[ Page 713 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Hedley One Way Adventure Program. Mr. Cashore –– 713

Sunflower family crisis intervention centre. Mr. Cashore –– 713

Hedley One Way Adventure Program. Mr. Barnes –– 714

Ministry of Highways subcontractors. Ms. Smallwood –– 714

Mount Klappan coal project. Mr. Guno –– 714

Queen Charlotte Islands tourism potential. Mr. Miller –– 714

Assessment Appeal Board appointment. Mr. Clark –– 715

Tabling Documents –– 715

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

Mr. R. Fraser –– 715

Mr. Harcourt –– 716

On the amendment

Hon. L. Hanson –– 717

Mr. Clark –– 718

Hon. B. R. Smith –– 720

Mr. Miller –– 721

Mr. Sihota –– 725

Mr. Cashore –– 729

Mr. Lovick –– 731

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a couple from Pincher Creek, across the mountains from my riding. Mike Cooper was the New Democratic candidate for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest in the last Alberta election. He's also the first vice-president of the Alberta New Democrats. I'd like you to welcome him and his wife Kathy, and their friends Marge Benson of Delta and Mae Allison of Victoria.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have another birthday. I have a horoscope here that says: "If April 26 is your birthday, you are unique, dynamic, creative, sensual, sentimental and stubborn. You envisage your own destiny while still young." There's more, but I won't dwell on that. With that said, I will ask all members to wish many happy returns and a very happy birthday to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston).

HON. MR. DUECK: It's my privilege today to introduce a couple of fine young people. Rick Graham is the nephew of my secretary, Louise Mercer, and Monica Ronn from Sweden is visiting friends she made while a grade 12 student in Agassiz approximately five years ago; she will be in B.C. for approximately three weeks. I ask you to welcome her to this House.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two friends from Penticton. I'm very pleased to introduce the chief of surgery for the Penticton Regional Hospital, Dr. Tom Whittaker, and his wife Liz. Would you please welcome them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's indeed a pleasure for me to welcome in the members' gallery today the chairman of the Vancouver School Board, who is over here for a meeting with me and my staff. I'd like the House please to welcome Mr. Ken Denike.

Oral Questions

HEDLEY ONE WAY ADVENTURE PROGRAM

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Attorney-General. The government has finally decided to investigate the Hedley One Way Adventure camp, where over $5 million in public money was sunk. What monitoring system has the Attorney-General established in order to make sure that other fiascos are not occurring with regard to other youth programs around B.C.?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Inquiries are usually meant to try to determine the truth, not to have preambles like that one, which has already prejudged the result. So I would await the result of this inquiry. I might say that on many occasions very good reports were received from that community as to the way the program that this society administered for young offenders was handled, and similarly with the Social Services program. Some criticisms have arisen in that community, and they were repeated and widespread. After consulting with various people there and with the MLAs, we decided to have a joint inquiry of my ministry and the Social Services ministry. We will make that inquiry public. I'm certainly not going to prejudge it and call the program a fiasco.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. During the debate on his estimates, the Social Services minister refused to admit that he had any responsibility for the well-being of these children in Hedley. Given his clear responsibility under the Family and Child Service Act, what is the minister doing to make sure that these children are now being cared for properly?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The Attorney-General announced in the House some ten days or so ago that his ministry and mine were doing an audit on that group and that project. So I think that until the results are in, as the Attorney General says, we won't prejudge it.

MR. CASHORE: Before a new question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing, I'd just like to say that my previous question was not about the investigation; it was about what is now being done to make sure that those children are now being properly cared for while the investigation is going on.

SUNFLOWER FAMILY CRISIS
INTERVENTION CENTRE

MR. CASHORE: My new question is this: on March 2, the minister sent me a letter in which he refused to investigate allegations of improper diversion of funds by the Sunflower crisis centre. Given the Hedley experience and the January 12 letter he received from a Sunflower worker, will he now investigate the Sunflower use of public funds?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the audit team from my ministry audited that organization some time ago and it was determined, partly because of the audit, to put that service out to tender again, which has been done. So an audit has been done on the Sunflower organization.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Again, my question was not about what the minister answered; my question had to do with what the minister will be doing to make sure that the use of public funds that were put into that place for a considerable amount of time will be reviewed so that we can make sure that items that were purchased are presently being used for the benefit of our children.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, Mr. Speaker, just to repeat: an audit was done on the organization to determine the use of funds, and that's one of the reasons why that whole service has been put out to tender: so that we can determine that we're getting value for the dollar for the taxpayer. From time to time we do re-tender these contracts and this is one of those times.

[ Page 714 ]

HEDLEY ONE WAY ADVENTURE PROGRAM

MR. BARNES: To the Attorney-General, a supplementary to the question already put by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. I don't quite understand the minister's concern with having an investigation when in fact there was a contract with the One Way Adventure camp. What were the terms of the contract? Have there been any violations? Are these young people's labours being exploited in terms of the labour laws of this province? Has there been any breach of the contract that the government has with the society?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'd be glad to bring the terms of reference of the inquiry into the House, but they are broader than the contract. We never had any evidence that there was a breach of the contract. If I could put it this way, it was more the lifestyle of the operation that concerned us. So we made the inquiry broader than the contract. It may be that they were living up to the terms of the contract, but that there's still not an acceptable community contractor for the service, so we tried to give broader terms of reference. I'd be quite happy to bring them to the House or to supply you with a copy of them.

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS SUBCONTRACTORS

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. On April 15 the minister responded to my question about contract violations at the Fraser Bridge access project by asserting that the firm in question was primarily a trucking firm and that there was no violation. In point of fact, more than 45 workers employed at the site by Maximum, Sonny's and Ike Unger do non-trucking jobs — jobs such as compact operator, carpentry and labouring. In light of this information, has the minister decided to reconsider his response?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, and in light of the additional information I will take the question as notice and bring back a response as early as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: I might mention, hon. member, that the purpose of question period is to obtain information and not to give information. The minister has taken the question as notice, but if the member has a new question I'll recognize the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: New question. I understand that the minister has been meeting with these contractors, so he's aware of a lot of the information that I am providing. Revenue Canada ruled on a test case concerning this issue yesterday, and determined that workers on the project who signed one of the release forms that I filed with the assembly was in fact an employee as opposed to a subcontractor. Given this, has the minister decided to direct that the labour and materials bonds be used to ensure that UIC, Canada Pension Plan and income taxes are properly deducted from these workers?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: We'll take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SMALLWOOD: New question. The government can no longer pretend that these workers are all truckers, or are they subcontractors. It is time to put an end to this eight week delay, and I would like to know if the minister has decided to exercise the option available to him under the agreement to replace the present contractors, whose blatant violations have risked over $17 million of public funds.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the member for Atlin, I would ask the members to please review standing order 47A. Questions are to be without argument or opinion. If the Chair is to allow questions with argument and opinion, the answers will be with argument and opinion, and I don't think we will really have a question period.

MOUNT KLAPPAN COAL PROJECT

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In its stage 2 submission on the Mount Klappan coal project, Gulf Canada proposes that power should be supplied to the site using a thermal generator. Does the minister not agree that it would be preferable to extend B.C. Hydro's main grid to Stewart, as well as to the Mount Klappan site, in order to encourage economic development in the whole area?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, nothing has been decided in that respect. It hasn't been proven that the Mount Klappan coal project is economic, let alone the best means of generating electricity for that development.

QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS
TOURISM POTENTIAL

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, who was a tourist on the Queen Charlotte Islands this weekend and indicated in an interview that he did not hold much stock in the notion of South Moresby being preserved. I wonder if the minister could advise the House how he reconciles that position with the position enunciated by the government in the throne speech.

HON. MR. REID: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the question needn't be answered, because that is not the statement or the response I gave to the question.

MR. MILLER: My information is that the minister also indicated to people on the Queen Charlotte Islands that the government would not be providing funding for tourism development. I wonder if the minister could advise the House how he reconciles that apparent contradiction with the statements in the throne speech which indicated that the government was seeking a bilateral agreement with the federal government to promote tourism development on the Queen Charlotte Islands?

HON. MR. REID: In answer to the question....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Yes, there is no place for a water slide on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

The question of whether development funds were going to be provided by the provincial government for development of tourism and tourism potential on the Queen Charlotte Islands was addressed and answered to the reporter as such

[ Page 715 ]

that the possibility for development on the Queen Charlottes was only at this time on Graham Island, the north island, and if there were any development funds, they would be coming from the private sector. The provincial government does not have any development funds for tourism for the Queen Charlottes or any other location in British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: I'll quote the words from the throne speech: "My government will seek a bilateral agreement with the federal government to develop the enormous tourism potential this area offers." It seems to me that that statement indicates that the provincial government in conjunction with the federal government is going to take action. Are you saying you're now not going to take any action?

HON. MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker. This government is always interested in development of any possibilities for economic development in the province of British Columbia, including tourism. But any future action in relation to this province and the federal government will be brought to this House for explanation when it's brought about.

ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD APPOINTMENT

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the Assessment Appeal Board. Can the minister advise the House what experience, other than his work for the Social Credit Party in Maple Ridge and his success at appealing tax assessments for the Premier, qualifies Clark Chilton for appointment as executive director of assessment appeals?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I would be delighted to send a curriculum vitae to the questioner. That should satisfy the question.

MR. CLARK: This appointment clearly sends a signal, it seems to me, to prominent members of Social Credit that their tax appeals may be reviewed in a more favourable light. At least that's the signal that the government is sending. Would the minister please reconsider this appointment in light of the the clear patronage connections?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I assume you will allow me the same freedom to respond as the speaker exhibited with his question. To the suggestion that any public servant, given the task, and the difficulties and complexities of the problems he will be dealing with.... I find objectionable the suggestion that such a person would be party to any sort of favouritism on the basis of political beliefs or bias, particularly from a side of the House that proclaims that those sorts of things shouldn't be influenced, while every day we see evidence in the prolonged dragging out of debate on Bill 19. If any party in this House is responding to lobby groups, no one could be more guilty of that than the opposition.

Insofar as the questioner draws into disrepute the qualifications of a capable British Columbian who has, by virtue of winning every single case he's brought before appeal boards, exhibited his competence in that field, the submission of a curriculum vitae to prove the capabilities of the person who has been awarded this position and this onerous task will, I think, stand in defence. The question doesn't require any further response.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I have the pleasure to file regulations passed pursuant to section 196 of the Election Act.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 19. The first member for Vancouver South adjourned debate.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver South has 17 minutes left.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, just before I go into the great characteristics of Bill 19, I would like to join with my colleague in welcoming the chairman of the Vancouver School Board, Ken Denike — nice to see you here, Ken. In fact, it's nice to see all of you in the gallery today, so that you can watch what we do down here.

Well, it seems that we touched a few tender spots yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in talking about the opposition. The plaintive attack on me, obviously, by that heckler across there.… Never has he heckled like he's heckled today — unbelievable.

But there are a few things that we'd like to talk about with respect to this bill: how it's going to provide the people in the province with the chance to make their own decisions about who they're going to work for and which union they're going to join, if they want to join one. That's what we're talking about. In fact, I had a union member in my office this morning. He casually walked in, as they would, because as you know, this side of the House has more experience with union managers than that side; we have more union management people, more union people. There's clearly no doubt about the fact that when it comes to a broad spectrum of the community, this party has it all.

That union man said to me: "What would happen if the teachers in some area wanted to join the teamsters and in another area they wanted to join the BCTF and somewhere else they wanted to join the rock and tunnel workers?" I said: "It seems to me that it would be their choice." That's what it's all about: that choice of the members to do whatever they want. If indeed they all want to go collectively with the BCTF, let them so do if they wish. That's what we're talking about.

Speaking about the BCTF, I hope I didn't hear correctly that the teachers are going to express their anxiety about this great new opportunity by refusing to mark the kids' exams. That doesn't seem very bright to me; I hope that was incorrect. I would like to think that the executive of the BCTF would be smarter than that. I know the teachers are, generally, and I hope the executive goes along with it.

[2:30]

In fact, it's my feeling that there are a number of moderate labour leaders in the province of B.C. who are very understanding about this legislation, who are not going radical, who are thinking it out and working it out. I would suggest that in spite of being pushed by several members of his executive and by his member unions as well, Mr. Georgetti is a man who, at his tender age, has exhibited an enormous amount of talent and who will be here for a long time, will do a good job and in fact will find a way to make the legislation

[ Page 716 ]

work for his people. That's what it's all about, Mr. Speaker: we're making it work for them.

Indeed, when speaking of the legislation, one can hardly omit some mention of the minister, whose dedication to his job and whose commitment to the people could hardly be more conspicuous — around the province, month after month after month, talking to every group that wants to come to see him, listening to the arguments from all sides of the equation, doing it all right. You know, I think it's been an ongoing demonstration by this government to find people to serve in cabinet who will in fact do the work in accordance with an honest desire to make things happen for the benefit of the province.

Again, the thrust of this entire piece of legislation is fairness in the workplace. It's not a bad concept, you know, letting the members decide for themselves. I want to see the day coming very soon when in fact the unions will say: "We want to make sure that we give this legislation a fair trial, a fair chance" — or whatever it is you want to call it. And we'll say: "We are going to work on the committees that are involved with this legislation; we're going to work with the minister; we're going to work with Mr. Peck and others so that we can get the best result for the province of British Columbia — the best action in construction, the best action in investment, so that it will work." I think in fact they're going to do that.

You know, the appointment of Mr. Peck, who's been called a number of things by many people — and who gets compliments from me — is a suggestion, I think, that we should remove from the political spectrum some of the decisions that can be made to get people to work together. Indeed, if we have to do something, we have to make some decisions and bring in some legislation that will prevent long strikes, long lockouts or long strike-lockouts, and keep people working and earning money. Then we're doing it right.

Mr. Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I've had my chance to speak in this debate. I look forward to many other occasions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More, more!

MR. R. FRASER: You want more. As a matter of fact, I'm sorry that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is not here today, but I suppose he's in his office listening to this great opportunity, isn't he?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: He's in the forests of Vancouver East.

MR. R. FRASER: And never saw a tree, I know. Good grief! As a matter of fact, I was noticing where the first member for Vancouver East sits — right behind the Leader of the Opposition. And I thought, I wonder: is he the power behind the dome [laughter] — or the dome behind the dome? I don't know.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I've got a funny feeling that before this is all done with, all the debate here and all the debate in the community, it is all going to come down as one bill that we are all going to support. It is going to work, it is going to be great, and I am totally in favour of it.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we also notice where the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) is sitting, and that's out of the cabinet. But I am glad that he appreciates the old saying that bald is beautiful; that God made perfect people and put hair on the rest of them. Eat your heart out.

We're getting some consensus in this Legislature, and that is what we are here to talk about. I will be putting forward a reasoned amendment at the conclusion of my remarks. Part of my remarks are based on, I suppose, the comments of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) about responding to lobby groups. Yes, we are responding to the lobbying from the people of British Columbia. We are not responding to the lobbying of the gambling and liquor and right-to-work employers of this province of ours, as the other side of this chamber is doing.

What we are saying is, let's take stock on this legislation. Why are you introducing this wholesale dismantling of the collective bargaining process of our democracy when 95 percent of the disputes are being resolved by the parties themselves on a volunteer basis? One out of 20 disputes goes on, usually for a very short period, and we have one bill here because of an aberration in the forest industry; we have this overwhelming, centralizing, arbitrary response.

We are saying that that is an overreaction by a skittish government to one dispute. We think that there are better ways to improve the collective bargaining climate in this province, and that this bill is going to be very harmful. It is going to do the opposite of what the government has said. It is going to bring not stability but instability. It is not going to bring a consensus; it is going to bring a lot of conflict, confrontation and bitterness. It is not going to bring investment and jobs; it is going to chase that investment and those jobs away from this province.

We are saying it is time to take stock. Step back before it is too late. We have had only a very short period of time. The bill was tabled in this Legislature on April 2. We started debate on April 7. We have had approximately seven days of debate and discussion. The people of British Columbia have not had an opportunity to review this bill. We think that it is severely flawed. That is why we felt it was necessary earlier to hoist the bill.

Here we are, just two weeks and seven days of debate later, nearing the end of second reading, and it is clear from the commentaries that we have received from the business community, from the trade union community, from people who are not in trade unions, and from members of the media, that it is a severely flawed piece of, at best, social mischief, and at worst — which we fear — social damage. It is going to do more harm to this province than most people can fathom. I think it is important for people of this province to see in some detail the harm of this bill, and it is time to regroup and build up the consensus that is absolutely essential if you are going to have stability and healthy labour-management relations, and not try, as this bill does — and it won't — to solve labour problems. It cannot be unfair in the collective bargaining process. So it is clear that the bill as a whole is severely flawed.

What I want to speak about today, though, is part 8, which is fundamentally undemocratic. It's a delegation of the decision-making that this Legislature should be doing, and it should not be making decisions on the arbitrary and unilateral basis that part 8 allows for in the disputes resolution section of this bill. In particular, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to one particular part of this legislation which probably exemplifies the unfairness of this particular bill: proposed section 137.9(1)(7). I know that hon. members have this bill

[ Page 717 ]

sitting on their desks and are breathlessly reading through it for the tenth time. But in case you haven't done that, I would like you to know that this is the section in the Industrial Relations Reform Act — I hate to use the word "reform;" I would say deform more than reform — that provides for the most severe of penalties for employees. There is no mention whatsoever of employers.

Employees who fail to comply with the commissioner's orders, however arbitrary, unilateral, unfair, undemocratic they may be, are treated to some of the most severe penalties imaginable. It is one of the most blatant breaches conceivable under the principle of equality of law, and members of this Legislature should have that as one of their primary concerns. It breaches International Labour Organization covenants and every civilized standard of law-making that I learned about in law school and in almost 20 years of being called to the bar. There is no provision for employers — none — if they breach this particular section. I think that symbolizes this bill's intent, which is to punish employees and let employers.... It's mostly bad employers that we're concerned about; that's why we have laws — for the small number that break our society's code and standards.

That's just one reason why we think this bill has got to be delayed, deferred, discussed. The people of this province have not given the government the mandate to carry out this kind of legislation. And when they see more and more what is involved in it, they will become more and more enraged and will further create the division and the conflict that none of us wants to see in this province.

There are a number of ways in which this bill is arbitrary and unilateral. It gives the commissioner a number of arbitrary and unilateral powers: the power to intervene in any labour dispute without the consent of the parties; the power to interrupt disputes that could shut down essential services, and then a wide definition of what essential services may be; the power to end disputes with a cabinet order-in-council — not the Legislature, but the cabinet; the power to continue wage controls. No rent regulations, no price regulations, no inflation regulations, but wage controls, another sign of the unfairness of this particular piece of legislation.

[2:45]

The amendment that I will be bringing forward basically calls for an affirmation of democracy. In support of that resolution, I can think of no better source at this time than to quote the government's own material. On page 3 of an April 2 news release, the government says: "The commissioner and council will have broad powers." On page 6 of that same release we are again cautioned — and I say advisedly so — as follows: "The commissioner will have a wide range of powers." And to reinforce the point, I suppose, in a different release on the same day, suitably entitled "Broad Powers for New Council," the government says that the new Industrial Relations Council will have sweeping powers.

The government is being candid and correct in its description of these powers, but much less so in identifying the recipient of those powers. The recipient is none other than the commissioner, Mr. Ed Peck, who has described as inquisitorial the much more modest powers that he wielded as the compensation stabilization commissioner. Can you imagine what he would describe in private over a glass of apple juice from the Okanagan Valley? The range of these powers in this bill, in part 8.... The mind boggles at what words he would use to describe the powers that he is going to be granted. It's unheard of.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, calls for a reaffirmation from all of us of the values that were first formally affirmed by Canada as part of the Treaty of Versailles and incorporated into that treaty at the insistence of, amongst others — members of the government will be pleased to know — Sir Robert Borden, who was then the Prime Minister of Canada. What that resolution refers to, to repeat, is free collective bargaining. That is what this reasoned amendment and, I hope, reasoned discussion gets to the heart of: democracy — to be able to form or not form trade unions, and free collective bargaining.

We are asking for delay. We are asking for moderation. We are asking for consensus and cooperation. We are asking that the people of British Columbia have an opportunity to see this extremist legislation that the government is bringing down upon the heads of British Columbians. We hope that this government of special-interest groups will step back from that special-interest group focus — a narrow focus — and look at the good of British Columbia, because this bill is not for the common weal. It is not for the common good of British Columbians.

The amendment is as follows:

"That the motion be amended by striking out all the words following `that' and substituting, therefore, the following: This House declines to give second reading to Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987, for the reasons that it is contrary to the interests of democracy and our traditions of free collective bargaining to grant the non-elected chairman of the Industrial Relations Council such wide powers to intrude into labour-management relations and arbitrarily to determine contracts without reference to the parties involved."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker — I'm not entering into debate — could the government have a chance to review that motion before entering into subsequent debate?

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has had an opportunity — I would thank the opposition House Leader for providing me with a copy a little earlier — to review the amendment to the motion, and it appears that the amendment is in order. Maybe we could declare a ten-minute recess. Is ten minutes satisfactory for both sides? The Speaker will ring the bells in ten minutes.

The House recessed at 2:51 p. m.

The House resumed at 3:03 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has had the opportunity, as I mentioned before we took the recess, to read the amendment to the motion. I thank the opposition House Leader for providing it to the Chair before the motion was presented. It would appear that the amendment to the motion is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. L. HANSON: Certainly the amendment as presented by the opposition cannot be accepted, but I would give my undertaking as the Minister of Labour that we will give very serious consideration during the committee debate on the specifics of the legislation to the specific issue you have

[ Page 718 ]

raised as it relates to the wide powers of the non-elected chairman of the Industrial Relations Council. I will give you that undertaking as the Minister of Labour.

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

MR. ROSE: I think that I welcome the remarks of the minister. While he hasn't said that he accepts the amendment — and I understand the legal and parliamentary reasons why he cannot do that — his assurances, I think, are very warming. I think perhaps though, to be fair, it might be helpful for Your Honour to declare another recess, as was granted to the other side, so this side could caucus to determine our future role in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: How much time would members request of the Chair?

MR. ROSE: Ten or fifteen minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: We will ring the bells in 15 minutes time.

The House recessed at 3:06 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:30 p.m.

MR. CLARK: Our amendment deals with the extraordinary powers of an unelected bureaucrat, powers which we've never seen before, unprecedented power — which were the words used by Mr. Peck himself after his appointment. I want to begin by talking about the purpose of the legislation as stated by the Minister of Labour in his press release. He said: "It is essential to our province's economic well-being that we show potential investors that British Columbia has an improving industrial relations climate." Well, I agree with that, and I think all members of the House and the province agree with that. The question is, will this bill do that and will this section of the bill that we're dealing with in this amendment do that? It's my view and that of the members on this side of the House that it won't.

The power of the commissioner is one which I think will be counterproductive. It simply won't work, and the reason is basically, or generally, that you cannot legislate consensus. Nor can you legislate labour peace. You simply can't legislate those kinds of things. As President Kennedy said: "You can't legislate the hearts and minds of men." Voluntary collective agreements are, in fact, consensus documents, and consensus and cooperation are the basis for fundamental labour relations questions. The resolution of labour relations problems depends on consensus.

As R.G. Saunders said in the latest report of the Business Council of B.C.: "We cannot realistically think and hope that legislative, regulatory or any imposed reform will improve the labour climate in British Columbia. Personal attitudes among the active participants in the business and labour community must change." So the Business Council chairman has said quite clearly that it is an attitudinal question and not one that lends itself to rigid, imposed solutions by government or, in this case, by a bureaucrat.

The passage of this bill and particularly of this section actually hardens the positions of the parties. In fact, it becomes counterproductive to the stated intent by the Minister of Labour, and that's really the point of this amendment. The point of the amendment, to move this section to a committee for deliberation, is because it deals with the heart of the legislation, which simply cannot work.

The positions of the parties are already hardened as a result of the introduction of this legislation. I think we can all see that. Before the introduction of this legislation, we saw for the first time significant movement towards cooperation such as we hadn't seen for some time in British Columbia. This legislation has threatened and in fact stopped that move towards cooperation. So even accepting the minister's own purpose of the legislation, it is clear that this bill will in fact be counterproductive and won't accomplish the stated purpose.

Part 8 section 137 of the bill essentially removes the right of free collective bargaining and virtually eliminates the right to strike. Most importantly, it severely limits the ability of workers to put any pressure on their employer to reach a collective agreement. I recognize that most people on that side of the House would say: "Well, we want to limit the power of workers to pressure employers." Some people might think that is a good thing. The problem is that it doesn't work that way in the real world. Collective bargaining works when both sides exercise their economic power, and where there is a relative equality, and that is where you get the give and take of debate and negotiations.

In my view, this legislation weakens the ability of unions to exercise their economic power. The other side fails to realize that strikes happen because unions are too weak, not because they are too strong. I say that in all seriousness; you think it is a joke. The fact is that in areas where there are strong unions, like the Scandinavian countries, there are rarely strikes. You have strikes in a province like British Columbia where you have lots of unions fighting against both bad legislation and tough employers. Where the unions don't have that relative equality of power with employers is where you get that kind of action.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The member says they are legislated back. They may in fact be legislated back. This legislation removes the power of the government or this chamber to legislate back and invests it in an unaccountable private individual. I'll go through that in a minute. The bill accumulates all the power to interfere in collective bargaining in the hands of Ed Peck. He has CSP wage-control powers. He and he alone has essential service disputes powers. All the former powers of the cabinet are now vested in Peck, and many new powers are under the control of one non-elected official. It sets in place a complicated series of steps which control collective bargaining in every phase of the process. Bargaining normally commences with an agreement reached bilaterally between two parties. The only thing that can be done now is that either party can request a mediator. In a small fraction,5 percent, a strike or lockout occurs. The final authority to halt the strike or lockout rests with the Legislature and/or the cabinet, not with an individual; that's how it is now. Now the notice to bargain, for example, must be filed with the Industrial Relations Council.

I think what I'll do is go through what I think the agenda would be for 1988 with the forest industry negotiations under the provisions of Bill 19, if it passes unamended. We have very powerful private interests involved in the forest industry. Those kinds of private-interest conflicts are bound to happen in 1988, as they happened last year.

[ Page 719 ]

For the union, it's a question of whether people will have to work on weekends, 12-hour shifts; whether, in the case of logging, people can be compelled to work every day of the week for six months. Those kinds of questions are, from the union side, vital ones to the future of their organization and the future of their membership. For the employer, the question of whether the employer can use contracting-out to reduce his wage costs or to circumvent the collective agreement — or to, in his view, remain viable — I think is critical. really fundamental. So we have a very tough situation, where we have two parties that have very difficult situations to resolve.

Let's suppose that the industry, as I think would happen under Bill 19, would essentially stall through April, May and early June — as they say, now that it's the Stanley Cup season, rag the puck for three months. The reason they would do that is that Bill 19 prohibits, of course, strikes during the current agreement. Also, the employer can adopt a strategy with impunity, because he knows that the union is prohibited by statute from engaging in any kind of strike action remedy.

So having gone through this period-those three months where, right up until the end, there hasn't been really fruitful collective bargaining, because of the advisability of delaying — the union then has to advise the Industrial Relations Council, as it's bound to do under section 49, that it intends to take a strike vote; that's normally the case in the IWA. But then the employer says,"Well, gee, this isn't really an impasse, as is required under the new section 43," so the council then directs that no strike vote can be taken until some "negotiating" takes place. So the council right away can intervene and say.... If the employer says that no collective bargaining has taken place meaningfully, then it can direct that no strike vote take place. After the council satisfies itself that there has been negotiation — some couple of months later, presumably — the union then begins to take a strike vote. Normally the strike vote would be taken by secret ballot — always in the IWA, across the board.

Now they have to get permission and approval of Mr. Peck as to what the wording of the strike vote will be. In fact, they presumably have to get permission all the way through negotiations on every question that goes before the membership with respect to collective bargaining. So if there is a question of strategy, and the membership wants to decide which areas are priorities, all of that information has to be provided to Mr. Peck. All of the votes have to be public, so the employer knows exactly what the strategy of the trade union is at all times, and so does Mr. Peck. The actual wording must be determined by an unelected bureaucrat. So contrary to the rhetoric of democracy, which says that it's up to the workers to decide, in this case the workers can't decide on the wording or the language. Their democratically elected officials can't decide on the wording of the strike vote or any other vote. That wording is determined by an unelected bureaucrat.

If the membership accepts the negotiating committee's recommendation and authorizes a strike, then the union would give its three days' notice. We're now, of course, into August by this time, it seems to me. Then the employer realizes that with provision 137.7(4) at his disposal, he can increase the offer by, say, 1 cent and demand that a new vote be taken under this section — a final-offer vote. And that new vote, unlike.... Although this commissioner has sweeping powers of discretion and can do almost anything, one thing he can't do is deny that that vote take place. In fact, the legislation directs that a vote shall be taken, even if it's only 1 cent higher than the recently voted-on offer.

So it says that he "shall direct that a vote of those employees....be held in a manner he directs." So after the commission decides how the union should in this case conduct its business, the union is once again compelled to begin a full vote on whatever the commission decides is the question. Let us assume that once again the union membership accepts the negotiating committee's recommendation and rejects it.

For the first time the commissioner may decide that the dispute poses a threat to the economy. After all this, they could say: "Well, they've rejected the final offer. They've voted in favour of a strike even after all this, and delays have gone on." Now the commissioner can decide that it's not in the public interest because it threatens the economy. It certainly could have done that before that, because of the process that would be grinding it down. So he orders a 40-day cooling-off period, which he can do under this legislation, which brings the parties and the province to November 1 , more or less. These negotiations continue along — I think this is in fact how the bill is intended to work-to November 1, and they still haven't gotten anywhere. Let's suppose that the parties don't settle during the 40-day period. I submit that it's probably not in the employer's interest to settle at this point. They may in fact think it's in their interests to try and delay it, because all the time they're working at the old rates of pay, et cetera.

All of this frustration that builds up — they still have the capacity to strike finally after 40 days. After all of this, the commissioner can then decide to appoint a public interest inquiry board, which presumably sits on the dispute all through November; and if he advises that no settlement has been reached, he makes a recommendation for settlement. The commissioner can then order another vote on these recommendations, which takes us through to about January 1989. During all of this time it seems to me that the frustration has been building up. The commissioner can in fact make all kinds of other amendments. He can appoint fact-finders and mediators, order votes, etc., but in the final analysis he can order a settlement after 28 days on strike, if they in fact finally do go on strike.

Now how is it in the interests of industrial stability, how is it in the interests of investors in this province, to see these two major parties struggling with very tough arguments for months and months and months, frustrations building up in the workplace because of an inability to settle it? It seems quite clear that this legislation is counterproductive in terms of promoting any kind of labour harmony that would be conducive to investing in British Columbia. All history with respect to government intervention indicates the same pattern. Where there are imposed restrictions, imposed settlements, where there is no consensus, clearly one party or the other will feel harmed by that, and that's certainly not conducive to productivity in terms of promoting a healthy and relatively content workforce that's going to produce for its employers.

[3:45]

So all of this delay in the name of the public interest simply won't be in the public interest, and I think that's the fundamental point we're trying to get across today. I think also I can say this: I started out saying — and the members opposite didn't agree — that strikes are a sign of weak unions, not strong ones. Anybody can go on strike. It's the easiest thing for a union to go in and say to their membership: "We're going to go for a 50 percent wage increase and get people to go on strike." The tougher thing is to settle the dispute. If weaker unions know they only have to go on strike for 28 days and then there will be arbitrated settlements, it encourages people to go on strike for 28 days. It actually encourages employees who wouldn't otherwise go on strike because of the jeopardy of a long-term strike, because that's a difficult decision for an employee to make. This legislation says you really only have to go on strike for 28 days because then the commissioner will either appoint some form of fact-finder or mediator or negotiator, or will finally arbitrate a settlement. It doesn't even do that. It encourages people to go on 28-day strikes.

Once again, where you have stronger unions, and where you have a relatively equal relationship between employers and unions, in 95 percent of cases you get a settlement. I think this legislation clearly encourages weaker unions to rely on the government intervention, encourages individuals to go on those short strikes. In the case of stronger unions, this legislation is counterproductive because it builds up frustration in the workforce. So I don't think this legislation accomplishes the stated intent of the Minister of Labour — the province's economic well-being — to show potential investors that British Columbia has an improving industrial relations climate.

The editorial in the Vancouver Sun, which I don't normally quote, says:

"But Mr. Peck added: `Extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary problems require extraordinary power on occasion.' That's fine in abstract musing, but we're at a loss to see what those extraordinary circumstances are at this time. During a discussion with Sun editors and reporters on Friday, Mr. Hanson and his officials could cite but one strike or lockout now going on in B.C. Their commitment to this massive overhaul plan appeared repeatedly to be a reaction to the unusual events of last year's forest industry dispute. The new labour commissioner is being given this authority to make labour peace."

I think that is a point worth considering. This amendment asks that this section of the bill be put for debate elsewhere. It effectively means that we will have some time to consider these wide-ranging powers. There is no compelling labour relations reason for passing this legislation now. There is no major strike taking place that requires extraordinary powers to be vested in the hands of one individual. There is no compelling reason to push this thing through unamended or even amended. Because of the concern and uncertainty, there is a compelling reason to put this to a committee, to have debate, to have reasoned discussion and reasoned amendments to try to make this legislation better. There is clearly a reason to have that kind of debate. There is no reason to push this legislation through, when there is no major strike either now or on the horizon. The next forest industry negotiations are not until next year.

It clearly makes sense, I think, to vote in favour of this. I urge all members to do so.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I regretfully have to speak against the reasoned amendment and oppose the reasoned speeches opposite, because it is apparent that there are many very favourable features in the organization of the new council and the role of the new commissioner.

To begin with, you are going to have a council with two parts that are going to be able to do their job and not going to be intermingled and confused the way they often were in the past. You are going to have an adjudicative side that can adjudicate, not go out and try and mediate and settle and delay adjudication. You are going to have a mediation section that doesn't have to make decisions as to whether or not picketing is illegal. On questions like designating essential services, they can do their work. The separation of those two, I think, will produce more democracy and better collective bargaining.

The commissioner has a number of important powers under this act that he should have. He is a fact-finder; he is able to confer with the parties himself and to make recommendations directly to them. He can take a hands-on position in a serious strike, not just in the public sector, but also in the private sector.

Now I know that that is a new beginning for the industrial relations community in this province, and that there are both union and management people in this province who.... What they dislike about this bill is that it provides some basis for mediation and control, ultimately, if necessary, in the private sector and not just in the public sector. They are used to some intervention in the public sector and not in the private sector. The difficulty that all of us as legislators had in the past year was that we had to witness a strike of major national and international dimensions that we were powerless to do anything about because of an impending and then a real election. There just has to be a mechanism here that can deal with that kind of situation.

The commissioner also has the power to direct a public interest inquiry board to deal with matters in the private or public sector. That board can accept submissions from the public and can even appoint a public interest advocate. There are many features in the power that the commissioner will have that are not, as the resolution would suggest, contrary to the interests of democracy and our traditions of free collective bargaining. They are inclined to allow democracy to speak, and that is to take into account all the people in this province who are affected by a labour dispute, not just management and not just unions.

Also, the traditions of free collective bargaining have changed, and collective bargaining in essential resource industries has a third-party interest. It doesn't just involve some shareholders in Vancouver or Toronto and some union leaders. It involves everybody in this province. Everybody who earns his or her living in the service industry, everyone in a town dependent on one resource industry, directly or indirectly is involved in that dispute.

Free collective bargaining in the late eighties and nineties has to take into account the public interest. I think that this reasoned amendment, while well-spirited, is not soundly conceived, and I must oppose it. It is with regret, because I know that members opposite have done a lot of anxious soul-searching about this legislation.

I also know that they really quite like many features in this legislation, and that it may be difficult for them to express their view in this chamber. Their leader was having some difficulty in getting up a head of steam against this legislation. He really is having.... [Laughter.] Well, he is. He is a reasonable fellow. Today he invoked Sir Robert Borden. I didn't notice him invoking Mr. Andstein and others, but he fell back on Sir Robert Borden. Sir Robert Borden is a very good role model for him, because his family motto was

[ Page 721 ]

"Advance, but advance slowly," and I feel that there's some chance that under the tutelage of a good Tory like Sir Robert, the Leader of the Opposition is going to make great developments in the next two or three years.

This legislation is very conservative legislation really. What it does is....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. B.R. SMITH: It is indeed. It is, you see, because.... But you're not in the 1980s, you're in the 1960s. It is very conservative legislation. It is fine-tuning. It brings into focus changes that have taken place in the labour movement and in labour relations in Canada, changes that have already occurred in other jurisdictions. What it does is keep the sacred pillars of the union movement absolutely intact. This is not anti-union legislation. Anyone looking at this and studying it would know that it is not.

What are the pillars of the union movement? First of all, security. The closed shop isn't threatened or challenged in one way by this. The Rand formula — the check-off and union dues — isn't affected or interfered with in any way. The statutory right to collectively bargain after you've been certified and to be the exclusive bargaining agent — which is the pillar of the trade union movement — is not affected by this legislation but is continued. And so are some of the particular practices that have grown up which have been highly criticized — which it would have been very easy for this government to remove, because there would have been enormous public support to do so — like the non-affiliation clauses. They have been left in construction, because they have been negotiated and because they are part of the market system and they're there. In the construction field they've all been left. I tell you that this is legislation that is designed to update and to fine-tune labour relations in this province, not to destroy the trade union movement. It is very, very sensible and very conservative legislation.

It is true that some changes have been made in the bill which have democratized labour relations and which have recognized individual rights, and one of the changes that's occurred in Canada in the last five years — one of the major changes under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which members opposite were so fond of, Mr. Speaker.... They were so fond of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms until the courts started to hand down rulings which were not rulings that some of their special-interest groups liked. When their oxen were being gored, they didn't like the Charter of Rights, but I can tell you that the Charter of Rights has made a new focus on individual rights, and what this bill does is focus on and give force to individual rights. The rights of minority members. The rights of an employer who decides that he wants to explain to his employees in a peaceful and democratic way the merits or demerits of certification; now he's able to do so without being hustled off on an unfair labour practice the moment he opens his mouth. Also the rights of a union member to dissent....

MR. BLENCOE: What page are you on?

HON. B. R. SMITH: I'll tell you what I'm on. I'm on the preamble about the effect on our democratic traditions; that's what I'm talking about. What this does is it protects the rights of minority members to dissent. It allows those who decide that they're not going to honour an illegal picket line.... They can't have reprisals against them later, they can't be intimidated, and they can't be punished for failing to obey an illegal picket line or secondary boycott or a hot-goods edict or something like that.

So I'll tell you that this legislation has broad support from rank-and-file members and also from their families. It may not get people to stand up at an NDP meeting and say who is in favour of this bill or who isn't — or a yes-no ballot box, which is....

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Oh, sure. Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is popular legislation. It has broad public support.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Well, you'd be very well disposed to hustle this bill through the House. That's what you....

MR. BLENCOE: That's exactly what you want to do.

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, we'd be quite happy to be here and debate it until August, because it's very good news for the province. You want to get it out of the way very quickly, because you don't want to be in bed with the B.C. Federation of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. B.R. SMITH: Sure you do. You're the ones who have the....

MR. G. HANSON: We saw you on cable last night.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm honoured.

So all these bad practices are controlled under this bill, and the democratic process is revived. Secondary boycott, hot-goods edicts — and so is double-breasting, too, because double-breasting is not permitted. And successor status, Mr. Speaker, is no longer going to be like malaria. It's going to be something that doesn't pass with land, doesn't pass with cranes and equipment, but passes only with the running of a business.

[4:00]

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will bring stability; it will also encourage people to put some risk capital into this province that they weren't before.

The only danger of this legislation is that in fanatical opposition to this, some opponents of it may try to create a self-fulfilling prophecy and produce the kind of unrest and bad propaganda abroad that we get from this kind of debate. That's the danger — not the bill, but how irresponsible opponents of this bill can stir up the public instead of having reasoned debate.

I am delighted to rise in my place again, Mr. Speaker, and to support the bill and to vote against the reasoned amendment.

MR. MILLER: Of course, I rise to speak in favour of the reasoned amendment, and I think the word "reasoned" is an important one as we talk about the debate that has taken place in this chamber over the past little while. It seems to me that

[ Page 722 ]

the debate has indeed been very reasoned, and I'm starting to get the sense that some of that reason is prevailing, by events earlier today.

Referring to remarks by the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), I would hope that he would think that we were all reasonable people in this chamber. I am cognizant of another dictum, if you like, of conservative philosophy, and that is — I hope I'm saying this properly, but I think I'm getting the sense of it — "He who governs least, governs best." I've heard many conservatives of my acquaintance express that in varying degrees and in varying forms. Maybe Robert Borden said it, for all I know. Maybe he said it first.

Given that dictum or that underlying philosophy of conservatism, I again express my puzzlement why we are seeing legislation that does the opposite. We think it's totally unreasonable that the powers that normally would be granted to this Legislature are given over to an individual. There is a pretty serious underlying reason for that. Certainly none of us would claim to have the wisdom of Solomon, but when you read the legislation you'd almost wish or hope that Mr. Peck does, because he certainly will need it. I just don't think that that exists in the 1980s. The world is a very changing place.

So the issue is not whether labour-management disputes from time to time require some form of intervention. I think there's agreement, not just in this House but in many legislatures in Canada and throughout the world, that at some points in time the interests of the majority take precedence over the interests of the minority. When that happens we are in a position — now under existing legislation — to take action as people who are elected by the people of this province to represent their interests. I don't think that it's wise to take those powers away from this Legislature and give them over to an individual for a five-year period. That's placing too much faith in one person, and it's removing our responsibility as elected officials to deal with those questions in a public manner and to take the heat of our decisions.

If having made a decision you go out there in the community and you're castigated, well, as a friend of mine once said: "That's the price of fame." You've got to be prepared to make difficult decisions and to live with the consequences. We all do that and we're all aware of that, because we rely on the electorate either to put us in this chamber or to take us out.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

The cumulative effect of the legislation, with regard to Mr. Peck's powers, is to me very disturbing. Labour-management relations or bargaining can be a fragile thing, and it seems to me, in looking at it, that the minimum of interference in that process is the best. Despite rules or legislation to the contrary, you can't really get at the fundamental disagreements that exist in a labour-management dispute. Those issues have to be thrashed out by the parties. Later in my address I'll get to what I think to be very positive and constructive suggestions made by the B.C. Federation of Labour in a brief presented to the Minister of Labour, in terms of how that process can be improved.

Getting back to my original premise, if we want to pay lip-service to at least the concept of the government staying off people's backs, let's get rid of red tape. We've got a bill that, I think, will create more red tape than most I've seen. I think the government has an obligation to try to be consistent. I note that even in the proposed legislation, under section 18, which repeals section 27(1).... I think it's interesting to read the words here, because they again pay lip-service to the dictum of conservativism that, you know, we live under a free market economy and that the less we interfere with that the better. I'll read subsection (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...." And yet the legislation, in my view and in many other people's view, purports to take away their rights, or their participation, and whatever benefit they may derive from a competitive market economy. It says that, no, we're going to set up a labour commissioner who's going to regulate your actions in that competitive market economy. At a time when conservative governments are moving — and, I think, unwisely in some areas — to deregulate and get out of the marketplace, this government, with this legislation, is proposing to become more interventionist. In my opinion, intervention cannot succeed; in fact, it will eventually end up as being an irritant to the process, and will probably give rise to some things that nobody wants to see.

I want to briefly quote from an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail of April 16. I think it has a couple of good statements about the rights of trade unions in our society, and it relates to the recent Supreme Court decisions which, in effect, as I understand them, say that unions do not, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, have the automatic right to strike. Yet the writer, Prof. Allan Hutchinson, who is a law teacher at Osgoode Hall, very wisely sets out a couple of statements, which I'd like to enter in the record, about the struggle of trade unions and what is likely to happen despite this kind of ruling coming down from the Supreme Court of Canada. He says: "When labour legislation is challenged, unions will have no effective constitutional rights to counter those of employers, such as free speech, liberty or equality." The effect of the rulings by the Supreme Court is to, in one sense, say to unions: "No, you do not have equal rights in terms of bargaining with an employer." Unions are very, very cognizant of this position that they are in.

Going on, Prof. Hutchinson says: "The whole idea and existence of a union is to establish a collective solidarity and presence that can overcome workers' vulnerability to the greater power of employers. By limiting a union's rights to those its members can exercise as individuals is to subvert its entire raison d'être. " That's very true, and that's what I think trade union members and trade union leaders have been saying in this province ever since the introduction of Bill 19.

There were dissenting opinions to that Supreme Court ruling. The Chief Justice and Justice Wilson both offered dissenting opinions, but they were pretty careful to say that the right to strike can't be justified when "the effect of a strike would be especially injurious to the economic interests.... " As I said at the outset of my remarks, we recognize that as legislators; and that has happened in the past in this chamber. Some of us here — not me, but some of us — have been parties to that kind of legislation when the interests of the majority have been threatened.

The article goes on to say — and, I think, wisely, in terms of deciding when intervention should take place.... Prof. Hutchinson says: "But can't it be argued that all strikes cause economic harm to somebody?" Certainly it can. "That's why the strike is such an effective weapon against the economic clout of employers. Will the courts be equally eager to protect

[ Page 723 ]

the interests of third parties, such as local businesses and workers, when a corporation decides to relocate or close a plant to help it `rationalize' its operations?" There is the flip side, if you like, of one of the arguments that the trade union movement is trying to make.

I would like to offer a couple of personal observations on that, because I think it is a very real argument. Some years ago this Legislature adopted a piece of legislation to create the B.C. Resources Investment Corp. That corporation went out and sold shares to the public. It was a very successful offering, and a lot of money was raised, and the assets that were really owned by the people of this province were transferred to that corporation. They then proceeded to do, in my opinion, a very seriously bad job of managing that corporation.

As a result of that, workers' livelihoods were taken away in this province, in the Kootenay Forest Products mill and in Prince Rupert with the Skeena Cellulose pulp mill. Because of that kind of mismanagement, there were extended and protracted periods of layoff. I know workers who lost their houses. I know workers who suffered every bit as much as some of the stories that have been related by the other side about people who suffered because of the IWA-FIR dispute of last year.

Yet they had no recourse through bargaining. The union was essentially powerless to deal with this kind of issue. The best that those workers could look forward to was a committee coming in, not from the provincial government — the provincial government was not there offering any assistance whatsoever to those working people — but from the federal government through Manpower. If the layoff is massive enough, a committee will come in and do what they can in terms of trying to get some retraining for some of those displaced workers.

Quite frankly, at a time when our unemployment rate was running at an extremely high level, it really was next to nothing. There was no assistance. So those workers were reduced to individuals. We love to talk about the freedom of individuals, but as individuals we are powerless to deal with a major corporation which had a major impact in their lives in terms of mismanagement and the denial of their right to earn a living. Nobody was there saying that that company was making the wrong decisions and that somehow government should be involved to the extent that the livelihood, or the ability to earn a livelihood, of those working people would be protected.

Yet when it comes to labour legislation, the government wants to come in with a bill that, in its entirety, is really a devastating shock to free collective bargaining as we have known it. It is small wonder, then, that that shock has spread throughout the community and the labour movement is out mobilizing. It is out talking to its members, and from the information I got from a recent weekend trip to my constituency, a lot of those members are saying: "You are not going far enough. Why are you taking this calm, reasoned approach with the government? They have never listened. We've got to do something more drastic."

[4:15]

That's the message I get from the rank and file. And I know those people; I have worked with them for 20 years. I think the leaders of the labour movement, who have been quite unfairly castigated by members opposite as being labour bosses and manipulators of ballot boxes and a host of things that are generally pretty unflattering, have been overwhelmingly reasonable in terms of this piece of legislation, in terms of trying to explain to the government what is wrong with it and why it won't work.

As I said earlier, I am starting to get just a touch optimistic. I hope you don't let me down, because it would be tragic not just for me, but for what could happen in this province.

Yesterday the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) talked about some unions that were in favour of this legislation. They may be afraid to speak out or something, but we know there are people out there who really are in favour of this. Well, he mentioned the teamsters' union. He said he hadn't heard from the leader of the teamsters' union. Well, the teamsters' union is talking. The teamsters' union has been a quiet union in some sense. The leader of the teamsters' union is a Liberal, I believe. But here's what the teamsters' union is saying in a story put out by the Canadian Press, and the headline is pretty alarming: "Teamsters Consider Economic Sanctions to Battle Labour Law."

The government has talked about the need for this legislation in terms of trying to attract investment capital. I haven't particularly bought that line, because I think that there are a number of serious reasons why investment capital has not flowed into British Columbia. Part of that may have to do with the perception — quite frankly, most often spread by members of the Social Credit government — that labour is too powerful and that there are too many disruptions. But the teamsters' union has some economic clout of its own, as do some unions — not too many; I haven't heard of too many that have got this kind of money.

Let me read on and enlighten you about what one of the bad side-effects could be if the government persists in this legislation without listening to the concerns of the trade union movement.

"The teamsters' union said Tuesday it is considering economic sanctions against B.C. employers who support the provincial government's proposed labour legislation changes.

"The union has $60 million invested in company pension plans and stocks, teamsters' B.C. president Peter Moslinger said, and it might pull out of companies which favour the sweeping legislative changes. 'It means survival,' he said. `We're going to need everybody's help, and that includes some of the employers we do business with. They can't dump on us on the one hand and try to get this legislation through and then want us to support them."'

There's a union that's prepared to take some pretty drastic action to defend their right to free collective bargaining.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The minister opposite said they should sell their shares in Canadian Tire. I don't know if the minister can have it both ways. If you want to be a purist on the one hand, do you want to attack unions for where they place their investments? On the other hand, I suppose you think as a free-enterpriser that that's probably a good thing.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The teachers invest in housing co-ops.

[ Page 724 ]

MR. MILLER: Well, trade unions have invested in housing. We could get on to talk about some of the investments that trade unions have made in housing co-ops, but I want to get on to some of the suggestions that the trade union movement has made to improve collective bargaining in British Columbia. I think there are some very good ones, and I just want to touch on some of them. In a brief that was maybe too brief — it was ignored....

I note again in another story that this legislation was not written by people in the know; it was written by people outside the know. I think that's becoming more and more clear.

In any event, the brief from the B.C. Federation of Labour has a section called "Bargaining — Improving the Success Rate." They deal with the history of collective bargaining in terms of how we've arrived at where we are today, and they make some very positive suggestions for the future. Just a couple of quotes from that before I get on to the suggestions in terms of collective bargaining. They say in their brief that "collective bargaining is the central aspect of contemporary labour relations in democratic countries." That's certainly true. "Just over 200 years ago wages and other prices were governed by statute and set by justices of the peace. With the rise of the market economy in the eighteenth century, this practice fell into disuse."

With Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, laissez-faire and the market economy we entered a new era, and there have been some struggles along the way in terms of the labour movement really overcoming some pretty bad legislation and pretty bad laws that said you were not able to bargain freely. We've arrived at a situation today where that for the most part does exist in this province; and it's regressive, not reformist, to introduce a piece of legislation that seeks to take us backwards instead of forwards.

Dealing with the suggestions for improvement, the federation argues that there can be a larger role for government in terms of assistance to the parties. They say: "While collective bargaining works relatively well in British Columbia for the vast majority of disputes, the impact on the public at large, when a set of negotiations fails, is often alarming. For this reason, the federation proposes a number of areas for government initiative."

The first one is a central information bank. They note that the Minister of Labour at one time published the Labour Research Bulletin, an excellent publication that provided statistics and research on issues of concern to both management and labour, and which both sides relied heavily on. That kind of information, in terms of what other unions and other companies are doing to arrive at resolutions to their labour problems, would be invaluable for all unions. So rather than take an approach that says,"We're here to tell you what to do," the federation is proposing an approach which basically says: "The more information we can get out to people and the more knowledgeable people are about negotiating and contracts and what's current, the better it's going to be and the easier it will be to arrive at the resolution of labour relations problems."

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I wonder if the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) could perhaps move over a couple of chairs. I can't hear myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't saying much, anyway.

MR. MILLER: Well, Mr. Member, you will get your chance, and I will listen with interest to what you have to say, and you can talk right after me if you like.

The brief goes on to talk about an increased role for mediation, and certainly they recognize that there is a role for mediation and that one of the cornerstones of that is that there has to be a certain level of confidence. If that confidence does not exist, then either party is going to be wary — and I say "either party" because certainly if a mediator consistently displays a bias towards a trade union the companies eventually will reject him. Therefore again I get back to the point of the reasoned amendment that the legislation displays a bias in the opposite side, and that bias will be considered very carefully by labour and will be interpreted — as it has been interpreted — as legislation that clearly is aimed at reducing their effectiveness and at reducing their ability to sit down on an equal basis with their employers and arrive at a collective agreement.

Bargaining is not a simple or easy process. It involves a lot of strategizing on both sides. Really, I think the thing in my experience that has made bargaining work the best is experience. Quite often a union or a company will get in trouble when they get outside their own experience — when they try things that are really hare-brained or that they're afraid to have some trust in, in terms of sitting down at the table and taking the opposite side's word for what they're saying. That's when things go wrong. No amount of Mr. FixIt legislation, giving Ed Peck — or whoever the commissioner is — the power to interfere at every stage and to say,"I want to see a copy of your financial statements," to say,"I want to see a copy of your offer," to say that the company has to have the full results of the vote....

I mean, it's a bit ludicrous to talk — as the legislation does — about unions being required to take a vote because the company wants them to, and on the other hand to say that a company has to take a vote because the union wants them to. Companies don't vote. Unions are a collection of individuals who come together for their collective good, and they meet in open assembly, and generally when they're putting together their contract demands it's a very free and open process. I've participated in many of them. Quite often labour leaders are put in the position of saying to members: "No, we think that that's unreasonable. It would be foolish to take your suggestion about whatever it might be to the table. It's unreasonable in light of economic conditions or what we can reasonably expect to get or what our priorities are." The proposed labour legislation and all of the comments I've heard from the other side seem to ignore that process that does take place.

But getting back to the federation's brief, it lists the items that they consider need to be in place for mediation to be effective. They talk about confidence in and a rapport with the mediator, and we do have some good mediators in British Columbia — some very experienced people. They talk about appropriately timed entry into the mediation process — appropriately timed. This legislation would be there like a dark cloud constantly; it wouldn't be a question of coming in at an appropriate time. This is saying: "We're sitting beside you every step of the way. We don't trust you." They talk about getting the parties together in a constructive way, not saying to unions: "Look, the employer wants you guys to take a vote

[ Page 725 ]

— you go out there and do it, and make sure you get the results to him." They talk about establishing common facts, and about proposing alternative solutions. So the federation proposes and has recommended to the minister a number of ways that the bargaining process can be improved, and mediation is one of them.

There was also another brief from the federation in terms of the operation of the Labour Relations Board, and I think it's unfortunate that that brief was generally overlooked because of the shock of this legislation being introduced. They talked in the brief about the system getting out of hand and into the hands of lawyers. Somewhere I read — I think it was in this article here, and I'm going to quote this because I wouldn't want to be quoted as saying this on my own. I didn't dream this up, and I have many friends who are lawyers.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I can't say that I have any enemies who are lawyers now, but with the passage of time, who knows? Nonetheless, Prof. Hutchinson, again in his article on the Supreme Court decisions, refers to a quote from Shakespeare. He suggests that unions take Shakespeare's advice: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Getting back to the federation brief, one of the main points they made is that the Labour Relations Board, and all of the things that happened around the Labour Relations Board in terms of resolving disputes, had really gotten into the hands of lawyers and away from the hands of the people who actually have to deal with the issues on the job. When I look at the legislation, in addition to the enormous powers given to one civil servant, I see a document that's going to be a lawyer's delight for years to come. The lawyers must be rubbing their hands with glee and saying: "Order up some copies; let's take a look at this one." Perhaps my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew might....

MR. SIHOTA: I don't practise labour law.

MR. MILLER: Oh, he doesn't practise labour law, so he's not worried. But he might confirm...

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, yes, it's a make-work project.

MR. MILLER: ...that we have an untried piece of legislation.

I see that my time is up, Madam Speaker, so I'll resume my seat.

MR. SIHOTA: I see that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) is not in the room. I was of course looking forward to more words of wisdom from his direction, but I guess we'll have to wait.

AN HON. MEMBER: We might have to wait a long time.

MR. SIHOTA: Yes, we may have to wait a long time. In any event, Madam Speaker, the amendment to the motion before the House actually talks about the fact that provisions of Bill 19 are contrary to the interests of democracy and our traditions of free collective bargaining. In particular, it talks about the powers under Part 8 of the legislation that are prescribed to the chairman, who will of course be Mr. Peck. This afternoon I want to talk a little bit about the tradition of collective bargaining-how it is that we arrived at collective bargaining in this society — and then I want to talk a little bit about rights.

It seems to me that whenever we're in this debate we're talking about rights: rights of the individual, rights of the employer, what's fair and what's not fair. So I want to dwell a little bit upon that. But the thrust of my submission today is basically that it's only through the institution known as free collective bargaining that working people can begin to redress the inherent inequities that exist between themselves as employees and their employers. I'm sure some members of the House would like to think there are no inequities between employees and employers, but I think we would all agree that they exist; and I think we could all agree that they exist the larger the institution becomes.

In any event, a view that has slowly evolved in our economic development and our economic history — our economic evolution, if you want to call it that — has resulted in collective bargaining being a cornerstone of our economic system. That hasn't always been so, Madam Speaker. At times there were indeed direct efforts to limit collective bargaining, times when both Canadian and British legal policy clearly discouraged collective bargaining. In fact, there was a time in our economic history, our economic evolution, when very concrete obstacles were placed on the collective bargaining process and upon trade union activities: obstacles such as criminal penalties for association and involvement in trade union activities. There were all sorts of civil injunctions that made it very difficult for people to get involved in trade union activities, to engage in collective bargaining, to meet at work to try to negotiate working conditions, to strike or otherwise.

There were all sorts of common-law remedies that were used and applied by the courts in order to restrict the rights, or the opportunity, of working people to decide whether or not they wanted to engage in free collective bargaining. Common-law remedies like nuisance and trespass were applied over and over again to say that people did not have the right, as working people, to get together and talk about their conditions of work, let alone decide to form a trade union. There were, of course, legislative enactments passed by legislatures throughout the British Commonwealth that eliminated the ability of people to form units of collective bargaining.

Slowly but surely the pendulum began to swing the other way in our economic history. In many ways the flashpoint was some American legislation known as the Wagner Act, which came down in the United States and which started to take, instead of a contrary or even neutral position against collective bargaining or organization into trade unions, an affirmative role, in many ways, towards the establishment of trade unions. Perhaps not as affirmative as many of us would have liked to have seen; nonetheless it started to bring about a change, or swing the pendulum, as I put it earlier on, towards a system or regime of free collective bargaining.

Accordingly, we started to see the introduction of laws throughout the British Commonwealth that basically embraced the philosophy that employees were free to form trade unions and to enter into collective units to deal with their employer. Canadian public policy started to reflect that, particularly during the thirties, and more so, I would say, during the fifties. In fact, Canadian public policy during the fifties and sixties was to the point.... And when I say public policy, I don't mean public opinion; I mean public

[ Page 726 ]

policy as expressed in legislatures, through the courts, as it evolved within our legal system.

That public policy started to embrace the position which felt that it was worthwhile for employees to join trade unions, and slowly but surely we started to see the type of provisions that started to appear in the labour code that currently is law in this province, which went as far as to say that employers had no right to interfere with the collective decision of employees who are deciding whether or not they wish to form a trade union or engage in collective bargaining. In other words, there were restrictions on intimidation and activities of harassment that were designed to suggest to employees that they should not make a decision on their own as to whether they wished or did not wish to form trade unions.

In a nutshell, that's sort of been the evolutionary history of collective bargaining within the British Commonwealth system. Now you have to ask yourself why it was that we began as a society to say that trade unions were okay, that it was okay for people to engage in free collective bargaining. Well, let me suggest that there were two basic reasons. The first one is the most evident one, which is really a matter of economics. Purely and simply put, the employees at some point began to consider it to be within their economic interests to decide to get into collective bargaining.

Before I launch a little bit into that, I want to preface my comments by saying that I don't intend to talk too long about the economic reasons for people to engage in free collective bargaining. The reason why I don't intend to do that is that I think we all understand the economic arguments, because we're faced with them every day. We know the arguments about wages and benefits and all that kind of stuff. It seems to me that there are other reasons — the second sphere, which I want to get into later on — which in many ways are philosophically far more important, that you don't want to undermine.

In any event, having given that bit of a preface, I do want to sort of talk a little bit about the economic reasons. Working people would look around and see counterparts engaged in similar activities enjoying better economic working conditions than they were. I think the analogy that's used quite often — it's an interesting one because it's one that hasn't always worked — is the one of tellers working in banking institutions taking a look at clerks working in a Safeway and saying: "Look, the work that I do is not that different from what the people in Safeway do, but I'm getting paid $5 an hour and they're getting paid $18 or $19 an hour."

There's no doubt that the economic system could handle both of those. Like I say, we have a whole history that led to collective bargaining being embraced as a component of public policy in this country. So when they began to look at their counterparts in the working world and to see that they were enjoying better wages for a similar type of work, they began to look at why that was the case. Indeed, that led to them making a collective decision to form a trade union to try to enhance the level of wages that was being paid to them.

In a similar fashion, if I may continue with the economic reasons, workers started to look at the master-servant relationship, as we still call it today as lawyers. When we deal with matters of wrongful dismissal, we still call it by those archaic terms. There was an inequity in that relationship between the master and the servant, in that the master, or the employer, would often be there saying: "Here's my wages; take it or lose your job." Therefore, not only in terms of wages, which I talked about earlier, but also for reasons of economic security, in order to address that inequity, workers felt that if they got together and took on their employers collectively, then they would begin to address that inequity between master and servant, or between employer and employee.

Once we began to see in this country the evolution of the breaking down of that traditional master-servant relationship, it became apparent that the collective bargaining process that we had established as part of Canadian policy was not simply there for the benefit of the employee only; that it wasn't there simply to increase wages and better working conditions for the working person. It was also to the advantage of the employer, because the employers knew that in their hands they had a negotiated settlement, an agreement; and that agreement, for its tenure, whether it be one, two, three or four years or whatever, meant that for that time period the employer was assured of economic stability. They knew what their wage and benefit costs were going to be. They knew the cost of labour; they then knew the cost of their production, and they also knew the basis upon which they could make investment decisions. So the collective bargaining regime was seen over time to be something that was in the interests of both the employee and the employer. It injected a sense of stability within the relationship of master and servant, if one is to call it that in legal lingo.

I provide that background only as a springboard to the next point that I want to raise, which is this whole issue of rights. We have heard nothing but comments from the other side — I go back to the comments made by the Attorney General (Hon. B.R. Smith) because, regrettably, he was the last speaker to speak from the government side; the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) wasn't here to address this chamber — that the whole debate, when it comes down to rights, is really a debate between group rights and individual rights. That's what it really boils down to. The view on the side opposite is that you've got to protect individual rights. You've got to protect the right of individuals — as we hear the rhetoric day in and day out-to decide if they want to join the trade union, if they want to participate, if they want to cross the picket line.... If I can quote the Attorney-General, during the course of his presentation he said: "Well, those are the rights."

The amendment, Madam Speaker, deals with the matter of democracy and the traditions of free collective bargaining, and that's what I'm talking about at this stage of the game. But it seems to me that the central issue is one of asking yourself: how are the rights and the well-being of the individual enhanced? Are they enhanced through the type of legislation that we've seen here, which says,"Yeah, if you want to cross the picket line, you can go ahead and cross the picket line," or are they enhanced by maintaining in place a collective system that says that individuals profit if the group profits? If the group collectively can negotiate a settlement between the employer and the employees that is to the benefit of the group of employees, then not only does the group benefit but the individual benefits from that.

[4:45]

It seems to me that when one is engaged in this debate, one must ask what ought to be the paramount concern — group rights or individual rights. When you begin to analyze what at the end of the day promotes the position of the individual and the economic well-being of the individual, it's those group rights; those group rights that are enshrined and, hopefully, protected through the tradition of free collective

[ Page 727 ]

bargaining that we've embraced as Canadian public policy since the fifties.

That's how we've got to the place that we are. Yet we have legislation before us, particularly through the power of this non-elected chairperson, that begins to take away from those group rights, breaking down the tradition and the system of free collective bargaining that we've established in this society. When you begin to break that down, through the intrusion of an individual in the collective bargaining regime — in this case Mr. Peck, the commissioner appointed under the legislation — you begin, in my view, to take away the essence of free collective bargaining. The essence of free collective bargaining is not the economic factors that I talked about, but instead what I call the social factors as to why people get involved in collective bargaining, in trade unions, and getting involved in that process.

Let me elaborate on those social reasons. We know that, for example, in every large corporation there is a system of bureaucracy. There are line supervisors, management personnel, personnel departments and department heads, and in each case they interact with an employee. In each case decisions that those people make can have an effect on employees. From time to time — hopefully, seldom — somewhat arbitrary decisions are made, for reasons of personal gain or discrimination or retaliation or simply thoughtlessness, that impact negatively upon an employee. At that point the employee requires a system in which he can then go to the employer and say: "Look, I think I was dealt with unfairly. There was thoughtlessness, personal gain, discrimination or retaliation involved in a decision of management, the personnel department or my department head, in order for them to do what they did."

So there has to be a system of appeal and a system of organizing employer-employee relations. We've embraced, as Canadian public policy, free collective bargaining, wherein employers and employees decide on the methods and the appeal process and the way in which employees can deal with matters of grievance. When you begin to say that third parties, whether they're mediators, commissioners, inquiry people or fact-finders, can impose or arbitrate a settlement — cut a deal out of new cloth and impose it upon the parties — they upset the ability of the employee and the employer to negotiate freely between themselves an appropriate system of appeal for dealing with employee-employer difficulties on the job. This intrusion upon free collective bargaining is assured by the provisions of part 8 of the legislation. I say that that intrusion is clearly contrary to the interests of democracy and the traditions of free collective bargaining that we've established for the reasons I outlined earlier on.

Apart from that, to talk a little bit about what I call the social, as opposed to the economic, reasons why people get into collective decision-making and collective bargaining and trade unions, I think there is another level of argument. You see, there are good employers and there are good employees. I think I heard the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen), when he was making his presentation a few weeks ago, talk about good employers. And indeed there are good employers out there, but the employees will never get what they want. The issue arises that even if the most benevolent employer is there, who ought to decide what the employees should get? Should that decision be made by the employees, or should it be made by the employer?

Take the following example, Madam Speaker. In a working unit you have some young people, and their interest is to get better wage benefits and increase the quantum of their paycheque; but you also have in that same workforce some older people whose interest is securing pension benefits, because that's the road they're looking down. Assume for a moment that the employer is a benevolent employer and is willing to grant one or the other. Now the employer can decide — I guess that's one option. But it seems to me that a better option is for the employees to decide among themselves collectively, democratically, sitting down as a unit to decide what their bargaining priorities are going to be, and then to take those priorities to the employer and say: "Here's what we want to negotiate." If the older workers prevail and they place a priority on pension benefits, then that's the way it ought to go. But let the employees make that decision. Let the employees take their collective decision, democratically made, to the employer, as opposed to having the employer simply decide what he wants to give — or more importantly, having a third party intrude upon that free collective bargaining regime and say, "Here's what I think you should get," and it's something totally unrelated to the wishes of the younger workers, the older workers or the employer.

Part 8 of the legislation allows for that type of intrusion. Members opposite talk over and over again about getting government off the backs of people, and yet they have set out in part 8 of this legislation an intrusion into the free collective bargaining system. Let the employees and the employers decide. Let's not impose the settlement upon them.

There are undoubtedly going to be times when the parties to collective bargaining — the employer and the employee do not to come to an agreement. They're going to get into an argument, and then you've got to make sure that each one has at his disposal tools to create pressure to bring about an ultimate settlement. The tool that we've decided upon is an instrument of Canadian public policy. The tool that we've decided to give employees is the ability to strike-or to put it in more blatant terms, the ability to inflict economic harm on the employer. I don't think anybody wants to see economic harm inflicted upon anybody. But we have given them that tool in the event the free collective bargaining system breaks down.

I don't want to dwell on that too much, except now, with that background, to move in a little bit more concrete terms into the legislation that is now before the House, and into part 8, which is really the provision that we are dealing with in this amendment, because it establishes a czar. It starts to erode and take away from employees in particular the one economic weapon that we provided them with. It begins to place additional weaponry in the hands of the employer. I don't want to dwell on that, because I think that falls outside the provisions of the amendment that is before the House right now.

Let's review certain provisions of part 8. Section 137.7(4) talks about a final vote on an employer's offer. Shouldn't the employees be free to decide among themselves? Isn't it their right to decide collectively among themselves whether or not they wish to vote on a particular offer? Isn't that a part of their democratic rights, to decide what they want to vote on and when they want to vote on it? Isn't it a part of the democratic institutions we have established in this society under the guise of free collective bargaining to say that their trade union representatives, the ones that they have elected, can decide on or provide guidance on matters of voting or not voting, or support or non-support?

[ Page 728 ]

In a democratic society, it seems to me that the employees should decide, and there should not a third party ordering that they should vote on something. How would you like it if a third party had to tell you that you had to vote on a particular matter, or if a third party descended upon us and said that we have to have an election now because they decided or the NDP caucus decided that we should have an election in this province? Maybe that is stretching the analogy, but the point is that there should not be that level of intrusion into the free collective bargaining regime, and that is precisely what part 8 does.

Section 137.7(9) says that he may order a vote on a particular offer, on grounds of public interest. Shouldn't the employees, through their elected democratic representatives, again decide if it is their wish to vote on the matter? Why should it be that a third party, determining what is or is not in the public interest, then imposes a vote? Is that democratic? Is that fair? Is that consistent with the public policy that we have embraced in this country that says we are in favour of free collective bargaining? Of course not.

Section 137.96(l) deals with the public sector, and it says that in determining a matter of arbitration, whether or not an agreement is proper, it is going to be looking at a number of factors. One of these is "the need to maintain an appropriate relationship between occupations or classifications within the employer's employment."

I gave the example earlier on about bank workers and Safeway. That is an inequity, in my view, that the employees within the banking system ought to be trying to remedy through the form of free collective bargaining that we have set up. But this provision in Bill 19 says that we want that level of inequity to continue; that we feel through this legislation that it is appropriate to make those types of distinctions — that you are able to look elsewhere and see what other people are saying and use that as a justification for lowering, or keeping low, the wages of certain people.

In my submission, that again is an unwarranted, uncalled-for intrusion upon free collective bargaining. Should it not be for the employer and the employee, engaged in the process of free collective bargaining, sitting across the table from each other, to decide what it is that they can agree on in terms of wages to be paid to various classifications? Why should it be in the power of a third party to tell them that they have to pay heed to that, and to indeed make a recommendation that will result in those classifications continuing to exist, notwithstanding the willingness on the part of both parties to do away with those inequities? Is that fair? Is that democratic? Is that consistent with the free collective bargaining regime that we have established and embraced in this country? Of course it is not.

I know I am running short on time, so I want to touch on a couple of other matters that step outside the provisions of part 8.

MR. CLARK: Lots of time.

MR. SIHOTA: I see the member for Vancouver East wants to hear more, but I'm not the two-hour hitter on this. There is, of course, the matter of equality before the law. There are instances under part 8 of this legislation that allow an employer to remove from the workforce an employee who defies an order, and the employer can take whatever action he wants. In the case of an employee that the employer doesn't like, or a union activist who defies an order, he can say: "You're fired." In the same instance another chap can decide to take a different action; it doesn't have to be the same action. For the same transgression, a different action can result. Is that fair? Is that treating people equally?

Is it then fair to go one step further and say that the employee who has been hindered or booted out of the workforce has no right to appeal, that he has no forum he can go to and say: "Hey, look, I'm not happy with the decision that the employer made. In similar circumstances he made a different decision for employee A, and because I'm involved in my trade union he's firing me. That's not fair"? There's no provision in this legislation that would allow that individual, under the circumstances I'm talking about, to go to appeal. Is that what the members opposite want to see? Is that consistent with democratic rights? Is that consistent with individual rights? I talked earlier about the paramountcy of group rights, collective rights over individual rights, but is that consistent? Of course not, and the legislation fails on that point.

If one were to look at layers of concern as one looks at the provisions of part 8, what about the whole matter of the political accountability of Mr. Peck? He is making decisions, deeming them to be within the public interest, and yet he is not elected. Is that the type of autocratic regime that we want to establish as a component of free collective bargaining in a democratic society? I say no.

[5:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'm going to end on this point: There is no collective bargaining regime, no piece of legislation that anybody could introduce that's ever going to work if it does not have the faith and the trust and the confidence of the parties that are to be governed by that legislation. If you want to introduce this type of legislation you have to ask yourself: do those who are being impacted by this legislation have confidence in it? Are they saying that they'll participate in it? Do they perceive it to be fair? Do they perceive it to be something that will allow for the continuation of free collective bargaining under the democratic traditions that I've outlined? Of course not, and in the absence of trust, in the absence of good faith, the legislation can't work.

Part 8 will never work. The powers of the commissioner will never be embraced. They will always be a source of contention, and that's where we're headed under the provisions of this legislation. Hence, it seems to me that the amendment makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense to do away with part 8, to bring in some amendments to part 8, which I'm hoping the government will see fit to do, so that we can begin to move towards a regime that reduces the wide powers contained and preserved for the Industrial Relations Council under the provisions of the act, and we can see some amendments that will do away with the arbitrariness and the ability of the commissioner to intrude upon the traditions of free collective bargaining that we've embraced as public policy.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: In the galleries this afternoon, or over the course of this afternoon, have been some 90 students and their teachers from Templeton Secondary School. May I say

[ Page 729 ]

that Templeton high school has a long and rich tradition of graduating individuals who contribute significantly to my community of Vancouver East. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. CASHORE: It's an honour to rise in support of the amendment. It's also quite an experience to follow somebody with whom I agree. So far my experiences in this House have been that there's a kind of counterbalancing procedure going on, so this again is a new experience for me.

It's rather sad that we have to present this amendment without the overwhelming and enthusiastic support of the entire House. I think there has been time for it to become abundantly clear that the message from the people of British Columbia is that such a gesture as is presented within this amendment is timely, wise, appropriate. This amendment embodies one of the principles unfortunately lacking in Bill 19, a principle that I think it would be very wise for the government to consider including if they insist on going ahead with it, and that is the principle of consensus itself.

What we have before us, especially with regard to the amazing powers that would be lodged with one individual, is a bill in which the right to free collective bargaining is to be virtually removed. It's a bill that severely limits the ability of participants to reach an agreement. We have a situation now where all power to interfere in collective bargaining is put into the hands of one individual, where the wage-control powers of the compensation stabilization plan are with this one individual, where this one individual has essential-services dispute powers and takes over many of the former powers of cabinet and as well as that, is handed many new powers. That we have a situation where one non-elected official would be given this kind of power in British Columbia at this time bodes ill for the direction our public policy is taking, and it bodes ill for the future of democracy itself, for it embodies a neo-conservative philosophy that is consolidating more and more power and wealth in the hands of the very powerful and the very rich. We see that movement happening in many parts of the world, much to the detriment of those parts of the world. We see it happening at a time when we really don't have to be moving in that direction.

The human race, Mr. Speaker, not only here in British Columbia, but on a global scale, is at a crossroads. We are going to have to decide very soon what we want the future course of history to be. Do we want future generations, should they survive, to be able to look back and say: "This was a civilization that continued to use every opportunity to enhance its institutions — its precious institutions, such as the institution of democracy"? Or was this a society that tried to take a shortcut and tried to put all the powers into the hands of the very few, and thus to step back in history to a time where there was less participation and more of the harsh kinds of judgments that are made when a process of consensus is not available?

Within the former situation, bargaining would normally commence and an agreement be achieved bilaterally, unless one party was to request a mediator. A strike or lockout would occur in a small fraction of cases, and final authority would rest with the Legislature or the cabinet. But now, if this legislation were to pass, if the wisdom of this amendment were not to be recognized, notice to bargain must be filed with the Industrial Relations Council. For example, if a strike is not considered to be in the public interest, then the commissioner, Mr. Peck, can appoint a public interest inquiry board or compulsory arbitration or a special mediator, or he can declare that the dispute involves an essential service — and that's an interesting concept in itself, for who would expect one person having that kind of power to have any kind of perspective that would be fair and just with regard to what constitutes an essential service? Clearly, this is a convoluted situation in which one person would have the kind of power that would be potentially very harmful.

I think it should be noted also that this legislation is unequalled anywhere in North America. This seems to be the type of situation where our government is wanting to be the first — but, I would submit, a reckless first, without having clearly and thoroughly researched the possible consequences of these kinds of measures that are anti-democratic and anti-consensus. We only need to remember that in 1983 the British Columbia Social Credit government took what it considered to be a lead in developing their version of a restraint program. At that time they wanted to be the first again; they wanted to be cutting new ground; they wanted to be seen as the tough guys who were able to really come to terms with the problems that were developing in the economy. But it wasn't really the kind of help that was needed.

It has been outlined many times in this House that as a result of that program the deficits grew, both the real deficit with regard to the regular operating budget of the government and also the deficits of the Crown corporations, to the point that we are now approaching $20 billion in debt. That was really not a restraint program that could be considered to provide leadership to British Columbia or any other part of Canada, or any other part of the world, for that matter.

Now we find with this new radical legislation, this labour bill, that we seem to be bent on trying to become infamous again, again trying to produce legislation that is purported to be leading a new way, but which is really going to be leading British Columbians down the garden path. I realize it may seem for a short time that this will consolidate even more power and wealth in the hands of a few people. But again, how is this approach — which is a denial of democracy and consensus — really going to be any benefit at all to the working people of British Columbia, to women and men, to children, to those people who in order to have fulfilment in their lives need to feel that they are taking part in a participatory democracy, and to feel that the traditions that have been fought for and won here in the North American north are traditions that are worth preserving, developing and enhancing? Not the kinds of traditions that we would end with a stroke of the pen, not the kinds of traditions that we would suddenly change and say, "Consensus hasn't worked," or: "Democracy hasn't worked and therefore we're going to start to dismantle it."

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that democracy in an incredibly complex world has worked very well indeed; it has brought us a long way. There have been many times that the system seemingly has not worked, where it has resulted in dispute, where there has not been consensus. But again, there is a corrective built into the democratic institution, in that those who find that through their lack of participation in the democratic process they lose hard-won gains.... Those persons then tend to become more participatory. Democracy has within it the ability to heal itself from within.

This measure, Mr. Speaker, which would take decision-making out of the hands of employers and out of the hands of employees and put those decisions into the hands of one

[ Page 730 ]

individual.... Those are not the kinds of decisions that are going to enhance democracy.

[5:15]

We find that with the economic direction that we have been receiving in this province over the past several years, our economy is very much an integral part of the issue and of the problem. We find that in this present economy it's gravy for a few and it's lost hopes and dreams for too many. Now we would see these measures dragging people's hopes and dreams even further into the mire. Why would that happen? Why would the government want to do that? Why would the government not want to consider the opportunity to listen to the growing public voice on this issue?

Our country has achieved a degree of civilization that is worthwhile. When we look at our country, perhaps we're looking on a scale that is so large that it's difficult to grasp. Perhaps when we look at provincial initiatives, that seems hard to grasp. But if we look at democracy as it functions within the very basic units in our society, the point that I am making becomes clearer.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, one unit that functions in our society is good family life, and good family life, I submit, depends on consensus. I realize there is authority within the family, and I realize that there are those who have responsibility and who must exercise their responsibility. But I also recognize, as I think all of us do, that in order for members of a family to have a fulfilling life both in childhood and in their adult life, the degree to which they have the opportunity to participate in decision-making in that family has a direct relation to the level of maturity and leadership that they are able to exercise in their later lives. I don't think that's a profound point, but I think it is a simple and basic point from which we can learn by observing something that is very fundamental within our Canadian society, and that is the healthy family.

I think we could apply that principle to a good marriage. We could apply that principle to good community development. That community wherein people participate in the decision-making of the community is a community that provides a more fulfilling opportunity for all those who live therein. I think that we find in. our society today that there are a great many factors that mitigate against consensus, and because of that, the kind of direction that would be most helpful for the people of British Columbia right now would not be a direction that would tend toward the breaking down of consensus, but indeed it would be a direction that would help build consensus, recognizing that it is endangered. It might be considered that there is a better way than the consensus way of going about achieving our goals, and I do recognize that sometimes disputes can be pretty upsetting and unsettling. Again, to recognize our Canadian traditions, we come from a society that is rooted in collective support for one another. We do not come from a history of violence. We have not had a violent revolution within our country, and we hope and pray that will never be the case. But we do come from a tradition in which people have moved toward creative participation in each others' lives — a supportive relationship, you might say.

I don't think that we are going to be helped by what might be considered the top-gun concept. This is not our tradition. We can't solve the problems that exist within our society by asking a John Wayne to come in and solve it for us. We can't solve the problems by asking Big Daddy to make the decision. We can't solve the problems by handing over our responsibility to participate in those vital decisions to somebody else. I don't know if the young people that have been introduced today in the gallery are still there; perhaps they have all left. I think that the young people in our schools would realize that the best days they have in school are days in which, yes, there's clear direction in the classroom from the person who has that responsibility but also in which they are able to participate in the learning process.

So the democratization of all of our institutions is a worthwhile goal. I believe that if this government would thoughtfully reflect on the purpose of this amendment, this government would also recognize that this is a worthwhile goal.

I am not saying that this government has purposely set out to downgrade democracy, but I am saying that editorials in newspapers throughout British Columbia, employers, families and labour movements throughout British Columbia, and many others, are getting in touch with their MLAs — getting in touch with each other — and making the point that they have some very grave concerns about the way in which this legislation is moving against some of our basic and cherished traditions.

Consensus is very precious indeed. The NDP's successful Labour Code was based on keeping labour matters out of the courts and at arm's length from government. If we are to have a non-elected, non-accountable public official having these broad powers, what are we really trying to accomplish? Does that mean that we've given up on the ability of human beings to continue to be a part of our civilization and to function within that civilization in a creative and consultative and participatory way? Is it saying that democracy is becoming a stumbling-block to the advancement of civilization? Is that what this legislation is saying? Is this legislation saying that we've tried democracy and we've had it with democracy and we're giving up on it? I don't think you intend to be saying that with it. I don't think that is the intent, but the message is coming through, you know. It would be tragic if we were to look back several years from now and find that because of this major step toward hurting an institution that is already in danger, we caused this damage to our society. All of us would be the losers for it.

Mr. Speaker, implicit within this legislation is a neo-conservative tenet or belief which is really there to help the very powerful, but it's not there to help the rest of society. We find that collective bargaining depends on both sides being relatively equal at the table. This bill shifts the balance even further in favour of management, upsetting a very special, delicate balance.

Mr. Speaker, we know that collective bargaining will be inhibited by this bill, because parties will be reluctant to trade off items, for fear that they've traded off too much.

I would like to refer to a document that has been referred to before in this House. It was a 1975 paper, written by Jim Matkin, entitled "Government Intervention in Labour Disputes in British Columbia." I would like to quote from some parts of this document. He states, early in his paper:

"At the outset, I must confess to a bias in favour of legislative restraint" — Mr. Speaker, this legislation is anything but legislative restraint — "for, philosophically, I subscribe to the perspective of Oxford's Prof. Otto Kahn-Freund, who warns: `Altogether, the longer one ponders the problem of industrial disputes,

[ Page 731 ]

the more skeptical one gets as regards the effectiveness of the law. Industrial conflict is often a symptom rather than a disease. I think we lawyers would do well to be modest in our claims to be able to provide cures."'

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is assumed that you need an economist to solve economic woes, or that you need a theological professor to resolve spiritual problems, or that you need some kind of lawyer to resolve issues of conflict when they come between human beings. But it is tragic when we allow ourselves to give over our gifts of creative thinking, of negotiating, of participating, of giving up something and of receiving something. When we give over that responsibility to some megalithic process, we lose something because of that. I think that Mr. Matkin supports that point very well.

In his paper he also refers to the Hon. J.V. Clyne, chief executive officer of the largest lumber company in the province, who urged in the midst of the 1967 forest industry strike the creation of an independent fact-finding board with the power to render binding decisions in the private and public sectors. Now it turned out that a similar idea was being considered in the United States. That was called the Rosenman idea, which received wide support. By October 1967, bills were introduced in both the Senate and Congress to establish the United States court of labour-management relations with similar features to the legislation that we have before us. Prof. Archibald Cox of Harvard law school testified against the idea before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing the bill. Cox pointed to the failures of the permanent administrative machinery established during the Second World War to end labour disputes without strikes. He predicted that a labour court would prolong labour disputes rather than solve them, because no employer or union supposing itself to be within the court's jurisdiction would agree to any settlement upon terms less favourable than the court imposed. It would simply refuse to agree with the opposing party and take the case to the court for an award. Mr. Speaker, there is a note a little later in this report that indicates that this idea did not make it, and Mr. Matkin points out that it was very, very fortunate that this idea did not go beyond that committee stage.

I would like to suggest that the purpose of the amendment is to enable us, through the structures that we have here in this time-honoured democratic institution, to also take hold of the opportunity in the best traditions of consensus and democracy; to also listen carefully, decide wisely and make a decision now that honours the time-honoured traditions of consensus within a democracy and that would seek to continue to enhance that institution, rather than to take such a major leap toward removing the democratic process.

Mr. Speaker, as a father with four children, the days that I think I really showed my weakness as a father were when my children came to me and said: "Daddy, you decide." When I took that responsibility away from them, I don't think I was helping their development as children at that time. There are situations as parents when we have to make wise decisions on behalf of our families. But if we insist on looking upon men and women in British Columbia as children, and decide that some institution or some superpower has to be put in place in order to do what they cannot do for themselves, this is a very, very sad denial of human potential, and it is harmful to the human spirit.

[5:30]

MR. VANT: Could I have leave of the House to make a special introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. VANT: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House a very dear longtime friend, Clifford Clark, who comes from the Bowron River area near Bowron Lake in the Wells-Barkerville area. I ask the House to welcome Mr. Clifford Clark.

MR. RABBITT: I also wish leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT: With us today are two good friends and supporters from my hometown community of Merritt in Yale-Lillooet. I served with Ron for years on the board of Nicola Valley and District Credit Union. He also served as a alderman in the community. His wife is also an active member of the community. She has worked with our Social Services and Housing ministry for years. I would like the House to give Ron and Eleanor Brown a very warm welcome.

MR. LOVICK: I truly hoped, when I saw two people from the other side of the House rise in their places and lift their microphones, that they were going to ask leave to speak to this motion. Sadly, however, that does not seem to be the case. Rather, what I have is a marvellous sense of deja vu. I noticed, for example, when my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) was speaking, that once again there was a gaggle of government members huddled together in the opposite comer of the House, and I gather they were plotting strategy or something. That is, as I say, what led me to conclude that there would indeed be somebody from the other side speaking to this motion. Sadly, that is not the case. I would remind members over there, in whom I begin to see signs of life, of what I said in the past, which was to quote something from Milton's Paradise Lost: "Awake, arise, or be forever fallen." What has obviously happened is that they have indeed awakened, but they have not yet arisen, and they still seem to be in their prostrate state. That's too bad.

I'm pleased to note that my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam provided us in this House with precisely the right metaphor to describe what this motion is all about. He referred to the fact that the decision he most regretted making as a father of children was the time he took the authoritarian position and told them what to do, rather than throwing back on their shoulders the decision as to what was best for them. That metaphor about parenting, about adulthood, is absolutely correct and timely for what we are discussing here today, because we are talking about something called democracy, a word and a concept sadly much bandied about. Probably above all else, the concept of democracy relies on the notion of individuals freely making decisions on their own behalf. If democracy is antipathetic to anything, it is to the notion of deference, of giving up one's own right, one's own judgment, one's own ability to choose and decide, and passing that on to somebody else.

That is precisely what our amendment is addressing. Our amendment, we recognize, has not the hope of a snowball in Hades of passing this House. We know that; we have no

[ Page 732 ]

illusions. Our intention, because we know the government has begun to demonstrate some signs of listening to the cases we have presented over the past week or more.... We know the government has, as I say, taken some steps in that direction, and we therefore do not intend to simply go through the process of filibustering or eating up the clock. Instead, we move this amendment for the record, for everybody in this province to plainly see that what we want to recognize is a principle called democracy. We suggest that Bill 19 as currently written, especially part 2 of that bill, is antipathetic to the concept of democracy. Thus our amendment; thus we stand here going through these motions once again, Mr. Speaker.

Let me begin my comments by introducing, first of all, precisely what that amendment says. Rather than give a prepared and elaborate speech in which I cite chapter and verse of the offending bill, what I want to do is simply to draw attention to the thoughtfulness of our amendment. Our amendment indeed says it all, and what I propose to do is to read that first and then explain why the amendment in and of itself constitutes a sufficient case for us to move that amendment and to stand here before you. That is my point, Mr. Speaker, so if I might, I will begin by just quoting that amendment slowly:

"This House declines to give second reading to Bill 19...for the reasons that it is contrary to the interests of democracy and our traditions of free collective bargaining to grant the non-elected chairman of the Industrial Relations Council such wide powers to intrude into labour-management relations and arbitrarily to determine contracts without reference to the parties involved."

Let me refer to that seriatim — as it were, bit by bit.

The first claim we make is that this bill, as written, is contrary to the interests of democracy. Let me explain that, because it is perhaps not as clear on face value as I would hope it ought to be. What democracy means, let me remind you all, is people power. The word comes from two Greek words, one meaning people and the other meaning power. The entire concept means the right of the governed to choose their governors. That's the crucial principle that people have fought for, for literally hundreds and hundreds of years. We have arrived at a point, we like to think, where we have indeed enshrined the right of the people to choose their governors. We are willing, all of us, I am sure, to stand here and passionately and grandiloquently defend that right against outsiders — against outsiders, Mr. Speaker. But let me remind you that frequently the greatest challenge to those things, those values we hold and cherish, comes not from without but from within.

We who are charged with administering the affairs of this province, we who are chosen to be its governors, have responsibilities. One of the paramount responsibilities, of course, is to guard the nature of the system, to guard the process itself. When we decide, acting like adolescents — if I may put it in blunt terms — that we need some miraculous person or man on horseback to solve our problems, and that we will cease to take on our duties and solve those problems and rather will give them to somebody else to solve, then, I submit, we have taken a backward step; a step that is, frankly, not compatible with the operation and the working of a democratic system.

Remember what has happened historically to people who have tried to assume unto themselves powers that the rest of the community decided ought not to reside in one person. Louis once said: "L'etat, c'est moi" — I am the state. Look what happened to Louis. There were others, like King Charles, who tried to suggest that they had the divine right. We had a battle for democracy against a system that was called aristocracy. Aristocracy means simply government by the few. The notion underlying aristocracy, non-constitutional monarchy and imperialism of any kind is simply the premise that some few individuals have the right and the superiority to make decisions on our behalf, rather than we the people.

What we are suggesting to the member opposite, even him who does not apparently comprehend much, is that this bill gives away the powers of the people to an individual who is not even- at least it is not clear that he is — answerable to the legislators. That's the danger of part 2. In our haste to try to solve problems in the industrial relations scheme of things, we are prepared to give powers that no adult, intelligent, freethinking, mature society should grant to anybody, and certainly not to a non-elected official.

Democracy is a — system that demands eternal vigilance. It demands for its success that all of us charged with operating in that system work at making that system function and prosper. We are suggesting that this bill and specifically the powers it grants to the so-called commissioner — who has otherwise been referred to, you'll recall, Mr. Speaker, as the czar or the commissar — are too great to be granted to any individual. We are suggesting that those powers are not compatible with the operation and functioning of democracy. Thus, our amendment says that we object to second reading being granted simply because this bill, for the reasons I've begun to adduce, is contrary to the interests of democracy. I think I've made that point, so I'm going to move on to the second part of this amendment.

We also suggest that this bill is contrary to our traditions of free collective bargaining. Again, sadly, there is terminology there, just as there was when we talked about democracy, that appears not to be entirely clear to all members of this House. Let's talk about what that means.

First of all, anybody who has made any effort to study the nature and evolution of the modern industrial state and democratic societies recognizes that the concept of individuality and individual rights that is at the centre of our system of law and our system of government has gone through some pretty significant transformations in the last 100 years. It is patently, demonstrably wrong to assume that if you grant and enshrine individual rights you have solved all your problems. Clearly that is not the case. That's why every constitution in the free world worthy of the name of constitution acknowledges that there is a dimension and domain of rights beyond those belonging just to individuals. We hear regularly from the other side of the House that what we've got to do is protect the individuals and that the problem is with the groups. Let me remind all the members opposite that we have all the protections in the world for individuals. What we need to do, however, is protect the groups. Ironically, it is people on the other side of the House who frankly have more attraction to that argument than we social democrats traditionally are recognized as having. We usually, after all, are the ones associated with the great defences of civil liberties, as opposed to growth and progress and the general will and such like, as we are wont to hear from the other side. Ironically, however, when it comes to something like trade unions, people on the other side are apparently prepared to take on the

[ Page 733 ]

role of the defenders of individual rights. We're suggesting, of course, that individual rights don't matter a great deal if we simply allow individuals the right to be poor because they are acting as individuals, rather than the right to have a certain measure of dignity, comfort and security because they combine together for their common interest in a union.

[5:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It's not a complex debate. Even the greatest defenders of individual rights of civil liberties such as John Stuart Mill will make the point that there must indeed be a limitation, a circumscription, on those individual rights. I hope members opposite recall that famous passage in Mill's essay On Liberty, where he says that your right to free speech is only good if you do not stand up in a crowded hall and yell: "Fire!" You can't do that. We recognize, in short, that for any society to protect itself, there must be limitations on individual freedoms, on individual rights.

Sadly, what the bill seems to be saying and what the defenders of the bill, as I have listened to them in the House, seem to be saying is just that: individual rights are what are being trammeled and trod upon by trade unions. I would remind members opposite that individuals in trade unions, unlike most other organizations, have freely, consciously, deliberately combined to join those particular unions. Even if it is.…

MR. LOENEN: Under duress.

MR. LOVICK: As somebody suggested, under duress — which is using the term rather loosely, by the by.... But even if it is the case that as a condition of employment one has to be a member of a particular certified bargaining unit, the fact remains that individuals have every right at their discretion to convince other individuals that they can combine and they can decide to change their status as members of that bargaining unit. In short, it is a model of democracy in action.

Mr. Speaker, I'm recognizing that the government House Leader is apparently willing to entertain a motion of adjournment at the moment. Because I want to open the door to a brand new theme tomorrow, I would, then, be quite willing to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.