[ Page 1599 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Mega garbage dumps. Mr. Vant –– 1599

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Smallwood

Child care. Ms. Marzari –– 1600

Mrs. Gran

Air ambulance. Mr. Guno –– 1602

Hon. Mr. Strachan

The Maquabeak Council. Mrs. Gran –– 1603

Mr. Guno

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1605

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Clark

Mr. Williams

Mr. Jansen

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf this morning, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome two guests of yours, Chris and Darrell Frith. They come from West Vancouver, and I would appreciate the House making them welcome on behalf of our Speaker.

Private Members' Statements

MEGA GARBAGE DUMPS

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, this morning I'm going to speak about mega garbage dumps, and believe me, for the most part I'm all for megaprojects — mega just simply means big. But I'm also for many things as well, and I'm sure the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) would agree with me wholeheartedly on that.

The issue is one which involves the whole province in general, but there is a proposal in my own constituency of Cariboo for a mega garbage dump proposed by Continental Environmental Systems Ltd. At this point in time they have been issued a permit, but thanks to the hon. Minister of Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan), due to the fact that most of the people in the vicinity of Koster, which is just east of 70 Mile House.... He will not authorize the movement of garbage from the Greater Vancouver Regional District to this proposed mega garbage dump just east of 70 Mile House. Indeed, on January 10 this year a meeting was held. Being a politician, I'm always willing to listen to what the people have to say, and at that meeting 178 people were against this proposal and only one person was for it.

With this proposal, and in the permit which they applied for and received, they are allowed to move 300,000 tonnes of garbage to put into this mega garbage dump — so that's what I mean by big. The problem is that they would be trucking — this is the proposal — this garbage in trailers that would hold 100 cubic metres. Each of these vehicles would haul 72 tonnes of garbage. That's a pretty heavy load, and I figured out that in order to move that volume of garbage from the Greater Vancouver Regional District to Koster siding would take no less than 4,250 trips per year. On a five-day week, it means that one of these giant garbage trucks would be coming and going up the canyon and the Cariboo Highway about every 15 minutes. As I have said earlier, I wouldn't want the Gold Rush Trail to become the garbage trail.

One of the main problems of this mega-garbage-dump proposal in the Cariboo is that it would be right on the central interior aquifer. This aquifer extends to Smithers in the northwest. It's underneath Prince George, Burns Lake, Quesnel, Williams Lake and, of course, 100 Mile House and all the way down to Clinton. Their permit is for commercial and light industrial garbage. To me, garbage can be both toxic and non-toxic, given that description. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this central interior aquifer, because about 12 percent of our municipalities get their water supply from the wells and from groundwater. So if we ever pollute the central interior aquifer with leaching from a giant garbage dump, we are in real trouble. Koster is in the Cariboo parklands biotic region and gets 20 to 30 inches of annual precipitation. This is in contrast to Cache Creek, which is in the dry forest biotic region, with only five to ten inches of annual precipitation.

The history of the Cariboo regarding proposed dumps is an interesting one. My partner MLA, the hon. first member (Mr. A. Fraser), just a few years ago opposed a toxic-waste dump. I want to mention now that in this province we create about 70,000 tonnes a year of toxic waste. This is according to the February 1987 edition of B.C. Business Magazine. Unfortunately, there is only one hazardous waste incinerator in B.C. and that is out at the University of British Columbia campus. This is largely unknown, and it's a very small volume plant. It looks after about 20 customers, mainly hospitals, schools and, of course, the university itself. It can only handle about 25 to 40 gallons of toxic waste per hour. Also, according to this same article, Lanny Hubbard, head of the waste management branch of the Ministry of Environment and Parks in Victoria, says that some companies treat their own waste on site. Many ship to the States, others are storing it on site, and still others, I am very sad to report to this House, are doing with it what they do with their coffee grounds and tin can type wastes: sending it to the city dump or flushing it down the sewer.

The Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia gave me a paper concerning preservation of groundwater quality. This policy statement says the experience in British Columbia and elsewhere has demonstrated that once water-bearing strata aquifers are contaminated, remedial action is time-consuming and very expensive. Removal of the contaminants from. an aquifer or the contaminant sources from a site is not always possible without incurring a lot of expense. Contaminated aquifers may not be capable of producing safe drinking-water for decades and possibly centuries.

[10:15]

Having said that, I am very upset to report that when the Thompson-Nicola Regional District in the interior inquired about who would be responsible for this mega garbage dump, a letter from the head of the waste management branch says....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member his time is up. Maybe he can make that statement in his wrap-up.

MR. VANT: I will just wrap this up. "I have been advised by our headquarters...."

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, dear member, the time is up, and the rules state that you must sit down. But you can use your final wrap-up to complete that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wanted to respond to the member, Mr. Speaker, but I see the critic, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), wishes to respond as well, so my comments will be brief.

Specifically, the ministry position on the Koster vis-a-vis Cache Creek situation: there's very little I can say at this point inasmuch as the Cache Creek situation — and I believe Koster — is before the Environmental Appeal Board; so as minister I'm almost in a sub judice situation. But I will explain to the House the decision that was taken by the ministry.

[ Page 1600 ]

Number one, both Koster and Cache Creek were approved by the Ministry of Environment and Parks on a technical basis. However, when the decision came to my desk. I sought opinion from the local governments, the local authorities, and clearly the regional district that covers Koster, as well as both members for the Cariboo, were opposed to this. So on that basis the ministry denied movement of any garbage to the Koster site. However, that was not the case at Cache Creek. The Corporation of the Village of Cache Creek did approve their site. So on that basis the decision was made by my ministry to allow that transfer of garbage from GVRD to Cache Creek to proceed.

There's not much more I can say at this point. It has gone before the Environmental Appeal Board and their decision won't be made for another couple of weeks.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to add my voice to the earlier member's appeal to have the Ministry of Environment and Parks reconsider what's going on, not only in the interior. I think we can't forget for a moment that what we're talking about is the fact that GVRD garbage is being trucked up to this gentleman's constituency. It's important to recognize that we're talking about the "not in my backyard" syndrome; that many people throughout this province are trying to grapple with the serious problem of waste disposal. The concerns that are being raised by communities about contamination, the quality of water and the quality of life, have valid implications. They are serious concerns and should be supported.

On the issue of the GVRD garbage that's being trucked up to Cache Creek, when the regional plan was adopted, my information from the people involved in that initial process is that there was never discussion of trucking GVRD garbage anywhere off the lower mainland. The intent and the work that was done around the GVRD proposal in the first place was to look for alternatives; to look for a responsible way of dealing with our own garbage in the lower mainland, not dumping it in somebody else's backyard. This process has gone on throughout the province for too long. We can no longer shirk our responsibility. We can no longer truck garbage or put it on barges to get it out of sight and therefore out of mind. I think that everyone in this province should be supporting the Cache Creek residents in their opposition, because clearly if it can happen in Cache Creek, it can happen anywhere.

The point that I want to emphasize is that while this is a very serious problem, it also presents opportunities for us in this province to be on the cutting edge of the technology for resource recovery, for recycling and for dealing with some of the questions of conservation and indeed reducing the garbage stream in the first place.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

In a letter to the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, the head of the waste management branch said this: "I have been advised by our headquarters in Victoria that the province of British Columbia, as issuer of permits, is not liable for any problems that might arise in the future." This was very upsetting to the people in the Cariboo. We can certainly learn from the sad experience of others. For example, right here on Vancouver Island there's the 30-year-old Hartland Avenue dump, and leachate drains from that dump at a rate of 900 litres a minute. The dump will be capped with clay over the next three years. This is from an April 3 edition of the Times-Colonist: the capital cost of discharging through the outfall is estimated to be $1.95 million.

In summing up, I'd like to urge this House and the government that a law be made by the province to make sure that garbage created in an area will be disposed of in that area. It could be through incinerators, recycling or a landfill properly run in their own area. I commend Don L'Heureux of the Cariboo Clean Water and Air Committee and all their efforts, the village of 100 Mile House, the city of Williams Lake, and the village of Clinton for their resolutions of concern regarding this giant mega-garbage-dump proposal at Koster siding. I, of course, wish them all the best in their appeal against the permit which was issued.

CHILD CARE

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, on August 30 of this year the Ministry of Social Services and Housing will be going to Ottawa to negotiate a deal for child care. It's a momentous occasion for Canadians, as it begins to recognize, after five massive studies over 15 years, that decent, standardized child care is an issue as crucial to our national infrastructure as roads and bridges. It is a special meeting constitutionally, as it sets the stage for future federal-provincial cost-sharing for social programs. It's the testing ground for the Meech Lake agreement. It's politically significant because it tells us that the federal government recognizes the power of the women's vote. And it represents a huge relief to thousands of women in this country: that finally we are coming of age as a society and pulling ourselves into the last half of the twentieth century, recognizing the fact of women in the workforce, the need for women to have some increased choice, and the reality that it is a social and economic asset to have decent child care.

Given the facts, the needs and the realities, then where do we fit in? What is our plan? What can B.C. contribute to this historic occasion? The short answer is commitment and responsibility. As the talks progress, many constituencies will be listening, not the least of which will be parents of young children; parents of all socio-economic backgrounds — those who can afford to pay for child care and those who can't. A majority of them have in common an interest in quality licensed care under the supervision of trained and qualified teachers. They're both on the same waiting lists, sometimes 12 months long.

What separates the socio-economic groups now is that those who can afford child care have a reasonable choice of the types of care. Those who can't afford to pay the whole shot themselves are not so lucky. They're the ones who need it most and have the least choice. I have numerous letters written to the Premier and members of this House from people who are in this position. I quote from one letter: "Generally speaking, in a divorce the woman's financial assets decrease, while the man's increase. Women are generally left with the children to care for, which means day-care costs come into play in order for the woman to work to support her family so she doesn't have to go on welfare. It really is the vicious circle."

The existing subsidies, recently increased, are still highly restrictive in terms of who they can go to, and still require topping up out of the family budget, which costs $90 per month per child on top of the subsidy in a three- to five-year old centre, and $150 per month for an 18-month to three-year-old centre — this is in addition to the subsidy. The

[ Page 1601 ]

topping-up that comes out of the individual family member's pocket is quite substantial.

I would suggest, at minimum, that this government set goals for this conference in August which would include: (1) meeting the need for licensed spaces from infant care to age 12 — at present we have 22, 000 spaces in B.C. but a knowledge that seven times that number need licensed spaces; (2) a goal of providing access to the service by allowing the subsidy rate to float to the need — in 1975 there were 12,000 parents receiving full-time and part-time subsidies, and in 1986 the number was the same, which says a great deal, when the need was growing by the day and the real incomes of many families were in decline; (3) a goal of affirming a commitment to licensing spaces in family and group centres to maintain consistent standards throughout the province, just as we license or accredit other public institutions and agencies — day care should not be an exception, especially since public money is involved; (4) a goal of providing some small per capita grant per month or establishing a line of credit to assist centres to deal with low enrolment or emergencies, which can leave a centre without enough to cover a payroll in a bad month; (5) a goal to study alternative and innovative child care models, such as using a local schoolroom as a resource centre or large play-space for ten or 12 neighbourhood family home centres or two or three group centres. For my colleagues in the House, a licensed family home can care for up to five children; a group centre cares for up to 25 children.

These measures are only policy recommendations designed to improve the existing imperfect system that we have. They don't begin to scratch the surface of what a universally accessible, affordable system would look like — not one based on a welfare model, but a care system based on a preschool education philosophy. That is to say, it would look a lot different if we considered the developmental needs of the children rather than the economic realities of their parents.

I know the minister generally gets upset by the notion of universally accessible, affordable care. He thinks it's political, and said so when I asked about it. And it is. All the more reason to discuss it here and now where it should be discussed, because to this point in this province it only gets discussed in church basements and mobile units, at night, when parents are already exhausted and would rather be putting their kids to bed. We discuss it in the day-care centres,

A few weeks ago, when the B.C. Daycare Action Coalition brought the discussion into the light of day, literally hundreds of people crowded meeting rooms in downtown Vancouver to speak out loud — people from across the political spectrum who are tired of seeing a child care system running at half-mast, not quite recognized and not quite legitimized, run by underpaid, committed people who, when they unionize, ironically end up bargaining with parents.

The federal invitation to consult is an invitation to do some of this bigger thinking, to think not just in cramped terms of immediate policy changes but about long-term goals and philosophies.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member her time is up.

MS. MARZARI: I would suggest, in fact, just to....

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately. hon. member, we have the seven minutes, and you will have to allow the members.... You will be able to finish when your wrap-up time is here.

[10:30]

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker. I wish that the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) were here to answer the member's remarks, but he's out of town, and I'll do my best to put forward the government's position.

This government, me included, is very concerned about day care. I've had many discussions with the Minister of Social Services and Housing, and I understand many of the difficulties that we would incur with universal day care. Having been a mother on my own with two children, and having to look for day care, I can appreciate the difficulties that women have, but I also appreciate the concerns of the taxpayers and the concerns of government. Universal day care has a price-tag, and it's a very high price-tag. Considering the economic condition of our country and, indeed, our province at this time, it's not a decision that can be taken lightly and made overnight.

It may sound cruel, but people have to start taking responsibility for their own actions. Marriages break up, for whatever reason. It's not necessarily the taxpayers' duty to pick up all of the bills that evolve from those marital difficulties. Although no woman should be left on her own with children and not helped by our society. I also believe that it's incumbent on the families of that woman and, in particular, the father of those children to do more to help. I understand that our government at this time is taking measures to make sure that that happens. It isn't something that just happens overnight, either. If a man decides that he is not going to pay support for his children, there are so many ways for him to get away from doing that that it's impossible for any government to make certain that people accept their responsibilities.

I received a letter on the comments I made some time ago regarding day care from the YM-YWCA in Langley. Those are the kinds of organizations that I think should be involved in day care, where it's partially volunteer and partially paid. They are people that you can depend on to care for your children. They're doing it because they have a need in their hearts to do something for people. Although the private sector is involved and should be involved in day care, as a mother I really would feel more comfortable leaving my children in a setting where there were volunteers and paid staff properly trained to look after their needs during the day, to teach them and not to just let them sit without the activities that children need to keep their active minds going.

I appreciate the member's comments, but I reiterate: our government is concerned and committed to day care,

MS. MARZARI: I'd like to suggest that if the government was truly committed to the needs of children, they would treat day care much the way we develop our fire departments, police departments, bridges and roads, and build an infrastructure. If we really believed that parents should take the responsibility in the community with volunteers, we wouldn't be taking welfare mothers off welfare and pushing them into unsupervised and unlicensed trainee positions for day care, we wouldn't be funding private boarding schools, and we wouldn't be supporting write-offs for nannies for upper- and middle-income parents. We would be passing laws to enforce parental leave at childbirth or for sick

[ Page 1602 ]

children. We'd be building supports for families at risk. We'd be doing a lot of things if the government was committed. If the government was truly committed to that kind of philosophy, I wouldn't have to be standing here.

How do the federal proposals fit into the big picture? The recommendations of the federal report suggest that over $700 million will be spent on child care in the '88-89 fiscal year, with an equivalent amount for subsequent years. Over half of that amount would be spent by not collecting income tax. The recommendation which increases the tax deduction to $4,000 per child, with a ceiling of $12,000, is a major step in the right direction for the middle-income earner, but for the lowincome earner or the mother on welfare it brings little or nothing. It might even play into the disastrous scenario of a welfare mother finding herself hired as a $12,000-a-year nanny by a professional mother. The irony is that neither will be guaranteed that her children are receiving quality care, yet both will be subsidized for that care with public money. We are in danger of spending public money to undermine an already vulnerable system.

Some of the forgone revenue will be distributed to parents who choose to work at home, in the form of tax credits — a laudable objective if it really had the hope of producing a choice for parents. However, a ceiling of $200 at this time makes it a token gesture and will be an insult if the mother on welfare has it deducted from her cheque.

The remainder of the money is slated for a direct 50 percent cost-sharing with the provinces, and that's what I want this province to talk about. I want this province to approach Ottawa and say: "We want more licensed, quality child care spaces." That is our goal for the short term at least, and that is what I would like our minister to come back from Ottawa with: more licensed spaces on a fifty-fifty cost-shared basis with the federal government.

MR. DE JONG: I would like to ask for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. DE JONG: I would like to introduce several students from the Christian Academy in the Abbotsford area, who are accompanied by their principal, Mr. Blair McHenry. I ask this House to welcome them.

AIR AMBULANCE

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad I have the opportunity this morning to make a statement on a matter that I believe to be of vital interest to my constituents in Atlin and, indeed, to people who live in other northern and rural areas: the continuance of the air ambulance service.

I feel compelled to make this statement because there are persistent rumours that the entire ambulance service may be on the government's privatization block. For a number of reasons, that concerns me. If it is true that the government is considering privatizing the ambulance service and compromising the air ambulance service, I would suggest that it would be a gross error on the part of the government and a disservice to the people who depend on this vital service.

To set the stage, I'd just like to say that the state of health care in the north is precarious at best. In terms of chronic care, there are huge gaps. People from the area that I come from have to travel many miles and be isolated from friends and relatives to receive medical care. Mental health services are virtually non-existent.

But the one area that I think is vital is the emergency health services. There are virtually no emergency facilities in the north, and even less trained personnel to look after any major accident. Accidents do happen, and one that could have had tragic proportions almost happened in Stewart last winter when one of the logging trucks sideswiped a busload of about 25 children. It is hard to imagine what would have happened if there were a more severe accident and more serious injuries. There would be virtually no facility, no trained personnel to take care of that situation. It is for this reason that I feel we have to continue the air ambulance service as it now exists.

Since its inception in 1974-1976, the air ambulance has proven itself. It's proven to be extremely effective. For instance, in 1985 there were 600 patients served in B.C. by air ambulance. As to the kind of personnel that man the services, we have something like 120 ambulance stations including 90 with full-time staff. There is a total of 700 full-time and 200 part-time workers. All of these people have industrial first aid; many have emergency medical assistance classification. The user cost is fairly minimal: the maximum fee for service is $150.

There is in existence a wonderful concept called the advanced life support and infant transport team crews that are stationed in Vancouver. They deal with premature babies or those with congenital defects. About 500 babies a year are served with air ambulance under this team, babies who would die without this quick and well-trained team assistance to get them to the hospital in the urban areas.

Why I am concerned about the prospect of having the service privatized, Mr. Speaker, is that the private sector has proven to be wholly inept in providing this kind of service. Horror stories abound. In Alberta, for instance, where the whole ambulance service is provided by the private sector, all you need is a red flashing light and you are in business. If we were to go back to the pre-1974 days in British Columbia, we would be back to the days of high, widely variable user fees. This would impact on the northern and rural areas where it would not be profitable to run air ambulance services with qualified, well-trained and reputable staff. I think it is axiomatic to say that the further you are away from training facilities, the less trained personnel you will get.

In the north, this is vitally important. It is in the smaller and more rural communities where the fatality rates from trauma are the highest. This is fact; I got this from the Ministry of Health statistics. The quality and the extent of care rendered to a patient at the scene of the accident, or need for medical attention during the transport, can greatly improve the chances of successful recovery in many cases.

I represented a client who got into a brawl and somehow injured both of his eyes. He has at least partial vision today because of the existence of the air ambulance. Without that kind of quick transport, today he would be totally blind. There are examples like this, Mr. Speaker. So the air ambulance provides an essential link from the rural and isolated areas of the province to other ambulance services, to the medical services in larger centres.

If the ambulance services are privatized in this province, we will be turning back to the former days when ambulance services were not regulated, were unrestricted and costly. Northerners would be especially hit hard by cuts in services and high rates. Health care in B.C. would be returning to

[ Page 1603 ]

previously variable standards, and the well-being of British Columbians would be severely compromised. For this reason I implore this government that this service should be exempt from any consideration of privatization.

[10:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond today as a northern member and in part share the concern expressed by the member for Atlin. But for another part, I totally disagree with his premise that the private sector is inept. I can't accept that at all, and Mr. Member, I must give you some evidence.

The air ambulance is now, to a large degree, covered by the private sector. You might recall the member for Prince George North (Ms. Boone) indicating, a month or two ago, that if we didn't get an ambulance dispatch in Prince George we wouldn't have a private sector air ambulance located there. That's totally erroneous, of course, because the two are unrelated. The evidence is that the air ambulance is in Prince George now, operated by Harbour Air. It's a Citation and has equipment similar to what we have in government air services.

The private sector is rapidly filling in the air ambulance service in the north. Coincidentally, the Minister of Forests and Lands and I were in Prince Rupert on business about three weeks ago, and there was a Learjet in; the child life support service was attending a call there — again private sector, and in fact a better service than government could provide because a Learjet is 70 or 80 knots faster than the Citations that we have. So the argument that the private sector cannot supply appropriate air ambulance service is totally erroneous. I would submit that in many cases it can do it better than government can, and the evidence is there. It's in the air and it's in place now.

I do, though, want to agree with the member, as a northern or central interior MLA myself, that we have to improve services. I know that in your area, Mr. Member, and in the tidings of Mackenzie and Prince Rupert, you don't have an awful lot of landing strips because of the topography. You're restricted to daytime helicopter flying only for Medivac, and that is a serious and critical consideration. Currently, federal Transport requires that for a helicopter to operate on instruments it must be equipped with twin turbines, and that's a very expensive operation. That's the type of helicopter that Helijet would fly from Dallas Road here to downtown Vancouver. Coast Guards can fly them, but it's extremely expensive equipment.

In the coastal tidings, particularly Rupert, Mackenzie, Atlin and the rural areas, there is an abundance of single turbine equipment, such as the Jet Ranger, which is the real little workhorse of the north; but regrettably it doesn't have instrument capability and therefore is precluded from flying in the evening or during foggy weather. So that is a very real concern for the people who live there, and it impedes the delivery of health services. I guess the argument could be put that the government air ambulance service, or the Coast Guard or somebody, should fund and put into operation the very expensive twin turbine equipment. That's appealing to all of us who consider the health care of the rural areas. But at that point I guess one has to consider the incredible expense of that type of equipment, and the fact that you would need quite a few of them really to have a comprehensive service up the west coast of British Columbia. Nevertheless, that's an economic decision that government would have to make.

In any event, that's all I really wish to say on this, Mr. Speaker, except to support the member in his concern for health in his riding and other rural ridings. I totally agree with him on that. However, the government must offer total disagreement on the notion that privatization of air ambulance services will be to the detriment of that service. We have many private carriers operating now. I have one in my home. I've seen them in Prince Rupert and in other areas, and it's working out very well, if not better, than the government service.

MR. GUNO: Well. maybe my characterization of the private sector as wholly inept is a bit strong; I'll just say inept, not wholly inept. I take the proposition that there are isolated instances when the private sector comes through, but I think what we're talking about is a continuous service. Also, in the north, you've got to admit that.... What are the incentives for an air ambulance to provide services where it would be sporadic and not...? The costs would be higher.

I just want to cite the costs of the existing provincewide service, and why it's justifiable. It's part of the quality of life and well-being of all British Columbians, which we all expect. Emergency services have never been over 3 percent of the Ministry of Health's budget. It's now $15 million to cover the whole province for a year. That's cheaper than the fire department's budget in the city of Vancouver. So it's really miniscule compared to the kind of constant, dependable and reliable service that is now provided. I think northerners would be far more comforted with the notion that this service is guaranteed and is not going to depend on the forces of the marketplace. That is why I think it's a non-negotiable item.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker. before I start my comments, could I have leave to make an introduction'?

Leave granted.

MRS. GRAN: In the House today is a very special lady who has supported me every day and every hour of my whole life. I'd like the House to welcome my mother, Hilda Ewen, and her friend Eileen, from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to have leave as well to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: I didn't realize that the parents of the first member for Langley were here, and I too would like to ask the House to acknowledge their presence here today. They are constituents of mine and have been in touch with me from time to time, and I know from talking to them that they are very proud of the achievements of their daughter. So would the House please join me in welcoming them.

THE MAQUABEAK COUNCIL

MRS. GRAN: May I thank the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew for those kind words.

My comments this morning, Mr. Speaker, are about a woman who stands tall but sits in a wheelchair. Her name is

[ Page 1604 ]

Dorothy Maquabeak Francis. She is a native Indian from the Ojibway tribe from eastern Canada. She's 75 years of age and she is the kindest, most gentle person I have ever met in my life.

Shortly after I became an MLA she phoned the constituency office and suggested that she needed help. I went to her home, and I have to say that it was a humbling and moving experience to listen to her talk about her own people. Dorothy was taken from her home to live in a Christian home with a Presbyterian minister and his wife, and she said that they treated her extremely well and loved her and gave her everything that she could ever need, but that she never felt comfortable away from her people. She explained to me that although her people were very materially poor, they were extremely rich in spirit.

Dorothy is attempting to start what she calls the Maquabeak Council, and that council is to teach young native Indians their heritage, their culture, to help them with drug and alcohol dependencies, and also to help those who dropped out of school to finish their high school years.

Dorothy gave birth to 11 children, and nine of them are living. What was interesting is that this woman is 75 years old, she's confined to a wheelchair, but her family look after her. She lives in one of her daughters' homes, and they make sure that she's comfortable all the time. I think Dorothy and her family are an example of how we have to start living in this country. We have to start caring about one another, and not the state looking after us. I'm not trying to make an argument for deinstitutionalizing people; I'm just saying that watching the love that flows from those people that came from that woman, I know that they will look after her, regardless of what happens to her, for the rest of her life. It was a very heart-warming experience for me.

Dorothy received the Order of Canada for outstanding achievement and merit for her work for her people.

Now I have asked the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid) for funding for the Maquabeak Council, and I'm hoping that the minister will see fit to find money for this council. I think the only way that we're going to understand one another, the different cultures and the different heritages, is to start caring enough to sit down and forget about political differences. And I think we've proved that in the Legislature. We've proved that we can still care about one another, and we don't particularly have to agree with one another's politics. I think that we've done a really good job of proving that in the Legislature.

Dorothy asked me, when I talked to her yesterday, if I would pass a message on to the government leaders in this Legislature, and her message was to understand one another and to care, and in particular, for those of us who don't know a lot about the native Indian people, to listen to them and understand them, and to recognize the gentleness that they possess and which perhaps a lot of us don't.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to make those comments, and I hope that the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) will respond.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, I'd be glad to respond to the member for Langley's comments. I first must commend her for her sensitivity and generosity for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

I want to concentrate on why this woman feels compelled to form this council. It's not a secret that in British Columbia we have an almost unimaginable despair among native young people which translates into some of the highest suicide rates in Canada. A number of them are on alcohol and drugs; about 90 percent are unemployed. The despair and hopelessness of young people today is a tragedy.

I would support anything that we can do to provide support for any initiative like this, a self-help kind of thing that would help alleviate the suffering of these young people. Mrs. Francis's initiative should be supported if it's going to instill a sense of pride and identity in these young people.

It's ironic that we take such pride in the beautiful longhouse just a block from here and all the wonderful totem poles, but we don't know what it represents in the people that I t represents and the fact that we're completely ignorant of their plight today. Shedding crocodile tears over the plight of these people is simply not enough. I'm not suggesting what the member said was not genuine.

I think that the best antidote for young people, not only for native people but for young people in British Columbia, is to provide better job opportunities. That is the best way that we, as government and opposition, can work towards dealing with the sense of despair and hopelessness that's so rampant among our young people, especially the native people.

I would again commend the member for her representation of Mrs. Francis. I think it's a great idea. The missionaries in the last half-century have done a real job in terms of eradicating a sense of identity. There is a sense of renaissance among our young people in terms of trying to restore a sense of their own identity. I recognize your effort and wholly support it.

[11:00]

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by saying that the very basis of Dorothy's desire and drive to look after her people is her Baha'i faith, which is similar to Indian beliefs. She talked at great length about what they do, and she talked about sweat-lodges and some of the dances that they have. The basis of that council will be to teach young people about their spiritual beliefs. Dorothy feels very strongly that that's what's lacking in our society; and quite frankly, I do myself.

I would just like to expound a little further on the cultural council that she's trying to establish. The purpose is to provide a centre for the furtherance of native Indian culture and education, through discussion, hands-on training, social gatherings, native religious activities and spiritual training, workshops and school programs and the furtherance of national native Indian education for off-reserve and on-reserve native peoples. The Maquabeak Cultural Council was organized by Dorothy Francis at the request of her grandchildren, who expressed a need for guidance. I think that was the start of the council. Dorothy has grandchildren who have drug and alcohol dependencies.

I thank you for listening and caring, and I'll tell Dorothy about the wonderful reception her project had in the Legislature.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave for the committee on Bill 19 to sit.

Leave granted.

[ Page 1605 ]

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
(continued)

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

On section 29 as amended.

MR. GABELMANN: When we finished yesterday afternoon, we were beginning the discussion about the deletion from the existing Labour Code of the words in 53(l) "or part of it," which modifies business. Until now, if a part of a business were sold, the collective agreement and the certification would follow. With the deletion of these four words, it is our concern and our fear that, in fact, the certification will not follow with those small parts, because the new wording requires that there be a "substantial" part.

Of course, the test of "substantial" will be argued. We won't be able to conclude in this House during this debate the meaning of the word "substantial." Clearly, it will be argued — I think successfully — that it was the intent of the Legislature to make it possible for less than substantial parts of businesses to be sold without the certification following to the new firm or company or operation or service or whatever it happens to be.

That concern is best expressed, I think, by citing a specific example. I want to cite an example that I am sure the minister has had drawn to his attention. It relates to the Vancouver Museums and Planetarium Association, which is certified and has a collective agreement with the municipal and regional employees union in Vancouver. The notes I have are minutes of the board and various bits of correspondence. There is a plan to divide this particular association into four separate parts. There is a concern — and presumably it will be argued in front of the council, if the council actually is able to do business — about whether or not these four quarters of this existing association are substantial parts of the business or are just parts of the business.

If one quarter of the existing association is defined as not being substantial but rather defined as just "a part of," then the certification will not follow. That just does not make any sense. It doesn't make any sense at all that an association of this kind, whether deliberately or not, could escape its certification and escape its collective agreement simply by dividing into less than substantial parts.

I wonder if the minister has any comments about that particular point.

HON. L. HANSON: The member for North Island, I would suppose, is dealing with a hypothetical case in this scenario. But I think I would like to dwell on what we see as a business or a substantial part of it. I think we feel that a business is a combination of a number of things: it is a combination of people; it is a combination of the assets that it holds; it is a combination of the goodwill that it may have developed as far as an operation is concerned.

I think the real thing that has to be considered is whether there is a discernible business there. I am not giving legal opinions, because I don't have that qualification as my friend opposite does. But you know, if there is discernible continuation of a business, there's no suggestion that we want to see the responsibilities gained by the employees through the collective bargaining process lost.

A business is not just one thing. It isn't only the skills of an individual; it isn't only its assets: it isn't only its goodwill. All of those things have to be considered in hypothetical cases. All of the facts will have to be presented to the council, and the council will have to make the determination that in fact there is a business — or a substantial part of it, as the proposal is — being disposed of. We agree completely that that employer's responsibilities relating to his employees, which have been fairly and honestly bare armed, should follow. And we would want that responsibility....

But again, you know, it's "a business or a substantial part of it." It's not just something that follows with the land only or with the building only, or with any single thing in isolation. I think there are determinable circumstances that the Industrial Relations Council will be able to rule on — whether there has in fact been a transfer and discernible continuity of a business.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister's first comment was that he supposes this is a hypothetical case. Everything is hypothetical until and unless the law is passed and until and unless it's proclaimed, if ever. So we're obviously dealing with hypothetical cases. I was citing what is probably not a hypothetical possibility, and I made a mistake when I said "four parts." I meant to say "three" — three separate parts.

At this stage of the debate we're not talking about a lot of things that the minister was talking about in terms of (1.1), but rather 53(l) itself, which is the question of making.... The Legislature is making a conscious decision by this change to eliminate four words, and those four words are "or part of it," so that "substantial part" becomes the test. I think it's a fair concern that people will argue, and may well argue successfully in front of the Industrial Relations Council, that the decision of the Legislature to delete the words "or part of it" means that the Legislature does not want certifications to follow when parts of a business are sold and those parts are less than substantial, however that's defined. That's the clear intention of the Legislature. Once the law is determined by tests of various cases, there will be then a clear guideline....

I think I'll pause for a moment and allow the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) to have a word.

MR. PELTON: May I have leave to make an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

MR. PELTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks to the hon. member for North Island as well.

Hon. members, in the precincts today are a large number of young elementary schoolchildren from Thornhill Elementary School in Maple Ridge. These children have been accompanied today by their parents and by some of the teaching staff. Some of them have managed to make it into this House, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

[11:15]

MR. GABELMANN: I might say to the visitors in the gallery: welcome as well from this side of the House. My apologies on behalf of all of us for the boring nature of this debate. It comes from a requirement we have as legislators to try to sort out what these words mean. Sometimes that can be fairly dull for people who have to sit and listen, or perhaps

[ Page 1606 ]

later read Hansard. Nevertheless, it's very important, because what we're talking about here is whether or not, for people who have decided to be represented by trade unions when their employer begins to sell off parts of the business, their trade union rights will continue in the new businesses that are spun off from the original one.

At this point of the debate, we're trying to determine what the difference is between part of a business on one hand or a substantial part of a business on the other hand. I was making the point a moment ago that we won't know how those words are defined until the issues are tested. But once the test has been determined and it's clear how much of a business is defined as substantial, then we will see a rush of selling off and spinning off various parts of operations, which will allow, therefore, the deunionization.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) yesterday raised the hypothetical situation of a bakery inside a supermarket. The minister's response, as I understood it ' was that he would have thought that was a substantial part Of the business, and therefore the certification would follow even though the business was privatized. That's very debatable. Maybe the bakery example is one that would be included.

You can guarantee that it will be argued — you can absolutely guarantee that — and without going into great detail, we can all think of many other ways in which employers will be able to carve out elements of their particular business, contract them out, sell them and then contract back the services and have deunionization take place through that process.

So I guess I'd like to ask the minister this: if, as it appears he believes, he wants certification to follow, for the most part — which is, I think, the direction of his comments — is he convinced that it will, as a result of this change? Or would he not now consider reinstating these words? He is saying in his responses that he believes parts of the business should be included in terms of a definition of successor rights, but he has taken the words out. If he believes "part" should be included, why can't we just put the words in right now by simple amendment?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, I think in the legislation the basic principle, the fundamental principle, remains intact: that bargaining rights acquired by organized labour and their representatives should be protected. But "part" of a business is always a questionable sort of thing, and it narrows the ability of the Industrial Relations Council to make a determination that.... You know, what is the essence of the business? Because it's made up of so many things.

I know that we're discussing the wording, but I guess the message that I'm trying to get across is that there isn't a part of the business, in itself, that means the business. There are so many things that make up a business. Again, I think I totally agree with the member opposite that the Industrial Relations Council is going to develop criteria and jurisprudence as they go through the various cases.

In the case of the bakery that was mentioned earlier — I guess it was yesterday — naturally I've had an awful lot of discussion with various people who are very knowledgeable in the industrial relations field. From that discussion I have determined that in that situation the certification and the responsibilities that employee had taken on by signing an agreement would follow. I sincerely believe that, because discussion has gone on to a great degree of various circumstances and so on within our discussion in generating this particular clause.

Again, I can say only that there isn't one particular thing that makes up a business. It's a combination of so many things, and the determination will be - and then it goes on to say "or a substantial part of a business" — on what makes that up. That's the determination that the council will make when they have a case requesting the successor rights to follow. But we don't believe that the sale of one particular part, or one particular asset maybe is a better way of expressing it, is in itself justification that there should be a mechanical certification following. But if the determination of the sale of one particular asset by the council is that that is the essence of the business, then I would suggest that very likely the certification would follow.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, the essence of the business — there we go. That's a different answer than the bakery example in Safeway, because the bakery is not the essence of the supermarket's business. So that's a different answer.

I want to suggest that these changes and several of the changes taken together in fact come from a feeling on the government's part that the labour board was required to make the wrong decision in the Gibraltar case and in the Frank Browne Acoustics case. I want to cite the Frank Browne Acoustics, because it's a case that I think — I know — will be overturned by the new language, and I want to give this as an illustration of a situation where, under the old law, which is still the law, successor status was determined, but under the new law it will not be. I will readjust some excerpts from the LRB summary. It's a 1984 case, and the notes about the kind of issue it is read as follows:

"There had been a transfer of part of the business of one company to another, within the purview of section 53 of the Code. This case involved the 50 percent shareholder and director of the day-to-day operations of a small construction company giving up his interest and forming a new company."

The facts of the case are as follows:

"This involved an application pursuant to section 53 of the Code for a declaration that Interior Wall was a successor employer to Frank Browne. The union was certified to represent the employees of Frank Browne, and had a collective agreement with that company. The shares in Frank Browne, a company involved in the drywall end of the construction business, had been held fifty-fifty by Richard West and Mark Insley. Both had been directors, with West as the president and Insley as the secretary. Apart from work performed by West on his approximately twice-a-month visits to Kamloops, Insley had taken care of the day-to-day operations of the company. Deciding that work was dwindling in the Kamloops area and that he wanted to work non-union, Insley had decided to break away from West. He had transferred his shareholding in Frank Browne and had Interior Wall incorporated with himself as the sole shareholder and director. Frank Browne still pursued work in the dry walling business."

Then the board in its reasons — and I won't read all of these — goes through the arguments. They decided they needed to adopt the principles that had been adopted in the

[ Page 1607 ]

Gibraltar case a couple of years earlier, so I won't go through all of the reasoning, but I'll just read the decision:

"Interior Wall was the successor to a part of the business of Frank Browne within the meaning of section 53 of the Code, and accordingly was bound by the collective agreement with the union. A certification would be issued showing the union as the bargaining agent for the employees of Interior Wall. Pursuant to section 53(2), Frank Browne was declared to retain all of its obligations to the union under the Code and its collective agreement with the union with respect to its continuing operations."

So as I understand that particular case, the board made a determination that in fact there would be no opportunity to escape the certification by the establishment of this second business. Under this new law now, clearly and unequivocally the decision would be reversed.

There isn't a lot more that you can say, other than that's wrong. It's inappropriate that certifications are going to be able to be avoided as a result of that kind of manoeuvring, and I know that members of the Social Credit Party — if not all of them, many of them — are persuaded that that should be the case, that the market economy demands that people should be allowed to go and compete more effectively by paying lower wages, so that they can stay in business, so that they can make more money or whatever it might be they want to do.

I know that is the philosophy of a lot of people on that side of the House. I guess that is what underlies this particular section and section 25 earlier: simply, that the rights of capital are more important than the rights of labour. That's a simple choice. We are with Abraham Lincoln on that question. We think that the rights of labour are actually more important than the rights of capital because the rights of labour are rights of people and the rights of capital are simply rights of money. Abraham Lincoln was clear and forthright on that issue on many occasions, and he in fact took a more radical position than we would take, because our argument in the final analysis would be that there needs to be a fair balance between the two. But clearly, the effect of this kind of legislation is to allow the people, such as the ones cited in this Frank Browne case, to effectively get rid of the union agreement, which means they could get rid of the people who have been working for them, all based on this idea that the most important thing in our society is money and that people don't matter. That is really what we are talking about. It is a philosophical difference between the two sides of the House.

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) doesn't like that, because he doesn't want to have his party and the people he associates with characterized in this way. But it is fair; it is the only conclusion one can come to in a fair reading of this section. I cited yesterday the four new ways in which certifications can be avoided — be escaped from, if I can put it that way. It is clearly because of the decision the government has made that it wants to allow business people to be able to operate in the economy in an unimpeded way. It is part of the same philosophical direction that leads to the deregulation arguments. It is part of the same philosophical direction that leads to dogmatic calls for privatization. It is part of a view of society that says that all that really matters is that capital be mobile and unimpeded, on one hand, and that on the other hand, rights of individuals who may have worked faithfully for an employer for years or decades matter not in the least.

It is a major difference between us. I characterize it one way; Social Crediters characterize it another. But that is, as far as I am concerned, a fair summary of the differences in philosophy, well reflected here in section 29 of this bill.

[11:30]

HON. L. HANSON: I obviously have a disagreement with the member opposite, but I do respect that it is his right to have that opinion.

There is a fact out there that the employer is a person too. He generates employment opportunities. I don't think it is totally related — the suggestion that the members' philosophy on this side is that anything goes for the generation of money. I have a very difficult time accepting that.

If I remember correctly — and again, I am not a student of the numbers of cases that have been cited; I have looked at some — I think that the Frank Browne decision said that the individual skills was an important factor. I think that that philosophy we certainly agree with. But we also have a difficulty in accepting that it is the only factor. A business has people, it has assets and it has skills. I guess the speculation that the member is making is that the IRC will reverse that particular decision. I am not that familiar with it, but I can't accept that. I don't believe that will be the case, and I would suggest that we will await their decisions and see that. But the main thrust that we are trying to point out is that there is not one thing in isolation that makes up the interpretation of a business.

Certainly the employees' rights that they have faithfully bargained for should be protected. But I think it should also be the individual's rights that if he wants to break away from his company and start a new business, as long as it is not an attempt to avoid the bargaining responsibilities that the company had and start another business, that is fair and reasonable; and also that the union has the opportunity, as they should have, to organize that company, if that's the case.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, I want to pick up on the final comments the minister made during the course of his statement a second ago, and then I want to talk about some components of section 29.

The minister was saying — if I heard him right — that he wants to encourage or make it possible for individuals to break away and exercise their own initiative or right, as he put it, to engage in a business. Believe you me, I can’t see why anybody would want to deny anybody the opportunity to exercise that initiative. The minister also said that's okay as long as the effort is not to attempt to evade or avoid the provisions of the collective agreement. There is no disagreement with that, in my mind, as well. Clearly, if that's the intent, the successor provisions ought to come into play.

But that's precisely what the current section does. It certainly allows for the exercise of that individual initiative. I know of no instance where it has frustrated that individual initiative. On the other hand, it also tries to ensure that if people want to exercise that initiative but are doing it to avoid their contractual obligations with their employees, that will be arrested. So once again, it begs the question of why the changes, if indeed the current practice is precisely what it is that the minister has articulated it to be.

I'm at a loss to understand, if that is where the government is coming from philosophically, why it would want to bring about these types of changes. In addition to that, the minister said prior to that that no one factor ought to be the sole determinant of whether or not successorship should apply. Once again, the labour law jurisprudence is very clear

[ Page 1608 ]

that there are very few decisions where one factor was the sole determinant. The Labour Relations Board has always taken the approach of looking at all of the circumstances of the change, and coming to a decision on the basis of all of the circumstances.

Yesterday I tried to list some of the variables that the Labour Relations Board will look at. Once again, that's not different at all from what the minister is saying, and hence the question again: why the change? What was wrong with the old approach that warrants this type of change? Either it brings into question the motivation and the intent of the government, or it must be done to remedy a wrong that was happening under the legislation.

Let's deal with that part of it, because the section as amended now has those words "part of it" removed, and we have now put in the test of "a substantial part" of its business. That certainly changes the test significantly, because if a part of the enterprise was going to be captured if it was sold, then the successor rights would apply.

Yesterday I gave the minister an example. I said that if a bakery operation in a Safeway store was sold, then that is obviously a part of the store. The minister said, when we concluded yesterday, that he thought that if that part of it was sold, then in those instances the successor rights would follow. But I think it's fair to say that a bakery within a large grocery store is certainly not a substantial part of the operation. In fact, it's one component of several, but certainly not a substantial part of a grocery store. I don't know how you measure "substantial" — if it's in square footage or volume of sales or whatever — but to use that example.... The minister said that in that instance the successor rights would follow the sale. Yet we're talking about only a part of the business, and certainly not a substantial part of it, I would venture to say, no matter how you measure it.

I gave two methods of measuring: through the volume of sales or the square footage, or even the number of employees. I think by any one of those factors it would not be a substantial part. But it would be a discernible part, to also use language that the minister said. But a discernible part is quite different than a substantial part. Once again, I try not to get heavy-handed with my legal background, but I think I've tried to make the point in layman's language. But the minister obviously must see that there is something different in a discernible part, as opposed to a substantial part, and I hope he sees my point with respect to the bakery operation.

In light of that explanation, does the minister still think that the bakery operation would be captured by the successor rights provision as it stands before this House? If so, why? Does he not see my point that it may not necessarily be a substantial part?

I'll leave it there and ask the next question, which I think is an obvious question. But I'll pause there. Does the minister still believe that that example would be captured by this section that we're debating right now — the bakery situation?

HON. L. HANSON: I said when we opened debate on this section that we're changing the language because the criteria in the Code are very — what should I say? — limiting. "A business or a part of it" is a very narrow definition, and what we're trying to do is ensure that the essence of the business has been sold — that there is a continuity.

I've got a note passed to me, and I'll admit it's a note, because I'm not a lawyer, as my friend is.

This was a discussion among the many discussions we had on this particular section as we were drafting it. There are some judicial interpretations of the word "substantial" which suggest it probably means discernibly separate and not minor or trivial. That's the message that we're trying to put out in the wording in the act. From the discussions that I've had with a number of people — as I've no doubt admitted before, I've had a lot of advisers — I sincerely believe that the case of the bakery suggested earlier would be caught.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to believe that it would be caught too, believe you me, because it should be caught. I'm glad that the minister and I agree that it should be caught. But a bakery, as I said before, is a small component of a large grocery store; it is not a substantial part of the grocery store. The minister said, yesterday and again today, that he thinks a bakery would be caught by that section, But it's not a substantial part, and it demonstrates, I think, the flaw in the wording of this section.

The minister says that in some jurisdictions — not all, but in some jurisdictions, if I heard him correctly — "substantial" has been interpreted to mean a discernible portion of the operation. I hope that that is the interpretation placed in B.C.

May I ask the minister this. I ask this question very honestly, because Hansard is used in adjudicating these matters, so I think it should be a part of the record. Does the minister think that the definition of "substantial" as it appears in this section includes a discernible portion of an operation?

[11:45]

HON. L. HANSON: The Labour Relations Board is going to consider all of the facts in the case. In the suggestion raised with the bakery, I really believe that that will be dealt with by the IRC in the manner the member opposite suggests it should be.

I'm not sure — because it's the jurisprudence of the board as it's developed in the particular circumstances — that we are going to resolve them as we stand here debating them. Again, the question of successorship should not be a mechanical transfer. It should be that there has been a discernible continuity of the business that was going on there. As I suggested earlier, the word "substantial" has, in some cases, been determined as discernibly separate and not minor or trivial. I think that's the direction we are giving to the IRC in this section of the act.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, is the minister then saying that in his view the word "substantial" means "discernibly separate"?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I'm not necessarily saying that, but it could be — if the member opposite is cross-examining me on that. I think we're debating the philosophy of what we're doing here, which is what I'm trying to do.

MR. SIHOTA: We debated the philosophy in second reading, and as I understand this process, the minister is to be explaining to us what he means by the various sections. I don't necessarily want to get into the philosophy of it. I'm not trying to cross-examine the minister. It reminds me of when I used to be on municipal council. I think it's just part of your training sometimes. You tend to frame questions that come

[ Page 1609 ]

across as cross-examination. When I was on council, occasionally when we would have a contentious issue with people appearing in front of council and the hall was packed, I would be accused of the same thing. Believe you me, I'm not trying to cross-examine, but I am trying to get an answer, because I think a lot does turn again on this section. It's one of those sections that I think we have all pointed out as being a significant one. That's why we're spending so much time on it.

The minister is sort of saying yes, the word "substantial" means "discernibly separate" and no, perhaps it doesn't, and that in some jurisdictions it has been quoted that way and in some it hasn't. I'm sure now the minister sees the point that I'm making. What he would like to see in principle happen — i.e., a bakery being sold and it being discernible and hence captured by the successorites — may indeed not happen because of the framing of the section which talks about "substantial." I think we can both see, I would hope, that lawyers on two different sides of this argument are going to argue the meaning of the word "substantial." That is going to become the pivotal concern in the eyes of the council.

I made this point before, but I think it warrants being made again. What's going to happen is a board is going to be faced with the decision of whether or not to water down the word "substantial." You could place a very high onus by saying: "No, you've got to prove quite a bit if you want to argue the successor rights." Or alternately, you could lower that onus by broadening out the definition of "substantial" to include concepts like "discernibly separate," which is the concept that the minister has mentioned. You can also say: "No, 'substantial' means something greater than 50 percent of the entire assets and an undertaking of the operations of the enterprise," in which case the bakery situation would not be captured by this section.

The council is going to have to make a determination of how it defines the word "substantial," because it remains undefined under the legislation. Part of that will be determined by coming to Hansard — and we've already talked about that, so I won't go any further — and part of that is also going to involve them going back to the old legislation to also determine what indeed the Legislature's intent was.

The old section said "or a part of it." If you think about that, to me it would suggest that the standard is going to be raised, that the onus is going to be higher. It will not mean "discernibly separate," because "discernibly separate" is far closer to the words "part of it," than it is to the word "substantial." If you were to have a sliding scale and you put "substantial" here and "part of it" over here, "discernibly separate" tends to lean towards "part of it." But because the legislation has removed the words "a part of it," then it seems to me it only stands to reason that if that end of the scale is removed, then the council is going to be leaning more towards the more onerous definition of "substantial," as I've just laid out. I picked a simple way of doing it to hammer home the point — like I say, something more than 50 percent of the assets and undertaking of the company; it may be two-thirds of it, I don't know. I think you can see there arises quite a debate and that debate would put into jeopardy the conclusion that the minister just made about the bakery example I provided.

I believe the minister when he says that he would want the bakery situation to be captured by the successor rights provisions. I quite honestly believe that what you say is what you believe. But I also would like to think the minister can believe me when I say that there is a more than plausible, more than reasonable argument that given the history of the legislative changes, the standard is going to be raised. It is a sufficient answer, I guess, for the minister to say: "We will wait and see what happens." But in reply to that — because I anticipate that the minister is going to say that — why wait and see, when you can come up with language that will capture the very thing the minister is saying that he wants to capture under this section?

I want to ask why the minister did not simply decide to put in the following language: "...where a business or a discernible part of it or a substantial part of it...." We won't get into the asset question for the time being. Would that not crystallize the minister's intent? Why did the minister not choose to put in the words, "a discernible part of it," instead of just removing the whole phrase "part of it"?

HON. L. HANSON: I think the member mentioned earlier that the purpose of this debate is to get into Hansard some of the interpretations that we see here in the House, and certainly that is part of it.

Again, "discernible part of a business" is I think used in the wrong context here. You can look at a discernible part of a business. If it's a radio station, you can look at a microphone and say: "That's a discernible part of the business." But that is not what we are trying to do. We want a much broader interpretation. We feel that the wording we've put in the act will provide the ability for the Industrial Relations Council to make that broader interpretation. We honestly have a difference of opinion. In going through this and in drafting Bill 19, all of the things you are suggesting have been kicked around, discussed and so on, and we feel that the description "a business or a substantial part of a business" does capture the essence of a business, which is what we're saying, and what we've said for a number of times.

I guess a discernible continuity between a part of the old business and the new business is what we are certainly trying to put forward in this legislation, and I believe we are putting it forward. It is my opinion that the suggestion would create a situation where it is possible to have a very narrow definition of successorship. We are trying to ensure the discernible continuity concept and the concept that a business is made up of much more than only a specific part of it, before the determination is made that successorship should apply.

MR. SIHOTA: I appreciate this debate, and I would like to find out where my thinking is wrong so that I can.... Perhaps this debate won't matter to 99 percent of the people, but it will to the people who are going to interpret this section. I would like to find out where my interpretation of it is wrong. If it happens that one day I end up dealing with the Labour Relations Board on this, and I still don't quite understand what.... I understand the minister's intent, and I can understand what the minister is attempting to do, but the intent and that attempt do not equal what appears here in the section.

The minister gave the example of a radio station. It's true that no one wants to impede the ability of a radio station to sell a microphone, and clearly this legislation won't do that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

On the other hand, if a radio station chose to sell its.... Let's say a radio station had two production studios and

[ Page 1610 ]

wanted to sell one facility that it had for producing advertisements to another company, and so it sold off the control room, the microphone and the employee who did that work — the employee went along with the sale. That's probably the wrong way of framing the example, but if it sold off that physical component and the employee was engaged again by the new employer, in my mind that would be a situation where a portion of the radio station was sold off — a part of it, if I can use the language of the old act — and the bulk of the radio station remained in the hands of the original owner. In other words, the other studio, which does the broadcasting, the records and the tapes, and has the newsroom, the reception area and all that kind of stuff, would remain....

So once again, you've got a portion of it sold. I like to think that the minister and I would agree that if it was unionized and if that employee was unionized, much like the bakery example, the successor rights should follow. If I'm correct on that assumption, to use the minister's own example, you wouldn't be captured by this section. It may be a discernible part, but it's not a substantial part. You would avoid the successor rights. If you started to sell off different components of it one by one, and those components are not substantial — although all of them added up as one would sell off the enterprise, much as in the example of the museum or the planetarium that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was referring to earlier on — you could essentially deunionize those workers by selling components of it.

[12:00]

If the bakery principle — if I can put it that way — is still the principle, and the minister sticks to that principle, then clearly he is saying that he wants those successor rights to pass. As I said earlier on, I don't want to impede the sale of that; but supposedly whoever buys it knows that it's going to be a unionized studio. So once again, in that type of instance, the clause would not fulfil the intent of the minister as he has indicated it. Or am I wrong? Could the minister explain to me where that thinking is off base, because I don't see how that's possibly a "substantial part of it." Yet I'm assuming here that the minister will agree with me that the successor rights ought to apply much as they did in the bakery case. Perhaps he could clarify that for me.

HON. L. HANSON: I guess we can go on with these hypothetical cases forever and have differences of opinion as to what the interpretations will be as the cases unfold before the IRC. I think that cases determined by the IRC will be determined on the facts and in the circumstances. I guess that the radio station he's talking about and the control room.... It would seem to me very difficult for a radio station — and I don't know much about radio stations — to operate without a control room, and if they did sell it, they'd probably get another one and still be in business, and all of those people who had a contract would continue.

We can go on with these hypothetical situations forever. I believe the member opposite was suggesting "discernible or substantial." I guess there would be a concern — and that's why I oppose putting it into the bill — that there could be an interpretation that certification should follow mechanically from disposal of a minor part of a business. We'll get into an argument about "minor" and all of the other things. "Discernible" could be construed as meaning perceptible. In other words, I think there could be a decision that a trivial part of a business was sold and that certification should follow, and what I've started to say, or what I've said ever since we started this discussion, is that in the cases where there is a discernible continuity — and the bakery suggestion was raised — I think that should be caught, and I think it will be caught.

We can go on arguing these things by interpretation, I guess, forever — hypothetical cases and the others. The final test will be that the Industrial Relations Council will make determinations based on the legislation and based on the facts of the case. I sincerely believe — and I've spent a lot of time studying it and thinking about it — that those situations would be determined fairly and honestly, and that the bargaining rights of the individuals would not be impeded.

MR. CLARK: I just have one question for the minister. I'm not a lawyer, so I want to be blunt about this. To bring it back to the bakery case, because I think it's very important, what we're getting from the minister — I think this is the way it should be.... What I'd like him to say, if it's possible, and I hope he agrees, is that it is your intent as the drafter of the legislation, as the author of the legislation, that you believe that if a bakery is sold or spun off to a non-union sector, you think — it's your intention — that this legislation would not allow that; and if at some future date it does allow it, you'll change the law to ensure that successorship is captured. In other words, they cannot get out of collective bargaining by spinning off the bakery to a non-union company?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all, as the IRC does get into action, government has the responsibility of monitoring those actions, and we will monitor the legislation that we put in place for that board or tribunal to adjudicate. Any government that's responsible.... I'm not going to tell you what future policy is, because who knows what future policy is. But we have legislation that, as you say, was drafted; there is an intent behind that legislation. You say that I say that I think that's what's happened. I believe that that's what will happen. I don't think that there is anyone sitting here, legally qualified or not, who is going to say that's what is going to happen. They're going to say that that's what they think is going to happen because of the words that are before it.

I have mentioned, I guess a number of times, that in the case of the bakery — and we get off on these hypothetical things again — I think that that will be captured, and I do think it and I believe it.

MR. CLARK: Do you want it to?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes. But I say to you that I want to know all of the facts of the case. Instead of taking a very hypothetical situation...explain everything before we get into that. Again, I'm not a judge or am not commissioner of the council or a member of the council, nor do the people come to my office to get decisions as a result of this legislation. They go to the Industrial Relations Council, and there will be legal jurisprudence develop from this legislation. I believe that that's the right way and the way it should be.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reflect on an example, say, such as the privatizing of parts of B.C. Hydro, which certainly might be contemplated by this administration. I guess anything might be contemplated by this administration.

[ Page 1611 ]

There are smaller elements of that operation that might be looked at in terms of spinning off and privatizing. One, for example, might be the Hydro railway. B.C. Hydro runs a railway operation in the lower mainland, essentially in the inner part of the lower mainland, that's significant in terms of freight operations, and leases some rights-of-way and has some rights-of-way of its own. But in terms of Hydro's operations it's not significant; it's very modest relative to the entire Hydro operation.

Maybe you could advise us how you see that, then, in terms of the successor rights, in terms of an entity such as that. It's terribly important, I think especially in this area of privatizing, because you can come up with numbers in terms of an appraisal of a business, in terms of coming up with a value for an operating business, considering its assets and all the rest of it, and you'll at least get a range of value that's reasonably consistent. All of that assumes that you're paying labour on the current basis. That's what the appraisal would be based on. As soon as you're able to deunionize the company, then you've shifted a very significant chunk of assets — or at least value — to capital from labour. So you change the capitalized value of these assets by down-pricing labour, which would happen under deunionization or the lack of successor rights.

There are all kinds of examples out there in the private sector where, if they get rid of the union, the capital value of the business is significantly higher. There's simply no question about it; the examples abound. I can see a pretty neat scenario in terms of friends of government interested in picking up chunks of Crown corporations where they might acquire the small spinoff assets on the basis of some reasonable appraisal. But once they get rid of the union, they've maybe increased the value of the company by 25, 30, 50 percent, depending on how labour costs were as part of that organization. That would be a huge windfall to the holders of equity or capital. It would be unreasonable and unjustified relative to what they paid for getting that former public asset.

Maybe the minister could comment on that.

MR. JANSEN: Regarding this particular section, the successor rights, we keep on talking about the concept of deunionization. I'm not sure where the members opposite find those words. We're talking about the sale of the business or a substantial part of that business. We keep hearing little scenarios and little examples floated to the minister requesting his opinion on certain aspects of that, and what his decision would be.

We have, through this legislation, established an Industrial Relations Council that will adjudicate on these issues, on these questions. They will apply fairness and equity. For some reason, the members opposite feel that this council will be weighted and its decisions will not reflect the best interests of all the parties. What we're suggesting is that indeed this Industrial Relations Council looks at all the issues and determines fairly whether or not there has been an attempt to evade the collective bargaining process. That's inherent in section 29. Section 29 says that an "attempt to evade collective bargaining obligations under this act" will be prevented, precluded. But we're talking about the sale of a business or a substantial part of it, which is where the successorship would happen.

We've had situations in the past where a bulldozer was sold, or a piece of equipment of a particular business, and questions were raised whether or not successorship should apply. It could be that that particular piece of equipment will be sold to another union company. It's not a case of just going from union to non-union. They keep on raising this question as though it's a deunionization type of concept, and indeed it is not. If the members opposite would get out of their fantasy world sometimes and go to the real world, see how things are done, they would see where Ritchie Bros. have their auctions — or other auctions of a similar nature — and could look at this kind of transaction happening on a daily basis. We are talking about where the sale of a business or a substantial part of it would have successor rights established. It's not the ancillary parts or the small parts that have this type of application, but it becomes the integrity of that business. Where that business or the essence of that business is transferred, then indeed the successorship follows.

So I have some difficulty, first of all, with some of the statements that members opposite make in regard to various examples. If the minister would comment, I think that's a job for the Industrial Relations Council. Indeed, we have structured it for that reason. The members opposite feel that that is not the appropriate way to go, but I would submit to you that we should perhaps allow that council to work. We should perhaps give it a fair opportunity to succeed. The various disputes or things that come before that council would be determined by them, considering fairness and equity, and considering indeed if there has been a deliberate attempt — or an attempt — to evade the collective bargaining obligations under this act.

[12:15]

MR. SIHOTA: I don't buy any of that drivel, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's an unparliamentary comment.

MR. SIHOTA: My apologies; I withdraw that. But I certainly don't buy any of the comments that were just made.

We keep on hearing this case of the infamous bulldozer that was sold, and because of it a company was unionized. I would like to hear more about that case. Does the minister have the case? Which labour board decision was it? On the sale of one bulldozer, the operator, etc. was unionized — is that what the member is saying?

Clearly, if the essence of the business was sold.... The member seems to agree that if the essence is sold, succession should attach. In that instance, if the bulldozer was deemed to be the essence of the company, then clearly I agree with the member that the successor rights should pass. But he can't on one hand say that on the sale of one asset.... I would defy him to show me one decision of the Labour Relations Board where, on the basis of the sale of a single asset, one Caterpillar among a hundred in an operation, successorship applied.

It is always the phantom case that is being raised by the other side: the phantom situation where, at some point, something happened. It is more rumour and gossip and innuendo than it is truth and fact. I invite the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen) to prove me wrong. Cite me a case; show me a labour board decision where that happened, and I will be the first person to stand up and say: "Yes, the member is right and I was wrong." I'm putting my neck on the line; I am simply asking the member to do the same.

It is absolutely incredible to hear these types of instances cited over and over again. We get them all the time. We get

[ Page 1612 ]

this doubletalk. On one hand, they are concerned about wanting to make sure that you can pass on the asset in an unfettered way. I am telling you, in today's commercial world, I don't think anybody has any hang-ups about passing on assets. That can go on in an unfettered way. But the other half of the doubletalk is to say that if there is a contractual obligation that attaches to that sale of the asset — a contractual obligation in a collective bargaining agreement — and if that asset is the essence of the business, then of course the successor rights should flow. That is the current law; so what are you trying to change?

Don't try to put up cases before this House in justification when those cases don't exist. It is a weak and misleading argument to use the bulldozer argument to bulldoze your way through this legislation. It is simply not true. Prove us wrong; give us a case.

Then when we talk about "substantial part" and the change in wording, we have the minister stand up and say: "No, it doesn't have to be a substantial part. I don't want to run through all the examples of radio stations and grocery stores again, but no, it doesn't have to be a substantial part." But the legislation says it is a substantial part. It is again doublespeak.

What is your intent, and what are you trying to achieve through the legislation? If your expressed intent is one thing, and if the legislation, reasonably put — and I am not trying to stretch it — invites a conclusion contrary to the intent, then you'd better change the legislation to bring it in line with your intent, or you'd better come out honestly and say it isn't your intent. Don't doubletalk and try to have it both ways.

I understand that the member who spoke before me had to give us a commercial break while the minister went out for his smoke. I don't mind that. But if we want to have reasonable and rational debate in this House, then let's have it on some solid factual grounds, not on some facts that don't exist.

Those are my comments. I have some further questions to the minister on part of it, "substantial" and all of that. I am not going to stop until I get some answers. But I know that the second member for Vancouver East was pursuing a line of questioning, and I will allow him to continue to do that before I start mine again.

MR. REE: An introduction, Mr. Chairman?

Leave granted.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I would like this House to welcome the 5,000 to 6,000 people who are on the legislative precincts today in support of the three bills.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to have this side of the House welcome the few hundred people out there.

MR. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, on section 29, the member who spoke previously regarding reasonableness and factual discussion.... That's indeed what we're trying to present in this House. We've been listening for a long time to: "If this set of circumstances apply, what is the solution? If this particular thing happens, what is the answer? If we present this particular set of circumstances, what will evolve from the solution to this particular situation?" We are talking about a factual part and things that happen in the real world.

We're talking about the sale of a business or a substantial part of it.

Let's use an example — you talk about examples — the Surrey Co-op, a well-known firm in the Fraser Valley which went bankrupt, and the successorship still applies to that business. The thing is, if a forklift of that particular operation were sold, that is a part of that business, and there would be a question raised whether or not that should then compel successorship status to the person who bought it. Perhaps we're using an example that's very small, but it's an example that I think we're trying to produce. What we're trying to say is that the Surrey co-op situation has successorship applying to it. But if a very small part of that organization were sold, then it shouldn't have successorship, apply to it.

This section very clearly says that where a business.... It could be through its share structure, it could be through its asset structure. I have been in public practice, Mr. Chairman, for a number of years and I know the situation in regard to the sales of businesses. What we're trying to do here is determine whether or not there is an attempt to change or transfer the business, or a substantial part of it. There are a number of ways that can be done. We're suggesting, to clarify that, that if there's a deliberate attempt or an attempt to evade the collective bargaining obligations under the act, then the Industrial Relations Council will adjudicate in that particular situation.

I'm not sure where the members opposite are coming from in regard to saying that they have difficulty when we're making it a little more finite, when we're indicating the essence of the business, or a substantial part of it — in other words, the essence — is being transferred. I don't know what we have to say here, members opposite, to get that message across to you. What do we have to do? Do we have to keep presenting little examples and say given this little example, this is where that section would apply? We're talking about legislation that, in my opinion and that of most of the people of this province, is clear. It's reasonable legislation. It's legislation that says in very simple terms that where you're trying to evade the collective bargaining obligation, successor rights apply.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what we can further add to the comments of the members opposite, other than to suggest and perhaps echo the comment that he made previously that we should be talking about the factual parts of this legislation rather than talking about different scenarios.

MR. SIHOTA: The previous member talks about "Well, let's talk about facts; let's not talk about scenarios," and he uses the example of the Surrey Co-op. If I understand that situation correctly, and it's not one I'm familiar with, if it was a grocery store and if it sold off one of its bakeries as a way to avoid, let's say, bankruptcy, then the bakery is not a substantial part of it. As I understand the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), the bakery would not be captured by successor status; and as I understand the minister, it would be. If the member from Chilliwack is suggesting that it would be captured by successor status — and he says that it would, as I take that last nod — that's not what the wording of this section says. It's a classic example of your stated intent not being captured by the legislation that you have. We're dealing with facts. We're dealing with the words that appear here in the legislation, and we're dealing with a situation that the member's familiar with.

[ Page 1613 ]

I'm waiting for the Minister of Labour to return, because I want to ask him a question which I think sort of captures this whole situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Ask the question.

MR. SIHOTA: But in the meantime I'll allow the member for Prince George South to speak, because I understand he wants to speak. He's got his pen poised.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've listened intently to this debate, Mr. Chairman, not only on this section and other sections; and the opposition, I think, are trying to turn this forum into what the IRC might do and have the minister establish opinions and a forum that is discussed in the bill and would be better addressed by other people.

I found it curious that the member referred to evidence that could be used from Hansard. I can understand his willingness to have Hansard stated and maybe used at events. I would quote, though, from Maxwell on interpretation of statutes, where he advises that in terms of how the courts might view this, there is a danger that members of the House might, in the course of debate, attempt to influence the future interpretation of statute by expressing their own views as to its probable effect, in the hope that these will remain uncontradicted at the conclusion of passage through Parliament.

That's from Maxwell, On the Interpretation of Statutes, hon. member. You're trained in law. It's the 12th edition, available in the Legislative Library. I think you can read that yourself and understand the concern you have.

MR. SIHOTA: I've read it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Then why do you insist on having material in the Hansard? What about the Reader's Digest case? Well, you can answer that one as well.

In any event, what the opposition appears to be attempting, Mr. Chairman, is to have us define how long is a piece of string, or to define everything that can be far better handled in another forum. I think it's impractical. I think it really isn't relevant to the debate of this bill. We on this side, and the minister in particular, establish the intent and tell the committee the intent of the sections and the wording that we have, but I think it's most inappropriate for any government or any minister to further indicate to the House bow something will be decided, particularly hypothetical examples, many of which we've seen in the last days and weeks.

MR. SIHOTA: That was a very clever attempt by the member for Prince George South, but it's too bad he didn't read on in Maxwell.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay. I guess someone in the member's research department didn't read on, and they unfortunately put the minister in a very difficult position. I'll be quick to point out that that provision in Maxwell talks about the utilization of Hansard in courts. And it's true; I'm the first person to admit that you can't use Hansard in courts, for a lot of reasons. On the other hand, you can use it in front of the Labour Relations Board, and that's also a well-accepted practice in jurisprudence. The comments that we've been making with respect to this section and all the other provisions in this awful legislation relate to being able to use the comments in Hansard in front of the Industrial Relations Council, should this legislation, as awful as it is, ever pass. I am sure the member for Prince George hopes it will pass sooner than later.

AN HON. MEMBER: In August.

MR. SIHOTA: In August.

Your researchers, I am sorry to say, Mr. Minister, did a bad job. You can use Hansard in front of a tribunal such as the Industrial Relations Council, but you can't use it in front of the courts.

[12:30]

MR. LOVICK: Fire him. This time they have cause.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad the minister is.... As the member says, perhaps the researcher can be fired because you now have cause.

The member for Chilliwack talked about the bankruptcy situation, and I just wanted to quote something from the continuing legal education materials on bankruptcy, but now that the minister is back I won't deal with bankruptcy. I could, but I'd rather stick with the main line. Hopefully the minister was not attending the seditious rally that's going on outside — a rally, I must say, without permit. It's too bad....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think it would be kind of neat if we could get back to section 29 as amended.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay, we will. The minister yesterday talked about assets not being the only determination, or not wanting that to be the only determination, with respect to successor application; hence the removal of the phraseology that dealt with assets. If I understood the minister correctly yesterday, he was saying that what he wanted to see was that there would be a recognizable continuity in the business, not simply a sale of assets, to invite successor status. I take it that that's what the minister was saying. I could go back and quote him, but basically the minister was saying that assets alone ought not to be the determinant of whether or not successorship should apply, but assets in consideration of all of the other circumstances — discernible business continuity — would be the overriding factor. Once again, I was surprised that the minister said that, because I was trying to make the argument that assets never were the sole factor resulting in an automatic or, as the minister puts it, mechanical approval.

Yesterday I didn't get a chance to quote this, and I want to put it on the record. It's an extract from Canadian Labour Law by Adams — it's the 1985 edition, which came out about a year ago — where Adams reviews the various successor rights provisions in various jurisdictions. In dealing with the British Columbia section — it's just short; it's only about half a page — he says.... I want the minister to listen carefully to this quote, because as I interpret what Adams says.... What Adams says here is, I think, bang on to what the minister provided me with in his statement as to the intent of the changes. I think it hammers home the point, as it did with "substantial," that what your intent is not captured by the section.

[ Page 1614 ]

But I thought, instead of hearing it from me and questioning my legal abilities, we'd go to a scholar who knows the stuff at least better than I do. Here is what he says, and I think it's an interesting.... I'm not taking it out of context; I'm just reading the paragraph:

"The British Columbia board now sees the appropriate issue as whether there is an asset transfer, coupled with a recognizable continuity in the business. The transfer of a substantial part of the assets of a business to another employer will not result in the automatic application of section 53 of the British Columbia Labour Code. A successorship will be found if the substantial asset transfer is effected while a 'discernible continuity' in the business is maintained, but there will be no successorship if there is a 'qualitative transformation' of the business, despite the transfer of a substantial part of the assets."

That's the law in British Columbia, as it sits under the current wording of section 53.

Like I say, it is founded on Adams, and he cites the cases that he considered in coming to that conclusion. They consist of the Canadian Pacific case, 78 CLLC, 16; the Durham Transport case, which can also be found in the labour reports; the Wholesale Delivery Service case; and the Hydro-Quebec International case. They are all cases that he used to reinforce that finding. They are all cases that flow out of British Columbia, with the exception of the latter, the Hydro-Quebec case.

I want to ask the minister if he could explain to me, given that this was indeed the law under section 53, and given what he was saying yesterday in terms of what he intended to achieve through these amendments, what is the difference. Why make the amendment if what you were saying yesterday is bang on to what Adams says is a law under the current section 53? Why the change, Mr. Minister? Or are you saying that you were wrong in your expression of intent?

HON. L. HANSON: I heard the member opposite suggest that I had some questions as to his legal abilities. I certainly have no questions at all about his legal abilities. As a matter of fact, I respect them very much, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, George Adams was a former chairman of the Labour Relations Board, or was he a member?

MR. SIHOTA: Ontario.

HON. L. HANSON: Oh, Ontario.

Certainly in his interpretation.... I wouldn't have any difficulty with that. Again, I go back to the intent of the legislation. There is a concern, and I have that concern, that the "or part" which we have removed, I guess, effectively, is the change. That can be interpreted in too narrow a confine. I go back to the intent, as I have stressed many times, that there are a number of things that make up a business. It isn't a part, but it could be a part. It depends on the relationship of that part to the entire business, and how the board determines, as the facts are presented to it, what they see as continuity, and whether the essence of the business is in fact being sold. We think the wording that is there now is good wording. The old wording — "business or part," which we've removed — may allow a narrow determination that we don't philosophically agree with. I'm not going to get into the numbers of cases and the bulldozer, and all of those things. We're talking about an intent, a philosophy.

As I've said before, there isn't anyone, including my opposition member, who has all of those legal abilities to determine exactly what is going to happen from something. That's why he is able to practise his profession and appear before a judge and have those interpretations and make his arguments as to what he feels the interpretation of it should be.

Again, as I've said, I've stated the intent of the legislation a number of times. I've spent a lot of time discussing that intent and getting various opinions and so on, and I believe the legislation that we have there now will in fact protect the bargaining rights that people have acquired through the democratic bargaining process. Where there are situations where successorship should not be determined under the new IRC and the new section that we're proposing here, we feel that there will be a fair determination and that those protections will be in place.

MR. CLARK: Once again the minister is not giving us a clear indication of what he wants. Unlike what the House Leader said, it's our responsibility in this chamber to say what we want the legislation to do. It's up to the IRC to say how it's interpreted.

I find this section one of the most offensive in the whole very offensive bill, and I say that.... I'm glad the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) is here, because I'm sure he probably had a hand in this particular clause, because it's of benefit to many of his friends.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That comment, hon. member, was hardly appropriate to this debate.

MR. CLARK: Why is it not appropriate? What this clause says, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please go ahead.

MR. CLARK: What this clause says, Mr. Chairman, is that the rights of capital take precedence over the rights of workers. It says that people who own property can dispose of their assets and make money, but the rights of workers who work for that company no longer carry any weight. Someone can work for a corporation for 30 years, and you can spin off a company, sell your assets and make money at it. That is made legal by this change in this clause. It allows a corporation to sell off its assets, but it says absolutely nothing about the collective rights of workers who have worked for that corporation. So workers could spend their lifetime working for a corporation, and the collective agreement could be circumvented by this kind of language.

This section is violent. It does violence to the rights of workers. The reason for the original successor rights language was to say that the rights of workers to organize collectively could not be circumvented by selling off or spinning off to the non-union sector. This makes it wide open, particularly in construction. This, combined with section 25, means the deunionization of the construction industry, particularly because the capital and assets of construction work are the thing that is traded, that is circumvented. It makes it very easy for double-breasting, as in a previous clause. This makes it easier to get around the collective agreement. We are going to see massive moves towards

[ Page 1615 ]

getting out of collective agreements because of these kinds of changes.

The successorship language in the previous Code had been interpreted by the Labour Relations Board in a very weak manner. Already we have seen decision after decision of the board — and I was part of some — allow corporations to get around their collective agreement under the old language. Here we have changes to that that make it even easier. I want to read to you how successorship was interpreted in 1985 under the old language:

"When considering a successorship application, the board will determine whether a business or a part of a business has been transferred. A business undertaking includes the physical assets, tools and equipment, management and bargaining unit personnel, goodwill and other intangibles. The importance of each of these varies, depending on the essential nature of the business.

"To determine if a business or part of it has been transferred, the board will undertake a multifaceted approach, reviewing the extent to which these elements have moved from the predecessor to the purported successor. In doing so, the board will examine the numerous facets that compose the particular undertaking, balancing those factors which evince a successorship against those which do not, in an effort to determine whether there has been a continuation of the business or its assets such that collective bargaining rights should be preserved."

That's the language. This is the way the minister is interpreting the new language. Well, if that's the case, why did they make any changes? They made changes to allow their friends, the employers, to get around their collective agreements. There is no question about it. We see it time and time again from the comments, from the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen) and other members on that side who don't understand that collective bargaining rights can't be or should not be allowed to be abrogated because the employer decides to make more money by spinning it off to make it non-union, to get around the legitimate rights of workers to organize in this province. That's what this legislation does, clause after clause after clause.

[12:45]

This section is violent in terms of what it does to the workers' rights in this province. Very strongly about that. I want to go through a case with the minister, the Redskin Cedar case, which is what this clause is. Who was the lawyer? Peter Gall for the employer. He lost his case, so he went to his friends in government and they changed the law. That's what happened.

MR. SIHOTA: Was it before or after the hearing?

MR. CLARK: May 6, 1986. No, sorry. The first one, August 26, 1985, an application to declare Capital — isn't that a coincidence — Cedar Ltd. the successor employer to Redskin Cedar. The application was dismissed. The union lost the original case because the panel did not find on the evidence that Redskin sold its business or any discernible part of its business to Capital. Redskin did not transfer its business, but there was a transfer of assets. Capital was a parallel business and not a continuation of the old business of Redskin. While Capital purchased a substantial part of the equipment, it did not purchase a substantial part of the entire assets of Redskin, nor did it purchase the goodwill, customer lists, etc. The union said Capital purchased virtually all the equipment and assets of Redskin Cedar, and then laid everybody off and hired all non-union. The union applied for successorship rights and said: "They purchased the business, they purchased the assets; they've just changed the employees and they've thrown out of work members of that union who'd worked there for 20 and 30 years. That's not allowed." And they went to the labour board and applied for successorship rights. The labour board, using the old language, said the union is wrong; you can sell assets. But the union appealed and, in a rare case, the union won the appeal.

On May 6, 1986, the union appealed. The union applied for reconsideration of a board decision that Capital was not a successor employer to Redskin. The reconsideration panel set aside the decision of the original panel on the grounds that it erred in law and policy by failing to approach the analysis of the nature of Redskin's business, and the question of whether or not there was a discernible continuity between the business and the business being carried out by Capital from a labour relations perspective. The reconsideration panel substituted for the decision of the original panel in its own decision that there was a discernible continuity, and that assets were sold, and assets made up a part of that business.

So the board overturned the original decision that Peter Gall won, because it said — and that was the chairman, John Kinzie — that assets were a critical component, and they were doing the same business. Would the minister tell the House now if under this new language the reconsideration would be successful? In other words — and this act is retroactive, so....

MR. JANSEN: Come on, be real.

MR. CLARK: What do you mean, be real? The fact is that this is the reason for this amendment. You be real. This is the reason for the amendment. The fact is that the reason for this amendment was to support Peter Gall and to change the reconsideration that the board ruled. That's very clear The facts are absolutely on point on this question. There's no other explanation for these changes.

MR. LOVICK: There are other cases just as well.

MR. CLARK: There are all kinds of cases, but this particular one is exactly the same. Now it says that part of the business no longer constitutes...and it removes the test of assets as a major test in terms of determining it. That was the reason why the board overturned it.

Could the minister tell the House whether this case would have succeeded now or would have ended up with the same decision under this language? Or is it the intent of the minister that this case would still be adjudicated the same way under this new language?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just make a few comments about this particular section, because I think it's probably one of the more important sections we'll be dealing with on Bill 19. I think it's long overdue. I know of numbers of instances in this province where innocent third parties, the owners of buildings, have leased successfully to large businesses, particularly in the retail grocery area. The person who was leasing the premises decided to close their facility, for whatever reason; but to close shop, sell out and

[ Page 1616 ]

clean the shelves. I suggest that the current legislation. which requires and provides for successorship, is indeed unfair to that innocent third party, the owner of the building. who is not completely free to lease his premises to whom he chooses. To me, it's unfair to have a situation where that third party, the owner of the building, who had nothing to do with the application for certification, nothing to do with the collective bargaining process, nothing to do with what went on at the bargaining table, is put in a position where he or she cannot lease the premises to whom he or she pleases.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this section is long overdue and needs cleaning up. I have seen other instances in the province dealing with equipment. People with 10, 12, 15, 20 pieces of equipment who make a free choice to reduce the size of their operations because of the marketplace — choosing to enter retirement, whatever reason it might be — would like to dispose of their assets, and to think that they can't go to the free marketplace.... Whether it be the auction yards or the free marketplace and advertising through the regular channels, they are unable to dispose of those articles one by one in a democratic, free-choice manner without the fear of that certification and collective agreement following that item of equipment. To me, it's fallacy. Changes are long overdue, and I wish to compliment the Minister of Labour for the initiative he has taken in cleaning up this situation.

MR. CLARK: Well, aside from the fact that the Minister of Highways has completely misrepresented the law, he has made it very clear in terms of the philosophy of the government that the owner's right to lease to whomever he wants takes precedence over the rights of the workers in that previous operation. That's what he said. He wants the owner of the building or the store to be able to sell to whomever he wants and to make as much money as he wants. That right is more important than his 20, 30 or 100 or so employees who worked previously for that operation and gave their working lives to make profit for that previous owner. It's more important for the owner of that business to be able to sell it to whomever he wants and to make as much money as he wants than it is for the workers in that operation and the collective rights of those workers.... That's exactly the kind of attitude we've seen from that side consistently, and this section....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Would the speaker please address the Chair.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly the kind of philosophy we've come to expect from this government — I wish the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) would get up, because he could say it more eloquently than the Minister of Highways — on the need, the primacy, of owners' rights over the legitimate rights of workers.

That's what this clause does: it allows corporations to evade their collective agreement; it allows them to get more money, because if the collective agreement is not attached to the business, and the value of the business goes up, they get more money for it. In the case that the first member cited, if B.C. Hydro's railway could be spun off and the collective agreement doesn't follow, then there's a capital gain that accrues, because the value of the business goes up. Is that right? So let's take privatization. What if, for example, they decided that they were going to sell the B.C. Hydro railway, through privatization, and they did an assessment that said, "This is how much it's worth," but then that assessment of the value was based also on the collective agreement and workers' wages begin paid the same, and they sold it — or assessed it — at that rate? But they could get around the collective agreement under this clause, because that's not a substantial part of the business of B.C. Hydro. Then what happens is that whoever purchases it at this price, when the collective agreement is gone, it's worth this much, and the owner gets a capital gain.

I wouldn't impute motives on the part of the government in terms of their privatization, in terms of linking this kind of legislation and future privatization efforts. But it's certainly hard to believe that it hasn't crossed some people's minds, particularly the privatization committee, that this legislation allows capital gains to be made to owners of corporations because it allows them to evade their obligations to working people who work in that operation.

I want to return to the original question to the Minister of Labour. We have the Redskin Cedar Co. section. Would the minister assure the House that it is the intent of this new language to allow the Redskin Cedar decision to stand? Or would this new language essentially thwart reconsideration decision 276-22 of the Labour Relations Board?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, the member opposite is suggesting that we've gone through a process here to deal with a particular situation in a particular case. I assure the member that that's not at all the intention. I don't know the circumstances of the Redskin Cedar Co. I don't know who won it or who lost it. But I assure the member opposite that with the current Bill 19, with section 29 in place, the Industrial Relations Council will make a fair and reasonable determination if a circumstance like that is presented, so that the employees they have bargained reasonably and fairly for do have the benefits of those rights.

MR. LOVICK: Just a very quick, direct question to the Minister of Labour. Would he be good enough to tell us how many examples of particular case law we would need to adduce and present to this House, such as the Redskin Cedar one, before he would agree and concede to the fact that yes, indeed, it is particular cases that have gone in a particular way in favour of the companies that have precisely and directly affected the legislation as now presented to this House? How many?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, hypothetical situations and so on.... We can sit in this House for the next two years presenting cases back and forth. The legislation that's in place is good legislation. It's fair legislation. It's good wording, and the IRC, which you will see, will make fair and reasonable rulings.

MR. GABELMANN: Don't believe a word of it, Mr. Chairman. With that, I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[ Page 1617 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wish everyone a very happy weekend. See you Monday. And I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved. The House adjourned at 1 p.m.