[ Page 735 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment

Mr. Lovick –– 735

Mr. Stupich –– 736

Ms. Edwards –– 740

Ms. Smallwood –– 743

Ms. A. Hagen –– 744

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a group of students from St. Augustine's School in Vancouver–Point Grey. They are accompanied by Mrs. Poetschke, Mrs. Doyle, Mrs. Paskalidis, Miss Couzens, Mrs. Athanasiou, and their teacher, Mrs. Gladys Brown. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I would ask leave for the following committees to meet later today: Economic Development, Transportation and Municipal Affairs; Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations; Tourism and Environment; and Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on the amendment to second reading of Bill 19.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JONES: It's with great pleasure that I introduce this morning His Worship Mayor Bill Lewame of Burnaby. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday, I was in the process of discussing my leader's amendment to this bill, which asked us in the House to really reflect on a very important principle that seemed to have been lost sight of in the course of our haste and our concerns with doing something about industrial relations in this province. I emphasized repeatedly in my comments the other day that we had no illusions about what we were standing here attempting to do. We knew that our amendment would not succeed; we knew rather that the government would have its way, as of course is necessary in any kind of majoritarian system. The point I wanted to make, however, was that we were speaking primarily and pre-eminently for the record — to coin a phrase. We wanted to establish very clearly for the record that there was a principle that was somehow being lost sight of and perhaps being ignored by this bill.

That principle, of course, is one called democracy — the right of the people to choose their governors and the attendant right and duty that goes with that, namely not to give over responsibility to individuals who are not directly answerable to the people. That was the essence of my leader's amendment, Mr. Speaker.

The essential point I was making was that we are derelict in our duties; we are not performing good service for the electors of this province insofar as we allow an individual who is not an elected person to wield the kind of power that Bill 19 grants. That is the purpose of our amendment. I suggested that it was incompatible with the true operation of democracy.

I am delighted to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services has apparently come some distance towards accepting the case we have been presenting, and I commend and admire the minister for that position. I know and recognize it is difficult for anybody to admit that we have perhaps been doing the wrong thing and that the case presented by the opposition has merit.

I commend the minister for coming some distance towards our position. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the minister has not come far enough; indeed, with all due deference and respect, I would like to suggest that he has perhaps missed the point that we are making.

What the minister said in a front-page story in this morning's Times-Colonist was that: "We are looking at changes that don't change the intent of the legislation." Mr. Speaker, the predicament is that why we are moving this amendment beyond all else is precisely because the intent of the bill is what is at issue. We're not talking about the nuts and bolts; we're not talking about minor matters. Rather, we're talking about the intent. The intent, as our amendment suggests, is one that sadly is incompatible with the free working of democracy, because what the bill does as written is to give power to a non-elected individual who is literally beyond the control of elected individuals. We're suggesting that investing that kind of power and discretion in any one person's hands, in any one person's judgment, is simply wrong, is simply not acceptable in a democratic society.

[10:15]

It is the intent, then and therefore, that we are suggesting is wrong with Bill 19 — specifically part 8 of Bill 19. It's wrong, as I tried to explain before, primarily because our entire evolution towards a modem democratic society has been towards the concept of people having the right to make decisions on their own behalf, not to deferring to some other authority to act on their behalf. It is analogous, as I suggested before, to a parent-child relationship.

Our system is one that demands of us all that we become responsible adults, responsible for making our own decisions. We don't as adults ask somebody else to come in and intercede on our behalf and to act for us. Sadly, what Bill 19 does is to give power to another individual who will miraculously and mysteriously, so it is assumed, solve our problems for us. We suggest that is, of course, the wrong approach.

What I want to turn to now is a point I had begun to develop last time but had not got very far with, the second major contention of our amendment. We said that the bill, as presented to us in this House, was incompatible with, inconsistent with and contrary to our traditions of free collective bargaining. I think it's important to emphasize precisely what that phrase means. I have already spoken briefly about the difference between individual rights and collective rights, the rights of a group within society, so I needn't touch on that. Instead I want to talk briefly about the technical terminology "free collective bargaining."

[ Page 736 ]

The most important point to recognize about collective bargaining is that the individuals have the power to do something, and that both parties have something to put into the negotiation, into the debate. That's the concept of freedom. Bargaining, of course, means absolutely nothing if neither side has anything at stake in the process. Working again simply from the assumption that in a democratic society people are adult and are responsible for the decisions they make, and that they ought to be encouraged to take responsibility for their own decisions, it follows that collective bargaining ought to be left to the participants as much as is conceivably possible within a society. I think all of us have accepted that. It's a long and elaborate and, indeed, venerable tradition of free collective bargaining within our society.

Our predicament, of course, is that we assume that there is some other miraculous and mysterious method that will solve our problems and that by simply getting another third-party arbitrator or mediator to ride in, all the difficulties will disappear. Well, that, I'm afraid, is fallacious reasoning, among other things. And we have a number of years — hundreds of years, indeed — of watching the process in action. The point of fact is that the two parties who are directly affected by the negotiation and by the terms of the settlement whenever that settlement is arrived at are alone and uniquely the ones who know what is at issue. They are the ones who have a vested interest, and not only to be in an adversarial relationship because they can't solve their problems; they also have an equally compelling and powerful interest to solve their problems. The moment we talk about getting somebody else to come in and solve the problems, we are effectively telling people: you are no longer adult and no longer capable of responsibility; therefore we will interfere and we will take that responsibility from you.

The point, I guess — and I say "I guess" advisedly, Mr. Speaker, because I don't claim the gift of prophecy or all knowledge in this score — is that freedom, the right to freely negotiate and enter into contracts and determine something perceived to be in the best interest of two parties, is not always easy. Indeed, sometimes there is a price to pay. I think it's fair to argue that we accept that our system, based on the freedom of individuals to act on their own behalf insofar as they don't destroy the collectivity — that principle and that right to freedom — is important and ought to be enshrined. We ought to struggle to promote that right whenever we possibly can. Unfortunately, as I suggest, what has happened in this amendment is that we are prepared to take on that concept as a matter of course — not only in the event of emergency. We all recognize that there are times in bargaining and any kind of negotiation between parties when the two parties do reach an impasse, finding themselves in a predicament about which they can do nothing. We recognize that; it would be idiotic not to recognize that. The point, however, is that the bill before us is not asking us to recognize emergency and extreme situations; rather, it is suggesting that as a matter of course there will be somebody else who will have the power and the right and indeed the encouragement to interfere in the process. I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that that is a retrograde step. It is a step that really is not compatible with the operation of a free society.

That's our concern, and that's what the amendment is all about. We offer this amendment not with any fond illusions and beliefs and naive assumptions that we're going to succeed in it, but because we want to establish as a matter of record that there is indeed a principle at stake here. Now I know that those who defend principles are often put in an awkward position. Lord knows we have enough evidence in history in this country to demonstrate rather clearly that individuals who have stood up for principles have often paid the price. Principles aren't easy; that's part of their definition. We, however, feel that this principle must have its day in court, and that's why this amendment and why we are speaking at the length we have been.

One of the tasks I have taken on since becoming a member of this assembly is to write a regular column for a senior citizens' publication on central Vancouver Island called New Outlook. My monthly column is non-partisan, and I try very hard to keep it that way. My last column was talking about the nature of parliament itself, and suggesting that parliament is held to be irrelevant by so many people for the simple reason that its function and its duty and its role is misunderstood. The point I made in my column and that I would like to make here, Mr. Speaker, is that parliament is above all else a place where words and ideas function and thrive. It is a place for argument. It is a place where the electors can see what their representatives stand for by way of principle, philosophy and policy, and we who are charged with the responsibility of standing in this Legislature have an obligation to stand periodically when it is not comfortable to do so, when it is not pragmatically wise to do so, and deduce and defend and speak for principles. The principles we are suggesting here, Mr. Speaker, are sufficiently important that we move this amendment.

Again, I don't ask members on the other side of the House to support our amendment. I know they will not; indeed they cannot. I ask them, however, to recognize that the amendment is offered in the spirit of generosity and magnanimity, because we believe in what we are discussing. I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate in support of the amendment, which deals with what we feel is one of the most important features of this legislation, that being the power that it gives to one person, the commissioner, no matter how good that person may be.

I note that in one section, for example, the legislation tells us that "the commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years." Even if the person appointed to that position were the best person imaginable and were one who could be supported by everyone in the province, whether they are directly or indirectly affected by this legislation.... While that might be well and good the day he was appointed, who can say what might happen in that person's thinking soon after?

It would take an act of the Legislature to replace that person. That means again, of course, that in a House where there are 47 on one side and 22 on the other, that could be very easily determined, as was the case once before when the Premier of the day wanted to get rid of the head of the Purchasing Commission. All he had to do was bring a bill into the House. It was debated in the House, and the government will prevailed, and the chairman of the Purchasing Commission was relieved of his position.

There was a court case after that, but that really didn't have anything to do with it. He was still gone, even though he won something in the court case. But that was not nearly as important a position, from the point of view of the public need, the public benefit, as will be if this legislation proceeds in the form in which we have it now — as will be the commissioner to be appointed under this legislation.

[ Page 737 ]

For five years that person will be there, will be able to do whatever he or she wants to do –– I will talk a little bit more about that person's authority and responsibilities to use his or her own judgment as to what should be done in certain situations, to use his or her own judgment as to a worker/management dispute that rates the kind of power that that person would have in dealing with it...to hold office for five years. And then we have to go through the business of finding a new person. There is nothing in the legislation that I am aware of yet to tell us how a new person would be appointed — whether it would be by unanimous consent, as is done with certain officers, the auditor-general and the ombudsman. I think that is a good system. At least then we are all party to it. As much as we may feel afterwards that it wasn't a wise choice, we can't disabuse ourselves of having had some hand in it.

As members of the committee, we have all kinds of opportunity to examine those who apply for the position. I think it's been a good choice in every instance where this system has been used — just two appointments so far, I guess, under those two acts.

There is nothing I know of that tells us how the commissioner is going to be appointed. It may just be by the Premier, it may be by the cabinet, or it may be by the Minister of Labour. But once that has happened, that person is there for a period of five years and will have complete and total authority to deal with labour-management disputes in accordance with the legislation before us now.

The legislation may be changed during this session. We don't know. There are hints that there will be some changes — that's one possibility. But there's also the possibility that even if one could foresee the legislation changing to the extent that this House would unanimously support it — and I think that's rather difficult to assume at this point — there's nothing to say that even later in this session, let alone next session or the session afterwards, or even after the next election, the legislation might not be changed appreciably by amendments to it. We deal with amendments to the Labour Code quite often in this Legislature, and I suppose they do in other legislatures. So even if we felt that the government of the day was doing the best thing possible for the province, even if the legislation was being totally supported by the community, and even if the idea of appointing a commissioner with the powers that this person will have — and giving that person a certain appointment for five years.... The only way out of it would be, I suppose, for that person to resign, short of a bill in the Legislature. Even if all that happened, it might be that the legislation could be significantly changed later in this session or in another session, and it would be dealing with quite a different situation.

We do believe quite honestly and firmly that appointing one person, and giving that person the authority to do more than, up to this point, even the Legislature has been able to do, short of having a bill and dealing with a specific situation.... There has been — and there is now on the books — essential services legislation that gives the cabinet the authority to deal with specific situations. If the cabinet considers, in its wisdom, that essential services are being denied to people, then it has the legislative authority to deal with such situations. Historically the cabinet has been careful about moving in on such situations, as much power as it has, and dealing with what it considers to be disputes that are very upsetting from the point of view of the public interest. They've been very careful not to deal with such situations, unless there was a very strong case and strong public support for moving in to make sure that some essential public service.... Where there was danger to life — short of danger to life, even — or to some important service, such as a health service or perhaps, in some instances, an educational service, and where it was felt to be extremely important that these be maintained at some level, if not the total level, cabinet, after a lot of consideration and a lot of soul-searching....

I recall one instance when the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Allan Williams, who one day said that under no circumstances would the government move into this situation and the next day brought a bill in.... I can only suspect that it was not his idea to bring that bill in, but that's the way it happened — although, lawyer that he was, he was able to equivocate and dance around his position, so that what he said the day before wasn't really what he said; at least, he did his best to convince people that that was the case, and through all of this seemed to maintain his reputation for telling the truth –– I could never quite understand it; but he was an hon. member, and they couldn't accuse him of being otherwise. I certainly had questions in my own mind, and have more questions now. But I am digressing.

[10:30]

As I say, cabinet has had this authority. That's a fair-sized group of people, representative of the population. Even though it's just one party, nevertheless they did get elected. They had the authority, and they had the responsibility to govern — there's no question about that. They have in this instance as well, and in this instance they will prevail.

The best that we can hope for is that the arguments we've been raising during the course of the debate since we started on Bill 19.... Who knows when it will finally conclude, when the Lieutenant-Governor will be called in to nod his approval that he agrees with everything the government has decided. That will happen sometime, and then it will become law. Hopefully, by then there will be significant changes in the legislation. Hopefully, by then the people directly affected.... We're all affected; the whole community is affected. Hopefully, the employer organizations and the employee organizations will feel that there has been some listening to and recognition of what has been said, and that this is reflected in changes to the legislation; and that if it will not make it what we want, nor what the government wanted in the first place, it will make it something that will not upset the community. I can't think of amendments that would make this positive. But it is my sincere hope that changes will be made so that people will feel they can live with it for a while — at least give it some experience. There's always the possibility of further amendments. That's what we're trying to do: persuade the government that they should back off from what, up until very recently, has seemed to be a very strong position that the legislation as is is the legislation as it will be when it becomes law.

To some extent the Premier has taken some satisfaction from the fact that both employee organizations and some employer organizations have criticized the legislation. His argument has been that if both are opposed, let's say, to this feature of the commissioner having such power — I'm not sure that that's one of the features that is upsetting both parties — then it must be okay; it must be satisfactory if they're evenly disturbed. That doesn't necessarily follow.

In the first place, there is some question in my mind as to whether they are evenly disturbed. I was reading a column this morning that shattered some of my illusions about the

[ Page 738 ]

level of disturbance within the employers' groups. This morning Gorde Hunter named some of the organizations that are apparently supporting it: "David Weller, president of the British Columbia Construction Association, is four-square behind the legislation." There would seem to be no reservation on that person's part — and presumably he speaks for his organization. He goes on to say that no fewer than 30 major employers sent a telegram to the Premier offering support. This telegram "states simply that the business community herein wishes to clearly record and restate support for the passage of Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Reform Act." Thirty major employers, and I don't know of a single trade union.... So if we're looking at the scale and saying that opposition to this bill is evenly balanced, from the point of view of working people and employers, then it would seem that it's not so even. Not just 30 little companies, but biggies such as the Electrical Contractors' Association of B.C.; the Central Interior Logging Association; the Council of Forest Industries of B.C. — it certainly surprises me; the Canadian Home Builders' Association of B.C.; chambers of commerce in Penticton, Chilliwack — those two don't surprise me — and Kamloops — I guess I shouldn't be surprised at that either; the Pulp and Paper Industrial Relations Bureau; the B.C. Road Builders' Association; the Prince George Mechanical Contractors' Association; the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, and many others. Those are substantial organizations, so I don't think the Premier can take the kind of satisfaction he has voiced to this point and say that it must be okay, because both parties, both sides — the organized workers and the organized employers — are opposed.

But even if there's opposition from both groups, it doesn't mean it's fair; it doesn't mean it's even-handed. It could simply mean that both groups are concerned about the effect on the economy of British Columbia, and they're asking the government to go slow because they feel this will create problems for our economy whether it helps or hurts either side. All of the people opposed to this may be thinking.... Some of them, I know, are looking after their own particular interests. I'm sure some of the trade unions are concerned about the ability of their organizations to survive the kind of legislation that we have before us now. There's no question about that. But I also think every one of them is voicing what this is going to do to British Columbia.

I've been involved in conversations and I did attend a meeting — I think just one meeting so far — where the people speaking for organized labour were also expressing concern about what happened in 1983 — I've mentioned this in previous debates — and what could happen in 1987 if the people who'll be directly affected by Bill 19 when it becomes law feel it's so bad. They've already voiced statements to the effect that they just aren't going to cooperate with the legislation; how far they can go on that, I don't know, but obviously there is that concern. It's a concern not shared to that extent by the employers, but I like to think that the employers are not speaking because they're afraid of what it will do to or for their particular employer organization, but that they are concerned about what it will do to B.C.'s economy.

Certainly I don't think anyone on the other side of the House — or anyone in B.C., I'd like to think — now believes that what happened with that July 1983 budget, and the legislation that came out of it, was good for B.C. Even if one agrees that there was some need for restraint.... I think that was the wrong principle totally, but even if one agrees that brakes had to be put on spending in the way that it was done, the fact that it happened all at once, that it attracted so much adverse reaction from people all over British Columbia, from people all over Canada.... There were quotations at the time from federal ministers who were expressing concern about what was happening in B.C. There were quotations from people visiting British Columbia from outside — the World Council of Churches was here at the time. There was a lot of concern about what was happening. It was bad for B.C. –– I think everyone knew it at the time, although they may have blamed it on people other than the government; but I think everyone recognizes now that the government asked for the trouble that B.C. got when it brought in that package in 1983.

Above all else, I think none of us wants that kind of confrontation to happen again. We're hoping that we will truly enter the new era promised us by the Premier when he talked about consultation and cooperation. I can't believe that there was any consultation with anyone when it came to suggesting that one person, who would hold office for five years, would be given the authority to deal with labour/management discussions even before they become disputes, to deal with disputes, to deal with work stoppages, whether lockouts or strikes. I just can't believe that in all of the discussions the minister had when he went around the province listening to people that it was suggested to him that.... Even the cabinet itself at this point doesn't have the authority to do the kinds of things that the commissioner and the chairman would have in this legislation, yet people recommended that the minister bring in legislation to give that kind of authority to one person who would hold office for five years and who could only be removed by an act of the Legislature? I may be wrong. The minister may be able to stand up later on and tell us that someone did suggest this way out to him. But even if that did happen, I can't conceive of the possibility; I really don't think the minister consulted with trade union organizations, with workers — even unorganized workers — or with employers, employers' groups or individual employers about the idea of giving one person much more power than that person had under the three pieces of legislation that we're told are being wiped out. And that's supposed to be a forward step. It's not a forward step from the point of view of labour-management bargaining, because in effect it wipes out the bargaining process. The commissioner can move in at any time and in effect say: "There will be no more talk. There has to be a vote immediately, and keep on working until there is a vote."

I'm not sure what the practice is in all of the trade unions — or in many of them, for that matter — but I do know that it takes at least a couple of weeks and possibly longer for the IWA to conduct a vote, because they insist — and of course this legislation follows the same line — on having ballot boxes in every place where there are IWA members working. The ballots and the boxes have to be prepared and shipped to these various locations. They have to be counted in supervised situations. The ballot boxes then have to be sealed and transported back to wherever they're being counted. It's a very lengthy process, and one that has to be carefully done. We're talking in this instance.... We already have a government-supervised ballot. It has to be supervised. That doesn't mean that they simply watch people marking ballots. It means that the whole process has to be under the control of people representing government in order to make sure that there's no tampering with the voting.

[ Page 739 ]

That's a very long process. It means that if discussions between the two groups.... I'm picking the IWA and the forest industry because that's the one that was in all of our minds last year. It's a very important one to our total community; there's no question about that. It involves a large number of people and involves operations all around the province. So it's an easy one to pick on. But to say that any discussions there were often the opportunity to manoeuvre.... The opportunity to have meaningful discussions is important.

The timing is important, for example, to delay the process, as the commissioner could do following the various sections of this legislation, to delay a process that would normally have a work shutdown perhaps early in the fall, and to delay it until Christmas and then say: "Well, okay, you can have a work stoppage now, and" — without putting the words into it — "as long as the snow is there and they can't log in many operations in any case, go ahead, go on strike." When there is no opportunity of working anyway, or when the markets happen to be down and industry wouldn't be terribly upset about a stoppage in some plants or in some operations, all right, it's okay to have a lockout during this period until such time as the commissioner deems it to be in the public interest that the work stoppage shall cease and that operations will resume. He has that authority. He has the authority to say that for 40 days, keep on working. Talk if you like, but in the meantime the commissioner's going to get involved with some of his people and make sure that the talking goes on.

I suppose it's better to have a cold war than a hot war. I think we found that out in international relations for a number of years. There were a lot of complaints about the saber-rattling on both sides, but at least as long as people kept talking, people kept living.

It's not quite the same situation here. We're dealing with economic security rather than personal security. And to take all of the power to bargain out of the hands of either party.... I'm more concerned, and I think the trade unions are more concerned, that the commissioner, representing the present government, would lean on the side of the employers. Whether he deserves it or not, he has that reputation. I don't know that it's totally deserved. I think he's been reflecting government policy. My concern is that, even more so with the legislation before us now, workers would be more and more suspicious and would have more and more grounds for being suspicious that the commissioner was acting on the side of the employers rather than having an even balance between the two.

[10:45]

If there isn't any meaningful bargaining, how can the government say that the legislation before us protects collective bargaining? If they're told that they can talk all they like, but then at some point in time the commissioner's going to move in with his people and resolve the dispute, or recommend to cabinet that certain steps be taken, and then cabinet says,"Yes, go ahead and do it".... I'm paraphrasing the legislation, of course. But really, that's in there. The commissioner has the power at any time to say this is a potential dispute. It doesn't have to be a work stoppage at that point. But he could say: "This could be against the public interest if it happens. Therefore I recommend that the government take action to make sure that it doesn't happen; take action to resolve the dispute." The cabinet says: "Yes, we agree with you. Go ahead and do it." Then, of course, he does it.

This is power that we don't have right now. The commissioner has power to order the cooling-off periods that heretofore has been a power that the Legislature has kept for itself, except in essential service dispute situations — something that the Legislature has guarded and taken the heat for. Certainly whenever government moves in and does interfere in labour-management disputes, even though it is in the public interest, there is some dissatisfaction with that, some criticism of government for moving in, and the question of the timing. But the possibility of the government moving in, even in a situation like that, is always something that's remote.

There's always some point in bargaining, some point in the two parties trying to get together to resolve their disagreement. It's not always possible, and sometimes they both admit that. I can recall a strike that took place in 1975, when we were in government, and the delivery of propane to Vancouver Island was cut off. At the time, representatives of the employers and the employee organizations separately appealed to the Minister of Labour to bring in legislation to put them back to work, in order to resume the service. Both groups wanted to resume the service; both groups were at the point where they were so mad at each other they just couldn't sit down in the same room and negotiate meaningfully; both groups said: "Make us resume the service. Then when we're back working there will be some point in us sitting down and talking together."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

So they asked for it. Whether or not government should or should not have acted in that situation, or should have said,"Go and solve your own problems," is a question that will never be properly answered. At the time we felt we had to, but I'm not sure it was the best solution. We did it, though, and they went back to work, and they did resolve the dispute. All the time they were talking and arguing, while they were still working and even after the service was disrupted, there was no promise, no threat, no suggestion that government was going to move in and solve this for them. So there was pressure on them to try to arrive at a solution. Usually when there is that pressure on the employers and the employee organization, the dispute does get resolved with minimum difficulty to the public.

The commissioner, however, may decide at any point in time that even in the event that there is a work stoppage.... If it gets to that point, then he's going to move in and resolve it. Of course, the tendency is for him to resolve it somewhere between the two positions — if you can say that there are just two positions. Positions move and shift some. But he is going to resolve it somewhere between what the employers want and what the employees want. That would be the tendency. It may be closer to one than the other; so be it. There may be the final-offer situation as well, and there is that possibility with this legislation.

What's the purpose in bargaining, in either side moving, if they feel that all they have to do is wait a little while and then the government is going to move in and resolve it somewhere between the two? Because if either side moves towards the other, then the midpoint — and I don't necessarily mean the halfway point, but a medium point between the two — will be that much further away from what the one giving up something wanted in the first place. So there's going to be a reluctance to bargain, it would seem to me, with

[ Page 740 ]

the power given to this one person, appointed somehow — if it's in the legislation, I haven't seen it yet — with this one person who will hold office until the government of the day brings in a bill discharging that person. For a period of up to five years, the only way to get rid of that person would be to bring a bill in.

While there is that provision with respect to several government officers at the present time, since I started in 1963 it has happened only once, so it's something that is done very carefully — and should be. It shouldn't happen often. What's the point to it if it's done frequently? It gives that person that kind of power. That person knows that as long as he is not attracting any open opposition from the government, he can do almost as much as he wishes or whatever he likes within that time, and hold his job for five years.

Even if it would work, it's dangerous. It's dangerous to give a commissioner, appointed by the government, authority which to this point the government has not taken unto itself. It has never brought in legislation that says it can deal at any time with any dispute it considers to be in the public interest. It has always reserved the right to do that by bringing in a special bill to deal with the special situation. That's true; that's there. But without any legislation of any kind, to say that from here on in the commissioner will have authority that the Legislature has never had itself.... We're giving to an appointed person, who will hold office for five years, unless he's discharged by the Legislature, the authority to deal with labour-management disputes in a way in which even the Legislature has never felt the cabinet should have the authority to deal with. Mr. Speaker, that's not democracy. All 69 of us had to be elected to sit in this chamber, and from among the members on the government side a cabinet is chosen. They do have the authority and also the responsibility to deal with situations themselves, not to appoint some outsider responsible to no one other than the total Legislature, and say to that person,"Do as you will for five years, but we hope you do a good job." Our concern, Mr. Speaker, is that even if he did a good job, it would not be perceived as being the way to handle such situations. It will be bad for British Columbia.

The opposition coming from the trade union movement and from some employer organizations is because people are afraid that this will not be perceived as a good way to deal with such situations, and if they believe that and don't cooperate, then it won't work and we'll be back where we were in 1983, once again trying to dig ourselves out of the economic hole that was dug for us some four years ago. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad feature of the legislation and should be changed totally.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment, I'd like to remind the House that it is St. George's Day, and in honour of that auspicious occasion I sort of see myself as taking the part of St. George today, girding my loins and sallying forth. I don't often have a chance to sally, Mr. Speaker, so today I'm going to sally forth in pursuit of the dragon. The dragon, I would like to explain, is the commissioner's position in Bill 19, with all the powers he will get. You might ask who I perceive as the maiden, and I would say that the maiden is the people of British Columbia who are threatened by this dragon, who is going to be rampant on the countryside, breathing fire, stepping on various and sundry of the living beings out there, and perhaps shredding a few with the teeth that this dragon has. Now what I want to talk about for a minute are some of the things that are so dragonian, if you like, about Bill 19, and the powers of the commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, the powers of the commissioner are extremely extensive and dangerous, as we have been saying all along. Bill 19 is structured to provide for government interference at every stage of bargaining that would have been free collective bargaining before this bill was introduced. In fact, the commissioner is given the power to intervene at any stage, with these examples: forced mediation; binding arbitration; final-offer selection; public interest inquiry board recommendations; he can order back to work; he can order special mediators with the power to write collective agreements; he can give final-offer voting before strikes or lockouts; force cooperation with mediators, fact-finders, public interest inquiry boards, special mediators, arbitrators; and indicate lack of accountability to elected officials.

These kinds of powers are beyond what is in the public interest, which is another of the phrases we've been using a lot in the debate on Bill 19. It is a phrase that is put in there very often.

As everybody knows who has read Bill 19, part 8 is long. It goes on and on describing the powers of the commissioner. Firstly, I'd like to talk about the interference that the commissioner can achieve in the bargaining process. Now the bargaining process used to be a situation — and still is under current legislation — where the two sides commence to bargain. They give notice and there are certain rules. They may have a mediator, and they usually reach an agreement all by themselves. Infrequently they have a strike or they have a lockout, and then other things can happen. But what happens under this new Bill 19 is that bargaining can proceed, however. The commissioner can appoint a mediator all on his own. He does not have to have any request from either side in the bargaining to Appoint a mediator. I think that is interference.

If nobody wants it, why is the commissioner allowed to interject this other person and this other person's direction, which will of course make a difference to what's going on between the two parties that have already sat down and decided to bargain?

This mediator now has expanded powers to intervene and stay involved for 20 days; after that, the employer's final offer must be put to a vote. So there is more interference. We don't any longer allow the people who are representing the unions to say: "Look, we will not recommend that this offer be accepted, and we know the body that we represent." This offer has to be put to a vote, whether or not the people who are doing the bargaining say that it is going to be accepted — and, in general, they are representing by an elected process the people in that body.

The mediator then reports to the commissioner. If a strike vote is taken, the commissioner can again delay a strike or lockout by referring the matter to a fact finder. We are putting the mediator back on the bench for a moment and now calling in a fact finder. The dragon is getting bigger and bigger. The fact finder has 20 days to assist, and if strike notice is served after the fact finder has made his or her non-binding recommendations — and at this point there is at least that point, that it is non-binding — there is another 120-hour notice period.

The commissioner can exercise another option, or allow a strike to proceed. If the strike is not considered to be in the public interest, however — and you wonder what strike or lockout would by the broadest interpretation be considered to

[ Page 741 ]

be in the interests of the public, if you looked at it from a certain viewpoint, so obviously, without any definition as to public interest, it is very possible that any strike could be considered not to be in the public interest — then the commissioner, again, can appoint a public interest inquiry board.

[11:00]

So we've got our mediator joining the crowd, and we also have the next person, the fact finder, and now we have a whole public interest inquiry board, or we might have an arbitrator, or we might have a special mediator, and all of these things can go together. I mean, the commissioner can make this whole process — a relatively simple and usually simple process of free collective bargaining between the representatives of two groups — into a whole merry-go-round of people who are in and out. And they don't have to be asked for by the people who are doing the bargaining; they are just sent in by the commissioner. The commissioner can decide which colour of person he can pull off his bench and throw in, and in making his choice of these people there doesn't have to be any recourse to the people who are involved in the bargaining.

Now he can, of course, declare that the dispute involves an essential service. Even private sector disputes can be said to have an essential service. I am going to deal with that a little bit more in a minute, but that is another power that the commissioner has. If the PUB — that's the public interest inquiry board — is appointed, both parties must participate in the preparation of a contract based on that board's recommendations. This is all forced on the parties who were doing the bargaining in the first place and might very easily and probably, by the law of percentages, have come to an agreement together without so much of the roundabouts and the three-ring circus that it has now become.

If compulsory arbitration is one of the options, there is an imposed collective agreement, and a special mediator is involved. That mediator can impose a final and binding collective agreement on the parties. These powers are huge. This is much greater power than we have had before, and the dragon is breathing down the necks of the parties — at least one of the parties, you can be sure.

All of this moving from one option to another effectively denies the union the ability to put real pressure on an employer. These are the time-developed strategies that the workers have developed in order to give themselves the kind of power that makes them somewhat equal to the power of capital, which is on the other side that they are working against. They've got the pressures of declaring certain commodities to be hot, and they have used picketing and all of these things, plus the moving around of when they can strike. Now whether or not they can do this is all moved out of whack, and in fact the powers that labour had developed to give themselves their bargaining position are being attacked under this bill, and they are all being attacked under the powers of this one commissioner.

All of these things come under section 137 of Bill 19. When you get past reading a long, long way about all of these things that the commissioner can do, you then begin to look at some of the factors to be considered, as I think they are called. After we get past the intervention by the commissioner, we have one section that's called.... It's way back, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure it's called "the factors that must be considered." In that section we have things such as section 137.6 where we have a phrase that is worth reading, because it doesn't seem to say what it may mean to everyone; that may not be a reasonable interpretation. "Terms and conditions," it says. "In settling terms and conditions under section 137.5, a panel shall give the parties an opportunity...and may take into account, among other things, the extent to which the parties have or have not bargained...." Excuse me, what we're talking about is "terms and conditions of employment negotiated through collective bargaining for comparable employees performing the same or similar functions in the same or related circumstances." It also talks about retaining the appropriate relationships between occupations and classifications.

I suppose that could be a limitation on the commissioner. It's not a limitation on the people for whom he's making a decision. It's laid out as defending, if you like, the competitive market economy. The interesting part of it is that it means we have to keep the distance between certain employees who have been getting a certain level of pay and other employees who have been getting a certain level of pay. Evidently that must be maintained whether or not it is a reasonable gap.

What is probably the most interesting thing to me, Mr. Speaker, is that it absolutely destroys the possibility of a competitive market for the people who are offering their labour. There is no way that the people who are offering their labour can then have some movement which might be in response to the value of that labour if they have to maintain the competitive market economy in terms of keeping the gap that's already there. It's a very unfair approach to what can happen to labour people, not only the people who belong to labour unions but the people who work and do not belong to labour unions. It will be very effective at doing that.

Although it has been said that the compensation stabilization package was to go, in fact that's not the case in this bill, Mr. Speaker. Wage controls are now enshrined in the legislation. It makes ability to pay the paramount factor in determining whether a contract will be approved in the public sector. There are a number of problems with this business of ability to pay as a factor that has to be considered by the commissioner and by all these other people that are brought in to keep the wheels going around. First of all, ability to pay seems to apply only to the employer. It doesn't seem to have anything to say about whether the employee who is offering the labour has the ability to pay, if you like, for his part of the transaction. Can that person work? Why don't we consider whether or not a person can afford to work for the wages that are being offered? That would be the same and fair treatment on the other side.

But that's not in the bill, Mr. Speaker. It's only the ability to pay of the employer. The employer is the public sector, and the public sector's ability to pay seems to be extended to mean not just whether there's enough money in the budget or in the basket or whatever, but it's to any government policy. If the government has already said that this is as far as we're going to go, then that is the ability to pay. It's the most one-sided whole idea that if the government decides that this is where it's going to be, then that is the government's ability to pay. It's what has been set down as policy. You'd think the government never changed its policy. In fact, they do change it occasionally. But at the moment, if we don't want to pay.... What the government is able to pay can be dictated, in other words, by the government, and the commissioner will have to take that and it has to be paramount in his decision. But what the worker is able to pay has nothing to do with it and is absolutely forgotten in the whole equation.

[ Page 742 ]

The essential services are connected with that. What's happened is that not only has "essential services" been continued in here — I mean, the commissioner can in fact determine what is an essential service — but the essential services business has also been extended. It isn't just essential services anymore; it's also educational services.

If we read section 137.8(1), it says: "Where the commissioner considers that a dispute poses a threat to the economy of the province, or to the health, safety or welfare of its residents or to the provision of educational services in the province...." Before we even talk about the breadth of the first part of that, I think it is fair to wonder why educational services have now been put in. Why are educational services now designated along with what we have called essential services before? Is there a particular reason? Why haven't we chosen foresters? Why is it that education has been chosen as a type of service that has to be maintained no matter what? Remember, educational services are not just grades K to 12; they also include college services and universities. In fact, there is probably some thinking behind that that has not been made clear.

Why is it that educational services are there now along with what was earlier called essential services and has been defined before? The only definition we have here is of a dispute that poses a threat to the economy of the province. If a bully on the street is threatening to take a nickel away from a little kid who's going down the way to buy a Popsicle, is that a threat to the economy of the province? In fact, it will diminish the economic activity in the province, so where are the limits, as we call it, to the economy?

The commissioner is going to decide; not the government, not the Legislature, not the minister, but the commissioner. When the commissioner considers that a dispute "poses a threat to the economy of the province, or to the health, safety or welfare of its residents...." I know "health" is a very broad term. "Safety" is an extremely broad term, but "welfare" is broader than either of them. How would you define the welfare of the residents of the province? These terms are so broad that the commissioner practically has carte blanche.

He can stop a dispute. He can in fact do any of these things — order cooling-off periods directly and so on. He can take all of these actions. With such a broad range of possibilities there that he can use to do that, who but Solomon would have the wisdom to make those kinds of decisions? I'm not sure that Mr. Peck is the same as Solomon; I don't think he has the same recognition.

There is another aspect to this bill that is particularly frightening, as far as the breadth of its powers is concerned. It's the legislative override, if you like, and what it says is that employers with legislative discretion have overall power. It is dealt with in section 35 of the bill, which refers to section 65 of the act. I believe we're all clear on this one. It says: "Where a provision...would have the effect of preventing, or in any way limiting the exercise by any person of a power, authority or discretion that is conferred by an act, that act prevails...." It says that "a collective agreement may" — may, it says — "contain a provision providing a remedy to persons affected by the exercise of a power, authority or discretion conferred by an act provided that the remedies do not in any way prevent or have the effect of limiting the exercise of the power, authority or discretion referred to...."

[11:15]

Now what that says is that if you have a collective agreement — in other words, a contract — under which you have some agreement about hiring or firing, and you are working for a public sector employer who is governed by an act that says.... For example, I could use a college as an example. The college act says that the board "shall" manage; it says that an administrator — in other words, the president of that college — "can" manage for the institution. If that act says that, then of course no contract can say that anything that administrator or that board can do can be limited by the contract. It's an interference with contract law, and it's a refusal or, shall we say, a prevention of people having recourse to due process of law. That part of the act is reinforced in section 72, where it says that if there is a conflict between Bill 19 and any other act, then Bill 19 would prevail. So this is an extremely powerful act. It makes one wonder if, in fact, the people who put it together checked all the other legislation that is in force in British Columbia just to see that every other act was meant by the intent of this act to be subsumed by this particular bill and what will become the act.

It looks as though there was a little bit more rush than perhaps we needed. Perhaps we should look to see if there are situations where the government might prefer that this act does not have precedence over any other act. It certainly would be interesting to know that that had been done, or whether anything had come up, or whether that was what was really intended.

Another point that worries me considerably is the idea of limiting picketing. This is another powerful power that the commissioner has. There are so many limitations. Picketing has always worked its way into practice through the courts and through people objecting and through rulings and through all sorts of things. Picketing has been recognized as one of the tools of labour to make its negotiating position, at least to have some power, and it has worked its way through. It is not something that has not been examined. It has been examined and resisted and pushed, and so on. It's something that has fairly clear edges on it for what is allowed.

Many of those methods of picketing that have been hard-fought are absolutely gone. The bill says that you may only picket a primary employer if your work is an integral and substantial part of the employer's operations; and the place of picketing is the place where you work, which will stop small bargaining units from being able to picket even when they are lawfully on strike. It will also stop, for example, large employee groups such as the IWA from picketing places where logs are stored, even if they produce those logs. There are just any number of examples of where this will take away the powers that have been granted to labour when they want to picket and want to put forward the recognized position that they have some commitment to a product, a place or some kind of work.

The definition of ally is restricted to someone who performs work for the benefit of the struck employer. The board used to have the discretion to reasonably restrict picketing to the employer causing the strike or lockout; now the legislation requires the council to restrict the picketing so that it affects only the operations of the employer causing the lockout or strike, which could eliminate picketing on all construction sites where there is more than one employer.

There are terribly broad powers: taking away right to picket. Separate parts of the corporation are to be treated separately. This means that you'll not be able to picket a sawmill if it would put a pulp mill out of operation, even if the

[ Page 743 ]

pulp mill is owned by the same company. Again, this is not something that was won easily by the people who have done the picketing. They have gone through difficult struggles in order to get the right to do this.

Leafleting to publicize a consumer boycott in support of a strike is probably prohibited because leafleting is called picketing by judges. So we have only some of the areas of picketing, but many of the abilities to picket in the places that have been allowed by courts, by labour relations boards and by all the regulators that we have had in our industrial relations climate so far are now gone under Bill 19.

The retroactivity question — I think I dealt with that. In fact, the contracts that are in effect right now are clearly affected by the bill whenever it comes in; it doesn't matter when the contracts were agreed to: "The amendments made by this Act shall...govern any right or obligation acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred...under a provision of a collective agreement that is inconsistent with or in conflict [and] shall be made as if amendments made by this Act were law at all times relevant to the determination." When you get to interfering with contracts that have already been there, I think that kind of power should not be in the hands of a single commissioner.

My final point is, there's no designated way to appeal any decisions that this commissioner makes. If you don't have a method to appeal, then due process is lost. I think that final power is beyond what the people of British Columbia want, and puts the cap on it and sort of says that's where the most...that's the end of the breath of fire, if you like — if I can keep my metaphor going. What I want to say is that this part of the bill which allows a commissioner with so many powers is far too dangerous, far too difficult, and wrong for us to accept at this time.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like leave of the House to make an introduction at this time.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: I would ask the House to welcome today in the gallery a number of students from Edward Milne Secondary School, which of course is in sunny Sooke, in the beautiful and fine riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Special note should be given to the fact that a number of the students with us today are older students — over 20 years of age; most of them are around 39, I think — who are finishing their schooling and moving towards certification and graduation at Edward Milne. The teacher accompanying them is Mr. John Bergbusch, who is an alderman in the municipality of Colwood, also in the fine riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Would the House welcome them.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to feel that I could get up and wax eloquent, as some of the members on this side have done. I'd like to make references to St. George and dragons and dragon-slayers, as some of the members have done on this side, or indeed to Solomon. But my struggle in dealing with this bill has been one of trying to understand some of the underlying principles, some of the fundamentals, and indeed what is driving this bill, and why we as a province are trying to grapple with this horrendous legislation.

I'm standing to support the motion before us. I believe it is a reasoned motion, and it cuts at the core of some of the fundamentals that I have been struggling with. I believe that the commissioner's position, the centralization of power in labour and industrial relations, is indicative of some of the biases that are brought, and perhaps some of the motivation behind this legislation in the first place. One of the biases that have been spelt out day after day is that the government believes that the people of this province don't like unions and think unions are a problem. The people on the government side are indeed exploiting a certain level of ignorance.

I would like to use an example that maybe the government can understand, and that some of the members who are heckling at this point can understand. Good friends of mine, a husband and wife, are working people who have struggled to raise four children. The husband in this case worked as a warehouseman, and at one point became a supervisor. He brought some real biases to his work life. I think the government would acknowledge that his politics and his ethics are very conservative.

The woman in this relationship, as well as raising four children, worked outside of the home because the husband didn't make enough money to support the family, as is happening throughout B. C. at this time and as has happened for a long time. The woman raised the children and dealt with the children's needs all day, and in the afternoon would go out to work. For the longest time she worked at fast food places; for a while she cleaned the kitchen of a hotel. At one point in her long work life she got a break: an opportunity to work in an office. It was piecemeal work that she brought home, work that she got her kids involved with to help produce. For her it was a nice job because she wasn't cleaning the floors of a hotel anymore or dealing with hot fat in a fast-food place. She worked there for 13 years, trying to deal at home with this piecemeal work.

Then there was a union-organizing attempt at her workplace. That union-organizing attempt was quite foreign to her. She didn't have much experience as far as those workplace decisions went, and she came home and asked her husband: "Well, what do you think?" He advised her, saying: "Unions are bad news. Stay away from it." So she went back, and that was her role. She took his advice. He had more experience in the workplace than she did. And she held out; she was one of two people in that workplace who held out. The union did organize that workplace, and all of a sudden, after 13 years of working extraordinary hours with no benefits, no holiday time, no sick pay, no pension and very poor pay, she had time off with pay for holidays, she had sick leave and she had an increased wage.

[11:30]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Is she still there?

MS. SMALLWOOD: She's retired now.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Is the business still going?

MS. SMALLWOOD: The business is still going, and it's a strong business.

I use that as an example of the kinds of biases and teaming experiences that people bring to decisions. I think what we're seeing here with this bill, with the centralization of power, is a circumvention of that right to team, to participate and to make decisions on people's daily lives. What this bill has done, and what it is doing, is really interesting to look at. The government talks about democracy, about decentralization,

[ Page 744 ]

and yet what is really happening is a complete centralization of power, a complete circumvention of democracy. I'm not sure whether the government feels that keeping people ignorant of the functioning of government or of labour relations is a way of entrenching their power, but this bill, by its complexities, its intricacies, is shutting out a major section of our society, a major grouping of people, and disallowing them the privilege of having some say in what goes on in their daily lives.

I don't mean to say for a moment, in the example I used, that all of this family's problems have been solved by organizing a workplace. Clearly there are still some significant problems. Several clauses in this bill deal directly with the struggle that women have within unions for pay equity and for their rights to livable wages, but because of the power that this legislation brings to Ed Peck in his position, I feel that it is becoming more and more difficult to reach equity for working people, women in particular.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the issue of democracy. I think that it is important to listen to some of the rhetoric brought to this debate by the government when they talk about the rights of individuals and the rights of workers. Democracy is not a given; it is something that has to be worked for, that takes people's involvement. It doesn't just happen at a ballot box. I think what we need to talk about, and what the government and, indeed, the opposition need to explore at some point, is the role of government — whether the role of government is to regulate, to centralize power, to entrench themselves in their ideology, or to help people in the province be the best that they can be.

The government talks about consultation. I think that the consultation that has been done on this bill, as we explore further its ramifications, has really proven to be a sham. What has happened is that the drafters of this bill, while the government was going around listening to what people had to say.... What really needs to happen is that we as a legislature go out and not only listen but also talk to people, explore alternatives with them, and look not to limit, but instead, empower and support the initiatives of workers, unions and business.

I think it's important that the government recognize that the way this House is functioning at this point — the way that this bill has been presented — represents an extremely patriarchal view of the world. It's a talk-down view, where the commissioner in this position makes everything right. That is an extremely weak position for any government to take. No one person or one group of people can begin to address the complexities that we are facing as a society. I believe that a wise person and a wise government would do everything in its power to assist groups out in a community to tap the wealth of knowledge and information and to enhance the work that is already being done.

I believe that this bill is more revealing perhaps than anything that has come before this House since the last election. It shows clearly that while the government talks about democracy and decentralization, it is clearly doublespeak. It is clearly a situation of incredible biases at work. Once you look at the realities, the facts are not borne out. Perhaps this is symptomatic of the fact that the government has become too isolated and does not understand the realities that people in B.C. are facing.

When the government talks about getting big government off the backs of the people of this province, it is a farce. The reality here is that the government is intruding right down to the very livelihoods of the people of this province. They are eroding the standard of living of this province; indeed, it will induce more conflict than help to get us back on a road of economic recovery.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I understand that some members on the government side feel compelled to support this document. I understand that it must be very difficult, given some of the concerns that have been raised.

I think the interesting thing we're seeing here is that the number of groups that are concerned about this bill, rather than shouting and organizing mass rallies, are looking at it systematically, engaging teams of lawyers, sitting down and looking at the broad implications of what this document means and mapping out strategies to deal with it. The cool, calm and rational approach of people who are being devastated by this document has to be listened to, because their approach is perhaps more threatening than all of the shouting, rhetoric and chest-beating that has gone before.

I speak in support of this motion because it's a flag and an indicator of some of the biases and some of the danger. I don't think for a moment that dealing with the chairman of the industrial relations, by this structure, will deal with the problem of this legislation. It is merely a flag and an indicator of the wide-ranging problems.

While I speak in support of this motion, I want to state strongly that the government must reconsider all aspects and must in the future, in the limited time it has left of its term, consider all of the legislation that it brings to this House — that it must take a new approach, an approach that is less patriarchal and less centralizing, that acknowledges the strength that our communities have and have to offer, and indeed helps and supports people in the learning process and allows them to become more rather than less active in their daily lives. If the government is truly committed to democracy, if it is truly committed to the words that we have heard from them, then it can do no less.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I would like to bring to the attention of all hon. members.... . It's very difficult to do, I appreciate, but we are here to speak with respect to the amendment before us.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your advice. I will try to follow it as closely as I can in the course of my remarks.

I would like to pick up on some of the last statements of my colleague the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), where she noted the climate in the province at this particular time. I think that climate is one that is a very important aspect of our deliberations. When I last spoke to this bill in my response to the second reading debate, I noted that there was in the community a tremendous amount of awareness and a very strong element of education of the body politic around Bill 19. I was very encouraged by that, because it seemed to me that the reasoned debate in which we have been engaged in this House was extending — as it sometimes doesn't — out into the communities far and wide across the province. Certainly I have found in my time in my own riding — last weekend, particularly, when there was time to talk to people — that Bill 19 was very much on their

[ Page 745 ]

minds, and that the issues that we have raised in the amendment that is before us this morning were issues that were on their minds as well. It seemed to me that in terms of the principles — both the principle of powers and the sharing of powers and the principle of democracy as it is applied through law and reflected and administered in the various aspects of our lives — people were questioning very seriously and carefully the intent of this bill and its manifestations. I think, too, it's encouraging that they have seen that the process in which we are involved is one of amendment and change, to reflect our reasoned discussion. I hope that that process in fact will continue over the period that this bill is before us.

I don't think, in my looking to history around labour legislation, that there has been as much consensus early in the bill and its debate around the principle issues of concern. That perhaps suggests that over a period of time — the sixties and seventies, when this province has in fact tried many different measures and looked at many different ways of legislating the process of relationships between employers and workers — we've come to a greater degree of sophistication. We've learned what doesn't work. We have an awareness and an appreciation of the collective bargaining process of democracy at work and of the roles of the parties.

In measuring and assessing and educating themselves about this bill, I think people have come to the same conclusion that we have put forward in this amendment: that the powers that are accorded to one person in this bill are excessive and unnecessary; in fact, they fly in the face of both experience and what we could anticipate being good law.

[11:45]

I have found myself reading quite a bit in the last week or two about the history of labour law. It is not something that I have known in great depth and detail, although, like many in this House, I have hands-on experience working in the field of labour relations. I have been at the negotiating table. I have been involved with both legislated and administrative processes as they affect labour negotiations. I have been involved with what we called in the education trade the expanded scope of bargaining: when new things are coming to the table and the parties are attempting to work out how to deal with those within the legislative mandate that exists.

It has been clear to me that the more limited the force of law is in a prescriptive way in worker-employer relations, probably the more effective the working out of a really well-founded and well-established relationship between the parties is.

There have been many who have said that legislative restraint will probably have more to do with the solving of labour disputes in the public interest than legislative intervention. If we look back over the last 20 years, we will find that we have in fact interfered on a very limited basis, and we have accorded to no one outside of this Legislature powers that are prescriptive and that limit the rights of parties to seek in good faith to arrive at settlements that meet their interests.

People on both sides of the House have cited many examples of the kinds of circumstances that they have found in their own communities, and they have in varying ways suggested that legislation could or would not have helped in those particular circumstances. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the powers that we have accorded to a commissioner, with a legislated mandate to be in office for five years and a set of rules and regulations around which he can conduct his affairs, intrude in the whole process of free collective bargaining in ways that are simply not workable.

One of the things that I have seen recently is a schema. It's the first time that I have seen something that on one page shows some of the machinations that are a part of the industrial relations adjudication division, the disputes resolutions division, the public interest inquiry board, and numerous options. It's no wonder in fact that we are looking at something that complicates rather than facilitates, that clouds rather than clarifies the issues that various parties in many of the communities of our province may be trying to address through collective bargaining or may in fact need to address through some kind of action that we call a dispute or a strike or a lockout.

When I look at this schema, it would require a Philadelphia lawyer and a Solomon and a whole raft of technical experts to find their way through it. The things that happen between parties at the bargaining table are going to be short-circuited and overridden time after time with a whole variety of time constraints and totally arbitrary procedures. We will in fact put the many and varied processes that people normally use to arrive at an agreement in a dispute or to settle a collective agreement for another period of time in the hands of one person, and the people whom that person will appoint.

I think we all recognize that there is an evolutionary process in every collective agreement. Every collective agreement is a time for rebalancing between the employer, the manager, and labour, the union parties to the collective agreement — for them to rebalance the various terms and conditions under which they work. The time-frame for that varies from a very few days to, in some more complex areas involving large sectors of our economy, weeks and months. We've all watched over a number of years the process by which people develop the ways and means to address the issues of concern to that particular sector — private sector, public sector, large or small. I have been impressed by the way in which that process, unencumbered by prescriptive legislation, be it draconian or, as others have said, with the sword of Damocles hanging ready to fall in three days or 28 days or 40 days, depending on which part of this particular legislation might fall into place.... I have been impressed by how well in fact the parties arrive at agreements that are livable with and workable — and the statistics bear this out.

If we have a longer dispute, something more evolutionary in its complexity, perhaps to the point of being contentious, then we sometimes do arrive at a lengthy process, and we arrive at times when people withdraw their labour. But there is no question that that kind of lengthy dispute is an indication not of the breakdown of the system, but perhaps of some thrust in our economy that is indicative of some greater change. Again we come back to the IWA dispute, which seems to have had such a large part in bringing forward some of these measures that give to a commissionner such unprecedented and unnecessary powers. That dispute was about some very essential issues for the parties. It was not an easy dispute for them to resolve. In fact, it is still not finally resolved; they have agreed on further due process as they work that particular discussion through. But the issue around which that particular dispute arose and played its time out in our economy is a critical one, around the role of labour and management.

If we look back in any labour history, we find that at those critical times there are pressures and difficulties in arriving at a solution. Restrictions such as are proposed in this particular legislation are not answers to those questions. It is clear in reading the reviews of various labour legislation that almost

[ Page 746 ]

to a person, those who are participants in that process recognize that there are dynamics that will be in place and that there will be times of great tension, but that the process we have of allowing a bilateral system of self-government works both for good labour relations and for good economic circumstances.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I come back again to the IWA, which, through a period of tremendous economic change and tremendous decrease in the number of people who are in that work force.... That union and its many employers in large and small towns, in remote and major central parts of our province, have worked out changes in the workplace and in their collective working arrangements without major confrontation. By imposing on those parties a very prescriptive, specific, complex and intrusive procedure, we are saying that all of the years of developing consensual approaches, ways of dealing with conflict and opportunities for cooperation, all of those processes that have been freely developed, freely negotiated and freely agreed to in collective agreements are now to be examined, to be unilaterally overturned and to have procedures imposed on them — mediation, arbitration, final offer, intrusion in certain regulations — and that this is going to be better for the province. I would submit that such short-sightedness in the drafting of the legislation in this clause particularly has been seen by the various parties who are going to in fact live with this legislation for the poor clause and its ramifications that it indeed is. We have heard from every sector in the community that it is time, in fact, to change this particular approach.

I think that we should recall in our looking at this legislation that the very people that those on the other side of the House claim to be representing are the people who are most sensitive to this particular legislation, because they see it as legislation that will destabilize and hurt our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I would move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.