[ Page 1741 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 1741

Private Members' Statements

Economic development in the interior. Mr. Chalmers –– 1741

Mr. Williams

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Game-fanning. Ms. Edwards –– 1743

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Offshore oil and gas. Ms. Smallwood –– 1745

Hon. Mr. Davis

Agriculture and free trade. Mr. De Jong –– 1747

Mr. Rose

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1749

Mr. Jones

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Stupich

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we have introductions, I'm sure all hon. members will join with me in a sincere expression of thanks to the members of the fourth estate for last evening's interesting and educational seminar on matters parliamentary. I should point out that, while the debates of last evening were off the record, today's debates will be recorded by Hansard.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a former member of this House, Mrs. Agnes Kripps, who is accompanied by her husband Steve. I would ask this House to bid her a fond welcome.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, at the off-the-record event yesterday evening there were a number of off-the-wall awards, including one for the absent Minister of Forests, and I was asked to ensure delivery. So I would ask the attendant to deliver this open-government award to the Minister of Forests.

MR. VANT: From the great Cariboo constituency, where we're trying to get more and more timber for our small operators, I'm very pleased to introduce this morning Gian Singh Sandhu, who is president of the World Sikh Organization, and also president of Khalsa Enterprises, a thriving sawmill at Williams Lake. We also have some directors of the World Sikh Organization with us in the members' gallery this morning: Joginder Singh Sidhu of Surrey; Giani Joginder Singh Bains of Chilliwack; and Mo Takhar from Terrace in the great riding of Skeena. I know the House will join me in giving them a warm welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the second member for Cariboo in welcoming the gentlemen who are here with us today. I know that the World Sikh Organization is having its convention tomorrow and the day after at the Ross Street temple in Vancouver. We on this side of the House — and I'm sure everybody else in the chamber will agree with me — want to wish them a fine and outstanding convention over the weekend.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like the House to join me in welcoming two people from Cranbrook who are in the gallery today: the dean of academic studies at my favourite college, East Kootenay Community College, Larry Szalanski; and Barbara Szalanski, who is also an active member of the Cranbrook community. Please join me in welcoming them here.

HON. MR. PARKER: First may I thank my hon. colleague across the way for passing on that message — much appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to the House, friends from the northwest: Pat Connor from Kitimat, Bill and Helene McRae and Mo Takhar from Terrace, and Garry Hubbard and Andy Burton from Stewart. Would the House make them welcome, please.

Introduction of Bills

PENSION (TEACHERS) AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce this bill, which will establish the early retirement program for teachers in British Columbia, announced earlier by my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

Briefly, this bill introduces two early-retirement initiatives for British Columbia teachers. The first is a window of opportunity for teachers who are between the ages of 55 and 60 to retire on an unreduced pension. This opportunity will be available to any teacher who retires prior to June 30, 1989. The second initiative is the introduction of a permanent, phased, early-retirement program, which will provide teachers with the opportunity to reduce their work hours during a period prior to retirement. During the transition period, the teacher would receive income from the pension plan to partially offset the reduction in pension earnings.

Mr. Speaker, these are two very positive changes to the Pension (Teachers) Act, which will underscore the government's commitment to revitalizing the teaching profession and provide opportunities for younger qualified teachers to enter the workforce.

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, before calling members' statements, I would ask leave of the House for the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations to sit while the House is sitting.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Flowing from that, Mr. Chalmers, who will be making a member's statement, is on that committee. He is number 4 in the list on our orders of the day, and I would ask that the arrangement be changed and that Mr. Chalmers be number 1 and Mr. De Jong number 4 in members' statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

Private Members' Statements

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE INTERIOR

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being able to speak first so as to enable me to attend the meeting at 11 o'clock this morning.

I've chosen to talk about economic development this morning, and in particular economic development in the interior of British Columbia. This is extremely important to

[ Page 1742 ]

all of us in Okanagan South, as we have enjoyed over the last number of years a very strong economic growth, and we are looking forward to even greater times ahead. But with that flow some problems as well. We have had some successes but also some problems related to that, and it's some of those that I want to talk about today.

I've had some direct experience with economic development, Mr. Speaker, because for five terms, prior to entering provincial politics, I had the pleasure of acting as chairman of the economic development commission for the central Okanagan area. In performing my duties with that, I worked with many individuals who were working very hard to try to attract new industry into our region. As a result, we have an excellent base in all sectors of our economy: agriculture, tourism, service industries and professionals, and manufacturing.

[10:15]

Perhaps the biggest asset that we have in that area is our people. They come to the central Okanagan area for many reasons. Some of them come because of the climate. Some may come because of the economic opportunities that they see there. Some may come because they're looking for a safe place to invest, coming from other countries. But whatever the reason, they bring with them a wealth of ideas, skills, talent and the capital necessary to start the wheels of commerce.

Confidence in the business community in our area has been on a dramatic climb since the shock of the last recession. There are many examples of that. I'll touch on just a few. Building statistics is one area that will probably prove the point I'm trying to make. For the year ending April 1986, some $17 million was invested in construction in that region. For the year ending April 1987, some $31,400,000 was invested in building starts. This is a marked improvement and again points to the fact that confidence is building. Yesterday I had a discussion with Mr. Dwight Browns, who is the economic development commissioner for our region. He tells me that inquiries were up to 300 by the year ending May 1987. That's a 25 percent increase over the previous year.

Let's discuss the tourism sector, for example. One major hotel in the Kelowna area, the Lodge Motor Inn, just completed a $1.5 million expansion. The Royal Anne Hotel, a downtown facility in Kelowna, is closed down for three months to be completely refurbished. It's looking forward to a lot of the new activity that's going to result from Expo and other events that have taken place in British Columbia in recent times. An 18-hole golf course is presently underway. A 9-hole extension to an existing course and another 54 holes are being proposed for our region.

In the manufacturing sector, just as one small example, a new 8,000-square-foot manufacturing plant is due to open July 1, and it will be using our forest products and adding local labour before those are sold abroad. Western Star Trucks, a heavy truck manufacturer in our area, is an example that we all like to use because a number of years ago, under a plan developed by the federal government and the provincial government of that time, incentives were in place to attract new industry into the area. White Motor Corp. established a heavy truck plant which got to the point where over 500 employees are working directly in that facility, and over 2,000 people are indirectly employed. The company was taken over by a Canadian firm. The name was changed to Western Star Trucks, and at this moment an expansion of over $2 million is taking place to provide for their ability to double their production to 27 trucks per day. Out of every truck that is sold, some $30,000 stays in British Columbia. Last year that was in the order of $62 million.

I use these examples just to establish the credibility of the central Okanagan region, the fact that this activity is taking place now. As I said earlier, we have had some problems in trying to attract new industry to the region. Probably one of the most important ones — and I don't want to dwell on it, because it is being discussed in the House at the present time — is the labour situation. That has been a major concern of new industries wanting to come in, particularly from outside British Columbia. That is being addressed, of course, with Bill 19, and hopefully will be completed by the end of the month.

Another major problem in the area is our proximity to market. I mentioned earlier that people want to live there because it is such a desirable place to live. We have no trouble attracting and keeping a good, strong workforce, because people want to live in the region. But when somebody is interested in opening a manufacturing plant, they have to be concerned about their proximity to market. So transportation is extremely important, not only to the central Okanagan region but, I would suggest, to all of the interior and to the northern part of this province. We were delighted, of course, when just recently the Minister of Transportation and Highways was able to announce that phase 3 of the Coquihalla Highway will be completed by 1990. This has enabled many people in our region to get on with their short- and long-term plans to have new facilities established in our area.

There are some areas in which the government can give further assistance, and that is in the accessing of markets. I know that the Ministry of Economic Development has existing policies that have been a great help to many companies in our area as well as other parts of British Columbia. But there is perhaps more that could be done for the people of the interior, and one small item.... Is my time up?

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, your time is up.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is certainly interesting to hear the member for Okanagan South. No doubt there is a real need for greater creativity. I don't think this government has shown it, in terms of seniors and the opportunities for a growth industry of seniors retiring in the southern interior. I don't think this government has seized that opportunity. I don't think they have quite understood the tourism potential of that valley either, or the threat to vineyards and wineries and the like in that region — what the free-trade initiative of the federal government supported by your government means in terms of threatening the economy of the Okanagan Valley. We are on the edge of a Napa Valley in the southern interior of British Columbia, and that could be stopped dead in its tracks with the initiatives undertaken by the feds, supported by your government — a threat to a $50 million industry.

Beyond that, there should be concern about the other towns of the southern interior. For all too long, Kelowna has been the focus of economic activity by this administration, having had two Premiers from that town. The cities that are being bypassed by your highway routes are the towns of Kamloops, Salmon Arm and Penticton. That is a bypass that reroutes the Trans-Canada Highway, in essence, through the city of Kelowna. That hurts the other towns of the southern interior.

[ Page 1743 ]

There are other opportunities in the southern interior that this government has not taken steps to develop. There is a surplus of chips in the southern interior. There could well be a new pulp mill in the southeastern part of the province. That is not undertaken; it is not being pursued. All of these things. The furniture plant in Penticton could be expanded by a third today if they had a wood supply; but because of your incredible wood-allocation methods, that plant cannot be expanded.

These are just an indication of the range of opportunities in the southeastern part of the province that could and should be pursued. But you have a Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who is short-sighted and sees only a limited range of things in the lower mainland and Victoria. The Minister of Economic Development is immersed in real estate deals, one after another, of questionable nature, and she thinks that that is what economic development in B.C. is all about. There is a long learning trend necessary on the part of that minister and this government. We agree much work is needed in the southern interior, but you are not going to get it under that minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we expect that kind of diatribe from the first member for Vancouver East. It's a negativism that comes from the opposition benches and does not add in any way to the commitment that was made at the beginning of this session that we should all work together, in terms of committing ourselves to doing the best for the people of British Columbia. It certainly reflects the kind of planning of the NDP.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the second member for Okanagan South, who gave his presentation prior to that diatribe, does talk about some of the things that can be done in the Okanagan and otherwise. One of the things that we can do — which is one of the great economic initiators for the Okanagan Valley — is the retirement industry, which can be appreciated a lot more than it is. As far as real estate development is concerned, and the member's comment about only being concerned in the Ministry of Economic Development, the one very special decision that was made, which I think will affect the whole province, is that the government of British Columbia has decided, and has made it a policy, that they will be getting out of the real estate business to let the private sector bring their dollars to the table. That statement has been very clearly made, and that message is very clearly out. For the first member for Vancouver East to say anything different is simply to be mischievous in his remarks.

In the Okanagan, as in all parts of this province, there are some remarkable opportunities. Along with the members who come to me with various ideas.... We are exploring those. We are doing so in conjunction with the communities; we are doing so in conjunction with small business; we are doing so in conjunction with economic development officers throughout the province and with the members of the Legislature throughout the province. We do have some remarkable opportunities. I'm excited about those opportunities. I know that the member from the South Okanagan, who has just taken his place, has brought many ideas to me and will indeed in the future bring more.

I'm not negative; I'm positive about the opportunities, not only in the South Okanagan but all through this province.

MR. CHALMERS: I feel I must make a couple of comments about the rebuttal made by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).

We talked about seniors, and the minister has covered that perhaps, but I can say that many new facilities are presently being built for the seniors. There are a number of new housing projects very eagerly waited by the seniors that live there now and those who hope to come and make their home in the Kelowna area and all of Okanagan South.

Some assistance has been given in many cases on some of the senior citizens' complexes and housing projects that have been built. That assistance has in fact come from this government as well as the federal government.

The threats to the wine industry. I wish the time would allow me to talk more about that, because it is one that affects our area very much. I can assure the member for Vancouver East that the Minister of Economic Development has had meetings recently with people from that industry and the grape-growers of the area . and are working very hard to see that they are protected in any way that they can be from the threats of free trade and other areas of concern to them.

I must talk about the Coquihalla Highway. You said that because the phase 3 was being built, the activity that's taking place there is taking something away from Kamloops and other areas. I would suggest to you, Mr. Member, that in fact it's going to help all of the areas in the interior. There are going to be opportunities for circle tours and all sorts of things taking place as a result of that. There will be a lot of trade taking place between all of those communities in the interior, and I for one, along with the members for Kamloops, am looking forward to that activity.

I think the minister has covered it very well, some of the things that are happening. We hope to talk more about that in the future.

MR. SIHOTA: I would like to have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are 29 grade 4 and 5 students hailing from the fine school of Macaulay Elementary, which, needless to say, is situated in the wonderful riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Joining the students is Mrs. Pollard, their teacher. I would like to request the House to join me in welcoming them here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to welcome Agnes Kripps, the former member of the Legislature from Vancouver South, who has arrived here like a BOLT out of the blue this morning, and her husband.

[10:30]

GAME-FARMING

MS. EDWARDS: We haven't had game-farming in British Columbia until now, but we do have it now even though a large number of people who know about it and who care about it are objecting to it still. One of the groups that I talked to — one of the largest groups that objects to game-farming — is the B.C. Wildlife Federation, which said in a release on April 27 of this year that allowing game-ranching would

[ Page 1744 ]

result in "a serious risk to wildlife." The federation said that by creating an inevitable rise in poaching of wildlife for profit and a risk of spreading disease or parasites from animals confined in commercial operations to those in the wild, the move "makes a mockery of conservation programs."

This threat should be made as clear as possible to all of us before we go any further. The case has been made most often and most passionately by Dr. Valerius Geist, a professor at the University of Calgary. He was originally a proponent of game-ranching or -farming, and he is no longer that; he now opposes it. I've only a few minutes to make part of the case that he has made so well.

Dr. Geist claims that the North American plenitude of wild game — and compared to other parts of the world, we are indeed blessed — depends on three factors. The first factor is when a market has been absent for the meat and the sundry parts of game: when meat sales are not allowed — and they haven't been so far, except on special permits that were very rarely issued — and sundry parts were only from permitted animals. Now the participants in game-farming and the bureaucrats who support their efforts, all of them, are looking to expansion of this in order to justify their investment.

The second factor on which our great fortune depends is the allocation of benefits by law. In other words, the right to hunt the game has been given to any citizen who could buy a licence, and it has not been possible for anyone, no matter how wealthy, to purchase game and then to own it. Wealth cannot buy game in this province — or could not until now. What it results in is an historically rare example — and I say historically because I'm talking about the world and where this has happened before — of the general populace feeling that they own the wildlife, and that in fact they are responsible for that wildlife.

The third factor that Dr. Geist puts forward is the idea that wildlife is basically a subsistence food resource, not a commercial food resource. It's also not a recreational resource; in other words, a resource simply for the blood sport. This issue is not yet in question at the level at which game-farming is being allowed in British Columbia, but it could be if the whole business expands.

What is happening right now? Game-farming is being touted as a superior means of creating food protein. We all know that a deer can transform a tonne of hay into protein much more efficiently than a cow or steer. But that requires that the predators of these animals have to be curtailed or eliminated from a broad tract of land. Don't forget that humans are also predators of game animals. In New Zealand, where game-farming has become common, large tracts of public land have been alienated to the public for the deer ranches that they are running there. In British Columbia, where about 90 percent of our land is Crown-owned, if there is any expansion of this game-farming idea it would have to go onto Crown land, because there simply is not enough private land to accommodate it.

Most insidious, however, is the market that game-farmers are now going to be creating, mainly for meat, and also for sundry parts, the most valuable of which are for medicinal and aphrodisiac purposes. It also includes, of course, mounted horns, bearskin rugs and that kind of thing. But as Dr. Geist says, when the meat of the wildlife species becomes openly marketed and various parts of game fetch high prices, criminal poachers begin to act. They've done so in every case we've known throughout history, and their presence in British Columbia in significant numbers, when we allow practically no meat sales, indicates that it's quite probable that there would be an expansion of poaching with the expansion of the market for game meat.

Poaching is inordinately difficult to control. The heyday of market hunting in North America, which was up to 1918, when game meat sales were outlawed across the continent, decimated our stocks, so that from 1886 to 1918 the United States government put members of the army into Yellowstone Park to protect its borders against poaching. They were there for all those years –– 32 years — and they guarded that game preserve. In 1918, when across North America, because of the decimation of the game population, the governments of the United States and Canada outlawed the sale of game meat, Yellowstone Park proved a pool for the game that had disappeared elsewhere, and had it not been protected by the U.S. Army, that game wouldn't have been there.

To look at other places where poaching is something that needs to be controlled and is relatively controlled, in Germany today — which is really labelled one big game ranch by North Americans — they have 65,000 armed wildlife protectors for 85,000 square miles. These protectors are armed and deputized to shoot to kill any suspected poacher, and all they need in order to shoot a suspected poacher is a justifiable doubt of their activities.

In British Columbia, for 366,000 square miles we have 104 field officers right now. That doesn't at all compare to the 65,000 for 85,000 square miles. As for powers, our B.C. conservation officers have been issued with arms, but they have not yet been given powers greater than the regular police forces, as they have been in New Zealand.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, hon. member, your time has elapsed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, let me advise the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) that leave has been granted for the committee to sit. I just had a note here.

Now, game-farming. The member for Kootenay is obviously not aware of the regulations and the position that has been taken by the ministry on game-farming, which is probably why she used Alberta evidence for her case, which is not appropriate in British Columbia.

About three weeks or maybe a month ago we did make an announcement that in British Columbia we would allow game-farming of two species: fallow deer, which is not indigenous to British Columbia, and bison, which has actually been ranched and farmed for some time under permit. We have had game-farming in British Columbia for some time: bison and pheasant, for example; and aquaculture is a form of game-farming which is permitted. So it's not a new thing. We've just expanded the species. Fallow deer have been harvested.... As a matter of fact, there is evidence from Egypt from 4,000 years ago. It's a Mediterranean animal that has been harvested for some time in our history, and that will be allowed.

I recognize that there is a concern about poaching, and I can advise the House that there's a way to test for poaching. Genetically you can look at meat from a fallow deer or a bison and identify it, and you can also identify indigenous species, and we can control that. I should advise the House as well that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is very much involved

[ Page 1745 ]

in the business of administering game-farming and will be most attendant to the problems that may exist.

Another comment with respect to the member's evidence: one cannot simply hunt in British Columbia by buying a licence. There's far more to it than that. There's the hunting program, the CORE program, and it's just not that easy. I would advise the member to study the regulations of the Ministry of Environment and the wildlife regulations, and then she'll have a better handle on her argument.

Further, I'll advise the House that with respect to game farming in British Columbia — in our recent announcement — there's a 12-acre minimum in place. It must be private land. We have no intention of using Crown land for these purposes, and if you can imagine 12 acres fenced to contain fallow deer, which are pretty excitable little critters, that's an expensive proposition. So for anyone who is going to get into this endeavour, they're going to have to make some sizeable financial commitment and be well prepared for the costs involved.

We entered into this decision with some difficulty, but I'll advise the member that a couple of weeks prior to the decision I met with the B.C. Wildlife Federation executive. I told them of my plans. They didn't all philosophically agree with me, but they appreciated the fact that I had spoken with them, and we have appointed a game-farming advisory board, which includes a member of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, a member of the British Columbia SPCA, a member of the deer-farming association of British Columbia, an official from my ministry and an official from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. So we think we have everything under control.

The concern is obviously that we're going to expand further into elk and other indigenous species, and I can assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be my intent as minister to allow that expansion. With fallow deer and bison we have a very good control in place. We can regulate it. We can track it and we can track the market. We can track the activity, and we have not too much concern in doing that. We can also do it within the budget of my ministry and the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, in terms of having officials ensure that whatever activity is going on is taking place in an appropriate manner.

So I have no concern with the position of the government. I will recognize the concern the member has with poaching, but that's a larger concern that has to be addressed in another manner, which I'm doing. I can assure the House that we entered into this decision after some serious consideration, with much consultation, and I believe it was the correct decision.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I would like to first say that I think in a number of senses an ad hominem attack is probably not appropriate in this case. However, I believe that because Dr. Geist comes from Alberta does not mean that his projections are wrong. I have used all the British Columbia figures in my examination.

I have consulted with members of your ministry and I'm well aware that at the moment you are allowing very small farms, and you have many rules connected with what you're allowing. However, every time I talk to anyone about these farms, I say: "Why did you allow them?" They say: "We allowed them because of the pressure from the number of people who wanted them." And you say: "The government is responding to the people." Right? Then we look ahead, and the next step, inevitably, is that when the market gets bigger, more people will want to. And they will say: "Does anybody want to grow elk now?" "Well, not yet." But when they want to put elk onto ranches, or native deer, the pressure will be on the government, and the government will respond to the pressures. The minute you begin to serve the market that's there and hope that that market will expand to return the investment on the farms, you immediately have that trend going toward expansion of the market, and you have the trend going to the pressure on the government.

I'm suggesting that the government should be well aware not only of the problems of poaching, which we couldn't begin to address at the moment even with these tests that we have for knowing whether or not the game is native and what species it is, but we also could not deal if any exotic species were brought in. There are some fears already with game biologists that if any exotic species were brought in for interbreeding, as they frequently are in game-farming and game-ranching in other countries in the world, those animals would certainly breach a fence somewhere. Now if they breach a fence there are possibilities for the spread of disease. We have had considerable studies in the East Kootenays, as you well know, on the spread of disease with our wild sheep herds. They have discovered 26 separate diseases — parasites, bacteria and so on — that could come from domestic sheep, and five or six that could spread from domestic cattle. Were we to start studying elk or deer or any of the other native species, there's no doubt that that kind of disease would spread. The very act of confining and putting together a number of animals makes stronger the threat of disease among that group of animals.

I'm suggesting, Mr. Minister, not that what's being done right now would necessarily be bad but that it's only the beginning, and it is always seen as a beginning. What follows could be extremely dangerous. It could be dangerous to this resource that we all feel we own and protect. The wilderness brochure that you put out yourself says: "A Land Fit for Wildlife Is a Land Fit for People." We want to preserve that idea, which is the best defence against poaching.

[10:45]

OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS

MS. SMALLWOOD: My statement today is on the offshore oil and gas negotiations that are going on between the province and the federal government. I'd like to start by saying that my concerns are that through these negotiations B.C. get its fair share; that all of the work that is done be done to outline and deal with concerns that have been expressed in the report filed in 1986.

The minister, through some of the questioning that I pursued earlier. made comments about the acceptance of the recommendations in that report. In some ways, through the publicity that was done in the minister's statements, I, as well as many of the people in this province, felt somewhat assured. It's the old "trust me, we'll take care of it" routine. What I did over the last couple of days was to take a look at the response and comments report which the province and the federal officials went through and systematically agreed on, or agreed on in principle, or rejected, and looked at the recommendations and balanced them off the report.

Quite frankly, it raised some concerns for me. The initial report weighted its recommendations very heavily on behalf of the people of B.C. on the environmental concerns, on

[ Page 1746 ]

some of the socio-economic concerns. What it did was systematically go through the process and recommend how the government should deal with it. It did not recommend solutions; it made no pretence to offer solutions to the problem. What it did instead was recommend an ongoing process. There was a recommendation that both the provincial and federal governments should get involved with this process.

I am concerned at this point that some of those recommendations that would weight the decision-making process more towards the local communities and community involvement have not met with the enthusiasm that the report suggested. In addition to that, I think that some of the very important environmental concerns have been brushed over.

The specific concern that comes to mind is a recommendation that the drilling not begin until we have the technical capacity to be able to give six hours' notice of a fierce storm. We've seen on the east coast that that has caused some very serious problems, and we've heard here with the herring industry that they have had serious concern about that and their inability to get out of the way of a pending storm. I am concerned about that and hope that the ministry, through its negotiations, will ensure that we have that capability before we proceed.

There are several different aspects with regard to environmental studies that I don't believe we have given enough credence to. What the minister said in one of his press releases was that there will be economic benefits to B.C. He talks about a package that he is working on that will give several hundred million dollars from Ottawa to fund infrastructure in B.C., including a science centre to study the geophysics of the offshore region.

I would hope that those kinds of studies, that kind of facility, those sorts of things would be in place long before we're actually drilling offshore — or, for that matter, that most of those studies would be in place before we get involved with seismic testing as well. How can we, as a province, assure the people of B.C. that we are dealing with compensation and litigation issues if we don't know what's under there, if we don't have a very good assessment of what will be disturbed?

Some of the recommendations coming from the report talk about effects of seismic testing on fish larvae and the younger species in the ocean. The recommendations or the agreements in the response documents say that they don't believe that there will be significant long-term problems. They acknowledge that there very well may be short-term problems.

In addition — and it's very difficult, given this forum — it just points out the importance, I believe, of this House having a full debate, a full opportunity to look at the ramifications of such a decision and at the recognition on the province's behalf that by accepting the intent of the 1986 report they are accepting the intent of an ongoing process. The government must recognize that the people of this province have a lot at stake here; that this is an issue that has to be dealt with, taking into consideration all of those concerns; that we cannot allow a multinational corporation to stake thousands of acres on the offshore without dealing with issues of land and sea claims; that we cannot allow a multinational corporation to come into this province and begin exploration or drilling without knowing exactly what the possibilities are of loss to the people of this province.

We cannot, when we're dealing with compensation issues, deal with existing laws. Environmental issues, especially when we're dealing with issues of major impact to the environment, have got to be considered in the light of the possibility of new laws. When we're dealing with common property issues, we have to be assured that the liability that the corporations take on for any damages deal with replacement issues, and to deal with replacement we must know what is there. We cannot deal solely....

I will look forward to the wrap-up, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The hon. member is quite right when she refers to an ongoing process. We're learning all the time. We certainly don't know all that we should know or indeed will know before drilling begins.

Back in 1971, when the moratorium was brought in, there was the prospect of drilling in the Strait of Georgia and Juan de Fuca Strait, as well as Queen Charlotte Sound and Hecate Strait. There was also, in those days, considerable concern about tanker movements up and down the coast. In the intervening years we, collectively, at least around the world, learned a good deal about the hazards of exploration, the environmental problems and other problems relative to drilling, and that knowledge is now making it possible to carry out some development and possibly some drilling off the west coast.

There's information available from other parts of the world: from the U.S. Gulf Coast and from the North Sea, where conditions are somewhat akin to those in Queen Charlotte Sound. What we lack, however, is a more intimate knowledge of our particular ecology and environmental concerns here on the west coast. While they were addressed during the joint federal-provincial hearings in 1984-85, they are by no means completely understood, nor are all the measures in place to look after possible problems.

Some large part of the federal funds available as a result of a Canada-B.C. accord will be available for oceanographic studies, for studies relative to the fishery and to the environment generally, and certainly relative to the effects of seismic exploration and particularly drilling. We need to know more about weather conditions: how far ahead we can reliably forecast storm difficulties and so on. Some appreciable part of that federal money will be in support of ongoing studies, not simply geophysical but also biological.

I could run through the 92 recommendations of the joint federal-provincial report of last year, nearly all of which were accepted by the Energy ministers. Refinements are necessary. There are some areas that are not adequately covered off. Lead agencies haven't finally been determined. But there must be a continuing sensitivity, and the industry, whether it's Chevron or Petro-Canada, whoever is out there, must abide by not only these recommendations, most of which have been accepted, but others which will be developed over time.

There will be surveying, beginning perhaps next year. There won't be any drilling for at least three years, by which time we'll know more about the environment off our west coast. To repeat, the hon. member is quite right: we'll be learning as we go along, We have to know a good deal more about the environment out there. We certainly have to have all the necessary measures to protect the environment in place.

[ Page 1747 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm pleased to hear the minister recognize that ongoing process, and what I will be looking for is assurances that all of those considerations have been met before any permitting of exploration or drilling takes place. We have to have our homework done beforehand. We cannot be in a situation of using, for instance, the facility the federal government is talking about, the scientific facility of assessing damage after it's happened. We must know what's there so that we can more clearly understand what we've lost if there are problems.

In addition, I will be looking for a tightening up of some of the clauses. If you look at the 92 recommendations, something like 46 have been agreed on in principle. When you look at the items that have been agreed on in principle, it's pretty loose, and from my perspective, very disconcerting.

In particular, when some of the process items, where the governments have not been able to agree on issues of enforcement and intervener funding, as an example.... That seems like a fundamental. The government must ensure that they have a position on intervener funding that will facilitate, as the initial '86 report indicates, not only the sharing of information but the support of community groups in understanding that information and the intervener funding that will allow them to participate in an open public process, including the introduction of expert testimony.

The minister, in some of the negotiations that have been agreed upon, talks about an environmental control coordinating committee. The recommendations say that this will be established, and that it will be established by Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration and the British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. This is the environment coordinating committee. The recommendations, for instance, from the report itself outline the membership of the environmental control committee, and this is the recommendation from the report: that the committee be created under the authority of the federal and provincial ministries of environment and include representation from the Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon regions, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the British Columbia Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; and it then goes on to include Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration and the British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

That raises a real concern for me: that while the provincial and federal governments have agreed on that committee, they have excluded the ministries of Environment, both provincial and federal.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, hon. member, your time is complete.

[11:00]

AGRICULTURE AND FREE TRADE

MR. DE JONG: I would like to speak briefly this morning on agriculture and free trade. The short time doesn't really give justice to this big subject.

Our leaders in Ottawa, as well as across the border, have made some very eloquent statements, and I'd like to quote just a few.

Our Prime Minister said: "We want an agreement that ends the threat to Canadian industry from the U.S. protectionists who harass and restrict our exports through the misuse of trade remedy laws." He further stated: "If the United States wants to increase access to our market, if they truly want Canada to sign precedent-setting agreements which could serve as a model for the world, then our desires must be respected and accommodated; otherwise, there will be no deal. We are given a choice. We can look forward and hope for the best." Well, hope is just not enough. But he went on to say: "We can pretend to shelter what we already have, while ignoring the realities of the world around us" — a very true statement — "or we can look outwards confidently and take the future into our own hands."

Equally eloquent statements were made by the President of the United States when he visited Ottawa last spring. I'd just like to quote a few of his comments: "Our free trade discussions here will be a model of cooperation to the world, Mr. Prime Minister. This will be a pioneering agreement worthy of pioneering people. "We salute you" — he was speaking to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons and I pledge to you now that for our part we shall commit ourselves and the resources of our administration to good faith negotiations that will make this visionary proposal a reality; and on this, the Canadian people and the Members of Parliament have my word."

It would appear that both leaders have a common goal in mind: that is, to expand trade on those commodities where both can be winners. However, the Prime Minister also said: "Our goal is to help the Canadian farmers by increasing the predictability and security of access of export by the farm sector by ending the deeply destructive subsidization of exports, while at the same time preserving our farm support policies and the operation of our marketing boards." If indeed this is a statement on which the Canadian farmer can depend, or at least if the criteria of both being winners can be maintained, then from an overall Canadian viewpoint, as I see it, the farmer can probably survive. However, what did the President of the United States do one month after his address to the House of Commons? He slapped an import tax on all manufactured dairy products entering the United States, while at the same time our Canadian government seems to be lax in exercising the collection of duties on fresh milk which flows across the border from the south into Canadian homes.

There was a farmer who had purchased an electric fencer across the border. While farm equipment generally is excluded from excise duties or import tax, the farmer was told that this item could be used for other things than the enclosure of cattle, and therefore it was taxable. You can just imagine the farmer's feeling, when the government is not doing its job in collecting duties on the import of fresh milk.

There have also been many statements made as to job creation. Now if the same thing is going to happen by expanded trade as has happened to other subsidization programs which the federal government has initiated over the years — I'm speaking particularly of the Windsor plant — then perhaps technology will take over and the jobs may not be there as expected.

There are really three or four basic things that the farmer is up against in the free-trade issue: the area of technology, which can be implemented in many other areas.... But the cattle and the land still need his personal care. We have our taxation, because of severe social servicing, and we have a problem obtaining long-term financing, which is required to

[ Page 1748 ]

have a well-run, economical farming unit. That's really where our problems lie, not only in free trade but also within Canada, in competing with the other provinces.

MR. ROSE: I'm glad that the member for Central Fraser Valley has raised this issue this morning, but I'm not sure which side of the fence he came down on — other than that he perhaps might be suffering from very painful wounds. He sounds to me like he came down on both sides.

Whatever the case is, his concern is well warranted. The dangers of free trade to the agricultural sector are immense. The problem with it, as I see it, is that, sure, we can compete if there's a level playing-field. But there's not going to be a level playing-field. Our concern is that the Americans are going to give up their right to protect their own producers. If anyone believes that, I think they're sadly mistaken. They're going to do it.

So there's an ever-growing number of people in Canada who were once interested in this. Remember, we've got 80 percent free trade now in virtually everything, but they'll swamp us in terms of production in agricultural commodities. Their surplus in milk alone is bigger than our whole production — eggs, too. And it's in a few hands, usually vertically integrated operations where they own the farms and they have the eviscerators and all the things in chicken, and their own transportation system, and the whole works. So people are really quite concerned about this, and this government seems to be committed to it, with the exceptions.... Well, the exceptions are so long, they virtually cover everything.

But just to give you a few people who might not be so interested in free trade from the.... It's like a garbage dump, you know: yes, we need one, but not in my yard. We need free trade, but for the other guy, not for our industry. Here is a list of a few of them: Canadian Printing Industries, Canadian Council of Boat Manufacturers, Canadian Independent Computer Services Association, Brewers' Association, Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, Canadian Council of Furniture Manufacturers, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Grocery Products Manufacturers, Generic Drug Manufacturers, Canadian Conference of the Arts, Graphic Arts Industries, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Rubber Association of Canada, Chicken Producers, Egg Producers — the list goes on and on. So there is a great deal of concern.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association — they're an estimable bunch; great free enterprisers, like my friend from Central Fraser Valley there. He believes staunchly in free enterprise, but he also belongs to a marketing board. A marketing board is a union for farmers; that's what it is. We all believe in these things up to a point, and that's really the problem. Here is the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, that bastion of free enterprise: "We are very concerned that the politicians will say, 'This is great. We'll have a free-trade agreement, and everything will work out,' without realizing the full implications for public policy and what they have to do for us to survive in that environment." This is a quote from a man by the name of Thibault. "If they don't realize that, we're going to have major, major problems in the manufacturing sector. That message is starting to come out much stronger from our members as they start to realize what all this means."

Who wants it? Well, I think it's the bureaucrats who want it. They're the people who really want it, and perhaps the Mulroney government, which I assume is supported by my hon. friend from Fraser Valley. If we have it in agriculture, then marketing boards and a lot of other things are out the window. Marketing boards have been under a lot of stress for some time. I've got a quote here going back some ten years — and this is a very prominent person speaking here, in Kamloops: "Government control and bureaucracy, and marketing boards in particular, have resulted in the failure of businesses in B.C." That's pretty strong stuff. "The concept of marketing boards is a 'pretty rotten system."' It goes on to say: "There would be much more, better, and cheaper produce and more employment if good growers competed with everybody else."

MR. CLARK: Who said it?

MR. ROSE: Oh, I hate to tell you: our Premier, in Kamloops ten years ago.

Some people are really concerned about.... No, that's attitudinally there, so you'd better watch that, because that's not very comforting.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, hon. member, your time is complete.

MR. DE JONG: I would have to disagree with the member of the opposition about putting the marketing boards at the same level as a union. I think that if the hon. member took the trouble to read the Clyne report as to how the milk industry was put into a proper marketing system, you would probably agree with me.

I think, though, that as a farming community we are quite distinct from many other areas where free trade can probably enhance the economy of this country as well as that of the United States. We are quite different, in fact, from the resource industries, which are largely government land-owned — there's some way of controlling and benefiting as a country from the resource extractions — and of course there is the matter of negotiations to take place. The fanner needs a certain amount of land — substantial acreage — and there is no way that the government will provide this for him. It's there for him to buy, and that's where, in British Columbia particularly, the problem comes in. The land prices are generally higher than they should be for agricultural purposes, because all of our agricultural lands are really centred around the urban areas throughout the province, with the exception of up in the far north.

But in order to compete within our own country, I think we must have, first of all, a fair deal within the Canadian market; we must have the assurance of quality control if imports are to come into this province, whether from other provinces or from outside this country; and we must have long-term financing to support a farmer for a stable economy and so he can depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased that our Premier, as well as other western Premiers, has indicated similar concerns at the western conference which was held in Humboldt, Saskatchewan, and I trust that all of the members of this House will support not including agriculture industry or any part thereof in our trade negotiations with the United States.

[11:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know who the group of students are in the gallery; but welcome. It's nice to see you here.

[ Page 1749 ]

At the outset, I will advise the House — I neglected to do this last night — that we will be sitting Wednesday of next week.

I'll ask leave for committee on Bill 19.

Leave granted.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 62 as amended.

MR. JONES: I am pleased to take my place and say a few words on section 62 of Bill 19. At the outset, I would like to say that I must hand it to the government, because this section which purports to protect the public interest, I think, is another example of how brilliant the government is in terms of using language.

What we see in this section is incredible intrusion by government into the collective bargaining process, and we couch it in this incredible language of protecting the public interest. There must be in the Premier's office several word specialists that go around and practise newspeak and doublethink and mutter "love is hate" and "war is peace" and "good is bad" and "black is white" and are able to come up with these incredible ways of wording bad practice and bad policy in flowery language.

You have to admit it's appealing. When I think of protecting the public interest, I think of Superman leaping tall buildings at a single bound and rushing to the rescue of people in jeopardy, and that's the exact opposite of what this legislation is doing. We've seen it in the past. We've seen it with compensation stabilization. That was wage controls, but we call it compensation stabilization.

We saw it in restraint, a policy in which we saw tremendous cutbacks, a tremendous number of layoffs, a tremendous loss of programs that the people need in this province, and yet we couched it in language of restraint. We see another one coming. We see privatization. We have a policy to sell off assets that the people have worked for and the people have built up. We're going to sell those off probably to friends of government, and we're going to couch that in a nice, catchy little phrase,"privatization."

MR. S.D. SMITH: You oppose privatization?

MR. JONES: We'll get to that one. That's a bill before the House, and it would be out of order to discuss that at this time.

MR. S.D. SMITH: You're talking about it. Do you oppose it?

MR. JONES: We'll get to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just before we continue, the Chair recognizes that section 62 is a very complicated one indeed, but I think we're going to have to devote ourselves more to ensuring that we are really talking in relation to the points of section 62.

The Chair noticed that you got into speaking about privatization, which, really, the Chair finds very difficult to find relevant to this section.

MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought you would appreciate my point on the use of the language in the bill, the language of protecting the public interest, as being a lot of doublethink and newspeak.

Perhaps, though, we should embrace this idea of protecting the public interest, because it's such a nice-sounding term. And perhaps we should even expand on this. Perhaps we shouldn't just include contracts between employees and employers. Maybe we should go even further with protecting the public interest. Let's consider corporate contracts. Certainly corporations in this province do all kinds of things that impact on the public interest.

Probably the most important area, and the area that this side is most concerned about, is jobs and employment in this province. Unfortunately we're going in the wrong direction, and we're having to debate these kinds of things rather than cooperatively developing strategies for improving the climate in this province. Perhaps in considering the public interest we should look at corporations and corporate goofs.

If corporations make a mistake in costing, that costs those corporations, and in order to survive they have to lay off employees. We've seen a tremendous amount of laying off in this province. The corporations do a variety of other things. Perhaps they don't properly check out the credit of a foreign importer, and make mistakes that way; it costs corporate profits, and employees have to be laid off as a result. Perhaps they overestimate the demand for a commodity. That causes impact on the public interest. and they have to lay off employees. We've seen a tremendous amount of these kinds of things in this province, and a tremendous number of workers laid off. We've seen a variety of other things, particularly during the recession period, where companies and corporations went to banks and borrowed heavily and found they could not pay back those loans. We saw a tremendous number of bankruptcies in this province. Again, those bankruptcies impacted on the public interest and caused employees in this province to lose their livelihood and end up on welfare. There were tremendous social and health costs as a result.

Perhaps what we should do is have Ed Peck look into these kinds of things in order to protect the public interest, as is indicated in section 62 of this bill. Perhaps Ed Peck should monitor this corporate decision-making. Maybe he should actually get into the boardrooms and ask corporations to report regularly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that NDP policy?

MR. JONES: Sure it is.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to report to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations all the decisions that these corporations make.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that NDP policy?

MR. JONES: This is showing how ludicrous this legislation is.

Perhaps it should be the duty of every corporation with over 50 employees to report daily all their borrowings and contractings. Ed Peck, whose pay is two or three or four times

[ Page 1750 ]

that of an MLA, can really earn his salary by really getting into interfering in the marketplace in this province.

What I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that this government and Socred governments in the past are not really interested in the public interest and in protecting the public. They're interested in private interest. We've seen many examples of that. My colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has pointed out how this government has not protected investors in the stock exchange in this province. I believe the government is currently being sued by investors in the Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative because they did not monitor cooperatives properly.

I'm suggesting that this super-bureaucracy that's being set up to monitor and report and intrude into one of the basic freedoms that we have in this country, collective bargaining, is inappropriate and ridiculous. What we're setting up is dispute resolution machinery of the state. It seems to me that Mr. Peck is going to have to do the dirty work of this government as a result of this machinery being set up. As has been pointed out time and again, it's going to make collective bargaining difficult if not impossible to work properly. There is no trust on the part of this government to let the marketplace, in terms of collective bargaining, work properly.

The minister, in his remarks yesterday, pointed out correctly that 95 percent of agreements are reached without any problems. He had to go so far as to point to West Germany and Japan, which are certainly different cultures from ours, in order to find statistics that were perhaps more favourable in terms of a labour relations climate.

If we look at the actual state of conditions in this province.... I refer to the Business Council of British Columbia and their view of the climate at this time. They point out that the marketplace is working properly, and that the trend at this time is to less adversarial relationships between business and labour. They point out that recent wage increases for unionized workers in this province have been moderate. The size of the increase is more often related to the economics of the individual firm, rather than the industry or national patterns. They say that these positive developments mean that a poor representation for labour relations may in part be more a reflection of poor public relations than of reality. Business, labour, government and media must attempt to give unexaggerated reports of existing problems and work to build on the present trend of conflict reduction.

So what the Business Council of British Columbia is saying is that it's a myth that we have this poor labour relations climate in this province. I think it's in the interest of certain individuals in this province to perpetuate that myth. It's not a reality. Rather than this kind of legislation, which purports to protect the public interest, and rather than the continuation of the myth that we have a negative climate in terms of labour relations in this province, we need a communication of the reality and a promotion of a more positive climate.

We've seen promises on the part of government. Certainly their public relations machinery is in place. Promises of consultation and decentralization, letting the marketplace work and getting the government off the backs of business and industry.... All we see in section 62 of this legislation is state intervention — Big Brother. A labour relations czar is being established. I don't think the heavy hand of government is what this province needs at this time; I think this province needs a much more positive approach.

We had in the past the opportunity to intervene as a Legislature when the public interest was not being served by labour relations in this province. I honestly don't see why we need the kind of mechanism that's being introduced at this time. Certainly we open this Legislature every Monday of every week during a session. I don't see why it's so difficult to open the Legislature at a time when there is a dispute that the government does not feel is in the public interest. I don't see why we need this kind of legislation at this time.

As Canadians and as British Columbians we're very proud of the freedoms that we have in this province. One of those freedoms is the fundamental right to strike. Nobody wants strikes, but I think we all believe in having that fundamental right, and we believe in the free collective bargaining process. We're losing that in this province as a result of this legislation and this section.

[11:30]

The mindset of government views things in a slow, incremental way. It's like a vise being slowly turned. Each turn isn't all that bad compared to the previous one, but when you look at what we believe in and at the directions we're going in, I think it's terrible and dangerous. I don't see the kind of tolerance and trust on the part of government that we need to make the labour relations climate work in this province.

In fact, Bill 19 is a symbol of a kind of intolerance and mistrust. We've also seen that a number of times in this session of the Legislature. There are symbols of this session, and they're very unfortunate ones. It goes from talking about trade with South Africa to evictions on the lawn of the Legislature, to the closing of the prayer room because of intolerance, to racist statements in this House, to the kind of intolerance of teacher's opinions that we saw in Bill 20 and the desire to fire and manage those employees. We see a litany of intolerances and mistrusts in section 62 of Bill 19, and the final one we saw was thrown out of court the other day.

I guess the question is: what's next? What are the next turns of the screw that continue the path we're going down in this province? I think we've already reached a point where we've gone too far. I think it behooves the government to move back, to be more tolerant, to be more trustworthy of the kinds of processes that we have in this province that haven't worked perfectly because human beings are involved in those processes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. MILLER: I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that the remarks of the member who was speaking, I think, were adding a lot to the debate, and if he wanted to continue or conclude, I, for one, would like to hear him.

MR. JONES: I would like to conclude, Mr. Chairman. I really think we are on a dangerous course. Take the language in this bill, which purports to protect the public interest but is in fact doing just the opposite. It sounds so good, and it’s such a good public relations package, but it is not what it purports to be. It's not protecting the public interest; it's merely intruding in the collective bargaining process. It's not the kind of thing we want.

I think I tried to show the ridiculous nature of this kind of intrusion. We would not dare intrude into the corporate sector and their decision-making process, in their contracting, in

[ Page 1751 ]

their business decisions. Yet government has no hesitation in sticking its heavy hand into these day-to-day operations of the private sector and the public sector in terms of their bargaining. It is a dangerous road that we are going down. It's one that is intruding in a fairly successful labour relations climate. I think all that's needed is a recognition of that fact and a good understanding, rather than believing in the myths about bad labour relations in this province. I think it's time that the government recognized this, that business and labour recognized this, that they got together and stepped back from the brink we're on, and considered the kind of damage that's going to be done, which is totally antithetical to the goal of the government, and of everyone in British Columbia, to produce a better labour relations climate, a better climate for investment and a more prosperous British Columbia that we all believe in.

I would suggest that section 62 is doing just the opposite of what British Columbians need at this time. I would hope that when this bill is passed, the minister and the government seriously consider not implementing this section.

MS. A. HAGEN: As we get seriously into debate on this very major clause in bill, I find myself with a feeling of being in a time warp. We've spent a lot of time on other sections of the bill, but this is a very large section. When one compares it to the previous Labour Code, which I've tried to do with each of the clauses that we've looked at, one realizes what an expansion of the disputes resolution section of the Code this is.

When I speak of a time warp, I put myself in a context of about seven or eight years, I think. I don't think there's any question that, starting around the turn of the decade, in the late seventies and early eighties, we saw very major economic changes in our province that had an effect on employers, on business and industry, on employee groups — organized or unorganized — and on government. We've come through some very difficult and challenging times over that period of eight or nine years. A lot of very significant things have happened to the parties who must work in the economic and social climate of a period of dramatic change. I could go on extensively about that, but much of that has, I think, been canvassed. But I wanted to put my remarks this morning in that context. When we look at this section, in my view, we are looking at a section that is attempting to deal with issues that in many ways the parties have found ways and means of resolving.

A closer time warp takes us back to the dispute of last fall. At that time we had a very major and very lengthy industrial dispute over issues that are related to the kinds of changes that are taking place in the province. We had our new Premier intervening in that dispute — intervening without the assistance of those people who are skilled in and knowledgeable about complex labour relations; and when he found that he couldn't be effective with his personal intervention, putting it back in some processes through which he hoped some resolution would come. I think it's important to note that in that particular dispute the resolution came from the parties. In fact, the intrusion into that dispute lengthened it, rather than shortened it.

Now let's look at what has come out of the Premier's time warp and the government's time warp, as they consider the events of the past seven or eight years and look at the events of last fall. We have a clause that produces a degree of complexity that absolutely boggles the mind of even those people who are very concerned and that will expand the role of industrial relations people, expand the work of lawyers, and expand the kinds of concepts that government may be involved with. I'm sure that others in my caucus have listed the processes, the mediators. the arbitrators, the boards, the role of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the role of the Legislature. We have all looked at schema that are divergent, because no one has really worked out all of the convolutions of the schemes that would have these processes work.

As people have dealt with the substance of this clause, we have heard over and over and over again why we don't need this kind of legislation and why this legislation is intrusive, excessive, complex, confusing, intimidating, contra-indicated. We are not going to see, with this kind of process, improvements in labour-management relations, and that point of view has come from every sector. It's come from the fourth estate. It's come from management of every size and description across the province. It's come from labour, it's come from working men and women, it's come from people young and old.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think the point needs to be made over and over again that this particular clause is not going to improve labour relations in the province. I know many will say,"Give it a try; let's see if it will work," but I think that reasonable people — people who know something about that time warp and what has happened in the last seven or eight years; people who are practitioners and observers of labour relations — will remain convinced that this legislation is going to plunge us into difficulty, and that this clause will be one of the major factors.

I wanted simply to make that point again — not to belabour it, because I think it has been made in second reading. I know it has been made by every one of my colleagues in speaking to this particular clause. I want, however, to look more specifically at one of the mechanisms available, and at one of the promises that have been made in the government's comments about this bill, one of the realities when one looks at this clause in the context of that promise.

One of the things that we have been living with through the change of the last number of years is the Compensation Stabilization Commission, with its control of public sector wages. One of the promises made — one of the commitments made through the whole process of that legislation being in place — was that it would be sunsetted. In fact, when the minister announced, in the details that went with the tabling of this bill in the House.... He said that the Compensation Stabilization Commission was no more. It continues to exist, and it continues to exist in the clause that deals with one of the many processes that may be invoked by the commissioner, clause 62; that is, the process of interest arbitration and the factors that will be considered in the implementation of that interest arbitration.

Also, throughout the philosophy of the bill, we have constantly had brought to our attention the matter of public interest, and the fact that the public interest will in some way guide the work of Commissioner Peck, this person who has been accorded these powers as a persona before the legislation is even passed. I want to take a look at that particular clause in relation to people whom I know will be affected by that clause. We need to, in this context, deal with the privatization issue, which has been talked about, because in many instances in that public sector, it already is privatized, if you like.

[ Page 1752 ]

There are all kinds of ways in which the government, through contract, deals with services and programs that will be affected by this kind of compensation stabilization perspective. I want to look at some of the people in the health industry who will be affected. Many of them are women, although they are not exclusively women. One of the things that the Minister of Health does as part of his responsibility for providing health care in the province is to let any number of private contracts to people who provide for long-term care in nursing homes and intermediate-care facilities, and to home support associations that provide home support to people, working in their homes. These people are underpaid. They are underpaid in relation to one another, and they are underpaid in relation to those people who are organized in the industry.

We have already canvassed that, Mr. Chairman, and I won't do so again. This bill is going to make it more difficult for those people to organize. But I'm going to assume that some of them are successful in their attempts to organize, and recognize that some of them are already party to collective agreements.

[11:45]

As I read this clause, which allows for the public interest to be addressed in relation to the ability-to-pay argument, it appears that this particular section of the bill that we're debating is going to have the impact of keeping these underpaid workers in that kind of a pay ghetto for a very long period of time. The pay levels throughout the industry in those private contracts are low. Home support workers, for example, are paid something in the range of $6.50 an hour for their work, in spite of the skills they are required to have to fulfil their responsibilities. People in intermediate-care facilities are paid a little bit better. They may be making $8 or $9 an hour.

Many of these people are the sole providers for their families. They are widowed or single women, or they are single-parent persons. These are people who have to be a part of the economic interest of our society in order to have our shopkeepers working, our industry humming. This particular legislation is going to guarantee not only that those people will have great difficulty in organizing, but that even if they are organizing, something called the public interest will keep their wages depressed in relation to those that are available in other sectors of the province.

In my particular community, a person who works in our pulp industry on a production line on a job that is dirty and hard and demanding makes $14 an hour in a collective agreement. That person is often a woman. I have watched them on those production lines. But at least that person is paid well and has a good benefit package. A woman who is not in that kind of an industry but working with one of the homemaking agencies in my community is paid $6.50 an hour. If she's working in a long-term care facility, she may be paid $8 or $9 an hour. Her work is long, arduous, and it is often dirty too, because that is often the nature of that work. You are working with people who are ill. You are working with people who need a lot of care. You are working with people whom you have to lift and move around. And you have to take a lot of responsibility, because you are not there doing a mindless job; you are working with people. But those jobs, in the name of public interest, already have been held down; in the name of the ability to pay, those jobs already have been suppressed over the period of the Compensation Stabilization Commission. I know, because we have tried to look at ways to have those wages improved, and that has not happened.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation, which in its overall complexity will make it difficult for people to organize and in this particular clause will put the public interest and ability to pay at a premium over and above fairness, over and above the economic interests of communities, will have a tremendous effect. It will keep people who are already in pay ghettos there. As we all know, during the last election the New Democratic Party made pay equity an issue for our platform. This particular legislation will forestall the implementation of pay equity, and I would like first of all to ensure that it does not remain in this legislation, a prospect that I think has little opportunity of being realized because the government has obviously not listened to any of the reasoned debate that has come from this side or from the community about their concerns on this legislation. I am convinced also, because this is in this legislation, that the government has no commitment to that issue and no realization of the economic benefits that would accrue in their concern about enhancing the economy of the province.

I'll conclude by noting that section 137.96 will be, for the health industry and for many women in the province, a page in legislation that will add infamy to the history of this government's legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Kootenay.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister wanted to get up.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm sorry. I want to begin at least by quoting some of the comments of the minister. I know I won't take his place, but at least I will give him presence in what I have to say.

I want to get back, in addressing section 62, to the idea of consensus and how this section will not allow the kind of consensus-building that we're going to need for good labour relations in the province. I go back again to the statement that the minister made in the presentation with the results of the labour hearings that he had. The Minister of Labour said: "Any law without the support or at least the acquiescence of the majority of those whom it purports to affect will inevitably be opposed, and this opposition will guarantee the failure of the larger objective." I think it's very clear that there is not as widespread a consensus in this province on the bill as there should be. I think it's also very clear that section 62 is one of the sections on which that consensus has failed to become what we want it to be.

The walkouts, the number of people that everyone recognizes who are still in opposition to this bill.... Many of them are hung up on this particular clause, the one that says that there will be a commissioner with the powers that this commissioner will have. The reason they are so opposed to the idea of having a commissioner with these kinds of powers is that the very things he is able to do will prevent the consensus-building in negotiation that ultimately makes contracts work. Contracts work because the people on both sides of the bargaining table are involved in working toward what they want. When somebody is involved in reaching the terms of a contract, they are then committed to those terms. Anybody knows that if a settlement is imposed by someone outside, it's not one to which people are committed.

We could go over this time and time again, but anyone's experience will tell them that they do not care to do something

[ Page 1753 ]

just because somebody else told them to do it. In this case, the amount of consensus-building that would come with negotiating terms, where people put forward what they believe, and then if they don't get exactly what they want they negotiate and they get part of it and they accept that they're only going to get part of it and accept the trade-off.... It is going to make a contract to which both parties are committed. When you've got a situation where the two sides of a negotiating situation are sitting there knowing that somebody else is watching over their shoulder and that somebody else can step in at any time and say,"I'll decide," they are not going to be committed to that bargaining process in the way that makes good contracts. That, to me, is the major issue of section 62.

In support of the idea of consensus and cooperation, the minister has talked about the Pacific Institute that was forming until this legislation was introduced, and he talked about it as a forum for the cooperative efforts of labour and management and potentially for government as well in addressing their problems and developing strategies for attracting increased investment to British Columbia. That was well on its way, until this legislation was introduced. Now it doesn't exist. However, the loss is greater than some of us recognize.

I'm going to quote the minister again: "The potential value of this forum can hardly be overestimated." I think that forum could be brought back if in fact the parties did not feel that they were going to be overwhelmed by a particular individual in future industrial relations negotiations. I think that it could, and I think that the value of that kind of voluntary forum would be so great that it would add a great deal to the aims that the minister, the Premier and the government put forward as the reasons for this legislation: to increase investment, to increase jobs and, in fact, to settle the labour relations situation in the province. That would have done it far better. We have lost that now. If this clause were to be taken away, it would go a long way towards returning some trust in the possibility of negotiation on an equal basis between the two groups.

The minister has also said a number of times that the greater the degree of intervention, the higher the level of authority which must exercise it. He has said that that is the reason he amended the bill, so that some of the things the commissioner would previously have been able to do now have to be approved by the minister before they are done. I think that some of the things the commissioner is going to be able to do are of extreme importance. I think that the minister has only gone halfway. I wonder sometimes if the government recognizes that it is not as high an authority in our system as the Legislature. The government operates as an arm of the Legislature, and the Legislature is the highest authority. What this particular clause does is take away from the Legislature the kind of power that it had in the Code. No longer does the Legislature have to be called into session for some of the moves that it had to make before; it now can simply be told of them by the government, the cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, after the action has been taken. That is a process by which a lower level of authority is being used than was the case in the previous legislation.

The minister said that he introduced this part, when he introduced the amendments and stressed that in section 62 the machinery being put in place so that the minister would become aware of major strikes coming up and threats of strikes.... I find that an insult to the Legislature. I think there is no reason in the world why the minister could not find some other ways. Other people who are interested in industrial relations in this province can inform themselves of what strikes are pending and threatened strikes. I reject that outright as a reason to accept clause 62.

I have another general comment to make about section 62. The legislation was put together, and the person who is going to fill the commissioner's position was named at the same time the bill was introduced. It's been frequently said in the debate that the person who has been named to be the first occupant of the commissioner's position makes the whole thing reasonable. That is not the way good legislation is drafted. Good legislation should be drafted so that the position is a good position. Then it can be filled by any number of people. I think that this legislation has clearly been drafted for a single person. I think that we should at least hear some response on the possibility that someone else might fill the commissioner's position, and that the position is good in itself, quite apart from who in the world is going to occupy the position. I think we deserve some answer to that before we go any further with section 62.

[12:00]

This section is the one, as my colleague has just said.... I would like to add my comment on this, without going into it in detail, simply for emphasis. If this section passes, the possibility for pay equity — equal pay for work of equal value — is infinitely harder to achieve. I think that that's unfair. I think that, ultimately, it works against social progress.

This section deals with a number of phrases that have not been clearly defined and that will continue to give problems. If we go into it with the kind of power left to the definition of "the public interest," as it is used in this clause, and "ability to pay," the kind of control that the legislation should have is not there. Those terms are not clearly defined; they allow such a latitude of interpretation that they are not adequate to address the problems that we are likely to have in our industrial relations.

My final comment, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the idea that the argument that is made in support of this clause, as well as others, is that the legislation needs to be there, but we probably will never use it. In fact, it only has to deal with, at the most, 5 percent of labour negotiations in the province. And I'll warrant you that it will be a different percentage once this legislation goes in — far larger than that. But supposing it were 5 percent.... It's supposed to be very small, and we have this huge bureaucratic pattern put together for what we should be working to make smaller. But it's going to be there. The argument has been put forward, Mr. Chairman, that in fact it's like loading a gun, but you need not shoot the gun. Might I suggest a more apt analogy? It's as though some archer were putting the arrow to the bow and pulling it. How long can he stand without letting the arrow go? I think the danger should be considered in that regard as well, because it's a better analogy to what's being done.

HON. L. HANSON: We've certainly had a far-ranging debate on section 62. The debate has strayed from buses going over a cliff to almost the start of World War III. There has been a lot of concern mentioned that the powers of the commissioner are unprecedented and that section 62, the new Industrial Relations Council, is not a magic potion. I think I would have to agree that it isn't a magic potion. I don't think it was ever intended to be a magic potion. I think it was intended to be a good, commonsense mechanism that will

[ Page 1754 ]

have the ability to facilitate labour relations and voluntary collective agreements.

All of the criticism that comes from the opposition members is directed to the fact that immediately there is a dispute of any kind, they make the assumption that the commissioner is going to get right into the centre of it and order something to happen that will totally disrupt the collective bargaining process. I think there was an acknowledgment yesterday in some of the speeches that were made that Mr. Peck is a very experienced, very knowledgeable and very respected individual in the labour relations field. Then they went on to say that they couldn't understand why Mr. Peck assumed the job. Well, I think that the fact that it is acknowledged that he is a very knowledgeable and experienced and well-respected individual in the field, and that he has given an indication that he would accept the position when it's created, certainly lends to the fact that a very knowledgeable person respects the Industrial Relations Council concept, and feels that in fact it will work. But I want to go back to the fact that the mandate of the Industrial Relations Council commissioner and dispute resolution division is to facilitate collective bargaining and to facilitate dispute resolution. It's not to intervene if it would be detrimental to a voluntary settlement.

There were suggestions that the IWA strike has been overstated — and I guess that's an opinion that individuals are entitled to — and that there is a price for democracy, and I believe that that's true also. There was a suggestion that strikes will be outlawed. That's not true; I don't agree. The overstatement of the IWA dispute.... I just wonder how those people feel who, for no interrelation with the IWA strike as a direct involvement, suffered business recession, bankruptcies. I wonder how many individuals lost their homes and their cars and so on. Is that overstating the impact of a strike such as that? I have some difficulty in accepting that.

We haven't denied the ability of labour and management to freely and voluntarily arrive at an agreement. I think there was a suggestion that the amendments to section 62, which have moved some of the responsibilities of the commissioner to the minister.... There was a suggestion that that means that it's now a matter of a phone call to get permission, as opposed to Mr. Peck making up his own mind. That's kind of sad to hear, because I as an individual treat the responsibility of the Minister of Labour very seriously, and to suggest that a telephone call asking for something as important as an intervention in a dispute would be treated so lightly that it would be an automatic yes offends me.

I believe there was a suggestion yesterday or today that we in British Columbia should build our own economy, that we should not be concerned with what happens in the rest of the world, that we should in fact be able to internally deal with ourselves and only ourselves, and that we could create a mini-economy here in British Columbia that would have no effects, whatever happened in the rest of the world. It is so hard to believe that anyone could believe that, or that we in the world today, with communications and transportation the way they are, and with British Columbia's economy as it is, could live within ourselves. That absolutely amazes me. It astounds me, as a matter of fact.

It's interesting to hear the suggestion that, because our reputation is a perception that it isn't in fact that bad, nothing should be done, and we should just continue in the way we're going. There is a suggestion that 95 percent of the collective agreements are arrived at voluntarily. I accept that, but I point out that that 5 percent last year cost us over three million worker-days, and that's very difficult to equate to an insignificant concern.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you spread it over 15 years, what does it amount to?

HON. L. HANSON: It amounts to an awful lot.

It's interesting to hear the concerns that were just mentioned by the last speaker on the building of consensus. And seeing as this has been allowed before, I am sure it will be allowed again. This quote is from the bible of labour relations, Reconcilable Differences, by Mr. Weiler, who is a very respected individual and has a reputation that is well known. It is in reference to the Labour minister under the NDP government, Mr. King, and the legislation that he was introducing. It says:

"He was determined that his comprehensive new Labour Code respond to the central concerns of employers as well as of unions, to say nothing of the individual employee and the general public. That attitude the federation could not stomach. The curbs on picketing and the prospect of imposed councils were like a red flag to a bull. The union movement vowed unending opposition. A number of NDP backbenchers who were close to the federation broke ranks and voted against their own government bill. But the government remained firm."

We believe that consensus will be built in support of Bill 19. We will follow the example of the NDP in 1973, because we have a belief that Bill 19 is and will be accepted as good legislation, and that it will provide a message to the rest of the world that will make British Columbia a better place to live in, not only by the resolution of disputes as it may be necessary but also as it relates to investment and the economy. We have the resolution necessary to ensure that the bill is given the opportunity to work, and we believe that it should be given the opportunity to work for the benefit of all British Columbians.

[12:15]

MS. MARZARI: The minister has just referred to having the resolution necessary to see this bill passed into law. I would like to suggest that the resolution may be there on the part of the minister and on the part of the government side of the House. What is not there, however — and it should be said again and again — is support from both sides of the labour-management debate. Without that support, I doubt very much whether all the resolution in the world is going to turn this into good legislation.

Mr. Chairman, just as section 18 establishes goals for this legislation and sets as its primary goal and philosophy the free-market, competitive economy, so section 62 begins to elaborate on and develop the strategies for achieving that goal. What we are looking at here is basically the menu of services and commissions and techniques which can be pulled out to be used by the commissioner of industrial relations as he proceeds with his task. Section 62 is the techniques and strategies that put into practice the goals which we have already debated as being unfair and unrealistic.

Mr. Minister, you suggested that section 62 is a facilitating section and that it facilitates harmonious labour-management relations. I would suggest that it only facilitates your

[ Page 1755 ]

goal of a competitive market economy, which, when it is coupled with the techniques and strategies, becomes completely unrealizable, because the strategies and techniques will not make us competitive in any market economy.

You say that section 62 is non-intervention, yet we see complete interference in the laws of the land and in the contracts between labour and management that have evolved over many decades. I would think that if you are looking at non-intervention, you would more likely be looking at a model of involvement which would respect existing contracts and conventions between two mature parties, that you were truly looking at non-intervention and getting "off the backs of labour and management" — that being your own language in the budget speech — that we would be regarding labour and management as partners with us in the enterprise of creating, as Mr. Leslie put it, a larger economic pie, rather than aiding and abetting a disruptive argument and fight over the returns from an ever-diminishing pie.

If we really believed in non-intervention, we wouldn't be using language like "labour legislation," "labour disputes" and "labour problems." As my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said yesterday: "It takes two to tango." It takes two parties to create a contract. It takes two parties to agree to a contract. And it takes two mature parties to, over a long period of time, come to understand each other, renovate, reform, redevelop that contract. We have done that in B.C., and the fruits of our labour have been witnessed in the last 18 months.

You have chosen to bring in this new package of strategies and techniques at the very time when things might have been looking more hopeful. You have chosen an interventionist model. I mention this, and I'd like to put this in the context of what it will look like for perhaps a female-dominated union in the essential services component of the labour force. I will use this example to try to help myself understand what the logical outcomes might be of a group of women organized to try to improve their lot in life, as they take on an employer, and what Bill 19 and what section 62 might do to them. I use, for assistance in this analysis, an article by Sharon Yandle recently published in New Directions magazine, using her example of the women's union at Windermere Central Park Lodge in Vancouver in 1979. Ms. Yandle carefully goes through the process of that particular strike and analyzes what it would look like and what the outcome of that strike might have been had section 62 been brought in, had the commissioner been in effect then, had they been declared an essential service.

It's a very careful balance that we've got now, very well thought through; it perhaps needs some looking at, but it has grown and evolved with the years, the process of mediation and the process of arbitration that we've evolved over the last few years. The mediation process in an essential services arbitration involves, I gather, both union and management. In an essential service, basically the union gives up its right to strike, obviously, but I gather that over the years a very hard-fought-for concession has been that the union can — ought to — go to arbitration if a dispute is looming. That is one of their options. In fact, that's the option they accepted in return for giving up their right to strike. It's a major trade-off on behalf of the unions in a controlled strike situation. Under 62, that is now lost. The union and the management side can mutually consent to go into arbitration. That is the second thing they can do.

As I said, there is very little incentive for employers to agree to go to mutual arbitration under Bill 19. My colleague from North Island yesterday outlined some of those disincentives for employers to opt for that solution. Employers under Bill 19 now have a situation where very little inconvenience can be created for them by a union. For example, a union is not able to strike, certainly under an essential services jurisdiction, but it is not allowed to picket, not allowed to secondarily picket, not allowed to boycott. Consequently, in a situation such as the Windermere strike in '79, the commissioner — assuming they're an essential service — will probably call in the public interest inquiry board. If that happens, then a whole list of other techniques comes into play.

The public interest inquiry board is set up and recom mends to both sides, union and management. If the union doesn't accept the recommendations of the public interest inquiry board, it goes to the employees for a vote. The board is thereby interfering with the union's mandate — not just inside a union-management dispute, but interfering inside the union itself. If the employees say no under this provision, nothing happens. There's no right to strike. The union employees have to go back to work. There's no guarantee that collective bargaining will recommence. In fact, that's what broke down in the first place.

It strikes me that every way the union turns, they have a disincentive to go to mutual mediation. They're not allowed to strike. There is not one direction in which the union can turn here without facing a wall of disincentives — "This is not allowed."

I mention this because essential services workers are going to be influenced even more than workers in other sectors. There is no logical outcome of this public interest inquiry procedure. They are going to be in limbo there. I also mention it because, leaving mediation for a moment and going towards arbitration, the arbitration procedures under the essential services provisions basically lead us up a blind alley. The Arbitration Act and the Essential Service Disputes Act, I gather, don't apply, and we are faced once again with an arbitrator forced to make a decision on the basis of the employer's ability to pay.

It's been suggested to me that this is not so much an antiunion piece of legislation as an arbitrators' employment act. I gather that in the past arbitrators have just walked away from this kind of ability-to-pay situation and this ability-to-pay clause. We're going to find that again. I gather Mr. Peck himself did. The ability-to-pay clause completely repudiates community standards, employees' needs and employers' needs. It undermines and kneecaps the arbitrators, not to mention the workers — and not to mention the employers in some instances.

Under the essential services clause, ability to pay once more rears its head and becomes paramount. What women might go on strike for, what women with low pay in an essential service industry, such as the health industry, might go on strike for, what they might care about, such as hours of work — because most women have two jobs, as you know — such as maternity leave benefits, such as other benefits not even related to pay, cannot be considered by an arbitrator. The only subject on which an arbitrator can return an opinion is the ability to pay of the employer; and the only appeal that can be taken against that arbitrator's decision is an appeal on the basis that the arbitrator did not address the ability to pay.

Throughout this particular analysis of essential services, and throughout section 62, I would suggest to you that it's not

[ Page 1756 ]

a facilitating section; it only facilitates the unrealistic goal that you set out in section 18. It is a very interventionist model, yet those of us who are trying to study it and to read through it don't see the intervention leading anywhere but in a direction to put down labour.

When I speak on behalf of women in the health industry — and 85 percent of those working the health industries are women — and when I speak of the essential services workers.... And almost anybody can be declared an essential service worker under this bill. When I speak of those people, I'm saying that women are the most difficult to organize to fight for their rights. Many of us know, from years of experience, that helping women organize themselves to fight in the marketplace for rights that should be legitimately theirs is a very difficult process. But section 62 makes it so easy to decertify and to disorganize those women workers. It provides management and the commissioner with so many techniques, so many strategies and disincentives, that one wonders what will really happen to women employees in this province once this bill is in effect.

[12:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I too want to add my voice to some of the previous speakers in expressing concern over this particular section, which is perceived to be the heart of the bill. I also want to sort of focus on the government's intent, and again put a name and a face to the people the government is really dealing with in this section.

I want to talk mainly about interest arbitration and who that's going to affect. I'd like to frame my comments by reminding the Labour minister of this session: the government coming in with its throne speech; the budget; the comments that this government cares about families, about the unborn child and about mom. The point of this section is that when the government is talking about the ability to pay, and in essence talking about CSP and the powers of the commissioner, it is talking about limiting the possibilities that mom has to ensure that she can have maternity leave; the rights of families to have mom at home when they've got sick kids; the rights of dad, perhaps, even to have paternity leave. This bill and the restrictive rights on interest arbitration say that when that comes up before a contract, it will be weighed against other benefits, and it either will never get to that point or will come up against the barrier of ability to pay.

I want to make a plea, and indeed to issue a challenge to this government, that if you care about families, if you care about women, if you care about children, you will stop trying to restrict the rights of working people to bargain for those rights, because it has been through the bargaining and the work that organized labour has done that we in Canada have made some moves forward on issues like maternity leave. It's been through the bargainings of different unions, through Canada Post, that they got paid maternity leave. It has been through the work of organized labour that we have begun to deal with some of these significant issues that are of concern to families.

Indeed, the minister is not prepared to amend this particular section. As we have pointed out to him time and time again — 60-some sections ago — this bill is bad. It hurts people. The minister should recognize that in this section he is hurting families in this province. I put the challenge out to the minister to bring in amendments that will deal with pay equity, and recognize that 60 percent of the families in this province would be below the poverty line if it weren't for mom working. Large numbers of people in this province rely on that second income in a family to be able to ensure that they can reasonably raise their children. Deal with pay equity — that's a challenge to you. Bring the wages of women in this province up — another challenge. Put into legislation the rights for paid maternity and paternity leave. Put into legislation the rights of working people to have time off to look after their children. There are the challenges, Mr. Minister, and I'm saying that this legislation, and in particular this clause — it's hard for me to say,"in particular," because every clause is "in particular" — should be withdrawn. The minister has to see the impact of this particular section on interest arbitration, and how it will affect the families in this province. I look forward to hearing the minister's response, and I will be anxious to get back up and talk a little bit more on this issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 62 as amended, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley continues. I would just suggest to the member that I'm having a little trouble with relevancy here in what you're saying. If you could try to explain to me the relevancy of what you're saying to section 62 as amended, we'd appreciate it very much.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Okay. First of all, I want to say how disappointed I am that the minister didn't see fit to respond, and that he doesn't care about families.

On the issue of interest arbitration, the point of that particular section was that the ability to pay will be paramount. When we're dealing with interest arbitration — and this will be issues of financial compensation in a contract — often issues like maternity or paternity leave and leave for sick children come under that category because they are dollars and cents. The point that I tried to make to the minister was that because it falls in that line of the balance sheet, because it is a dollar item during those negotiations, they will either be bartered away because of other significant concerns.... They will have a lower priority because of the ability to pay. The unions will only be able to secure a certain amount of financial contributions to their members. Issues that are of importance to families will either have to outweigh other significant issues, to get there in the first place, or when they do get to the point of an arbitration, they will be wiped off because of the ability to pay.

I bring to the minister's attention the fact that while we're talking about government and government employees, for instance, the vast majority of those people are women, and the ability to pay is established when the different ministries set out their budgets, so that the bargaining will fall within an already agreed upon budget. That in itself restricts the ability to pay and spells out the financial benefits that those employees may get.

What we are seeing in the service sector, in government employees, is that women historically — and certainly since the CSP was brought in — have been restricted in their ability to improve their financial lot in life. They have been systematically restricted in any attempt to achieve parity with their brothers in the workplace. They have been systematically restricted in their ability to seek benefits. I think one of the earlier speakers talked about flexible work time. Those are important things to families; they are important things to women who have responsibilities for raising children.

[ Page 1757 ]

I'm sorry that the minister hasn't seen what the impact of this legislation is. I think that all too often, when legislation is brought into the House, the drafters of that legislation don't see the faces; they don't see who it is really affecting and what the ramifications are. It's really unfortunate that we're not able to have a debate about who really is being affected, and whether that was the target group the minister had in mind when he brought in this legislation.

We have talked extensively over the last couple of days about the service sector and the impact that this legislation is going to have on families and on women in this province. Keeping in mind that the classic view of family, of mom staying at home looking after the kids, is no longer the reality in this province, I made the point to the minister that 60 percent of those families rely on that income.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we get more directly back onto 62 as amended, please, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Part of what would help me to do that is if the minister would be good enough to respond to my comments about whether or not this is the target group. Is this who he is trying to affect when he is dealing with the issue of compensation? If the minister would respond, I would be pleased to change tack, if I am going in the wrong direction here.

HON. L. HANSON: I certainly find the member's comments very interesting, but I have great difficulty relating them to section 62. She is touching on the labour standards code and things like that, and I listened with great interest to her remarks, but I have great difficulty relating them to section 62. That is why I wasn't about to respond.

But in answer to the one question, there is no target group in section 62. Anyone that would make that assumption is wrong. There isn't any target group of any kind in section 62.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I just want to ask one question of the minister, and I know other people want to get on because of the time restrictions here. Am I not correct in the points I am making when it comes to issues of pay equity, maternity and paternity leave, leave for sick children, and whether or not there will be difficulties in bargaining those, given the fact that in an interest arbitration you are restricting the outcome of that arbitration by including ability to pay?

HON. L. HANSON: I guess I could make the very simple response that any item of collective bargaining that is put on the table by either side is still quite allowable. There really is no change. If maternity leave is a very major issue with the bargaining unit in a particular negotiation, then I am sure that will be a major issue that they will attempt to achieve. There's no change in that.

MR. STUPICH: My thanks to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood). I would expect that the minister has not heard the last of this subject, but he can perhaps wait until Monday to hear more.

[12:45]

I have not taken part in the debate at committee stage to this point, but I think I've learned a lot in listening to my colleagues. There's perhaps one member in the House who has learned more than anyone else, and that's the Minister of Labour. He has had to sit through all of it, and he has listened to a lot of very good presentations expressing our concerns and the concerns of other people in the community about this legislation. But by our presentations dealing with section 62, which is the most important part of the bill — that's why we're giving it this attention, and that's why I'm speaking in this instance — we don't expect to defeat the section. We know that the legislation stands or falls with this section, so certainly we don't expect to defeat it. We are hoping, however, by the logic of our presentation, to persuade the government at the very least not to proceed with proclamation of this legislation and to give the cooperation and consultation that was promised by the Premier. Give those processes time to see whether or not they will do the job, which we are convinced the legislation before us will not do for the people of British Columbia. That's what we're hoping for. That's our objective.

The minister made a couple of comments in response to the previous member who spoke, one of them being that there seemed to be an assumption on this side of the House that the commissioner is going to move into each and every dispute. Not so, Mr. Chairman: we don't assume that. However, I recall during the war examples of communities where it was reported that the Germans said they would shoot one in ten as a way of getting revenge. The odds are nine out of ten against you being shot, but I think the whole population would have done everything they could to be elsewhere the morning that the shooting started.

It's like a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of every negotiating team. They know the commissioner is not going to move in on every situation, but they don't know but that they might be the one in ten on which the commissioner is going to move in, and that has to affect their bargaining. It's not free collective bargaining when you know that someone who is not part of the process can move in from outside and interfere at any time that particular person feels that he or she wants to interfere. That's the danger of it: not that it's going to happen in every case, but the concern in the minds of everyone that it will happen in this particular case, the one that they're dealing with at the moment.

He picked up a remark from one of the members on this side as saying: "How can we believe that B.C." — and I'm paraphrasing — "can prosper on its own?" We don't — not entirely — but we do believe that B.C. could be doing better than we are doing. We think part of the evidence in favour of supporting our belief, if you like, is the fact that B.C. has done so badly compared to so many other Canadian provinces — there is no question about that — and has been doing so ever since the government decided to interfere to the extent that it did in 1983, not with this particular legislation but with similar procedures, setting up the compensation stabilization plan in the first place. From then on B.C. started going badly downhill compared to, say, Ontario and Quebec, with whom we used to be more or less on a par. We've done so badly because of government intervention that there is a feeling on our side of the House that had the government been positive rather than negative for the last four or five years, B.C. might not have done better than Ontario to this point but would certainly have done a lot better than we have done in B.C. In the last four or five years.

He once again brought up the IWA strike, and it's been brought up by a lot of people. He said that there were over three million worker-days lost. Possibly. We don't know that. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) dealt with that situation and pointed out that there was more production

[ Page 1758 ]

in the forest industry than in any year ever before, more profits made. In every instance except the lost working days, we excelled in 1986 with respect to the forest industry. Had those people been working all that time or had their jobs been open to them during all of that time, they might very well have been laid off because the companies couldn't get rid of the production. We don't know. We don't know that there were three million worker-days lost. Certainly it was a bad scene, and at least unemployment insurance would have been coming in, but none of us can say how many worker-days were lost, and, of course, we can't assess the blame for that either. 

This particular section is one of the ones where this business of looking after the public interest keeps coming up. I have to ask: how is it looking after the public interest if it's attracting the kind of attention to B.C. that we went through in 1983? We've been suffering for it ever since and will be suffering for it again now in the minds of many people. We've been trying to present evidence to prove our case that this will be bad for British Columbia. The only evidence we have is in the opinions of people who are experts, and every written opinion that I've seen, and even uninformed opinion from people such as columnists and editorial writers, is expressing concern about what the government is doing with this legislation.

I have one report here from the Conference Board of Canada, an April 1987 report entitled "As The World Sees Us — Updating Foreign Investors' Perceptions of Canada in a Changing World," by Duncan McDowall. Mr. McDowall advises that there is no subset of data for British Columbia. However, Mr. McDowall advised us that in the context of Bills 19 and 20, his general conclusion held: once a negative perception is acquired, it is extremely hard to shake.

The Premier, to console us, said that by the time of the next election we will have shaken that. Does that mean we're going to go through another three years of the kind of economic inactivity we've suffered through in B.C.? We can't wait another three years, Mr. Chairman. As I said before, our hope is that the government will back off and give labour and management a year in which to show that they can, by cooperation and consultation, do what everyone says this bill will not do.

Further on, a letter from Campney and Murphy — hardly an NDP-associated legal firm — writing to the HLRA.... I'm just going to quote briefly from this letter; it's a long letter — 14 pages — analyzing Bill 19. I'm not sure if the minister has seen it; he's probably pretty busy these days and hasn't had an opportunity to read everything. But I'd like to read a little of this.

"If we may be permitted to express a preliminary view of the impact of this legislation" — this is the conclusion of the letter — "it is that the bargaining process will become significantly more complicated. We are concerned that the powers given to the commissioner and council are so pervasive that they may result in the involvement of those agencies from the outset of collective bargaining to the conclusion.

"Additionally, the effectiveness of any labour relations regime depends on the cooperation of both sides. If the trade unions collectively refuse to cooperate with the dispute resolution regime established by these amendments, a potential will exist for a deterioration in the prospects for orderly settlement of collective bargaining disputes."

There's one opinion. I challenge the minister to produce an opinion from anyone other than a Socred politician that suggests it will work. I don't say that in any negative sense. There are people who think it will work, but they're not informed people, I would suggest.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) said that it was foolish — and I think I have his words close — of the Premier to ask the Leader of the Opposition to cooperate. Well, Mr. Chairman, I agree totally with that. The Leader of the Opposition believes that this is bad legislation for British Columbia. He believes that it is intended to be bad for the trade union movement. Whether those things are true or not, I believe them. But whether they're true or not, believing those things, how could he possibly accept the role of a Judas and betray the people who supported him in his own caucus, betray the people for whom he is fighting in the case of this particular bill? He couldn't accept the role of a Judas. It was foolish to ask him to accept that role.

The second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) challenged the Leader of the Opposition to accept the Premier's offer that we needed this legislation because we need a third party. Well, Mr. Chairman, it was an offer that I suppose the Pied Piper of Hamelin considered at one time when he made a deal. Even if the Leader of the Opposition had that magic flute, he could never have persuaded the trade unions to follow him down a path which was intended, in their minds, to lead to their own destruction. Even if the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do it, he could not get that kind of following, because they knew that their fate would be the same as the children who followed the Pied Piper. That was an impossible request to make of the Leader of the Opposition, and certainly the Premier knew it when he made that request.

When the Labour Relations Board was first organized, the legislation said that it was going to be fair, in that there would be an equal number of representatives appointed from the ranks of labour and from the ranks of management. Certainly it was opposed at the time by many people. There was concern about it, but over a period of years it became accepted as a reasonable court for labour-management arguments. It did become accepted by both sides; there was very little criticism of decisions coming from the Labour Relations Board.

In more recent years, when the government, in appointing people to the Labour Relations Board, leaned more heavily against those who were recommended by the trade union movement, there wasn't the same acceptance. But when the government was careful in making its appointments, the decisions of the Labour Relations Board were well accepted, well regarded.

We know that from the beginning the organized trade union movement is not going to cooperate, is not going to recommend names. I am sure, with the salary being offered, that you will get people from the ranks of labour to accept positions on this council. But you are not going to get people in whom the trade union movement has confidence. If you don't get that, you are not going to get decisions that will be accepted by the trade union movement. It is bound to fail.

One of the worst mistakes, I think, was appointing the commissioner before the bill was ever discussed in the House. The Minister of Labour has said that he has a lot of respect as a negotiator. He had at one time, although he came from the management side; he was well-regarded. But when he agreed to accept a political job on behalf of the Premier of

[ Page 1759 ]

this province, when he accepted the role of commissioner for the compensation stabilization program, which was not an economic job, not a negotiating job, but simply a political job, a way of pulling out of the fire the plums the Premier had thrown in, of solving things he didn't want to get involved in, of setting wage limits that he didn't want to do personally — he wanted someone else to be responsible for doing that.... Commissioner Peck agreed to take on that political job. Having identified himself that closely with the Social Credit government, with the Social Credit Premier.... To say to the trade union movement,"This is the person we are going to put at the head of this new council, this person who has, from the point of view of labour, so shown that he is on the other side," to say that he is going to be the man in the middle and is going to arbitrate, is saying to the trade union movement: "We dare you to oppose this. We know you can't accept it. You couldn't possibly believe that such a person, with his record, is going to be fair. So we dare you to oppose it." They are asking the trade union movement not to cooperate. Mr. Chairman, is that the way to get the kind of progress we need in B.C. right now?

As I said earlier, we are not expecting to defeat this section. We are hoping by our presentation, by the logic of our arguments, that the government will see the wisdom in not proceeding with the bill, at least in not proclaiming it, and in giving the community time to work out its problems in its own way, knowing all the time that the bill is there, that it could be proclaimed, that it could be finalized. There is a bit of a threat over them too, and that is real persuasion to arrive at a solution to the problems that we have in B.C. That could be accomplished. There is a way out, Mr. Chairman. I believe that, above all else, the people of British Columbia — labour, management, MLAs and all of the people of British Columbia — now need a way out of the mess we are in right now.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, in the gallery today we have two very prominent citizens of my home community, the Vernon community. They are Mrs. Myra Tollestrup and Mr. Pat Lett, who are both prominent members of the Okanagan College board. Would the House please make them welcome.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.