what a unionized workforce gives them: security and assuredness of training, security and assuredness of bargaining relationships. There are many positive things that come out of that. If we are to retain the benefits of collective bargaining, we must be honest about unfair prerogatives and outdated attitudes.

This is no less a challenge to management, and I would like to underline that point. I believe that Bill 19 goes a great distance toward achieving this end, and I urge its support. Thank you.

MS. MARZARI: It's my task in this next 30 minutes to spend some time talking about Bill 19 in the context of a number of thoughts that have been crossing my mind over the last few weeks since it was first put on the floor.

I want to argue that Bill 19 will not create peace; that Bill 19 will not create wealth; that Bill 19 will not serve the public interest; that Bill 19 is based on faulty assumptions about labour-management relationships; and finally, that Bill 19 has all the ingredients of bad law, which ultimately is going to bring this government down.

I have not had a personal history in the labour union movement, like many of my colleagues. I have not worked on a shop floor. I have belonged to two professional unions, civil service unions. They worked well for me; I was never involved at a bargaining table with my unions. I have been involved twice on the management side of a bargaining table in this province, Mr. Speaker. But even that preparation did not prepare me for the incredible detail, the incredible body of knowledge, that this province has in terms of its labour management relations, its Labour Code, its employment standards code. I have learned more than I ever wanted to know in the last few weeks about open versus closed shops, about successor rights, about double-breasting, about the language that goes on in this world of labour-management relations, a mechanism that this society has created to deal with a very emotional subject, a mechanism that we have evolved for ourselves — like we have evolved this very House for ourselves — as a technique of managing differences of opinion.

This House brings debate, hopefully, to a fine edge. We hone our words very carefully. Labour-management relations has its own language; it has its own forum, called the bargaining table; it has its own techniques, called collective bargaining, called right-to-strike. It has its techniques and its language. Thank God for us that we have this House, that we have something called democracy that brings us to this House, and that we have this time — supported by the taxpayers' dollars — to talk to each other. Sad, sad, sad, that those opportunities, that those democratically created mechanisms that have evolved in labour-management relationships, are going to be denied. Those democratic opportunities will not exist inside labour-management with the advent of Bill 19 being promulgated.

It's important for me to say at this point that it's not just this side of the House that's making these remarks. It's not just me, it's not just union members, it's not just teachers. It's business leaders; it's conservative editorialists; it's by-line writers for the Sun; it's the Province newspaper this morning. They are speaking out. They are questioning this legislation; they are questioning it very deeply and very profoundly. They are not hedging their bets; they are saying: "Tread with caution."

More importantly, citizens, as they come to understand this bill and its implications for long-term labour relations, will be increasingly alarmed. I have spent many hours in the last few weeks discussing with people in my constituency — many of them labour lawyers — the impact of various sections of this bill. As they go through the bill time after time and look at the innuendo and piece together the various parts of the 75 sections, they come back and say: "I cannot believe the impact this bill will have. I cannot believe that, if we take this section and measure it up with that section, it is not going to create real dislocation and real destabilization in our working population and in mechanisms that we've established over the years to deal with workers and management."

The people of B.C. are a very reasonable people, and they understand what is unreasonable about the bill. I'd like to take us through, for example, why we are not going to be able to create peace with this bill, which it promises to do and which it claims it wants to do.

It claims it wants honest communication, as the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) suggested, yet everything I see in the bill rejects democratic peacemaking. It's difficult to know whether the government has consciously rejected a democratic approach or whether it simply doesn't understand the nature of democratic principles that created the foundations of labour-management relations, not to mention this House. In the spirit of good will, as I said in my previous speech, I'm going to assume that it's not a mean-spirited rejection of democracy but simply an ignorance of how things actually run and the long-term implications of actions such as this. It's something like the property tax that was brought in in the budget; I don't believe the government understood the full implications of what it is to bring in such a substantial piece of taxation on the population at large. I believe that the government, if they'd had a chance to cool off on the property tax legislation, might well have taken it. I know that many members of government are quite concerned about that, knowing many of the lobbyists that have come to see you. So I'm assuming, then, that we're dealing here with a lack of information, with a certain ignorance on the part of government, as it comes forward with bills and drops them in the House without properly consulting ahead of time.

Legislation which abrogates the civil rights of contractual partners to come together and bargain, using the full spectrum of negotiating tools, and replaces them with mandatory and coercive procedures designed to force a particular outcome, is authoritarian, Mr. Speaker, and it's anti-democratic.

I have been a businessperson, Mr. Speaker. I think I understand the heavy hand of the state when I see it. And I see the heavy hand of the state here, coming down heavily, not directly on small business but indirectly on small business.

MR. WILLIAMS: They don't understand that.

[ Page 681 ]

MS. MARZARI: I will try to explain it. The industrial relations commissioner — no other government in Canada has so abrogated the rights of the people as expressed through their representatives as does this legislation in terms of the industrial relations commissioner. One non-elected bureaucrat has powers which once rested in this chamber. Even people in business, even employers, have taken to referring to this position as a labour czar. This is state interference; small business understands that. This is state interference on an unparalleled scale, with an unprecedented lack of accountability.

We talk about how this bill affects the individual. How does this bill affect the individual? It plays havoc, for example, with the workers' rights worked through for many years — the right to picket and the right to collective bargaining. The individual picketer on a line is now told where to picket, and that basically picketing is not a legitimate exercise. The individual is told that he or she can be fired without cause if one technical breech is made of the commissioner's ruling. If an individual is found picketing two yards away from where that individual is supposed to picket, the individual can be fired by the employer without cause at that very moment.

[12:15]

There's an apocryphal story going about, where someone was asked to comment a few weeks ago — an American, I think, a labour expert — on what happened with open shops, in terms of destabilization of the labour-management relationships. The statistic came up that within two years productivity declined between 40 and 60 percent where in fact open shops were introduced. This person was asked: "Where does this put us in B.C. with this particular legislation?" The answer came back: "Somewhere south of Arkansas."

What makes this sadder and more deplorable is that we did have a chance. And perhaps we still might, if we do something about this bill now, because creating peace and creating opportunities for wealth is not a difficult thing to do in this province. We have had a reasonable history in the last year of developing techniques and ways of greater sophistication for looking at how you generate wealth in the regions. I would suggest that if we talk about the credit union interest and community economic development, if we talk about local-regional economic planning and about building the capacity of regions to create employment, to do labor-intensive, value-added import substitution in terms of secondary industries, if we talk about using our pension funds that our workers generate and that are vested here to create employment opportunities for ourselves, and if we talk about what is already going on — the joint labour and management groups — to plan social programs and economic programs, we have a wealth of opportunity here in B.C. to build upon these kinds of things.

We have an opportunity, for example, for the government to say to the credit unions in each region — using those credit unions, as was suggested in this House last year: "We will encourage you through a loan guarantee program to take loans, to take on small businesses that are a slightly higher risk, and we, the government, will back you, the credit unions, to take these businesses on, give them a better line of credit and give them a better equity base, to see if we can't support and help small business in local regions." We have that opportunity. I dare say that the activity going on with Bill 19 will destabilize that opportunity, will turn our attention elsewhere for the next two years, and will render us incapable of following through with promises that we have made to ourselves and to people in B.C.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We have gone the legal route here. We have gone the legislative route. Jim Matkin told the Vancouver Sun that collective bargaining is working reasonably well in B.C. "Our message is," he said, "that the real success of labour management relations in B.C. Is in the private settlement of disputes by the primary parties, and that the law is of secondary importance." Mr. Speaker, this bill tosses the approach out of the window, and it opts for the heavy hand of the law. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. It's been said before.

This bill threatens the public interest. What is the public interest, and where have we made faulty assumptions? Prof. Bob Allen of the UBC economics department appeared before the minister to argue that from the point of view of the public interest in a healthy economy, collective bargaining should be strengthened in B.C.

The comment here is that very often these amendments are based on two common beliefs: that strikes are unusually severe in this province, and that wages are excessively high. He goes on to say that B.C. has fewer strikes than central Canada does, that our wages are not especially high and that the Social Credit government has fallen victim to the very misperceptions it claims to be correcting. Employees in secondary manufacturing and services account for 87 percent of the B.C. workforce, and those workers earn less than their Ontario counterparts.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the Labour minister is ignorant of the difficulties encountered by thinkers such as Plato, Rousseau and Mill in defining what the public interest is about. But after his discussions with the primary partners in this situation — employees and employers — I'm sure he's aware of their problems with this whole concept and understands that if they have problems with it, it cannot be in the public interest to proceed.

I'd like to talk a little bit more about section 18, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it demonstrates the foolishness of the approach here. The language of the section, with its insistence on the primacy of the competitive market economy in the conception of the public interest, reflects a very skewed formula. The section 1'm referring to is 27(l)(1):

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

Who benefits from this bill? The language here reflects the interests and benefits of only one narrow sector of the public and of the economy. It doesn't reflect the interests of small business.

Small business likes to keep its wealth in the community, generally speaking. Small business is very vulnerable to destabilizing economic trends. Small business in this province goes bankrupt very rapidly and with great regularity when there are swings and shifts in the economic mood. Small business needs the stability of a growing workforce, of labour-intensive enterprises and of a working population that gets its paycheques regularly and lives in some security of

[ Page 682 ]

COLA clauses. Small business, in order to operate, both in the cities and in the regions of this province, is extremely vulnerable.

It is my major concern that many of the businesses that are struggling to survive right now are non-union shops; they're not directly affected by this bill. But many of the businesses that are struggling for survival right now will be adversely affected. They will be adversely affected because the big banks, as you know, are fleeing the province. Their money is going back to Ontario, where it's being put into incubators and regional economic development plans. Business in Ontario is thriving right now; small business is thriving. Money is being taken out of B.C. and shipped back to Ontario, where the banks feel they have a more stable economy without the boom-and-bust cycle that we seem to promise every five or six years here in this province.

Small business cannot get its lines of credit. Small business cannot walk into the bank and ask for capital. Small business has tremendous difficulty squeaking bucks....

[Interruption.]

MS. MARZARI: Did he say: "Goodbye, Daddy"?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he did.

MS. MARZARI: Is somebody else leaving the province? Small business is very vulnerable. That has to be repeated again and again. It has made its discomfort known to this government. I think that if we really want to put our dreams and our aspirations into the Ma-and-Pa operations that we all claim to support, then we should pay attention to them before we go around and create major disruptions in the economy as a whole by disrupting labour-management relations as badly as we intend to do with this bill.

I'd like to talk about another sector of the community, another piece of the public interest. This is a political point, and I'll make it. It is the view of a significant element in our society that "the basic rights of working people take priority over the maximization of profits and the accumulation of machines in an economic order." Pope John Paul II made that statement in an encyclical letter entitled "Reflections on Laborem Exercens." He was reflecting on the narrow kind of views expressed in section 18 of the bill before us without even having read it. The Premier might want to study that papal letter as closely as the document on human reproduction.

There is bias in this bill. This bill institutionalizes the narrow interests of a few. The minister has no doubt heard the dark rumours about the team of management lawyers who assisted in drafting this piece of legislation. In fact it was freely discussed on a CBC show just the other day. Whatever their foundation, there can be no doubt that this legislation is directed against workers, both within and outside of trade unions.

There is black humour going on around many Vancouver kitchen tables lately among lawyers who have been involved in labour disputes over the years. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) referred to this the other day in his opening address. Many people can actually look at decisions made by the Labour Relations Board over the last five years which were adverse to the interests of labour, and almost match pieces of this bill section by section with those decisions which were pro-labour over the last five years. If this is truly the case, it's basically a committee sitting down, rifling files and finding cases in labour relations history which favoured labour; a committee sitting down, rifling through files and correcting, for the advantage of management, pro-labour decisions made over the last five years.

Let's look at the so-called freedom-of-expression clause. This section of the act says that nothing in this act deprives a person of "his freedom to express his views." That sounds fine, but as Orwell instructed us: "Don't believe everything you hear." What this section now permits is the interference of the employer in a affairs which should be the sole business of workers. It should be up to workers to decide whether or not they wish to organize, to take one example. Now, without the invitation of the workers, the employer can interfere in that process. It's the basic democratic principle of self-determination here which has been sacrificed. Don't tell me it's in the interests of greater democracy. The more this government indulges in that kind of Orwellian doublespeak, the more the people suspect your motivation and your sincerity.

I can't go through this bill now — none of us can clause by clause, and we're going to have that opportunity. But insofar as it enshrines bias and insofar as it repudiates the public interest, I think we just have to take a re-look and a rethink and find some other mechanism to do what you claim you want to do.

[12:30]

This government may really only understand in the last analysis just one thing, and that is basically that you've blown it. They may not understand that the welfare of the province demands that you back away and redraft, but your government should understand that it's in their own interests to withdraw a bad piece of legislation. The people of B.C. didn't vote for a confrontative government; they didn't vote for a Bill Bennett with a happy face; they didn't want legislation which would cause problems in this legislation. They want legislation that solves problems, and this government won't provide it. We're asking for a government that will.

My colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) dragged in Chicken Little when he was doing his literary windup. Let me invoke the ghost, then, of the Ancient Mariner: you have shot the albatross. This albatross is going to hang around your necks and our necks in this province. All the boards will shrink, our economy will be becalmed, our economy will shrink. Just as this bill was constructed around the decisions of the Labour Relations Board, I would ask this government to deconstruct it, stone by stone.

The people are reasonable. They have never been more reasonable in this province. The employers are in a reasonable mood. The workers, so far, are in a reasonable mood. Everyone is trying hard to be reasonable in the context of a democratic society which is having some economic difficulties. I would say to the government: don't let this legislation be your albatross. We have a chance, we have an opportunity, to change it.

Mr. Serwa moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a couple of introductions, if I may.

[ Page 683 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I would like to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Tiefenbach from Calgary, and their daughter Lori, guests of the Speaker; and the Speaker's wife and son, who were here. His son, of course, made his presence known a little earlier.

Also, on behalf of the two members for Surrey, I would like to introduce the First Nicomekl Girl Guides group from Surrey, who are patiently watching our proceedings from up above.

MR. SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: I wondered if I could add my congratulations, best wishes and greetings to the spouse and son of our Speaker, and say that these estimable people are always welcome here, but please do not change this chamber into a child care centre.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't know why, Mr. Speaker; we've been caring for children in here for years — some of whom haven't grown up.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could call Motion 1 on the order paper, and I would speak briefly to this motion.

This motion establishes the special committee of the Legislature to recommend the appointment of an auditor-general. It is a routine motion, one which we have had here on many occasions before. I believe it could pass the House unanimously in brief order. I don't believe there's anything further to be said about it.

MR. ROSE: As Mr. Speaker may know, there is an agreement that we will not debate this motion unduly. Certainly it has agreement from this side, and we would be very pleased to support the motion. My only concern about it, and it's a minor one, is that it allows the committee to sit while the House is sitting, and sometimes things are pretty sparse in here. My only caveat would be that: try to avoid this as much as possible.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: I might mention before we adjourn that I'm sure all members would like to wish the staff who work in these buildings a nice long weekend. They have worked very hard over the last few weeks.

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:36 p.m.

APPENDIX

British Columbia
Legislative Assembly

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRANSPORFATION
AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

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

LABOUR, JUSTICE AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

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

TOURISM AND ENVIRONMENT

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

FORESTS AND LANDS

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

ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

Mr. D. Peterson (Chairman), Mr. A. Ree (Secretary), Hon. A. Brummet, Mr. G. Clark, Mr. C. D'Arcy, Hon. J. Davis, Mr. L. Guno, Mr. Bud Smith, Mr. N. Vant. (Committee Clerk, C. James.)

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

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

HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Mrs. C. Gran (Chairman), Mr. D. Crandall (Secretary), Mrs. L. Boone, Hon. A. Brummet, Ms. K. Campbell, Mr. J. Cashore, Hon. P. Dueck, Mr. B. Jones, Mr. D. Mowat. (Committee Clerk, C. James.)

FINANCE, CROWN CORPORATIONS
AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Bud Smith (Convenor), Hon. M. Couvelier, Mr. C. D'Arcy, Mr. G. Hanson, Mr. J. Jansen, Mr. J. Rabbitt, Mr. A.

[ Page 684 ]

Ree, Mr. D. Stupich, Hon. E. Veitch. (Committee Clerk, C. James.)

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

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

STANDING ORDERS, PRIVATE BILLS
AND MEMBERS' SERVICES

Mr. D. Crandall (Convenor), Mr. R. Fraser, Mr. D. Mercier, Mr. M. Rose, Mr. A. Pelton, Mr. M. Sihota, Hon. B. Smith, Hon. B. Strachan, Mr. R. Williams. (Committee Clerk, 1. Izard.)