[ Page 1643 ]
Routine Proceedings
Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1643
Mr. Gabelmann
Mr. Clark
Ms. A. Hagen
Ms. Smallwood
Mr. Sihota
Ms. Marzari
Mr. Miller
Mr. Williams
Mr. Crandall
Appendix –– 1654
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 19.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
On section 33.
MR. GABELMANN: It's not entirely in order, but I just want to get an indication from the minister whether the deferred sections will be coming in today. No? Okay. So we'll leave sections 30 and 31 for a later time, then? Okay.
So we're on section 33, and we were making the argument yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that I guess we made the argument. The minister has made his position clear, but in response to our suggestion that there should be some balance, that there should be some equity between the way in which councils of unions or accredited employer organizations can be disbanded, on that issue I wonder whether or not the minister's had an opportunity overnight to rethink the position which he articulated yesterday, so that we can move on, perhaps, with some better language here too.
HON. L. HANSON: Well, I think the key to government's position in the situation of the employers' accreditation is that they come forward voluntarily to the Labour Relations Board — in the old case — and ask for certification, or at least accreditation, and they do that on a voluntary basis. In the case of the councils of trade unions, they are ordered under another section of the act, section 57 of the Code, which provides that a council of trade unions may be certified if that is required to secure and maintain industrial peace. But again the concern that we have expressed, and I think that I've detailed it a number of times, is that we believe there are many positive aspects in this amendment in that employers' organizations may enhance their internal democratic process in order to ensure that they keep the members in there, or to maximize their members in numbers of total, and to ensure that there is the responsiveness to the individual needs of their members. There has proven in many cases, in representations made to me in the hearings, to be a reluctance to join employers' councils or employers' accredited organizations, because of the great difficulty of de-accreditation, or at least getting out of the organization. We believe that the end result will in fact strengthen the organizations and strengthen the bargaining process from both sides.
MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, we're not going to prolong this, but I just want to make a point. Apart from the question of balance, where we disagree with the government's position, there is the other issue which we started with yesterday: the question of good public policy.
In good economic times, employers want accreditation. They find it a useful mechanism to help stave off the demands of unions in good economic times. In bad economic times they don't want the councils. That's been clear in the history of the last couple of years. The efforts by some people.... You think of Ray Smith at Mac and Blo, who has talked about wanting to get out of accredited bargaining agencies. You see CLR members wanting to do the same thing, simply because it's in their economic interest in bad economic times to have a one-on-one relationship with the union. Once the economy improves again, if it ever does, we'll find that they will be demanding that we have these strong groups again.
We just think that in the interest of sound industrial relations and good public policy, it is useful for government policy and for legislation to reflect the view that more centralized bargaining is appropriate and useful, coordinated bargaining is a good policy, and everything should be done to encourage it, not to allow it to be discouraged. That's why section 32 was good: in effect it encourages collective action. Section 33 is bad because it discourages it.
We made the argument yesterday, and we don't need to make it again today, but we just want the government to know that we think they're on a dangerous course in terms of how collective bargaining will end up in this province. It will end up being more fragmented. We will end up having whipsawing, and we will end up with a situation that will call out for legislative action within a couple of years.... I predict right now that we'll be back in this chamber before the next election, having amendments to these sections of the Code dealing with accreditation. The government will not want to live with the kind of industrial relations chaos that comes from the whipsawing that will inevitably result and develop from the weakening of collective bargaining, in the sense of the weakening of the accredited councils of employers or the councils of unions — whatever they're called from day to day. I just want to make that point, and say in sorrow that we will be opposing this particular section.
[10:15]
MR. CLARK: I just want to make, I guess, three points, based on the comments the minister made yesterday. The first is that the minister said that "accredited employers' associations meet the needs of the employer, and therefore it should be up to the employers to disband them." I think I understand that sentiment, but I think there's a broader public policy issue that other governments have felt. That makes a lot of sense, that larger units make more sense in collective bargaining, because they minimize the regional disruption that can result from splintering off. So we have a disagreement there, I understand.
The second point I want to make very briefly is that the minister says this will strengthen it. I want to say that I also understand the rationale for that; that is, I know a number of companies, for example, who are not in the Metal Industries Association and who would join, but won't because they know how hard it is to get out. I think initially you'll be correct. In fact, people will join easier because they can get out easier; in that sense, there will be a growth in the number of people in accredited associations. The problem is that as soon as there's pressure, as soon as there's a strike or a lockout or a problem, the thing will split apart. So it defeats the purpose. In the initial period, if it's easier to get in and out, people may go in for whatever reason, but as soon as there is heat, you will see splinter groups or split-offs from
[ Page 1644 ]
the other associations. It's very clear that in the long run that will cause more disruption.
Even though I think I understand the minister's views and I understand that they are probably part of a personal background and history in the Okanagan, I think there's a real flaw in the analysis. That flaw is that making them easy to get out of sounds good, but by doing so you invite the fact that as soon as there's the least bit of pressure, in terms of a strike or a lockout, then you're going to see them splitting off. That's going to result in checkerboard contracts, in potential leapfrogging, and in all kinds of different kinds of units with different collective agreements which are going to result in the end in more strikes, more lockouts and more disruption.
The final point is this. I don't accept your view that they should be easy to get in and out of, but if you do accept that, surely the argument holds for trade unions as well. I don't think, in fairness, that the minister has made a very clear rationale for having this really double standard. If you really believe that associations are better off being voluntary accredited associations, then it has to follow that trade union associations or bargaining councils should also be voluntary and easy to get in and out of. If you really believe that the voluntary aspect of it makes it stronger, then it's absolutely logical that it should be voluntary in the trade union sector as well.
I think that kind of differential status or clear discrimination in terms of different standards of treating both sectors really belies the kind of attitude that the minister and the government have in terms of different standards for the different groups. I think it's a small thing — particularly because I think the trade union section is correct, and it should only be allowed to split up associations or councils if the labour board, or in this case the IRC, allows it — but it's symbolic, all the way through this bill, of the different standards between the two groups. That kind of thing is what makes the associations or groups or unions feel so strongly against this legislation. Time and time again we see different standards treated all the way along.
So I think those are three areas where we on this side — or, at least, speaking for myself — have really significant differences of opinion. Just to echo the words of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), I feel very strongly that the government will live to regret this very simple section, because allowing the splintering of accredited employer associations will simply mean more disruption and more industrial unrest in the province of British Columbia.
Section 33 approved on division.
On section 34.
HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to section 34 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
The amendment is quite a simple one. It is an editing error, if you will. In the section there was the wording: "within three days after notice is given after subsection (1)." The amendment is: "under subsection (1)." I'm not sure that requires a lot of debate or explanation.
Amendment approved.
On section 34 as amended.
MR. GABELMANN: There are two amendments here. Essentially one is to say that the notice to commence bargaining is 90 days rather than 60 days. That's fine. The principle there that collective agreements should be negotiated prior to the expiry date is, I assume, the underlying motive, and obviously everyone would agree with that. The reality is, of course, that if they're not ready to bargain, they're not going to bargain anyway. The letters will be exchanged and that will be that. But it's useful that it's 90 days.
As far as the other one is concerned, it's a minor amendment requiring that the notices be filed with the commissioner. We'll get into the debate about the commissioner's role and responsibility vis-à-vis the minister's role and responsibility. It's a shift away from governing of labour relations by the Minister of Labour to governing by this appointed person. This is not the place to have that debate; we'll have it later. But I just want to make the point that we are opposed to that kind of diminution of ministerial responsibility.
Section 34 as amended approved.
On section 35.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The introduction of an amendment to section 35. The minister.
HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that this is an amendment; it's a deletion of section 35. This doesn't require a motion to delete it. I believe we simply defeat it. Is that not the case?
In our discussions, the reason for this deletion is that there were concerns that there was a misinterpretation with the intention of the bill. There had been conclusions reached that we were attempting to override all the provisions of the collective agreements, and that certainly was not the case.
So with that, we will be voting against this section of the bill.
MR. GABELMANN: You can be sure, Mr. Chairman, that we too will be voting against this section. I am again delighted that the minister saw fit to bring in this change. The publicity around this section related to firing without cause, when in fact that, as I think the minister has indicated in his comments, was not the significant issue here. That was the only way we could get the press to pay any attention to what we saw as serious concerns about statutory authority overriding collective agreements in Crown corporations, which is essentially what this would have allowed.
Unfortunately, instead of being characterized as a statutory override clause, it became characterized as the firing without-cause clause. So I just make the point that the way it was worded would have allowed for managerial authority to do a variety of things that they were empowered to do by statute, which would have run roughshod through collective agreements. I never understood why it was the government wanted to bring this in in the first place, but I suppose, since we are going to defeat it, there is no point in having a debate about that.
Section 35 negatived.
On section 36.
[ Page 1645 ]
MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, this is the section which allows — if that is the right verb; I am not sure — for an automatic termination of a collective agreement after two years.
This clearly comes out of the R.R. Lake General Contractors case. What happens, of course, is that the contractor first of all is certified and has a collective agreement with its employees, with its trade unions in that particular case. In the past, on occasion — and R.R. Lake is the best example — to avoid its collective bargaining responsibilities it moves its operations elsewhere for two years; it went to Alberta and worked there for two years.
The Labour Board ruled in this case — and I won't go through all the details of it — that that was an illegal evasion of the collective agreement, and R.R. Lake in the 1981 decision were required to continue with the collective agreement. The decision was in one sentence: "A collective agreement exists between the union and the employer." So the government, clearly wanting to assist these companies who wished to find yet another mechanism to avoid their collective agreement, has brought in an amendment now that says that automatically that collective agreement is void after two years if no activity takes place.
Well, that is an open invitation to the R.R. Lake companies of the world to go and do business somewhere else for a couple of years and then come back and find that they have no certification. We just think that is a wrong decision. We think the view of the labour board in 1981 in that case is appropriate, and that it is wrong for this Legislature to aid and abet these companies who wish to get around their legal obligations by operating in this way. I just find it reprehensible that the government would do that. We're absolutely opposed to this particular section. At the very least, there should be a discussion at the IRC about whether or not there has been some activity in relation to the two-year inactivity that demonstrates that there was a game going on to avoid legal responsibilities. But now that's not available to the aggrieved party.
It says the "unit shall be deemed to be terminated upon the expiry of the two-year period" — simply. There should at least be some reference to the Industrial Relations Council in this kind of question. I don't have much more to say about it other than that we think there should be discretion, and not this automatic termination.
MR. CLARK: The member for North Island referred to it as the R.R. Lake clause. I might refer to it as the Wall and Redekop clause. I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions around that case.
Wall and Redekop v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters was a case — B.C. Labour Relations Board 174-86 — that was upheld in the Supreme Court. What happened was that Wall and Redekop subcontracted all of their business. So they would get a contract and subcontract all of their business for a period of over two years. They then applied to have the union decertified as a result of not having any employees for two years. The carpenters took them to the Labour Relations Board, and the Labour Relations Board ruled that even though they had no employees for two years, they really were using the subcontracting to circumvent their collective agreement. So they had no employees for two years, but they were still operating by subcontracting all of the various components.
That was challenged by the company the successful application before the board — to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided again with the union. They said that even though they had no employees for two years, they were really in effect doing business. Those people subcontracting for Wall and Redekop were deemed to be employees for the purposes, I think, of section 52(8) of the Code.
The question, simply, is this: if an employer subcontracts all of the work of that company for a period of two years, is it automatically decertified under this section? Is that the interpretation?
HON. L. HANSON: I think the member may be referring to a change that was introduced earlier in the Code. I think the specific section is 52(8). We believe that the jurisprudence of the board at that time, with their responsibility to determine fair and reasonable conduct on the part of the employer, would be caught in that section. I certainly don't believe that Wall and Redekop would have implications under this particular section.
[10:30]
Section 36 approved on division.
On section 37.
MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to do too many things here at once. This is the collective agreements being filed. I guess the change here essentially is that the agreements have to be filed now with the council as well as with the minister. It also appears that the language is stronger than it was before. I suppose there was a lot of noncompliance with the earlier language of section 67.
I'm just curious. Is there a big room somewhere with all these collective agreements stacked up? Does anybody ever look at them? Do they get dusted? What happens to them?
HON. L. HANSON: I know how the member for North Island feels about trying to do too many things at once.
We do use them. It certainly is true that there are a number that are not filed at this point, under the old regulations. We do produce a summary of the negotiated working conditions.
During the hearings, there were a number of representations made that the information being provided to the industrial relations world was, in their opinion, inadequate, I guess. I'll have to ask my deputy, would the name of that publication...? Okay, we had at one time produced the Labour Research Bulletin — it was discontinued prior to my taking the term of office — and it was suggested that that bulletin was very effective in helping those people in the industrial relations field know what was going on in that field. We believe that the filing of the collective agreements and the requirement for an employer to file information with the council will enable us to provide a good information process — and that's one of the mandates that we'll come to later — so that everyone in the area knows the norm of what is happening out there. Our library is quite often used by both labour and management, and so is the LRB library, so we believe that this is a forward step, and we believe that the provision of that information will prove beneficial to the industrial relations field.
MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I agree that the information is useful and valuable, and it's important to have
[ Page 1646 ]
it on file. Ironically, in this one I would argue that the logical place for it to be is in the board offices. That's where most of the.... Vancouver is a logical place for this to be. However, that aside, it's going to be in both places as a result of this change.
I think it's appropriate to say this under this section: I trust that the minister will in fact bring back the monthly reporting that was contained in the research bulletin — the information that can come from information that's collected under this section. That was discontinued by Bob McClelland, if my memory is correct, while he was Minister of Labour, as a "restraint" measure. A few dollars might have been saved, but the value to industrial relations is, in the long term, more costly than the few dollars that are saved. So I trust the minister will bring that particular bulletin back. I'm not at this point prepared to say whether it needs to be presented differently or whatever. I remember using it very extensively myself as labour critic. It was a very useful document just to keep up to date with what was going on, and I think it was useful for the minister too, because there's no way the minister is going to be able to look at all these collective agreements that are being filed. He won't even know they're coming in; they'll just get sent off to the research office. Presumably the minister gets some kind of regular reporting which summarizes directions and trends and all of that, and if he's getting that reporting, which he should, the reporting may as well be shared with the public and with the labour and management community. So I trust that because this is a beefed-up section, it will lead to a much fuller public discussion of what is actually filed.
MR. CLARK: I agree completely that the former research bulletin was an excellent document.
I just have a couple of questions. This is much tighter, and my own familiarity with the labour board situation is that a lot of the collective agreements aren't actually filed, or a lot of them are old. So the first question is: are these open to the public? In other words, if I want, just as an MLA, to go to the Industrial Relations Council, can I say: "I'd like to see the collective agreement between Burrard Yarrows and the council of trade unions"? Or if I was a trade union rep or whatever and I wanted, say, to sort of raid another union, could I find out what the collective agreement was so I could find out what the seventh month was, or whatever it is? And the second question is: what's the penalty? If you don't file your collective agreement as a trade union with the Industrial Relations Council, what's the penalty?
HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all to the question that the member for North Island addressed to me, I can't at this point come out and say that it's going to be in a particular format. The bulletin format that was used before may be the most appropriate one. There may be a better format to disseminate it. I don't think that we've had a long discussion about what format that should take, but I would have to say that the whole purpose of this is to provide the information so that people are better educated and have more information of what is happening in the labour relations field, to give them a better opportunity to not only assess their position but to assess the position that's being presented to them from the other side — be it the employer or the union. We still have a collective bargaining report service and we'd be pleased to send the member the copies of what we do have at the moment. I don't know whether there's a subscription fee or not.
MR. GABELMANN: Not for us there isn't.
HON. L. HANSON: Well then, we'll send you one for free.
Yes, you can see — and you always could — those that were filed. We believe that both organized labour and management will voluntarily comply with the regulations that are in there because, after all, the production of the information that we're producing should be to their benefit as well as to everyone else. So we expect that it will be voluntary, and there aren't any penalties at this point.
Section 37 approved.
On section 38.
MR. GABELMANN: I'm not going to have a substantive debate on this section either, because it will come as well in 62 –– I just want, for the record, to say that we would much prefer to leave 69 to 73 in the Code and operate with the existing structure, rather than repeal these and include them in the new 8.1. I don't know what more I could say, other than that we were really unhappy with the direction of this whole thing, and we'll get to that in section 62.
Section 38 approved.
On section 39.
MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to note, Mr. Chairman, that we are beginning debate in section 39 on three clauses that have to do with technological change. They do interrelate to one another and I'll try to stay very specifically with each of the clauses. But at the start I may ask for a little latitude, with the cooperation of the minister, that may help in the debate, particularly of 39.
Section 39 deals with section 74 of the Code. Section 74 was originally a fairly straightforward statement regarding how to deal with matters relating to technological change. In the amendments there are clauses which deal with the notice that will be provided for tech change — I might note, an improvement, by being fairly specific. That's something that we note and recognize. It's a 90-day notice that is required. That specific definition is something that we welcome. Then there are some further specifics regarding the nature of that notice, and some caveats in respect to that notice.
When we come to 41, we're looking at the part of the Code that actually defines technological change. What I'd like to do is perhaps to ask, with the consent of the Chair, that the minister comment generally about his understanding of tech change, and give us some background about these clauses in whatever way he feels appropriate under this clause. I'll listen carefully, to be able to apply it to this clause; but if he can and wishes to take some latitude around that whole issue of technological change, I think it could be helpful to us as we begin to discuss these three clauses: the definition of technological change; the way in which the minister sees the particular aspects of clause 39 being implemented; the intent of that clause. That, I think, would start our debate on these clauses very well.
[ Page 1647 ]
HON. L. HANSON: I certainly am not trying to be difficult. Certainly we will get into that discussion of what we see as being technological change when we reach that section. In this section here we're dealing with the notice of change; and when we get further, I'm sure that you will have some comments about how we see technological change, or what we see as the definition of it.
In this case we're suggesting that there should be a requirement to advise of technological change 90 days in advance of the change happening. We've said that the employer's notice must include the date that they expect to implement the change, which could be more than 90, but a minimum of 90, and the approximate number and type of employees who will be affected. We've also put in there that if the collective agreement already has a provision dealing with technological change and has mechanisms there to help the employees with the effects of such change, they will in fact override this provision. But if there isn't a provision, this is the minimum requirement. We feel the parties are free to negotiate a more comprehensive notice provision if they so wish.
[10:45]
While I can agree with the member's concerns.... If we're discussing all three sections as one, we can do that; I'd be quite pleased to do that, or stick to this one. But I'd have to have your agreement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair, recognizing the very close relationship between sections 39, 40 and 41, is quite prepared to accept that the debate will span the three sections if it's agreeable to both sides. Perhaps then we will be able to deal with sections 40 and 41 much more quickly when we come to them. If that's agreed, we'll continue on that basis. Is that agreed, minister?
HON. L. HANSON: Yes.
MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to go through clause 39 for just a couple of points, if I may, because I think these are additions and some clarification.
Under what will become 74(2), where the notice is specified, one of the qualifications that I presume would trigger that notice is a fairly specific definition of what might constitute the need for notice. It's in the statement: "...to effect a technological change that is likely to affect the terms and conditions or security of employment of a significant number of his employees to whom the collective agreement applies...." Then it goes on to talk about notice.
I think that the significant number of employees is in addition to this clause that was not in the former Labour Code. I'd like to ask the minister to comment and to explain and to give us his understanding of what that particular statement in this clause means.
HON. L. HANSON: Again, Mr. Chairman, I guess we're getting into legal definitions. We went through this quite thoroughly in "substantive," and now we're talking about "significant" and so on. If there is a technological change proposed and there is a question of whether the number of employees affected is significant, I suppose that's a jurisprudence that the Industrial Relations Council would ultimately determine. But I see a very real possibility that if there is any question of what "significant" is in the minds of the employer and the employee or the union, it would very likely be simply defined in the collective agreement. But if the collective agreement did not provide what they consider to be significant....
You know, "significant" is such a hard word to pin down unless you know the exact circumstances. If there are five employees in a bargaining unit and something happens to affect two of them, I guess that would have to be considered significant. In a larger operation, three or four could be significant. But I think the requirement is there to give the notice to deal with those, and the Industrial Relations Council, in the case of a dispute, will make that decision. It doesn't seem to me that it will be a very disruptive argument between the employer and the employee in determination of what is significant. If you have a gas-powered drill and somebody brings in an electrical one, I am not sure that's a significant technological change or affects a significant number of employees.
But again, it is a very difficult thing to lay out in black and white. I think we went through a discussion about whether 40 percent is a substantial amount of the business as far as shareholders are concerned. It is a question of what that 40 percent represents as it relates to the business. It may, in fact, be the ownership of the business because the other 60 percent is spread between 500 people or whatever.
So "significant" is a very difficult thing to pin down in terms of actual numbers. But I think that it is a very easy one for the IRC to determine if there is a dispute about what is significant.
MS. A. HAGEN: I note that we are in our discussion beginning to move into two areas: significant technological change — and I know my colleague for Surrey-Guildford Whalley is going to take a look at that issue — and the significant number of employees.
Just staying with that number of employees for a brief moment, would the minister agree that this particular phrase is a narrowing of the scope of activity around tech change? In the earlier clause, the clause that is being amended, it is, I think, implicit in the clause that any technological change that takes place in a workplace may be subject to the processes, which included notice. opportunity for retraining and financial kinds of remunerations for affected employees.
Would the minister agree that by putting this particular definition on the number of employees we may, in fact, limit the occasions on which there may be some action through this clause on technological change?
HON. L. HANSON: No, I couldn't agree with that assumption. I don't think that there is a narrowing in the new one compared to the old one. I think that "significant number of employees" makes a very small interpretation or a very large interpretation possible. The other thing is that the old provision was permissive only if that makes.... But I don't think that that will be the case.
MS. A. HAGEN: Let me just be clear then. The improvement in this clause is that there is a very definite notice required. We have acknowledged that. We may, in fact, not agree entirely about whether the addition of the words "the significant number of employees" may have a limiting effect.
I would maintain, through the Chair to the minister, that again it is a matter of interpretation. I know that discussion has gone on many times here. By virtue of words, our potential interpretation is coming forward. It seems to me
[ Page 1648 ]
that in the earlier clause there was the opportunity, by there being no definition of the number of employees, that that could be interpreted to be one employee or a majority of employees or the number within a particular section. I think that we may, in fact, have some difference in the significance of this amendment and in the effect that it may have.
I don't want to comment about it further. Mr. Chairman, unless the minister wants to make some further comment on that. If he does not, I know that with the latitude that you and the minister have agreed to with our agreement, we are going to range a little bit more broadly over the other sections at this time before we go on with our debate on section 39.
HON. L. HANSON: Something that we feel is very significant, and I certainly feel will be an improvement, is that in the old act, it said: "...which may include provisions for notice...." Now we have said in the act: "...it shall give notice...." So it is very clear that there is a requirement.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to ask the minister for his definition of "tech change," not as has been discussed earlier but a definition of the impact of tech change as they're referred to — the minister's and the bill's definition of tech change. Perhaps we could start there.
HON. L. HANSON: That is in section 41, but we've agreed that we will be discussing all three in the same context.
We believe that tech change — I think it's fairly clearly outlined in the wording of the act — involves the bringing of some new equipment, material or whatever into the workplace that displaces people who are doing a job manually, if you will, or in a different form. I guess I could use the example where in a particular manufacturing process there's a very delicate material used, and that delicate material requires handling in a very delicate manner, and if there's a new material found that doesn't require that handling, that may result in a tech change that displaces some people because of the now unrequired sensitive handling of a particular material. I could go further. It could include things such as computers — to computerize a system.
"A change in the employer's business which is not related to the introduction of a different kind of equipment or material into the business will not qualify as a technological change." That's a statement I'm reading from another one. What I'm trying to say is that if there is the introduction of a piece of equipment or a kind of material that in effect displaces employees who would normally be required to do a job now to be done by this more sophisticated equipment, that would be a technological change.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps I could have further clarification from the minister. Does the minister include software programs in his definition of technological change?
HON. L. HANSON: I don't think that I can agree that it includes it totally. If it does introduce change and reduces the number of people required to do a production job or any kind of work, then yes, it would be.
[11:00]
MS. SMALLWOOD: So what the minister is saying is that he not only includes the hardware and the equipment, but at times, where a software program is introduced that reduces the number of jobs, then that too would fall under the definition of technological change in this bill.
HON. L. HANSON: Yes, I believe it would.
MS. SMALLWOOD: On the definition of technological change, would the minister also include the change of operations for a business effected by either a software program or a change in technology that would cause the centralization of the tasks performed by that operation?
Let me give you an example. If there was a company in B.C. that had regional offices, and because of the introduction of technological change, there was no longer a need for those regional offices, and the functioning of that company was then performed in a central location and jobs in the regions were reduced, would that fall under the definition of technological change, as the minister sees it?
HON. L. HANSON: No, I don't think that that would be considered a technological change. But of course every case has to be decided on its merit. I'm not sure that a centralization process, if you will, would come under the terms of technological change. The Industrial Relations Council, again, given all of the facts of a particular case, will make a decision as to whether it is. But I wouldn't think a simple centralization of something would fall under that.
MS. SMALLWOOD: The question was because of the technology.... Again, I want to pursue this a little bit. There are several examples throughout the province. I'll use an example that I realize is under federal jurisdiction and won't fall under this bill, but it's a classic. Although this particular example is under federal legislation, there are many other examples in the province that this bill will have to deal with. The function of B.C. Tel operators in regional offices around this province has been severely altered by the introduction of technological change — sophisticated computers.... Instead of having an operator up in the interior answering phones and dealing with the problems of service in that community, the telephone company, because of technological change, has been able to centralize all of its services and facilities in the lower mainland. That has left large numbers of people throughout B.C. unemployed, or has given them the option to move down to Vancouver. If the minister would acknowledge that that example should fall under the definition of centralization of services due to technological change, that it is governed by this act and the provision for 90 days, it would help clarify the situation for the very people he's talking about who will have to make the decisions.
HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all, centralization in itself would not be technological change. If in fact equipment were introduced that made a significant impact on the workforce doing a job, that would in fact be technological change. What I'm trying to say, using your telephone company example, is that if there were a telephone operator in Vernon transferred to Kelowna to do the same job, that would not be technological change. But if they purchase computerized equipment and so on, and individuals' jobs become redundant because technological change has been introduced, regardless of where they are located, then yes, in my opinion, it would be. Each case would be adjudicated by
[ Page 1649 ]
the IRC if there were a question about that. Did you understand what I was trying to say there?
[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]
MS. SMALLWOOD: If I can reiterate my understanding, the minister is saying that if there's a change in the technology, as he's defined it — and he's defined it as not only the hardware but also the software — any introduction of technological change causing centralization would be regarded as technological change, and due notice would have to be given. I'm not talking simply of centralization per se; I'm talking about centralization due to a change in the software or new technologies. Could I just have the minister comment on whether he agrees that I have an understanding of what he has said?
HON. L. HANSON: Yes.
MS. SMALLWOOD: What I'd like to do now, if we have a basic understanding of what "technological change" means in this bill, is talk a little bit about how the restriction as defined by this bill will impact upon people in this province. While I'm not all that comfortable or familiar with the workings of labour law, as perhaps some of our other members are — and hopefully they will pursue those aspects — I want to point out to the minister that the issue of technological change in the workplace is possibly the most significant factor we will be facing in the years to come. What it means to the people of this province — and we have seen examples of it already — is that the workplace is being impacted upon to such an extent that working people at the workplace are extremely vulnerable. I would be looking for the minister to ensure that, number one, people in the workplace have some say about the introduction of technological change. I think that notice in and of itself doesn't go far enough. What we need to have happen is a process that enables the people who are working on the shop floor, or in offices, to have an opportunity to have some say about the introduction of technology. That is of real benefit, not only to the workplace but also to production in general.
The point has been made over and over again when examining technological change that what is happening is that technologies are being introduced with a bottom line of profit, with a bottom line of increasing productivity and increasing the production of, let's say, widgets. The opportunity that government has, by dealing with legislation such as this, is to say that we as a society want to go a little bit further. We want to acknowledge the expertise and the information that working people bring to the process, and we want to improve the situation. We want to bring on line technologies that enhance the ability and the skills of working people while, of course, dealing with production and profitability.
Unfortunately, by not taking into consideration the skills and knowledge that working people bring to this, we end up in a situation where we're laying off people unnecessarily, where we are causing significant health and safety problems in the workplace by not taking into consideration the stress levels or possibly the environment in the workplace. What I am concerned about by the minister dealing narrowly in this legislation with the issues of technological change is that we are supporting that whole trend and not taking into account the possibility of reducing long-term costs to the province. Would the minister like to make a comment?
HON. L. HANSON: The member obviously has given me quite a speech to respond to. I think that in the legislation what we're doing.... The whole purpose of these sections is to ensure that the employees do have a process and, through that process, an ability to have input. The effect of the notice and so on is to ensure that process.
If the member opposite is questioning the definition of technological change, as it relates to section 41, I guess we have a difference of opinion as to what it is. But all of the social problems and so on that are dealt with in the workplace, which I think is what the member was referring to.... There are a number of methods that have been negotiated for dealing with those sorts of things. In the technological change definition, we say that it does not include normal layoffs resulting from a decrease in the amount of work to be done, as long as the decrease in the amount of work to be done is not as a result of technological change.
Most of the collective agreements do have situations regarding notice and retraining and so on in the case of technological change, and I guess some of them even extend to normal layoffs. The government's collective agreement states quite simply that both parties acknowledge the overall advantages and necessity of technological change, and the ongoing requirement to facilitate technological change in the employer's operations. But the parties also recognize the need to develop orderly procedures to facilitate adjustments in the implementation of changes in technology. That's really what we're talking about here.
There haven't been a large number of cases before the LRB in the last number of years regarding technological change, but I think the member was referring maybe to a different problem than the one in these three sections that we're introducing.
MS. A. HAGEN: I want to pick up again around the definition of technological change. My understanding is that the minister has agreed that changes in the operation of the workplace that result from technological change are still to be encompassed by the change definition. The definition that we have had in British Columbia is perhaps one of the broadest in the jurisdiction of labour law, as I understand it, and the clause that has been changed refers, in fact, to the operation of business.
I think it's worth reading into the record what is going to be replaced by this new clause. Technological change under the Labour Code presently extant means (a) the introduction by an employer of a change in his work, undertaking or business, or a change in his equipment or material from the equipment or material previously used by the employer in his work, undertaking or business; or (b) a change in the manner an employer carries on his work, undertaking or business related to the introduction of that equipment or material.
Some other members may see a major difference in the (b) of the former Code and the rewording of the (b) in the proposed amendment. It seems to me that those may be simply some changes in the way in which the words are ordered up. In the two (a) clauses, the (a) clause of the Labour Code now and the proposed change, there is a significant difference. It seems to me that that first statement — an introduction by an employer of a change in his work, undertaking or business — is a broad recognition of the nature of
[ Page 1650 ]
technological change that my colleague has been talking about. In spite of the minister's assurances that changes in a work, undertaking or business that are directly attributable to technological change will be covered, I'm not confident that that rewording in the amendment allows for as broad and effective an interpretation.
My question is really, I think, a very simple one at this point: why has the change in (a) from the existing Labour Code to the new IRA been made? Given the discussion that the minister has just had with the member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) and given his interpretation, what is the reason for the change in the wording, which appears to narrow very significantly the definition of technological change?
[11:15]
HON. L. HANSON: I think that the member's observation has some merit. I don't think there's any question that there was an interpretation using that wording that was slightly too broad. We believe changes that are being contemplated by the employer should be dealt with by the parties and should not be interfered with by the legislation unless it relates to the introduction of new equipment or material, and therefore a tech change.
I might just point out that the provincial government in their negotiations with the BCGEU have clarified that in the contract, and that is in fact where the wording sits now that does protect the employees. But technological change is recognized as being different equipment or materials that are introduced that have an effect on the workplace.
MS. A. HAGEN: I think we are beginning to get into the nub of this discussion, and that is that we are really looking at the changes that are occurring in our workplace. The nature of technological change is in fact a very broad kind of change. We simply have to look at the extreme differences that occur in the number of people employed in various industries and operations in our province and our country to know this.
In manufacturing, in the service industries, in government, would the minister not agree that we can have tech change without necessarily having the introduction of a piece of equipment or hardware or some material, and that tech change has a broader concept than something that physically is identifiable, goes into a workplace and has an employee working with that piece of equipment or material?
HON. L. HANSON: Certainly it may have, but I don't think that it has for the purposes of this bill or these sections. Organizational changes within a business are fairly common, no matter what they may be. They may reflect management; they may reflect the workers. Usually when that does happen, there is a clause in the contract that attempts to deal with it. But I am not sure that under these sections I could agree that that should be considered a technological change.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Quite frankly, the minister's first statement about his definition really confuses me, because it seems to be contrary to what this recommendation says. The minister says that this is a process of tightening up and that the previous definition was too broad, but at the same time he acknowledges that changes in the workplace due to system changes — new software being brought on — are technological change. Perhaps the minister can elaborate a little bit more on his comment about this being a tightening up and the previous definition being too broad. In what way was it too broad?
HON. L. HANSON: First of all, regarding my remarks about the computer software, you have to consider the case. I think it is quite conceivable that the introduction of new software could be considered a technological change, but you have to know the effects of the introduction of new software to see that it is a change of work methods and in fact introduces a different kind of equipment or material or concept about the work done. But a flat statement that software would be considered a technological change.... You'd have to consider the facts of the various cases as they are presented to the IRC.
We have no question, as I admitted earlier.... There is a slight narrowing of the definition, if you will, but we feel that the definition that we have put forward is the definition that should truly mean what technological change is. While I'm not going to get into difficulties with the correct wording, we want to make it very clear to the new IRC what we as government see as the definition of technological change. We think we've spelled it out very clearly in this bill.
MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister still hasn't answered my question about the changes. He made the comment that it tightens it up. I'd like to understand how it tightens it up.
In addition, the minister has just made comment about the introduction of software and refers to it as "if it changes the method of work." Quite clearly, whether it is an introduction of hardware or software or a system change, if it changes the method of work, I would say it is technological change, in this juncture of industrial development. Would the minister like to elaborate on his comment regarding change in the method of work, and whether that falls under the definition of technological change?
I again ask the minister to please let this House know what he meant by saying that this definition tightens up the old definition and that he feels the old definition was too broad. In what regard was it too broad?
HON. L. HANSON: Under the current definition, we felt that if an employer introduces any change whatsoever in his business, it could qualify as a technological change. We don't believe that that should be the case. We believe that there should be a very definite clear meaning, that there should be an introduction of new equipment, new material, and so on — which we've spelled out in the bill; we've made it very clear — to have the definition of technological change. I guess we have a disagreement on that principle.
MR. SIHOTA: I find this debate, in the context of the other debates that we've had, to be somewhat interesting, Madam Chairman. The minister has said over and over again during the course of debate that he wants to place a lot of faith in the Industrial Relations Council; that he wants that council to have the freedom and the flexibility to make all sorts of decisions. There is nothing in society that is moving as quickly as technological change, and we've all witnessed that in our areas of business and activity. I think we all understand that technological change poses a considerable threat to the employment security enjoyed by working people.
Not only does it not make sense to restrict the definition and hence restrict the scope of inquiry for the Industrial Relations Council, but is the minister saying now that he
[ Page 1651 ]
doesn't have faith in the IRC to deal with these types of matters, and that's why he's restricting the definition? Or does he have faith, and if he does, why is he not allowing them to make a full and proper inquiry into whether or not technological change has occurred?
Once again we're getting back to the phantom cases. If there is going to be a change in the manner of the operations of the company, the minister says that that shouldn't qualify for technological change. Is the IRC not capable of making distinctions between frivolous cases and legitimate cases? Is it not capable of making distinctions between situations where it should be involved and should make a declaration with respect to technological change, and others? Do you or do you not have faith in the IRC? If you do, and if you contemplate having that faith, then why narrow the definition? That's a question to the minister.
HON. L. HANSON: Of course we have the greatest of confidence in the IRC. The definition, as it was printed before, gives a very, very broad interpretation of what "tech nological change" means: "...the introduction of an employer of a change in his work, undertaking or busi ness...." We simply feel that that's far too broad an interpretation of technological change. If an employer has a change in his work or in his undertaking or in his business, we don't feel that that's a technological change. I guess we have a basic disagreement on that.
We certainly do have faith in the IRC, and we have faith that the IRC will make good and proper decisions as it relates to this act. But narrowing the definitions and faith in the IRC seem to me to be two quite different issues.
MS. MARZARI: Well, Madam Chairman, if ever there was a legitimate area for reasonable dialogue between labour and management, it would seem to be in this particular area of technological change, as it affects both clerical workers and as it affects our workers in primary resource industries.
As far as I can see, sections 39 to 41 basically dictate that any change that does not involve new equipment, which might have been caught under the old section 78 of the Labour Code, won't be addressed by this new definition.
As it has been explained to me, our clerical workers in the public sector, very often women, have not been able thus far to use section 78, which might have made a difference to them as they work for BCGEU, as they work in these buildings. The BCGEU has, in effect, been denied the use of section 78, which has been interpreted as having a broader definition than the BCGEU under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.
[11:30]
Consequently the BCGEU right now has a definition for technological change that is very restrictive for them and is now being spread to the private sector as well. In doing that, we have people in the private sector in lumber and timber who are now being faced with the prospect that contracting out can occur above their heads, and they will no longer be able to use section 78 to deal with that.
In other words, this reinterpretation of the old section 78 basically tells the workers in a pulp mill that might want to contract out its chipping operation, because it got a better deal somewhere else with another company with a new machine, that they will no longer be able to use section 78 and say: "This is illegitimate. Technological change is dictating to us that we are being laid off, that contracting out is what is going on here."
So it is not so much a redefinition or a tightening or a narrowing; it is basically an additional legitimatization to the contracting-out process that is happening in these particular sections. So I don't understand why the minister would talk about the advanta2es to the BCGEU and the fact that it has had a liberal interpretation of technological change. In fact, it has had a very tight interpretation, and that tight interpretation is being spread out to the private sector to justify increased contracting out. Now that seems to be the major issue on these sections, or it is one of the two major issues on these sections.
So whether it's tight, loose or whatever, it strikes me that my colleagues are asking the right questions and they are on the right track, basically, by asking how you can talk about tightening the definition when in fact what you're really doing is justifying a contracting-out process and removing from labour the opportunity to use, as they did under the old Labour Code, the argument that this contracting out is happening. It's happening, and it's going to be happening on a regular basis. Technological change will not be an argument that will be legitimate in the eyes of the new commission, as it once was.
HON. L. HANSON: It's really interesting to hear the comments of the last member. I've said many times I've had a number of meetings with various labour organizations, and I've had a number of meetings with individuals and management people, and when dealing with this section, it was never raised to me that there was any concern that this section would allow contracting out. As a matter of fact, I think I had some information that there had been three cases before the Labour Relations Board in some 14 years under this particular section, and that it isn't a section that is constantly in question.
It's sort of interesting to also note that the most contentious issue of the recent FIR-forest industry strike that everyone is well aware of was a protection of the work done by the bargaining unit, and in effect a no-contracting-out clause was what was required. So while we've narrowed it to define the introduction of new equipment.... They are two totally different issues. I don't think this section has anything to do with contracting out, nor was it intended to.
MR. MILLER: Has the minister checked the unemployment statistics recently? I don't understand the rationale or logic as to why he'd want to narrow a definition of tech change, because the old Code afforded protection to some employees. What you're saying, in effect, is that you disagreed with that.
We're talking substantially here about the Eurocan decision, about technological change being defined as a change in the nature of the work to some extent, where there had traditionally been wood rooms attached to pulp mills and where employers were shutting down their wood rooms or trucking chips in, and where people who had worked in Prince Rupert....
I'll deal with Prince Rupert. I worked in the wood room in Prince Rupert, and I saw the changes over the years and the number of people who were displaced. In some cases, people who had worked for 30 years in wood room operations were told: "That's it. We might give you a job driving a pickup truck. Sorry, we're now going to bring our chips in." Now
[ Page 1652 ]
they were successful under the old wording of getting a definition of tech change. Why would you want to remove that kind of protection?
Let's took at the impact that tech change has had in this province and will continue to have, and look at the role of the B.C. government with respect to people who are displaced. You people do nothing. Here you are offering the workers of British Columbia, at least some, in terms of tightening this definition.... You're saying: "Well, now, we don't think you should have that protection."
What other programs do you offer? Do you do what the federal government does, for example, when there's a fairly massive displacement of workers, with manpower committees? What else do you do? Look at the unemployment statistics, for God's sake. Why the heck wouldn't you be trying to come up with some kind of program or policy in terms of dealing with the whole question of automation and technological change and displaced workers, and to put that in place in British Columbia? I mean, you blithely stand there and say no. Quite frankly, you're saying: "We disagree with the Eurocan decision; we're changing the wording of the Code to reflect that feeling." Which employer came to you and said they wanted that change? I mean, it's shocking, when you think about the problems we have, and that one particularly, because it raises all kinds of questions.
I don't profess to have all the answers to those questions, but I know it's happening. For example, the fishing industry, which used to be highly labour-intensive on this coast and still provides thousands of jobs during the fishing season.... Just ask the people in Prince Rupert about what the major contributor to the economy is in Prince Rupert. The fishing unions have been waging a very, very difficult battle with their employers in terms of the implications and the impact of technological change, trying, for example.... And they've come up with some fairly unique agreements. They're probably more creative in some respects than some other unions in dealing with that question of allowing the stuff to come in, but recognizing that there's a major gain by the employer.
Yet the employer, as a private employer, says: "It's not our responsibility to deal with social issues; it's our responsibility to run an efficient plant to maximize profits." I don't disagree with that responsibility, but in the absence of the employer being forced to deal with it on some basis, surely the people can expect that the government would have some interest, more than simply coming in and saying: "We're narrowing the definition."
You know, we're dealing with this whole issue on a far too simplistic basis. In fact, there's a good argument that it should be taken out of the Code and dealt with much more broadly by government, in terms of policy and unemployment and perhaps saying to companies that realize the benefit of technological change — in some cases particularly massive benefit, in terms of displacing working people and replacing them with machines.... I don't think anybody wants to be a Luddite, you know, and to say that this stuff isn't coming. Unions recognize it's coming; we all have to recognize it's coming. But we all have to, surely, do something other than stand up and say: "We want to narrow the definition; we want to take away that little protection that some people had." How many people worked in the wood room at Eurocan? It wasn't that many. Why shouldn't they get that protection?
Would the minister tell me why he doesn't think that, if the Eurocan case were to proceed under the wording that he is proposing, those people would be out in the cold? Could you stand up and explain, and I'll take the message back to those workers? Stand up, and let's read in Hansard why you wouldn't want that protection to be afforded to those workers.
The minister remains silent.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to pursue this point, Madam Chairman, because I think the example that the member for Prince Rupert has given is a good one. It's also an indication of the returns to the corporate sector in terms of the technological change.
You seem to take the view, unlike most reasonable western world governments, that all of the returns should go to capital in terms of the benefits of technological change. Most administrations in the western world don't accept that, and certainly the European administrations don't accept it at all. So it's reasonable that there should be a sharing of the benefits of technological change. That should carry with it some burden in terms of the re-employment, the retraining and the accommodation of the displaced worker, and in that sense the broader definition is reasonable, and maybe one even broader still.
With respect to the example that the member for Prince Rupert refers to, the difference is something like this. The cost of bringing in chips to replace the wood room, instead of using the roundwood and chipping right at the mill, is half as much. The cost of supply is cut in half. That is a tremendous margin of benefit for the pulp mill. To then accommodate the handful of workers who are displaced by that process is just a fraction of the monetary benefit that the corporation receives. It's quite reasonable that there should be some obligation in terms of those people who have spent many years working in that miserable wood room, in terms of maintaining their employment and seniority and security within that corporation, It should simply be a cost of doing business in a civilized society. They shouldn't be just tossed out onto the trash heap.
That's the concern that's being expressed. It's a reasonable concern, and it is a modest cost in terms of the great gains that most technological change brings to the owners of capital or the owners of equity. So, you know, maybe the minister can respond to that. In the example the member gives we're talking about hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars of benefit in terms of just that kind of change alone, and accommodating those displaced workers is a modest cost relative to that.
HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I'm not familiar with the Eurocan deal, by the way.
MR. WILLIAMS: Any pulp mill in the province.
HON. L. HANSON: Again, the situation that the member over there described is that people have been put out of work, displaced, after years of service, for whatever the reason. We believe that there are a number of things that happen in the negotiation of collective agreements that in some cases cover that sort of situation very well. There are a number of programs both federally and provincially that cover those sorts of situations — maybe not always as well as everyone would like to see, but there are programs in place. What we are dealing with here, as far as we are concerned, is
[ Page 1653 ]
that technological change should be described as the introduction of material or equipment that changes the method of doing the work in the workplace. We think that that's the correct definition. Obviously the members on the other side would like to see it much broader to catch all sorts of things which in fact are not necessarily technological change.
[1:45]
MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, you say you're not familiar with the Eurocan decision. That surprises me somewhat, because it's one that, not just to us but to a number of people involved in this area, immediately comes to mind when you talk about narrowing definitions. In the particular case that's been cited, the method or manner of producing fibre for the pulp mill was changed. There are some outside implications, and I think the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) was right when she talked about contracting out being a part of that. Quite frankly, it is, because look at what's happening in the trucking industry now and the changes in transportation methods, where, for example, logs used to come in by rail to a pulp mill. We see that we're now bringing chips in by truck and the cost of transportation is down considerably.
I'll go back and say I don't blame a company for seeking efficiencies. Certainly if any one of us is running a company, that's obviously got to be a prime responsibility. You have to remain competitive. You have to look at what new equipment and machinery may be available. You want to introduce that. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. But there is something wrong — again in the Eurocan case — where a very small number of people managed, because of the wording of the legislation, to gain the protection offered under the technological change clause in the pulp industry's joint labour agreement. In fact, I think they were the first. I am not sure of the date of that — 1983? — but there were changes that took place prior to that where people didn't get that protection.
What I'm trying to really get at And all you say is: "We disagree." But I am curious to know — and maybe I am re-posing my original question — why you would not want, as an elected public official in this province, something that did not cost a great deal of money. Why would you not want those employees displaced under that type of situation to be afforded the really minimal protection contained in tech change clauses? I am speaking now of the pulp industry. Why? Is it a great cost to society? Is it a great cost to government? Is it a great cost to the employer? What are the compelling reasons why you want to narrow that definition? It's got to be more than that we just have a disagreement. There must be some logic or thought behind that reason.
We think that those employees should have at least that minimal kind of protection — we actually think they should have more — in those unique situations. Could you explain why they should not have that protection? They don't have any other. You try to negotiate; if you don't have.... Quite frankly, unions don't have the right to negotiate in midstream. I have been in lots of situations where a new piece of equipment has been brought in, and we tried to get issues like rates settled before the equipment was put into operation, and we couldn't, because there is a clause also that says that management has that right. Management has the right to order you.... If they buy a new piece of equipment, or if they change something, you have to run it.
You try to negotiate in mid-contract, if you understand that really the only hammer you've got in negotiations ultimately is to withdraw your labour. It's not that you have to do it, but that you have to have the ability to exercise it. The employer has to know that you have the ability to exercise it. It brings some honesty to the table. If you don't have that, how can you negotiate? How can you honestly negotiate? Two parties coming to the table should have some equal weight, I suppose. Why would you not want those people to have the protection of the tech change clause?
HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I don't have all of the facts of the case the member referred to. I would suggest that it's quite possible that they could be covered under the new.... I don't know; I don't have the facts. When there's any change in the workplace, whether it be from a lack of work or of a different organizational method of doing the work. there certainly should be protection, and that should be negotiated into the contract between the two. We feel very strongly that the definition we have here is the correct one, and it shouldn't be broadened by using the term out of its meaning of tech change.
I'm not sure the case situation that the member mentioned.... It could very well be covered by the IRC.
MR. CRANDALL: Madam Chairman, while we're talking about technological change, I would like to point out that, I don't have any problems agreeing with the opposition about the concern for employment. I certainly share that concern. However. I want to point out that it has only been because of technological change in the last number of years that we've had the standard of living and the high level of wages that we have. I remember, in the sawmills in my riding in the fifties they were paying $1.50 an hour: now they're paying $17 and $18 an hour, and technological change is a major reason that they can do that.
Interjection.
MR. CRANDALL: You can say "trade unions" if you want, and certainly that's been a factor, but technological change has sure been a factor. If they didn't have the J-bars and things like that in those mills now, they wouldn't be able to operate.
While we can say that there's a minimal cost here, that reminds me of the resource issues that this province faces. Again, looking at my riding, we have wilderness concerns, and every time we look at something like this we say it's only going to take 1 percent of the annual allowable cut. That's fine, as long as that's the only issue, but we've got 1 percent here, 1 percent there and 1 percent in several other places. Pretty soon we don't have 1 percent; we've got a great many percents.
What I'm concerned about here is that it seems we always look at the minimal costs. We could end up having the British disease, and I might point out that that British disease was in place during the Labour government in Britain.
I think it's important that we recognize that we have to take advantage of technological change. Our challenge shouldn't be to prevent technological change. Our challenge should be to keep our industry efficient and attractive to other industries moving into this province. When we have to take some employees out of an industry, we should be able to put
[ Page 1654 ]
them into another industry and keep British Columbia competitive in a competitive world.
Interjections.
MR. CRANDALL: In a world that is becoming overly protective, technological change is very important. I just want to say that I support this particular portion of this bill. Thank you very much. I appreciate the help from the opposition, which I always seem to attract — I don't know why.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, that member certainly always adds a new dimension to the debate, and possibly raises some issues that even we haven't thought of.
Interjection.
MR. MILLER: Their validity is unquestioned, but I'm curious, I must confess. My curiosity was aroused, Madam Chairman, because we're dealing with a clause that would restrict the definition of technological change. Obviously at issue here are those people who would be afforded some measure of protection under the existing legislation. They will be excluded if we adopt the proposal of the minister, so we're talking about I don't know how many people. Maybe if the member had ten people in his constituency who would be given, under the existing wording....
We're not talking about resisting technological change; we're not saying it's bad. We agree. I stood up here just a few minutes ago and said that we have to take advantage of it, that employers would be foolish not to take advantage of it. We have to be progressive; we have to be efficient.
MR. HEWITT: That's why they get the hourly rate that they did, because of the efficiency of the mill.
MR. MILLER: But the fundamental question is: why should those hypothetical ten people in the member for Columbia River's (Mr. Crandall's) riding not be allowed to collect a few thousand dollars that they would get under the tech change provisions of their collective agreement? Why shouldn't they be allowed? The member is saying that if there are people in his constituency who are now covered, who will now be allowed to collect that minimal amount of money to sort of put their lives together.... Where do I go next? I don't have a job. What kind of training can I get? How can I pay my rent? How can I feed my kids?
The member is saying he doesn't want them to have it, and I don't understand why. Perhaps the member would explain.
MR. CRANDALL: Maybe I will explain, and let me tell you that we've had an awful lot of people replaced because of technological change in my riding. In most cases, they're replaced elsewhere in the company or whatever. I've never heard of any kind of this situation that you're talking about where we would fork over thousands of dollars to displaced employees. It's never happened in my riding. I don't think that it's probably happened in very many, and I'll tell you something more. The workers in my riding have never suggested it. The last time we had major technological changes in my riding, they've been absorbed elsewhere in the business. I don't think you know any more about my riding than I do. You might think you do, but I don't think you do.
Maybe what you should do is come there sometime and take a look around. What I'm telling you, and I'll tell you again, is that I don't think this particular technological change clause is a big deal. I don't think the people out there working for a living are really complaining about it. The people complaining about it are on the other side of the House, and they're always negative about it.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: This was so much fun, too, but I am sure we can get to it later. I move that the committee rise and report progress.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
Appendix
AMENDMENTS TO BILLS
19 The Hon. L. Hanson to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 19) intituled Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 to amend as follows:
SECTION 34 (a), by deleting "given after" and substituting "given under".
SECTION 35, by deleting section 35.