[ Page 1715 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 1715

Oral Questions

Writ filed by Attorney-General. Mr. Sihota –– 1715

Mr. Williams

Meech Lake accord. Mr. Harcourt –– 1716

Admission fees to provincial museums. Ms. Edwards –– 1716

Writ filed by Attorney-General. Mr. Crandall –– 1717

Proposed banning of 2,4-D. Ms. Smallwood –– 1717

Methadone clinics. Mr. Clark –– 1717

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1717

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Williams

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Davis

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Miller

Mr. Jones

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Sihota

Mr. S.D. Smith

Mr. Ree

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Jansen

Appendix –– 1737

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members will all appreciate the valuable service that we get from our Legislative Library. Today members of the Association of Parliamentary Librarians in Canada are holding a business meeting here in our parliament buildings. This is the very first time they've met in Victoria, and I would like to introduce the members to you.

They are Mrs. Marian Powell, who is the president, from Saskatchewan; Mr. Richard Pare, who is the secretary, and is with the Library of Parliament in Ottawa; Mr. Blake McDougall from Alberta; Mrs. Mary Dickerson from Ontario; Mrs. Joyce Irvine from Manitoba; Mr. Eric Swanick from New Brunswick; and Ms. Margaret Murphy from Nova Scotia. I would ask the House to show them a very kind welcome.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, also in the gallery today is a western gentleman who for many years has entertained and provided much pleasure to countless thousands of Canadians from coast to coast. These are people who have been fortunate enough to have had the pleasure of spending many happy hours dancing to the music of Mart Kenney and his Western Gentlemen. I would appreciate if the House would make him very welcome here today.

MR. LOVICK: To coin a phrase, I am forever dancing measures when I stand here. What I would like to do is to simply say, on behalf on the opposition, that we too would like to welcome the librarians here to our Legislature. We recognize, of course, that the librarians provide the information which is the fuel that keeps us going. Without them, obviously we could not function, though I hasten to point out for one member opposite that some of us rely on information more than others. In any event, thanks to the librarians from us too.

MR. ROSE: I would hate to let this opportunity go by without adding my voice to that of my hon. friend from Dewdney in welcoming my famous cousin, Mart Kenney, and his wife Norma. Is she here?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, she should be. What are you doing here by yourself? Mart Kenney, as you know, for many years has been a very famous Canadian who lived in central Canada. But now he's back in his nest in the west.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: A little earlier I had the pleasure of meeting a group of students and their teachers from Seaquam secondary school in North Delta. This is the alternate school; they certainly do an excellent job. I would like to welcome the students and their teachers: Steve Ferguson, Joyce Williams and Bruce Agassiz. I would ask the House to join me in that welcome.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'd like to welcome a number of guests to the gallery this afternoon: first of all, Maryla Waters, who is a tireless worker for the arts in greater Victoria, among her many other achievements; her friend, Sue Fennel, a medical student from Cambridge, Ontario: and last but not least, my new bride, Barbara Smith.

MRS. GRAN: Visiting the House today is a very lovely couple who are the parents of a member of the press gallery, a former resident of Langley, John Pifer. Would the House please welcome Everett and Doris Brooks from High River, Alberta.

Hon. Mr. Strachan tabled the annual report to the governments of the United States and Canada of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board.

Oral Questions

WRIT FILED BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Premier of the province. When asked yesterday about the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), the Premier said, and I quote: "It's not for me to judge. As a non-lawyer, I'm not a judge. I ought to leave that to the profession." The clear implication of that obviously is that the Premier is saying he's unable to evaluate his own Attorney-General. Does the Premier still stand by that statement?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I disagree with the member's interpretation totally.

MR. SIHOTA: In light of the comment made by the Premier yesterday which I just quoted, is the Premier then saying that he is unable to evaluate his own Attorney-General?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What I said, or certainly what I intended to say — and I think certainly that's how most people understood it — is I'm not a lawyer, and sometimes I say fortunately so.

MR. SIHOTA: The writ that was filed by the government was really an act of overkill which has embarrassed all British Columbians. Has the Premier decided to advise the Attorney-General not to repeat this sort of action and to seek wiser counsel in the future?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have an Attorney-General with excellent judgment, and I leave it to him.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the Premier then saying that he would indeed instruct his Attorney-General again to misuse the courts?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, that question is out of order. It's argumentative.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. There seems to be a pattern of heat-of-the-moment responses on major matters and major issues, just as we've seen in this last week. Much of it seems to emanate from the Premier's office. Has the Premier reconsidered the highly centralized structure that he has evolved in the last eight months so that more considered processes could take place, as we have not seen in the last week?

MR. LOVICK: He doesn't comprehend.

MR. SIHOTA: You don't comprehend?

[ Page 1716 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, you can appreciate why I don't comprehend that particular question, because I don't think there was a question, frankly. But if you're asking me,"Is the Premier's office functioning effectively and as it ought to be on behalf of all British Columbians?" I would have to tell you it's working fantastically!

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the Premier honestly say that, Mr. Speaker, in view of the embarrassment all British Columbians have suffered in the last week in terms of their action in the courts? In view of a string of significant disasters and missteps by ministers, and a very flawed performance in the last week, has the Premier considered the question of those flawed performances and the need for some shifts in the cabinet?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know what the member might be referring to. Let me assure you that there are two types of leaders: those who do things and make mistakes, and those who never do anything.

MEECH LAKE ACCORD

MR. HARCOURT: I think we have a few more questions for future question periods from that answer.

I want to ask the Premier about the Meech Lake accord, because yesterday the Premier indicated that the Meech Lake accord is so fragile that it can't be reopened to recognize the rights of native people and northerners. In the negotiations at Meech Lake, did the Premier work to ensure that another first ministers' conference on Indian self-government was included in the accord? Did you work to bring that about, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The question is, can we or should we reopen the meetings to further consider amending or changing the accord. I think all of us here, regardless of where we sit in the House, could perhaps take a lesson from the federal leaders. I witnessed the Prime Minister make his statement, the leader of the Liberal Party make his statement and the leader of the New Democratic Party make his statement, and they all had one thing in common: they were happy that an accord had been reached. They were obviously satisfied with the accord reached. I don't think there was any intent there that we begin the process all over again and risk the chance of losing the accord reached. Perhaps there is a lesson in this, from the leaders of three federal political parties, that might be applied provincially, and hopefully one day soon we can put the resolution to this House and all will stand behind the resolution and support the accord.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We have already stated our general support for Quebec's being included. Our House Leader has said that, and I have said that. I think it's important, though.... Again, Mr. Premier, if the accord is so fragile, why did those same leaders and first ministers agree to a full debate in Parliament and all the legislatures? A parliamentary committee will be holding public hearings across Canada, and a number of the other first ministers have agreed to public meetings on a provincial level. Why is the Premier saying that the accord is so fragile? Are you prepared to follow the lead of the others who are holding these full hearings, and open it up in these areas?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The only thing we know for certain, Mr. Speaker, is that the federal government will have hearings in Ottawa, and the intent of the hearings is in effect simply to determine whether those who attend the hearings see major flaws in the accord reached. I don't know the details of a hearing in Ontario or in Manitoba, and we'll certainly wait with interest to see what position they take. I believe, however, that there's an opportunity for all British Columbians to be represented in this Legislature, and that in fact all of us as constituency representatives will seek the input from the constituency in whatever manner we deem best, and bring it to the Legislature in order that it might be fully debated here. That certainly provides, in the democratic process, an opportunity for all people to be represented fairly.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Premier Hatfield has indicated that he is prepared to reopen the accord to include a first ministers' conference on self-government and to remove the requirement of unanimous approval on the two issues of new provinces and aboriginal selfgovernment. Would the Premier agree to contact the other first ministers about the removal of the unanimous consent in these two areas?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if Premier Hatfield has representation to make with respect to the accord reached or what changes he would like to see made or how he would like to see it further considered, then it's for Premier Hatfield to raise this at an opportune time; and there will be such a time again, as we have a first ministers' conference a week from now.

ADMISSION FEES TO PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Premier. The Deputy Minister of Tourism said publicly this morning that the only person who can stop user fees at museums now is the Premier. Has the Premier then decided that citizens will have to pay for access to their heritage?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard the statement from the Deputy Minister of Tourism, but I'll certainly look into that. However, let me assure the hon. member that we are considering what the most responsible approach is to assuring that we not only maintain all of the attractions we have but that we find ways and means of improving upon those facilities. If there's some way by which all of those participating in a facility like the museum can contribute just a little in order that we might provide additional resources to expand and improve on the facilities, then I think certainly everyone's the winner by that.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. The director of the Provincial Museum has intimated that part of the government's plan with the fees is to reduce attendance there. Has the Premier directed that there be a study of the impact of the user fees on museum attendance, both at the facility and throughout the affected community?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that will be a matter for the Ministry of Tourism. Perhaps the hon. member

[ Page 1717 ]

would like to raise the question with the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) when the minister is present.

WRIT FILED BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday said that he was under the impression that there was a misuse of the courts in the application that was before the courts recently. And the member for Renfrew Bay also mentioned....Do I have the wrong riding name over there?

Interjections.

MR. CRANDALL: I would like to have the Attorney-General clarify for us and answer whether there was a misuse of the courts in the application put before the courts recently.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to read that in the Blues, too, because there was nothing in the judge's decision that said there was a misuse of the courts. The Leader of the Opposition would know that if court applications that fail are a misuse of the courts, we'd only have one side in every application and that would be the winning side, which would mean we'd shut the courts down.

PROPOSED BANNING OF 2,4-D

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Environment. I have a memo here from the pesticides director of Agriculture Canada dated September 11, 1986, which says that Health and Welfare Canada has taken the position, understandably, that the overall data suggests that 2,4-D is a human carcinogen, and they have informed their political health colleagues. Ontario and New Brunswick have responded to these warnings by banning 2,4-D pending federal studies. What has the provincial government done to protect B.C. residents from this carcinogen?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Given the member is referring to documentation that occurred well before I was with this portfolio, and also a reference made to the Ministry of Health as opposed to the Ministry of Environment, I'll have to take the question as notice.

MS. SMALLWOOD: New question to the minister. This document went to the Ministry of Environment. I'm sorry that his officials have not brought it to his attention. Will the minister now ban 2,4-D, as two other provinces in Canada have done?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll take the whole issue on notice, Mr. Speaker.

METHADONE CLINICS

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Health. Yesterday I asked the minister about his failure to support the preventive services offered by AIDS Vancouver. Now the ministry has indicated the last methadone clinic in Vancouver will be closed, even though all the doctors permitted to prescribe methadone are overbooked and people who need it are not going to get it.

What has the minister done to ensure that these people have the access to methadone that they must have'?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, some years ago the Ministry of Health began opening clinics to dispense methadone treatment to drug-users. We then asked the federal government that they would discontinue the physicians' authority to do the same, because we were doing it in all parts of the city. It was no longer economical; it was not viable. They agreed to that, so we opened more clinics for this purpose. There was certain protocol that had to be observed, and this was one of the reasons why we asked to have it dispensed out of our own clinics. There was some concern that this substance, methadone, was being illegally distributed. Some were even selling it on the streets. So we went fine with the clinics that we were operating. We were looking after all the methadone-users in the city and everywhere in the province.

However, one physician took this to court and won. So now we were back to square one, where everyone was distributing the same substance, and we felt it was no longer viable to have it distributed by us and by every doctor that got a licence. We are now assisting every physician who meets the criteria to get a licence for the distribution of methadone. We are not closing any clinics.... If the member would like to listen, he asked the question.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: No, really. If you ask me a question, do you want the answer or don't you?

We have now agreed that we will look after all the people who are still coming to our clinic until we find a substitute place where they can get that treatment. There will be no methadone-user on the street who has not got a place to go.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987. Further, I will advise the House that if we get report today, we will adjourn.

[2:30]

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

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

On section 62.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chair, section 62 of Bill 19 is in many ways the most important section of this bill, as was indicated this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. We view the establishment of the Industrial Relations Council and the commissioner, with these powers as allowed under section 62, to be inappropriate and wrong in a free and democratic society. These powers and abilities that are given to an unelected person are unprecedented in North America, and unprecedented in western industrialized and democratic countries. We think the provisions and powers such as are given to the commissioner, however modified by the need occasionally to call the Minister of Labour on the telephone, are not only wrong in principle in a free and democratic society, but also wrong from a practical point of view. They

[ Page 1718 ]

will not meet the objective that the government says it wants to meet: the elimination of long strikes or lockouts such as the one that occurred in the forest industry last fall.

For some reason, presumably because the Premier was involved on a couple of occasions in trying to see if he could put that dispute to bed, the government has decided that it needs some magic potion, some simple answer that will solve what are very complicated problems in our society. and that this simple answer is to establish this person and this board with, as I said, unprecedented powers. Somehow that will solve the problems in industrial relations problems. To a certain extent I guess that's true, because if you take the logical extension — and I'm going to be careful about how I phrase this, because I don't want to overstate the matter — of these kinds of interventions in what are properly free discussions between parties, you will get to a situation where you will not have strikes or lockouts; certainly not legal strikes and lockouts. There are countless countries in this world where that's true, where the law is such — or the authority of law as imposed by the military is such — that we don't have long and troublesome disputes like we had last fall in the forest industry.

I'm not suggesting that this particular provision, section 62, goes that far. We are not yet Chile, nor yet are we Poland, nor have we laws in place — yet — in industrial relations that even bring us close to those situations. But it is the direction of this legislation that will take us one more step down the road toward those kinds of situations. The government runs the show in the Soviet Union. There is no freedom of association, no freedom to organize, no freedom to strike. And there's no freedom to bargain wages and working conditions. This section goes a long way toward denying the right to bargain working conditions. It allows for the government or its apparatus to intervene at any stage in collective bargaining, for any reason. If the commissioner decides that it's in the public interest for intervention to take place, he can do so; whether he will or not is another question, but he can. And when we consider law of this kind, we need to consider it on the basis of what is possible under it.

The price of democracy, of free collective bargaining, of the right to strike, of a free society, is high; it's expensive. There's no question about that. It's very expensive. One of the prices we pay for freedom is that occasionally people have their lives disrupted by a freedom that's exercised by other people: the freedom to withdraw their labour, or employers to close their shop in an effort to put pressure on the bargaining unit. That's a price we pay, and it's a price we should be willing to pay, I would argue, and as I think most democrats would argue.

Yes, we have on occasion — rarely, but on occasion — a dispute of the magnitude of the forest industry dispute last fall. But you know, even that magnitude is overstated. More wood was cut in British Columbia last year than in any year preceding. More wood was manufactured in British Columbia in 1986 than in any preceding year. And as the member for Nanaimo suggests, all of that done with a smaller workforce — reduced by probably some 50 percent overall in the last five or six or seven years. More profits were made in the forest industry last year than any other year in this decade.

The price that was paid last fall was paid by, first of all, the people who were directly affected and who went without a pay cheque; and secondly, by people who lived in those communities. That was the heavy price that was paid. The price was paid by people who live in Zeballos, in Port McNeill, in Woss, and in countless logging communities and sawmill communities around this province. That's where the price was paid last fall, by those people, by their neighbours and friends who operate businesses in those communities, and in a smaller way the province was hurt to a certain extent in terms of tax revenue. It was not hurt significantly. The profits were up, greater income tax came in, the wood was sold, the stumpage presumably — the little that's collected — was coming in because the wood was cut. So who was hurt? The people who work directly and were on strike, and the people in their communities who went without the ability to do business because money wasn't being spent in their businesses. That's who was hurt.

Who is opposed to this bill? Those same people. Those same people are the ones who are saying that this kind of dispute resolution mechanism is inappropriate and wrong and must be fought. These are the same people who shut down my riding completely on June 1. There wasn't anything moving on June 1, including non-union businesses which were closed — in some cases voluntarily — by the owners in sympathy for what was being protested that day.

Now if the impact is so bad on these people, why aren't they too screaming for some solution such as this one proposed by section 62? They're not. Their screams are suggesting quite the opposite — that what we need is a properly free and democratic collective bargaining system. That's what's being called for by these people. And for the government to argue that this once-in-a-decade event such as we experienced last fall, which did not have the kind of overall impact that people would be led to believe, calls for legislation of this kind that establishes this authoritarian, undemocratic process is, to put it mildly and to understate it, a dreadful overreaction; that, too, in the face of our record in this province in the last number of years, the last decade.

We have done better in terms of time lost in this province than the other major industrial provinces in this country, and the minister this morning in introducing section 62 acknowledged as much because he had to refer to other countries in western Europe and Japan to make his point about our time lost. He couldn't cite Quebec and Ontario, because they have a proportionately higher number of days lost by strikes or lockouts. We have not had a bad situation in British Columbia in terms of time lost. We have not had a situation which calls out for measures of this kind that deny fundamental freedoms, fundamental freedoms that are subscribed to by the International Labour Organization through its conventions, and subscribed to by this country. Those conventions are being violated by this denial of free collective bargaining.

I want to move on to another aspect of this, and that is the whole question of consent. At some stage earlier in the debate on Bill 19 — and I've forgotten now at what stage it was — I talked about the need for laws to be consented to by those who are governed. You cannot, in a free society, operate for long if you have laws which are not consented to by those being governed. It's a fundamental element of our democratic system, and I talked earlier about various people over the years who have made that point. I talked about people going back to 300 B.C. coming on right through to today — Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, and many, many others — all of whom argued that for a law to be successful it must be agreed to. For a law to be successful there needs to be a process by which people feel they have had an involvement in its determination. No one in this province prior to April 2 imagined that there would be a law brought in in this

[ Page 1719 ]

province, this year, that would set up an Industrial Relations Council, giving one individual the kind of powers that heretofore have been the exclusive jurisdiction of the Legislature to be used rarely and judiciously.

What happened was that the law came in without any consultation of any kind on that fundamental issue — no consultation whatsoever; none. Not a single person in this province was told: "I want your reaction to a proposal that we establish this kind of body which will have unprecedented powers to end labour disputes, which will have powers to bring in settlements through compulsory arbitration, will be allowed to bring in a final-offer selection process without the consent of the parties, will be allowed to do a variety of other interventionist acts in terms of reaching a collective agreement settlement." No one was told that that's what the government is contemplating, and therefore "we would like some reaction."

There was no reaction about this, because nobody believed this kind of legislation was possible in a free and democratic society such as ours is still. No one believed that was possible. So there's been no public participation in the formulation of this mechanism. What we've had is a public response to it, and clearly the response is overwhelmingly in opposition to this kind of proposal, and even more overwhelmingly in opposition to the process by which it was developed.

No one should be surprised that the people who are going to be governed by this legislation and this Industrial Relations Council and Mr. Peck say they can't live with it. No one should be surprised when they say they will not be governed by it. If people won't be governed by it or cannot live with it, it will not work. If it won't work, why proceed with it?

I'm not suggesting by that statement that any group out there can prevent legislation from coming in and being implemented simply by saying: "We won't work with it." I'm not saying that. Governments have the right to govern; legislatures have the right to legislate, and the final analysis, the final decision, is made here. But legislators also have a responsibility to make sure that when they do legislate, and governments the responsibility to make sure when they do govern, that there has been a process by which that legislation and governing has been developed that allows people to think they've been part of it. They may not like it all; they may scream and shout about parts of it; they may say: "We'll get rid of that at the next election." They may say all kinds of things. But if they've been part of it, they might at least be prepared to work with it, because they had a say.

[2:45]

No one has had a say in this issue, and that's one of the reasons why it won't work. As I say, if it won't work, then why proceed? The government has had clear indications that it won't work. The only way it's going to be able to make it work is by using the powers elsewhere in this legislation to make every violation a contempt of court matter. Because employers will be able to have any violation filed automatically in the Supreme Court, which makes any violation of this legislation a contempt of court, that will inflame it even further.

I appeal to the government to recognize that you cannot bring in a law such as this, a law that governs people without their consent, without expecting it to fail and to fail miserably.

MR. WILLIAMS: The member for North Island has said that these are powers unprecedented in North America in terms of this great centralization in power. And this is an administration that came into office on the promise of decentralizing power and authority. What does the minister say in response? What does the Premier say in response to this? That was the promise of those rosy days of October: decentralist approach. We have a more centralized operation in the Premier's office than we've ever seen, or at least the equivalent to the previous Premier, which was highly centralized. And now we have this kind of exercise, all of it, as the member says, as a response to a kind of thing that happens once in a decade or once every other decade.

It's taking this huge hammer, this tremendous authority — and as the member says: "The only amendment you brought in is the telephone call to the Minister of Labour" as a kind of sop to those who said: "Well, you know, there really is a democratic process. There really are ministers, there really are elections, and there really is a Legislature."

That's not very good. You haven't given us the justification. We know that the numbers are different. We know that we aren't the province with the worst problems of strikes. More days are lost in Ontario and Quebec than in British Columbia. The argument starts falling apart. The problem is a perception. I think it's a perception in the Premier's mind that is not the reality. The Premier sees problems that are not there. That's what we went through this last week too. In a way, British Columbians are kind of writ large. We're the California of Canada, in many ways; and the Premier is a kind of representative of that, in a way. It's part of the nature of British Columbia. But given that, we shouldn't get the kind of responses that we've had in this last week and with this legislation. They're overblown. It's not responding reasonably to the milieu of British Columbia.

This is indeed a special place, this province of ours. The people east of the mountains have trouble with us, whether we're on that side or this side of the House, because we're written a little larger than the rest of Canada — and that's fine by me, because I think we should be. It really is a special place. But then you do this to us. Nowhere in North America are they doing this. They have a healthy economy in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba; and generally things have been moving better in those other provinces.

The Premier stated his reason for all this: this kind of intervention is to get the economy rolling. But it's very clear that that's not what's going to happen.

The member for North Island says that governing is really by consent. The British system is a kind of muddle-through system, when you really look at it. We're told in school it's the greatest system. and all that stuff. I don't really believe that. I think there are a lot of elements of other systems that are better, and that the Americans might have some advantages on us in that regard, in terms of checks and balances especially. Under the British system we don't have those checks and balances; they're assumed. It's assumed that the leadership will accommodate those kinds of checks and balances. It's not required under our system, but there's an assumption.

That's really what the member for North Island is saying about the consent of the governed: they really have to accept it. If they've been involved in the process in a reasonable way, even though they may not like it, they'll accept it. But the member for North Island is saying that that didn't happen here.

[ Page 1720 ]

This proposal has been kicking around for years now. In terms of this super-czar. Let's be honest about that. It's been kicking around in the Premier's office for years. The former Premier decided it was too hot and didn't make sense in terms of the consent of the governed.

This wasn't the result of those hearing processes. This wasn't the result of work in the Ministry of Labour, or the consultation with business and labour. This is something that was hanging around in the Premier's office for a long time. The question was: should we use that hammer? Should we bring that hammer in in terms of legislation? The irony is that the former Premier said no. The new Premier comes along, claiming to be a decentralist....

I share that view, the real view of decentralization, because I was out for some time myself. One of the advantages when you're out of office and come back again is that it gives some perspective. I share that same perspective, that if more power were delivered to the people in this province, rather than in this Legislature or in the corporations on west Georgia Street, we'd all be better off. But we're not getting that pattern now. We're getting a very highly centralized, interventionist system that's not in keeping with the flow of history in this province; it's not in keeping with the incremental gains that labour have struggled for, and that have been agreed by various contracts between the two parties, labour and management.

The whole idea that one person and one group of bureaucrats could be smarter or better than the collective wisdom of those in business and labour, working between themselves in terms of their interests, is a bit of a shocker, given that interregnum that the Premier went through, being out there and independent and doing nice productive work in the garden, and all that stuff — which I don't knock. That's a kind of peaceful existence. We haven't had that of late in this province, and it needn't have been so. It doesn't bode well for the future.

The people of the province have made it clear. They think there's something wrong here. This isn't what they bargained for. You don't have the consent of the governed.

The people in the trade union movement made it clear before this all happened that they, in an unprecedented way, were coming of maturity, in a sense, in terms of being willing to work with business and management, to fund a school and institute to deal with labour relations.

You know, when outsiders have come here and looked at the province, they've seen not only weaknesses in labour, which I think are blown up pretty big.... I remember when consultants came here from Stockholm and looked at our industry in the forest sector — thoughtful people from the Royal Institute there. They were shocked at management's level of capability in labour relations. They thought there were all kinds of problems created at the management level. We always tend to think of these things as labour problems, but it takes two to tango; there are also management problems. There are misperceptions, and there are ideological views and a range of things that are not productive.

It's been there on the labour side too. We now have a new generation of labour leaders in the province, and that's showing. It's being reflected in the polls, in terms of understanding and attitude by the public about those guys. "Labour bosses" have been pretty unpopular folks in the modem history of this province. But if you look at the numbers now, Mr. Georgetti is coming through pretty well. Even the Premier said,"Well, he is an attractive young man, and he communicates pretty well," and so on, and that's true.

But we do have these problems on the management side. There is something fatal and flawed in the view of democracy here and of what this province has been and can become. With the right, generous attitude, we can really become something in this province, and I don't think it matters whether we're governed by the moderate right or the moderate left, in that sense. I think we can become something indeed, but this won't allow that.

The idea of some guy who has all these powers, and can be right, and can really split it down the middle and really settle it all.... I believe in a pluralistic system. I believe that people out there, given genuine opportunity, especially in a province like this, can perform magnificently. I think that this new generation of labour leaders we've got in the province would help that come to flower.

We had this wonderful opportunity just within our grasp in the last six months in terms of labour not being happy with what has been happening, and not being happy with themselves either. I think Georgetti and these new people are a reflection of a new maturity and, at the same time, youth and energy. That's exciting, because I've been as dismayed, maybe, as people on the other side on occasion in terms of some of the steps taken by some of the labour representatives in this province.

I don't think it's an easy thing, but the signs of the last six months or so have been very good. What's happened is like taking a great big stick to it all in terms of that reasonable attitude that was evolving. Mr. Matkin was impressed by what the labour unions' response was — Mr. Georgetti and the Federation of Labour and their responses. So from the business side, I think you saw that, Mr. Premier, in terms of Mr. Matkin's initial response to this legislation. He clearly could not endorse it.

Then we've had this other situation with Mr. Leslie, the former deputy minister, saying all kinds of things, in terms of the lack of communication and all the rest of it. This man is a Rhodes scholar, an expert in his field, and shouldn't be readily dismissed or ignored. Given all that — an opportunity within one's grasp — how could one proceed in this way? It's a misperception and a lack of understanding of opportunity and of what British Columbia is all about.

It's terribly disappointing, because we've gone through a significant recession. We do not have great capacity in terms of the civil service at the higher economic levels in this province, I am sorry to say. I am afraid that the highest levels.... The city of Vancouver has far greater competence, especially in terms of economic understanding. We just don't have that in the province of British Columbia. We don't have a significant capacity, so we went through this whole exercise of restraint under the last administration with no real understanding of the macroeconomic implications of that. They were negative; they hurt the province in the end.

People bought it because it was simplistic and all the rest of it. And so it is with this. We don't have the tools, the people, the equipment, to be advising this administration in a satisfactory manner, in terms of how you really direct this economy. There is no reason in the world.... You ask any current immigrant. They will say: "There is something wrong. Where I came from" — and it doesn't matter where they came from — "we didn't have anything like British Columbia to work with." Here we have more than two and a half million people, and this incredible land of opportunity

[ Page 1721 ]

— the last great frontier in North America, really — and they say: "What's wrong? Unemployment, people aren't so well off...." They're better off in Ontario and, my God, even in Manitoba. You look at the flat fields of Manitoba and the town of Winnipeg and say: "How could that be?" Yet it is.

So there is a desperate need there. I don't think you've got that kind of economic understanding in terms of this sort of thing either. This has heavy economic implications. The Japanese aren't going to buy the stuff that was sold around here. Maybe some of our people would for a little while, but the sophisticates in Japan are not going to buy the idea that this is going to make British Columbia safe for investment. They know it's exactly the opposite. They know that it is turmoil, and that we are going to have an administration of turmoil. It needn't have been. At a time when North America has pulled out of the last slump, we are modestly pulling out.

[3:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Modestly?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we're partly moving in the pulp industry, which is significant because of world market conditions and all the rest of it. But we still haven't done what other administrations have done.

So one despairs in terms of the lack of capacity, in terms of top-notch economic advice for this government. You didn't get it prior to restraint; you're not getting it now. We don't have that sense of direction. And the people from abroad that the Premier and others have looked to for investment in this province are going to look at this turmoil. They're going to look at this threat of boycott, which is there and real because of this lack of consent of the governed that the member for North Island referred to, and they are just going to turn their backs on us. If that was the strategy in terms of a new economy in the province....

I happen to personally think that we can build British Columbia incrementally internally with our own people and our own savings, and that we don't really need a lot of outside investment at all. If I am right, then maybe this repairing process and pulling back process could be more immediate and beneficial. The Premier has talked about at least not proclaiming, or not proclaiming parts of, this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has rejected that too.

MR. WILLIAMS: Has he? I am not sure. Maybe the events of the last week have caused him to really pause and reconsider. I hope so, because I think there are these two sides to the Premier's view of the world. There is this dark side, where it's kind of a holy war about the past and people he hasn't liked for one reason or another or that he personally thinks have hurt the economy. And there's this generous side that is willing to work and build and so on. It keeps moving back and forth. We get the dark side on the steps and out on the streets. It is not very good. I have listened to the tapes and I find them disturbing, because we really are a government of all the people. When 40-plus percent are trade unionist, to isolate them and use them as whipping-people is not healthy for the democratic system. It is simply not healthy, and it isn't the kind of thing one expects any more these days. They are people who have to be brought into the mainstream and be participants. They have much to offer, those working people of British Columbia. I just urge the Premier and minister to pull back. You cannot justify the steps you are taking here. I don't think it is embarrassing to pull back at this stage. There is too much at stake.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. A. HAGEN: I note in the Speaker's gallery a member of the city council of New Westminster, Alderman Mal Hughes. I would ask the House to make Alderman Hughes welcome.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Before the Chair recognizes the next member, I would like to suggest that the speakers deal with relevancy a little bit more. In the last 15 minutes I don't believe there was really anything relevant; it was all second reading debate. If we are going to get through this very large section, relevancy is going to have to be adhered to.

MR. LOVICK: I noticed as my colleague from Vancouver East was speaking that the Premier was in the House and seemed to be listening. Unfortunately, at the conclusion of my colleague's remarks the Premier left. I was hoping he might respond to some of the suggestions and comments presented, or that the Minister of Labour might respond. It would seem, however, that we are going to have to carry on and build a somewhat more elaborate and detailed case of concern about section 62 of Bill 19 before we can apparently provoke and elicit that response. So I am sorry that is the case.

I start by saying that, Madam Chairman, because the first point I want to make, and I think it is a crucial one, is that I think we are now at the point in this debate where the civility and good humour and relative friendliness is going to be very much in jeopardy. I say that because the dimensions and the implications of section 62 for Bill 19 are such that we on this side of the House believe it is our moral obligation to stand and speak against it as eloquently and effectively as we are able. I recognize the difficulty in personalizing conflict, and I know that one should avoid doing that in a house of debate. The point though, and why it becomes difficult for me, at least, is that at some time I ask myself when the minister, whom I regard as a decent individual and a nice person.... At some point I say, how much longer can a nice and decent person sit by and present under his name legislation which is not nice and not decent? If I then should spill over into a somewhat exaggerated or intense mode of drawing attention to flaws in Bill 19, specifically section 62, I want the minister to know that that is the reason why. If you're complicit in this kind of legislation, and if we are correct in our conclusion that this kind of legislation is indeed bad, then you the actors, you the creators of the legislation, must indeed bear some of the blame for that. I don't, as I say, intend to attack the minister as an individual human being, but I do intend to attack his judgment and his sense of perspective in allowing this particular section to stand before us.

Having said that, let me refer to the minister's opening comments in defence of section 62 of the bill. I made a few brief notes, and I think I can do justice to the minister's comments. I would advise him, of course, to correct me if I'm overstating the case.

He began by referring to the problem that is indeed endemic in every industrial society: the problem of strikes

[ Page 1722 ]

and lockouts. He acknowledged — to give him his due — that there is a 95.5 percent factor; that 95 percent of all contract settlements are adjudicated, adjusted and resolved without recourse to strike or lockout. Nevertheless, the minister is suggesting that for the 5 percent solution we need: (a) Bill 19; and (b) the provision specifically of section 62. The obvious conclusion, then, the fair question to derive from that model, if I can call it that, is whether section 62 will in any way satisfy the problem that it is designed to address: namely, whether it will have an influence on that other 5 percent of disputes which would lead those disputes to be settled amicably and without resort to strike or lockout. The starting claim that we on this side of the House will make, and that we will make again and again — and it will always be in order, I suggest — is simply that this kind of approach will not have that impact, that influence. Rather, it will have the opposite influence, primarily because what section 62 of Bill 19 seems to be saying — and I think we can support this contention by reference to a number of witnesses — is that collective bargaining as we have come to understand it is now an extinct species. It doesn't exist, certainly, in the form that it existed prior to the introduction of Bill 19.

The minister can declaim and state again and again that the government will not invoke the provisions of this section of the bill unless it is "absolutely necessary." I would suggest that that statement begs the question, because the real question is: who decides when something is absolutely necessary? That takes us to the nub of our concern about this bill: namely, that the right to decide what is absolutely necessary is going to be given to a non-elected official who, as nearly as we can make out, is not even entirely answerable to the minister. The person we're talking about, the industrial relations commissioner, is given incredible powers. Forgetting for the moment all about the individual who has been charged with that responsibility, we on this side of the House are contending that there is something demonstrably wrong with the principle of in effect giving over to a non-elected individual that responsibility for adjudicating and making that sort of judgment. We think that's wrong.

We are also scared, I think I can fairly say, when we hear the minister's repeated allusions to threats to the public interest. I think we have spoken on a number of occasions about precisely that reference, and why it is that we're concerned by that reference. "The public interest" is a terminology that tends to be invoked and used by particular individuals whose own interest is perceived to be the public interest. History abounds with examples to demonstrate that simple conclusion.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: How do we define the public interest, is the question posed by my hon. friend from Vancouver East. He's quite right to pose the question, because we don't know how. Continued assertions and iterations about,"Well, we're looking out for your best interests; we're concerned with the public interest; we have to protect innocent third parties" — all of those statements, with all due deference, Mr. Minister, are suspect and they are also charged with subjective value judgments.

We are concerned who it is, then, that is going to have the responsibility to make those judgments. Again I come back to the point I made just a moment ago: we're concerned especially and specifically by the fact that we are giving over the right to make those decisions to people who are not, on the face of it, answerable even to this body — non-elected officials, individuals who rather sit outside the legislative process and to whom we give great, indeed too great, powers.

We're also worried — and I'm speaking just in general terms thus far — when the minister says to us in defence of the bill that this individual, this new industrial relations commissioner, will have the ability to designate certain services as essential. Again, the same point causes us concern, namely that some individual is given the right, in effect by fiat, to decide that which is essential as opposed to that which is — dare I say — unessential.

It's frankly, I think, a fallacious and false dichotomy to suggest that we can divide the world of services and goods into essential and unessential, and I for one am rather frightened when I listen to any argument that suggests it's a very simple matter to decide. I'm even more frightened though, Madam Chairman, when somebody suggests to me that the decision is going to be made by one person, a person who again is not, on the face of it, answerable to the elected representatives of the people. That is a concern. I think it's a legitimate one. I think we have every right to express some alarm and some misgivings.

That, again, is all by way of preamble to make the point that I perhaps will become somewhat strained in my comments, and I will be perhaps more emotional and exercised than I might otherwise want to be. I think, though, I want to stress here that what we're dealing with is sufficiently important that we should not, for fear of being impolite or for fear of being uncivil, hold back on expressing precisely the concerns and misgivings that we have. So that's my preamble, as it were, Madam Chairman, and through you to the minister.

Now let me try to state precisely what it is, in general terms, that is wrong with section 62. I have alluded to various aspects, but let me see if I can be somewhat more precise. I want to begin that process by reading into the record a very short statement from a person whom we normally regard as belonging to the other side, i.e. as distinct from this side of the House, a management lawyer who....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Sorry about that. There are members indeed of the government who are on this side of the House, and it's difficult sometimes to put things in graphic and entirely accurate form. So I apologize to the members on my extreme left who feel left out.

[3:15]

The person whose words I am about to read and whom I am referring to, Madam Chairman, is of course Gavin Hume, the well-known labour lawyer whose track record is to be spokesperson for management — that side of the equation. Highly respected; I think his credentials are beyond reproach. Let me just read you the first short paragraph of Gavin Hume's analysis of section 62. It's a very short paragraph but I think it makes some points that cry out for elaboration. "Section 62 of Bill 19," says Gavin Hume,"provides a new Part 8.1 — disputes resolution. It is anticipated that these new provisions will have a profound effect on the process of collective bargaining in the province. The legislation gives the commissioner unprecedented powers to intervene in both public and private sector disputes." Note "profound effect." Note "unprecedented powers." This is somebody, I would hasten to point out, Mr. Minister, who is

[ Page 1723 ]

not attempting to speak in any kind of inflammatory style. This is somebody whose interest, if anything, would conspire to make him tone down the implications of this bill and this section. But his words, nonetheless, are "unprecedented powers" and, as well,"profound effect."

He goes on to another two sentences I want to quote. "The dispute resolution mechanisms available to the commissioner, such as mediators, interest arbitrators, fact finders and public interest inquiry boards, are not new." So we can all breathe a sigh of relief there. We can say: "Fine. Nothing new there. Good. We can live with it." But then listen to the next sentence: "The authority given to the commissioner to refer the dispute to one of these third parties, without the consent of the parties involved in the dispute, and, in turn, the powers given to third parties to establish the terms of the collective agreement, are new."

Let's let that sink in for just a moment, Madam Chairman, because what that amounts to, to any fair-minded witness, is effectively a redefinition and a rewrite of what most of us take to mean by the phrase "collective bargaining." Collective bargaining traditionally involves two parties. The last statement in this effectively says that what's new in the bill, what's new in labour relations, what's new because of section 62, is that third parties now have the power to adjudicate agreements without the consent of the parties involved in the dispute. In a rational political world, Madam Chairman and Mr. Minister, I ought not have to say anything more.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired.

The second member for Langley would like permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON: Madam Chairman, on behalf of yourself and myself I would like the House to join me in welcoming 25 grade 7 students sitting in the public gallery from Langley Prairie school. With them are three chaperones and their teacher, Mr. John Thielmann. Will the House please join me and give them a very warm welcome.

MR. CLARK: I was enjoying the eloquent remarks of the second member for Nanaimo so much that I'm going to relinquish the floor and have him speak some more.

MR. LOVICK: I do not anticipate that I shall take up another large chunk of time to finish these few remarks I wanted to make.

I was trying to build the case, when I concluded, that what we have here is, dare I say, incontrovertible evidence that collective bargaining as we currently and customarily find that term is a thing of the past, based on this analysis of section 62. I was suggesting that if indeed we have a government that claims to believe in the principle of free and fair collective bargaining, then in all honesty that government cannot continue to say: "We are presenting section 62 and at the same time we believe in fair and free collective bargaining." I think the two are mutually exclusive. I think, indeed, that section 62 contradicts the principle flatly, directly and clearly. That was the conclusion I was deriving from the eminent labour lawyer.

The reason that we on this side are so much concerned about that is not necessarily that we believe the thing called "collective bargaining" is in and of itself necessarily sacred, sacrosanct or next to godliness, or some such thing. However, it is one other manifestation of rights in a democratic society, enjoyed by citizens in the society, that are sacred, sacrosanct, and — if I can extend the repetition — next to godliness. Free collective bargaining between the parties is certainly just another manifestation of a society in which people are treated as free, independent, decision-making individuals. That's why we have the system. If we don't have the faith in the individuals to decide their own destiny, then obviously we're going to throw out collective bargaining and any pretence to having a system of collective bargaining. However, in our society and in our culture we like to believe that collective bargaining is important. We like to believe that it is a necessary part of a democratic society. I want to emphasize that we on this side of the House are concerned when we see what we consider to be absolutely solid, irrefutable evidence that that right is being taken away. I could not live with myself, Madam Chairman, if I did not stand up here and speak for the amount of time I am allotted against any provision that is going to take away that kind of right.

Let me see if I can put it in one other way; then I will end my remarks for the moment on this. The system, I have suggested, of democracy and of individuals having the right to choose their governors and to choose the laws that govern them and to challenge both their laws and their governors is a precious and a fragile one. We all know that. There are forces obviously conspiring and working against that system's operation and success every day of the week. But the forces should not be the elected governments.

If anybody ought to be protecting the rights, if anybody ought to be protecting the sanctity of the system, surely that is government's job. As I suggest, what we see here is a head-on challenge against those basic independent decision-making powers we grant to individuals in the democratic society, in this case powers and rights we call collective bargaining.

After considerable thought and reflection on the matter — and I choose my words very carefully — what this section amounts to I think is in effect a violation of the social contract. It amounts effectively to redrafting the map of relations by which we in this province live. You may want to say that that is alarmist. You may want to say: "Oh, surely you jest; surely that can't be the case." But I want to suggest it is, for the reasons I have tried to sketch out, namely that collective bargaining is merely one manifestation of authentic democracy in action.

It is not the only one, but it is a crucial and important one. If we take away that right, then we have created precisely the mandate and the rationale for taking away other democratic rights. Let me close these few remarks with just sharing another little bit of correspondence about this subject. As I said, Madam Chairman, I have struggled for some time now with precisely what Bill 19 means, what its implications are and what my responsibility as a legislator happens to be in response to that particular bill.

One of the parts of my struggle has been, of course, to grapple with the action taken by individuals throughout this province, action that we loosely call civil disobedience. As one who has made some point of studying those matters in usually more abstract than real circumstances, as one who has some familiarity with that debate and that discussion, I come sadly to the conclusion that we have in Bill 19 and in section 62 of that bill what I earlier referred to as a violation of a social contract.

[ Page 1724 ]

I want to just suggest to you that in standard political theory, when the governors violate the contract, that is held to be the absolute case — the only case, frankly — in which individuals are justified to commit civil disobedience. It is an important point to note, because I don't think any individuals decide that they are going to go out and engage in activities that, though not necessarily technically illegal, are going to be perceived as illegal. I don't think individuals run out and cavalierly do that kind of thing; rather, they do so because they feel they have no other choice in the matter.

Let me then share with you part of an exchange between a former colleague of mine and me about the matter of Bill 19, about what its implications are, about what we ought to be doing, we the opposition. This is from the head of the philosophy department at Malaspina College in Nanaimo. He writes to me as the president of the college union. The first paragraph says: "Here is what the union has requested me by democratic vote to express to you as the MLA representing our constituency."

Then he writes another paragraph. The other paragraph, specifically to me, I would like to share with you. It says this:

"My personal concern is somewhat different than my provincial union's concern. Not that I don't agree with the CIEA stand" — that is the College-Institute Educators' Association, by the way, Mr. Minister — "because of course I do. But let me explain. Bill 19 is essentially a rewrite of the social contract, a rewrite that most citizens did not anticipate because we were not told of its possibility. Surely governments continue to have a responsibility to inform the citizenry when basic changes to the social contract are in order. I do not believe that the present government has been honest in its actions as they relate to labour legislation. This lack of forthrightness is most disturbing and may in itself justify acts of civil disobedience against unannounced governmental moves."

I hope the minister listened to that, because I think the case being presented is obviously a thoughtful one, a well considered one, the product of some reflection, the product of some study. It's not a rabble-rouser. It's not somebody who says: "Let's hit the streets so we can embarrass the government." It's an attitude, rather, that is offered I think in dismay, one that says: "The society we have come to embrace and love is in jeopardy, is threatened."

[3:30]

What I have tried to demonstrate, Mr. Minister, is that under what on the face of it may be a relatively simple amendment to the existing labour law, simply the creation of a new position called the industrial relations commissioner and a body over which that person is to preside.... I'm suggesting that within that ostensibly simple provision is something that I regard, frankly, as very sinister. I think the government has a moral obligation, as I suggested earlier, to explain to us in real terms — not can't; not some kind of can't and some kind of flip pronouncements about how this will solve all our industrial relations disputes, because certainly we know it won't, but explain to us in real terms — the purpose of this section, and also to somehow demonstrate to me and to my colleagues why we are wrong in the contentions we are presenting to you. Unless the minister can do that, certain of my colleagues and I are going to continue to speak out as eloquently as we are able against this measure.

HON. MR. DAVIS: This clause is an expression of the public interest. Hon. members opposite, and particularly the last two speakers, have been telling us about their vision, their view, of collective bargaining. They sometimes call it "free collective bargaining." That in itself is a conflict in terms, because collectives rarely operate freely. Nevertheless: "free collective bargaining."

As I see it, this clause deals with a power struggle in our society. The old Labour Code essentially addressed that power struggle as if there were only two contestants in the arena: substantially big business and its adversary, big labour. The public interest — the interests of the rest of the community — was substantially excluded. It was not considered effectively in the old Labour Code; it's addressed in Bill 19.

The majority of people in this province, the majority of individuals in this province, citizens, are neither members of management in big companies nor individual members in other collectives called unions. They have been, more often than not, spectators in a battle, a battle between the big boys, between big business and big unions. At times big business has been inclined to use similar language to that used by the large unions. They are big; the unions are big. They see their interest as often better served by an agreement between the two big parties to the contest, without any regard or little regard to the public interest, the interest of the majority, the majority of the people in this province. Surely the freedoms, the opportunities, the interests of the majority.... Twice as many people are employed otherwise than in unions. If you include members of their families, many times more people are spectators to this old-fashioned contest. This was the case last year in the instance of the IWA work stoppage. They were affected, some of them seriously affected, by a contest between the two big boys on the block.

The little people are all too frequently ignored. Anyone who's an individualist, anyone who regards the rights and freedoms of the individual, is concerned with the rights and freedoms of the majority of individuals as well as the minority. Special interests exist; they have to exist, often, to get things done. Large corporations are sometimes the most efficient. Unions are necessary in order to get their employees reasonable conditions of work, reasonable remuneration. But those special interests, those special groups, those special power groups, must not be protected by legislation which regards their interests solely. It must be concerned with the interest of the greater number of people in the province, the majority. The public interest is the interest of everyone, including the majority of people who are neither big management nor big labour, nor in management at any level, nor employed as unionized workers.

The hon. member who spoke last talked about the social contract. That's a mentality that regards society as being made up of big lumps which have a contract with the bigger lump, the state, and that is foreign to the philosophy of those who believe in the individual and in individual rights and freedoms. I support this clause because it expresses the public interest — the interest of the majority of the people of this province.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The second member for Nanaimo has a point of order.

[ Page 1725 ]

MR. LOVICK: Sadly, Madam Chairman, the minister reveals his ignorance. The social contract is a concept defined by liberals.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is....

MR. LOVICK: It is the great defence of individual rights....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member ...

MR. LOVICK: It is so. He's lying to us.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: ...and your language is not parliamentary.

MR. LOVICK: He's telling us the wrong story.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would ask the second member for Nanaimo to withdraw his comment.

MR. LOVICK: About which?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Did I hear you say that the minister was lying?

MR. LOVICK: If indeed I said the minister was lying, I'm happy to withdraw that comment.

MR. HEWITT: Point of order, Madam Chairman. For the second time that member has interrupted a speech made by a member of this side of the House. If he looks at the rule book, he will find that where a correction needs to be made.... I stand to be corrected by the Clerk if I'm out of order. My understanding was that where a correction is to be made, it is to be made at the end of the member's presentation, not to interrupt his speech. Would the Chair please clarify that, so that member doesn't continually abuse the rules of this House?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, and the member is correct. I would also like to remind the members that this House has listened to many speeches in this debate, and I find it unacceptable to have members interrupting one another in the middle of their speeches.

HON. MR. DAVIS: This clause substantially has to do with the public interest. My main point, and I believe the main issue dealt with by this clause, is the interest of our society as a whole — that of all of those who live in British Columbia who are citizens and voters here.

It's inconceivable to me that this Legislature would pass a law which dignified the interests of two power groups — big business and big labour — without some regard to the rest of the community; and that's essentially what this clause does. Here we're talking about a substantial majority of the people of this province. Their interests cannot be disregarded. The big entities, the big power groups — big business and big labour — can battle on their own, but when their warfare spills over and affects other in the community — affects them seriously, sometimes for long periods of time — the public interest is involved.

The public interest can really only be expressed through the government of the province, the government of the day, regardless of party. That public interest is very real, and it must be expressed in legislation. I'm amazed that it wasn't expressed in the previous Labour Code. It must be expressed now, and this is one of the reasons I support this legislation.

MR. CLARK: I knew the Minister of Energy was old, but I didn't know he was that old, because that kind of language and ideology is really a nineteenth-century one. I think it bespeaks an incredibly simplistic view of how modem society operates.

With respect to the public interest, all academics and anybody looking at it objectively will say that you cannot define the public interest very easily. It certainly isn't simply a question of majority in a modern and complex society. We have what most people would view as the interests of different publics and different sectors of the public that conflict from time.

What we've said in labour relations is that the public interest should be decided by legislatures, not by bureaucrats, a bureaucrat, a minister or the cabinet. This Legislature has had the power to intervene in labour relations disputes and has intervened from time to time in extraordinary circumstances to protect what is viewed by this chamber as the public interest. A commissioner will now have a wide range of techniques available to intervene in disputes in what he thinks is the public interest.

It's a very simplistic notion the Minister of Energy has stated. I think, however. It's consistent with this kind of bill, which reflects that view. It's a view that is not shared by very many individuals in the western world any more; I think it went out of fashion around the turn of the century.

We believe this bill is a very poor one. I had some experience with the old Labour Code, and I feel very strongly that, particularly with the 1984 amendments, the old Labour Code was stacked against trade unions and in favour of employers. It was a significant shift in the power and in the balance between management and labour, with the amendments in 1984. We now have section after section of this bill which shifts that balance even further in favour of management. But of all the sections, the one we're debating now is really the heart of the legislation and fundamentally changes the direction.

Before this bill was introduced, we had a genuine effort on the part of labour and management to come together in the public interests of British Columbia and make a consensus building process. We had the Pacific Institute, the board of trade, the Business Council of B.C. and the B.C. Federation of Labour. We had, I think, a new generation of trade union leaders come to the fore. We had a new government that held great promise to the people of British Columbia, which is why they got elected — because of the promise of a fresh start, the promise of a break in the confrontation we had seen in British Columbia.

So we had a promise. We had all the actors coming together. We had a Minister of Labour who toured the province and had 700 submissions, which demonstrated the kind of interest in consensus — building and in change that could be supported by all parties. Instead we have legislation which is not supported by at least one major actor and, I suspect, by many more. I've had calls from employers I used to deal with who are really shocked by the extent of this legislation.

[ Page 1726 ]

This section gives sweeping powers to one individual; and "sweeping powers" is the language used by the Minister of Labour in his press release. It's not meant to be inflammatory; it's a description that the government uses itself to describe the powers of Ed Peck and the commissioner to intervene in disputes — sweeping, massive intervention.

We've said before, and I'll say again, that consensus cannot be legislated. You cannot decide that there will not be any strikes. That's not how it works in a modem society; that's not how it works in North America and in British Columbia history. This attempts to go against the history of British Columbia and to radically change the way we do business. It can't work without the cooperation of the parties.

I've heard many members on the government side say, at least privately — and I think employers — that all of these incredible, sweeping powers given to Ed Peck and the commissioner won't be used. They're really there as a threat to force the parties to negotiate. It seems to me you simply don't place those kinds of extraordinary powers....

What are the powers? He can appoint a fact-finder under this section, a mediator, a public interest inquiry board; he can order votes at any stage during a strike; he can order final offer selection; and a whole range of things. Those things aren't there as a threat. They're there to be used, and they will be used.

[3:45]

I submit that because of that one section in particular, the B.C. Federation of Labour has decided to boycott the legislation. In fact, these sections will have to be used, and they will be used significantly and consistently to try to impose a settlement on the parties. The government's response by way of the writ the other day indicates the kind of attitude the government has: the consistent desire to use significant powers to try to deal with non-consent to the government's actions. This section of the bill that gives those wide-ranging tools and powers to that commissioner to intervene will be used, and it will be used just as the writ was used: to try to force a settlement on the parties.

We can predict — we know historically — that that kind of thing won't work in British Columbia. All of these powers and, I think, this bureaucratic kind of approach to collective bargaining will stifle the kind of free collective bargaining that we've had. In fact, there won't be free collective bargaining anymore. It's quite clear. And it forces government to be an actor, a partner, in every collective bargaining process. The Minister of Energy talks about individuals and the liberal philosophy of the nineteenth century, and here we have a government intervening so extraordinarily, so massively into the day-to-day operations of free peoples to negotiate collective agreements without the interference of the state. It's beyond me how members on that side can reconcile this kind of strange dichotomy in their minds: on the one hand saying "we're in favour of the individual and getting government off the backs of people," and on the other hand saying: "except in labour relations, where we're going to intervene in every way imaginable." In fact, this kind of interventionist legislation doesn't exist anywhere else in the world.

Disputes. No one likes labour disputes. They're messy. But democracy is messy. It's a price that we pay to live in a free society, to believe that people have the right collectively to organize and decide for themselves, to work with employers and decide how to govern their working lives and what kind of collective agreements they want, what clauses are in those collective agreements. It's messy and no one likes it.

It's tempting on the part of government to say: "It's messy for all these other people so we're going to force settlements consistently." To try to stifle that kind of debate, to try to stifle people's ability to negotiate collectively, is not productive. It's going to result in more disputes. It's going to result in longer and more bitter disputes consistently across British Columbia. It does nothing to enhance our reputation in the world; it does nothing to enhance our democracy; and it does nothing in terms of building the kind of British Columbia we want, the kind of consensus around labour relations that we need to move forward in British Columbia.

It really is so profoundly different from our belief on this side, so fundamentally opposite to the direction in which we believe we should be moving, that we will be debating this clause-by-clause at some length.

HON. L. HANSON: With the agreement of the members opposite, I believe we should start the amendment process. With that in mind, I would move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

It's a matter of clarity, Madam Chairman. This is simply to ensure that the reference to library is the correct reference. The original had a rather narrow reference that didn't cover all libraries, and now it recognizes that a regional library constituted under the Library Act is covered by the definition of a public employer.

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't want to debate the amendment; the amendment's no problem. I just want to clarify what we're doing here and indicate that it's with our acceptance that we proceed at this stage to deal with these amendments seriatim. Procedurally it's a difficult situation, and I think what we can best do now is to quickly go through the amendments so that we can then debate in a full way the amended section 62. I appreciate the agreement to deal with these amendments seriatim, even though procedurally it could well be argued that this is one section and therefore it's one amendment. But we agree that we will deal with the amendments seriatim. There will be some discussion on some of them, and then we will go to a full discussion on 62 as amended after that.

MS. EDWARDS: Madam Chairman, just to clarify in my own mind, does this mean that library boards which are actually elected by societies will now be included here instead of the ones that would be appointed by the minister?

HON. L. HANSON: All library boards. Maybe I should clarify that, Madam Chairman, by saying all libraries constituted under the Library Act.

Amendment approved.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I guess there is no necessity to refer to section 62 each time. I move the amendment 137.4 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: The amendment says: "It is the duty of the commissioner to keep the minister informed respecting

[ Page 1727 ]

strikes and lockouts that occur or are threatened." " Or threatened," is the question. Does that mean that where strike notice has been given you are informed of that? Maybe we could just tighten up what that means.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I think that it's a very broad requirement in that the commissioner must keep the Minister of Labour informed on all affairs, I guess, as they are going on. But it makes it clear that there is a requirement for the minister to be kept aware of all potential and actual disputes, and remove the arbitrary 28-day notice.

MR. CLARK: "All potential and actual disputes." Does that mean that it's really a pro forma thing where the commissioner gets informed that bargaining has commenced with these two parties, and then he sort of passes that on to you so that you're always informed of the status of all negotiations for all collective agreements in the province at all times? Is that fair? Can you say that for the record for me?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, that's substantially correct, yes.

MR. GABELMANN: Not to be too flippant about this, but I think if the minister wanted to keep up to date with all the situations that are going on, he could read the Business Council newsletter every week, and he'd know exactly what strikes are underway, the status of contract negotiations, when contracts are likely to expire in which industries, and who the mediator is. If an IIC is involved, that's stated too. The minister could avoid this whole bureaucratic nonsense just by reading the Business Council weekly report.

Amendment approved.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment 137.5 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment to subsection 137.7 (3) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister could tell us if 137.7 (3) (d) was in the first instance an oversight, and he's just correcting a drafting error, or is this a conscious decision to add yet another authority to the commissioner?

HON. L. HANSON: The question, I believe, is referring to "refer the matter to a public interest inquiry board." Is that the concern?

We see it as reflecting a downgrading of the reference of the matter to a public interest inquiry board. It wasn't an oversight. I believe it was a result of concerns that had been raised in the various meetings that we had with representatives of management and labour.

MR. MILLER: For clarification then, the amendment would allow the reference to a public interest inquiry board of any matter that may be in dispute. It is not necessary that it has reached the point where there is a strike or lockout in place; bargaining could actually be going on in some form, and that matter could be referred to a public interest inquiry board.

HON. L. HANSON: If the wording is: "Where a strike or lockout notice has been served, or where a strike or lockout has commenced or where the chairman considers that a dispute exists between parties, he shall report the matter to the commissioner...." On receipt of that report, the commissioner may do the following....

MR. MILLER: I have not looked at the section extensively, but it is divided into nine different sections. Some stand on their own and some are linked together then — is that what you are saying? Are (2) and (3) linked together, then? One example deals with a situation where an employer and a trade union have commenced collective bargaining. The chairman or person appointed may inquire.... Subsection (2) deals with where a strike or lockout has been served: there shall be a report to the commissioner.

I will accept your word for now that (2) and (3) are linked together. But my concern is that if they were not — in other words, if they were viewed independently — you could conceivably have a situation where a public interest inquiry board could be constituted to deal with a matter that will debate that whole issue of public interest inquiry separately. I am not conceding anything there, because I think it is a foolish move. But you get my point anyway, so I will leave it until we get through the amendment.

[4:00]

Amendment approved.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to subsection 137.7 (6) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to subsection 137.8 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm delighted we have a traffic cop in here now, helping us through this, Madam Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's interesting.

MR. GABELMANN: That's one word. There are others.

This section is the essential services section. We'll debate this issue in a substantive form once we've gone through all of the amendments, but I just want to comment on what this amendment does. It's clearly a reaction to the concern that the commissioner had too many powers, and this is returning, theoretically at least, a power to the minister, because the minister now has to receive a report. The report is not defined, and that's why we have characterized this whole section, the so-called improvements to this section, as requiring a phone call from the commissioner to the minister prior to doing what he was going to do anyway. So all that this so-called democratization of this section really accomplishes is one more phone call, so B.C. Tel can make a few more cents on their long distance charges. But that's really all there is to

[ Page 1728 ]

it, and I hope the public, when they consider the minister's suggestion that in fact this is made more democratic because the minister gets to make the decisions now....

The fact is that in the way the process is structured, the way it will evolve and the way events will proceed, all of the information required to make the decision will be in the hands of the commissioner, so the commissioner will have all the power. He who has the information on has the power, and the power that flows from information is effectively still in the hands of the commissioner. The minister does not have the information coming from his staff within his ministry; he has it by a phone call or a report, or however it's transmitted, from the commissioner. The commissioner can give the minister whatever information he chooses to give or, conversely, not give whatever he chooses not to give. If the minister doesn't know the right questions to ask, they won't get asked and the information won't be transmitted. So we really have not accomplished a heck of a lot by making what I think is a paper change to this paper chase.

Amendment approved.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment to section 137.9 (1), (3) and (7) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: There seems to be a speed-up here. Given that I wasn't going to talk about (1) or (3), and I don't think anybody else was, we'll go to (7). The changes are in subs (1), (3) and (7), right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. GABELMANN: I think (1) and (3) don't require debate at this stage; (7) does. Sub (7) will get further debate again later on, but I want to make just a comment now so that it's on the record with this amendment.

What we had originally was a proposal that violators of this law could be punished by their employers rather than by the state — an unheard of concept until now; that if you break the law of British Columbia by violating an order of the commissioner, discipline can be exerted by your employer. Now it's been.... The amendment narrows that considerably, because.... I can't imagine that the original section would have stood the test of the courts anyway, but it has been narrowed, so let's look at what the amendment does precisely.

The amendment suggests that now the only violation of the law that will be punished by the employer is the violation of the law as set out in 137.9, the return-to-work section. If there is a return-to-work order directed by this section by the commissioner and people refuse to obey that law or that order, instead of being in violation of the law they are judged to be in violation of their contract and the employer will have the right to discipline. So if you choose freely to break the law by refusing to go back to work, you aren't taken to court to have your innocence or your guilt judged as to whether or not you did break this law. That doesn't happen. What happens is that the employer says you're fired. You broke the law of B.C.; you're fired. It's now arbitrable. The disciplined employee, whatever the discipline is — and discipline can range from a letter to a firing — is now subject to arbitration, thank God. But the fundamental issue still remains that the employers are given the right to be the enforcers of the law.

I concede it's a narrow point. I concede that the minister can say it's not the law that's being broken; it's the contract now in force that's being broken. Technically, that's correct. But the contract was not freely reached; it was imposed by law under this section. People who choose to break that law, or the results of that law, which is a contract, are going to be judged and punished by their employer. They have a right to further judgment at an arbitration, if it goes that far. But that's a wrong principle. If the employer wants to argue in front of the Industrial Relations Council that that employee has broken the contract, which is a legal contract because it was imposed under the law of British Columbia, and proceeds in that way, then fine, that's one thing; people are going to suffer the consequences of having violated their contract, I suppose. But to write into law that the employer gets to discipline a violation of this section — that's in effect what it does, although I concede it does not do it directly — is wrong in principle. We just don't need this kind of power.

We'll do more on this later on. I concede that the amendment goes a long way to redressing a totally untenable situation that would have existed with the previous wording. I concede that it's a lot better. But it still does not go as far as it should go, to make it clear that if you break the law, then society deals with you; and if you break the contract, then there is a civil remedy available.

MR. CLARK: Because we're going to debate this again when it comes around as amended, I won't belabour it. This really makes employers agents of the state, and I find that offensive. It says that failure to comply with an act is enforceable by the employer. I just think it's offensive to the way in which we do business. It's been tempered by this amendment, and therefore it's better than it was. Clearly, as it was, it wouldn't have stood up. But I can't think of any other legislation that puts a third party in a position of enforcing an act of the Legislature. We'll get into it more in debate later. But I think the questions around what disciplinary action would be required, what reasonable cause is, and all those other things, are going to be subject to lengthy and expensive litigation. Maybe we can go around it a bit in here, to help clarify it later.

Amendment approved.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to section 137.92 (l) and (2) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to section 137.95 (3) and (3.1) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: I ask the minister to explain this amendment, if he could.

HON. L. HANSON: The original wording to this section could have been construed to mean that the mechanism of interest arbitration was only to be applied to public sector

[ Page 1729 ]

employees. The amendment makes it clear that our intention was to cover private sector as well, where necessary.

Amendment approved.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to section 137.96 (6) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment 137.97 (l), (8) and (11) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

MR. MILLER: Due to the complexity and the length of the amendments we're dealing with, I wonder if the Chair could recognize that and perhaps just cut the pace back a touch. It's very difficult to look at the amendment related to the bill and see the extent of the change. It's impossible to commit this kind of stuff to memory.

[4:15]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Chair would be happy to comply.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment 137.98 (6) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment 62.1 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm just standing, Madam Chair, to give people a chance to catch up. I think everybody agrees that this is not simple to follow, because we've got so many different documents dealing with the Code, the original bill, and now the amendments and different sets of numbers. I'm trying to find 140 of the Code. It doesn't help when you have the wrong piece of paper in your hand. I think section 140 of the Code....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Right. I think it's not the end of the world if this one passes.

Amendment approved.

MR. GABELMANN: It's a procedural question at this stage. We were all doing so many different things here. We did in fact deal with 137.98, and 137.99 is not amended?

AN HON. MEMBER: Section 140.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay.

On section 62 as amended.

MR. MILLER: Certainly the events of the last few minutes have illustrated the complexity in dealing with a lengthy piece of legislation, and it may be foreshadowing in terms of dealing with the complexity of labour relations in this province.

Certainly my colleagues have detailed what they see as the offensive aspects of this bill, and this section in particular, in terms of its intervention in the labour relations scene, and the possible repercussions of that in terms of what we really want to achieve. I couldn't help but be struck by the comments of the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) with regard to this very important issue and the simplicity with which the minister boiled the arguments down to a question of the rights and freedoms, and the freedom of the individual. I guess both sides, at some points in debate, could be faulted with slipping into political rhetoric, but certainly that was a classic case.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

The rights of individuals, of course, in our society have been considered paramount and are considered paramount by, I think, all political parties in this country. In varying degrees and in varying forms we respect those rights, and we also understand that the rights and freedoms of an individual are tempered or restricted somewhat in a variety of ways. Certainly the one that first comes to mind is that we're not allowed to exercise those rights and freedoms to the detriment of others, as outlined perhaps in the Criminal Code. We've had some debate recently about whether or not the kinds of activities that took place on Monday actually fall under that jurisdiction, and we've had a judge in this province, in a decision just handed down. Indicate that that's not the case. So I think we would be better off moving away from that kind of example and dealing with the problems of the interferences of the rights and freedoms of individuals with respect to labour relations disputes.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Before I get into that, I'd like to point out that individuals and groups in our society can be impacted severely by a number of happenings. I'll deal with one, and that's the possibility of a strike by capital. It's not something we hear about all that much or something we talk about all that much, because, frankly, it's been my observance in our society that we tend to assume that capital has, in a sense, an inalienable right. In other words, if they refuse to do something, that's okay, because we're not in a position to compel people or institutions to invest capital. Yet the repercussions of that not happening are just as traumatic in our society as the repercussions of a major labour dispute, and yet we don't attempt to deal with that kind of issue. We tend, in our society, to say,"Well, we'll have to make accommodations: we'll have to look at the needs of capital," as this government has done over the last little while. We've said: "It's clear that we've got to give some tax breaks to capital, because otherwise things are pretty fragile and capital might flee." And in that regard, they have tremendous bargaining power with, in fact, no bills that regulate in the sense that this bill regulates the activities of two groups in our society.

So I think that's a good preference, because when you're dealing with rights and freedoms, you must be conscious of the limitations that are placed on people. Certainly I would be the first to agree that almost every labour dispute causes a

[ Page 1730 ]

hardship not only to the participants but potentially to people who are on the sidelines. Whether they be suppliers to a particular industry that's struck, whether they be small contractors supplying goods and services, whether it's the bank who may have difficulty collecting their mortgage from an individual who happens to be on strike — whatever it is — there certainly is a ripple or a repercussion in the community. I have yet, in my many years as an industrial worker, to encounter anybody who took any delight in that whatsoever.

In fact, strikes are very difficult for individuals. Most working people I know have not really put themselves in a position where they are able to effectively save for a strike. Realistically, that very seldom happens. Yet I've seen certain strikes where there is a great deal of commitment on the part of the people who are engaged in that process. It's not a blind herd mentality that governs. Certainly people do discuss the alternatives and the ramifications, and I've seen people hurting as bad as you can hurt financially and yet determined to hold out for what they see as something that is worthwhile. Quite frankly, I have seen that determination strongest not in strikes for money, but for the things that are attendant to collective agreements — the whole issue of benefits and working conditions. I have seen some real determination when it comes to those kinds of issues.

We are not dealing on a simplistic basis with this piece of legislation being somehow like a seagull that I recall on a Social Credit pamphlet at one time — just by looking at this picture of a seagull in the air, we were somehow promised freedom, the breath of freedom. We are not dealing with that, and I wish we could get away sometimes from that kind of rhetoric. It distorts what our purpose should be in this Legislature.

As far as I am aware, as legislators, as MLAs — and the opposite side obviously is the government in terms of determining what comes into this Legislature and is debated — we have the power and the responsibility to intervene in a labour dispute if, in the opinion of the people in this Legislature, that dispute has caused a significant problem in our economy or to people in our economy. I have stated this before. There is a recent example, I believe, with the grain-handlers' or the longshoremen's dispute just last year, when the federal Parliament was called into session on very short order. All parties were forced to stand up and debate the bill to send people back to work, to end the dispute. All parties had to put their position on the line, and they had the opportunity to side with the participants in the dispute, I guess, and speak against the legislation or for it. That is when people are tested. They have to make some difficult choices about how they feel, and where their allegiances and their broader responsibilities lie. Nothing has taken that away from us. We have that opportunity. I don't know if the insertion of all of these clauses under section 62 is necessarily going to change what ultimately might bring us into this chamber. That is really the question.

There have been some good, solid indications, I think, that there was some movement among the parties that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) referred to as big companies and big unions. I don't know if the Minister of Energy has ever considered the fact that if you have a big company, you are not, I suppose, well served if you have a small union. They have grown together. In that respect I think — and I wish he were here; maybe he's listening — he would probably agree that the cumulative effect, if you like, of the growth of trade unions and their interaction with companies has generally been a beneficial one in our society. Without getting too historical, we could go back and talk about all of the changes that have been made — not entirely by unions; there were some great parliamentarians who stood in their place and championed the rights of people who they thought were being abused in terms of, say, laws that used to allow child labour and a number of other things.

We have been making some good progress, but along the way we have had some disputes. Now we have come to this. My feeling is that we have missed an opportunity. Rather than be as creative as we could in trying to investigate alternatives to the traditional square-off, particularly where we have had a recession in the economy and the impact of that on both parties, rather than perhaps look at what other jurisdictions are doing, or even, which I prefer, create our own special solutions to those problems, we have gone back to a method that was tried and really failed back in the late sixties, and that is a bill that is more interventionist.... At every stage or at a number of stages in the process between the parties, it seeks to intervene in the sense of: "We are there watching. We know what is going to happen, and we are going to step in here if anything goes awry." They become the third party at the table. I don't think you can negotiate successfully with three parties at the table. I don't think it works very well. I think the two parties have to be at the table, and they have to have a commitment to each other to negotiate meaningfully.

[4:30]

I just think that there are a host of things that we could look at in British Columbia in developing our own unique brand of change. In doing that, we could certainly examine the kinds of setups that exist in terms of participation by working people in some of the industrialized countries of Europe. I know that some companies in British Columbia are doing some experiments in terms of share issues to employees. We see the Repap company, which, thank God, purchased some of the BCRIC enterprises, now starting, for the first time, really, to deal with offering bonuses for production, being very frank with their employees in terms of the performance of the company.

We see a number of initiatives, but certainly not enough initiatives in the private sector to start to deal with what really causes the major blowouts. Really we're only talking about those, because, as has been pointed out quite often in this House, most contracts are resolved. Most parties know that they have to sit down and come up with a document that works. People want to work and companies want to operate. I suppose I deal more with the private sector, because that's my experience, but it seems to me that they tend, when there is a blowup, to produce the worst results.

We're going the way of, you know, let's be the third party at the table; we don't trust the parties; we don't think that they've got a commitment — as opposed to what we can do to set up, for example, a labour centre in British Columbia that honestly looks in a very creative way at what's going on in other jurisdictions. I sometimes feel that we tie our own hands in this province when it comes to looking at those questions; we simply go on and on and on adopting that almost frontier mentality. It clearly does not do us any good. It doesn't matter who you are — whether you're an employers' council, a trade union or anybody else. Clearly, if the reputation that we have of a disruptive province causes investors to stay away, that's not good, and I don't think anybody on either side really wants that to continue. But I've seen no attempt to facilitate a different approach. Instead, what I see

[ Page 1731 ]

in this legislation is simply an attempt to go back to a very poor solution, and that is: "Let's intervene; let's be the watchdog; let's step in; let's force these people to resolve their differences. Boy, if they don't, we've got some ways we can intervene" — including, in my opinion, the most ludicrous one....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. MILLER: Shows how time flies when you're having fun, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JONES: I have a great deal to learn about labour relations. I was really enjoying the comments by my colleague from Prince Rupert, and I'd really like to hear some more.

MR. MILLER: With that kind of inspiration, Mr. Chairman, I might go another 15 minutes. Seriously, I don't want to. My last remark was aimed, as I said, at what I consider to be the most ludicrous.... In some sense, it's really paying lip service to a bit of phony philosophy or phony ideology, and that's the question of the public being allowed to intervene through the public interest panels — I forget the terminology. I really think that that's a bit of an amateurish way to deal with the question. It really begs the question in terms of the effectiveness of such an intervention, the repercussions that might flow from that and the ability for some people outside of the dispute to use that in a vexatious manner or in a manner that's self-serving and, I think, against the best interests of good, meaningful labour relations.

As I said, my experience is talking here. I don't think that we agree any more than you do with long labour disputes, but we have some serious differences when it comes to the manner that you are proposing to try and solve this. I just think it's kind of a blind look at the thing. I think events over the next few years will probably prove that right; not so much that the parties, particularly labour, may simply take an extremely militant attitude towards the legislation.... I'm sure they will, and I'm sure that will be a source of failure, if you like, of this legislation. But also I think just the design of the legislation itself will not work. Unfortunately it appears that we're going to have to go through that process. Hopefully a few years from now we can talk about this again, and maybe some lessons will have been learned. But right now I think we're heading in the wrong direction.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier in the day about why section 62 is a particular section of the Industrial Relations Reform Act that we find offensive. It embodies a number of the reasons why this bill will not work. It is unfair; it is a bill that picks particularly on one side over the other. I would like to reinforce that by looking at two particular areas that I think show that inherent unfairness, and the uncertainty that it creates.

If you look at section 137.7 (l), the provision that the participants — the disputants or whatever term you want to use — in a labour dispute "shall" supply such information as is requested.... Now if you have been involved in labour-management relations and discussions that have gone to the stage of a dispute, you know that that doesn't happen very often. When parties get to that particular point, it's at a very delicate part of the negotiations. It's a very heated, committed part of negotiations, and some very intense and complicated strategies and counter-strategies have gone on.

I suppose it's like a poker game, where you're into the third or fourth round of bidding. You're just getting ready to make your final judgments, and all of a sudden somebody says: "Okay, turn up all your cards. We want to see what they look like." Well, that makes it a little tough to carry on the poker game. It makes it a little hard to carry on the negotiations when there can be that kind of intervention. "We want all the information you've got. We want to know every one of your strategies and counter-strategies. We want to know exactly where you intend to go, what your limits are, what your limits aren't. We'd like to have all that information."

Well, that kind of uncertainty in our rule of law makes it very difficult, after decades of building up a tradition — a series of moves, a series of strategies, like in a chess game, that have become accepted conventions — to all of a sudden find yourself basically in the middle of a Kafka novel that.... You're not quite sure where you're at — what's going to happen, and when, and who is going to do it to you, and how. That kind of uncertainty makes it very, very difficult for our collective bargaining process to work in the one out of 20 disputes that gets to this point, and the one out of a hundred that gets to a short strike or a lockout.

This kind of major intervention by a bureaucrat in that collective bargaining process creates uncertainty that makes it very destructive. That is an instance of why this bill is such a massive overreaction to anomalies that happen in our democracy and in our collective bargaining system.

Another area that I think points out the fundamentally flawed nature of this bill is subsection 137.9 (l), the return to work provision. There's a whole range of procedures that are laid out on return to-work: requirements for employers, requirements for employees. You read down through that, and you see that it's reasonably fair, in the sense that it lays out requirements for both. But I think the innate unfairness and anti-worker nature of this legislation hits you — boom! — when you read the last provision of subsection (7) on page 23 of the bill. You see that the fairness all of a sudden changes when the penalties are starting to be applied, because, Mr. Chairman, when the penalties and sanctions are applied, they're applied to employees and not to employers. It's only employees who are punished if they don't comply with the return-to-work orders of a public interest inquiry board.

That shows the real intent of this bill. It shows that it is there to punish working people who don't comply with the bill — not employers, employees. It also shows that it hasn't been thought through in terms of people being treated relatively fairly, even if it's badly — even if they are being treated badly, they should be treated equally badly — because it allows an employer to discipline selectively, to pick out people who are active trade unionists or to pick out people who they don't like because they chew gum or they smoke. I don't like people who smoke, but that doesn't mean that I am going to discipline them — except to put in a bylaw like we did in the city of Vancouver to prevent that in public places. But we don't think that people should be picked out for that reason, or because they may have a different religious viewpoint or a different racial origin or may be unfortunately blemished, imperfect human beings by the fact that they have hair on the top of their heads. We think that it is unfit for a bill and an act of this Legislature to have that sort of unfairness — a bill brought before this House in 1987. We thought that we

[ Page 1732 ]

eliminated that sort of potential for prejudicial action over the last 50 years.

So, Mr. Chairman, we have some real problems with this particular section of the Industrial Relations Reform Act, because it creates unfairness, it creates uncertainty, it creates an imbalance, and it creates a possibility for vindictive and uneven application of penalties for the people of this province. We would urge that you have a serious reconsideration of this section and of a number of the points that have been made by members of this side of the House as to why it is so fundamentally flawed and why it should not be applied in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I was hungrily looking around the room and hoping that we would hear some defence of this legislation from....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, fine. I will for a moment, and will let the member for Kamloops speak on this matter.

[4:45]

MR. S.D. SMITH: I want to be very brief, as usual, to satisfy the wishes of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), as always. But I think that we should take a look at this notion of public interest a little bit more, which section 62 contemplates and which has been discussed around here quite a bit over the last little while.

You know, under that system that we have had for a long time — which I see the B.C. Teachers' Federation newsletter referred to as a fundamental social contract that has governed labour relations in B.C. since the 1930s — a lot of us would agree that there have been a couple of flaws, and there have been a number of occasions since 1930 when the public interest just might have been better served had we had the courage to take a couple of risks and take a look at some alternatives. Perhaps in 1987 we are going to be able to do that. The system that we have been dealing with, it seems to me, presupposes that we have two parties operating in a vacuum, to the exclusion of everybody and everything else in the province. That really does deny the reality of British Columbia or any other jurisdiction, particularly as organizations have got larger and more complex and have dealt in a way that affects many more facets of our society than they did in the past.

The Leader of the Opposition, earlier on, wanted to think of industrial relations as a kind of complicated strategy; it was sort of like a poker game and so on. I think that's a pretty frivolous way of looking at industrial relations in British Columbia. There may be some who like to think of it in that light, but I think more responsible people in our society understand that in fact it is a very serious matter, and it's a matter that really does go to the root of British Columbia society and the people in it. Frankly, I wish the opposition leader would take it a little bit more seriously than that.

The public shouldn't be allowed to get into the system or into the game, because that would be amateurish, says the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller). I don't believe that the public getting into the game is amateurish at all. Indeed, I think the attitude disclosed by the member in that regard is terribly arrogant and elitist. It's the kind of attitude that we ought to reject, and it's the kind of attitude that the people of British Columbia have consistently rejected for a long, long time — indeed, for those who are interested in history, as the member for Prince Rupert indicated earlier he is, people of British Columbia have resisted that attitude since 1933 on every single occasion when they have been given the opportunity to have a say about it.

Let us look at that history in another light in relation to the public interest that is contemplated by section 62 and in relation to what the member for Prince Rupert and others have said about the draconian nature of this bill, and the way it is going to do all sorts of dire things to the province. We've heard that same type of argument on every occasion over the last 30-odd years when government has sought to make changes and improvements in existing industrial relations laws.

Interjections.

MR. S.D. SMITH: I'm interested to hear the comments of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) as he proceeds towards the close of his somewhat checkered career in this House.

In 1954 some changes to the labour legislation of the day were introduced into the Legislature, and it was said: "The labour movement faces legislation in B.C. which will set us back decades in the progress that we have already made. B.C. organized labour feels the act is the worst labour act in Canada." Then we move along, and the reference was that every action of the Minister of Labour of the day, Lyle Wicks,"appears designed to limit the influence of trade unions among the workers of this province." That was the charge not in 1987 but in 1954, although many people may have had a sense of deja vu as they've been listening to this debate.

Let us move ahead to 1959, when we had Bill 43. We again had speeches about all the dire consequences that were going to happen to working people in this province who chose to be members of organized labour. George Mitchell, then of the International Woodworkers of America, said: "This legislation brings us the closest we have ever been to fascism. It's another Pearl Harbor attack by the Social Credit government, another double-cross." Then, with Bill 42 in 1961, we had a statement attributed to Mr. O'Neal that "not since the days of Oliver Cromwell has a ruler of the British Commonwealth used the tactics of Premier W.A.C. Bennett and his cabinet to intimidate the working people of this province." We move along to Bill 33 in 1968, when it was stated by Stanley Little of CUPE that "this action reeks of gestapo dictatorship." Mr. Little said that "the act will deny our members their democratic right to win for themselves the kind of wages and working conditions which they deserve."

Now I must tell you that since 1968, when that prediction was made, workers in British Columbia have done very well, thank you very much, through their own efforts — quite properly taken — in terms of their working conditions and wages. The point is that on every occasion that labour legislation changes have been introduced into this House, there have been predictions of dire consequences: the end of collective bargaining, working people having their rights trampled and people not able to survive any longer in the organized labour community. We even had statements in 1973, when the present Code was introduced. Jack Phillips of CUPE said that "B.C. workers are sickened and ashamed by the proposed legislation." That was in 1973, when the Labour Relations Board was established, and one of the persons on that board, of course, was a chap by the name of Ed Peck.

[ Page 1733 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not the same Ed Peck.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Apparently, yes.

But we move along in that debate at that time to another indication of the attitude towards the change in labour relations in 1973. A preliminary analysis was prepared by the B.C. Federation of Labour, and the parent Canadian Labour Congress described the provisions as detrimental to working people in the province. This is the same Labour Code that, you understand, has been defended for the last two months in this House, with great passion, as the instrument that was all things to all people and should be for all time, and whatever we do is going to wreak havoc on the province. At that time the same people had a different attitude.

The one that I find most interesting is a leader of the carpenters' union saying, in relation to the labour legislation, that if the Code had been introduced by the Socreds,"we'd be talking about a general strike." I guess they reserve that option, apparently, for the Socreds, even though their attitude is the same throughout the history of changes, that I can find, in labour legislation in the province of British Columbia.

To get back to the present, to this section and to the business of the public attitude and the public interest and the social contract, I agree with many members of the opposition who say that this legislation will not work unless all the parties involved, including organized labour, participate. About that there can be no doubt, because this legislation does move away from that system of two groups operating in a vacuum to the exclusion of all others. What it does is recognize that there are third parties and a public interest, and that there ought to be some vehicle and some person who can be equipped through law with the tools to deal with that public interest and assist those third parties when the two parties operating in the vacuum do so in such a way that it impacts adversely on those third parties and that public interest.

What we ought to be doing here at this time with this legislation is directing our minds to how we can make that system work, how we can bring the parties together, how we can ensure that we try to make this system operate for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. It was very disheartening to learn that yesterday a request was made to the Leader of the Opposition to do just that: to put himself in a position of leadership whereby for one year he would work on behalf of the people of this province to see how this legislative change works and to try to bring the people together to participate so that the legislation does have a fair, open and honest chance of being seen to operate. He refused that. He refused that opportunity to participate, to try to make the system operate, because he doesn't want the system to work. Not only does he predict that the system won't work, that the system will fail; I will suggest to you that he prays that it won't work. Indeed, he is going to do everything in his power to create his own self-fulfilling prophecy.

[5:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Member, your time is up.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly enjoyed hearing from the second member for Kamloops, and since we're in committee, I wonder if he could continue.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Section 62 and the notion of the public interest that it contemplates: I think the Leader of the Opposition's refusal is a very bad decision, for a number of reasons. I think you will not be able to sustain the boycott for three or four years — or more — until the time of the next election, which appears to be the strategy. Nor are the leaders of the B.C. Federation of Labour going to be able to sustain it, because the people and the workers in this province will participate in the system, together with business people and people in government, people of good will, people who are prepared to put the interest of the province first and their own partisan position second — their own attitude, their own biases, be it towards legislation or philosophy or any other matter. The workers will participate, Mr. Opposition Leader, no matter what you do, and no matter what you do in concert with the leaders of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

It is terribly unfortunate that you would refuse to seize the opportunity extended to you by the Premier to show a mode of leadership, which we have not seen in this province for my entire lifetime, whereby you would go out and participate in the system and use your considerable talent and influence to bring into the system and into the fore the people who are going to be most affected by this legislation. I think it's important that we call upon all people of good will, all citizens, and particularly all leaders in this province, to set aside that great temptation to engage in some kind of partisan advantage. Set aside whatever debts we have to whatever special interest groups to which we owe them, and put the interests of the people of British Columbia first. Give this legislation a chance to operate, and give face to the people who want to participate. Give face to the people who want to be part of the system and the solution, and to go out and work this system.

Bring the people together. Don't be tempted by the old style politics being advanced to you by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) in the twilight of his checkered career. Take upon yourself the temptation to take the risk of a true new beginning, and use your powers of influence to make British Columbia a better place by giving this legislation a chance.

You're asked to participate in a role of leadership for only one year, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. If you want to go back to your traditional ways after that year is up, then of course it would be open for you to do so. But please, just for one year, give the new beginning a chance and try to undertake a role of leadership.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before we continue with section 62 as amended, I've been reminded of standing order 61 (2), which says: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize that it has been on both sides of the House and rather free-ranging. This would appear to be a time to get back to section 62 as amended.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very specifically about section 62, unlike the previous speaker. I would like to say, however, that that was a slightly better attempt than the feeble attempt of your fearless leader — to try to think that it was a great victory for me to get quarterly

[ Page 1734 ]

reports on this awful piece of legislation, which are going to be made available anyway.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: He said it in two minutes; you took 20 to say the same thing.

I would think that if you had the courage of your convictions and voiced them as passionately as you did, it would have been far more courageous to have placed this section before the people of this province and asked for a mandate to impose this upon them, instead of coming back here like my — well, my six-year-old would never do it, but like some of your six-year-olds — and blaming somebody else for your own misjudgments and for your own mistakes, and trying to deflect the blame from yourselves. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that this is the second time we've heard the hon. second member for Kamloops participating in a Social Credit betrayal of the people of this province.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Point of order. The Leader of the Opposition truly knows that the word "betrayal" is unparliamentary, and I would ask that it be withdrawn without condition immediately.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm advised that "betrayal" is an unparliamentary word. Would you care to withdraw it?

MR. HARCOURT: And use the words "to mislead," because when you do not place your program to bring in a restraint program, which the hon. member participated in in 1983, and you do not mention a Bill 19 and a section 62, that is indeed misleading the people. To come here and ask me to support the indefensible, to support the untenable, to support the unsupportable, I think, is a bit of cheek indeed. As a matter of fact, it's more than a bit of cheek. It's like a bank robber saying to the teller,"Give me a year to see how wisely I invest this money," without realizing that the original act was possibly a no-no. It's like somebody watching a bus crowded with people driving over a cliff saying: "Let's see what happens when it gets to the bottom of the cliff. Let's try it out and see if it works when they get to the bottom." Section 62 is just that kind of drive over the cliff, Mr. Chairman. So for the hon. member to suggest that I should participate in that spending of funds that were not properly taken, ill thought out and ill advised in the first place, and to watch the bus of B.C. go over a cliff, and give it a year to monitor the results, is indeed not the kind of suggestion that the good judgment and the wise arguments of this side of the House are apt to take up very readily.

As a matter of fact, sir, I say to you the same thing that I said to the Premier: the answer is very simply no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to remind all the members of standing order 61 and ask that we debate section 62 as amended.

MR. REE: I shall be just as relevant as the last speaker on section 62, because I guess it was sort of foolish to turn around and ask the Leader of the Opposition to support this, to give it a chance to work. We have history to tell us the method of support of this member. We know his position and the support he gave on Expo.

Interjection.

MR. REE: Yes, Mr. No — the mayor of Vancouver at that time. Do you think he could see far enough into the future to see the success that section 62 will have as far as industrial relations are concerned in this province? No, Mr. Chairman, he could not.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said no again.

MR. REE: And there are other things he said no on, too. The ALRT in Vancouver — that was not going to work. It should be referred to a committee. It should be studied to death, forever and ever, just like the suggestions they've made for section 62 of Bill 19. And there are others that he has sat on the fence on and said no, it will not work, like he says no to section 62.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, let's address section 62 as amended.

MR. REE: The Leader of the Opposition says no to section 62, Mr. Chairman. I'm just showing the relevancy of his noes to his noes in other things. At any rate, we also heard a resounding no when it came to a convention centre in Vancouver, the same no that we hear with respect to section 62. He has one consistency, and that is no.

MR. HARCOURT: We are indeed on section 62, and I will follow in the tradition of the hon. member from the North Shore in staying right on section 62.

Section 62 is just like the argument that we got from the hon. member from Little Mountain, who in 1980 stood in front of our city council and said: "Members of the Vancouver city council, the Expo deficit is just like section 62." He had prescience. He knew, in 1979-80, that we would be facing Bill 19 and section 62, and he said: "Trust us. Don't worry about the funding of section 62, don't worry about the funding of Expo, because Expo is only going to cost $75 million." Very wisely we said that....

[5:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, following my tradition in speaking to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree), I would remind you of relevance and section 62 as amended.

MR. HARCOURT: Yes, I'm getting to section 62. I'm getting to that, Mr. Chairman, because the cost was $1 billion.

We questioned the good judgment. We questioned the figures at that time, just as we are questioning section 62 right now. You will see that we will be right in three or four years' time, that it will be bad for British Columbia. It will be like the Expo deficit. I was able, as the mayor, to get that off the books of the city of Vancouver as an expense for our people; and I'll tell you, we are going to get section 62 off the books as an expensive experiment for the people of British Columbia when we become the government in 933 days from now. I want you to know that section 62 will have the same relevance to your leader, who made the ridiculous suggestion to me yesterday to trust him with Bill 19 and section 62.

You say that I was perceived as negative. Negative? Well, I want you to know that your same leader said those same

[ Page 1735 ]

arguments in 1984 when he temporarily visited the city of Vancouver. He gnashed his teeth and moaned and said: "We need a fresh start." Do you know what? He got a fresh start back to Surrey. He was sent back to Surrey. And do you know what the vote was? The vote was 89,000 to 48,000 votes, and that is the kind of vote that the people of British Columbia are going to give against section 62 and Bill 19 in the next provincial election, speaking specifically about Bill 19 and section 62.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, relative to section 62, I would just like to say maybe we are being just a bit hard on the official Leader of the Opposition. I would like to make a small forecast. I would like to say that maybe next year at this time he will say: "Well, maybe it wasn't too bad a section. It appears that perhaps it is working." In three years' time I suggest that he might say, and I will predict that he will say: "That was excellent. I am glad I was part of that debate. There were a few things I maybe didn't agree with, but in total it wasn't bad at all." So give him the benefit of the doubt. He'll come around. He's got a reputation for doing that.

MR. SIHOTA: Dealing with section 62, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for recognizing me and not recognizing the Leader of the Opposition this time around, because the last two members who spoke from the other side, the member for Kamloops and the member from North Vancouver, have been so bruised that they have both left the room now to look over their injuries and decide what to do about them. I wanted to come to the defence of the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) because I want to make sure that he didn't leave the room as well. But it is interesting to stand here in the House and listen to this debate, which has wandered, I think we can say fairly, far from section 62 and more directly to matters like Expo and buses going off cliffs and so on.

Is that the best defence that members on the other side can provide for this legislation? Is the best defence that they can provide for this hideous section quotes from 1954? They're not even quotes from members of the Social Credit Party. Is the best defence that anybody can provide from that side of the House the experiences of 1968 and to cite the mediation act that came out in 1968? We all know on both sides of the House what happened between 1968 and 1972: we had the worst record of industrial strife in this province. The second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) uses that in defence of section 62, if that was what he was talking about — because it was difficult to tell if he was talking about that or some other mumbo-jumbo that didn't relate to this section at all.

To bring it back home to section 62, Mr. Chairman, we now have legislation that sits before this House, and particularly section 62, which is virtually identical to the legislation that was in place in 1968. We all know on both sides of this House what happened after that legislation had a trial run through '68, '69, '70 and '71. We all know what happened in '72, and my crystal ball — as opposed to the crystal ball on the other side — says that we will see a repeat of '72 come the next election.

But is that the very best defence that members on the other side can come up with? We haven't heard from the Minister of Labour on this section, except some occasional comment as to the meaning of various amendments. We haven't heard any cogent defence. The Minister of Labour has sat back and listened to what members from Kamloops and North Vancouver have had to say, and has chuckled along with that. Well, that's great, but what kind of defence is that on section 62? When are we, for the first time in debate on this legislation, going to hear any cogent defence from the Minister of Labour?

Those of us on this side of the House would like to hear from the Minister of Labour, as tattered as he is, some defence of section 62. But if the Minister of Labour is not capable, what about the Premier? Two hundred and seventy words; that's all he's uttered with respect to the clause-by-clause debate during the course of Bill 19. One minute and 50 seconds; that's been the full extent of his defence. And when? Only after he was taunted by this side to show up. Where is he today? Is he not willing to provide some defence and some comfort for the Minister of Labour, or does that defence and comfort only come from people like the second member for Kamloops, who naturally is now vying for the Attorney-General's (Hon. B.R. Smith's) job? That's why he's making all the statements in the House today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, personal comments like that — allegations — are just not appropriate in this discussion.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, with all respect, first of all, I was.... There are other people running for that job as well, I should say, so I apologize to that extent. There have been some liberties granted to members on the other side and to members on this side with respect to this debate. I'm not even stepping on that territory and walking to any depth with respect to the liberties that they took.

But section 62, as I said earlier, is a clear mirroring.... I see that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is enjoying this. I'm glad, because of course he's out to do a number on the teachers, and section 62 will allow that to happen very easily.

The member for Kamloops talked about the public interest. Mr. Chairman, clearly section 62 talks about the public interest — I don't think I'm wandering too much. He talked about putting aside biases, about not taking various positions because of affiliations in the past. But what kind of bias is being demonstrated in section 62, and what about the Premier himself? The public has said very clearly in the last few weeks what it thinks about Bill 19 and about section 62. Why is the Premier not acting in the public interest and taking this legislation and putting it back before a committee? Why is he not doing that? Why go ahead in the bull-headed way in which the government wants to proceed on this legislation?

We heard during the course of the budget speech a famous quote, and that was — if I can paraphrase correctly — that the first job of government is to get government off the backs of people. We have in section 62, Mr. Chairman, various powers that allow the cabinet and the commissioner to intrude upon the collective bargaining process. And it is, to remind the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) — because we've left the nineteenth century — free collective bargaining. Section 62 allows cabinet and the inquiry commissioner to take all sorts of actions. It allows them to order a vote to be taken at any time during the course of a dispute — not when they freely and democratically decide to hold a vote, but when the government decides they ought to hold a vote. Is that getting government off the backs of people?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

[ Page 1736 ]

Section 62 allows for a vote to be taken on the final offer that's submitted. It takes away the freedom of parties to decide when they want to take the vote, and can impose upon them an order to take a vote. Is that getting government off the backs of people? And if that isn't bad enough, it says — if you read the legislation carefully, which often isn't done and clearly wasn't done by some of the members who spoke before from the other side — that that vote can be ordered over and over again, as many times as the government wishes to have the vote called. Is that getting government off the backs of people? Is that consistent with the philosophy of the Social Credit government? Of course not. It's an inconsistency. But we see those inconsistencies time and time again. When it is advantageous for reasons of public relations and gimmickry, then those lines are put in: "We want to take government off the backs of people." But when this government wants to intrude, it will intrude upon and assault the freedoms that people have in a very vigorous and unrelenting fashion. We saw that not only in section 62, but out on the lawns of the Legislature earlier in this session, and we saw it in the past week or so in the courts.

MR. LOVICK: And they do so in the name of the public interest.

MR. SIHOTA: They do it in the name of public interest, and now they're going to be using those very words to justify their actions: "the public interest." The member for Kamloops spent a little time quoting a bit about history in this province from 1954 on — in fact, he went back as far as Cromwell. Well, I haven't bothered to research the number of times the words "the public interest" have been used, the number of times hideous and unconscionable actions have been justified in the name of the public interest. Now this government and that cabinet over there wants to use the term "public interest" to place its will on any freely negotiated collective agreement to order all sorts of actions in the name of the public interest. It's a misuse and abuse of those words to have those words injected in the legislation.

Clearly there are some areas in which the public interest should prevail, and there are ways we can deal with the public interest. But the way to deal with the public interest is not the way this legislation and this section came before the House. This section was drafted because of one incident that happened during the course of the election: namely, the IWA strike. As a function of that conflict and as a function of the frustration of the Premier, who could not resolve that incident, this section was drafted. This section was not asked for at any time during the course of public hearings across this province. This section was not asked for by labour unions or employers' organizations. It was totally unexpected. I guess that's one of the reasons why we haven't had a release of all of the documentation that came into the so-called consultative meetings that were going on across the province. This section was hatched in the back rooms of the Premier's office by lawyers, and it comes directly as a result of the Premier's frustration at not being able to garner the political points he was trying to achieve during the course of the election campaign, in terms of trying to resolve the IWA strike. That's where section 62 has its historical origins.

[5:30]

So the Premier, who to my mind has the weirdest sense of right and wrong — of morals — drafted this....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm not sure that you meant to say what you said, and I would like to ask you to withdraw those remarks.

MR. SIHOTA: What I meant to say was that the Premier's comments....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I asked you to withdraw the remarks.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll withdraw them and rephrase them as follows. What I meant to say was that the Premier's interpretation of what is right or wrong, legal or illegal, is often his own idea, and it does not often coincide — we witnessed that recently — with generally accepted principles, in my mind, of what is legal or illegal, of what is or is not in the public interest.

I would say that this section ought not to be before this House, given the way in which and the circumstances upon which it was drafted, and given the extent to which it violates the very principle that the Premier outlined during the course of his throne speech: to get government off the backs of people. It doesn't do that. It is an incredible intrusion into the collective bargaining process. It allows for mediation. It allows for a fact-finder. It allows for a public inquiry board to be appointed any time, in the name of the public interest, at the will of the government. We saw during the dispute that took place this last October — and, I guess, before that as well — what happened to the Hodgson report. This section allows for a similar type of involvement and the imposition of a similar type of report, a report which at the end of the day parties agreed was unworkable. Do we want that? Is that within the public interest? Of course not.

Without the consent of the parties, this section allows that a dispute can be settled by interest arbitration, again without the consent of the parties. That's another intrusion on the ability of parties to decide among themselves what they want to do and how they ought to resolve the dispute.

Some of the things that the member for Kamloops quoted will indeed prove to be quite correct. This legislation, and in particular this section.... This section is the essence of the legislation, if you really want to get down to it. It is this section that most people find an affront to the collective bargaining regime as we've known it. This section is hideous. It is undemocratic, it is unfair, and it ought to be withdrawn.

We'll get into detailed debate on this with the minister. We'll listen to what he's got to say, in order to defend this section. But I see that my time is almost up, it's a little past 5:30, and the government House Leader is here. I'll leave my questions for tomorrow morning when we reconvene and deal with this debate, because I want to put the minister on notice: I have some very pointed questions with respect to this section.

MR. JANSEN: The debate this afternoon points out the problems that we sometimes have in trying to focus on particular issues and finding a resolution to them. The responsibility of the other side of the House is one of finding fault or criticizing legislation and actions of the government side of the House. Unfortunately they do that without any purpose, without any specific concern, and they seem to be rambling on. The Leader of the Opposition also participated in irrelevant debate and carried on at length about his election

[ Page 1737 ]

as mayor of Vancouver and Expo 86, which I might add he did not support but he's certainly free to take credit for when it became a success. He also talked about the bus of B.C. being pushed off the cliff. I might say that while he's saying that, his backside is firmly pressed to that bus and pushing it off the cliff.

I think we should look at section 62, and what it tries to do. The process of hearings throughout the province. Many times we heard union leaders request us to go back to the 1973 Code. Time and time again in communities we heard that it was time to go back to the 1973 Code. The second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) referred to it in his speech. What are the things that were said then about the 1973 Code? "The Unions Plan War Rally." "Railroading of Labour Bill Charged." "B.C. Fed Aims at New Code." "NDP Members Lash Code." It was a continual process of negative approach to the Code, and now they're asking us to go back to the 1973 Code because that indeed was the only type of legislation that worked.

The request was heard time and time again for us to go to mediation, for us to have a facility for addressing situations which could not be resolved between the members. That request came not from union leaders but from the families and employees, those who wanted it the most and those who were affected the most. This government is concerned about those that work in the workplace. It is concerned about those that are affected the most. It's concerned about the families that are affected by work stoppages. Section 62 provides that enabling mechanism, provides the facility for us to have in this province of British Columbia, a procedure to prevent work stoppages which are not necessary.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I know that the House will be interested and pleased to learn that Mrs. Thatcher has won a 110-seat victory. according to the projections in Britain.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll probably have a lot of opportunity to discuss this further this evening. There is some expectation that we appear at another premises just down the road in a few moments. So with that said, I'll now move adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:40 p.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 62, in the definition of "public sector employer" in the proposed section 137.1 by deleting paragraph (i) and substituting the following:

(i) a library board within the meaning of the Library Act, and

SECTION 62, in the proposed section 137.4 by deleting subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following:

(2) It is the duty of the commissioner to keep the minister informed respecting strikes and lockouts that occur or are threatened.

SECTION 62, in the proposed section 137.5 (4) by deleting "agree to" and substituting "agree".

SECTION 62, in the proposed section 137.7 (3) by adding the following paragraph:

(d) refer the matter to a public interest inquiry board.

SECTION 62, in the proposed section 137.7 (6) by deleting "the party making the offer shall not withdraw the offer." and substituting "an agreement is thereby constituted between the parties."

SECTION 62, by deleting the proposed section 137.8 and substituting the following:

[ Page 1738 ]

Essential services

137.8 (1) Where the minister, after receiving a report of the commissioner respecting a dispute, considers that the dispute poses a threat to the economy of the Province or to the health, safety or welfare of its residents or to the provision of educational services in the Province, the minister may do either or both of the following:

(a) order a cooling off period not exceeding 40 days;

(b) direct the council to designate those facilities, productions and services that the council considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious danger to the economy of the Province or to the health, safety or welfare or its residents or to the provision of educational services in the Province.

(2) Where a cooling off period is ordered under this section, no employee or trade union that is a party to the dispute shall strike, and no employer who is a party to the dispute shall lock out his employees, and any existing strike or lockout by a party to the dispute is suspended.

(3) Where the council designates facilities, productions and services under subsection (1) (b), the employer and the trade union shall supply, provide or maintain in full measure those facilities, productions and services and shall not restrict or limit a facility, production or service so designated.

(4) Any order, direction or designation made or given under this section may be amended, varied or revoked and another made in its place, but the minister may not in respect of one dispute order a second cooling off period.

SECTION 62, in the proposed section 137.9

(a) in subsection (1) by deleting "Where an order establishing a public interest inquiry board is made or where an order, direction or designation is made or given under section 137.8," and substituting "Where the minister makes an order or gives a direction under section 137.8 (1) or the council makes a designation under section 137.8 (1) (b),",

(b) in subsection (3) by deleting "chairman or panel" and substituting "council" and by adding facilities, productions and services operated or provided by" after "designate", and

(c) by deleting subsection (7) and substituting the following:

(7) For the purposes of this Act, failure or refusal by an employee, without reasonable excuse, to continue or to resume the duties of his employment as required by or under this section shall be deemed to be just and reasonable cause for disciplinary action.

SECTION 62, in the proposed section 137.92 by deleting subsections (1) and (2) and substituting the following:

(1) Where the commissioner considers it appropriate to establish a public interest inquiry board, he shall give notice to the parties to the dispute either

(a) that he has established a public interest inquiry board, or

(b) that he intends to establish a public interest inquiry board.

SECTION 62, by deleting the proposed section 137.95 (3) and substituting the following:

(3) Where parties referred to in subsection (1) or any other parties bound by an order under section 137.97 (3) (b) (iv) fail, within the time allowed by subsection (3. 1), to agree on the constitution of an arbitration board, the chairman shall constitute an arbitration board to hear the dispute and to resolve it by settling the terms and conditions of a collective agreement.

[ Page 1739 ]

(3. 1) The time allowed for parties to agree on the constitution of an arbitration board is

(a) a period of 10 days after the notification of the chairman in a case where subsection (2) applies, or

(b) in any other case, a period of 10 days after the parties referred to in subsection (1) or other parties bound by the order under section 137.97 (3) (b) (iv), have been notified of the order.

SECTION 62, in the proposed section 137.96 (6) by adding "for final selection" after "shall consider".

SECTION 62, in the proposed section 137.97

(a) in subsection (1) by deleting "Where the commissioner has submitted a report of a dispute to the Executive Council under section 137.4 (3) " and substituting "Where a dispute arises,",

(b) by deleting subsection (8) and substituting the following:

(8) For the purposes of this Act, failure or refusal by an employee, without reasonable excuse, to continue or to resume the duties of his employment as required by or under this section shall be deemed to be just and reasonable cause for disciplinary action., and

(c) by adding the following subsection:

(11) Subsection (10) does not apply where the dispute is resolved by mutual agreement made by the parties.

SECTION 62, in the proposed section 137.98 (6) by deleting "Lieutenant Governor in Council" and substituting "minister".

SECTION 62.1, by adding the following section:

62.1 Section 140 is amended by striking out "or the minister" and substituting ", the minister or the commissioner".