[ Page 1453 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions –– 1453

Private Members' Statements

Adoption registries. Mr. Bruce –– 1453

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Cashore

Deregulation of the transportation industry. Mr. Miller –– 1455

Hon. Mr. Michael

B.C. forest industry monopoly. Mr. Kempf –– 1457

Hon. Mr. Parker

Mr. Williams

Family and child services. Mr. Cashore –– 1458

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1461

Mr. Gabelmann

Division

Mr. Miller

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

Appendix –– 1471

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair]

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If May 29 is your birthday, you are intuitive, a natural character analyst in psychology. You actually learn through teaching. The more you share, the more you gain. This is remarkable. Would the House please join with me in extending many happy returns to the Premier.

I have one more announcement to make to the House. Would the House please join me in wishing our very, very best to the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), who will be married tomorrow.

MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are two people I would like to introduce to the House. Mr. Stuart Lang is president of Crestbrook Forest Industries in Cranbrook. With him is Alan G. Thompson, director of Crestbrook Forest Industries, and chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Brink Hudson and Lefever in Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: I can only assume that my invitation to the Attorney-General's wedding is in the mail.

On behalf of my colleague for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who cannot be here today, I would like to introduce some grade 11 students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher, Don Taylor. Will the House please make the students welcome.

MR. BRUCE: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome and acknowledge probably one of the most dynamic and responsible reporters in the Cowichan Valley — I don't say that simply because he's here to do a story on me, on a day in the life of an MLA — Mr. Mark Brett, from the Citizen newspaper in the Cowichan Valley.

Presenting Petitions

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here that I'd like to present. It represents the same sentiment that has been put forward in a petition presented to the Vernon city council. This petition was signed by over 6,000 people in the Okanagan.

Has the Speaker given leave?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Go ahead.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to read the petition, which is signed by both Mr. Wayne McGrath and Mr. Lorne Adamson.

"To the hon. Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia...the petition of the undersigned, residents of the North Okanagan re gional district, and president of the Save Our Lakes Society, which has in excess of 2,000 members, state that we are concerned about the purity of the water of Okanagan Lake and the proposal for a deep sewage outfall, with its potential for pollution. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House request that the government of British Columbia impose a one-year moratorium on the city of Vernon's proposed sewage outfall into Okanagan Lake. Such a moratorium would provide the time necessary to properly assess the environmental and economic advantages of alternative effluent disposal methods."

[10:15]

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

ADOPTION REGISTRIES

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about what I consider a very serious matter, and one that I thinks offers a fair amount of compassion from this House as a legislature, as a vehicle in which change can occur, and from the point of view of making a very clear statement to the people of B.C. about the need for adoption registries. In the province of B.C. today there are many who have been adopted and do not know who their birth parents are. Currently we don't have a government system affording the opportunity for siblings to be able to find out, if they wish, the identity and the whereabouts of their birth parents.

There are two such programs that could be implemented if we were to look at it: a passive registry and an active registry. A passive registry is one in which the adoptees register and the parents register, and if they both so choose, they can get together. In the active, the agency would actually seek out the other parent or sibling and bring both parties together.

I think it's important when we talk about this type of program that we understand the human element associated with it. It's not just another piece of legislation or action that government can take. There's the very real meaning of this particular endeavour, when parents are looking for their children, who perhaps for reasons past they had to put up for adoption, or vice versa when children are looking for their birth parents.

The best way to state this case would probably be to relay to you some comments that were made to me by a constituent of mine who spent a great deal of time searching for her son, after having years ago had to put this young fellow up for adoption. It's not without a great deal of thought that she wrote this letter to me, making this statement public and sharing it with you.

I would just like to read a few comments, if I may, on what it means to a birth parent and what it means to a child. I would like to quote a portion here:

"This son of mine, whom I loved more dearly than anyone can ever know, was the subject of nearly a lifetime of pain and anxiety and the root of many periods of deep depression. A baby born of love and hope to two young people deeply in love, but whose union the public refused to accept. A baby who the authorities and powers that be insisted would be better off with another set of parents — parents who, because they were older and more settled, but mainly because their skin was the same colour, were seen to provide a better future for the infant whose father's

[ Page 1454 ]

only crime was to be born an East Indian in a country which had not yet accepted racial equality.

"The saddest thing of all was to learn that he was not legally adopted until a year later. Barely three weeks after I was forced to sign the papers, his distraught father secretly came back to me and asked if we could go together to see our son in his foster home. We had been promised, by what is now called the Department of Human Resources, that the baby would be kept in a foster home for one year to give us time to convince our fathers....that no strangers, no matter how much they loved him, could give him the love and contentment his real parents could.

"As we talked" — the mother and the son — "those first few days and nights, I learned of a fate more cruel than even my own. Even after his father and I married and produced five more beautiful children, the ache and knowledge that one was missing continued to grow. His four brothers and one sister shared that pain. They knew they had another brother and longed to find him. But cruellest of all pains was the one he bore: the dread that he had been cast away like a dirty sock, and that even if he ever did locate his birth mother, she would reject him. A rejection was the one thing....he could not handle. To see a grown man cry, his body wracked with sobs as he confessed how he longed to be reunited with his natural mother but was so dreadfully afraid of rejection. And in our case, for him to learn after 35 years and ten months that he was literally torn from my arms, and that his loneliness and longing had been shared by both his natural parents all these years, has prompted me to make our story public.

"Fortunately, he, like me, had heard of the Canadian Adoptees Reform Association, a non-profit organization in Vancouver who worked tirelessly and for no pay keeping a current register of names of mothers who long to find the child they were forced to give away, hoping that one day that child, now grown, will contact them and ask, as my son did: 'Is my mother registered here?' The joy he must have experienced to learn that not only his mother but his father, too, had been waiting for years for him to ask and to learn that not only does he have a mother, a father, four brothers and a sister, but that his father has had his name tattooed on his arm, a reminder of the love for his firstborn he has carried next to his heart all his adult life.

"Surely no one but a birth mother or an adoptee can understand the pain and the need for a properly organized and legitimate reunion registry, one where only if the two parties so wish will the reunion take place. If a birth mother wishes to remain anonymous, she needn't feel threatened, as the only names on the register would be put there by the mother or father who do desire a reunion."

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just wish to make a few remarks to the member and thank him for his very touching dissertation. I don't want to take a lot of time; I know that the member from the opposition wishes to speak.

It became apparent to me last fall that our adoption legislation was terribly out of date and had not been changed since 1920, so I invited all concerned citizens of the province to send in their thoughts on an adoption registry. The response was overwhelming, and we received many touching letters and stories such as the one just read by the member. So on that basis I instructed staff to draft the appropriate legislation, which has been done. The legislation is nearly ready for introduction to the House. In fact, I should be introducing it here within the next couple of weeks. I am sure that it will be greeted enthusiastically by everyone, and within a matter of two or three weeks we will have an adoption registry in place in the province of British Columbia.

So once again I thank the member for the compassion he has shown and for bringing this story to the House, and I would just assure him and every member of the House and all of your constituents that within two or three weeks we will have an adoption registry in place.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to congratulate both the member for Cowichan-Malahat and the Minister of Social Services and Housing. I think this is a very important day with this announcement being made that legislation will soon be forthcoming.

One of the first things I did when I was appointed the spokesperson on Social Services and Housing was meet with the minister, and we agreed on a number of things at that time. One of the things we agreed on was that there are some issues where public dialogue and mutual input are far more beneficial than the traditional adversarial approaches. I am pleased he has acknowledged that British Columbia is one of the last jurisdictions to get to the point of revising the adoption laws.

I am an adoptive parent, and I have had a great deal of interest in this subject over the years. After having that meeting with the minister, I wrote to our local newspapers on this subject and invited response, and I have received an overwhelming number of phone calls and letters from people, all of whom have stories that would touch our hearts in the way that the letter that was read touched our hearts this morning.

I would like to make a couple of suggestions, however, in the brief time that I have. One is that when the legislation is brought forward — while I do know and appreciate that there has been dialogue prior to the drafting of the legislation — I would encourage the minister in the process of introducing the legislation to give time for response from such organizations as the Indian Homemakers' Association of British Columbia, other native Indian groups, Parent Finders, the Canadian Adoptees Reform Association and those people who have taken such an interest, because of obvious concerns. Sometimes they are medical concerns; sometimes they are concerns about what they are going to look like when they grow up. Often they are the concerns that are born of curiosity.

I would like to say that I am very much appreciative of the report of Dean Ralph Garber of Ontario. I understand that Dean Garber's report has been reviewed in the development of the legislation. I think that there are some very good recommendations in that.

I think that there is a particular concern with regard to native Indian adoptions, and I believe it would be appropriate to support the moratorium that has been proposed by the B.C. Association of Social Workers. There is a clause now in the Family and Child Service Act that ensures that at the time of child apprehension, the band manager and the band chief would be notified.

[ Page 1455 ]

Since the adoption legislation is going to be changed, this would be an appropriate time to also write in a clause that would ensure that at the time of adoption, the Indian band manager and chief would also be notified. I would hope that such a clause would be within the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is a term that comes to mind that I think is for me very helpful as we think about this. It's not very many years ago that in the common parlance in our language there was the term "illegitimate child." I am so pleased that this House in the past has seen fit to purge the legislation of that kind of language. I think it was at the time of going through a process of being involved in adoption that I became aware of just how vicious and horrendous such language could be that would be entrenched in law.

I think that when we go through the process that is involved with an adoption, we are going through a birthing process in a societal sense. I think that this is one way in which we participate in giving birth, when a child comes into a home, and when we develop laws that are more appropriate for the situation that people experience in their lives at a given time.

I would like to conclude with this point. In the throne speech there is a wording that would suggest that what is favoured is a passive registry. I have taken that interpretation from the reading of the words in the throne speech, and I would just say that the response that I have received is very heavily weighted toward a more active kind of a registry. I would conclude on that note.

[10:30]

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, may I say I very much appreciate the very positive remarks of this House this morning, and the fact that we all share and understand, perhaps in a little bit better way than what we have in the past, the feelings that some people may be faced with in trying to find their siblings and other family members. It is extremely important that in our society the strength of the family is improved. It is that family unit which really is the overall aspect of what makes our societies a strong one.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of this House to make a short introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: Before I make that introduction, I would just like to relate to you one last paragraph of the letter that was written to me by this lady that I am going to introduce. She says to me:

"I had never experienced the joy of holding my firstborn infant son, and he had never known the contentment of his real mother's arms. This was the first time I had ever put my son to bed. He was 35 years old, and for me, after 35 years and 10 months of heartache and longing, I enjoyed the wonderful experience of taking my beautiful firstborn to the bedroom and tucked him in with the loving words: 'Sleep now, my son, and we will talk some more tomorrow.'

"We had talked, cried and held each other until 5:15 a.m. while we relived all the pain and suffering of nearly 36 years of wondering if we would ever be together again."

I would like you to welcome this lady to the House, Mr. Speaker and members, one who represents many others who would hope that legislation such as this would be forthcoming, Mrs. Joan Mayo.

DEREGULATION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY

MR. MILLER: My topic is deregulation of the transportation industry, which is obviously a topic of significant concern to Canadians and to British Columbians, and also a very detailed one. In the time allotted today, perhaps the best I can do is present a bit of an overview on the issue: how we've developed our current system, and some of the things that are happening which I think we should be concerned about, or alarmed about, in terms of what happens in the future.

First, transportation in all its various forms has been used as a significant development tool in our vast and sparsely populated country. Certainly British Columbia required the transcontinental railway as a term of union — the railway linking British Columbia to the rest of the country. Traditionally in Canada and in British Columbia we have used the Crown corporation route as one of the means of using transportation as a development tool — Air Canada, the CNR, in British Columbia the B.C. Railway....

MR. ROSE: They're Crown corporations.

MR. MILLER: That's right, Crown corporations. That was along with a system of regulation that promoted the development of infrastructure and also ensured that realistic and equitable rate structures existed. Obviously no single enterprises at various stages in our development history were capable of coming up with the capital required to build that infrastructure. For that reason, governments of the day — and even today — saw that as a necessary thing for the government to be involved with: through the Crown corporations, as I've stated.

As well, through that system we have ensured stable service to the smaller communities, the more remote communities, that otherwise may have been ignored in terms of the kind of service we all require, whether that be rail, air, sea or whatever. Quite frankly, again going back to the use of Crown corporations, quite often a private concern would simply not serve a particular market because it was uneconomic. Under the system that we have developed, we have traded off a strictly free market system for one that restricted competition — not completely, but there were certainly restrictions placed on competition. However, the trade-off was seen to be a reasonable one in terms of benefits that accrued to the country, particularly in terms of the use of transportation as a development tool. Also, that regulation — or that lack of competition, if you like, and regulation of sometimes a monopoly situation — again afforded protection for consumers in the smaller and more remote communities of this country and this province.

Just some quick examples of the work that is still going on through the Canadian Transport Commission, one of which came up in this House recently. I'll deal with that first of all, and tie it in with the second one. It's the proposed abandonment by the CNR of some branch lines on the E&N.

In response to that request by the E&N to abandon, the Minister of Transportation in British Columbia has filed an intervention under the rules and regulations of the Canadian Transport Commission. If the current legislation before the

[ Page 1456 ]

federal Parliament doesn't pass, presumably that will be heard and a rule or an order issued by the Canadian Transport Commission, as they have done with regard to the request by CNR to abandon their rail passenger service between Prince Rupert and Jasper. That request was taken under consideration by the Transport Commission. In their recent ruling — and it's important that we understand the nature of the ruling — they issued two orders: first, that Via Rail and the Canadian National Railway company shall not discontinue operation of the said passenger train service; secondly, that prior to April 19 they had to post their tariff rates, and all the rest of that.

But in arriving at the decision, the Transport Commission states that the said passenger train service is uneconomic and is likely to continue to be uneconomic. It seems to me that that's a very important point to make when we talk about the system of regulation of transportation that we have in this country, and the protection that it offers to consumers and communities. We are now proposing to make some fairly massive changes in that system. I suppose some of the rationale is that the need does not exist that originally existed in our country — that our transportation systems have grown up, that they're more sophisticated now and that now is the time to simply....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: How much time? Two minutes? Well, I told you, Mr. Speaker, I could only present an overview, and I haven't even started yet.

They're suggesting that we now start to change that thing. One of the danger points I think we should be quite cognizant of is that we will lose, under the reverse onus provisions of the proposed changes, the opportunity that the minister has availed himself of, of applying to the Canadian Transport Commission to ask them to intervene in CN's request to abandon. We'll lose that very important protection that we have grown accustomed to.

We have seen in other jurisdictions, and increasingly in Canada, where when regulation disappears, monopoly does appear. For example, in Canada we've gone to really only two major domestic airlines, where we had many before. This is a prelude to deregulation. In British Columbia we've seen in the trucking industry.... A recent letter I received from a trucking company indicates that we're seeing more and more the consolidation of the independent companies into single companies, because they feel that under a deregulated atmosphere, the small companies can't survive. In other words, the trend in business seems to be the opposite of what deregulation is purporting to bring about.

It's interesting that the B.C. Motor Transport Association and the independent trucking companies in this province — the B.C. Motor Transport Association represents some 400 companies, 9,000 jobs and $700 million worth of business — are vigorously opposed to these kinds of moves.

One last point — and the trucking companies do make it — is that the jobs that we've developed in the transportation industry are good, well-paying jobs, and where we've seen deregulation come in, we've seen those jobs changed to non-union, poorly paying jobs, along with a lot of bankruptcies in the business sector.

Again, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many things that have yet to be raised in regard to this issue, but I'll leave it at that.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member opposite that it's a very deep subject, and certainly not one that can be covered in any depth in a short 15-minute member's statement. Hopefully we can be looking forward in this assembly to further discussions as the session evolves.

The word "deregulation," as used in the federal context, is perhaps a misnomer, because in my view a lot of the things that I read coming out of Ottawa are not so much deregulation as re-regulation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I agree with the member regarding his concerns about small communities. He didn't mention transportation fares for passengers, but I certainly would include that. This minister is certainly concerned about the small communities and transportation for them as it applies to buses, and I assure the member that....

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to apologize for the elitists opposite, in their comments.

Mr. Speaker, regarding the safety aspects of the deregulation, I can assure the member opposite that the federal government and the ministers of transportation and highways, in western Canada at least, are certainly working hand in hand to see that a proper national safety code is brought into effect. We expect that to be brought into effect on January 1, 1989, and hopefully that will prevent the situation that evolved in the United States when deregulation was brought about there.

I can assure the member that the minister is very concerned about deregulation. We intend to tread very lightly, to communicate with all interested parties, with communities — particularly the small communities in British Columbia — and with the industry. I disagree with what the member said about certain associations being strongly opposed. There is some opposition, but to use the words "strongly opposed" I don't think is correct. I think that people are prepared to sit down and discuss it and debate it in a logical manner, and hopefully when the legislation is brought in in British Columbia it will dovetail and fit in with the federal government's so that we have a standard national safety code applicable to all provinces, so that transport, when crossing borders, will not be subject to one rule on one side of the border and another rule on the other side. Hopefully, when we look at deregulation in general, we will have a consensus across the Dominion of Canada so that the rules will be applied equitably to all those involved in the very important transport industry.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, we don't have the time to get into any depth of debate today, but I look forward to embarking on further discussions as the session evolves.

MR. MILLER: I acknowledge the comments of the minister, and I appreciate his recognition of concern about the way we're heading. I believe in competition. I think that in an atmosphere where it's possible for competition to exist, that it indeed offers protection for consumers; it offers, I think, a system where business is required to be efficient. It doesn't always work; sometimes the people who pay the heaviest price, as we've seen in the United States, are those well paying jobs that I talked about, and that could be a negative impact. I think that sometimes members on the opposite side don't really consider that to be a negative.

Certainly government, having assumed the role of a regulator, also has a responsibility to ensure that the regulations

[ Page 1457 ]

do not allow stagnation, that the regulations are looked at from time to time, that perhaps the industry needs shaking up from time to time to ensure that they are using new technology, that they are efficient, that they're not simply taking the licence that they have to operate and not really trying to improve their operation. We have that responsibility. Therefore I think the appropriate word is re-regulation, and if we toss the word deregulation away, we'd be a lot better off.

[10:45]

With regard to trucking safety, I deliberately didn't raise that issue in my remarks, because I do believe that there is some good work being done in Canada to head off the kind of situation that developed in the United States. I do disagree with the minister, however, on the dates of implementation, and there is some concern. There is a recent report of the allparty federal transport committee. The transcript of the meeting in Vancouver was just made available to me yesterday. I note that Mr. Jackman of the motor vehicle department indicates that all aspects of the national safety thing will be in effect in 1991. So there is some concern about a time-lag between the passage of Bills C-18 and C-19 at the federal level and the final implementation or putting into place of all of the features of the safety program. But I do say that I think that the safety program will probably be a good one when it is implemented.

Just to conclude, seeing as how this is a very controversial subject, and looking at the way in which it was handled on the federal level through the transport committee, it seems entirely appropriate to me, Mr. Speaker, that given the concerns expressed by the unions and by the trucking industry in general and given the acknowledgment of the minister that this is an area that could involve some dispute, certainly the vehicle of an all-party committee, a transport committee of this House, would be an appropriate means of investigating this issue prior to the introduction of legislation.

B.C. FOREST INDUSTRY MONOPOLY

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to speak this morning about an area that has been of real concern to me for a great number of years: the plight of the small entrepreneur in British Columbia's forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, the forest resource in this province has for several decades now been controlled by the large multinational giants. This situation began back in the 1940s and has escalated until today, when less than 7 percent of the total annual allowable cut in this province is in the hands of the little guy — less than 7 percent in both the small business enterprise and woodlot programs. Less than 7 percent of the total resource ever goes on the auction block, and because of that, as British Columbians, we have no idea what that resource is really worth.

Our forests are being, I believe, wasted and given away, and we simply stand by and watch it happen with apparent unconcern. The prophecy of Mr. H.R. MacMillan, speaking before the Sloan commission in the forties, has come true. I quote Mr. MacMillan, who said, when addressing that commission:

"A few companies would acquire control and form a monopoly. It will be managed by bureaucrats, fixers with a penthouse viewpoint, who, never having had rain in their lunch-buckets, would abuse the forests. Public interest would be victimized because the vigorous citizen business needed to provide the efficiency of competition would be denied logs and thereby prevented from penetration of the market."

He went on to say:

"We will be wasteful when we have excess timber, and when the pulp and paper people get hold of my company, it will he like a blight on the prairie wheat. They do not understand the forest."

All of these things have come true. Ninety-three percent of the forest land in British Columbia is in the stranglehold of these large multinational forest monopolies — a disgraceful situation. Where does that leave the ordinary British Columbian? Out in the cold, starving, fighting over a few paltry cubic metres of timber — less than 7 percent of the total annual allowable cut of this province.

Even that does not satisfy the ravenous appetite of the monopolies. Even much of that, through surrogate bidding, is wrenched from the grasp of the small logger and trucker and mill operator. The faceless giants who control our timber from outside our boundaries want it all. They want it all, even that 7 percent. They control the timber and the price, leaving absolutely no opportunity whatsoever for those hanging by their fingernails in the industry now or those trying, as British Columbians, to avail themselves of what is supposed to be their resource.

Horrendous amounts of wood are being wasted. Sawlog material is being made into pulp. Our good timber is virtually disappearing before our eyes, and we, the people of British Columbia, see absolutely no return for that timber. We not only get nothing for it, we pay, through situations such as section 88, to have it taken.

What does this mean for the future of British Columbia? I'll tell you what it means. It will mean the demise of not only our small business people in the forest industry, but, as well, total communities are at risk. At this very moment in communities throughout this province, and particularly in the northern two-thirds of British Columbia, monstrous, highly automated, what I call spaghetti factories are literally gobbling up the very best timber that this province can offer.

What will happen when that good wood is gone? When that good wood is gone, when that wood that is left is no longer sought after by world markets, I'll tell you what will happen. Those large monopolies will be gone also. What do they care about small communities in British Columbia? What do they care about people? If they cared about them, they wouldn't have driven them out of their own resource in the first place. They're here for good timber and good times, and the multimillions of dollars which that returns to their well-filled pockets. It's a disaster of monumental proportions, which, unless turned around, will in fact be the very demise of this province's economy, as the forest industry makes up 55 percent of that economy.

As surely as it has meant the demise of the small operator in the industry, it will mean the demise of those small communities of which I speak. It's meant the demise of the small entrepreneur, and it will surely, if allowed to continue, mean the demise of the forest industry in British Columbia.

HON. MR. PARKER: The small business enterprise program is a key part of forest management in British Columbia and will continue to he so, and it will be increased when and where it's possible. I might point out that it may be 7 percent today, but a few months ago it was only 7 percent as well.

[ Page 1458 ]

The comment was that the industry is only here for the good times, and the member mentioned Mr. MacMillan — who commenced his enterprise in 1916, so I guess he's only been here for 80 years of good times; he hasn't stuck it through the Depression and his company didn't manage to struggle through the recession of the eighties. They're only here for the good times,

A lot of the communities in this province were established by the forest industry, and as the forest industry matures and consolidates we see communities like Prince George, Mackenzie. We see growth in the community of Hazelton; we see stability in the community of Smithers; we see stability in the community of Bums Lake, and so on. We see all kinds of opportunities. You're only limited by your imagination in the forest industry in British Columbia. Look at the opportunities seized by the employees of Evans Products in Golden in moving together as a group of employees and acquiring the plywood plant and sawmill there, and continuing employment, and seizing a good opportunity for themselves as small entrepreneurs to carry on in the forest industry.

The forest industry is a dynamic environment and there is change every day, but in that change we will continue to remember the small business operator. And it's not just the people the member alluded to; it's also all those who service the industry and the logging contractors — everybody who makes up the fabric of the industry. We represent all of them from the big to the small, and we'll continue to administer the resource of this province in a judicious and fair manner.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to hear the former Minister of Forests saying some of these things we've heard today. I think it's what happens when one reflects after holding high office, and I hope some of those goals were there when he held that office. Nevertheless, we've had, both under his tenure and this minister's tenure, an approach that has not been generous in terms of the small business program. There have been tree-farm licences granted under the former minister's tenure where there was indeed only 7 percent allocated for the small business program — I would make that note at this point.

We're now teaming, out of reports like the Prince George TSA report and the rest of it, what really is happening within this industry in terms of a misallocation; in terms of an inadequate stumpage system; in terms of people who have become instant millionaires by generous, inadequate policies; in terms of allowing overcutting in the central areas around the main community. It is gross mismanagement where foresters or bureaucrats have allowed the lines to be redrawn to pretend that there has been good forestry practice when there has been anything but — the Prince George region with a 40-kilommter — long clearcut, the biggest in North America.

HON. MR. PARKER: Sanitation cut.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sanitation cut; it's a sanitary corridor 40 kilometres long. Try and sell that to any grade 6 environmental student, Mr. Minister.

He talks about it being dynamic. It's closed. It's a closed industry where new players are not allowed; they are forbidden. The member for Omineca is absolutely right; you have to be a millionaire to buy in. And if you want the details, bring on your estimates right away, Mr. Minister, in terms of having to be a millionaire to buy in on public timber that was already stolen from us.

But if you want to talk about a dynamic industry, we were in Penticton just a week ago and we saw a small plant of about 100 employees producing furniture for Ikea — furniture, at last, being produced in British Columbia. Do you know their only constraint, Mr. Speaker? Their only constraint is the lack of wood in a wood-rich province. They have to go to little bush mills because the people you've allocated wood to don't provide it for them — they can't be bothered. And it's turning out valuable material worth over $3,000 a thousand, compared to your spaghetti factories that turn out the $200 2-by-4s — not dynamism at all.

Mr. Minister, bring on your estimates. Bring on your estimates and let's give you an education.

[11:00]

MR. KEMPF: Certainly we are going to be talking a lot more about this in the minister's estimates in the weeks and months ahead.

I just want to relate to what was said yesterday in question period by the Premier. I think it summed it all up when he said: "I am sure, with the fact that the forest industry generally now is doing extremely well." The forest industry has always done extremely well in British Columbia, but the people haven't done extremely well because of that industry. Sure, it provides jobs. You bet it provides jobs, but not half as many jobs as would be provided if that resource were fairly distributed among the people of this province.

Successive administrations, ministers and Premiers have virtually taken their orders from the multinational corporations in the forest industry of this province. Why, Mr. Speaker? We talk of conflict of interest in this chamber and in this province. What kind of conflict of interest was it when the monopoly provided their man to come over from Vancouver, to take on the job as deputy minister, to write the new Forest Act and then to go back to the COFI offices in Vancouver.

We talk of conflict of interest; we talk of sharing. We talk of the possibility everywhere of giving the small guy a chance — less than 7 percent of the annual allowable cut in the province in the hands of British Columbians. It is disgraceful. The only thing the entrepreneur is limited by — and the member said it — is the lack of a raw material to log or to saw, because it is in the grasp of offshore, multinational, monopolistic corporations.

Mr. Speaker, it has to end. You can change as many Forests ministers as you like. But I will tell you it's got to end, because the people — that's the reason we will talk about it more in estimates — have got to realize that there is no free enterprise in the forest industry of British Columbia. There hasn't been for 40 years, and it's got to change. The people of this province have to be able to derive some benefit. Those corporations are stealing from this province an estimated $1 billion a year.

We don't have to have a deficit. We don't have to raise taxes on property. We don't have to raise all those other taxes, as was done in the budget. We need only get our fair share from the forest industry.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICES

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to handle myself in a way that recognizes that the anger just

[ Page 1459 ]

expressed is an anger that I too feel. Very precisely the issue I want to talk about today, the fact that the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and his ministry are hamstrung, is directly related to the message that we've just been hearing in the previous statements and debate: that the squandering of resources and the unfair distribution of the fruits of resources is being used as an excuse to deprive this province of adequate, fair and reasonable social policy. It is high time that we recognized that sound social policy is sound economics, and that all of these issues are interconnected.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a situation in this province where it is very clear that family and child services are in disarray. They are in disarray, and we have the tragic scenario of the minister having to try, with all the ability he can muster — and he has a lot of ability in public relations — to some how carry that off and be the spokesperson for a government that really does not care about doing anything creative through that particular ministry and has not cared about that for quite some time.

I would like to think that the spirit of consultation that has been evidenced through the adoption registry issue could permeate the entire ministry, because if that were the case, there could be some hope. I am referring to the issue of the firing of Andrew Armitage and the statements that he has been making.

I want to make it very clear that what we are hearing from Mr. Armitage is not isolated. We only have to think back to the legacy of the Social Credit government in this province.

Go back to the 1960s, when Ruby McKay, through frustration over not being allowed to perform her assigned responsibilities, left; and then to the late 1970s, when Vic Belknap, a person who was second to none in terms of qualifications to be addressing issues with regard to children and families, was shuffled aside after he had produced an exemplary report that would bring this province up to date with regard to family and child services.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is an attitudinal problem: behave like an ostrich with its head in the sand and not face the problems that are obviously there. And the problem is at the ministerial and cabinet level. I find it extremely frustrat ing when we raise questions — legitimate questions — and the answers are turned around in such a way that it's made to look as though we are criticizing the staff, the people who labour within that ministry and without the kind of support that enables them to fulfill their professional training and to serve the people of this province in the way they are capable of doing but are prevented from doing because of the restric tions and the closed-mind attitude that exists within that ministry.

Mr. Armitage stated that he worked for change, and the minister had the unmitigated gall to say that Mr. Armitage never raised those issues within that ministry. I would like to ask that minister how he knows that. How does he know that that public servant never raised those issues within that minis try? And how could he ever in conscience be a member of a cabinet that would participate in a government that would hire somebody who didn't have a reputation for raising is sues? Surely when Mr. Nielsen stood in this Legislature and in glowing terms announced the hiring of Andrew Armitage, he was talking about somebody who was going to bring into that ministry a dimension that was sadly lacking; a dimension that was needed; a dimension that would look at the needs of children and recognize the need for advocacy; somebody who would stand up for children and bring a breath of fresh air into this province.

When this decent, fine man who has been fired gets to the point of making public statements that might be helpful if you would stop and listen to them, this is what is said: "He never said this while he was in that job." How, in any kind of conscience, can that statement be made about that individual? And how blatantly unfair it is, not only to that individual but to the people of this province, and especially to the voiceless ones in many instances — the children.

Mr. Speaker, we have a sad problem on our hands, and it is a problem of philosophy. I would like to say that the minister, to his credit, has I think been very straightforward during the estimates in saying....He was not straightforward on everything, but he was straightforward in admitting that the philosophy of his ministry is one of crisis intervention. Therefore we have a situation here that's quite special because we have two philosophies standing side by side: one says that crisis intervention is the role of that ministry, and one says that the preventive approach is the moral approach, he compassionate approach. And it's the economically sound approach, because if we don't look at these issues on a ten-year basis when we're looking at bottom-line financial statements, we will continue to be hoodwinked by the minimal savings that are made in a year such as 1983.

We're then left with the cat-and-mouse game that fires family support workers — more than 200 of them. Mike Tytherleigh said in the Province the other day that that was one of the worst things ever done in the name of restraint. We have the firing of those workers, the downgrading of child services, and what happens a few years later? This year in the throne speech and in the budget we hear that families have suddenly become important again, and a few dollars are put back.

My time is up, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The one statement that the member made that I could agree with is his last one, when he said his time was up. I think that's about the only thing he said that in all conscience I can agree with.

To take his comments from the top as best I can, when he says that family and child services, to use his words, are in disarray in this province, he is not correct. I think this government is doing a good job with regard to families and children. It's a top priority of this government. To say, to use his words, that we do not care about families and children is unacceptable.

We do not have an attitudinal problem. As he pointed out, it's mentioned by the Premier right in the throne speech that he top priorities in this ministry are families and children.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We take a very, very strong view about the family and children in this province, and do everything we can to keep the family unit together. It's a top priority. There are times, and I am sure Mr. Armitage and that member know, when it's impossible to reunite children with heir families. When we have to apprehend a child for his or her safety because they've been half beaten to death, it is impossible to put that child back into a family setting at that particular time.

To say that we are a crisis intervention ministry is absoutely correct. I said it in my estimates, and I'll say it again.

[ Page 1460 ]

Sure, we plan for the long term. That's why I've taken the social policy committee of cabinet around this province to hear from the front-line workers who deliver the service and who know best where we should be heading in the years to come. But we have to be a crisis intervention ministry.

I wonder if the member realizes that many times when we do intervene it's at 2 o'clock in the morning or midnight, when the police have called the emergency services and a social worker has to attend. You can't plan for that, Mr. Member. You must be a crisis intervention facility, and we are. And we do an excellent job of it, I might add. I have nothing but praise for the staff in the ministry. The staff, under duress many times, and in very difficult circumstances, make some very difficult decisions, and most of the time they make the right decision.

I was correct, Mr. Member, when I said that Mr. Armitage never mentioned these issues to me. I didn't say that he didn't bring them up within the ministry; he may have. My information is that he did not. I don't like to stand in this House and pick on one certain individual. I find it against my style, and I don't wish to pick on Mr. Armitage. But suffice it to say that Mr. Armitage is no longer in his position in the ministry, and not because of his views on child apprehension or family and child services. That's not the reason he's no longer with this ministry.

The person who has been appointed to take his place is doing an exemplary job. She has been in the ministry and in that position before. As a matter of fact, she was doing much of the job before she got it officially. So I would commend to the member that maybe he should introduce himself to the new superintendent of family and child services. Her name is Leslie Arnold. Go over and meet her and have a talk with her, and I am sure that you will be as impressed as I am with her credentials and her attitude toward families and children.

For him to stand in this House and say that this government doesn't care about families or children is totally unacceptable. I find it repulsive, and I can't find strong enough terms to condemn those statements. To say, also, that I wasn't straightforward in my estimates.... I find that a personal affront. I answered every question as succinctly and as accurately as possible. Sometimes I answered the same question several times, and I am sure the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) knows what I am talking about, when the same question is asked 15 or 20 times.

In answer to the member's statement that I wasn't straightforward on everything, I'd like him to let me know what I wasn't straightforward on, and maybe I can straighten the record out for him.

We do plan for the long term in this ministry. I am sure the member knows that. That is why, again, we are, with the social policy committee of cabinet, planning for the next five or ten years: to do the very best we can for those who are less fortunate than ourselves.

[11:15]

MR. CASHORE: I think we saw some good examples there about the very thing I was referring to: we make comments pertaining to the philosophy within the ministry, and it's turned around to make it look as though we're attacking people like Leslie Arnold. That's not the case. Leslie Arnold has a very solid reputation; I have a great deal of admiration for her.

The question that concerns me is: is she going to be in the same bind that so many social workers are in in this province, where they are denied the opportunity to fulfill their vocational potential and to serve the people to the best of their ability? Now you may not think that's true, but I think it is true. I think once Mr. Armitage got into his job, he was gagged. I think he was there for window dressing. When he made suggestions, I don't think that creative process was allowed to develop and allowed to result in the kinds of improvements that were needed in this province.

What we see there is simply a microcosm of what is happening throughout the ministry. Social workers also are gagged. If you talk to people who know social workers — and they are afraid to say this publicly, but they say it privately — they are experiencing burnout. It is not so much because of calls in the middle of night that he referred to that you can't comment on — and I understand you can't comment on that — but it is because they are overworked and because their work has been downgraded, so that they are not functioning as social workers but as administrators.

It is because there is a whole mindset within that ministry that is really detrimental and harmful. Why not for a moment back off and think it over and look at the kinds of things that Mr. Armitage is saying? Just as Mr. Armitage has been gagged and social workers have been gagged, I want to know why, when I was in Chilliwack this past week to meet with community service workers, the person who organized the event told me that people from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing were not allowed to be there. The simple purpose was for me as a member of the opposition to be there and hear their concerns, but there was, in effect, a gag order. They were not to talk to members of the opposition in that type of a setting unless they had permission from above.

I would like to know who is issuing gag orders such as this. I am not saying, by the way, that they are not allowed to talk to us in any circumstances. We get very good cooperation in the constituency office work that we do. I want to make it very clear. I don't want you to put those words in my mouth. I am not saying that. But I am saying there is a climate of fear out there, and it is very destructive.

I think that what we are seeing with Mr. Armitage is just the tip of the iceberg. It is high time that we take a new approach to services for children within this province. One of the things that we are intending to do is to put forward a children's bill of rights and to use that as a beginning to a kind of dialogue that will invite public response.

I would like to conclude by saying that we should listen to what Andrew Armitage has to say. His credentials are very good.

MR. ROSE: I suppose we can call this a point of order, but it is actually a point of compliment, Mr. Speaker.

When the rules reform committee chaired by Your Honour introduced — or invented, if you like — standing order 25A, it was an attempt to get away from the set pieces and give people an opportunity to debate and to bring constituency concerns or public concerns by the private member to the floor of the House.

It was invented also to give people a chance that they might not ordinarily have in question period or any other time to discuss matters with ministers. This morning, to my knowledge, is the first time it has ever happened that four ministers have been present to comment and respond to

[ Page 1461 ]

issues raised. I think that is a very good record, and this is the first occasion that rule 25A has worked perfectly.

I would like to say on behalf of the opposition how pleased we are that the ministers are respecting this particular session. It works well only if the ministers respect it. I congratulate them for being here.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I just hope you will provide me the same latitude to comment on what the opposition House Leader did. I commend him for his remarks, because I can remember the last time we had an exchange over how private members' statements should work. I too thought this morning they worked very well. I want to thank the Chair for the latitude you allowed me to respond to the member for Cowichan-Malahat so that we could get a dialogue going here. I think it is working as it should, thank you very much.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave, I call committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Further, Mr. Speaker, while we are passing out compliments, although a lot of members might not agree with the intent of Bill 19, I would like to congratulate and thank legislative counsel for the consolidated copy. With a bill like this, having this type of printing done for the benefit of the House is very good. You've got a consolidated copy in your book with amendments in it, yes. So my compliments to legislative counsel for preparation of this consolidated copy.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

On the amendment to section 8.

MR. GABELMANN: The House Leader and I were talking about two different things. The useful thing that we have is the consolidation of the Labour Code and the Bill 19 amendments. That's what has made it easier to follow this debate. What the legislative counsel has done is of value, but not quite so much.

Madam Chair, I think it's important this morning, in starting out, to go through in some detail what has happened with the amendment introduced yesterday afternoon at 2:30, because for one reason or another there have been gross misrepresentations about what that amendment will do.

Just to cite a couple that I know of on my own account, the 7:30 radio news on CBC this morning was completely inaccurate. They totally misunderstood the intent of this amendment. The column in the Times-Colonist this morning, by Jim Hume, also totally misunderstood and, unfortunately, misrepresented the intent of this particular section. No doubt other news outlets have similarly made this error.

The error is not of their making, Madam Chair; the error is of the Premier's making. The Premier, following the cabinet meeting on Wednesday night, and again on Thursday, suggested to members of the media that the amendment was needed because trade union members who did not want to participate in a walkout on Monday were facing disciplinary action from their unions, and therefore the amendment was required. The amendment was required, he suggested — and much of the media appears to have agreed — in order to allow for those people who did not agree with the majority in their union, who wanted to go to work in an unimpeded way without suffering penalty from their union.

It's unfortunate that the Premier does not know, or chooses not to acknowledge, the law in this province. In 1984 this Legislature passed amendments to section 5 of the Labour Code. It's important, I think, to remind members, because it's totally on the point of this amendment. Section 5 of the Code, since 1984, and unchanged by this legislation we're debating, is the "fair and reasonable conditions of membership" clause. It says, in part:"' Unlawful industrial action' means industrial action that is prohibited by order by or under this Act. No trade union shall expel, suspend or impose a penalty on a member, or refuse membership..." or do a whole bunch of other things as a result of members' refusing to go along with the union request that they honour such a walkout as is proposed on Monday. The law is clear and specific. It is not legal for trade unions to discipline, harass or do anything to members who do not go along with the leadership.

I made that point yesterday afternoon in response to the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), when he stood up and asked the question about the phone call he'd had from a former constituent who, he said, was being harassed or threatened with possible disciplinary action by his union if he went to work on Monday. The minister agreed, I believe, with my answer to that member, which was that section 5 is available. Yet we have the Premier going around the province all day yesterday and the previous evening following cabinet, saying that an amendment.... He didn't talk about the amendment until after 2:30 yesterday, but he said that some action was necessary in order to curb this incredible power that unions apparently have to discipline people who don't go along with their wishes. It ain't so. It's just not the case.

When we have a difficult situation in labour relations, an inflamed situation already, it's really unfortunate that the Premier would go around and inflame the situation even more by — I'll have to be careful about the rules here — either knowingly or unknowingly telling the people things that are not quite factual. I won't say that it's misrepresentation, because I think I'd probably be called to order for that. But it certainly is inappropriate for the Premier of this province to misrepresent the law of this province and to use that misrepresentation as a mechanism to further inflame an already inflamed situation caused by the Premier. What is it that the Premier wants? Does he want more editorials like the one in the Globe and Mail this morning, so that the whole international business community, which reads the Globe and Mail, can know about our great labour-relations climate in this province? Is that what the Premier wants? Madam Chair, that's the first point.

1 think it's important to talk calmly about what this amendment will do. In order to do that, I think it's important to review what can happen now. At the present time, under the law in this province, an employer or a trade union or the Labour Relations Board on its own motion can seek a declaratory opinion; the board can on it own motion issue a declaratory opinion. That's available now. It's also available for the board, if it chooses, to file such a declaratory opinion in the

[ Page 1462 ]

Supreme Court. That's section 30, if my memory is correct, of the Code.

[11:30]

There have been attempts to get anticipatory declarations. The case that I can refer to is Better Value. The board refused, under the existing law, to order a declaratory opinion. That was appealed through to the appeal court, and the appeal court upheld the view — as I understand it — of the Labour Relations Board. So under the present law, an employer, a trade union or the board can issue a declaratory opinion, but not an anticipatory declaratory motion or declaration. That's my understanding of the law as it stands today.

What these changes — and we cannot consider just one change in isolation, because you have to run through all of the changes that tie in together with it.... The new situation will be that any person can ask the Industrial Relations Council for a declaratory opinion — any person. A person is defined as a member of a trade union, employer, trade union, etc., but in this case "person" doesn't mean person; it's not any citizen, as I understand the law. But any member of a trade union can now, as a result of these changes, go to the Industrial Relations Council and seek a declaratory opinion that some event that may or may not happen in the future shall be declared to be illegal — some event in the future that may or may not happen. But a person — a trade union member, employer, trade union, council of unions or accredited council of employers; any of those people — can go and say to the Industrial Relations Council: "We believe the law is going to be broken in the future." And if they can persuade the council of their view, the council can then issue a declaratory opinion.

That declaratory opinion, until now, could not be filed in the courts unless the board permitted it. The reasons for that are clear and obvious. What you need to do in labour relations is to keep cool to keep parties talking and avoid court intervention so as to avoid inflammation. Calmness, coolness and rationality are what help in industrial relations. So in order to prevent things getting out of hand, the Labour Board had the discretion of saying yes or no to a request that a declaratory opinion be filed in court.

It's an essential element in labour relations: discretion. That discretion no longer exists. The person, or any other person, as I read it, can take that declaratory opinion and say to the Industrial Relations Council: "I want that declaratory opinion filed." And the IRC has no choice; it must file that declaratory opinion. Then, if any action does happen that happens to break or violate opinion, you are not then in violation of a civil matter of your contract or even in violation of a board order; you are in contempt of court.

The penalties which are set out in this legislation, the penalties which are specific, do not apply, because contempt of court is not a matter to be treated in the same way as a violation of either a collective agreement or a civil statute. Contempt of court is a much more serious matter. The courts, which have no knowledge or involvement or day-to-day experience with the requirements to conduct meaningful labour relations, the requirements to maintain good relations between the parties, have no involvement in that. All they are concerned about is that a court order was violated, and that's a serious matter. They then have the option to do whatever they want in terms of penalties. They can seize assets. They can impose fines of any amount. They can throw people in jail. A 15-year-old kid was sentenced to jail for 60 days in Nova Scotia for laughing in court, because that's contempt of court.

Presumably this kind of contempt of court is more serious than that, so what kind of penalties are involved? And what does that do for labour relations? How does that improve industrial relations in this province? It does not. It makes it worse.

Everything the government intends to do under these amendments, and under this particular amendment, serves only to make things worse. Let's think for a while. What's the worst thing that has happened in labour relations in this province in the last year, in terms of our international reputation? Was it the IWA strike last year, or is it what's going on today? It's clearly what is going on today. No one would argue about that. And why is this going on today? Because the government, for some reason, fails to comprehend that industrial relations matters need to be conducted in a manner similar to marital relations. You cannot have laws that govern without having discretion. You must have discretion, and it's now gone.

I want to say, in the minute or so that I have left, that there's one further element in this, and it's a question we'll discuss when we get to section 70. All of this stuff is retroactive. People can apply today for orders that will break a law which has not yet passed and have that order, that request application, dealt with in the future based on the new law, as if it were law today. When you combine all of these elements with the introduction of this amendment, you have in this province a recipe for a climate in labour relations that will get worse and worse, that will fester until we come to the situation where the whole area will be unmanageable and ungovernable.

MR. R. FRASER: Not so.

MR. GABELMANN: The member says it's not so. One only needs to talk to neutrals in the business to determine the answer to that question. You don't have to talk to labour; talk to people who are neutral, who have experience with it on a day-to-day basis, which none of us in this House have, and you'll discover that that's the case.

This amendment inflames, provokes and is absolutely wrong, and we on this side of the House oppose it as strongly as it is possible to oppose it.

[11:45]

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 33

[ Page 1463 ]

NAYS — 16

On section 8 as amended.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister on this section.... We don't have a lot of serious problems with the other part of the section — I must say that to start with. Nor do we have any major problem with.... It's difficult, Madam Chairman.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Would members please be silent and take their places, or else hold their meetings in the hall.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, it's the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) — he's talking too loudly.

The problem being addressed here is primarily dispatch in construction unions, and it appears from the amendment that the government believes there's a problem with dispatch procedures. I'd like the minister to tell us what problems he's identified.

HON. L. HANSON: We have certainly not perceived a major problem with the hiring halls, but we have had some representations about the odd instance of allegedly preferential treatment being shown. I'm not suggesting that it is widespread, and this is certainly not a slur on the management of hiring halls in general, but I think it is reasonable, Madam Chairman. The wording in the act simply says that it be done in a fair and equitable manner, and that they dispatch people without undue — what should I say — aberration from what is fair and reasonable. While I think I agree with the member opposite that it's certainly not a major issue, there were a couple of representations to that effect, and I think that the member opposite would agree that hiring halls are generally operated in a very democratic manner. This section certainly has no difficulty with hiring hall practices, because in general they are.... There were a few aberrations suggested, but certainly not documented to the extent that there should be a representation to the Labour Relations Board or anything to that effect.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Before the member for North Island resumes, could I please ask the members who are having meetings to have them outside the House?

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate the minister's comments on this, because I think dispatch systems or hiring hall procedures are in fact eminently fair in this province, and for that reason the amendment wasn't really required. It's consistent with other legislation, and it's not a serious issue, except that the fact that you would make the amendment implies somewhat that there's a problem. But let's leave that.

I want to ask whether or not, in making the amendment, the Labour Relations Board decisions over the years which said that people on a dispatch list were not employees under the act in respect of section 7 is now changed — as a result of the word "person" replacing "employee."

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, without wasting a lot of time, I guess the answer is no.

MR. GABELMANN: Well. that's interesting. I would have thought that the answer would have been yes; but I guess the Industrial Relations Council will make that determination. Section 7 of the Code, which is the section where people can make complaints about fair and appropriate representation, didn't cover, as I understand board decisions over the years, persons who were on a list, because they were not employees. Now that those persons are persons — now that the word here in this Section is "person" rather than "employee" — I wonder if that definition will allow people who are on a list but not currently working to file section 7s.

The minister shakes his head no. Well, that's good because it makes it easier. I think that's all we have to say on this section.

Section 8 as amended approved on division.

On section 9.

MR. GABELMANN: Procedurally if the government intended to vote no, they wouldn't have introduced an amendment. I mean, there is an amendment to he put and the amendment is to delete. We'll vote in favour of the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay. I just want to say on this section anyway that I'm delighted that the Labour minister brought in a change to get rid of the Premier's agenda in this respect. Thank you for that.

MR. MILLER: If I stray here or display my confusion, forgive me, but the amendment is to delete section 9 in its entirety. The original proposal was to add some wording to section 9 of the Code. Am I straying now?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Right. But the new amendment deletes the existing wording in the Code.

MR. GABELMANN: It goes back to the Code language.

MR. MILLER: Well, as long as I can be assured that that's the case, that the existing wording under 9. I requiring membership, etc., in a trade union is still in there....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: All right.

Section 9 negatived.

On section 10.

MR. LOVICK: I want to start my consideration of this section and my dialogue with the Minister of Labour by

[ Page 1464 ]

posing one short question, and I ask him to answer the question in the spirit in which it is posed. I have some expertise and some background with the Charter and constitutional matters, and I have also some knowledge of the historical precedents for what we like to call our freedoms.

After a fairly close analysis of the proposed section 10 of the bill — i.e., 9.1 in the revised law — I really cannot understand what the connection is with the heading "freedom of association." I think I understand the intent of the provision, as I shall have occasion to demonstrate, but I say — and I don't mean to be disrespectful nor do I mean to be provocative — that I am confessing an absence of understanding on my own part.

What is the connection with this proposal and freedom of association? Perhaps we could start there if the minister would be so kind.

HON. L. HANSON: The section that is being amended by Bill 19 is that.... Heading the total section within the Code is that the collective agreement may provide for union membership. The freedom of expression heading is not part of the section heading. It only deals with the amendment that is being presented. Of course, I know the member has read the amendment, but it simply says....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Second member for Nanaimo on a point of order.

MR. LOVICK: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, and I'm interrupting on a point of order now because I think it's crucial. You said freedom of expression, and I believe it's freedom of association. Correct? I think it is very important, for the record.

HON. L. HANSON: The government believes that collective agreements should not be used to restrict access to employment opportunities for non-unionized employees or as a vehicle for organizing the unorganized. The employer should not be restricted from dealing with whomever he pleases, if it makes the best economic sense to do so. Then I can relate that to freedom of association.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you for the answer, Mr. Minister. I appreciate the candour with which it was given. I would suggest, however, that most people of my acquaintance who write about the concept of freedom of association would have some difficulty seeing that defence adduced to explain and defend the concept of freedom of association. However, I think we simply have a parting of the ways there. I think there is a very clear difference between our two sides, and obviously I am not about to elucidate on that at great length now.

Instead, let me turn directly to the proposal, section 9.1. First, let me begin by also offering some muted congratulation and appreciation. I am delighted that the minister, in the amendments to Bill 19, is willing to acknowledge that there is a special case to be made for construction work and construction projects, and that those things are deliberately excepted from this clause. I am pleased that that is the case. The construction unions, the building trades, have been arguing for a very long time that they are unique, they are special. But nobody seemed to be appreciating that, so apparently some steps have been taken in that regard. I am delighted to perceive that.

What I want to start by establishing, of course, is just whether in fact we understand one another and we are starting from the same point. Is it true, then, to say this about the existing Code? The existing Code allows the two parties to freely negotiate a contract in which certain things are allowed, certain things which impinge on and impact directly on a third party: namely, another employer and that employer's employees.

Specifically, there are three things: the existing Code allows two parties to enter into an agreement whereby the employees in a given bargaining unit can say they refuse to work with non-union employees in another operation. That is the first provision of the existing Code.

[12:00]

The second provision of the existing Code that this amendment is obviously designed to deal with is that an agreement can be negotiated whereby the two parties agree that the employees in this workplace can refuse to subcontract, or the employer will refuse to subcontract any work to non-unionized companies, or.... I am sorry, I think I have got this a little mixed up. Let me take it from the top.

The existing Code also makes provision where a particular agreement can be drawn whereby the management and the employees will agree that the employees or the employers must subcontract work only to unionized companies or companies whose employees enjoy certain terms and conditions of employment. I am sorry I mixed that up, Mr. Minister. I hope it becomes clear now. That's the second provision that the existing Code provides.

The third provision, again with the same preamble, is that management and employees can enter into an agreement that establishes as a condition that employers will purchase goods and services from companies whose employees belong to a union or enjoy certain terms and conditions of employment.

Those three clauses are in the existing Code; that is indeed the case. What we are being given in the amended version is in effect a statement that says that none of those three provisions will be allowed any longer. This is my first question: is that indeed the case? Do I understand correctly that the amendments have the force of that?

The minister nods, and I accept that as assent. Okay, thank you. I am sorry that this must appear to be a kind of pro forma ritualistic thing on my part, but it seems to me that what often happens in this chamber is that people begin talking in what I have referred to earlier as parallel streams, not about the same thing. So I want to establish first that we are talking about the same issue. The issue is to change the existing Code and to remove those three particular rights that were there before.

Let me offer, if I can, the three principal arguments that we have against this measure as presented here.

I'll defer to the minister.

HON. L. HANSON: I'd ask the House for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. L. HANSON: It is with great pleasure that I would ask the House to welcome, on behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), a class of children who are with us from the Bradshaw Elementary School — which is in Langley, of course — and their principal, Mr. John Galvin. Would the House please make them welcome.

[ Page 1465 ]

MR. LOVICK: I was saying before I yielded the floor, Madam Chairman, that we have three principal arguments against this measure, as enunciated in section 10, or 9.1 in the revised Code. The first is an argument that we have already presented, but it's just as relevant to this section as it has been to the others, and just as important now as it was in the other sections — indeed, perhaps more important, given that the strength of the argument is cumulative: the more evidences we can see of violation of the principle I'm about to refer to, the greater the cause for alarm. The principle I'm referring to, of course, is the sanctity of contract between two parties.

What this legislation is doing is effectively saying to the two parties that there are certain agreements we will not let you make. I spoke at some length about this subject before and suggested — dare I say at too great length, perhaps, for certain members — that there was something demonstrably, fundamentally wrong with that approach to legislation. I still feel that way. I still think that that is the concern: when two parties freely enter into an agreement, unless and until such agreement violates some fundamental principles about human rights or some such thing, that intervention or interference ought not to take place. Again, perhaps, that is simply a point of difference of principle, philosophy or ideology between our two sides, but I for one would like to note that objection. I will continue to make that objection, I might point out, with any piece of legislation emanating from the other side that violates the same principle.

The second concern we have with this proposed legislation is that it once again demonstrates what we have been saying — time and time again, if I may be allowed a little latitude in terms of repetition of phrase. It clearly comes down on the side of the employer. There is no question that it chooses up sides. This is in no way government serving as a mediator between the two sides. Government is coming down on one side.

Let me explain why that's the case. I don't think I'm exaggerating it at all. The reason that is so, Madam Chairman, is that what this bill really says to an employer is this: if you lose in negotiations, if you are dealing with a powerful enough union whose bargaining position is such that that union can take steps to protect its brothers and sisters elsewhere by ensuring that the members of a union entering into the contract will indeed be concerned with their brothers and sisters elsewhere; if you can have that clout in negotiations and can win an agreement that allows that to happen, we, the government, are going to say: "Sorry, we won't allow that to happen. Instead we will interfere with the negotiation you freely entered into, because the employer lost." Obviously this again curbs the employer's freedom of movement. There's no question that that's what the existing Code does. But the only explanation I can see for why government would take this step would be to say: "Clearly the employer wasn't able to withstand the pressure from the organized bargaining unit — the trade union. Therefore what we, the government, are going to do is to write the laws in a way that says: here's a little extra help, Mister or Madam Employer." This way you don't have to worry about being in a position where you can negotiate an agreement that you, the management, don't like. I suggest that that is the only reasonable construction one can put on this particular clause, and I am more than willing to yield to the minister should he wish to respond to that and challenge the conclusion I draw.

Do you want point three first? Let me give point three first then; I shall. The third point, I'm afraid, is a little more — dare I say? — abstract or cerebral or difficult to get hold of, but I think we can manage — even the member opposite, who is smiling and demonstrating some difficulty keeping up with us, Mr. Minister, thus far. The third contention I have in terms of what's wrong with this particular bill is that it forbids to the parties a contractual means whereby they can register disapproval in principle. I choose my words very carefully. Let me say that again, primarily for the benefit of the member for is it Columbia River?

MR. CRANDALL: Yes.

MR. LOVICK: Okay.

This bill, as I say, forbids the contractual means for the two parties to register their disapproval in principle of bad labour relations elsewhere. We're not talking for a moment about the fact that an employer may decide — given subtle pressures from the employees in a workplace — that yes, we agree with you; we're not going to support employer down the street X, because he or she does evil things. That can happen. We recognize that, Mr. Minister.

The point is, however, that what this section of the bill says is that you cannot in principle make a statement in your contract freely negotiated between the two parties that says: "We will have no truck nor trade with people who do as a matter of course things that are wrong from the perspective of good and fair and decent labour relations." I think that's an important concept, in the same way as the concept I was talking about the other day, Mr. Minister, dealing with secondary boycotts and so forth, when I was suggesting that what ought to happen is that employers and employees ought to be able to band together to do something for people beyond themselves. If we want to improve the condition of workers elsewhere, it seems to me we're provided a marvelous opportunity by the kinds of clauses that were written into the existing code, whereby workers and management in a given workplace could say: "We agree that we will not support certain practices elsewhere." What the government, I'm suggesting, by this legislation has done effectively is say: "You will no longer be allowed to take those principled stands." I think that's deplorable. I think that's a sad day for labour relations in this province.

As I said before — and I'll conclude with just this, Mr. Minister, for the moment, though certainly I'm anxious to hear your response — what we have in the old Code is a wonderful opportunity to do good, progressive, worthwhile, decent things. Government's role surely ought to be to encourage that kind of behaviour in the marketplace, rather than leave it to the vicissitudes of supply and demand, and suchlike. Government's role ought to be to provide a kind of benchmark, a kind of standard that others ought to aspire to. The old Code, I think, had precisely that built into it. The amendments to the Code which will make it the new code, I'm sad to relate, will have the opposite impact, and I hope that the minister then will reconsider such things as section 10; i.e., the new 9.1. I would anxiously await the minister's reply.

[12:15]

HON. L. HANSON: I do detect in the one, two, three sequence of the questions asked that there certainly is a relationship between all three of them. In fairness, probably

[ Page 1466 ]

without detailing each one, I'll give you an answer that in my opinion should cover all three.

First of all, we're not concerned with, not are we stopping, the sanctity of a contract other than as it relates to an agreement that influences third parties who are not sitting at that table and who are not having a chance to have input into the discussion, into the negotiations, winning or losing some points, as you have mentioned on that side. They are sitting out on the other side with absolutely no ability to influence what is being done to them at that table.

We also feel that it's wrong in philosophy to say that pressure should be applied through that process on another group of employees, who again are not sitting at that table. I guess the best expression is that the philosophy of top-down organizing is not something that we want to encourage. I'd also like to point out to the member opposite that there is no impediment that those people in that organization being dealt with at a table, that they're not present at, to have anything but the right to organize themselves if they so wish. They can make their deliberations, they can understand what unionization means to them, they can understand what it means to their workplace, and all of those other things. To us, an encouragement to say that if you unionize, your employer will have the ability to deal with all of these firms which are now restricted from you dealing with.... We feel it is a situation that provides, I guess, undue encouragement to them. They certainly have the ability, if they wish, to become organized. There is no impediment to that at all. But it's if they wish, rather than someone else encouraging or influencing them — whatever expression you want to use — to take that particular action.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, could I have leave for an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, it gives me great pleasure to introduce, on behalf of our Chairman of committees, a group of schoolchildren from Bradshaw Elementary School in Langley. Accompanying them today is their principal, John Galvin. Would you please welcome this group of students to the assembly.

MR. LOVICK: Let me begin, just to demonstrate that I am not entirely single-minded and not oblivious of the rest of the world around me, by adding my welcome to the students from the school. I hope you're enjoying yourselves. I am.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, there will be a quiz after, on the subject, as my colleague says.

I want to respond very briefly to the minister's remarks in answer to my question as he read it. First of all, let me just suggest that to say that we are not interfering with the sanctity of contract "other than" is a very scary argument. Clearly, if we say yes, we believe in the sanctity of contract "except that, " or "but that, " or "other than, " we're opening the door to a rather shaky principle, to put it graciously. So I'm wondering about the validity of that case.

The argument presented by the minister seems to be that we want to be concerned with third parties and that we want to make sure that what happens at this bargaining table will not have an impact on others. All right? I take it that that is indeed the case. Apropos of that, that point was made — the statement that we don't want to do anything to encourage organization either, so the government says: "Do we want to discourage?" Correct? Again the minister nods his head, and I appreciate that.

It seems to me there are two things wrong with that. The first is that if we pause to reflect a little about the problem, we will all see pretty clearly that what happens between any two parties in any kind of agreement tends to have an impact on third parties, however much we might suggest otherwise. What is negotiated by workers in one place with their employers inevitably has an impact elsewhere. To try to suggest that we are going to protect third parties from that, I think, is rather analogous to Canute trying to command the waves to stay back. It just doesn't work.

The second point, though — and perhaps a more serious one — is that I would like to suggest that government in a democratic society ought to encourage workers to get organized, to become unionized; or if not to go the entire route of becoming organized and certified bargaining agents, at least to aspire to the same working conditions and the same freedoms that organization brings with it. It would seem to me that government's duty is in fact to encourage that, rather than, as I have suggested, effectively putting impediments in the way, effectively coming down on the side of management, as I enunciated here — and I don't think, with all due respect, the minister disavowed that or demonstrated that was wrong on my part.

Again perhaps, though, Madam Chairman, this is simply a matter of difference of philosophy or attitude between the two sides. Perhaps I will leave it at that for the moment and allow my colleagues to pursue the matter, unless the minister wishes to respond, of course.

MR. CLARK: I will be fairly brief, because it is clearly a fundamental difference of philosophy between the parties. I just want to make a few points that I think are appropriate. This is an incredible government intervention in decisions of free parties to decide on what they do or don't want to do among themselves and to enter into contracts that do that.

I think this is very important. Employers have consistently tried to get this language out of their collective agreements, and consistently they have been convinced to keep it in. Unions have given something up in order to keep this language in their collective agreements. So it really is an expropriation. It is an act of the Legislature that expropriates something without compensation, because they have given up something in their collective bargaining process to get this kind of language in.

I just want to say, because I am not sure that all members understand, that the reason for clauses on contracting out is to protect the integrity of the bargaining unit, because it is job security precisely. What happens is that if you don't have protection.... If you are in an industrial setting, for example, and you have maintenance workers working for the company, the contract says things like: if you do contract out that maintenance work, it has to be to a union company in order that there is no financial incentive on the part of the employer to contract out those services. So in order for the union to protect the maintenance employees in that bargaining unit, they have that kind of contracting-out protection. That's the reason for it. When you say that that is no longer allowed, in a sense you provide a financial incentive for the

[ Page 1467 ]

employer to contract out things like maintenance work to non-union companies, and when you do that, you undermine the integrity of the bargaining unit. I think that's true in a number of cases all along the line.

When you do that, you invite industrial unrest. Workers are not going to allow their jobs to be contracted out, or allow jobs that are normally done by union work to be done outside by non-union work. They are not going to work alongside someone who's making $5 an hour; it's simply not going to happen. So if you take away the opportunity for a union to legally prohibit that kind of action, then the union is forced to look for other means to prohibit that kind of action. I'm not trying to be alarmist or say there's going to be violence or anything like that, I'm just saying that that's what is going to happen. It will be disruptive, and it quite simply won't work.

The minister has said that this is the intent of this legislation. The fact is, once again, that even if that's the intent as indicated, it has unintended consequences. It has consequences that aren't foreseen by the minister. That being the case, it simply won't work and potentially could cause bitterness in individual bargaining units. It could cause disruptions like wildcat strikes, etc., to prohibit things that were protected in the collective agreement. The union gave up something in order to get that, and now simply won't be able to do that through the mechanisms in British Columbia.

Could the minister comment on that?

HON. L. HANSON: I think maybe there's something that's not being completely understood here. Unions and employers will continue to be allowed to negotiate no-contracting-out provisions. I think I heard the member suggesting that they wouldn't be allowed, and I'd just like to clarify that point. The Section is not aimed at unions any more than at employers. It's aimed at dealing with what we see as a restraint of free trade.

MR. CLARK: I understand that, and that's a good point. The problem is, you're saying you can have an absolute prohibition, but not a partial one. Most unions would like an absolute ban, but what they've done is try to give the employer the flexibility that the employer constantly asks for, and still provide integrity to the bargaining unit. In most contracts the flexibility is there for the employer to contract out on occasion, but in order to protect their bargaining unit they say they have to make union wages; so there's no incentive to do so. If the minister is saying that you can have an absolute ban but you can't allow the employer the flexibility to contract out at the same wage levels, then there's an inconsistency on the government side as well. I think it forces unions into a position of trying to prohibit something which employers will fight very hard for because they want the flexibility. Is that a correct interpretation?

HON. L. HANSON: I guess I have to repeat that in a sense. It's not really true. Apart from the construction industry, the only categories of contracting-out clauses which will be permitted are those which prohibit contracting out entirely, as a flat statement, or ones which allow contracting out as long as there is no job loss in the bargaining unit, which is another form of it.

MR. GABELMANN: My own view of the wording coincides with the minister's view. That doesn't make us right, but it's more likely that we're right.

MR. LOVICK: Oh yeah?

MR. GABELMANN: More likely, only.

I think the situation, quickly put, is that a clause can exist which says no contracting out, period, or no contracting out which will diminish the number of employees in the unit. Those are all right. But those kinds of clauses are difficult to obtain. The pulp industry, for example, doesn't have a clause of that nature with its unions.

Most of the disputes in British Columbia in the last few years have had contracting out as one of their major issues. The IWA dispute last year was a good example of that. It's a fundamental issue in British Columbia labour relations now because of high unemployment and technological change. Employment levels are going down, and the number of persons needed to run the show is going down as well. So the whole question of job security and job preservation is a major issue.

[12:30]

One of the ways that unions could be protected previously, while giving employers flexibility, was to negotiate the kinds of clauses which will now be illegal. For example, in the forest industry and logging, employers were able under existing law to contract work out. They were required to do 50 percent in the first place in TFLs. But they were able to do more than that. The only requirement was that the subcontractor had to provide the same wages and benefits as were being provided the union members by the primary employer.

That flexibility for employers now appears to have disappeared. They will have to choose between having a prohibition on contracting out, or a prohibition on contracting out if it diminishes the number of employees in the unit — on the one hand they have got that choice — and no clause at all. Those are the choices that appear to be left.

Most of the resolutions that have evolved in recent years on that question have been a compromise between those two positions, enabling there to be some job security and also enabling management to have some flexibility as to how it gets its work done. Increasingly there has been work contracted out because employers find that less costly. The compromise has simply been one that allows for some security. You provide security by.... You don't protect your own job, but you might protect it a bit by insisting that the same wages and benefits be provided to somebody else who is coming in. So to a certain extent you do protect your job. But in forestry we have got TFLs where 90 percent, in some instances, of the workforce are under contract. So there hasn't been job security for those people working for the primary employer. What happens is that you get a dispute like we had last fall, essentially over this question.

Now you are going to force unions and employers to choose black or white, instead of being allowed to choose grey. I think that is the important point in this particular section. If I am right, and I believe I am, or if I am right in substance, I don't believe that could be the government's intention. I understand what the government is saying about its stated intention, which is that they don't want an employer and a union to make provisions that affect a third party; they don't want the primary parties to affect a third party. I do disagree with the government, but if that were the only impact of this change, we would have a shorter debate, We would disagree with you and go on to the next section.

[ Page 1468 ]

Let me just pause and say in parenthesis that I had hoped we would be able to get further than section 10 today. I must tell you; I hoped we'd be on to 30 or something by now. If you don't believe me, I really do mean that. But the problem is that half the sections in this bill are of such consequence that in many cases they have more importance than entire bits of legislation we've debated in this House. So we need to take the time. We particularly need to take the time when it appears as if there's an important issue at stake here. If I'm right, I don't think the government would intend this.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: This is the IWA situation.

I want to take a few minutes, because I want the minister to have a chance to confer and see whether we're right. If we're wrong, he can tell us, and if we're right, he may want to stand the section and make some changes. I don't believe it's the government's intention to say to management, "If through negotiations you're forced into a black and white situation of having a no-contracting-out clause, period, " which is what might be extracted from them in bargaining.... The alternative for a union is to have no protection, so they're going to have to go and get some protection.

To start with, we're going to have long disputes, because this contracting out, as I've said before, is a crucial issue for workers. We'll have long disputes, or we'll have settlements which will be black or white. A company could have to agree. They may be making buckets of money, as they are in pulp for the moment, and they decide they can't afford to have a long strike, so they say, "Okay, we'll have a clause saying no contracting out, " which is legal under this section. That denies them some flexibility.

Maybe I shouldn't be making this argument, but I think it's important that we on this side of the House make arguments that are fair and appropriate, and that's a fair and appropriate argument for an employer. I have no reluctance in making that particular case.

I'll stop for the moment and see whether the minister agrees with the general thrust of what we're saying, and if so, whether the results of this are what the government intends.

HON. L. HANSON: I'd like to point out again that the alternative to a no-contracting-out clause completely is the alternative of no loss of jobs in the bargaining unit. But I think that generally we recognize what the opposition is saying, and our philosophy is still that the influence should be restricted to the two people at the bargaining table. So I recognize what you're saying.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, let me say briefly — because I do want us to move on — that the government will come to regret this section.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We had a lengthy five- or six-month strike last year over this kind of issue. We're going to face more of it. If management feels it's in a strong position to protect itself from such a clause — either one of the clauses that are illegal — they're going to take long strikes over this issue. I don't understand why the government would be intent upon that kind of result.

I guess we've made the point. I want to make just one other point, which has been made by the member for Vancouver East, and that is the whole question of stripping from collective agreements clauses which have been freely negotiated, which of course this section does. If a clause contravenes this section, it's gone from the contract. People have gone hungry, people have lost houses, people have suffered incredible economic dislocation in order to get clauses like this, and they've given up other parts of a contract settlement — other parts of the package — in order to get clauses which will now be stripped. The government is offering no compensation. The government isn't saying: "Well, the contract has to be reopened in order to allow for some compensation, because if the clause hadn't been legal when it was negotiated, something else would have been gained — perhaps extra money, perhaps some other security." Something else would have been gained.

Here we have the government coming in on the side of the employer and taking away clauses that were freely negotiated and agreed to. It's just a principle that runs through the bill in a large number of sections, and certainly is present in this one. It's just inappropriate in a free and democratic society — absolutely inappropriate. You wouldn't do that to a contract between two commercial entities. After the fact, between two businesses who make a contract, the government wouldn't come in and strip away benefits that one side had reached — had got from the other. There would be uproar in this province if that kind of intervention occurred in commercial contracts, an absolute uproar. People would be screaming about free enterprise, and the hand of Big Brother government coming in and interfering in a way that's totally inappropriate in our society. That's what we would be hearing if you did this in commercial contracts. But you do it in labour contracts, and it seems to be fine. I just say that I can't understand and I can't believe that there is not more outrage about this kind of activity.

MR. MILLER: Indeed, it will be disappointing to the IWA members who were on strike for a considerable period of time last year to try to win benefits to protect their jobs that, through legislation, that situation is now being nullified.

1 want to deal with another situation that has come to our attention recently in meetings with the truck loggers. I think this clause could come into it. What they are saying is that as people who rely on the majors to acquire work, they are being squeezed. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) has talked about that squeeze, and the effect that it is having on some of these truck loggers, these stump-to-dump contractors. They quite clearly expressed.... These are people who have been in the forest industry all their lives, including one gentleman, who said: "I have been an active participant in this industry all my life, and I run a unionized company. I am being squeezed, and I know I am on my way out, but I am not going to go out without doing some kicking." We may hear more about that in a different setting than this.

But they are being squeezed, and in effect.... I won't go through all the details about the value of the forests or the timber, and what the contractors are asking to bid on, but one of the things that has been expressed in that debate between the large companies and the contractors is: "You can cut costs." They have no ability to arbitrate these contracts, so they are pretty well at the mercy of the majors. The message

[ Page 1469 ]

is clear: "You can cut your costs; you can cut your labour costs." In other words, go non-union.

These people are saying: "No, I have employees who have been in my employ for a good number of years. I have always been a union outfit. We do our job efficiently. We pay good wages. We are not ashamed of that." They are being forced to go the route of eliminating the union simply in order to be able to get work. It seems that this clause will impact directly in that process. It will be another aid to the majors in terms of their relationship with the truck loggers, the stump-to-dump contractors. So again, in the final analysis it's really a stacking of the deck, I suppose, against those jobs that I refer to as the well-paid union jobs, as opposed to the quite often poorly paid non-union jobs.

Again we get back to the spiral that we talked about which could take place, and the fact that those union jobs are a positive contributing factor to the economy of British Columbia. I know that generally a lot of concern has been expressed from various quarters about the cost of labour: that the cost of labour has to be reduced. But it may be an oversimplification on some people's part, when they're dealing with that question, to believe that by eliminating unions they will have solved the problem; in other words, that we really are solving our economic problems by driving wages down. I don't feel that we are. Certainly an employer looks at his labour costs, and that's a consideration in terms of doing business. But the solution to our economic problems is not to get rid of those jobs that pay well. It's to try to do something with our economy in terms of all the other things that could be done, such as value-added in the forest industry, and to bring some peace and harmony to the labour front, which quite frankly we're not doing by including these kinds of clauses.

I ask the minister to consider that seriously. I do wish my colleague the first member for Vancouver East were here to expand on the situation in the forest industry. He has considerably more knowledge than I do about that. But I do believe it's a serious issue. Perhaps the minister never considered that when he brought this amendment in.

Section 10 approved on division.

On section 11.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[12:45]

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: The amendment, as I understand it, is to delete the section that an exempted employee is not an employee. Is that correct? So under this section an exempted employee is an employee. Let me just ask a question, which I don't want to steal from the member for Vancouver East; it's his question, but it's the logical next one. Does that mean that the union is required to follow the provisions of fair representation for this person who does not pay dues?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, the amendment repeals section 11(2) of the Labour Code: "For the purposes of part 3 and section 81...an employee exempted under... section shall be deemed not to be an employee." The reason for that removal is that section 3 in Bill 19 covers that same ground, or at least handles the same issue. There appeared to be a duplication in the amendment, so we removed from the act the old section covering the same issue.

MR. GABELMANN: Without getting ratty, Madam Chairman, I must say that when you ask the minister a question he reads his briefing notes about what the amendment's intended to do.

I'm making the suggestion that employees who are exempted for religious reasons following this section, who are no longer required to pay dues to the union, still must, as a matter of law, be represented by the union in the question of fair representation. Isn't that correct?

HON. L. HANSON: The knowledge that I had from labour, as a matter of fact, on this issue is that a number of labour organizations had already agreed that those who had received exemption from the Labour Relations Board under the conscientious objection clause were in fact paying their annual or monthly assessment, whatever the case may be, to charities — by agreement with labour, which saw no difficulty in that at all. They had some concern that the number of objectors might be increased, or whatever, but the way the wording is now, they've seen very little difficulty with the situation. In fact, in many cases they were agreeing to it already, recognizing that they were responsible for representing...or at least that conscientious objectors got the benefit of representation as it relates to negotiations and so on.

MR. GABELMANN: It doesn't much matter to me what unions might have said to the minister about what they want. What matters is what we on this side of the House think about this question. The issue here is that people who, because of their religious convictions, refuse to pay money to a union....Let me pause and say in parentheses here that I can live with that; I can understand that. The same kind of principle is involved in conscientious objection about going to war. So while I would argue that they shouldn't, if they don't want to, be a member of the union, I would argue that if they want the benefits the union provides, then they should pay the freight. If they choose, as part of their religious objection which is a philosophical objection against unions, to neither be a member nor pay, how is it that they can get benefits from that union that they philosophically oppose? They take the negotiated wage instead of the minimum wage. They take the job security, which may be present in the contract, instead of the Employment Standards Act. They take all the protections in terms of discipline that may be provided in the Code, instead of the civil court remedy which exists if there's no collective agreement — plus they are eligible for defence by the union in terms of fair representation. They take all those things that the union gives them, while they're philosophically opposed to unions. So there needs to be some consistency.

Let's deal with it point by point. Let's say we all agree they don't have to be members of the union because there is a philosophical objection — fair enough; we can live with that; fine — which was the original way the legislation was drafted years ago. The next point, however, is the payment. They are so philosophically opposed to unions and what unions stand for and do that they refuse to pay. Fine; no pay; send the money to charity. But if the philosophical objection is so great, then they shouldn't have anything else to do with the union either, which includes accepting the pay that the union has negotiated for them, or which includes the protection of

[ Page 1470 ]

the collective agreement which the union has negotiated for them, or which includes the duty of fair representation which the Code requires of the union. There is a philosophical inconsistency here that is wide open, and I can't believe that it isn't obvious to everyone. If you have objection to the union in principal, fine, then don't have anything to do with it. But if you don't pay the freight, you shouldn't be able to collect the rewards.

MR. MILLER: I will just briefly add to the point made by my colleague. Paraphrasing a famous quote that got the person who said it into a heck of a lot of trouble, if you don't play the game, you can't make the rules. I don't know if anybody remembers Earl Butz, but he said it. I think it just puts it in a nutshell. The minister may now want to respond.

HON. L. HANSON: The member for North Island raises an interesting point. I guess it is a matter of interpretation. I think the expression was used that if you don't pay the freight, you shouldn't be able to haul the load or have the benefits of it. I suppose, in effect, if you want to be pure in the thing, the individual is paying the freight. The people who are giving the benefit are not getting the benefit of that freight, if you will, but there is a sector of society that is getting the benefit of that freight. I suppose that if the conscientious objector, in his own right — and we are not dealing with that here today — decided that he would like to take a lesser amount or give more of his salary to charity because he wasn't taking the benefit of that, that's up to the individual's decision.

But I understand exactly what you're saying. I understand the conscientious objection. I would like to ask the question, though.... I think we're really talking about Section 11 as a whole, as opposed to the amendment to section 11.

MR. MILLER: Well, the amendment affords the individual who wants to opt out the rights of full membership. Therefore here is a person who says: "Because of my conscientious beliefs, I cannot support a trade union. But if I get into trouble, I want the trade union to come and represent me, and if they don't do it, I'm going to take them to the board." It strikes me as a bit hypocritical that, first of all, an individual who felt strongly enough — and this is maybe departing from the legislation — to opt out would want to do that in the first place, because it seems to me that it would display that they really weren't conscientious objectors, and therefore you'd have to say: "Well, you'd better start paying your dues to the union." It would be proof positive that they really weren't.

If that's the case, I can support it. Would he accept that interpretation? Would a union be able to do that, to go to the board and say: "Look, this guy opted out of the union. He's a conscientious objector, and now he wants us to represent him. I guess therefore he's not that conscientious, or he doesn't object that much"? Does the minister agree with that?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I certainly think that will be a very interesting argument before the new board.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved on division.

On section 12.

MR. GABELMANN: Very briefly, Madam Chairman, on section 12....

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: This is not a major section of the bill, in our view, and we can get through it by adjournment time. There is an assumption here that unions are not able to look after their own procedures, and there is also an assumption here that the civil remedies now available are not appropriate. I recognize that the language appears to be taken from the Ontario Code and has not caused serious problems there. But in many ways, added together with so many other sections, it's a bit of an insult to trade unions in this province. As we've said before in other sections, trade unions are democratic and are able to handle their own affairs within their constitution. We feel that, while not making a major to-do about this particular section, it isn't really necessary. Unions in this province are quite capable of managing their own affairs.

Section 12 approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to once again wish everyone one here a very happy weekend. See you all Monday. At this point I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.

[ Page 1471 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

19 The Hon. L. Hanson to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 19) intituled Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 8, by adding the following:

(c) by adding the following subsections:

(3) A trade union, a council of trade unions and an employers' organization shall carry out its function of representation referred to in this Section in a fair and lawful manner.

(4) A person who considers that a trade union, a council of trade unions or an employers' organization is contravening or is about to contravene this section may apply to the council for a remedy under section 28.

SECTION 9, by deleting section 9.

SECTION 11, by adding the following:

(a.1) by repealing subsection (2), and .