[ Page 1935 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Third reading. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1935

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Guno

Mr. Loenen

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on third reading of Bill 19.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) adjourned debate. Since he is not here, would someone else carry on?

MR. CASHORE: The member for Prince Rupert has concluded his remarks, so I am honoured to rise in this Legislature to speak in support of this hoist motion.

I do so knowing that I am speaking to a Legislative Assembly that is weary from many hours spent on an issue that has completely dominated this first session in this Legislative Assembly. I want to comment on just three aspects of the wide-ranging debate that we have had over the last several weeks, the longest debate on any bill in the history of this Legislature.

Firstly, I want to remind the House that a wide range of people representing different aspects of the public have spoken out, either in opposing this bill or in asking that it be withdrawn. I would remind members that in the earliest stages of the debate, in speech after speech given by members of the government side, we heard about that third party, the public. We were reminded constantly by members of the government side that it was the third party — the public — whose interests, whose rights and whose future must be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that as the debate went along, as time went by, and as the public has had the opportunity to respond, the message has come through very clearly that the third party, the party that the government side purported to protect, has also been calling on the government to withdraw the bill or at least set the bill aside to allow sufficient time for the kind of reflection and feedback that would make it possible to bring some sanity to the situation that the government has caused by introducing Bills 19 and 20.

When we talk about the public, we're talking about not only members of the public who happen to belong to the trade union movement; we're also talking about a fairly wide range of persons representing the business community. We're talking about the truck loggers. We're talking about the words of caution that we have heard from persons such as Jim Matkin. We're talking about caution that has been expressed by small businesses, and we're talking about an organization such as the business and professionals' association. We're talking about teachers, and we're talking about people who are professional mediators. Indeed, we are talking about a number of churches: we have heard from the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Pentecostal Church, the United Church, and also from the Ecumenical Committee for Social Responsibility, which is involved with a number of churches. We've even heard from poets on the weekend who gathered to oppose Bill 19. We've heard from newspapers from Oregon to British Columbia and from British Columbia to Toronto. We have heard from those who are investors.

There are people representing much beyond the interests of organized labour who have come out and said: "This government is not protecting us, the public, in bringing forward this kind of legislation." I remind the government side that we don't hear them any more in their speeches talking about protecting the public interest. and it will be interesting to see if we hear those words uttered again in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of that wide range of members of the public, I just want to read a couple of quotes. We heard a report on June 4 of two noted labour lawyers, Jim Dorsey and Bruce McColl, who have condemned Bill 19. They have called it "ill-advised legislation that treats professionals like children and threatens to unravel the fabric of industrial relations in British Columbia." It also says that McColl criticized the government "for initiating legal action to secure injunctions that would ban labour from opposing, in its most traditional manner, government policies." Dorsey urged the government to withdraw the bill, set a cooling-off period of one year before introducing amendments, and try to foster the mood of cooperation that existed between employers and unions before the legislation was introduced.

We have some of the expressions that have come from some of the churches. Religious leaders from traditions as diverse as Anglican and Pentecostal have contacted the Premier. "This has been confrontational" — the words of Anglican Archbishop Doug Hambidge in Vancouver. He said: "We're not taking sides. We just think good negotiations end up with both sides believing they're winners. It's got to be a win-win situation; otherwise one side feels beaten into the ground."

Marion Best, president of B.C. Conference of the United Church, said last Friday that she's worried because both labour and business leaders have said that Bill 19 significantly erodes the power of unions. Marion Best said: 'Anything that tips the balance in favour of one side concerns me." Then we have the words of the superintendent of the Pentecostal Assemblies of B.C.. who said that the Social Credit government should tread cautiously with Bill 19. He went on to say: "Most of our members are working people. Many of them are unionized. I'd hate to see divisiveness. I'd hate to see the working man lose some of the rights they've gained. I'd hate to see Bill 19 reduce the wages of the common working man."

Mr. Speaker, we have the words of the Roman Catholic Church — David Szollosy, who is the director of the office of social justice for the Catholic diocese. He said: — We would like to see a pause in bringing in this legislation. so there can be a period of authentic consultation and listening." He said that labour's position in B.C. has been weakened by laws brought in during the past decade, and that it is his belief that Bill 19 is exploiting the current vulnerability of labour.

Mr. Speaker, these are words from people who represent different segments of the public. I think they are words that should be heeded. The verdict is in: the public is saying to this government that if you insist on helping the public in this way, it's a case of the helping hand striking again.

[10:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 1936 ]

Mr. Speaker, I want to read some words from the Globe and Mail, from the issue of Friday, May 29. That bastion of socialist thought said:

"Judged by the government's own intentions. B.C.'s proposed new labour legislation is a palpable failure. 'We've been trying to get people to invest here, ' said Labour minister . recently, 'and in 1986, with Expo, we got worldwide publicity. But there's still the perception of bad labour relations, so we felt an obligation to bring forth legislation.' And, my, what big teeth Grandpa took out of the drawer.

"Everyone knows that legislatures have the ultimate power to end lockouts or strikes and to set the conditions of collective agreements. But traditionally, this power stays well in the background, to be used only in the most pressing of circumstances and in the most conspicuous of ways. This respects the important role of collective bargaining in a free society to establish working relationships on the basis of some equality between management and labour, and some independence between business and the state."

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the public, the third party that this government would see itself protecting, has spoken. It is saying: "Please back off."

I just want to make a couple of points on the impacts. We know, Mr. Speaker, that this has been very well covered. But we do need to remember, as the government seems intent on going ahead with this bill, that this is clearly going to result, if not in the dismantling of unions, in unions being so severely weakened that the entire industrial bargaining procedures that we have become accustomed to, and which are part of our social fabric, will be so seriously endangered that it will be very, very difficult ever to recover from such a situation. So we have a dismantling of unions; we have the downgrading of wages; and, just to consider an aspect such as safety standards, we have the endangering of workers. We know that the safety standards that are well maintained are the safety standards connected to union- management contracts. I do not think anybody on the government side wants this legislation to have the effect of increasing the number of accidents in the workplace, but I believe it was demonstrated during the debate that that is extremely likely.

I think there is also a very serious concern about the effect of driving wages down in the province. Yesterday, when I was on the ferry coming over to Victoria, a member of the PPWC union spoke to me and handed me a little card. Members of that union are handing out this card when they go shopping — when they go into a small business — and I think it's a very thoughtful way, a non-confrontational way, of trying to express their message and their concern. This is what the card says: "Bill 19 will affect your profits. The money I just put into your business as a customer was negotiated for me by my union. I can afford to shop here because I get decent wages. So you benefit from my union membership too. Think about it. Bill 19 will ruin my union!"

That's a significant point to make, and I think it's being made in a creative and thoughtful way. Again, it's one of those points that I think gives cause for the public, that part of our community that the second member for Kamloops (Hon. S.D. Smith) would seek to protect.... It's saying to the second member for Kamloops: "We don't really need your protection. If this is the kind of protection you're offering, this isn't really going to help." I think it's very important for him to hear that message from people who come from the rank and file of working people in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I recently received a letter which I believe was sent to all MLAs, but I think that some of the points in this letter should be in the record. It's from the joint administrators' committee of the British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council. This letter points out one area of concern that has not been canvassed very much in the debate, to my knowledge. I would just like to read a few excerpts from that letter.

The point they're making is this: "Construction industry medical, dental and pension plans with a total annual volume in excess of $54 million are placed in jeopardy by the bill." Mr. Speaker, these people are making the point that unions, in the ways in which they manage their funds, are a major investor in B.C., and one of the very serious effects of this bill will be to weaken the ability of this part of our society to participate in the creative and healthy investment that is needed in order to help the economy become more healthy. They say that in the past year the plans provided medical and dental coverage for 40,000 people, with medical plan payments totalling more that $32 million, $11 million of which was for dental care. Construction industry pension plans had over 68,000 registered participants and paid out more than $22 million in pensions.

They go on to say: "Because Bill 19 would lead to deunionization of the construction industry in a relatively short time, the future of the medical, dental and pension plans is in doubt. Of special concern is the potential loss of dental care coverage." I think this is very significant point, Mr. Speaker, because it deals with people who are currently impacted negatively by economic conditions. They go on to say:

" Many of the 34,000 presently covered under the construction industry dental plans are currently unemployed or employed only sporadically. For many of these families, loss of dental coverage would mean that dental treatment would be cut back to emergency treatment. Reduced incomes in the industry would further reduce levels of dental care.

"As health care officials have repeatedly pointed out, reduced levels of medical care and dental care in the short run lead to a greatly increased public cost in the long run."

"In addition to the social cost which would result from the elimination of the medical, dental and pension plans, a substantial amount of investment capital would be lost to the province. In recent years, construction industry pension plans have made substantial investments in hotels, commercial developments and housing construction projects in B.C., with a significant job creation factor."

Mr. Speaker, they point out in the letter that the current level of such investments is close to $200 million per year. I don't think the members of the government really want to see that kind of investment in capital lost to this province through the process that is being initiated by this bill.

I wish now to turn to a particular point that was covered during the bill, mostly in section 137.8, with regard to essential services. In that section there are various phrases which, in a way, add up to the same thing but, interestingly enough, express the point in different ways in different parts of the section. It refers variously to essential services, threats to the economy and dangers to the economy.

[ Page 1937 ]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear now, given the public response, the editorial response and the response from significant leaders throughout this province and across this land, that Bill 19 is a threat to the economy, a threat to essential services, a danger to the economy. All of those ways in which Bill 19 is purported to protect us are ways in which it itself is a threat and, therefore, reasons why it behooves this government at this eleventh hour to recognize the value and the importance of hoisting this bill.

I would also like to point out that when we see the attack on various parts of our society that this government looks upon as essential, it raises this question: where is the balance in this concept? Where is the counterbalancing fairness that recognizes that if the government is going to be pointing out one sector of our society and calling that sector a threat . ? Where is the counterbalance that also, in fairness, looks at other sectors of our society?

I think that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has made the point extremely well on several occasions: there do not seem to be any messages on the order paper that indicate that the government intends to do anything about the possibility that capital might go on strike in this province; the possibility that capital going on strike could be a threat to the economy, could be a threat to essential services and could be a danger to the economy. There is nothing about that, and there seems to be a lack of balance and fairness here.

There is no indication that this government looks upon food for hungry children as being an essential service. There is no indication that this government looks upon the purchase of steel from Korea for the SkyTrain crossing as being a threat to the economy. There is no indication that that is a concern.

Mr. Speaker, there is no indication that this government recognizes that policies that result in lower incomes for workers can indeed be a threat to the economy, just as such policies are a threat to small business. There is no indication here that there is any concern about the fact that policies that perpetuate poverty are a threat to the economy.

I think that what has happened in this province over the last several weeks is that we have been operating in a very unfortunate manner because of the government's agenda. Because this has been the government agenda, we have not been able to address in this Legislature the more significant issues of job creation, farmworker conditions, the needed expansion of markets, the need for investment and shelter for the homeless.

These are the kinds of issues that we should be dealing with in this Legislature, and because this government has insisted in a bull-headed way in pressing forward with this most destructive legislation, we are left with a situation of leaving this province untended while we are dealing with something that is counterproductive, negative. destructive and harmful to the fabric of what British Columbia is.

I wish to conclude with these words, Mr. Speaker. If we think of the situation we were in a couple of weeks ago that led up to the writ that was filed in Supreme Court being thrown out by Justice Meredith, I think we see in that a microcosm of the larger action. The kind of thinking that went into that action is the same kind of thinking that apparently the second member for Kamloops and other members share, believing that that is the kind of approach expressed in this total bill. We saw a very significant reflection coming forward from the Supreme Court.

When we consider that, we have to ask ourselves just what this is costing us. I find the final two lines of Justice Meredith's judgment tremendously significant: "The action will accordingly be dismissed with costs." What are the costs of the court case? What did it cost the citizens of British Columbia? More significantly, what are the costs of Bill 19? What are the costs in terms of public morale? What are the costs in terms of lost investment. What are the costs in terms of people who are beaten down in this society? The price we will have to pay, as a body politic. Is a price that has not yet shown up in anybody's bottom line. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker and members of this House, if this government persists in going ahead with this legislation, they are causing costs to the people of British Columbia that are no less real than the costs of that court case that the good justice had to see fit to charge to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia have paid a great price for this Legislature to spend its time in this counterproductive way. I would say that we, in the New Democratic caucus, speak for the people when we again call on you to withdraw this legislation. We speak for the people. We have not heard the members of this government say that they speak for the people; they left that phrase out of the debate after the second week.

MR. RABBITT: Bill 19 is now known as the most debated bill ever discussed in this hallowed chamber. The addresses have centred on philosophy and process. I will just briefly look at the philosophy as I see it. It's a philosophy of whether we address problems before they happen or after they happen.

The present Code I refer to as an "after" philosophy. It is reactionary, as one of my members here mentions. The after philosophy lets a major dispute take place, lets a major problem arise, and then our labour-management act comes into being. It fixes it after it breaks down. The philosophy of the new bill addresses the "before" remedy: that is, it allows for some preventive maintenance to take place. And if there is a breakdown, we still have the machinery to fix the major breakdown.

In 1973, the old Code was brought in by a minister who believed he was solving the problems of labour-management relations. As we know, it did not work. It addressed two main groups: the employers and the employees or their representatives. It did not address the public interest, and it did not address government's interest. The old Code failed. Our last major example was last fall when the election campaign was on. Throughout the campaign we saw a major strike in our woods industry. I ask the members of the opposition: who won? I can tell you that the employees didn't win, the employers didn't win, the public didn't win, and the government didn't win. Who won" Of course, nobody won. Nobody will win under that old Labour Code.

This new Code may not be perfect, and it may see amendments, but I can tell you this: we could not survive under the old 1973 Labour Code. It was tired; it was dead: it had to be put to bed.

The opposition represents some very special interest groups. Mainly I've heard the interest put forward here, in the last hundred hours of debate, of the big unions and their leaders — mainly their leaders. Hopefully this bill will represent employees and their bargaining agent plus the employer. It will also represent the public interest, and what is wrong with that? Nothing is wrong with that. It will also address

[ Page 1938 ]

government's interest. We have heard through several debates how we want to see more moneys spent in other sectors of government, but where does government's money come from? It comes from both business and employees working out there to make the economy hum. What government does is take a piece of the action, and they put it back in for those who do not have the opportunity to become part of that economy.

Our seniors are a good example. We have heard a lot of gum-rattling from the other side about the money that should be put into seniors' programs. But fellas, where does it come from? It comes from government, and the government does not have a dime of its own, so they must take it from that part of the economy that's working. It's very important that we keep that economy working.

Let us look at the opposition's position. It all seems to depend on what part of the country you live in as to your attitude towards labour. As a matter of interest, on Friday, June 5, in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, the Minister of Labour introduced a bill called Bill 61, An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act. We haven't heard anything in this House from the opposition about that act. What did it do? One of the things it did was bring in final-offer selection policy. Yet four years ago in that very House the opposition at that time, which is now the government, went on record as being opposed to this concept. I ask you: does it depend on where you in the NDP live in this country as to what position you take on labour?

MR. BLENCOE: Tell us what consultation was done.

MR. RABBITT: Let me quote on consultation, hon. member for Victoria. There is a Labour-Management Review Committee in that province. Let me read the reply that was given in the House to the question of consultation. This is from the Minister of Labour: " . when I met with the Labour-Management Review Committee" — and this was 24 hours before the legislation was brought into the House — "shortly before the introduction of the legislation, I made it clear to them that I didn't intend the meeting with them to be argued by me or anyone else as consultation, but a briefing as to the proposed legislation." Very interesting.

I suggest, and I suggest strongly, that change is needed. I believe that the minister has worked diligently. He hasn't claimed to have all the answers, and we may have to work some of them out in the years to come. Even the hon. member from the opposition, when he brought in his legislation in 1973, had to make amendments.

I stand here today opposed to a hoist, and the reason I am opposed is that it will only help to create more confusion, more animosity and more confrontation.

MR. GUNO: I would like to join my colleagues in rising to support the motion to hoist Bill 19 –– I think that the government has a real opportunity to show some leadership and statesmanship by listening to the vast and growing public opinion. They have clearly expressed serious concerns about Bill 19, about reconsidering passing this bill and supporting our hoist motion.

We have had over a hundred hours of debate, Mr. Speaker. We've had speakers from this side of the House who have presented, I believe, cogent and compelling arguments against Bill 19. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has done an incredible job in terms of guiding the debate, focusing attention on the fundamental flaws of Bill 19 and revealing some of the contradictions, the arbitrariness and unfairness inherent in this bill. We've heard labour experts, both management and labour, publicly express real concerns about this bill. It is regressive and will lead to more labour strife in British Columbia. My colleagues have also presented evidence that business leaders have publicly expressed concerns about the impact that this bill would have on the investment climate of British Columbia.

There's no doubt that when this bill is passed into law it will be one of the most divisive pieces of legislation. I don't think it takes very much foresight to see that such an intrusive piece of legislation will dismantle wholesale the long-established democratic rights of the working people.

I question the government receiving the mandate to do that. It's clear that this government certainly did not receive such a mandate by the people of this province in the last election. The way that this government rammed Bill 20 through this Legislature, and is attempting to ram Bill 19 through, demonstrates very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that this government, or the government members, are either abysmally ignorant about the democratic process or, far worse, have deliberately misled the people of the province.

In order for democracy to work, there must be two conditions. The first is that if a party aspires to be government, it must make it abundantly clear to the people how they will govern once they are elected. They must do so on some very clear agenda that people will have an opportunity to examine and compare with the other party. The second condition, Mr. Speaker, is that the voters will choose on the basis of what each party stands for. I think that this is fundamental in a democratic process.

Events in the last few weeks, Mr. Speaker, show that this government has not lived up to the promises that it made to the people of British Columbia. The government shows pious concern about the reaction of the working people as a result of Bills 19 and 20 –– I would think, Mr. Speaker, that the government must realize that people will react if they feel that their rights, their dignity and their economic security are being threatened.

In the last election campaign, Mr. Speaker, the Premier said that his party was committed to consultation, to fostering the sense of cooperation among the different segments of our society and to reducing confrontation. Let's see what he did. At no time during the election campaign did the Premier ever hint that he was going to commit — in the words of Graham Leslie, the former Deputy Minister of Labour — an act of legislative violence against the working people of this province. There was never any meaningful consultation. We know now that that consultative process that was under the aegis of the Minister of Labour was a sham; that the Premier, all the time, had his own agenda and had written the Labour Code well before that consultative process that they so proudly display was even completed.

[10:45]

The commitment to cooperate. The Premier made much ado about his willingness to foster the spirit of cooperation; and yet there was an opportunity right after the election to foster that rarest opportunity for union, under the aegis of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and business to form a working relationship based on cooperation. This government turned its back on that opportunity.

The Premier has said on a number of occasions that he's a good listener. But in spite of the growing public opinion, in

[ Page 1939 ]

spite of the fact that there are a number of people who are concerned about the aftermath of the passing of Bill 19, he has refused to even consider these concerns.

This kind of public obstinacy, Mr. Speaker, reminds me of the excellent book written by Barbara Tuchman entitled The March of Folly, wherein she chronicles the folly of past political and military leaders from the dawn of history who stubbornly held to disastrous courses, in spite of the fact that there were clear and saner alternatives. Mr. Speaker, it's been a frustrating process for us on this side of the House to attempt to point out the folly of this government in pressing on with Bill 19, and attempting to point out clear and more sane alternatives, so that we could have a more harmonious labour relationship in British Columbia.

Maybe I could be accused of being overly sensitive about the facility with which this government has prepared to deprive a segment of our society of their basic rights. And it is a fundamental right.

I'd like to read an excerpt from a community newspaper. I don't have the name of the newspaper, but it's by Rodger Beehler. He says:

"Bill 19 touches upon very basic human rights. What rights are more basic than those governing one's work situation and income in a society where money is the inescapably necessary medium of acting, and working conditions are frequently the most insistently obtruding fact of one's waking ~ours?"

Indeed that is a fundamental right that we were talking about.

I'm overly sensitive, Mr. Speaker, about the danger of this bill and the way it's being passed, because I belong to a group of people who, until very recently, were deprived of the political right to organize — the political right to raise funds to fight for our rights. So I know that we're only that far away from regressing to that atmosphere of stamping down the right to dissent by depriving certain people of those fundamental rights to organize. It's only a little while ago when the native people were finally granted the right to vote. So there is a history of this kind of deprivation of fundamental rights.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to dwell on those very general areas, because I think that Bill 19 presents more than a danger to the rights of the working people. Once you start to tinker with the rights of one segment, then you endanger the rights of all the other citizens. For that reason, I urge the members to reconsider, and to support our motion to hoist this bill.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond briefly to some of the concerns that have been raised. I will be speaking against the motion.

We've been told that this motion is very necessary because the people out there do not support this legislation, and no legislation that does not carry the support of the people is going to work. We have been told that we should not foist this on people, etc.; it runs counter to what people want.

I did some reading over the weekend. I know that the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) thinks of most Social Credit back-benchers as illiterate. Just to disprove that, I want to share some of that reading, because I want to show that the main ingredients of Bill 19 do indeed carry the support of the people of this province, and I want to show it not from literature supplied by the Social Credit caucus research people but from some of the literature that comes to us from the leading thinkers of the political left, both in this province and in our country.

One of the books that I picked up is entitled Canada, What's Left? It is an anthology of various writings from such people as Allan Blakeney, Art Kube and many others. The main thrust is captured in the preface in a few lines written by John Richards: "A generation ago, we in the CCF comfortably described ourselves with the slogan 'Humanity First, ' secure that we defended the values of ordinary men and women. Now the right comfortably assumes the mantle of defender of the ordinary family, while the left champions abortions on demand. We on the left support a big state and champion big labour in its conflicts with big business. Many of the voices for the little guy ~s struggle against bigness come now from the right." That is precisely what Bill 19 aims to do, because it speaks for the ordinary British Columbians against bigness.

MR. LOVICK: He's being ironic in context.

MR. LOENEN: I wish that the member for Nanaimo would just listen and read some of his own leadership, and the materials that they are putting out. because the people who are in the forefront of the political left in Canada today recognize that we live in changing times.

In fact, I read another book. entitled After Bennett. Again, it comes to us from people who are self-confessed socialists and leftist thinkers. Again, to summarize the contents, I find it striking that when you read this, these people are calling for decentralization and an end to the ever-growing bigness in bureaucracy, whether in government or in the labour unions or in business. There is an emphasis here on empowering the people in their local communities as much as possible. I find all of that very interesting, because I think they are right. They are sensing the new trends that confront us and that we have to respond to in government.

In addition to that, I would just like to draw attention to a very interesting survey conducted by the very people that put together this book. The results are written about for us by John Richards and Gary Mauser, both of whom are academics and teach, one at UBC and the other at SFU, and are self-confessed socialists. The survey tried to determine the attitudes of the people in the greater Vancouver area. It was conducted in the spring of 1985. It attempted to survey the attitudes towards unions in this province. The results are absolutely fascinating. and I want to share them with you.

We recognize, I think, in Bill 19 that there is a direct relationship between union demands and unemployment, and that we have an obligation to those people who do not participate in the good life, those people who are marginalized, those people who cannot get to those good-paying positions and jobs. Interestingly enough, this study bears this out: "Two-thirds of those sampled link union demands to the existence of unemployment. The troubling implication from this question" — troubling for them — "is that people may interpret legislation to limit union power as at least a partial solution to unemployment." I would say that is not a troubling implication; I would say that is right on.

In addition. Mr. Speaker, the study also shows that unionized workers, as opposed to non-unionized workers, feel a great deal of frustration, because they are prevented, strangely enough, from having a meaningful role in the decisionmaking process. I quote from page 169 of the study: "These questions contain some other interesting results. Unionized workers perceive themselves exercising less influence than

[ Page 1940 ]

non-unionized workers. In other words, the degree of frustration of unionized workers is higher." That's very interesting, because it is particularly these types of problems that Bill 19 seeks to address, and it seeks to do that in a very responsible way.

I would like to go on a little bit more, Mr. Speaker. Reading the mail we're getting and trying to read the public mood, I think most people in this province are fed up with strikes and are quite prepared to see greater government intervention in strikes. I'd like to read again from this study that was done by these people from the political left. Page 166:

"Elsewhere in this volume the argument has been made that many of the basic components of the present industrial relations social contract, as embodied in the Wagner Act and its Canadian counterparts, lack public support. This survey provides evidence to that effect. The fact that a substantial majority of both union and non-union workers want more direct government intervention to end strikes and lockouts suggests an obvious lack of commitment to the present institutions of collective bargaining."

I find this extremely interesting information. It almost seems that our Minister of Labour had this at his fingertips when he drafted Bill 19 and responded to the kind of information that the political left has collected for us.

I'd just like to give you a little bit more. Bill 19 talks a great deal about — and seeks to gain for individuals — a greater degree of freedom. It seeks to stand up for the little guy. Let's see what the study has to say about that: "A sizeable majority of unionized workers and a very large majority of non-unionized workers apparently opposed the principle of the union shop. They want workers to be individually free to decide whether or not to join the union at their place of work." Again, the majority of the people of this province want the kind of legislation that this government is providing.

[11:00]

We have talked about the hiring-hall practices, and Bill 19 seeks to address some of those concerns: "A sizeable majority of both unionized and non-unionized workers say they want merit to supersede seniority in determining layoffs." Bill 19 talks about freedom of speech and whether employers can talk to their employees at the time the employees ask for certification:

"For fear that employers abuse their power, labour relations boards declare it an unfair labour practice for employers to communicate with their employees about unionization at the time certification proceedings are underway. Again, the majority of both unionized and non-unionized workers in our survey disagree with this ban."

Very powerful, very interesting. And as I said, it comes to us from the political left.

We have been told time and time again from across the way that somehow we are out of tune with the majority view of the people in this province. I'd like to read this to you to show that that's not the case: "Since re-election in 1983, leaders of the British Columbia Social Credit government have legislated some restrictions in union powers and talked of more drastic measures yet to come. Our survey result suggests that a large majority of both union and non-union workers accept the government's position." Of course, we all know that, because the October 22 election bore that out in spades.

I am suggesting that the charge that somehow we misled the people, that we are being vindictive and foisting legislation on the people that they don't want, is false. It's proven false by the results of your own survey. Bill 19 addresses the whole question of secondary picketing and decertification. I want to quote one last time: "In our sample, a majority of workers, whether unionized or not, oppose secondary picketing in principle and think decertification currently too difficult."

In our local constituency office in Richmond we receive a lot of calls. Up to but not including last week we had 327 telephone calls in support of Bill 19. We had 117 against Bill 19. That is another indication that the people of this province support the legislation that we put forward. A further indication was a half-page ad in our local Richmond Review paper a week ago last Sunday, which urged people to phone me — it was an ad put in there by the B.C. Federation of Labour. I expected to receive many calls. In fact, we got very few calls. Surprisingly, most of those were from people who said: "Look, I saw the ad. I want you to know that we support the government when it comes to Bill 19."

I rest my case. I think I have shown, from your own material, from your own surveys, that the people of this province will support the main ingredients of Bill 19. We should not support this hoist motion, because there is no need for it. We should work together to make this thing work. I think that in time we will see the fruits of these kinds of decisive steps that this government has undertaken.

MS. EDWARDS: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. I find it very tempting to debate the last speaker, the second member for Richmond, in his declaration of neo-rightism and so on. However, I have a few things I want to say on this motion in this long, long debate that has gone on for various reasons. I am going to proceed to make, I hope, some very short and concise points, if I can hold myself in.

First of all, I want to recognize that to do some informal polling, if you like, is definitely a part of being a politician and of listening to what's going on. What I have heard in the last months is not that people are supporting this legislation. What I hear from the people I talk to is that they are alarmed by the possibilities of what this legislation proposes. They are moderate in their response until it comes to the point of a one day show of disagreement with this legislation.

MR. S.D. SMITH: An illegal strike.

MS. EDWARDS: Civil disobedience, if the member for Kamloops would like to agree — the kind of serious action that people have taken in our democratic societies over the generations in order to get progress in legislation; the kind of serious recognition that is being given by people who read the mood in our society, which includes media and magazine writers, philosophers and other university people who are talking about this legislation and saying that they do not agree with it. They are disagreeing with the loss of rights and bargained positions that the labour movement has worked for. It's not only the labour members who are disagreeing with the government's position on this, but also the workers who are not in the labour movement. The numbers of people and the kinds of people who are sending one day's pay from June I to support the argument against the bill — although

[ Page 1941 ]

they were not off work — is absolutely amazing. It is a broad group of people, broader than was expected, and it is a solid message of support for the Federation of Labour.

People are concerned because of the breaking of international agreements and treaties that Canada has signed in support of labour democracy. These are now being broken by this legislation. They are upset by the failure of the Social Credit government to have put the case before them in the election and then to have brought in legislation that was not promised. What was promised was consultation and lack of confrontation; what they got was Bill 19.

They also object to the centralization of power perhaps as much as anything. Although my colleagues and various other people have read a lot of things into the record, I have one editorial I'd like to quote, from the Eugene, Oregon, Register-Guard of June 4, 1987. Our neighbour to the south, the editorial writer, said:

"The Social Credit government that runs British Columbia has introduced an 'industrial relations reform' bill that would give an appointed government commissioner the power to end strikes or lockouts that he deems contrary to the public interest. That kind of arbitrary power over the right to strike is unheard of in this country. If a similar move were ever proposed by an Oregon governor and pushed by a legislative majority, there probably would be general strikes here, too."

The editorial writer goes on to suggest about British Columbia and the things that were going on after the injunction was sought:

"This begins to sound more like authoritarian Singapore or South Korea than our good democratic neighbour to the north....

"The court seems likely to reject the petition, but the B.C. parliament may well approve the legislation. In that event, peace will be a long time returning to the labour-management front there."

That editorial writer was voicing a broadly held opinion that has been made outside and inside the country, which indicates very clearly that the objectives of this legislation — this flawed, foolish piece of flotsam — are not going to be met. When the legislation was introduced, it was introduced in order to calm down and improve the labour climate in British Columbia. It was made to draw investment to the province and therefore create employment. These kinds of editorials are indicating that the reading is going to be against that kind of thing happening.

The people who object to this are wondering why the government of British Columbia is trying to force this legislation through without keeping another of the promises they made, which was to send legislation to committees of the whole Legislature and to give time for this kind of legislation to be considered.

Why is it that the government wants to reign instead of govenment? Why is it that the government seems not to understand that you listen to 300,000 people who take an act that many consider to be illegal, who take a full day off work and lose a day's pay in order to object to this legislation? Why do they refuse to listen? Why do they prefer to foist rather than hoist? The problem is that there is no answer to this, Mr. Speaker. The government does not tell us why they will not listen to what is being said and respond to the questions that are there. Had they responded, there would be some indication that in fact they had heard the words that were said by the people who object to the legislation. But that has not happened.

The government say they are not pushing this legislation through, because they are letting the debate go on in the House. That is a good start, but what we're suggesting is that they consult. We're suggesting that if they do not consult — this is the promise they made — the labour climate will continue to deteriorate and become poisoned to the extent that none of the goals of the legislation will be achieved.

What we hope, Mr. Speaker, by moving this — or what I hope, and my part in this — is not simply to delay and delay, but to give some time for the government to please open its ears and listen to what is being said. We are available to act as the government's ear-trumpet, if that is what is necessary. If they reject us in that role, then I know there are many other groups in the province who would be very anxious to act in the role of ear-trumpet. I request that the government please put that trumpet to its ear and listen to the people of British Columbia before they go ahead with Bill 19.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm disappointed to see that the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), let alone the first member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), is not in the House now. If he's listening on his speaker box, I would hope he would come back, because when he comes back I want to direct a few comments towards him. Here we are again engaged in a debate on Bill 19 and, with the exception of two eruptions from the other side — from the member for Yale Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) and from the second member for Richmond — we haven't heard any defence from the other side of the House with respect to this motion.

Two speakers from the other side have stood up, but what about the other 45 members of the Social Credit caucus? How come they're not standing up and speaking on this legislation with respect to this motion" Where are they this morning? Was it a rough caucus meeting last night? Why aren't they defending this legislation and speaking to this hoist?

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Our people have spoken on it, Mr. Member; yours haven't. I daresay they probably won't by the time this motion gets on the floor. In any event, now that I've got a little chirping going on the other side, let's deal with the issues. We should support this hoist motion because this legislation has been an abysmal failure, and it will continue to be a failure. It has failed with respect to process, it has failed with respect to content. It has failed with respect to philosophy and it has failed with respect to leadership.

I want to take up, I hope, the full 30 minutes that I am accorded to talk about each one of those four issues: process, content, philosophy and leadership. On every one of them this government rates an F. This legislation should be hoisted and pulled away for six months so the government can begin to change that failure into some kind of success.

MR. RABBITT: On a socialist report card.

MR. SIHOTA: No, not on a socialist report card. Sixty-three percent of the people polled over the weekend in the Richmond riding said that they wanted the bill either withdrawn or sent to committee — in Richmond, not provincewide. So don't tell me it's a failure on the socialist report card.

[ Page 1942 ]

It's a failure on process. If one begins to examine that process, this whole thing started with supposed public hearings, supposed input and supposed consultation from the government. That's what was going on when the Premier announced in January that he wanted to have an open government, an open process and consultation with respect to labour legislation. This was the first opportunity with this type of legislation to demonstrate some honesty and integrity around that promise of consultation.

What happened? We had backroom lawyers who were working to draft this legislation from as far back as October 1986 and worked on it in November 1986. The Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson), to his shame, will not reveal to this day who those lawyers were. Why not? Because it's evident to each and every one of us in this House that management lawyers were drafting a piece of legislation that was designed to a show a management imbalance.

Over the previous two years, $220,000 went to the law firm of Jordan and Gall — and I'm quoting the Public Accounts reports. It will be interesting to see how much money went to them in the years 1986 and 1987, particularly in the period between October 1986 and April 1987 when this legislation was introduced. It will demonstrate the extent to which that so-called consultation was an absolute sham, a fraud perpetrated on the people of British Columbia and on the 700-odd applications and submissions made to that hearing.

A quiet backroom committee of lawyers drafted this legislation when the Premier went on television and, with his usual smile, said: "Yes, open government and consultation." A fraud perpetrated on the people of British Columbia, because what was happening was....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would just like to remind all hon. members that good humour, moderation and good temper are the characteristics of parliamentary language. We're kind of straying away from that. I can understand the zeal with which the member is delivering his speech, but could we just remember to keep our language a little more moderate.

MR. SIHOTA: At the very time that the Premier was on television telling people we were having an open, consultative approach to labour relations in this province and that that consultation would result in the introduction of legislation.... It had nothing to do with it. So process number one, the hearings, was clearly a sham.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Then we had the introduction of the legislation. We had the fine statement from the Minister of Labour, which we've all read — that great public relations statement drafted within government information services and crafted with language consistent with what the polling was saying. Out comes all of the public relations gimmickry with a statement, with a view that by couching it in terms of democracy and freedom, with a view that you put out Provincial Report across this province, which tries to sell this legislation.... that you would be able to con the public. Well, the reaction was exactly the opposite. Even Jim Matkin stood up at the time and said that the legislation was ill-founded, that it was unworkable.

MR. S.D. SMITH: What does he say now?

MR. SIHOTA: We'll get to that in a minute.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has criticized the legislation. Trade unions criticize the legislation. Every constituent group affected by the legislation came out and said that the legislation was unworkable — a little bit of mud splattered on the government.

So then we had a series of meetings and a series of hearings with the labour movement, with the employers' council, with the small business community, with the arbitrators and with the truck loggers. There was a parade of people walking into the Premier's office. Sure, there were 49 amendments in a 75-section act — no doubt about that. But that speaks volumes as to the sloppiness and the incompetence with respect to the original piece of legislation.

MR. RABBIT: You can't have it both ways, Moe.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, we'll talk about content. We'll talk about those 49 sections and see if they change the philosophy of the bill. Like I said, I want to talk about process, content, philosophy and leadership, so we'll get back to that. I want to urge the members on the other side not to get too excited.

This legislation, which was brought in with all the gimmickry and the public relations statements and the Provincial Reports that went out across the province, was so poorly drafted that 49 of the 75 sections failed, and required amendments. That's how sloppy the job was that was done by those secret lawyers. You would think that that would be....

AN HON. MEMBER: Look who's back.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad to see the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen). I have a few comments to direct toward him, but he'll have to wait till the end.

You would think that those 49 amendments would resolve the problem. Well, it didn't take too long for the former Deputy Minister of Labour to stand up and be counted. It didn't take him too long to review those amendments. It didn't take him too long to say that this legislation was an act of legislative violence. He came out with the truth. He said the process and the content of this legislation was an invitation to violence. At that point, the Minister of Labour should have had the gumption to withdraw that legislation, and he didn't. The Premier, who wants this legislation, who is bullheaded and insistent that this legislation pass, ought to have shown some leadership at that point and pulled the legislation.

We were witness to two rallies on the steps of the Legislature — and, of course, in the June I situation, right across the province. We had on one hand 300,000 protesting the legislation and on the other hand somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 people. And the government wants to listen to the 3,000 to 5,000 people and wants to ignore the actions and the concern of the 300,000 people. He wants to listen to the Palm Springs crowd, but not to the people who are affected by the legislation, live with it and be governed by it. No, no, no. "They're there because some union officials are telling them that they have to leave, whereas these 3,000 or 4,000 people are out there on their own will." You can attach any type of public-relations argument that you want to, but the fact remains: ought you not to be listening to the 300,000, as

[ Page 1943 ]

opposed to the 3,000? What kind of sensibility is that on the part of this government?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. RABBITT: There are two million out there we listened to.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, of that two million.... If the member for Yale-Lillooet wants to listen to those two million, then look at the polls; 71 percent of the people in this province are saying: "Send the bill to committee." Listen to them. If you won't listen to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could I ask the member to take his seat for one moment, and just remind him that when he's in debate he should be addressing the Chair and not other members.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's process for you. Then let's put aside process, because, as I say, the whole question of process has been a comedy of errors on the part of the government. Let's talk about content. Let's talk about the legislation. Let's talk about those 49 sections that were amended. Let's talk about the whole packet that came before this House. And let's evaluate the legislation not on process but on content.

Let's run through the legislation. The front end: certification. Now we have allowed under this legislation employer interference on the certification process, a concept unheard of in this province in 1973, and a concept that has been quashed over and over again by the Labour Relations Board. What right do employers have to tell employees how they wish to organize themselves and how they wish to present themselves in front of their employers? Ought that not to be a decision restricted to employees, so they can decide among themselves — democratically, of course; there is nothing, Mr. Speaker, to suggest the legislation was in any way undemocratic — to elect their own trade union officials, to define their own collective bargaining agenda and to negotiate with the employer on that basis? The freedom to associate; the freedom to make decisions on their own; the freedom to decide how they want to deal with the employer, free of employer interference: well, that goes.

Then there's a section 1n the act that deals with this whole issue of dealing with union organizations — what I call the B.C. Ferries clause. B.C. Ferries wishes to acquire overalls from a unionized company, and if the company agrees to that, why should the legislation ban it? But no, because of political favours, this government decides to break negotiated agreements. Whatever happened to freedom of contract? We will talk a little more about that. If two parties can agree to that type of unionization clause, then what's wrong with it? If they negotiate it fairly and freely across the table, why interfere with it?

We have the privative clause, a central clause when you deal with labour relations matters. We now have the distinction of having in Bill 19 the weakest privative clause in the country. What is the effect? You will be inviting more and more intrusion, not by the czar, which I will talk about later on, but by the courts. It's the weakest privative clause in the country, and it's not me who is saying that; it's academics. We quoted that to the minister during the course of debate.

The minister said, in introducing the legislation, that special steps had to be taken to protect the construction industry, to maintain the unionized sector. We hear from the other side," We are not against trade unions . over and over again. Yet we have in this legislation the two-year cancellation clause: if a company remains inactive for two years, the union is automatically decertified. Well, that doesn't protect the construction industry; it allows for deunionization.

The member for Richmond. who has now once again evaporated — disappeared from this House — hit the nail right on the head when he said that the whole purpose, from the government's end of it. Is to deunionize, to deal with the myth that by deunionizing you create more jobs. That's not true; he knows that and I know that.

[11:30]

Successor rights. I remember talking to the minister about a part of a business, asking the minister what would happen if Safeway sold off its bakery, and whether or not successor rights would apply. He said they would. With a reasonable interpretation of the legislation, even stretching the legislation to make it as elastic as one could, you could not possibly come to that conclusion. Yet we are assured by the minister that successor rights will survive. But in the very example where he says they ought to survive, the legislation does not allow it. There is an inconsistency between the intent, as the minister expresses it, and the language with respect to successor rights as it appears in the legislation — total failure in that regard.

Double-breasting. I don't want to repeat the whole debate on double-breasting, but in our view this is a total failure on double-breasting.

Employers being allowed to opt out of their accredited associations. Another section with a tremendous amount of debate on it. A recognition finally, after two and a half hours of debate, that yes, that section may well result in whole industries being shut down because one employer out of 100 is not willing to sign a collective agreement, and yet they can automatically opt out. It's a total failure. It's a totally unusual clause when you take a look at legislation elsewhere in the country, let alone in British Columbia.

Running through the legislation, we have tech change. There is no issue as fundamental in this society right now as technological change in the labour relations realm. Why? Because the rapidity of change that is happening out there right now on technological issues is absolutely massive. It will result in a displacement of workers and a redundancy of workers in a way that we've never seen before. It will mostly hit women and workers 45 years of age and up, who cannot be retrained and introduced back into the workforce.

Tech change clauses in this act don't deal with the reality of tech change that's going on out there in the world. It is totally oblivious to the pace of technological change in society today. It's weaker than what we had under the Labour Code. For some absurd reason, the government wishes to introduce that type of language on tech change.

Then there is the public interest argument, the argument that a non-elected official can intervene in the so-called public interest and take all sorts of actions in the name of public interest. I don't have to recount the number of times in history that the "public interest" has been used as an argument to deny people all sorts of legitimate activities. We are seeing that happening all over the world. The "public interest" is being used in South Korea today to justify undemocratic actions. You can couch any argument that you

[ Page 1944 ]

want in the name of "public interest" — that public interest will be unduly affected. What right does a non-elected official have to determine what he considers to be in the public interest?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I've read the amendments, Mr. Member, and the amendments changed that too. Clearly it is the purview of this Legislature to decide what is or is not in the public interest.

I said at the outset that I didn't want to cover all the debate on all the content issues. I've raised just seven areas where it's clear that this legislation is questionable, where this legislation doesn't achieve its intent. And it's clear that on those seven issues alone.... The Premier always says: "Give us details; we want to know what your complaints are." Well, there are seven on the record right there; seven areas where the content of that legislation is failing the supposed intent of the legislation, which is to bring about some labour harmony and industrial peace in this province. Instead, this legislation works to create the type of disharmony and discord and violence — to quote not myself, but the former Deputy Minister of Labour — that we are seeing now during the course of the postal strike. I don't think any of us on either side would agree with that. It's a failure then not on process alone, but a failure also on content.

Let's talk about the other failures. Philosophically, it seems to me that nothing ought to be more important for a free enterprise government — and that's what all of the members on the other side pride themselves on being — than the freedom to contract; the freedom of people to sit across from each other at a negotiating table and arrive at some type of consensus....

MR. RABBITT: There's more than two parties, my friend.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll deal with third parties. the freedom to decide between themselves what they can live with with respect to rates of pay, job security, benefits, productivity, seniority, layoffs, and all that kind of stuff. Freedom to contract. Lawyers love freedom to contract. We like to draft contracts for all sorts of stuff. It's the underlying premise not only of a free society, but particularly of a free enterprise market. Yet in this legislation we see example after example of where the legislation reaches into agreements — into freely negotiated contracts — and voids them.

I don't have to run through all the sections; the minister knows them. There are a handful of sections in the act which say: "If you have negotiated a particular agreement, and it says (a), (b), (c) and (d), and we don't agree with that, we're going to reach into your agreement and break it." The members opposite had a lot of fun talking about what happened on June 1, and the fact that unions decided to break their collective agreements and take the day off in protest. But what about the inverse of that? What about the government, which through this very legislation — in at least a half a dozen, if not more, sections — has reached into freely negotiated agreements, and in some cases clauses that have been standard for over 25 years, and broken them? What about the philosophy of freedom to contract? That's the first argument on philosophy. The second argument....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, if I had an hour, I'd love to take on the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith), but I don't. I realize my time is running out, and I promised the member for Richmond that I'd get to him.

What about fairness? What about the philosophy of fairness in legislation? We have in this legislation a tilting of the playing field. There's no doubt about that, if you read the act section by section by section. What one wants to achieve in labour legislation is legislation that's fair to both parties, that doesn't favour one party over the other. I'm sure that those members who have been part of this debate, as I have, heard what the former Minister of Labour, Bill King, said when he introduced the 1973 legislation. He had a choice, and that choice was that he could have tilted that legislation in favour of the union movement. He chose not to. He said that expressly.

MR. RABBITT: Oh, come on!

MR. SIHOTA: The member says: "Oh, come on!" But that legislation had the unanimous support of this House — New Democrats, Liberals and Socred members were in favour of that legislation. If it was done once, it can be done again. But the insistence and the bull-headedness of the Premier are preventing that from happening.

Tilting the playing field. What about fairness? This legislation doesn't achieve that fairness to both sides. It tilts the playing field, as exemplified by the sections I just quoted, in terms of content and otherwise. It tilts the playing field in favour of management. One has only to go through the clause-by-clause sections of the act.

Investment — the third philosophical pillar. As I say, you fail on process; you fail on content — and philosophy. We talked about freedom of contract, tilting the playing field. Let's talk about investment. People who want to come and invest don't pick up the Labour Code, read it and say: "I guess I'll go and invest in that jurisdiction, because I like the Labour Code." That isn't what gets you investment. I'll tell you what gets you investment: a reputation for labour harmony, of good management-labour relations. This legislation has demonstrated since April 2, when it first came in — strangely enough, it wasn't on April Fool's Day — that it will invite nothing but discord.

What about the efforts of Mr. Georgetti and the management sector to set up that institute of industrial relations? It has gone by the way. A wonderful window of opportunity to bring about labour harmony in this province was destroyed by the introduction of legislation. Ill-timed as it was, it totally dynamited private efforts to bring about a level of cooperation in labour-management relations.

No, there won't be investment. You've heard what other papers have said. The member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) quoted the Eugene, Oregon, newspaper, The message going out to Hong Kong, Toronto, New York and everywhere else in the investment community is that this legislation is going to invite all types of discord. It has already done that; it will continue to do that; it will continue to divide the province; and it will continue to result in the type of confrontation that unfortunately has been the reputation — probably not factually, but from a perception point of view — of British Columbia. It won't bring about investment, and it won't evaporate that perception. Unanimous legislation would have

[ Page 1945 ]

done it, but not this type of legislation. And it won't create jobs, because it won't bring about that type of investment.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Why is the unemployment rate going down?

MR. SIHOTA: The unemployment rate is clearly not going down because of this legislation.

It fails on process; it fails on content; it fails on philosophy. I put out four tests at the beginning. A final one is leadership. What type of leadership have we seen during the debate on this legislation from members opposite, Mr. Speaker? Let's start with the back benches. From the back benches we've so far had two speakers on the hoist motion, and that's been indicative across the board. The only time we really saw members opposite stand up was during the debate on essential services. A total absence of defence.

The Minister of Labour: his reputation, according to a columnist — if nobody else, including myself — has been tattered and his credibility shattered with the introduction of this type of legislation, which he is the messenger of, not the author of.

The Premier: if there is anybody who ought to be criticized for his participation in debate on this legislation, it's the Premier. What type of leadership has the Premier shown on this legislation? I'll tell you what: during committee stage he has spoken — uttered — 270 words; he has spoken for one minute and 50 seconds in defence of this legislation, and then only on tech change. What type of leadership is that from the Premier of this province? He ought to be ashamed. The Minister of Labour ought to be going to him and saying: "We want some more input from the Premier." One minute and fifty seconds, 270 words — that is the best that the Premier can do on committee stage in this legislation. It's absolutely a shame, Mr. Speaker.

The second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) and the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) raised a number of issues. I see my time is running out, so I'm going to be quick. If the old legislation was so bad, why did 95 percent of the disputes under the old legislation settle? That's in response to the comments from the member for Yale-Lillooet. And in response to the second member for Richmond, I would say only this, since my time is running out: 63 percent of the people polled in your own riding said that they wanted the legislation withdrawn or sent to committee, so don't rub those surveys, Don't hold onto those surveys. Don't read that left-wing rhetoric. Listen to the people in your own riding. Are you going to represent them?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to....

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

MR. SIHOTA: I'm just going to end on this final note.

The motion for hoisting should pass, because this government is drunk with the power of October 22, and this motion would bring about a little bit of the sobriety that's much needed in this province — six months' cooling off.

[11:45]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues, I wish to indicate my wholehearted support for the hoist motion. I think it's an attempt by the official opposition to give the government the opportunity at the last minute, on the brink of passing this legislation, to rethink and to do what has been referred to by some of my colleagues as having been done by W.A.C. Bennett — the famous second look.

I also, because most of the issues involved with this legislation have been canvassed fully by our critic and others, wish today in this hoist motion to challenge the Premier of the province of British Columbia to come in and respond to this bill, based upon the Christian principles that he espouses and uses selectively when he wishes to. I am going to cite this morning the Catholic bishops' statement in 1983,"Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis," a paper that was promulgated and written by the entire conference of Catholic bishops in this country.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Here we have the mutterings from the other side when I talk about the Catholic bishops and their perspective on Christian beliefs and on what has happened to the economy and the working people of this country. They accuse them of being "left" or various other things, but they don't want to listen.

This document has been heralded around the world as being important for working people. It is published by the Catholic bishops of this country, and it talks about Christian ideals and principles and how they should apply to the working people, to the economy of this country and, therefore, to the province of British Columbia.

This Premier, who is supposedly a good Catholic....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: I wish to challenge the Premier to come into this House, because we've only seen him debate, I think, for....

MR. SIHOTA: One minute and 50 seconds.

MR.BLENCOE:.... one minute and 50 seconds, defending this legislation, based upon his so-called Christian beliefs. Let's see what he says about the Catholic bishops' statement about working people and the workplace and collective bargaining.

I wish to cite — because I think the Premier should hear it, and I hope he comes into the House — some of the critical components of this paper. We've tried everything else in this House. We've tried to appeal to this government, if there is any rationality left, to reconsider the legislation. Let me cite some of the sections of this important statement, and I challenge the Premier to come into the House and debate.

"In recent years, the Catholic Church has become increasingly concerned about the scourge of unemployment that plagues our society today and the corresponding struggles of workers in this country.

"As pastors, our concerns about the economy are not based on any specific political options. Instead, they are inspired by the gospel message of Jesus Christ. In particular, we cite two fundamental gospel principles that underline our concerns.

"The first principle has to do with the preferential option for the poor, the afflicted and the oppressed. In the tradition of the prophets, Jesus dedicated his ministry to bringing 'good news to the poor' and 'liberty to the oppressed.'

[ Page 1946 ]

" The second principle concerns the special value and dignity of human work.... It is through the activity of work that people are able to exercise their creative spirit, realize their human dignity and share in creation. By interacting with fellow workers in a common task, men and women have an opportunity to further develop their personalities and sense of self-worth. In so doing, people participate in the development of their society and give meaning to their existence as human beings. Indeed, the importance of human labour is illustrated in the life of Jesus Christ, who was himself a worker, 'a craftsman like Joseph of Nazareth.'

"It is from the perspective of these basic gospel principles that we wish to share our reflections on the current economic crisis. Along with most people in Canada today, we realize that our economy is in serious trouble. In our own regions, we have seen the economic realities of plant shutdowns, massive layoffs of workers, wage restraint programs and suspension of collective bargaining rights for public sector workers.

"If our society is going to face up to these challenges, people must meet and work together as a true community with vision and courage. In developing strategies for economic recovery, we firmly believe that the first priority must be given to the real victims of the current recession, namely, the unemployed, the welfare poor, the working poor, pensioners, native people, women, young people, small farmers...."

The Catholic bishops go on to lay out a strategy for economic recovery and survival, one that I ask the Premier to look at as we debate this hoist motion.

The fifth strategy laid out by the Catholic bishops, which the Premier of the province of British Columbia says he follows and supports, I quote:

"Fifth, labour unions should be asked to play a more decisive and responsible role in developing strategies for economic recovery and employment. This requires the restoration of collective bargaining rights where they have been suspended, collaboration between unions and the unemployed and unorganized workers, and assurances that labour unions will have an effective role in developing economic policies."

This is the Conference of Catholic Bishops in this country stating categorically that we must affirm our belief in collective bargaining and that labour unions and working people have a right to collective bargaining being upheld and a right to participate in deciding the future economic direction of our province and of our country. We have tried in many ways to convince this government that this legislation will create nothing but trouble for this province and trade unions and working people.

I challenge the Premier to come into this House — we've challenged him on everything else — and debate this issue, based upon the expression of the Catholic bishops of this country, who have categorically said that collective bargaining is a right that working people are entitled to and that should be upheld; that there shouldn't be an intrusion, and that they have a right to participate in the economy. It's very important, and I challenge the Premier to come in and debate this issue.

Let me cite some more from this very important document: "There is, in other words, an ethical order in which human labour, the subject of production, takes precedence over capital and technology. This is the priority-of-labour principle." The bishops are saying that the integrity of labour, and their rights, is second to none.

I'll go back to the statement: "By placing greater importance on the accumulation of profits and machines than on the people who work in a given economy, the value, meaning and dignity of human labour is violated." Bill 19 violates those very principles that the Catholic bishops are laying out in their paper. It's a direct violation of what the Catholic bishops indicated in their paper in 1983.

"By creating conditions for permanent unemployment, an increasingly large segment of the population is threatened with the loss of human dignity. In effect, there is a tendency for people to be treated as an impersonal force having little or no significance beyond their economic purpose in the system."

If there was ever a bill that was supposed to see working people as just a component in the so-called free enterprise economic system, Bill 19 is that.

Bill 19 does nothing for the dignity of human labour. It does nothing for the principle of labour as laid out by the Catholic bishops. It does nothing to uphold and sanctify the right of collective bargaining by working people. Indeed, it's a direct violation of the principles that the Catholic bishops of this country said that governments and those who believe in the principles of Christianity should be supporting. I again challenge the Premier to come into this House and defend his legislation, based on the Catholic bishops' principles as laid out in 1983. But I know he won't dare do that. He won't do it. Let me conclude this portion of the debate this morning by quoting the last few words from the Catholic bishops' statement:

"At the outset, we agreed that people must indeed meet and work together as a 'true community' in the face of the current economic crisis. Yet, in order to forge a true community out of the present crisis, people must have a chance to choose their economic future rather than have one forced upon them."

Bill 19 is being forced upon the working people of British Columbia. No consensus has been achieved. There has not been the consultation by the government and the Minister of Labour that was supposed to happen, yet this bill is being forced upon the working people of the province.

"What is required, in our judgment, is a real public debate about economic visions and industrial strategies involving choices about values and priorities for the future direction of this country. Across our society, there are working and non-working people in communities.... who have a creative and dynamic contribution to make in shaping the economic future of our society. It is essential that serious attention be given to their concerns and proposals if the seeds of trust are to be sown for the development of a true community and a new economic order."

Mr. Speaker, those words have real meaning after 100 hours of debate on this bill. I ask the Premier of this province to take a look at this statement, to see that Bill 19 basically is flawed and violates the principles laid out by the Catholic bishops of this country. It is time to rethink; it is time to see

[ Page 1947 ]

working people as a component of the economy and therefore allow them to participate in developing that economy. It is time that this government and this Premier recognize that this bill will do nothing for working people and nothing for the province of British Columbia, and that it is fundamentally flawed and should be withdrawn as quickly as possible.

Mr. Blencoe moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.