Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1992

Volume 5, No. 21

[ Page 3659 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

V. Anderson: I would hope that we might welcome Dr. May Komiyama. Being Multicultural Week, it's very appropriate that she be here. She's Canadian-born of Japanese descent, one of those who was moved out of our Vancouver-Langara riding during the 1942 evacuation to the camps in Kaslo. She is with us today to share her many strong contributions within Canadian society. And welcome with her Dr. Gordon How, the executive director of the United Church of Canada. May we bid them both welcome.

D. Schreck: In the gallery today is Mr. Graeme Bowbrick from North Vancouver. Mr. Bowbrick has been in Victoria today in order to present a brief to the Legislature's Parliamentary Reform Committee. Would the House please join me in making Mr. Bowbrick welcome.

D. Streifel: I have touring the precincts today 22 students from Saskatchewan who are participating in the Voyageur program. I understand they're from Battleford and Biggar, and I don't know which is bigger, because I haven't been there very often. But I bid the House make them welcome.

D. Mitchell: We have here in the House with us today a constituent of mine from West Vancouver, someone whom many legislators over the years will have known very well, but he doesn't pay visits quite as often anymore. Would the House please welcome Mr. Fred Moonen.

Hon. T. Perry: I can't let the opposition critic get away with that uninterrupted. I'd also like to welcome Mr. Fred Moonen, the chairman of the board of governors of Simon Fraser University, and ask the House once again to make him welcome.

B. Copping: Simon Fraser is in my riding. I would also like to welcome him.

I'm very pleased today to introduce two guests to the Legislature: Doreen Goodlad and my sister Maureen Tsantilas.

Oral Questions

PRESS RELEASE BY MINISTER OF
LABOUR AND CONSUMER SERVICES

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier, and it once again has to do with the case of Her Majesty the Queen v. Melford Keith Johnson, referred to yesterday. Yesterday we established that a Supreme Court justice suggested that the actions of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services were unfortunate. Today the Canadian Bar Association says that the minister's actions were entirely inappropriate. In light of today's comment from the Canadian Bar Association, will the Premier tell us if he still holds to his position that the actions taken by his minister in this instance were indeed appropriate?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yesterday I attempted, in the spirit of openness, to table the judgment of the justice, and the opposition refused to have it tabled. So what I would like to do, hon. Speaker, is read from that judgment what I think the public should know.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! I hope, hon. Premier, that the quote will be a brief one in question period.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The quote is going to be a very brief one. It says, in terms of the violation of the Trade Practice Act, that this "matter was under the jurisdiction of the ministry in question and, being completed, was a proper subject of comment."

In regard to the question of the fraud charge, for which the accused was convicted, the judge went on to say: "As I set out below, the comments and report had no bearing whatsoever on the trial in this case, but nonetheless I would hope that safeguards will be instituted by the ministry to ensure that there is not a repetition."

I want to assure you, hon. Speaker, that we have listened to the judge. The minister is taking precautions in his ministry to ensure that from here on in press releases are drafted very carefully. To make sure that the Canadian Bar Association and others that are interested in protecting the rights of the accused.... The Attorney General has also taken steps to make sure that the rights of the accused are protected.

In conclusion, I repeat that the minister also has an obligation to make sure that the public is protected from fraud and from deceptive trade practices.

G. Wilson: I'm somewhat amused that the Premier, who is a lawyer, doesn't know the difference between deceptive practices under the act, which is provincial, and the charge of being fraudulent.

I quote from the same judgment: "It is, of course, more unfortunate when the comment is made by a minister of the provincial Crown and when a press conference is called for this purpose." And the vice-president of the criminal section of the bar association said: "If this had been a jury trial and the jury was chosen from among his peers in Kelowna, and this news release was well known, the chance of this man ever getting a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers would have been zero." That's zero, nil, none at all.

In light of these comments today, again I come back to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us, if the violation of a technical aspect of conflict of interest puts a former Minister of Forests into the penalty box for three months, what this Minister of Labour and Consumer Services has to do, in terms of stepping over the line with respect to commenting on a case before a court, before he also has to leave the ice and spend some time in the penalty box?

[ Page 3660 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll keep my answer as short as the Leader of the Opposition's question.

I reiterate my previous answer. As I said, there was in the press release issued by the minister's office the unfortunate use of the word "fraud" instead of "deceptive practices," which was the matter of the press conference to deal with the Trade Practice Act. I have said that there were steps taken in the minister's.... By the way, that press release was run by the Attorney General's lawyers, so what it does prove to members of the CBA is that lawyers too can make mistakes in wording.

But I can tell you the bottom line is that whether it's fraud or deceptive practices, the consumers still know they were being bilked, and we're going to protect those consumers.

[2:15]

WESTAR MINING LTD.

G. Wilson: A final supplementary. Perhaps I'll direct this to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, who we know has in fact made a judgment call. Is the minister aware that as of roughly 2 o'clock today, October 28, following a thorough analysis of the situation review of the draft Labour Relations Code introduced in the B.C. Legislature, the employees' stakeholder association and the Jim Pattison Group have decided not to proceed on the Balmer question, and that another few thousand jobs have gone out of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, that question clearly was not a supplementary, but I am delighted to answer it in any event. We anticipate several bona fide bidders for the Westar mine. The bidding procedure closes in a matter of days. We look forward to the successful restructuring and reopening of the Balmer and Greenhills mines with long-run viability under a new owner. The Minister of Energy and this government have played major roles in trying to bring together employees and the various companies to put together a successful restructuring package. We are optimistic about that. Lots of work has to be done. We'll be playing a lead role in ensuring that it happens.

KORBIN COMMISSION REPORT

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday I brought a policy to his attention that his government was implementing, apparently without his knowledge or the knowledge and approval of cabinet. Can the Premier tell us today who is responsible for implementing this Korbin commission edict that would require in-house contractors to either forgo their contracts or join the BCGEU? And can he explain to us why this policy is being implemented before the Korbin commission report has been received by cabinet or is made public?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That question was taken on notice by the minister yesterday.

The Speaker: The question has been taken on notice. Does the leader of the third party have another question?

J. Weisgerber: Yes. I rather anticipated that the government might bob and weave on this one, so I brought along the Blues. In fact, the question that was taken on notice was whether or not the BCGEU dues that were being paid by the government were going to be done retroactively or for the first three months of employment. So the question that I asked the Premier, which he couldn't answer yesterday and refused to answer today, is not one that was taken on notice.

The Speaker: Does the member have another question?

J. Weisgerber: I have a series of questions, and I will do my best. The Minister of Finance indicates that he would be more willing to tackle this question than the Premier. He's pointing and saying, "Ask me," so let me direct the next question to the Minister of Finance.

The Speaker: Hon. member, please do so quickly.

J. Weisgerber: The 1992-93 estimates authorized a total increase of 1,548 full-time-equivalent employees or FTEs. The Korbin commission estimates that about 1,500 contractors would be affected by this policy. It's reasonable to expect that the vast majority of them would decide to take employee status. The Minister of Health has also indicated....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I must again ask the member to state his question immediately.

J. Weisgerber: If the Minister of Health hires 700 nurses and the government hires 1,500 FTE contractors, how will the minister live within the limit set of 1,548 new FTEs? And who will get the axe in order to make room for them?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, just to correct the record, the Korbin commission reports to the government through the Ministry of Finance, so I am responsible in the House for questions with respect to the Korbin commission. I'm delighted to finally have a question directed to the minister responsible.

The Korbin commission is doing a major report, which has not been delivered to the government. But the independent financial review that exposed the disaster we inherited from the previous administration, of which that member was a part, documented that over 1,400 FTE contractors were really employees. It was called a shadow government. They are essentially.... The administration of those contracts is a mess, and the ministries are working with the employees through the recommendations of the independent financial review. The Korbin commission, under their auspices, is working with ministries in terms of implementing the recommendations of the independent financial review. 

[ Page 3661 ]

It is in that context that those illegal contractors are being rectified by offering them employment under the normal terms and conditions. The contract.... I want to make this clear, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Order, order. I hesitate to interrupt the minister. I know the question is broad, but would....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Would the minister please try to wrap up his answer as quickly as possible.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, where a contractor is found to be an employee based on legal tests, the contractor is legally just that: an employee. It is that objective legal test that we are going through in order to clean up the mess we inherited from that administration.

REPLACEMENT DOCTORS

L. Reid: My question is to the Premier. On November 8, health societies will be struck on the Sunshine Coast to recruit replacement doctors. Is this being done with the full knowledge of your government?

Hon. E. Cull: I'll take that question on notice.

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

F. Gingell: My question is to the Premier. I was most interested to hear him speak just now about the importance of protecting consumers. When in opposition, Mr. Premier, your caucus was vocal about the weaknesses in the regulation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. On October 20 the Wall Street Journal used the adjective "putrescent," and on Monday Barron's ran a major story dealing with scams that have been perpetrated within this past year. After one year in office, how would you rate your government's performance as the responsible regulator?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I think members of the Legislature are aware that about $4 billion in entrepreneurial and business investment is coming from immigrants and others from Asia into British Columbia this year. Those facts speak for themselves about how people are investing into British Columbia.

F. Gingell: My supplemental will please the Minister of Finance, because it's to him. Mr. Minister, what do you think you have done for the credibility of your government by extolling the virtues of the Vancouver Stock Exchange on your recent junket to London, so soon after the angry article in the Observer detailing how British investors, including Catholic and Anglican churchmen's retirement funds, have been bilked of more than $50 million? What are you doing to clean up the VSE?

Hon. G. Clark: That's a very good question which I think concerns all members of the House and people of British Columbia, because there have been problems with the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The Securities Commission act, which was brought in by the previous administration, was a major step forward in terms of trying to regulate the Vancouver Stock Exchange. We have continued to try to toughen up the regulations. We brought in the Securities Amendment Act in the last session of the House. We're proceeding to move to regulate that exchange. The commission has made great strides in the last few years, but it is obvious from recent events that more work needs to be done. I can inform the House that we're reviewing very carefully all of the rules and regulations governing both the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the Securities Commission to try to give some comfort to all members that we have a fair and efficient stock exchange which raises venture capital for entrepreneurs, and that we do the best we can to eliminate the kinds of scams which have plagued the Vancouver Stock Exchange in the past.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period. Before we go on to other business, hon. members, for the information of the House, today we spent two-thirds of question period on five questions. The Chair cannot each day remind hon. members about the rules of question periods.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I remind the House of the fact that long questions tend to elicit long answers which tend to elicit longer supplementals. I want the House to be aware of the few questions we were able to entertain today. I urge members again to read the rules of question period.

KORBIN COMMISSION REPORT

Hon. T. Perry: Yesterday the leader of the third party flattered me with a question that I took on notice. I would now like to respond to it.

Forgive me, this is the wrong pair of glasses. [Laughter.]

An Hon. Member: That was your budget pair, right?

Hon. T. Perry: Those were the through-a-glass-darkly pair, and these, I'm pleased to confirm, are the rose-coloured glasses.

Interjections.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, this is only the third question I've been asked in a year, and it's only the second time in four years anyone has laughed at me, so perhaps the opposition will be encouraged to inquire of me more frequently.

Hon. Speaker, the government is responding directly to the recommendations of the independent financial review commissioned from Peat Marwick. The matter 

[ Page 3662 ]

raised by the hon. leader of the third party referred to action taken on a coordinated basis as a response to the Korbin commission's implementation of direct recommendations from the independent financial review.

I quote from the financial review: "Ministries are major employers of contractors in a number of areas where the contractor is, in essence, an employee of the government." The review identified 1,446 full-time-equivalent employees on personal service contracts. This was an administrative mess inherited from the previous administration, the Social Credit Party. The mismanaged attempt to downsize the public service not only led to its ballooning and to the ballooning of costs but also left the government and the people of B.C. open to potential liability from Revenue Canada.

[2:30]

The Korbin commission, upon its appointment by the Minister of Finance, wrote to the B.C. Government Employees' Union on March 18, 1992, stating that it was within the mandate of the Korbin commission to establish a review process to determine whether contractors were legally employees. A process was established. It diverted a large number of existing grievances from the costly formal arbitration process. In short, the diversion from formal arbitration to the skills of the Korbin commission and the review established by the BCGEU and the government has saved all of us a great deal of money.

The Korbin commission has been actively assisting those parties with what is a very time-consuming service contract review throughout all ministries of government, including the Ministry of Advanced Education. Where a contractor is found to be an employee based on the legal tests, that contractor is legally just that: an employee. If the contractor does not want employee status, the illicit contract must not be allowed to continue.

With respect to the issue of union dues, an arbitration board, taking a so-called "make whole" approach, might well have awarded amounts in excess of three months of union dues. It was therefore in the government's interest to limit its potential liabilities in that regard.

Interjection.

Hon. T. Perry: Members opposite may laugh, but this is the considered advice not only of the process begun by the Peat Marwick independent financial review.... I know that members opposite have limited respect for Peat Marwick, but the financial and accounting community in British Columbia certainly has a higher opinion.

In the case of the Minister of Advanced Education, about whom the question was specifically asked, 47 service contractors have been identified by the government personnel services division and the BCGEU as eligible for employee status. We are using the process that has been established on the advice of the Korbin commission, pursuant to the advice of the independent financial review, to begin the conversion of contractors to employee status. Therefore a meeting was held with contractors on October 21 to inform them of the basis of the process and the details of how it would be pursued. The results of this process will be communicated to the government personnel services division and the BCGEU. And if the opposition would like, they will be communicated to this House.

J. Weisgerber: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. When ministers take questions on notice, I believe they have an obligation to come back and answer that question. At other times in question period, it seems to be the practice to answer the questions that they wished members had asked of them. But I believe that when ministers take a question on notice, they should answer that question.

The question was, very specifically, whether....

The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair fails to see the exact point of order that the member has risen on.

J. Weisgerber: The point of order is that this was a long and rambling ministerial statement, to which there should be a response permitted.

The Speaker: In view of the length and scope of the answer to the question, the Chair is prepared to entertain a brief response as if it were a ministerial statement. Please proceed, leader of the third party.

J. Weisgerber: The process we appear to have unfolding in front of us is one in which policy is being implemented based on a commission report that has not yet been received by government or cabinet -- of which the Premier is unaware and of which the minister responsible, when asked the question, was absolutely unaware. It seems to me totally inappropriate for the government to be acting on the Korbin commission report until such time as that report has been received in cabinet and tabled for public examination.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 84, hon. Speaker.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure to commence second reading debate with respect to labour legislation, Bill 84. Before I get into the substantive comments I wish to make, I want to start off with a couple of points with regard to very important background.

The labour legislation before this Legislature is the product of broad consultation throughout British Columbia. I think it important to note that in February of this year a panel of advisers was appointed by this administration to consult with British Columbians regarding their views concerning labour legislation. That panel was struck only after extensive consultation with labour, business and practitioners in the labour relations field.

In fact, shortly after the provincial election of October 1991 and the subsequent swearing-in of cabi-

[ Page 3663 ]

net, the first initiative undertaken by the Ministry of Labour was to contact unions, employers and the labour relations community to seek their views as to who should be on a panel to review labour relations legislation. During that course of consultation, we met with small business, large business and, indeed, with small and large trade unions representing all of the houses of labour, together with academics who practise in the area and practitioners.

As a consequence of that extensive consultation, this administration then established a panel of advisers to advise it on changes to labour legislation. I wish to thank those advisers today publicly for the good work they have done for the province. In particular I want to acknowledge the efforts of Claude Heywood, Deputy Minister of Labour, who chaired the panel; Barbara Rae; Cleta Brown; Lynn Smith, dean of law at the University of British Columbia; Marie Decaire; Tom Roper; John Baigent; Graham Leslie; and Vince Ready.

Of those nine, three were then instructed to form a subcommittee to deal with the specifics of labour law reform. Those included Mr. Roper, who had considerable experience in labour relations matters, practising generally as a lawyer with regard to management matters; John Bagent, a well-known labour lawyer who had represented trade unions for some time; and Vince Ready, a gentleman of impeccable credentials who had gained respect throughout this province with regard to his work in mediation and arbitration, as a neutral on that panel.

These individuals travelled throughout British Columbia -- I believe to 11 communities in the province -- and examined labour law reforms in a number of other provinces in this country, as well as examined the history of labour relations reform in British Columbia from 1954 on. Individuals received somewhere in the neighbourhood of 203 oral submissions and 269 written submissions. Based on those submissions, on September 11 they tabled to the Ministry of Labour -- and specifically to me -- a report containing their recommendations.

Those recommendations were a product of extensive consultation, both public and private meetings with labour and business, to try to find consensus between labour and management with regard to labour law reform. The reason this administration felt it was imperative that there be such an extensive process and such a high level of attention paid to arriving at consensus was because of what had happened in this province in 1987.

I don't intend to dwell on this in any great depth, but when the previous administration in 1987 had purported to engage in a process of consultation, only to have it revealed and discovered that it had in the backrooms a committee of two or three lawyers drafting the legislation, we felt that, given this history of sham process, it was essential that there be a legitimate process in British Columbia.

We also felt that, given the inadequacies of Bill 19, and in particular the fact that it had been boycotted by one of the parties it purported to serve, namely labour; in particular that the previous administration itself, through negotiations with its employees, had chosen to bypass its own legislation; in particular that the former administrator of that legislation, Mr. Peck, had called for an overhaul of the legislation; and that management representatives -- for example, people such as Gordon Austin from the Health Labour Relations Association -- had called for a reform of the legislation, it was important that that legislation be reformed. It was also important that it be done in a sensitive and diligent fashion.

On September 11, as I indicated, I received the report. Upon receipt of that report, the ministry engaged in an analysis of it. On October 16 I convened a meeting of representatives of both small and large businesses, together with representatives of the labour movement, to discuss with them the findings of the panel. The government was then guided by the representations, private as they were, from those representatives, in terms of making its final decisions.

I am pleased to report that as a consequence of this extensive consultation, of the 164 changes that are now before the House in this labour legislation, 160 were unanimously agreed upon by a panel representing labour, business and a neutral, Mr. Ready. I think that degree of consensus with respect to an issue that is potentially as divisive as labour relations is both incredible and certainly worthy of the support and applause of this House. Ninety-eight percent of the items that are now before the House were agreed to by business and labour. I wish therefore to particularly thank the panel -- Mr. Ready, Mr. Roper and Mr. Baigent -- for the work they have done.

In drafting this material that is now before the House, this administration had a number of goals in mind. We felt it imperative that there be fair and balanced labour legislation in British Columbia. We also felt it was imperative that that legislation should support our ability to succeed in a global economy where there are increasing levels of international trade and competitiveness. And we felt it important that it should encourage the parties, labour and management, to pull together and work together in a productive and meaningful way to resolve any differences.

We also felt it was important that the adversarial relationship which had so long characterized labour-management relations in this province be put to rest. We felt it important to recognize that only when labour and management work together can we achieve our goal of having high levels of employment and high wages, bringing home good paycheques to working families in this province. Above all, we wanted to establish a framework of cooperation and goodwill between management and labour. I believe that with the legislation that is now before this House, those goals have been met.

I want now to turn specifically to certain items in this legislation which I think achieve those goals. In so doing, I also want to take the opportunity to touch upon some of the issues which have been part of the debate which has occurred since the introduction of this legislation yesterday. I want to take great care during the course of my comments to amplify on some of the reasons why this administration, and indeed the panel, took the course of action that it took with regard to the 

[ Page 3664 ]

changes which are now before this House and which I hope will meet with its approval with dispatch.

Hon. Speaker, a lot has been said during the last 24 hours with respect to the recommendations as they relate to certification and, in particular, the decision of the panel -- which I want to emphasize was unanimous on the part of both business and labour -- to proceed with a new system of determining the level of support for certification. Under the provisions which are now before the House there is a requirement that should 55 percent of individuals within a bargaining unit sign cards indicating their desire to be certified, then there will be certification.

The legislation also proposes that in areas where between 45 and 55 percent of those in a bargaining unit have signed a membership card, there will be a vote administered by the Labour Relations Board to judge whether or not the workforce wishes to certify as a bargaining unit, engage in collective bargaining and secure collective bargaining rights.

[2:45]

The panel that was entrusted with this task took great care to take a look at all of the arguments put forward. We in this House are all well aware that through the business coalition, small business in particular indicated its concerns with changes in the status quo. It's also fair to say that since 1984 we had a system of secret ballots and membership cards. The panel was therefore in a unique position to assess the experience of that 40-year period, compare it to the experience since 1984 and make its own evaluative decisions as to whether or not the system introduced in 1984 served the interests of ensuring labour-management harmony.

They agreed, and I concur with their recommendation -- which, I want to emphasize again, was unanimous -- that we should go to the system that had served this province reasonably well for the previous 40 years: namely, a provision with regard to 55 percent of the individuals signing up.

An Hon. Member: Why?

Hon. M. Sihota: Why? Let me quote from the report. The report says:

"The simple reality is that secret ballot votes and their concomitant representational campaigns invite an unacceptable level of unlawful employer interference in the certification process.

"There are good reasons for returning to a system of certification on the basis of membership cards. First, there is no compelling evidence that membership cards do not adequately reflect employees' wishes. In those cases where improper influence by a union during a certification campaign is established, the board has plenary jurisdiction to dismiss the application for certification or to order a secret ballot vote if there is a doubt about the true wishes of the employees.

Second, a representational campaign, hotly contested by both employer and trade union, all too often poisons the atmosphere and fosters mistrust between the parties. A campaign fraught with allegations of unfair labour practices results in an atmosphere in which collective bargaining is not likely to succeed. This is to no one's advantage. The decision to join a trade union is, in the final analysis, a decision and right of the employee. And that employee should not be put into the position where he or she is asked to make a choice between his or her employer and the right to be represented by a third party in dealings with that employer."

On that basis they made the recommendation.

I said earlier that one of the things we wanted to move away from was the adversarial nature of labour relations in this province. It's fair to say that the representational campaigns, which, as the panel correctly notes, were commonplace in British Columbia, engendered a bitterness that was unnecessary and unwanted at the front end of a relationship between employers and employees -- a bitterness that could disease the relationship forever. It was felt, therefore, that in order to take that bitterness out of the process, we should go to the system that had served this province reasonably well over a 40- year period -- the very system that seven other provinces in this country have. So we've moved to a system that is commonplace throughout this nation of ours. We've tried to eliminate some of the bitterness that would often find itself with respect to certification battles.

I think it's important that we try to eliminate that bitterness. It's important that we make decisions based on good public policy and evaluative judgments. I understand the emotional argument that comes with respect to free votes, but I also think that legislators in this House have an obligation to do the right public policy thing. When we went to business and labour and said to them, "What do you think is the right public policy thing to do?" they said the right thing to do is to move in terms of this recommendation to membership cards. Why? Because it worked for 40 years and seven other provinces in this country of ours have taken that view.

An Hon. Member: Forty years behind.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's not to say, as the hon. member says, that we're moving back in time. That's to say that we have had the opportunity to assess what's happened over time, and we have, on the basis of that reality, made some changes. One of the realities was that in the period from 1984 to 1991, there was a 100 percent increase in the number of unfair labour practices as a consequence of the initiatives brought forward by the Social Credit administration. That's evidence of the fact that indeed, as the panel says, the hotly contested situation all too often poisoned the atmosphere and engendered mistrust between the parties.

But we also felt, as I said earlier on, that there had to be balance in the relationship. And that balance is maintained through providing employers with their right to communicate opinions reasonably held regarding a business and the impact that unionization may have. So free speech provisions remain under section 8 of this proposed legislation.

We also felt that in order to take out that bitterness and to make sure that it was dealt with on an expedited basis, there should be a process of expedited hearings with regard to unfair labour practices at the front end of a dispute. Consequently that provision finds its way into this legislation.

[ Page 3665 ]

We also felt that it would be important that no employee in British Columbia could be dismissed simply because they were involved in a certification effort. Therefore we have made it abundantly clear in this legislation that only for proper cause can an employee be terminated during the course of a certification drive.

Hon. Speaker, this legislation, this change, brings us into sync with what is happening in the rest of the country, and based on the experience that we've had in this province, that represents a progressive, rational and logical way to ensure fairness and balance during the certification process.

I want to turn now to the issue of picketing, because certainly there has been a lot of comment on a decision that this government has made with respect to picketing. I said at the outset that out of 164 issues there was agreement on 160. There was agreement between business and labour that restrictions with respect to secondary picketing continue to exist. Accordingly, we respected those provisions.

We also spent some time talking to business and labour about the one area with respect to secondary picketing that was in dispute, that of common site. On that issue, we concurred with a majority of the panel, agreed with the representation made by business and proceeded to restrict secondary picketing. Why? Because we don't think that neutral third parties that are not part of a dispute should be brought into a dispute.

As I said earlier, one of the things that we want to accomplish as a government is an atmosphere of economic stability. In my view and the view of this administration, and certainly in the view of the panel, nothing could be as unstable as having extensive picketing that brings third parties into a dispute. Nothing would frighten investment from this province more than those kinds of provisions. Therefore we decided to continue to restrict secondary picketing.

At the same time the government had to deal with the whole issue of replacement workers or anti-scab. The panel took a look, as I said earlier, at secondary picketing. And it said, during the course of its recommendations, that inasmuch as it could support restrictions on secondary picketing, it felt that, nonetheless, in recognition of that, accommodation should be made for anti-scab or replacement-worker legislation. This government, with pleasure, introduced provisions in this legislation that deal with replacement-worker prohibitions. Why? Because we don't think there is any place for violence on the picket line in British Columbia. If I may say so, we have all too often, all of us in this province, seen too many incidents where someone tries to cross a picket line in a vehicle, and somebody else hurls himself in front of the vehicle, tries to smash the windshield or bashes a placard against the vehicle. That kind of practice, that kind of imagery, is not wanted in British Columbia, and we have to make sure that a strong signal is sent to all of the parties that brute force and violence have no place in this society.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member says: "Administer the law." We are now taking the preventive measure of introducing law that we can administer, to make sure that that kind of violence doesn't happen. Who can fault a government for bringing forward those kinds of preventive measures, particularly when a panel suggests that we should do it?

On top of that, we felt it was important, as I said at the outset, that labour and management work out their differences. There are no easy ways out. When we enter into a relationship -- a marriage, sort of -- between employers and employees in a collective bargaining situation, we are saying, under this legislation, that there is no easy way out. You can't simply go out and hire replacement workers; rather, we're sending a strong signal to employers and employees that they've got to work out their differences collectively. They've got to know that they're going to be with each other for a long time. If the way in which the interests of both parties is served is through a legislative regime that tells them that they have to work out their differences and then provides them with all of the tools to do that, as we have through the mediation and arbitration provisions, which, again, were unanimously agreed to with regard to this provision.... It is a myth, in my view, for someone to suggest that somehow this is unfair to employers because it means an employer loses income during a strike and a striking worker can go to work somewhere else. The reality is that that just doesn't happen, hon. Speaker. Indeed, if it did, there are overwhelming public policy reasons to proceed with curtailing the potential for violence on the picket line.

On secondary picketing, we acknowledge the concerns of business. On anti-scab provisions, we listened to what business had to say, we listened to what labour had to say and we listened to what the panel had to say. And based on the representations, in a fair and balanced way, we made a decision that it's in the public interest to proceed with anti-scab legislation. I defy the members opposite to put forward any compelling public policy argument that would support the elimination of provisions which prevent violence on the picket line.

One of the issues where the parties did not agree was sectoral certification. It was a critical issue. We had strong representations from labour with regard to proceeding on that front, to deal with the wage gap issue in this province. I think we all know the situation with regard to that wage gap. For every dollar a man earns in this society of ours, a woman earns 60 cents. Clearly government has an obligation to begin to deal with that wage gap issue -- I'll come back to that in a minute. At the same time, business made the case to this government that to proceed with sectoral certification at this time would mean that there would be a high degree of uncertainty with regard to this issue and that it would deter investment from British Columbia. On balance, after hearing the arguments from both business and labour, we made a conscious decision to embrace the argument that was put forward by business, to eliminate that issue of uncertainty and to set up a more stable regime.

[ Page 3666 ]

That's not to say that this government somehow abdicated its responsibility to deal with wage gap issues. We have said we will deal with those issues, and indeed we have through the provisions that have been found in collective agreements that have been negotiated with this government which deal with pay equity. It's been dealt with in that fashion, and it will be dealt with when the hon. Minister of Women's Equality brings forward recommendations with respect to pay equity. In addition, it is being dealt with under this legislation through the provisions which deal with certification, which make it easier, quite frankly, for women, who have been denied an opportunity to secure collective bargaining rights, to secure those rights, particularly and more specifically the resolution of first-contract issues, which I'll come to in a few minutes.

We listened to business on secondary picketing, we listened on sectoral certification, and we concurred with their views with respect to those two outstanding issues.

The final and fourth outstanding issue was the matter of secondary boycotts. At the end of the day this government felt that parties should be free to negotiate those kinds of matters into their contracts should they wish. We recognize the concerns expressed by the business coalition in that regard. We have given them assurances that we will watch with great care the developments with regard to that issue; that we do not want to see any unintended consequences with regard to that issue; that there will be an ongoing monitoring of the developments as they relate to that issue. And we have assured them that given the fact that we have the advisory panel provisions in this legislation, we will take advantage of those provisions, should the need arise to review that provision of the legislation. We made that commitment to them privately, and we make that commitment to them publicly today.

That then concludes this government's reasons for why it chose to proceed on those four outstanding issues. I think it's fair to say that we've dealt with them in a fair and balanced way. We've recognized the legitimate concerns of business with respect to sectoral certification, secondary picketing, secondary boycotts, and at the same time we recognized legitimate public policy interest in proceeding with anti-scab legislation.

On top of that, as an administration we felt that other things were necessary to ensure that there be stability with regard to labour relations. I think all of us understand that there is a vulnerability with respect to essential services. It is important, with regard to institutions such a health care in particular, that great care be taken to have a regime of essential services which makes sure that essential services are protected and maintained in the public interest during the course of a labour dispute.

[3:00]

The recommendations before this House vastly improve the provisions of Bill 19 in terms of streamlining the process with respect to essential services, making sure that there are specific times to allow for the designation and the development of provisions for essential services and to make sure that they must be in place prior to the commencement of a strike or lockout. To further take away from the uncertainty found in the previous administration's 72-hour-strike-notice provisions, we've put those provisions in there to make sure that one cannot simply give notice once and then hold a hospital, for example, in abeyance thereafter. There must be a process of greater notice so that hospitals and administrations can engage in meaningful operation and administration of their facilities. And that's been achieved through the changes that we've made with respect to essential services. Why? Because we felt that there had to be stability with regard to that area and assurance on the part of the public that this legislation would protect the integrity of our essential services during the course of a labour dispute.

Hon. Speaker, during the course of my time as an elected official, one of the things that has disturbed me most of all is the difficulty that individuals have had in securing their first contract. I don't see the member for Comox Valley in the House. I wish she were here, because I think she witnessed in her riding a protracted dispute at the Comox Medical Clinic, during which nine or ten women endeavoured to secure collective bargaining rights. The employer -- a number of physicians -- engaged in what can only be described as surface bargaining, made it impossible to engage in meaningful bargaining and eventually just wore down those women. I believe that after 12 or 15 months on the picket line, they ultimately found that other people had taken over their jobs. They found that the physicians were not prepared to negotiate with them and had denied them the ability to maintain the employment that they had had, in some cases, for more than a decade.

We've seen that in the Comox Medical situation and with respect to Canadian Tire in Prince George, and we're seeing that now with regard to K Mart in Port Alberni and Campbell River. We, as an administration, feel strongly that those kinds of situations are unwanted and unwarranted in our society. When workers make a decision that they want to be represented by a trade union and make that decision properly, there must be an obligation on the part of employers to engage in good-faith bargaining.

I see the member for Mission-Kent is in the House, and I think it was his union that represented those workers at Comox and sought to secure that first contract for those workers. They were denied the opportunity to have a collective agreement, despite the fact that they made a decision to certify. They were denied that because of superficial bargaining on the part of the employer.

It has happened too often in this province, and there has been too much misery as a consequence. There have been too many people -- particularly women in the retail sector -- who have been denied the opportunity to engage in certification. This legislation that is before this House, thank God -- for the first time in the history of this province -- puts forward a rational, sensible and logical way to deal with first contracts. If there is any provision in this legislation that I take tremendous pride in, it's the provisions with respect to first contracts.

[ Page 3667 ]

We've said that you've got to bargain in good faith, and that there will be a mediator appointed to look at the issues to try to bring the parties together. During the course of that mediation, there can be no strike or lockout, so that the women who were involved in the Comox situation would have been back at work and bringing home paycheques for their families. Those workers who find themselves in that situation at K Mart in Campbell River and Port Alberni would be back at work. Then the parties should be required to work out their differences under the careful guidance of the mediation and arbitration system that we've established under this legislation. Failing that and if that system didn't work, there are a number of alternative remedies that can be brought forward, including a binding arbitration finding at the end of the day.

I think that says that workers will be treated with dignity in this province, that their rights will be respected and that employers have an obligation to negotiate in good faith with their employees. I think that's what is required in good, sound labour legislation, and I'm pleased to say that that is now found in this legislation.

Hon. Speaker, this legislation also makes changes with regard to another set of circumstances which I think needed to be attended to: the common employer and successor rights provisions that were changed under Bill 19. I want to spend a few minutes talking about that, because I believe that the philosophy of Bill 19, as it related to successor and common employer provisions, was that there was no place for unions in this competitive economy of ours. I think that's wrong. There's clearly a place for trade unions in this province.

The common employer and successor changes to this legislation return us to the old language of control, and I think that's appropriate. The old test with respect to control and direction, I believe, if my memory serves me right.... We'll get into those details during committee stage debate. But I don't think individuals should be able to avoid their responsibilities under a collective agreement simply because they have put a company on the shelf for two years. They have an obligation to deal with their employees in good faith. So we've corrected that deficiency in Bill 19. For that we make no apologies. We think that is sound public policy, and it returns us to the situation we had previously in this province of ours.

So, hon. Speaker, if I may summarize, the purpose of this legislation is, first of all, to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of employees. We've done that through the enhanced mediation and arbitration services provided for in this legislation.

The purpose of labour legislation is to encourage cooperative participation between employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues, adapting to changes in the economy, developing workforce skills and promoting workplace productivity in an increasingly competitive global economy with the type of international trade we have. We've done that through the joint consultative committees that are built into every collective agreement under the provisions of this legislation.

We think it's the purpose of labour legislation to minimize the effect of labour disputes on persons who are not involved in disputes. We've done that in this legislation through confining rather than expanding secondary picketing.

We think that a purpose of labour legislation is to promote conditions favourable to the orderly, constructive and expeditious settlement of disputes between employers and trade unions. We've done that through the first-contract resolution services, for example, that we've provided for in this legislation.

We think that labour legislation must ensure that the public interest is protected during the course of labour disputes. We've done that through streamlining essential services designation and the ability of a minister to appoint a special mediator at any time during the course of a dispute.

We think that one of the fundamental purposes of labour legislation is to encourage the use of mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism. We've done that through this legislation, through the example of binding arbitration only with the consent of the parties. Those purposes, generally required in labour legislation, have been achieved through the changes which are now before the House.

This legislation, hon. Speaker, is fair, and it is balanced. It corrects the deficiencies of Bill 19, but it recognizes above all that this legislation is fundamental as a springboard to sound economic development in British Columbia, and that without good labour legislation, the goal and objective of economic development can indeed be hindered. Our province's future is dependent on balance and partnership. Workers and business must work together to ensure that businesses both large and small can maintain and enhance their standard of living.

There's widespread agreement that our economy must involve workers and employers in a meaningful and productive way -- to train our workers to prepare for a high wage, for high-value employment in emerging industries, to adapt to technological change and to take advantage of international market opportunities. If we are to pull together to meet these challenges, we need balanced and fair labour laws to provide for stable labour relations based on mutual respect and mutual understanding. This labour code achieves balance and sets out a basis for economic partnership that will improve our economic well-being.

We as an administration have taken great care to lay out certain purposes in the purposes section of this legislation. We've also taken great care to make sure that there are provisions for advisory panels, so that as time goes on we can look at issues, such as sectoral certification or secondary boycotts, in a more rational setting, or some of the other issues which may emerge over time. Because I think it's safe to say that there is a dynamic quality to the development of labour law and that no legislation should exempt from it the ability to engage in flexible changes as times change, so that we can adapt to ongoing changes in our economy. That provision in the legislation allows us to do this.

It is a pleasure to introduce this legislation and speak to it for the first time in this House. I've tried in 

[ Page 3668 ]

the course of this debate to lay out the rational public policy reasons as to why we proceeded on the basis that we have. I've tried to do it without rhetoric, which I think all too often finds itself in this House. I hear the Labour critic already engaging in that in terms of some of his heckling. But I would hope that that sets the appropriate tone for debate in the days to come. Indeed, there are hard issues to be dealt with here, and there are competing interests always in play.

It's not an easy thing to bring forward labour legislation. It's not an easy thing to always address the different interests that are at hand in terms of economic development, in terms of the interests of business and labour. I think and I would hope that in the time ahead -- I would hope it's short -- during the course of second reading and committee stage of debate with regard to this legislation, we can have that kind of meaningful dialogue in this House.

I am pleased to recommend to this House for its approval labour legislation in which 160 of the 164 changes that are proposed meet with the unanimous consent of business, labour and neutrals that are involved in the process. Of the four that were contentious, I think it fair to say that this administration has dealt with them in a balanced way to attend to the concerns of both business and labour. Accordingly, I recommend the legislation to this Legislature.

G. Farrell-Collins: I take the comments of the Labour minister very seriously. However, I would advise him not to book his condo at Mount Washington for Christmas just yet.

There are a lot of things that we need to go through with this bill. There are a lot of changes. As the minister said, there are some 168 -- or whatever it was -- changes to this labour legislation in British Columbia, and we need to scrutinize each and every one of those to see how they, not as individual changes but as combined changes, are going to affect the labour relations climate and the economy of this province. It's important that we do that.

There is one thing that I do want to comment on at the start with regard to what the minister said, and certainly in his closing remarks he talked a lot about it. He talked about the fact that this labour legislation serves the interests of big business, big labour -- or labour, business and the person in the middle, Mr. Ready, who oversaw the writing of the report. I would say to the minister that there is another person, another group of people that we need to look at when we're drafting this type of legislation, and that's the individual. What effect is this legislation going to have on the individual in British Columbia? It's not just the big unions and big business, nor even just small business. What about the individual workers in this province? That is critical to a just analysis of this legislation.

[3:15]

When you look at the composition of the very panel that came to a 98 percent agreement on this report, you will see that there was no representative of individuals or the individual worker here. We had the unions, we had management, and we had nothing in the middle. That's unfortunate. We'll highlight a number of cases, a number of sections of this new labour code where that individual interest, the self-rights of individuals in this province, have not been taken into consideration.

There is another item that we need to look at. One thing that's been done that I think was very good about the report was the fact that they restructured the report, they restructured the labour legislation in this province, and it makes more sense in just the way the bill is laid out. It makes more sense, it's easier to understand and it's easier to work with. One of the things they did was take the old section 26, which had the purposes and intent of the legislation, and move it up to section 2, right after the definitions. I think that's an appropriate move, because that is the context within which the rest of the bill has to be interpreted. That's very critical. Because they've moved it to that position, from number 26 to number 2 on the roster, we have to look very carefully at what that objectives-and-intent section says. It's not so much what it says -- and that's what's interesting about this bill -- it's what it doesn't say; it's what has been taken out of the bill. If we look very carefully at this section, we will note in the new section 2 that any reference to competitive market economy, as far as what this province operates on, has been removed. Why would a government choose to remove the reference to competitive market economy in the interpretation section of a labour bill? Why would you choose to remove that? Is this not a competitive market economy, or are we going to some other type of economy? I wonder what it is. Are competition, productivity, improvement and moving forward now bad words in British Columbia? Why was it taken out? I'm just curious. It's not a big point. I'm just very curious as to why.

I want to dive in very quickly to one of the more contentious issues that we need to look at with this labour bill. It is certainly one that's going to come up for discussion again and again in the weeks and months to come. It's the issue of replacement workers -- section 68 in the new act. It is a fundamental shift in the way business is done in British Columbia and around the world. I would like to quote to this minister, if he ever comes back, something that has gone on in the United States most recently. A state, Minnesota, which everyone knows is relatively progressive in its legislation....

An Hon. Member: What about Louisiana?

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not going to quote from Louisiana, because I don't think that Louisiana and British Columbia are comparable.

We have a case recently in Minnesota -- they have a Democratic government -- where they brought in anti-replacement worker legislation in 1991. That legislation was recently struck down by a federal court because it fundamentally alters the balance of labour relations in that state -- unfairly. I would like to quote from that finding. It's the Employers' Association Inc. v. the United Steelworkers of America.

Interjection.

[ Page 3669 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister opposite says that this is still Canada. I know this is still Canada. It's still British Columbia. What the minister doesn't realize is that we compete in a global economy and a global market, and we have to take into consideration what's done not just in Alberta, not just in Washington State, but right around the world. If you'd listen to the comments of the Premiers, you'd understand that.

I'll quote from that judgment, which came out very recently:

"The enactment of the Striker Replacement Law has materially altered the...equilibrium which exists between management and organized labour in collective bargaining negotiations. It is this alteration which gives rise to...controversy. It is settled that one of the economic weapons available to an employer is the right to hire...replacement workers in the event of an economic strike.

"'The presence of economic weapons in reserve'" -- and "in reserve" is underlined; not even implementing it, but in reserve; being able to use that as a bargaining chip, and an economic bargaining chip is important -- "'and their actual exercise on occasion by the parties, is part and parcel of the system....'

"The enactment of the Striker Replacement Law has removed this weapon from the plaintiff's bargaining arsenal, affecting the subtle balance.... This subtle but substantial shift in bargaining positions is neither hypothetical nor abstract.

"This material alteration of the collective bargaining relationship obviates any need to await a strike and actual invocation of the law."

So here we have a very reasoned argument, looking at what effect replacement workers have on the process, this struggle that goes back and forth between labour and management in determining the collective bargaining process and in determining what is a fair contract. We've tied one hand behind the back on one side and let the other side go free. That's extremely unfortunate.

The minister opposite has stated -- and his argument is probably the worst argument he could possibly use for getting rid of replacement workers -- that it will stop violence on the picket line. We are not going to stop violence on the picket line by eliminating replacement workers. There are laws in this country. There's common law. Criminal law says that you don't assault someone. You don't drive over them with a truck, and you don't break their windshield. Let's enforce the laws in this province. We don't need to bring in this kind of regulation in order to stop that.

I could use an argument that's equally ridiculous to the one given by the minister by saying that because there's the risk of violence on the picket line, we should remove the right to strike. That makes as much sense as what the minister said. That is a faulty argument. People in this province have the right to strike, and employers have the right to hire replacement workers. That's the way it's been, and that's the way it should stay. We've just blown the minister's argument for replacement workers right out of the water. There's no justification for his findings, for the recommendations or for the incorporation of this piece of legislation.

I would like to look next at the provisions for certification.

It's nice that the member for Nanaimo is finally leaving. There's always more intelligent debate when he leaves.

The Speaker: Order! All hon. members will have an opportunity to enter into this debate, but the constant comments from both sides of the House when others are speaking make it very difficult for the Chair to hear the debate.

G. Farrell-Collins: I can assure you that the debate will be much more structured from now on. I'm just agreeing with you.

The next issue that I would like to look at -- and again it's an important one -- deals with the provisions and changes that have been made in the certification process here. This country has just gone through one of the most difficult processes that a country can go through. We just went through a referendum which tore families apart, made them disagree on certain issues and caused us a lot of heartache. We went through that referendum because we believe in the fundamental right of people to vote.

Why has this government removed the right of employees to vote on whether or not they want to join a union or be certified? Has the government learned nothing over the last six weeks? If one message came out of the whole referendum, it was that the people want the right to have a say, and that the government shouldn't assume what the people want to say. Last time they assumed what the people wanted to say, they were wrong, and they'll be proven wrong again. When the government removes the democratic, fundamental, individual right of employees to vote on whether or not they want to sign off their rights to a collective group, that is important. That is critical to the way democracy runs in this province.

The minister will argue. He'll say: "We haven't taken away the vote; we've reduced the vote. We have said that if you get 55 percent, that's such a huge majority that you should have automatic certification. But if you're somewhere in the middle 45 to 55 percent range, then we'll let you have a vote." That's nice hypothetical thinking, although it is flawed. We had this type of legislation at one point up to 40 years ago, as the minister said. The reality is that when you have that type of jurisdiction in place, the union that's trying to organize those workers will not apply for certification until they've got 55 percent. There's no stale dating on the cards. We just go on assembling and gathering the right percentage. Once we have reached 55 percent-plus and we're sure of it, then we apply for certification, and bang, we're certified.

An. Hon. Member: What's wrong with that?

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I'll tell the member what's wrong with that. First of all, you don't have a vote. Second of all, section 8, which the minister talked about, this incredibly important right for the employer to be able to communicate fairly and justly with the employee -- and I'm talking about fair communication....

[ Page 3670 ]

An Hon. Member: It's still there.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's still there. The minister talked about it and said that it was extremely important. Where is the opportunity for the employee to hear from the employer as to what the impact of that certification may be on that company, when he wakes up one morning and receives a notice from the IRC that he is certified? It has happened; it was automatic. Those union members are now certified, without the benefit of having the economic information that is critical to a British Columbian making an educated decision.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people being unionized or not, certified or not. The reality is that people need to be able to make that choice, and they need to be able to make an informed choice. The minister has removed that right, and that is fundamentally wrong. We've removed the right to vote, and with automatic certification, we've also removed the right to make an informed decision. That is wrong, and I think that the people of this province know it's wrong. The government will hear from them very shortly, on an ongoing basis, that it is wrong and that they don't like it.

One of the other arguments that we'll hear, and you'll hear, in the ongoing weeks and months is the fact that the reason -- and the minister used it -- we have to go to automatic certification is because of unfair labour practices that are taking place in this province. Because we have this ten-day period and there's a vote, it has allowed employers to use extreme methods and threats to ensure that employees are afraid to join a union. That has happened in this province. That's a shame, it's disgusting and it needs to be stopped. The question is: how do you stop it?

There are some very good recommendations in the report and some very good changes in this legislation that deal with unfair labour practices. We've speeded up the process whereby unfair labour practices can be heard and decided upon, and that's good. But why take away everybody's democratic right to vote because of a few employers who aren't acting properly, who are acting unfairly by lying, cheating and threatening their employees? Why take away democratic rights because some employers are unfair? What happened to the individual? Here we have the unions, labour and business causing the loss of fundamental democratic rights that belong to the individual because of some employers' inability to operate fairly. That's not right. Where was the individual when this discussion was going on?

There are lots of ways that we can deal with the unfair labour practices that have been going on. We can speed up the process, and we can tighten the window of opportunity for the vote. There are lots of ways that it can be done without removing the fundamental rights of the individual. I think this government lacks the respect or understanding of what fundamental individual rights are, as opposed to collective rights, and that is very unfortunate. We're taking a step backwards here, not a step forward.

[3:30]

Before we get on to certification, I want to bring up the other half of the item, which of course is decertification. What happens when employees decide that they no longer want to be certified by a particular third party? Then the rules are different; then we can have a vote. Why can we have a vote on decertification but not on certification? There's a problem there. Why is there no parallel process? Do we then assume that if employers use unfair practices, unions never do; that there's never any coercion on behalf of unions? That's not true. There are bad apples in both barrels. You cannot blame one side for the labour disruptions in this province. You cannot blame one side; both sides are equally to blame. So if a vote is fine for decertification, why is a vote not fine for certification? It's a legitimate question. I'd love to hear someone on the other side stand up and answer that question. I'd like to hear the minister address it.

The next item that I'd like to deal with is the old section 35 and the old section 38, which deal with employer rights.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I see I have confused the members opposite, because they're having some trouble rationalizing why votes should be taken away in one case and not the other. Maybe they should go in caucus and think that one out and then come back.

I'll go on, if I may, to one of the other provisions that dealt with something called employer rights. I know that particular section was fairly offensive to organized labour in this province when it was brought in, and in some ways perhaps justifiably so. If nothing else, the title I'm sure, offended them -- the thought that employers would have rights.

But we have just seen an example in this province today -- before we even got into second reading.... We had this tabled yesterday, and in less than 24 hours we've seen our first casualties of this legislation -- 1,100 unionized jobs at the Balmer mine in this province are gone because of this piece of legislation.

An Hon. Member: Not true.

G. Farrell-Collins: It is true. I would love to read a letter that I think is critical to the debate and extremely timely. It was written to the Leader of the Opposition from the stakeholders' association. They were dealing with the Balmer mine and the association was made up of the community and the workers that are involved in the ongoing negotiations to try to ensure that one of the resource towns in this country -- one of the many that are in dire straits -- is going to have a second chance, is going to have a second kick at the cat to revitalize, to bring in a new infusion of capital, to become more competitive, to get involved and actually compete and provide jobs for the people in this province. It's something we hear the Premier talk a lot about but see absolutely no action on.

I'd like to read from that letter. It says: "Dear Mr. Wilson" -- and by the way, I do have permission of the Leader of the Opposition to read this, unlike members of the government when they read letters. It says:

[ Page 3671 ]

"Attached please find a copy of our news release which we announced to all media and our association members at 2 p.m. today." A little over an hour and a half ago.

"We are disappointed that the Balmer Stakeholder's Association was unable to submit a bid to purchase the Balmer mine because of new labour legislation introduced yesterday."

These are workers complaining about the legislation of this government. And it goes on:

"In a time of high unemployment and labour unrest in our province, the Balmer Stakeholder's Association felt we had an opportunity to change the adversarial climate that Westar Mining and the unions had for so many years."

This is exactly what the minister was saying he's been trying to achieve. We see that he has gone in the wrong direction and has done just the opposite.

"Our association worked harmoniously to bring the project to the bid process. We volunteered our time, used our own money, involved the communities, our spouses and children to try and develop a plan that would induce change and success for the Balmer mine.

"You can imagine how our members are feeling this afternoon, in the final hour we were cut off at the knees. Each member committed to contribute 10 percent of their salary to purchase a share in the Balmer mine, and every member committed to contribute 1 percent of their pension moneys to establish a fund for the people who would not regain employment. This fund was to be used for outplacement services and retraining opportunities" -- something this government has yet to provide.

[Mr. Barnes in the chair.]

"Mr. Wilson, I understand the labour government's philosophies, but I fail to understand how any government can stifle people who came together because of the adversarial labour climate in the Elk Valley and attempt to introduce change. We would have been a model which the province could have used to demonstrate what working together could achieve. The new legislation may discourage future investment into our province.

I repeat: "The new legislation may discourage future investment into our province." These are unionized workers speaking.

"We have lost our jobs, houses and families because of the labour unrest in the Elk Valley. Many people will not regain employment at the Balmer mine due to the new legislation."

Hon. Speaker, that is disgusting.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, it's interesting to hear members of the NDP castigating union members for writing to the Liberal opposition to have their individual and collective rights defended. That's extremely unusual. I would like to continue in that vein and with that example. This sets up the next issue I'd like to look at, and that deals with employer rights and the discussions I've had.

When a person or a company goes bankrupt in this province, their contractual obligations are normally severed. A bankrupt company or individual no longer has the ability to fulfil those contractual obligations. That's why they're bankrupt in the first place. With these changes in the labour code -- and we've seen the effects within 24 hours of the bill being tabled -- we have said that in cases of bankruptcy, successor rights exist. When the new employer or group of investors make a decision concerning whether or not they are going to come into the various regions of this province and infuse their capital in a mine or any type of industry that has gone bankrupt -- to revitalize and upgrade it; to bring in new technologies, marketing plans and processes; to employ workers who were laid off and to bring back and revitalize individual communities and the regional economies of this province -- those people now have to take into consideration the fact that whether the union wants it or not, they will have to take up the collective agreement where the other company left it off.

Any responsible employer is going to know that when they go into a section like that, there's a history of labour relations. It may be good or it may be bad, but there's certainly a history of labour relations in that town or corporation. They will have to ensure that the workers they hire back are happy, that they're not taking advantage of them and that they maintain some level of responsibility towards them. That's critical. A smart and intelligent employer will do that automatically anyway.

But where is the flexibility to try to restructure a company that's just been through bankruptcy? How can they adapt? There have obviously been some problems with that company. Yes, some of it may have been because of poor management. Some of it may have been because world markets have changed or because it was a poor collective agreement. Why does the company lose flexibility? They can negotiate new contracts with suppliers and the people they sell their products to, they can negotiate new contracts with their management, but they cannot negotiate new flexible contracts with their employees. Why? That makes absolutely no economic sense in a province that's going through some difficult times, certainly in the resource sector. Why bring in that type of legislation now? It's disastrous legislation. It's going in the wrong direction. We've seen today that it has already caused 1,100 jobs to go poof into the air. It's extremely unfortunate.

There are other items we need to look at in this agreement. One of them is the concept of first collective agreements. The minister spoke quite eloquently about that. I too think it's important that once individuals have collected themselves into a group, have asked for certification and have asked to be represented by a third party, they should be able to achieve a contract in a reasonable length of time. To a great extent the legislative changes that were agreed to in this package are fairly good. The problem is that when we look at that legislation, it tilts in favour of labour -- not in a huge way, but in a subtle way.

I want to explain why. If we were to read through the section -- I could go through it, but I'm sure members are familiar with it by now -- when we're looking at first collective agreements, it says that the first thing the 

[ Page 3672 ]

two parties have to do is to try on their own to reach a collective agreement. I think that's important, and that's the way it should work.

But if the talks break down and a strike vote is taken, then we bring in the mediators. Why is it that the union can have a strike vote, pass it and force it into mediation, and the employer has no right to call for mediation on their part? If we're going to implement the fair and balanced labour legislation that the minister talked about, let's make it fair, let's make it balanced and let's make it work for both sides. Why make it work for just one side?

The whole idea of first collective agreements and trying to ensure that there's a reasonably good time period when a first collective agreement can be arranged is, I think, a laudable goal. But by putting into the hands of the union the timing of when they go to mediation -- and then have a very short time frame -- we move very quickly into the risk of an imposed settlement put upon the company by the IRC or by whoever the mediator is. Why is it the union that can pull the plug on that? Why is it the union that determines when that's going to take place? Why can't the employer just as easily say: "Look, this is going on too long. It's causing us all sorts of hassles here. We're obviously not getting anywhere; we're not getting agreement. Let's go to a mediator." Why can't the employer do that? Why is there no fairness? Why is there no balance? I think it's something we need to look at when we get into committee stage and look for an amendment to that one section.

The other item that I'd like to look at is the issue of secondary boycotts. We've seen some changes in the legislation; sections 4.1 and 9.1 of the previous legislation have been repealed. Again, this is one of those examples where it's not what the bill says but what the bill doesn't say that's so important. They've removed sections of the legislation that prohibited corporations and unions from negotiating in their contract the provisions for a secondary boycott.

The question is: is that fair? I don't think it's fair, hon. Speaker, and I'll tell you why. I'll give a very good example. We have a government that virtually collapsed on their knees in front of the BCGEU this summer and gave them absolutely everything they asked for in a contract. It's costing the taxpayers of this province $123 million to pay for it. We have a government that is supposed to be going into negotiation with the BCGEU and coming up with some reasonable agreement that's going to benefit all British Columbians, not just the people who got this government elected. With the secondary boycott provision here, we can see what's going to happen. Let's take a tangible example, and let's look at what's going to happen in this province. You can almost guarantee that the number one item on the bargaining agenda of the BCGEU in the next arrangement is going to be a secondary boycott provision, so that they can negotiate a secondary boycott with their friendly government. Therefore from then on, as long as the collective agreement goes on and as long as this government remains in power -- and I don't know if it will be very long -- any supplier who wants to supply the government will have to unionize, whether the workers want it or not.

Once again, the rights of the individual in this province are put aside by the interests of this government and by the parochial interests of the people who got them elected. That is extremely unfortunate, and I think it's a shame. This government says: "We fight for the working people in this province." What they don't tell you is: "...as long as they've got a union card."

What about all the workers who aren't unionized? What about all the workers who don't want to be in a union? Why can't the individual workers in this province choose? Why do we have this government engaging in top-down organization and top-down certification, despite the wishes of the individual working men and women of this province? I think that's a shame.

Hon. Speaker, I've just been passed a note that I'm supposed to inform you that I'm the designated speaker on this bill. I'm sorry I didn't do that at the beginning. I hope that clarifies it. I'm sure I'll be finished before my two hours is up, which will make the member opposite very happy. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member opposite wants to know if I'm going to vote in favour of or against this bill. I can tell the member that I will vote against the individual sections of this bill that harm the economy of this province; and if the whole bill isn't changed, I'll vote against the whole bill. Now that he has his answer maybe he'll be quiet so we can get on with the debate.

[3:45]

The other item that we need to look at, of course, is the provisions for essential services. This is an important argument, and I know it's complex for the members opposite to understand.

J. Tyabji: Speak slowly, Gary.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will speak slowly. It's important that they understand this. Again, I want to come back to what was said earlier with regard to the new section 2 and the removal of this competitive market economy, which is such an affront to the NDP. I wonder if the Premier informed the people he talked to in Hong Kong, Geneva and wherever in his globetrotting tours that British Columbia is no longer a competitive market economy.

Here's another thing that's been done -- again, not what's in the bill but what's now not in the bill. Two provisions have been taken out of the designation of essential services: one is education -- it is no longer an essential service in this province once this bill has passed; the other is that an economic threat to this province is no longer sufficient to designate something as an essential service. The minister and the Premier yesterday, and the minister again today, stood up and talked so much about how this labour legislation is an integral pillar of the industrial strategy for this province. They've talked about the economy: jobs. We're 

[ Page 3673 ]

going to forget the constitution. Nobody wants to think about the constitution anymore, least of all this government, and we're going to go back to jobs and the economy. Well, then, why is an economic threat to the existence of British Columbia, to the economy of this province, no longer a reason for an essential service? The fact that that's never been used in the five years it's been in the bill doesn't mean that there won't come a time when we need to have that type of legislation there.

This binds the minister's hands from ensuring that essential services in this province are maintained. We had a problem this spring where we had a strike in this province and the health of individuals was put at risk time after time after time. I, the member for Richmond East and other members of this caucus stood up and asked the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health when they were finally going to step in and ensure that adequate levels of essential services were maintained for the health of the people of this province. They refused time after time to do that, and that is a shame.

Here we have a government that won't even use what's in there, when it's a question of the health of British Columbians; they won't even use what's in the legislation to protect the average British Columbian's health, because they're worried about offending some people that got them elected. That's a shame, and it's disgusting. It really is. When are they going to take responsibility for this? How can we ever expect this government to have realistic levels of essential services in this province? How are we ever going to get them to talk about the economic threats to this province? How are we ever going to get them to use this section of the legislation realistically, when instead of improving it, making it more responsive, putting pressure on the minister and giving the minister responsibilities to protect the individual rights and the health of people in British Columbia, they're going in the opposite direction? What type of a signal does that send to all those people on waiting lists for six months because of the strike in this province? What does it say to the people who spent days in the hallway, in some cases without food for certain meals? They go home from the hospital, and they sit there and they say....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Meals without food, hon. member.

Hon. Speaker, what does it say to those people who thought, after their trying experience, that the government might have finally learnt a lesson, when they see this type of change in essential services in legislation in this province? It's really extremely worrying and upsetting to the majority of British Columbians -- maybe not to the 40 percent who continually vote NDP and who voted this government in this time, but to the rest of the people of this province who don't care for this government but whom this government still has a responsibility to. This government has to learn that it has to govern for all British Columbians and not just for their friends and insiders.

There is one other important issue. Perhaps it indicates most of all the overall trend that this legislation is taking. As I've been going through this legislation for the past 24 hours, reading through it, going over it again and again and consulting with a wide range of people, I've come to get a sense of the whole strategy behind this legislation. It's like the government has constructed a room. They've put in the plug-ins, the telephone jacks and places; they've got it all mapped out on the floor where the desk, the couch and all the furniture are going to go. It's all ready; it's all prepared -- that's what this legislation is about -- so that next year, the year after and the year after that, it can bring in different pieces of furniture, different modules of labour legislation and just insert them.

We heard the minister stand up and say today that sectoral bargaining and certification are on their way. What else is coming this way? This government has tried to bargain with the business people of this province and say: "Gee, we won't put sectoral certification and bargaining in there, if you don't come down too hard on us this time." To be honest, the business people heaved a huge sigh of relief and said: "Wow! Thank God you haven't brought this in."

But what they perhaps don't realize -- or maybe they do realize it, but they're just optimistic people -- is that this government has got the other pack of the legislation sitting in the other pocket, and it's ready to come in the next time this House sits. This labour legislation is not a one-shot deal. The provisions and the recommendations of the report for this labour legislation say that there should be an annual review and that there should be a report to the minister every year on what additional changes should be made to the labour legislation.

To be honest, hon. Speaker, if it were any other government, it wouldn't worry me a bit, because I think labour legislation should be changed, updated and looked at every year so we don't have these massive overhauls once every five, six or ten years. It's important that we take it on an ongoing basis. But the problem is: what type of changes is this government going to make? The real key is all those items that the minister talked about in his horse-trading of legislation: "Well, we gave business this, and we gave labour this. We didn't give business this, but instead we gave labour this." The reality is that all those little things they didn't put in this bill are sitting there waiting to come. They're in the slot on their way down, and they're going to be plugged in here. The rest of the furniture is going to be brought into the room next year.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The hon. member says I don't know that. Perhaps she wasn't listening when the minister stood up and said that sectoral bargaining is on its way. He stood up and said that right here. Perhaps she doesn't attend caucus meetings -- I don't know. But the minister informed us. I assume he's also informed his caucus of what's coming up.

Hon. Speaker, this is not the end. We heard the Minister of Labour say yesterday in his press confer-

[ Page 3674 ]

ence: "At this time this is what we're doing with labour legislation; at this time we're not bringing in this." But the reality is that it's coming. It's on the way, and we know it's on the way.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, we really must be offending the members opposite. They must be getting really worried, because the more vocal they get....

An Hon. Member: A boring piece of legislation.

G. Farrell-Collins: I wish it was a boring piece of legislation; the fact is that it's not boring. It's going to be disastrous for this province in the long run. It's going to put people out of business; it's going to put employers out of work. That's where this government is headed. We've seen the wisdom of the Labour minister with his fair wage policy. All we have to do is look at that as one of ten different things this minister has done in the last 18 months to know that his judgment and his ability to make rational decisions are not always there. We had fair wage legislation brought in, and the reason I'm referring to it is that we need to see what the mind-set of the minister is when he develops labour legislation. He brought in a fair wage policy. I don't know if he has talked to his Minister of Advanced Education or not, but the reality is, according to his own administrator of the policy, that 5,000 construction workers in this province are going to be thrown out of work January 1 because they won't be able to work on government contracts because this Minister of Advanced Education has not provided the funding necessary to ensure that they receive their journeyman or apprenticeship certification prior to that date. Is that proper planning? Is that the type of thing we're going to see develop as this labour legislation evolves? I hope not, but given the judgment of the minister of late, I would assume that that is exactly what we're going to see. We've already seen it today as a matter of fact: 1,100 union workers coming to the Liberal Party to complain about the NDP government and its labour legislation. This is the mind-set of this government, this cabinet and this caucus when they're bringing out labour legislation. They can't get past the fact that there are more people in this province than those who donated to their campaign -- and they have to do that.

One of the last issues I'd like to look at as far as labour-management relations go deals with the provision in the section about technological change that talks about compulsory ongoing consultation between employers and unions on workplace issues when one party requests it. I think, if you look at it on the surface, you can say that anybody in a company that wants to be progressive certainly will work with their employees to ensure that they're productive and efficient and that the company is moving forward. I just think that any company does that if they're smart, if they want to remain competitive these days. But why would the government legislate it and say: "You must speak to your employees" -- not your employees, mind you; your union representatives -- "on an ongoing basis about any issues that apply to the workplace"? Why on earth would the government want to legislate that? It goes back....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Read the bill. The member obviously hasn't done his research. He doesn't even know his own bill. He brought it in. He's a member of caucus.

We had a Premier's summit in this province some time ago, which was probably a laudable idea, and a good number of the business community attended because they wanted to know what was on the mind of this government. What they heard was that competition is a bad word in B.C., that competitive economy is a bad term in B.C. And the other one they've been hearing is "co-determination" or "co-management." If you want to manage a company, you put your money down, you buy shares and you get involved in the company. That's the way we do things in this province. Why would the government want to legislate the fact that they can force management and unions -- not workers; it says unions -- to get down and discuss the day-to-day operation of the company? Why enforce that? What's the point, unless there is some sort of overall plan here that we're moving away from a competitive market economy in British Columbia and now we're going to have co-determination or co-management? Where are we headed? It helps to put the whole bill in context as to what the idea, the mind-set, of this government is for the economy of B.C. in the future. I just hope that the next time the Premier jaunts around this country and around the world -- to Geneva, to Hong Kong and to Tokyo -- he takes a copy of Bill 84 and hands it out to make sure that he's also telling them what's in Bill 84.

An Hon. Member: You better hope he doesn't.

G. Farrell-Collins: You're right. The member is correcting me. I should hope that he doesn't do that, because what will happen to international investment in B.C. is that it will slow to a trickle and come to a complete stop. If the Premier was being forthright with those investors and the Minister of Finance was being forthright with the people he just visited in London, they would have told them what was coming in the form of labour legislation in this province and would have advised them what to watch out for. They will figure it out on their own, but I can tell you that any more jaunts by the Premier or the Minister of Finance will be an absolute waste of money, because they're not going to draw any more investment into this province with this type of legislation.

The last item I want to bring up is the most important of all, and the members of the NDP should listen to it because it is important. Why does this government -- which says that it stands up for the rights of working men and women in this province -- not have a provision in here for an ombudsman? Why is there no provision for a labour ombudsman?

[4:00]

[ Page 3675 ]

The report was unanimous and said that we don't need to have a labour ombudsman. We'll just make some changes in the grievance process -- mind you, there are some good changes there -- and that's enough. We'll just institute a process and sort of cobble it together, and that will be enough to ensure that the rights of the individual workers are maintained. Well, that's not good enough.

The reason we have an ombudsman at all in British Columbia -- and the members opposite were integral in selecting the person who is the ombudsperson in this province -- is for when all those systems break down and don't work properly, and when somebody falls through the cracks, gets chewed up and falls out the bottom. That's what the ombudsman is there for: to come in, pick the person up and give him another chance to get some reasonable advocacy to go in there and try to sort things out.

If we advocate an ombudsman for all the other things the government and our society do, why don't we have one to deal with the labour code? What's wrong with it? Just because big labour, big business and Mr. Ready say that they don't think it's necessary, that doesn't mean the individual worker in this province wouldn't like to see it. That's where the government once again has to get its head out of the sand and realize that there are more people involved in labour legislation in this province. There are more people affected than just management and unions. There are individuals in this province, and the individual rights of people in this province have to be respected. That's why there should be a labour ombudsman in this bill. It's not there, and that is extremely unfortunate.

This bill is not necessarily so bad for what's there now; it's bad for what's coming and for what's not there. All of those things we talked about that have been taken out of the bill -- market economy, essential services and secondary boycott -- are critical to a vibrant economy in this province. All of those things are critical to ensure that this province can continue to be competitive in a global market that's changing on a daily basis. The Premier talks about that all the time.

Why does the Premier talk about all of these things? He talks about investment, jobs and all of these wonderful things he wants to do for B.C. But when the chips are down, when the legislation is on the table and when it comes out, we see what the real agenda of this government is. We see who their friends are, who their insiders are and who got them elected.

I would caution people in this province to read this bill very carefully, spend some time with it, look at what's there, look at what's not there and ensure that it's the best for the economy of B.C. I would ask the people of this province to take as much time going through this labour bill as they did with the Charlottetown agreement. If the people of this province spend as much time on this labour bill as they did on the Charlottetown accord, there would be much greater opposition to this bill. In fact, if the minister would like to put this bill to a referendum, I'm sure he'd lose that one too. It's important that the people of this province involve themselves in this bill. We need to know where we're going with this.

We will be speaking for some time in the future, as the debate goes on, about the need for consultation not just before the bill is drafted.... Believe me, I agree that the process was a fairly good one leading up to the point where the bill was tabled, but that's just the beginning. There's an awful lot more to it than that. You don't just come out with a hunk of legislation and throw it on the table and say: that's it, sorry, no changes. You throw the bill out for discussion. You send it to a parliamentary committee. You get it out there in circulation. You make sure the people have their right to comment, a chance to think about it. And you make sure that we get the best piece of legislation we can in this province, not something that has been put together with no chance for review once it has been tabled. It's important that there be an ongoing process as far as this labour bill is concerned. It's important that the debate continue. It's important that the people involve themselves for the sake of jobs in this province and for the sake of the economy.

Hon. Speaker, I would ask the minister to consider some of the things we've talked about today, particularly the individual rights that are not represented in this bill: the individual democratic right to vote, the individual rights that would be respected by an ombudsman, and the individual rights we've talked about as far as secondary boycotts and top-down organization goes. If there's one thing I want to give the minister, it's not to forget about average British Columbians, who are not big union or big management but somewhere in between and just wanting their rights protected. Hon. Speaker, if the minister gets one message out of this debate, as it goes on for months, I would certainly hope that he would continue to do that.

L. Fox: I rise to speak on the philosophy and the principles of Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code. I think the biggest concern that I have is about the timing of the bill. It's extremely unfortunate that only last Monday our Premier told the people of British Columbia that he was going to shift the focus of this government onto the economy, which in my mind -- and I'm sure in the minds of most British Columbians -- for the last six months has been the number one concern. However, I'm sure it provides little confidence, given his dismal performance at the negotiating table of the Charlottetown accord.

I'm sure it gives very little comfort to our unemployed or those who are on welfare, as well as to those who are looking for a place to invest, when the day after he makes this statement the Minister of Labour tables the most dictatorial, draconian legislation of this sitting, legislation that clearly is the first step in a huge payoff to its union friends. Hon. Speaker, this borders on conflict.... Here we have this NDP government in partnership with our union leaders, who all contributed substantially to the election campaign of this NDP government -- union leaders who have stood hand in hand on a stage for all British Columbians to see and called our Premier "brother." Bringing forward this legislation usurps the individual's fundamental democratic right to have a secret ballot on certification. It's odd to see that the same request is not put forward with 

[ Page 3676 ]

respect to decertification. In my view, and in the view of the individuals of British Columbia, this will be a very obvious double standard. There is no question in my mind that this is the biggest political payoff in our province's history. This legislation, and the fixed-wage policy, along with the long list of very expensive patronage appointments, has been an appalling example of how this NDP government has been paying off political hacks and union friends for their financial support in the election of a year ago.

However, the people of British Columbia are not going to accept this. They may not oppose this bill as vigorously as we would have hoped, probably because the government did an effective job in building the right climate by proposing and suggesting that this bill was going to carry in it such items as sectorial bargaining, and then brought in a bill that has a less of an impact than was expected.

I suspect that British Columbians know who provides this NDP government with its leadership. It's not the Premier; it's not the cabinet. We know that from the lack of performance in the negotiations of the accord. The results on October 26 tell me and, I'm sure, even the backbenchers on the government side that British Columbians have no confidence in this Premier's ability to lead the province. How could we have confidence in him to lead this province out of a recession or, for that matter, to show any leadership at all? I believe that the crisis we face in our health care is further evidence of that lack of leadership.

Bill 84 takes us back to 1974, during the Dave Barrett government. We go back 18 years as though nothing had changed. Those dark years from 1972 to 1975 are years that most people in British Columbia who are old enough to remember are trying hard to forget. Oddly enough, if we examine why the Barrett government was thrown out of office, it was because the labour laws of that NDP government created such havoc through the loss of work hours and through lost jobs that labour itself turned on the NDP government and threw them out.

Let's take a minute to look at the process and what led up to the tabling of this bill. It's not unlike the process that led up to the Charlottetown accord. This government struck a committee to go around the province on the pretence of seeking public input, then threw all that away and utilized only what suited its own agenda. This bill, however, was drafted in concert with the union leaders and a three-member panel. It did not consist of anybody representing the interests of the average British Columbian. It did not consist of anybody looking after the interests of small business. It did not consist of anybody other than big business and two individuals who were known to be supporters of this government.

This government knows that it does not have the support of most British Columbians, and therefore that it would not be able to fulfil its IOUs to the union leaders. Why else would they form a committee of special advisers consisting of those three men? I'm sure they're very honourable individuals, but one does represent big business, which is already largely unionized within the province of British Columbia. There was a big void in that process. The small business sector has provided over 90 percent of the new jobs in this province, and British Columbia has brought forward 50 percent of those jobs....

This is not a legitimate process. It is seriously flawed and designed totally to facilitate this government's social agenda. Why the rush? Why not find out how all workers in British Columbia feel about the loss of their democratic right? Was this a time frame designed to meet the B.C. Fed convention, so that the promise the Premier made when in opposition, when Bill 19 came to be -- to remove it the minute he was Premier -- was in fact fulfilled? Or was it because there was labour unrest in the province caused by Bill 19? Let's examine some of the facts.

[4:15]

If we look at 1987, public sector settlements averaged a 2.4 percent increase, while the private sector averaged an 0.9 increase, a different of 1.5 percent. In 1991 the gap separating the public sector and the private sector wage increase narrowed to 1 percent, a trend that was healthy for the economy of British Columbia because it brought the public sector closer to the government's ability to pay. Between 1986 and 1992 there was a 90 percent drop in lost worker-days and work stoppages, something that prior to 1986 was extremely hampering to the economy of British Columbia. I sit here and admire daily how much the Finance minister recognizes that B.C. is the fastest-growing province in Canada. We have the fastest-growing economy. You know, we have to be thankful for bills such as Bill 19, which helped to provide that climate for positive investment and stability in the workplace.

Let's look at some more statistics created by Bill 19. During its time, from 1986 to 1992, there was a 16 percent increase in union membership -- fairly healthy growth, I think. Nearly 40 percent of B.C.'s workplace today is unionized; that's up from 37 percent in 1989. I trust that the people will see that the unions have not been treated harshly by that bill. In fact, what it has provided is good, solid employer-employee relationships in the workplace.

In 1991 -- this is something that speaks directly to the loss of the individual's right to vote -- there were 299 certification votes, 75 of which were successful; 25 were not. Bill 84 will now not allow those 25 to have their say. It takes away their right to work in a place they wish to work in, under the conditions they wish to work under. They no longer have that right.

How have we done in the last year under this government? By 1992's third quarter, public wage sector increases were more than double those in the private sector. In only the first nine months of this year, the number of work stoppages has already surpassed post-Bill 19 days. It seems to me that through this draconian legislation, this government has hindered the opportunities to grow, not helped them.

Today the unemployment rate is up almost one percentage point from September 1991. The unemployment rate for youth aged 15 to 19 was up sharply in September 1992 from one year ago. By the same token, in 1991 unemployment was up 14 percent over 1987. In 1990, B.C. created almost 40 percent of all new jobs in 

[ Page 3677 ]

Canada, as I stated earlier. The labour force has increased by 12 percent from 1987 to 1991, while unemployment has increased 14 percent over the same period.

I submit to you that the rush to bring this forward is because of the Premier's and this government's agenda, not in the best interests of British Columbians. As I looked back through Hansard, I found a quote made on April 9, 1987, by the present Minister of Labour. I think it bears as much relevance today as it did then.

"The basic impression is that this labour legislation is causing chaos.

"Therefore it seems to me prudent, in light of our desire to achieve...economic development and in light of our own recognition of the need for harmonious labour-management relations in this province, to vote in favour of the motion that's on the floor right now, to delay the passage of this bill for a period of six months, with the hope that the minister will see fit to come back a second time with legislation that adequately deals with the concerns of all the parties."

Hon. G. Clark: Are you going to move a motion?

L. Fox: Yes. With that, hon. Speaker, I would move that the motion by the minister that Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code, be read a second time now be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."

Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member wishes to proceed, the Chair will consider his motion.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I so move the motion.

Deputy Speaker: On the amendment which reads: "That the motion by the minister that Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code, be read a second time now, be amended by leaving out the word 'now' and adding the words 'on this day six months hence.'"

On the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak to the hoist motion. There seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that there would be great merit in us considering this legislation for a period of six months. My experience in this House over the past six years has been that the best legislation introduced in this House has been put forward, tabled for consideration and voted on at some future date. There is no question about that. There was legislation passed over the last six years, good legislation and bad, but indeed the legislation -- the best legislation -- is legislation that has stood the test of examination before it was put forward. Indeed, I suggest that whether or not they are prepared to allow examination, allow for consideration, and allow for public comment is a test of the confidence that a minister has in the legislation. If a minister and a government are comfortable with the legislation that they have developed, then clearly they would put it out for consideration.

This legislation has been considered and drafted by the so-called three wise men -- and it's interesting that they are men, given some of the comments by this government previously -- who in fact represent labour, big business and the arbitration sector. Indeed, there has been no opportunity for small business to consider the implications of this legislation -- legislation that is indeed very well drafted. I will give full marks to whoever drafted the legislation. As I look back at the submissions made by the B.C. Fed to this government, I suspect that more than the minister will raise their hands. Indeed, Mr. Georgetti, I am sure, feels flushed with pride to hear that kind of compliment about his work. Indeed, the work that has been done by the three parties who made recommendations clearly played a major part in drafting this legislation.

We have here a bill with more than 100 changes to the Labour Code -- a massive bill by any test, a bill large enough to have motivated the government to call a special session of the Legislature, a session called simply to deal with this one piece of legislation. It would have been far more courageous of this government to have tabled this legislation for consideration this fall and for debate at the normal spring session. The question has to be: what's the rush? Why is the government in such a hurry to bring this legislation forward? What crisis is motivating this?

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: It's interesting that the Minister of Labour just said it was to pay off his election debts. There are moments of truth in this House, and I think we just witnessed one. The minister said -- unfortunately not from his own seat, so Hansard will not record it -- that the purpose of this legislation was to pay off their election debts. We heard it from the source. Hey, I don't think many on this side doubt you. I don't think you have to convince us; I think we're sold; I think we believe it. As a matter of fact, I think we understood it before we got here. Mr. Minister, we were ahead of you. We figured it out before you did. We understood.

The members say that in fact they should proceed quickly with this legislation. I wonder what motivation there could be. Let's look at the labour history of British Columbia since Bill 19 was introduced. What we have had is unprecedented labour peace in British Columbia since 1987, and with it we've had unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. British Columbia, in the period from 1987 until the election in 1991, enjoyed the strongest economy in this country. We enjoyed the largest economic growth, we created the vast majority of the jobs. With 12 percent of the population in this country -- 12 percent of the population is in British Columbia -- we were creating 50 percent of the new jobs. This in a labour climate that is in crisis? The members would suggest that there is some crisis or emergency to go forward. I suggest that this is not the case.

The minister suggested in his opening remarks that indeed the consultation was done before the bill was introduced, that the three wise men travelled around British Columbia and sought input from interested parties. First of all, let's understand that when this kind of consultation takes place, there's nothing there for 

[ Page 3678 ]

them to grapple with. It is very similar to the consultation that preceded the Charlottetown discussions; the kind of consultation where you go out with a blank piece of paper and ask British Columbians and interested individuals to tell us what they think of a subject. There's nothing for them to study, nothing about which they can say: "We like this and we don't like that."

Instead, a group of people went around and talked to the specialists. They talked to the union representatives; they talked to the labour practitioners; they talked to big business. But there was no opportunity or motivation for a small business person or interested individual to come out and say that they would like to see this happen or wouldn't like to see that. The consultation, if it's to be meaningful, has to take place after some document has been tabled, after some suggestions have been made.

Indeed, as we talked about Bill 19 almost five years ago, members of the opposition were calling for more consultation. I'll quote the member who is now the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. He said in this House on April 13: "I don't care if you listen to 700 briefs, or 7,000. If you do not heed the people of this province bringing you the substance of their concerns about labour legislation, then it can't really be called consultation. It's consultation in name only." That applies in spades. I hope the minister will stand up and make the same kind of comments about the legislation that's been introduced by his government.

Indeed, the current Minister of Finance had a few things to say about consultation on Bill 19. When the hoist motion was raised -- the NDP raised a hoist motion on Bill 19, or two or three of them as I recall -- this is what the now Minister of Finance had to say: "How can someone be against delaying for six months such a controversial piece of legislation?" I throw the question back to him. Why would he say no at that time?

He says we've got to be free to exercise our individual rights as members and vote in favour of this hoist motion. The Minister of Finance in 1987 was admonishing the members of the government not to vote along the lines of party discipline but to feel free to exercise their individual rights, to exercise free votes on this issue. I'm sure that each and every one of the back-bench government members will understand now that when they stand up and support this hoist motion, as they should, there will be no retribution from the Premier-in-waiting at the next caucus meeting. He will indeed recognize that he made the same kind of comment in 1987.

[4:30]

I'm just going to give one other quote, because you'll all love this one. It comes from someone who is so articulate -- the now member for Nanaimo. He said: "What's the rush? Where is the current crisis? Show us, please, what is on the horizon threatening to engulf us all and destroy our precious bodily essences?" -- or some such thing. I thought he kind of lost it just at the end of the sentence, but at one point there one can envision him in full flight in support of the hoist motion.

The arguments that were solid arguments then are equally and perhaps more solid and appropriate today. Surely if we as legislators have learned anything in the last six weeks, we should have learned that British Columbians and Canadians want to be consulted. Not only do they want to be consulted and heard, they want to be listened to. They want an opportunity to involve themselves in meaningful changes to the way we govern ourselves; and surely in British Columbia, changes to labour legislation would fall into that category.

There are all kinds of good solid reasons to go out with this piece of legislation and allow everyone who is going to be affected by it to comment on it. There should be an opportunity for small business people and people who work in non-organized, non-unionized small businesses to consider the implications of secondary boycotts and to consider what will happen when their employer attempts to provide goods and services to a company that has included in their agreement a prohibition of dealing with non-union goods and services. Someone will say to this small business person: "If you want to sell to our company, our union agreement requires that you be unionized." And the employer will say: "Gosh, maybe we have to do that. We only have two or three major customers. They all appear to be embracing this notion, so whether or not I want to see my company unionized and whether or not my employees are interested in joining a union, if any of us are going to survive, we are going to have to make that decision." That is top-down organization.

It would be appropriate for small business people around this province and those employed in those small businesses to have a few months to consider the implications of this one of a 100-plus sections of this legislation. I think, too, of those people who have been involved in organizing drives and who have seen repeated attempts in their particular place of business to certify, those employees who have consistently resisted the pressure to certify by the use of secret ballot and some, no doubt, who have succumbed to the pressure to sign a certification card, knowing that: "Look, I'm going to get these guys to leave me alone. I'll sign the card. I don't want the peer pressure that comes with these three or four fellows around telling me that I should sign up and that if I'm going to be a good guy, I'm going to sign the card. I'll do it. I'll put that behind me, because I know that before any significant certification event takes place, I'm going to have an opportunity, as I do on election day, to go into a secret ballot box and mark my yes or no, and nobody will ever know how I voted."

And what a fundamental, democratic process. What could be more fundamental to us as Canadians and British Columbians than the right to decide secretly, without intimidation and pressure from either side, either from the employer or the organizers for the union that was attempting to certify -- than for each and every member of that company to have one minute in the ballot booth, free from intimidation and peer pressure, to decide yes or no. How anyone would want to abandon that basic principle is beyond me. I really cannot understand why we would change that. Unfor-

[ Page 3679 ]

tunately, though, that same democratic right is preserved when you go to decertify. You're not trusted simply to sign a card -- 55 percent of you -- and decertify. When employees are dissatified with their union and want to decertify, for some reason it is important that there be that little quiet moment when you get to the ballot box and mark your ballot without any intimidation. It's difficult to understand.

That is something that would bear examination and public discussion over six months, as the Minister of Finance said. How in the world can anybody be against delaying such a controversial piece of legislation for six months? This minister couldn't understand it then, and apparently he can't understand it now.

What is the panic? What is the rush? The economy grew under the current legislation. British Columbia led the country in job growth, wage-rate increases, employment opportunities and reduced taxation and public debt. All of those things were happening in an economic climate that our current legislation contributed to. So why are we dealing with this issue as if it were a crisis? Why are we calling back the Legislature to deal with this as if it were such a burning issue that couldn't wait until the normal spring sitting of the Legislature? What is the rush? That is the question. Why are we pushing ahead so single-mindedly with this one piece of legislation?

I've also singled out some quotes of Bill 19 debates from the Minister of Government Services, which I'm sure we will be using quite regularly over the next few weeks. One of the great things about this House is that it's kind of like a wheel: it goes around and around. Sometimes you sit on one side; sometimes you sit on the other. Sometimes you argue for, and sometimes you argue against. Sometimes those arguments get used against you, get thrown back in your face. It's rather pleasant for me to look across and recognize so many of those people in cabinet who were shrill on this subject three or four years ago and who now find themselves in a great change of position, of mind and of mood.

Hon. L. Boone: I'll never be shrill.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says that she'll never be shrill. I guess only those who are close to you could answer that for sure.

We have leaders around this province suggesting that this legislation will in fact damage British Columbia and the economy. Jim Matkin warns that this labour legislation will hurt our labour relations climate. Small businesses are tremendously concerned about the certification process and the top-down kind of organization that will flow as a result of secondary boycotts. Small businesses are concerned about being trapped in secondary picketing activities when they are not a party to either the labour dispute or the company that's involved.

Parents with children in the school system will be concerned to know, perhaps more than any other group in society, that with the introduction and passing of this legislation education will no longer be considered an essential service. Think about that. Think about the implications of that for our education system and for our children. We're saying to them: "Look, education is no more important, is not as important, as a dispute between the teachers and the school board or the government. When we weigh the relative importance of the three parties in the education system -- and clearly there are the teacher, the taxpayer and the student -- the interests of the taxpayer and the teachers are most important. They take precedence. The importance of the teacher is far greater than the student." If this bill is passed, education in British Columbia will no longer be considered essential, and I think that's scary. I think it's scary for the immediate implications, but I think it says something about the mind-set of this government.

I'm going to quote the member for Nanaimo one more time. He said, again in debates in this House on May 29, 1987: "...I would like to suggest that government in a democratic society ought to encourage workers to get organized, to become unionized...." It would seem to me that government's duty is to encourage that, and if indeed this government, this cabinet across the way, agrees with their colleague the member for Nanaimo that that's what government's responsibility is, how far they missed the mark. How far they missed the intentions of voters in British Columbia. If indeed these folks thought that they were elected to help workers organize, they missed the boat by as much as they missed the public mood in Prince George North on the constitution -- and that, in case you've forgotten, was that 76.4 percent said no and 26.3 percent said yes, along with the member for Prince George North. That's how close this government is in touch with the people of British Columbia. It's disappointing, and it doesn't bode well for this province.

So I would suggest that there are many, many things in this province more important for a government to do than encourage workers to get organized and become unionized. Indeed, there are a whole range of issues that I would hope are far, far higher on this government's priority list than that particular initiative. But the fact that this Legislature was called back for a special session to pass this legislation that clearly favours those wishing to organize clearly tilts the playing field in favour of those who wish to certify. And I would only look again to the example of needing cards only to certify and secret ballot to decertify, if that in itself doesn't demonstrate the tilting of the table.

[4:45]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I think any professional labour relations expert who looks at this legislation would agree with those who have spoken to me that this legislation is subtle and well drafted, and it is not the individual parts themselves that should be considered to be particularly threatening. It is the sum and the essence of the entire bill which, considered in that way, should be thought of as a significant tilt in favour of organized labour. Indeed, the Minister of Labour said, not 15 minutes ago in this House, that the reason for it was to pay back their election debts. We all understand that. We didn't expect him to say it, but he did, so it makes our job easier. Rather than having to build the case and provide the 

[ Page 3680 ]

examples, we simply have to quote the minister himself, who said: "The reason for this legislation and the reason for its rush is because we have to pay back our election debts." When we understand that we had to get back here before the B.C. Fed convention, so that this legislation could be tabled, we understand that that is exactly the reason for this legislation. There is no crisis; there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that we should move forward quickly.

The minister also said that if we had made the hoist motion for three months rather than six, perhaps he would have considered it. If the minister would care to put forward an amendment to that effect, he can be assured of the unanimous support of the Socred caucus. If he's prepared to hoist this legislation for three months rather than six, we'll support that. We believe in compromise, too. I think we could look to our friends down the bench to join us in that compromise if the government were willing to step back for three months and consider this legislation.

Hon. Speaker, there are so many arguments that would favour hoisting this bill for six months, and none that I can think of for ramming it through and passing it now, other than the reason given by the Minister of Labour. I would suggest to him that even by those folks to whom he feels he owes a debt, the mere tabling of this legislation could be considered as a down payment that would carry them forward at least until the spring session. Table the legislation with a solid promise: "We'll do our very best, and we'll fight hard for the provisions in the bill that are really important to you, Ken." I think that would work, as far as the debt is concerned.

So we have Bill 84 in front of us, which is the largest political payoff in this province's history, at a time when it's so obvious that the current legislation is working well. It's a bill that takes away basic democratic rights from individuals and denies them an opportunity to vote on something as fundamental as certification. It's a bill that was perhaps modelled after Ontario legislation, in which that government.... Gosh, I never thought I'd support something that the NDP in Ontario did, but at least they tabled their legislation for six months and gave the business community and individuals an opportunity to examine it.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Someone has suggested that this government is doing for labour relations and our economy what it did for constitutional change. There would certainly seem to be some parallels.

As we examine this legislation and think about the impact it will have on British Columbia -- not simply on employers and groups of organized employees, but on all British Columbians -- we recognize that the public interest and the need for government to protect the public interest through legislation has been seriously downgraded, that the significance of the public interest now relates only to a time when a strike is in fact taking place, that no longer is the Industrial Relations Council required to consider the public interest in its decisions.

According to this legislation, it is only to consider the public interest when a strike is actually in progress. But the public interest is there, whether it's recognized in legislation or not. Whether British Columbians are big business, big labour, small business, individual entrepreneurs, retired or children, their interests are affected by legislation as fundamental as this, and their interests should be considered in every aspect of the activities of the Labour Relations Board. This legislation fails to consider the public interest, and that is unfortunate.

The question really has to be: who represented the public interest in this consultation process? The answer is obvious. There was no representation; there was no real opportunity for the public interest to be considered. Bill 19 underlined and was very definite in its commitment to the public interest.

With that, hon. Speaker, I would like to close and thank you for your indulgence.

J. Tyabji: I stand to speak against the amendment. The Liberal caucus, although we have a lot of problems with this bill, feels that this bill is something we have to deal with in terms of its substance. We would like to get through second reading and look at it point by point in terms of its substance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the House come to order, please. The Opposition House Leader has the floor.

J. Tyabji: We see this amendment as something that is more of a delay tactic. If we want some amendments of substance, we should be looking at the select standing committees of the House as a method through which to amend the bill in second reading. We could send it to a select standing committee and have public input; we could have input from all members of the three parties of the House. Unfortunately, we cannot abide by a six-month or three-month or whatever-month hoist. We know, as unfortunate as it is, that this government does have a majority. As unfortunate as this legislation is, it is inevitable. We would like the markets to be able to adjust to it in the short term, because we know that there is already a great deal of insecurity in capital investment, and that foreign investment is looking at British Columbia's labour climate.

We saw today the example with the Balmer mine: 1,100 jobs lost the day after the legislation was tabled. This government is directly responsible for those 1,100 jobs with this bill; there will be more jobs lost. But hoisting the bill will only increase the amount of time through which the uncertainty can build, and only when we go through the debate in substance in second reading and when we go through the bill clause by clause in third reading.... Hon. Speaker, I can assure you that once we get to the clause-by-clause dissection of the bill, the official opposition will be looking to amend every single clause we find objectionable. It is in the third reading of the bill that we can spend some time and bring to this House the concrete solutions that the people of B.C. would like to have to try to amend 

[ Page 3681 ]

this heinous piece of legislation into something that will be acceptable to the B.C. market.

Just as the bill has removed the "competitive economic market" wording from the bill and just as the substance of the bill is now geared toward one sector of the economy and disregards the rights of the individuals, the workers and the employers, so we see this hoist motion as only adding to the uncertainty surrounding the bill and creating an economic climate that will not be favourable to the people of the province. Hoisting the bill will not be a way of dealing with it; it's only delaying the inevitable. Unfortunate as it may be, we would like to see this bill go to the third reading clause-by-clause amendment stage. Failing that, if we want a good amendment in second reading, we should send it to a select standing committee and get the input of the people and the elected members of all three parties, so that we can bring it to something that's a little bit more acceptable to the House.

So, hon. Speaker, we stand here in opposition to the delay tactic, which is the hoist amendment, and as much as we object to the bill -- and we object very strongly to it -- we cannot have any kind of cynical attempts to put it off that may contribute to the insecure economic climate in the province.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure for me to rise and stand today to speak in support of the hoist motion. As pointed out by other speakers, this is a most complex labour bill. There's a lot to be understood and a lot at stake in this particular piece of legislation. The people of British Columbia should have the right and the opportunity to study the nature of this bill, to study the recommendations that were made and to study the process. The whole process here, while it sounds very good, is very suspect in the minds of British Columbians out there. Why is it suspect, hon. Speaker?

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Perhaps, hon. Speaker, we'll have to ask them if my conversation is disturbing them in theirs.

Why is this suspect? Because of the very close and cozy relationship that exists in British Columbia between the government of the day and the major labour unions. Almost every member has a background of and involvement in either working directly for a labour union or being associated with a labour union. The question here and what makes the whole process suspect is the integrity of the process -- not the word that's spoken but the integrity of the process that is utilized to come to the conclusions that the minister presented to us today and of this particular debate.

There's no lack of knowledge or awareness that the campaign was financed by the political unions -- political I say because they obviously are associated very closely with the government in power. All British Columbians have the perception -- and it's more than a perception -- that the association is in fact a conflict of interest. This legislation does not serve British Columbians, nor does it serve the rank-and-file workers. This piece of legislation serves only two groups: one is the New Democratic Party and the other is their cozy labour bosses who control the labour movement in British Columbia. I'm appalled by the lack of interest. Is it perhaps the lack of interest of the hon. members on the government side or is it the recent defeat of the referendum that all of them stood up, like puppets on a string, to support? It was dictated to them from above, dictated from Ontario or perhaps from Saskatchewan and from the provincial organization that runs this particular government.

This labour legislation is exceedingly important and critical to the future of this province and to the lives of each individual in the province. The economy of this province pays my wages, pays the wages of members opposite, pays for the operation of government, pays for social services, pays for health care and pays for education. This knuckling under to the demands of big unions by big government is not going to be taken lightly or easily by the people of the province of British Columbia. That's what it is, clearly, solely and simply.

[5:00]

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Fair and balanced. I ask you, hon. Speaker, with a sense of justice and fairness that you must maintain to keep a neutral chair in this Legislature, from that perspective, from that orientation, what semblance of fairness and justice could possibly have occurred in this particular process? The three wise men who have brought forward.... The loud cry is why these wise men represent big business and big labour and we have an absolutely neutral individual in the middle. How could they have come through with unanimous agreement to so many of the sections in this particular legislation and not be fair and balanced?

Their constituencies are revolving around the labour movement. They're labour lawyers. Big business likes big labour. Why? Because big business with big labour can squeeze out competition. Big business in a steel fabrication plant in Vancouver can, in conjunction with big labour, eliminate steel fabrication plants in my community. I don't like that, hon. Speaker. That's why the people should have the opportunity to take six months to look at this legislation to see if it's fair and balanced.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Well, I'm getting heckled by the member for Okanagan East. The member would be more comfortable perhaps sitting on the benches opposite because....

Some Hon. Members: No, no!

C. Serwa: Obviously, hon. Speaker, not a very palatable situation -- and I make it more in jest and not to the dishonour of an hon. member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the House come to order, please.

[ Page 3682 ]

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, where is the government? Where are the members on the government side who are going to speak to this? Have they scurried away to the privacy of their offices? No, they're satisfied to do their work in the dark, behind closed doors.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: They're not speaking, not entering into debate on the hoist motion to give reasons for not delaying it. They're not speaking in favour of the legislation. They're going to be as quiet as church mice here and show a solid face and keep using the right words. But British Columbians are not going to be fooled. British Columbians measure governments by their deeds, not by their actions. British Columbia had fair and balanced labour relations. The economy shows that. The faith and confidence of the people all across Canada show it, with a migration here. The confidence is displayed by the amount of investment income that is being poured into the province of British Columbia from all over the world because of the stability and the fair and balanced labour legislation that we have under Bill 19.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: That's correct. The members opposite will have their opportunity if they're willing to stand up and speak in favour of this package of labour legislation.

The reality is that this labour legislation is subtly shaped, section by section as they relate to each other, to show an entirely different result from that which appears to one on a superficial observation. It's crafted by a wily craftsman. Each section slightly mirrors, amplifies and reinforces the other one, and a major balance has shifted in favour of the big unions. Again I enunciate that I have no difficulty with the rank and file being represented by major unions, but the major unions have to be the servants of the rank and file, and that clearly is not the case.

This legislation being presented to us here today has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of the membership of trade unions, be they professional, such as the members of the BCTF or members of the IWA or the BCGEU. This legislation is clearly crafted with one thing in mind: to facilitate that symbiotic relationship that exists between big labour and this particular government in British Columbia. It is also crafted to facilitate the strengthening of the labour representation of trade unions in the province to make the work of the professional trade unionists easier in British Columbia.

The majority of the people in British Columbia who belong to labour unions are not blue-collar labour. No, indeed. They are like the members opposite, somewhat of an elitist group of people. The elitist group of people opposite are the ones who supported the Charlottetown accord, like puppets on a string.

The Speaker: Order, order. Would the member take his seat. The Chair has been listening carefully to the debate, and I would like to take the opportunity to remind the member to focus his comments on the amendment that is before us and to avoid any personal attack on other members in the House.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I was not engaging in any personal attack on members in the House, but collectively.... I have the mandate, obviously, and a responsibility to show the people of British Columbia exactly what the actions of the members opposite and the government of the day are doing. That is my sole purpose for being here in the Legislature today, and that is my responsibility to not only my constituents but all of the people in the province of British Columbia. And that I will continue to do. I will not engage in any personal attacks on the members opposite, who individually I have the highest respect for, as good-thinking, well-reasoned, generally fair-minded people. But when you get them together.... [Laughter.] The people of British Columbia will answer that, in spite of their laughter.

The reality is that the people of British Columbia were not given the opportunity to see this particular report. There is not one reason why the report made to the hon. Minister of Labour, Recommendations for Labour Law Reform, which was submitted in September and printed in September.... Why was the public not given the opportunity to scrutinize this, if fairness and balance are the objectives of this government? I suggest that it was not given the opportunity because fairness and balance are the farthest things from the truth. The reality is that this labour legislation clearly is the big political payoff. This is the demand. That is what the provincial council instructed the government of the day to do. That is what the labour unions instructed the government of the day to do. And 95 percent of the contents of this legislation that were put forward on a wish list by the B.C. Federation of Labour, were incorporated -- 95 percent. The only thing they didn't get here was sectoral bargaining, and that's going to come in an amendment later this spring. That's the plan; I'm confident that that's the plan.

Not only did they get 95 percent of what they wanted, they got a whole number of other things thrown in as well. It was just wonderful, hon. Speaker. After the consultative process that the hon. minister spoke about -- the extensive opportunity for public input and consultation with the three wise men -- what happened? Some 95 percent of the requests of the B.C. Federation of Labour were accommodated in this legislation. How can you expect anyone in the province to believe that the consultative process was real? It is a figment of imagination. In fact, one could almost use a word similar to scam. I won't use that word, because the worst thing that the government of the day could do is to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

They are elected to represent all of the people in the province -- the public interest and the public welfare -- and they have a responsibility as government to do that. They had to leave this side, stop representing single-interest or special-interest groups and represent all the people in the province. This clearly is not being done in this particular situation. I think the hon. Minister of Finance, perhaps more than any other 

[ Page 3683 ]

minister, recognizes that global responsibility. But that global responsibility has to be taken into consideration for all the hon. members on the government side -- ministers of the Crown and private members. If they're not speaking on this hoist motion or on labour legislation, it's because they're concerned, and they recognize that the majority of their constituents are going to have a great deal of trouble with this legislation.

The hon. Premier spoke a few days ago of getting on with the economy. Are we getting on with the economy, hon. Speaker? No, indeed. We have had labour peace and stability. British Columbia labour took no back seat in wage settlements to any other jurisdiction in Canada since the introduction of Bill 19. We had fewer days lost since Bill 19 than in any previous time in the history of this province, and those days lost are accelerating now because of the expectations of the union bosses. That doesn't augur well, from my personal observation, for a strong economy. It's not in the cards. This is a sellout of a responsibility to the people of the province.

Hon. Speaker, if the government of the day is going to shoulder their responsibilities and wants to see justice carried out for the public's expectation of fairness and balance -- and they have a right to that expectation -- they will cede to the request of the motion to delay introduction of this legislation for a further six months. If they do not do that, they send a clear message to every British Columbian out there -- whether they're in the labour movement, mom-and-pop operations, John Q. Public, young people or seniors -- that they are not confident of this piece of legislation standing any public scrutiny. If they fail to do that, it is clearly that they are under the discipline of the large union bosses in British Columbia. That will be the net result. That will be the conclusion that British Columbians draw from this.

Hon. Speaker, there are more things involved here than just making the job easier for the union organizers and bringing more moneys into the NDP coffers. Things like the environment are directly associated with this. How is the environment associated with this? I'll tell you, hon. minister.

We in British Columbia are primarily exporters of raw materials. Fibre -- be it pulp, paper or solid wood -- is a major export of the province, but fundamentally it is in the raw stage. Metals. Mines. We produce a lot of metals here. We export a lot of hydro power. We're living on natural resources without adding any value -- without adding substantial labour or content. How do we do that? We create a demand. The government of the day is confronted with precisely the same challenge that we were confronted with. In order to continue to provide the necessary services that government is responsible for, you have to have an impact on the environment. The environment, in fact, is the shock absorber for the standard of living that British Columbians probably do not fully deserve because of our productivity, our wage structure and the government taxation being imposed on the people of British Columbia. All of those situations diminish or mitigate our competitive opportunities for trade.

We're a trading province and a trading nation. We know that we have to continue to be competitive in order to do that. Wage rates are partially the cause of it. Perhaps productivity is another factor that we could improve on. We have access to a well-educated workforce. We are very competent and innovative. We have a good work ethic. We can compete with and challenge anyone anywhere in the world, given an environment that encourages that. This will take away from that environment that the government creates to enhance the economy of the province.

It means that this government will have to continue overharvesting forests in order to get the cash flow the Minister of Municipal Affairs needs to look after some of his concerns and that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Government Services need to continue to do their work. But it is all at the cost of the environment. We all have to share the responsibility and the burden. I say responsibility because this legislation is irresponsible. The people should have the opportunity -- as well as the legislators -- to review and assess it and make an objective decision.

[5:15]

The economy of this province is going to suffer dramatically. What have we seen as a result of the direction this government has gone in? They have blamed it on the previous administration. But they were government for six months of the previous fiscal year and didn't do anything about it. They have been government for a year, and they are still blaming. I suggest that when they are voted out of office, they will still be blaming the previous administration. At some point in time all of the hon. ministers have to accept and understand that they are now government and have a responsibility to all of the people.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much. I get so much coaching here. I'm elated to have the opportunity to speak in this Legislature.

There are major elements in this legislation that have to be looked at very closely. It is the responsibility of the government not to be carried away by an artificial time limit, because there is no crisis in labour in British Columbia. Everything is rolling along very smoothly. We just went through that exercise with the Charlottetown accord. There was no crisis. An artificial date was set. We had to make this major decision, and the public wouldn't accept it.

If the government wants to be perceived as reasonable and fair, they will allow the public an opportunity to scrutinize the recommendations and the legislation so they can make a fair assessment of it. If the public is convinced, then I'll abide by the wisdom of the public. I'm confident that the government will abide by the wisdom of the public. There's no difficulty there whatsoever. The public should be treated with respect. They should have the opportunity, over a period of six months, to be able to scrutinize the legislation, understand its implications, see what is or isn't written in the legislation and compare it to Bill 19, which produced labour stability.

Interjection.

[ Page 3684 ]

C. Serwa: Ah yes, I heard a loud whoop from one of the members who worked solely for the unions and who will go back to working for the unions. That's a conflict of interest. Would the member...?

The Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure the hon. member for Okanagan West would like to withdraw that last comment, please. I am sure that upon reconsidering you would wish to withdraw that comment.

C. Serwa: In recognition that the hon. member did not make the comment, I certainly am pleased to withdraw that comment.

An Hon. Member: That's not what she means, Cliff. She means the one that was so rude.

C. Serwa: Oh....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please proceed with the debate.

C. Serwa: In the province of Ontario, a Premier, who was purported to be more radical than the moderate Premier we are reported to have, gave the people of that province six months in which to look at the proposed legislation packet, and I think that was fair and reasonable. As I have said before, if the government is confident of this package of legislation, public scrutiny opportunity will be given. But the implications are very great. What the government does not realize is that we're coasting along on the inertia, on the strength of the economy that was created because of a favourable climate in British Columbia.

That favourable climate created a level of industry and opportunity so that all British Columbians, in spite of the rapid growth -- the internal population growth and the migration into this province -- created more jobs in this little province of British Columbia.... With 11 or 12 percent of the population of Canada, 50 percent or more of the jobs that were created in all of Canada.... The fair and balanced legislation we had created an environment of labour peace, labour stability and opportunity for all British Columbians.

I conclude my remarks by once again stating that I have risen in support of the hoist motion to delay introduction of this legislation for further reading for a period of six months. I think that it is fair, just and reasonable, and it is a major responsibility of the government to not have the faith and confidence of the people toyed with lightly. If they fail to do this, I think British Columbians will see that they are not being fair to all but are looking after only a single special-interest group, and that is my concern. If we lose confidence in government, we lose confidence in democracy and the system, and I think that is the worst loss of all.

R. Neufeld: I rise in support of the hoist motion to delay passage of Bill 84 for six months, to give time to send it out to the people and to have time to discuss it so that everyone can see the implications of this bill.

The bill is much the same as the Charlottetown accord. It was drafted very nicely, in a way that there was a thread completely through it, so that we wouldn't see the sleepers or really feel the brunt of those sleepers as we stood in this House and talked about Bill 84. But, in the time to come, some of those sleepers are going to pop up and are going to be very negative towards the economy in British Columbia.

The minister was here earlier and said that he would commit to putting the bill out for three months -- the hoist motion, changing it from six to three. Along with our House Leader, I agree with that. It would be great if he would be willing to put it out to three. He obviously wasn't in his chair, and he wasn't standing and speaking to the House, but I hope he would live by his word in this House and would do that.

I wasn't an elected member when Bill 19 was introduced and went through the House, although I do remember reading much about it in the newspapers from where I come from. There were all kinds of statements from everyone on both sides of the House about how bad or how good Bill 19 was going to be. Probably in retrospect the government of the day would agree that when they put through Bill 19, it went through too quickly and there wasn't enough consultation with the public in British Columbia. Being chastised very heavily by government members about that, we should be taking the time to look at Bill 84 in a much closer fashion, something that was suggested very much from the then-opposition party -- that it should be given the test of time. There are a number of quotes. Our leader talked about how the wheel turns, but this one is specific to one of the members who was here before. I'm going to read this quote. It was made on April 7, 1987:

"This bill has more damaging content than any other labour legislation in the history of this country; damaging not to one side or the other, but damaging to the people and to the economy of this province.

"If the government thinks...the critics are wrong, then what is wrong with taking it out to the public for a long, careful look?"

I agree with that statement, which was made by the present Attorney General, that it should go out to the public for their input and discussion. That's what should happen to Bill 84. We should go out and consult with the people. And this time, not as in the last little flurry that happened with the Charlottetown accord, we should probably listen to the people before we bring it in. You know, those people put us here in the first place. Instead of some academic telling me that now that we've listened to what the people say, we'll draft what they should have.... I don't agree with that at all. We should be concerned about the people of the province of British Columbia, the jobs in the province of British Columbia and the economy in the province of British Columbia.

Yesterday the government tried to shroud bringing in Bill 84 with the NAFTA, trying to get the feeling out there that if we entered into the NAFTA -- which we have no choice whether we are going to or not; we just plain will have to if that's what the federal government decides to do.... They tried to cloud what was going to happen with some of the changes in this labour legislation with the NAFTA. That's not being what I call cricket to the province of British Columbia, and I guess not taking this labour 

[ Page 3685 ]

legislation out to the people in British Columbia is not cricket either.

Big business was represented, and I don't think that major corporations that already fall under a lot of stringent rules via the union have a lot of problems with some of the bill. They do have a few points, but they're more adaptable to be able to accept in stride even the negative parts of this bill, and still carry on. Although it's interesting -- just to comment on the side -- that about 40 percent of the mining industry isn't even unionized. So it goes to say that corporations and companies and businesses can work in a lot of cases without being unionized, and people don't wish to be unionized all the time.

The business that creates the most jobs in the province of British Columbia and the most jobs all across Canada is small business. Those are the people who provide the stability and growth that we need in retail sales, in everything within the province. They supply a tremendous number of jobs. Hon. Speaker, we cannot attack that part of our economy with bad labour legislation.

Some people here may have children who are out looking for jobs. I have one who's out looking for a job right now. Let me tell you, it's not easy for those young people to go out and find a job. Most of the government is obviously from the lower mainland. They live in Vancouver or Victoria and see a continual boom in building houses. Those houses are not being built for the younger generation of 20- year-olds, 25-year-olds and 30-year-olds who need the jobs. If we continue to put roadblocks in the way of small business expanding, then we're not going to have jobs for those young people when they become a certain age and could build those types of homes.

Hon. Speaker, it's a bit of a false economy that some of these people here relate to. They think the whole province is booming. Maybe they ought to take a trip around. Maybe they should not just get in the airplane and fly from point A to point B -- from here to Prince George, from here to the Kootenays or from here to Prince Rupert -- and get off in the dark, but they should get in a vehicle, drive around a bit and see what's going on in the province, because in a lot of places, it's not good. A lot of good young people out there want to work, and they need jobs. Those jobs are the ones I spoke about yesterday, the jobs that will keep this province moving -- not by co-opting 1,500 people into the civil service. That isn't the way to create jobs in British Columbia; it won't work. You can't take from Peter to pay Paul forever. Sometimes the piper has to be paid. The tree is getting pretty empty, and the government of the day feels that they can just go in the back yard and pluck a few more million dollars off the tree to pay a few more people. We've got people employed, and we'll put them in fancy stats and show just how great it is. That isn't the way it works.

[5:30]

If we are going to decimate small business, small industries, the mom-and-pop shows where there are 10, 20 or 30 employees.... The people in most of those businesses treat their employees fairly. They have loyal employees and loyal owners, and they have a good understanding between them. I didn't have to have unionization in my business, or even a threat of it. My people worked right alongside union people with no problems. All you have to do is treat your employees right and everything will go along fine. What happened to the days of just going out and getting the job done? We have to have a document that's this thick before the employer can figure out what he can and can't do. It's absolutely ridiculous. Jobs are what people want for our young people, for the people that need those jobs so they have money to spend and so we can continue to grow and prosper.

We have over 100 changes to the labour legislation. Even when Ontario decided to change their labour legislation, they had the guts to take it out and say: "Everyone have a look at it and see what you think." But this government doesn't. They say they have consulted. They have consulted with a certain part of our businesses and corporations, but they haven't consulted with everybody about the changes that will take place with this bill.

Why did we have to change the legislation? Of course, I guess it's as our House Leader said earlier: it's to pay off the unions. It's the old story. After the election, when the Premier ran on the stage and said, "Let's boogie," with Ken Georgetti.... I guess people across the province who saw that on TV are thinking the same thing today when they hear labour legislation coming out of this government: let's boogie.

There's a lot more to represent in the province than just the labour unions. I have nothing against labour unions. There was a need for labour unions. They came in for a certain reason, and they can work well. They work well in situations where they should be, but they don't have to infiltrate every part of our economy.

We want to try and encourage foreign investment in British Columbia -- European and Asian investment. We have the Premier going out and talking to business leaders in those parts of the world, to try to convince dollars to come here. But how are we going to do that if we are going to become the most unionized province in Canada?

You know, there's a segment out there that will have no problem with unionization, and there's a segment that doesn't need unionization. To find that happy medium is what these people are elected to do.

What need was there for this legislation? Work stoppages were at their lowest level in 20 years. Labour and management have been cooperating as never before. Union membership is on the rise -- in fact, most of them in the public sector. Let's just read a few of them, so that people in this province understand where unions are increasing and where industry membership is decreasing, because this government isn't paying attention to what has to be done with the economy of British Columbia. It's not to co-opt everybody into a public union. From 1982 to 1992 the IWA dropped by about 35 percent from 42,000 to 27,000 members. At the same time, CUPE increased from 30,000 to 49,000. The Teamsters dropped from 24,000 to 19,000. The BCTF increased from 30,000 to 40,000. All we're doing is 

[ Page 3686 ]

increasing what's in the government. We're not making things happen in the economy of British Columbia.

I think we should sit back and take a second look. Good legislation will stand the test of time. That has been said many times in this House. Bill 19 would stand the test of time if we didn't have a government that's so labour-oriented that almost every one of them belonged to a labour union of some kind.

I have a quote here that I'm going to read. This is from one of the members opposite:

"This piece of legislation is going to do the same; it's going to further destabilize the province of British Columbia."

That was said on April 9, 1987, by the present Premier of the province of British Columbia.

"...this bill is going to be very harmful. It is going to do the opposite of what the government has said. It is going to bring not stability but instability. It is not going to bring a consensus; it is going to bring a lot of conflict, confrontation and bitterness. It's not going to bring investment and jobs; it is going to chase that investment and those jobs away from this province."

Hon. Speaker, maybe what I should do is just list some of the things that have happened in the past number of years and that Bill 19 was probably partly not to blame for but the reason they happened. A good government, a government that believed in free enterprise and in the rights of people to start their own business, build their own business and provide jobs and security to the people of British Columbia.... From 1987 to 1991 there was a 33 percent increase in B.C.'s gross domestic product. Bill 19 was in effect. The members opposite are saying that Bill 19 was detrimental to the economy of British Columbia. Well, take that and chew on it for a while. Maybe you ought to listen a little bit. A 72 percent increase in capital investment from 1986 to 1992. What's the matter with that? Why do we have to change the legislation? Do we want to change that? Do we want to make that more like 20 percent? Is that what we want?

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: The members opposite talk about wanting it higher. Well, I can tell you that it's not going to go higher.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the House come to order. Again the noise level is getting to the extent that the Speaker cannot hear the debate. Please continue, the hon. member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Another item: manufacturing shipments from 1986 to 1991 had a 14 percent increase. There was a 35 percent increase in retail sales from 1986 to 1991. Is there anything wrong with that? I hope there isn't, but I think there were some stats given a little earlier by one of my colleagues that showed we're on the downward trend in the last year, and workers' days lost are on the way up. I wonder why. But it's becoming more evident all the time, when you hear the remarks made by the people across the way.

From 1986 to 1991 there was an increase of almost 100 percent in the dollar value of non-residential building permits, and an 80 percent increase over 1987; and a 54 percent increase in the number of housing starts from 1986 to 1991. I don't find anything wrong with those stats. In fact, I think that they're pretty remarkable. It shows just exactly what our leaders spoke about here a while ago: British Columbia did have a vibrant, growing economy, and it was growing because of the influence of a free enterprise government and good stable labour law. That's why we were on the go.

But what we've done in the last year, since the last election, is go backwards. We've tabled the largest deficit in British Columbia's history; it's growing every day. But we're going to run out to the pear tree and pluck another pear so we can come in and pay a few more bills. That won't work forever. At some point it has to quit. You can't continue down that road.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member asks how many pears can we come up with. I don't know, maybe $2.5 billion or so, because that's obviously what they're going to need, or maybe a few more. In fact, if we think about it, we chastised the Ontario government for going $10 billion into debt and doubling their gross debt in four years. I think this government is going to do the same thing to us, probably in about two years.

Hon. Speaker, what are we going to do here with this legislation? We're going to take away the right to vote on whether you want to unionize or not.

An Hon. Member: No.

R. Neufeld: You can say no, it's not quite so. Well, it works both ways. If you have over 55 percent of the cards signed up, you don't have to have a vote.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The question comes: why should you? It's absolutely amazing that someone should even ask that kind of a question, because voting is a democratic right that we in this country appreciate, want, desire and need. But obviously the collective right -- and I get nervous when somebody talks "collective" around here -- is what is going to supersede the individual right.

The right to vote in an election and the right to vote on whether you want to unionize are the same thing. Whether you go around and get 55 percent of the people to sign cards has nothing at all to do with it. You can walk into almost any business establishment and coerce 55 percent of the people to sign. We've got a government that's raised every tax possible. Those people out there who do have jobs -- as I said earlier, there's an awful lot who don't, and the unemployment rate is going up under this administration -- don't have the income to go out and spend their money. They're a little bit afraid. They want to hang on to that job because there are 100 in line for it. To say that you've got 55 percent signed up to a card doesn't mean anything. Why don't you let them go behind the curtain and vote, exactly the same as we did on the Charlottetown 

[ Page 3687 ]

accord. Those people in most cases will show you exactly what's in their heart and exactly how they feel. They may not approve of it. In most cases they probably won't, because then they can stand out as a group and say: "I was part of that, but nobody knows how I vote." There's nothing wrong with a democratic vote, nothing at all.

The picketing and the scab labour, as it's called -- replacement workers to come in and keep a business going.... Just think about that a little bit, because those people on the picket line have the opportunity to go out if they want and get a job somewhere else to fill in for the meantime. They get strike pay. They have some other social nets that will help them. But the owner of that business does not. He has to survive.

[5:45]

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: He or she -- pardon me. I agree. Actually, in response to that, most successful small businesses are run by women. So that's right.

They want to go out and protect their investment, and they should be able to. They should be able to generate some revenue. Hon. Speaker, we're going to change that.

Another onerous one is secondary boycotts. It's just amazing to me that the government would even entertain something like that. It's ridiculous, but I guess it's one way of getting that written into every government labour contract -- which will happen before this government is finished; I'm sure it will -- and anybody who's not unionized won't be able to supply the government with anything, because they'll be able to dictate where it comes from. That is despicable. There are a tremendous number of people out there in small businesses who depend on government procurements.

Those are the three reasons I think Bill 84 should be hoisted and put out for six months -- or three months, if the minister wishes -- so that people in British Columbia can have a look at it and see whether they agree with it or not. With that, I'll take my place and listen to the debate.

F. Gingell: It is a matter of interest for me to stand and speak on the motion to hoist this bill for six months. Although I agree in principle, I simply can't support this resolution, because it doesn't go far enough. It certainly doesn't go far enough from the point of view of time. I'd like to see the government hoist this bill for three years, 11 months and 20 days. That would take us to October 17, 1996. When the people of British Columbia discover what is in this bill and what the consequences of it will be, you can be assured there will be a new government. We'd have a little game of musical chairs. Those left on that side of the House would get up, the music would play, and they'd quickly scramble, before the music stops, to find some seats on this side of the House.

I can't support this motion, because I don't think that it goes far enough in ensuring that there is full public participation in the project of discovering what the bill really does mean. I believe that requires the bill to be sent to a committee of this Legislature which will have public hearings and do all of the things that are necessary to ensure that people clearly understand what is involved.

I think one of the main things that would cause the people of British Columbia to let their displeasure, their concern and their worry about this bill be known is the question of the secret ballot. I really do find it hard to understand why a government that calls itself the New Democratic Party would take an action that so clearly takes away the democratic right of the people to have a secret ballot. So I've been doing a little searching to try and find some previous quotes or some matters that show the commitment of the members of the NDP government to the secret ballot and the concept of democracy -- the concept that they clearly are so proud of, because they have put it into their name.

Well, I wasn't able to find very much except a report that was recently put out -- a questionnaire by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing, with our friend across the way as the minister. This document, on page 12, talks about guiding principles -- things that are important. How did the ministry develop the proposed changes in this discussion paper? Well, the third one, obviously a critically important one, is honesty. That's what they believe in: "The secrecy of the ballot is vital for there to be seen to be honesty." I'm really disappointed that the Minister of Municipal Affairs could approve this on one day and just the next day change his position completely and support -- I presume both in cabinet and in this House -- a bill that takes away the most important and basic democratic right of our citizens, the right of a secret ballot.

It isn't any good saying: "Well, if 55 percent of the people in the proposed bargaining units have signed up on union cards, then obviously a ballot isn't necessary." We all know -- and it is unfortunate -- that things happen on both the labour side and the management side that cause people to sign cards. I was a member of the IWA 40 years ago and was required to vote in the strike of May 1952 -- before many of you were born, I'm sure.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, 1952, and you can tell from my puny frame that I didn't stay there long pulling things off the greenchain. But I can assure you that my experience on that particular -- isolated, I know -- occasion was not a set of circumstances that gives me any comfort. Unfortunate practices happen on both sides of the issue.

What is wrong with a secret ballot? Surely the one thing that happens after a sign-up is that the employer, who always believes that he is in such a good position, doesn't believe that 55 percent or more of his people would sign. That's why there's so often such great disputes and so much trouble in getting that first contract negotiated: because the employer believes that something nefarious has taken place.

Interjection.

[ Page 3688 ]

F. Gingell: All you've got to do is have a secret ballot. Once you've had the secret ballot, the employer has to recognize that it is honest and fair, and that's the way it is. This side of the House in no way argues with anybody about the right of people to organize and be represented by a trade union. On that issue I am sure we are all united.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Not over there.

F. Gingell: I wasn't speaking for them.

Once the people of British Columbia find out about all of the various provisions in this new code -- the 168 or whatever there are -- they will want to understand what they mean and what the consequences will be. This government isn't going to get proper feedback or a proper message from the people of B.C. until they've had a sufficient amount of time.

The government can encourage this. They created their committee of the three wise men to go out and talk to labour and business. By sending this bill to a legislative committee, there's an opportunity for them to ensure that the process is complete and that the people of British Columbia can speak about this very important issue.

We are all concerned about jobs. It is the most critically important matter that we should be dealing with. This bill comes to the heart of that matter. I really do encourage my friends across the floor to give good and fair consideration to finding some means to allow further public consultation and participation to take place.

F. Gingell moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada