Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1992

Volume 5, No. 22

[ Page 3689 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: Before proceeding, I wonder if I can ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to meet while the House is in session.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

On the amendment.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, you will remember, I hope, that I was saying yesterday that this very important piece of legislation deserves the opportunity for all British Columbians to have their input before it is enacted. I am sure that all members of this House spent the whole of their waking moments during the night considering the words I had spoken.

This really is a critically important piece of legislation that is going to set the tone not only for labour relations in this province, but also for investment. We on this side of the House all believe that this act is going to have a dramatic effect upon the inflow of capital that will create jobs and opportunities for the young people of this province.

Sitting on the other side of the House in the far corner of this chamber, we have a group of legislators who unequivocally and with all their hearts supported the proposal for referendums in this province. The people of British Columbia supported that by more than 83 percent. I can't remember what the exact number was, but it was an overwhelming majority, even greater than the overwhelming rejection of the Charlottetown accord. They supported the use of referendums, obviously, for items and matters that were of critical importance to the people of British Columbia. This is the opportunity for them to prove that they truly are the new, democratic party.

This is a subject, hon. Speaker, that is so important that it should go to referendum. There has to be some means by which the people of British Columbia have an opportunity for input. I know that there was a process, but the process dealt primarily with big labour and big business. It isn't big labour and big business that are primarily concerned with the issues, tenor and circumstances that this particular bill will produce. A referendum is this government's opportunity to, first of all, back up the position that they took when the question of referendums in the future was put to the people of British Columbia, and to prove conclusively that the word "democrat," even though they have ignored it on the question of the secret ballot on certification.... I really fail to understand how people who call themselves democrats or who believe in democracy could, with the stroke of a legislative pen, wipe out every free citizen's right to a secret ballot. How they could do that, I don't know. But they could at least show some understanding, partial though it may be, of democracy by putting this question and this labour bill to a public referendum. With those words, I'll resume my seat.

H. De Jong: I rise today to speak in support of the hoist motion on Bill 84. Surely a bill that affects a lot of employers as well as employees deserves a period of consultation, in spite of some communication that perhaps has already taken place. But surely a communication process prior to a bill being drafted sounds good. The question is: does the bill before us actually reflect the views of both labour and business?

This past Monday night the Premier, along with his counterparts in all of the provinces, vowed to get on with the economic agenda. That is a noble undertaking that no one would disagree or argue with, but to our disappointment the NDP vision of strengthening the economy is to bring in a new labour bill with more restrictions on a free enterprise system.

Along with most British Columbians, the question I am asking is: why abolish Bill 19 when it has served the province so well? In spite of the strong economic growth that occurred in this province over the last 16 years, and particularly the last five years, the government had no choice but to fulfil their commitment to the B.C. Federation of Labour and other big unions. That commitment was to abolish Bill 19 no matter how well it served labour and management. Why fix it or take it away if it ain't broke? In 1991 the gap between the public and private sector narrowed to less than 1 percent compared to 2.5 percent back in 1987. In other words, the labour market had improved considerably in British Columbia; and the province was on the road to competitive world trade.

The 16 years of strong economic growth and activity, more specifically the last five years, has stimulated British Columbia trade with other provinces, as well as internationally. But the gap between public and private sectors hadn't narrowed.... The agreements made in that period still provide a good wage and reward for the workers. If a dispute arises, there is an opportunity for business to carry on, which is not the case under Bill 84. Could it be that while the Minister of Economic Development was so anxious to place a motion regarding the North American free trade agreement, he was perhaps fearful of Bill 84? Surely this government does not think that British Columbia is an island unto itself. Surely this government knows that we live in the nineties, and in order to survive we must compete not only within British Columbia but also within Canada and on the international scene. This is what I believe the Premiers of all the other provinces, as well as the Prime Minister, were referring to after the Charlottetown agreement failed. Every leader with some vision, however, knows that in order to compete we must have good labour laws that reflect the private entrepreneur-

[ Page 3690 ]

ial system. Inasmuch as the Minister of Labour indicated across the floor that he would accept a three-month delay when the member for Prince George-Omineca moved a motion to delay second reading for six months, why not six months?

In Diane Francis's November 4 article in Maclean's magazine on the topic of the relationship between the NDP and Canada's mainline unions, she said:

"The problem with the NDP's labour union sugar daddies and mommies is that they are distinctly anti-business and anti-enterprise, due to some imagined and inappropriate class warfare. They represent the politics of envy and only one side of the economic equation. In addition, their ruthless disregard for capitalists and wealth creation will inevitably lower living standards by driving out capital or by frightening it off."

[10:15]

Since none of the members on the government side have taken the opportunity to speak on the hoist motion, it leads me to believe that this government is displaying either a sign of fear or an I-don't-care attitude on this most important bill, the effects of which will not only affect labour and business but also have a detrimental effect on the economic standards of this province and of all British Columbians.

Big labour unions, which the B.C. Federation of Labour is representing, have for years been seen by the public -- and by many of its members -- as less than democratic. Many sincere union members have expressed this on various occasions. The abolishment of the secret ballot will confirm this.

The Minister of Labour, together with his government, by introducing this bill with its frightening sections.... While we will be debating these sections more fully in the days ahead, the point is that this bill places the minister in a biased position toward whatever union may be in dispute with its employer. A labour bill should not contain a bias for labour or management; it should be representing both parties fairly and equitably. This bill lacks fairness.

While I'm not a specialist in labour law, I believe that the removal of the secret ballot, as is proposed in this bill, is an affront to democracy in the workplace. If the Premier and his government were really serious about focusing on improving the economy in this province, they should have focused on new ways in which employees can share in the rewards and responsibilities of the workplace. The remarkable thing is that on numerous occasions management have pointed out examples of the establishment of greater cooperation in labour relations in the workplace. Why has this government ignored those examples?

This bill will create more suspicion for the union member towards union leaders and less trust between management and labour. So why the big rush to push this bill through the House? Simply for political payoff? Shame on the government, the Premier and the Minister of Labour if that is true.

This bill will drive a wedge between labour and management. The first blow this government delivered to small business in particular was the corporate tax passed in the House in the spring session. Its effect will be felt in the coming year. Now this bill, again, is a threat to small business in particular. Small business is the backbone of most British Columbia communities, the lifeblood of the British Columbia economy.

Is this government really serious in working towards a stronger economy? Hon. Speaker, I have my strongest doubts, and I know that most people in British Columbia share my view. I believe that the three wise men who have concocted this bill are in the process of leading this government to the slaughter. And by proceeding with this bill, the government is leading the British Columbia economy to the slaughterhouse.

Hon. Speaker, I urge the government to take a second look at the harm they will do to our economy with this needless legislation. Travel the province, as you did over the constitution; only this time, try actually listening to the people about individual rights and public interest. When big business gets together with big government and big labour, the rest of society gets elbowed off the table. That is what has happened here, and that is why the government should give the public at least six months to review these massive proposals.

My final question to the government is: do the people of British Columbia, in their view, and especially the business community of British Columbia, deserve less consultation than the people in Ontario were afforded? Surely not, hon. Speaker.

A. Warnke: The amendment before us has given me some time for some thought. I just want to make a brief comment on the amendment for a six-month hoist. The conclusion -- and I've given this some thought over last night -- is that a six-month hoist would be similar, I suppose, to the last six months: the government would take selective advice that would benefit the trade unions, but in some ways, of course, would benefit themselves.

There is quite a bit to Bill 84 itself, which perhaps we will have an opportunity to speak on. Naturally, if something happens so that the government withdraws this bill, we would be pleased to see that. But if we get back to discussing the main bill, then there are many components and elements of it that I will address in detail. So I'll confine my remarks to the hoist motion, keeping in mind that there will be much to say later on on the main bill.

At the outset the presenter of the motion, the member for Prince George-Omineca, put forward this motion because the member felt that this bill had been suddenly thrust on us: why the urgency? I find myself in sympathy with the member for Prince George-Omineca. Why the urgency?

On the other hand, it's not a complete surprise. Bill 84 is no surprise to those who have followed the relationship between organized labour -- especially big organized labour -- on the one hand and the New Democratic Party on the other. Because it's entirely predictable, the argument could be put forward that the surprise is that it has taken this long for this legislation to come before us. It's not a complete surprise, and therefore it's not really a situation where the bill is suddenly thrust on us.

[ Page 3691 ]

I would agree with the member for Prince George-Omineca that there is perhaps a sense of urgency, simply because for some time this government has been planning how to formulate and proceed with a bill that would not only be in the best interests of big organized labour but in the best interests of its own party. Bill 84 is a very carefully crafted bill. It's not something that has been put together at the last minute. It's not something impulsive, that has suddenly been brought on us.

Indeed, as I examine the bill since it came out the day before yesterday, I am somewhat impressed by the fact that it is carefully crafted to suit a particular purpose and intent. It's not an intent to serve the best interests of British Columbians; its intentions are to serve the purpose and nature of a particular segment of the population of British Columbia. I'm not even sure it's in the best interests of the working people of British Columbia. But maybe it's in the best interests of the government. So in this context Bill 84 is flawed. Relevant to the amendment that's being put forward for a six-month hoist, I believe what is needed is an attempt to clearly illustrate to this government why Bill 84 is flawed.

My initial impulse toward the member for Prince George-Omineca in presenting his motion was to be extremely sympathetic. When we on this side of the House in the official opposition have seen a flawed bill, we too have put forward motions for a six-month hoist. But I have come to the conclusion that a six-month hoist would be just an attempt to repeat what has occurred in the last six months, and that what is needed is to convince the government that Bill 84 is flawed.

So it was with great interest that I listened to my colleague the member for Delta South propose last night that perhaps what is needed is to refer this bill to a legislative committee. I listened to the member for Delta South say this morning that what is needed is a referendum. Obviously these ideas need some examination, but I understand my colleague from Delta South.

He is actually issuing a warning to the government, and maybe this is the reason why it is necessary to consider how we deal with this particular legislation. I think this is what the member for Prince George-Omineca was saying as well. There is a warning here from that member that there is a series of problems with Bill 84 because it is flawed. Therefore what is needed is not to simply set up legislation to revert back to some old-style pattern of politics that has been practised in this province for this entire century, but to further examine what is fair and decent legislation when it comes to labour.

[10:30]

The member for Prince George-Omineca and the member for Delta South are putting forward that what this government needs to do is listen to the people. The public is saying that we need a new, innovative approach to the role of labour in the British Columbia economy in the twenty-first century. The people know that when we take a look at the economy and anticipate the key elements of the economy in the twenty-first century, British Columbia is a trading region to begin with. Therefore, British Columbia has to have a different approach than what has been practised in this entire century. It's almost fair to say that during the course of this century British Columbia was one of the most enviable regions and provinces on the entire continent because we were almost self-sufficient. But that is old-style economic thinking. As we move toward a new century, we need new economic thinking to deal with the change that is occurring in the nature of international economics.

The problem with Bill 84 is that we still cling to ding-dong politics in British Columbia. The ding-dong is between two views with fallacious premises, and it just depends on who forms the government whether it's the dings or the dongs who predominate in our economy and politics. I would suggest that the world is not polarized into saying: "Do you support Bill 19 or Bill 84? There are only these two alternatives." That's not what we're confronted with. Those on the other side said: "This is what we're confronted with: Bill 19 or Bill 84." This illustrates polarized, ding-dong thinking in British Columbia.

J. Tyabji: Ding-dong government.

A. Warnke: Ding-dong government, hon. Speaker. Bill 84 is a continuation of this polarized thinking in British Columbia, and if you like, the ding-dong cycle.

I would suggest that it is necessary to transcend this confrontation. Sometimes the confrontation between so-called big business and so-called organized labour is artificial, because I have noted and examined the relationship between organized labour and big business. I have studied it thoroughly enough to come to the conclusion that sometimes there is a symbiotic relationship between these two entities in our economy; that sometimes this confrontation is not real and genuine; that sometimes this confrontation is artificial.

I know this is very difficult for some members to grasp, because earlier this year when I spoke on another issue that I believe had something to do with labour in this province, I noticed....

Interjections.

A. Warnke: There are some comments from the other side. As a matter of fact, an amusing thing happened during our debate on this earlier in the year. The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, I believe it was, who is my greatest campaign manager as it turns out, sent my speech all over the province. I got accolades from people throughout the province saying, "That's a very good position you've taken," and all the rest of it. I would like to remind the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith that I'm not running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, because we have a fantastic leader already. My second disappointment was that the member did not send more letters to Richmond-Steveston, because it would have certainly guaranteed my re-election.

This confrontation is sometimes an artificial confrontation between so-called big business and management on the one hand and organized labour on the other. Clearly, what we need is an entirely different procedure to address the fundamental problems facing 

[ Page 3692 ]

our economy and our people. Therefore my primary response to this hoist motion is based on two observations. First, the need for public input. A pause is needed. This is what the member for Prince George-Omineca was saying. Some kind of a pause is needed to reflect on what needs to be addressed here, because there are some flaws in Bill 84. Eighty-four is an Orwellian number, isn't it?

A pause is needed, but at the same time the process is extremely important. This is the reason why I'm turning my ear to the member for Delta South and some of his proposals. Underneath it all, the government has got to get some clear idea of what the people are thinking before going any further on this bill. We have every right to suspect on this side of the House that this is the first in a legislation series favouring big, organized labour -- big unions and so forth. So it is essential that this government gets a grasp on what the people of the province are thinking; it has to get a grasp on where the people are coming from. It has to comprehend the nature and the requirements of our economy as we go into the twenty-first century.

I did take a look at the report of the subcommittee of special advisers dubbed the "three wise men," and I'm actually a little bit disappointed. Hence I would be very reluctant to call these three gentlemen three wise men. It's a most disappointing report to base an entire philosophy and an entire bill on. It's hardly impressive, because it does not appreciate and get a grasp on the nature of our economy, our state of technology, the needs for our technology and the role of labour, which is changing in British Columbia, Canada and throughout the world. It does not give any guidance as to where labour is going.

I'm really surprised that this report simply addresses what has gone on in the past and then what is needed to sort of swing the other way. It's a ding-dong style of thinking once again. The report has not come to terms with the nature of our economy and technology and with the role of labour. It has not done that, and as a result it's no surprise at all that Bill 84 has done the same. Bill 84 once again reverts to an old-style way of thinking, of advocating a particular point of view rather than coming to grips with what the people of British Columbia are thinking.

There's a second observation I'd like to make with regard to this hoist motion. Labour is one of the most sensitive areas of concern in this province. If British Columbia is unique compared to the other provinces, it is because in this context British Columbia has had a history that I don't necessarily want to embrace. I want to transcend that history of polarization between big business and big labour, despite the fact that their relationship is somewhat symbiotic. British Columbia has been known for its polarization, not only in its politics but in its economics and social structure, which the people want changed.

So given the nature of our economy and given that labour is a most sensitive area.... In my view, incidentally, the Ministry of Labour warrants one person as minister, and that minister should do only that ministry and nothing else. Anything else would be a distraction. That's another disappointment with this government. But I digress.

The fact is that the people of British Columbia are saying: "We need a change in the way in which labour has a role in this province. The nature of labour has changed, and you in this New Democratic government and you in the opposition" -- to a certain extent this is for us as well -- "have got to come to terms with the fact that labour has changed." So the people of British Columbia are trying to tell us that the times have changed, and therefore the role of labour, of big unions, has changed.

This doesn't mean to say -- and I've said this once before in this House -- that we necessarily negate collective bargaining. As a matter of fact, I've heard members on this side of the House state over and over again that the nature of collective bargaining is an important part of how you arrive at just and fair salaries and benefits, and so forth.

D. Lovick: What does that mean: "the nature of collective bargaining is an important part"?

A. Warnke: The hon. member for Nanaimo seems to have trouble understanding the nature of collective bargaining. This is one of the most surprising parts: certain members on that side, despite the fact that they commit themselves to unions and to the politics of unions, and all the rest of it, cannot come to terms with the principle of collective bargaining, thinking that collective bargaining automatically means that you establish one big union, that you invite one big union to do the collective bargaining for each and every individual.

Interjections.

A. Warnke: The hon. member just does not understand, and it's not surprising that he and some other hon. members do not understand this. Again, that is the problem of being locked into a certain kind of thinking, which has dominated the thinking of this province in this century.

Why is it necessary to invite big unions? Why is it necessary to invite big organized labour? Why make it easier for big organized labour to dominate individuals? This is what Bill 84 encourages. The people of British Columbia are saying that we've got to get away from that. More and more British Columbians are saying that we don't want to become part of one big collectivity whereby we sublimate our individual potential. It is disconcerting to British Columbians to hear certain individuals such as the president of the British Columbia Federation of Labour say: "The labour code that has been introduced is just the first step which we can build on." That's an ominous signal to all British Columbians that more is coming down the line. That is terribly disconcerting.

What we have heard about with the introduction of this bill is a restoration of an old-style labour code in which.... For those members who may have arrived late, I said that later on I would address these in detail.... They have introduced a labour code in which 

[ Page 3693 ]

there are provisions to try to restrict employers, to gain control and power over employers. That's a fact. I would argue that instead of looking at the problem and trying to come to terms with it, what is being done here is introducing something which is going to disturb labour peace. In the last analysis, British Columbians are striving for labour peace.

[10:45]

I am not convinced, and I believe that not only my colleagues but British Columbians are not convinced, that Bill 84 -- its purpose and its nature -- is going to contribute to labour peace. Indeed, another ominous sign, as pointed out by my colleague from Delta South and others, including people in the media and the people of British Columbia, is the elimination of secret ballot votes for certification. When it is over 100 years since we developed a whole rationale and set of reasoning as to why the nature of secret ballots is conducive to, and actually contributes to and embellishes, a democracy, why is it that suddenly on this particular issue the secret ballot is rejected? And it clearly is. We on this side cannot but feel very suspicious of why, in this day and age, a fundamental principle of democracy is being rejected. That also has the potential to give way to "brute" force. I use that word because one member from the government side actually used it.

I would say that the consensus among British Columbians is that when we take a look at Bill 84, something needs to be revamped, and revamped thoroughly. We need another thorough assessment of the economy, technology and the role of labour. The way to do that is to perhaps embrace something along the lines suggested by the member for Delta South. What we so critically need is to take this bill to a legislative committee. I hope this government will, but I doubt it. I would encourage the government to do so, and to as much as possible contact the public -- the people of British Columbia -- to solicit impressions and responses from them. The government will be surprised by what they hear, just as they were surprised by the referendum results on Monday. As a result, this is what I would encourage that government to do: withdraw Bill 84, thoroughly re-examine it and put it to the people of British Columbia, in whatever form -- but make sure that it is to the people of British Columbia.

L. Hanson: Déj� vu. We're back talking about labour legislation. I seem to have had some years of experience in doing that.

The issue before us is whether or not Bill 84 should be delayed for six months or debated now, and of course, with the government's majority, passed now. First of all, I would like to point out that it's a very complex bill. There are many things that by themselves appear to be rather simple and rather unimportant, but add them all together and they are of significant importance. I think that there must be an opportunity for the people -- the public, management, corporations; all of British Columbia involved or interested in this process -- to have time to analyze those concerns.

I give as an example the legislation that prohibits hiring replacement workers. That in itself is a fairly major piece of legislation, but when you add to that the new, narrower definition of what is exempt from the union -- in other words, management -- you reduce the employer's opportunities to continue some small kind of operation in the event of a labour dispute. Add to that the clause that says that a transfer from other operations cannot happen. Add those three together, and the effect is very significant. I'm not sure that all of those things have yet been analyzed by the people who have an interest.

There is no question that the proposal before us has a major impact on the rights of individuals. We've talked -- and will talk an awful lot more -- about voting procedures. I think the minister and almost everyone in this House would agree that this bill is going to have a major impact on the small business community, and we have given them credit for most of the job creation that has happened over the last number of years -- a very important part of our society. I think everyone would agree that there is going to be a major impact on the public at large. You may not say that there is a direct impact, but the results of this bill will affect them in their daily lives, whether they be organized or unorganized workers, retired people or people who are not in the workforce.

I recognize that in his opening remarks the minister gave a fair amount of support to the panel that he put in place. He mentioned a number of names, and rightly so. I would like to point out, though, that the process and its result are really the product of three individuals, who should get the credit: John Baigent, Tom Roper and Vince Ready. I either know them personally or know of them, and I have great respect for their integrity, expertise and the reputations that they have developed. There are absolutely no questions in my mind on that.

I do have some questions, though, in that they represent themselves as serving the interests of the public as a whole. John Baigent has been a very successful and effective lawyer representing the labour community. As a matter of fact, for years he has been very closely associated with the B.C. Federation of Labour -- a well-respected lawyer who has done his job very well. But he is a representative of that community, and that is fairly accepted. Tom Roper has also been a practising labour lawyer for years. If you look at his cases, by far the majority -- almost exclusively -- are representing large, certified employers who need the services of a legal person. I think that shows that there is some narrowness in his perspective as a representative of all the interests of the people of British Columbia. We've seen Vince Ready, in some cases, perform almost miracles in going into a dispute that seemed to be unresolvable and coming out with a settlement that avoided further labour disruption and the animosities that go with it. But I would also like to point out that his community of interest, his livelihood, depends on the two areas represented by the other two members. So I think that I have very little to argue with in the process that went through, except that it does leave out, in my opinion, a very important member or interested party. That's the average worker himself or herself -- or, if you will, the public.

[ Page 3694 ]

As I know it, there was no representation from the small business community on this three-man committee. As a result of some of the recommendations and media coverage that followed the report, there were several small business coalitions formed. The one I can most notably think of is the chamber of commerce, the B.C. small business group and so on. When they saw that this may be dealing with their future and their livelihood, they formed a coalition to become involved in it, and they did make some presentations. But there wasn't a representative of that group sitting on the board that heard those hearings and, more importantly, arrived at a conclusion as a result of those hearings. So they took part in the presentations, but they didn't take part in the conclusions reached.

I suppose I would get some argument from some on this, but I quite honestly see no representative of the individual worker on that committee either. I know that, as I said earlier, Mr. Baigent, Mr. Roper and Mr. Ready have a very great interest in labour relations, but quite frankly I'm not sure that you would be able to tag them with the interest of the individual worker. I think it would be hard to make that leap of credibility.

The changes that we see coming forward are many, and they are subtle. There is a requirement for an opportunity for those people who haven't yet had the time to analyze the implications of what is in this bill to respond to it. A lot of rhetoric has gone on about the ties between the government and the labour community, and I think that's well known. I'm not sure that that is part of the reason to hoist the motion, but I mention in passing that those ties are there and they're very clear to the public.

I would like to point out to the House, hon. Speaker, that six months from now, which is the delay in the motion for debate, would take us into April of 1993. If this government follows the pattern that we have seen for the last number of years -- not only this government but almost all governments -- it will present in early spring, some time in February, March or April, a Speech from the Throne and a budget declaring what is going to happen to us next year, how the government is going to be run and how much money is going to be spent. It seems to me that this legislative session was recalled for the prime purpose of discussing Bill 84, the labour code. Why were we called back? What is the panic? What is the rush? Why do we have to come back to a special sitting to deal with this code? I don't understand why. Quite frankly, Bill 19 has, I know, not been supported by labour generally in British Columbia, even though wages are up, days lost to labour disputes are way down and 75 percent of the certification votes that have gone before the Industrial Relations Council have been won.

[11:00]

What is the rush? What is the emergency? Is it because we are facing an imminent convention of the B.C. Federation of Labour? Is it because there is a party convention coming up almost immediately? If that is the case, if those are the reasons -- and I would really be disappointed if they were the reasons -- then it seems to me that the public interest is being subverted to the interests of a very narrow group.

I heard the Minister of Labour say yesterday that this legislation is very important. It's very important to help us in our ability to succeed in a global economy. I think that's true, and I certainly can't argue with it. What I can argue with, though, is: why not have that global economy or some of the people who may represent that global economy or some of the people who may have an opinion on what the effect of this is going to be on the global economy give us their thoughts?

It seems to me that when we talk of global economy we talk of foreign investors, people who may be considering coming to our province. They see an opportunity and wish to come and take advantage of it, thereby helping our economy, helping our people find jobs and so on. It seems to me that they may have some interest in what is being passed here. While I'm not suggesting that people other than Canadians or British Columbians have the right to vote or take part in the debates on provincial legislation, I think it would be important for us as legislators to know the opinion that those people might have of something that is going to be part of their consideration when they decide to come to our province and bring with them their investment and their job creation abilities. So I think we have forgotten. The minister has recognized the importance of it, but we have forgotten to give an opportunity to let that assessment happen in that community.

When the minister was up speaking, he was giving us some reasons why it was necessary, in their opinion -- this is one of the major issues of contention right at the moment, or at least has been immediately -- to remove the need for a secret ballot. His reasoning was that it causes too much confrontation; it gives the employer an unfair opportunity of intervening -- campaigning, I believe, was his expression -- in the certification process. He made the suggestion that there had been a 100 percent increase in accusations of unfair labour practices as a result of that. He may be right; I haven't got the statistics to argue. What I would like to know -- and what I would argue -- is how many of those were actually found to have been interference, or at least unfair labour practices. I think the answer might be slightly different.

But I ask this House to consider that if 55 percent of the people sign certification cards and it is then all right to order certification -- the reason being that a vote causes too much opportunity for employer interference -- why is it then all right to order a vote when there's 45 to 55 percent of people and give that terrible employer the opportunity to interfere with the 45 or 55 situation? It doesn't seem like the rules are the same for everyone. That famous level playing field that we have sought so much doesn't seem to have been recognized in this. I point out these things only because those are the sorts of things that we need to have an opportunity to have input on from the affected people as to what these new rules do to them. What is the effect? Where do we stand? Where does this bring us to in today's labour climate?

I guess another example I could use is the secondary boycott situation. The minister spoke of the democratic process and of the two parties sitting at the table and bargaining, because it is in their interests that they are 

[ Page 3695 ]

bargaining. I suppose that this has some merit in most parts of this bill. But is it fair that two parties sit at a table and bargain conditions that are going to affect a tremendous number of other people who are not at that table and who have no opportunity to express their concerns about what might be in that contract? Is it fair for you and me to sit down and bargain an agreement that affects everybody else, and nobody else has a chance to say anything about it? It doesn't sound fair to me. That's why we must give this bill some time to be analyzed, looked at and assessed by a community that has not had any opportunity to take part in the debate so far.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: Someone asked me about Bill 19. I hear in the background the rump. Bill 19 was introduced on April 2, and it was passed at the end of June. Arithmetic very quickly tells you that that's almost three months. I suspect that it is the motivation of this government to have this bill debated, passed and out of here within the next two weeks. And there isn't that opportunity, I think the members would agree. I think the members would agree that when Bill 19 was introduced, we had the budget and a number of other pieces of legislation before us, and the debate was interspersed with those. So if you don't like the six months, give us the three months.

Interjections.

L. Hanson: I heard a member suggest that this is called negotiation, and I suppose that is true. Hopefully the rules of Bill 84 don't apply to this negotiation. As a matter of fact, if I were going to refer to this bill, I'd probably call it "Bill pre-84."

The whole principle behind the thing and behind our party's hoist motion, which I think this Legislature should support, is the principle that some time is needed to analyze and assess the many clauses involved in this bill that have meanings when joined together with other clauses. When you consider the impact of all those different issues together, they are very important. I don't think that the public, the small business community or a large part of our British Columbia society has had the opportunity or will have the opportunity to assess those different clauses if we continue at the pace we're going without some delay or some opportunity for the public to have that input.

With that, hon. Speaker, I would like to repeat: what is the rush? Labour peace in British Columbia has never been better. Wages are up, and days lost to labour disputes are down. Seventy-five percent of the certification votes that have gone before the Industrial Relations Council have been approved. Small business has provided at least 90 percent of the new jobs created in British Columbia. If you consider all of those things, what is the rush? What is the emergency? I ask this House to support the motion to delay debate for six months.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on the amendment, I now call the question 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'."

[11:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

L. Stephens: It is a pleasure to rise and debate second reading of Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code; it's 92 pages long with 11 parts and 176 sections. This is to replace the current Industrial Relations Act, and the process of amending the Industrial Relations Act is about more than who wins. No one wins -- not management, labour or government -- if the amendments result in a labour environment in which each sector is looking after its own interests exclusively.

As legislators we may hope that these amendments and this debate are utmost in the minds of the people of this province. However, we must question whether these amendments will improve the quality of life for over 256,000 British Columbians over the age of 15 who have less than a grade 9 education, or for 17 percent of the adult population in this province representing 360,000 individuals who cannot read, write or use numbers well enough to cope in today's world.

Training and education are the foundation on which an economy is built. It is not built on favouring one interest over another. This province is at an economic crossroads and requires amendments that will not appease one sector, such as labour, but will work toward balancing the interests of all sectors in job 

[ Page 3696 ]

creation, retraining, training programs and government incentives for business investment.

It has been shown that most new jobs have been created by small-and medium-sized businesses, and that has been pointed out time and time again in this House. In my view, the proposed legislation, Bill 84, seriously impedes small-and medium-sized businesses continuing in that important direction. It's not through government and it's not through the incentives of unions, but by the very sector that this government may very well now alienate.

Job security is the most pressing concern of people today. We must have people working. The problem in British Columbia today is largely systemic. The skills of the workers -- or the lack thereof -- do not match the needs of industry, and they do not have training available to them. This government has not implemented programs. Ten thousand students were turned away from our universities and colleges this year. It's simply not acceptable. We need these training programs to ensure secure, high-paying jobs for our people.

In my constituency of Langley we have a new Kwantlen College opening in the fall of 1993. There has been no indication concerning available operating costs for this college. We need a free-standing university in the Fraser Valley. The Fraser Valley participation rate in higher education is extremely low. Per capita it is the lowest in the province. This is not acceptable. This government has done nothing to address that very serious problem.

On February 3 of this year we welcomed the Labour minister's announcement that he was naming a Labour Relations Review Panel to develop a long-term strategy for stability and cooperation in B.C. labour relations, and we still have no indication at all from this government of any kind of industrial strategy. The minister announced that the panel would be working with government to develop a new labour relations policy that would be fair and long term and would provide a stable investment climate so British Columbians could maintain their quality of life and social programs. What this government and the unions must realize is that the future of this province must be the principal consideration, and that the interests of unions, business, government and the labour market must be balanced. Without balance, strife follows.

Hon. Speaker, do we have balance and fairness in this new legislation, as the minister suggests? Will the new labour code eliminate confrontational labour-management relations in this province? I doubt it very much. This proposed legislation is very clearly written for friends and insiders of this NDP government. This Bill 84 is very clearly a payoff to the trade unions in this province. Do not be comforted that the B.C. Federation of Labour is not happy with it. This is simply the beginning of changes to the Labour Code in this province. And the issue of sectoral certification that was of paramount importance to small-and medium-sized businesses in this province, simply because it was eliminated from this particular bill, is not going to go away. This issue is the single component that the labour organizations wanted very, very badly. It is simply going to be on the agenda for the next go-around of labour negotiations, and we know this bill states that that will be ongoing.

The secret ballot vote. The basis of fundamental democracy is gone, eliminated from this bill. The mere fact that 55 percent of signed cards is a requisite to the wishes of the workers is simply not good enough. They have a free vote for decertification. What's the problem with having a free vote for certification? It's undemocratic in the extreme.

The ban on hiring replacement workers during strikes. This is in violation of the employers' and the replacement workers' right to bargain freely. Statistics show that businesses unable to hire replacement workers and operate with current management staff go out of business and do not start up again. Then everyone is out of a job: the owners, the employees and also the suppliers of this company are affected. The financial institutions are affected. Every business has an operating loan or financial arrangement of some kind, and there are far-reaching implications and destructive implications for all participants in this provision.

In my view, this labour package provides for rapid, legislated trade union expansion, and it enshrines employee intervention in the management process without accountability. This bill will create the most negative climate for investment in this province. When we get to the clause-by-clause debate, we will be seeking clarification on some of these concerns.

Employees and unions both must change their attitude, approach and behaviour toward management. There is still a basic distrust between labour and management. Labour leaders believe that management's pleas for cooperation in dealing with new competitiveness are hidden demands for concessions, and unions believe they are being asked to condone an essentially corporate vision of a global society that denies the interests of working people. The divergent goals of labour and management will not change overnight. The government needs to provide the impetus for mutual cooperation, and this is not evident in this bill.

Over the past 12 months the economy of the province has eroded. This erosion has had profound effects on the provincial government in the services that it is required to provide and in the reduced revenue it has received from the province's corporations. The revenue generated from corporate interests has dropped steadily during the past four years. In 1988 the province collected $651 million in direct taxes from corporate and government enterprises. However, by 1991 that total had fallen to only $350 million, which represents a 46 percent drop in only four years.

[11:30]

In their first legislative session, the New Democratic government made an ill-conceived attempt to protect government revenues, not through the implementation of an economic strategy to improve profitability but through new and higher taxes. In the first session, the NDP initiated the Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1992, which increased the tax paid on airline fuel -- one of the major reasons that the airline industry, and particularly the Vancouver International Airport, Air 

[ Page 3697 ]

Canada and Canadian Airlines, is in such difficulty. It's just another straw on that camel's back.

In addition, the NDP implemented the corporation capital tax, which taxes fixed assets -- fixed assets, not profits -- that have a value of over $1 million, as well as increased the corporate tax rate to 16 percent and the small business tax rate to 10 percent. This attack on capital came soon after a world tour by the Premier, during which he invited foreign investors to bring capital to British Columbia.

With the economy in a position of considerable weakness, small businesses in the province cannot withstand the pressure from a one-sided labour code that that would bring, and, more importantly, neither could the provincial economy. The past 12 months have witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of days lost to labour unrest. There has been an increase of 239 percent in the 12 months ending in September, as compared with the previous 12 months. Eleven of those months have been under a New Democratic government. International investment does not look favourably upon labour unrest when determining in which jurisdiction capital should be placed. There is no magic to business. You either make money or you don't. The provincial economy is fragile enough to make any investment risky without the added prospect of labour strife.

Certainly the provincial government must take the deficit seriously. The Minister of Finance has already announced further ministry cuts as a result of his budget projections being incorrect, and I suggest that the degree of incorrectness to which this Finance minister has miscalculated will be astronomical. These miscalculations have been due in large part to that shortfall of tax revenues to which I've just referred. The increased social costs are due to the high levels of unemployment. In my view, unemployment is directly related to the lack of job training in this province. As one who realizes the importance of a stable credit rating, the Finance minister must be cautious of upsetting the international bond rating agencies. Clearly labour legislation is one component of the system of credit analysis.

At the same time, employees and unions both must change their attitudes, approaches and behaviour. We have to deal with the new competitiveness, and we also have to realize that the government must be the one to provide the framework for that mutual cooperation. I don't see that in this labour legislation before us. This is not to deny the key areas of labour market concerns such as the increasing number of job losses and the dislocation due to restructuring, such as we've recently seen in Cassiar and as I'm sure we are going to see in a number of other areas affected by the economic slowdown in this province. High-wage jobs, value-added jobs, must be created.

The process of amending the Industrial Relations Act should not be about who wins; it should be about cooperation in the management of the economy for all of us -- labour, business and other sectors of our society. Unions have long sought protective labour legislation, as well as legislation favourable to union organizations and collective bargaining, through political means. This bill provides that. The relationship between organized labour and the NDP, in both the federal and provincial governments, has been an important component of labour strategy for social change. The election of the NDP in Ontario in 1990 and the amendments to the labour act that we now see being proposed there are indicative of this close and obviously mutually supportive relationship.

The promise of amended legislation developed from balanced considerations must be a commitment by this government and not another broken promise. The government in this province must look only to the NDP government in Ontario to realize that changes without consideration to all parties will force this province into economic chaos. If balance is the intention of the amendments to the Industrial Relations Act, then a responsible government will not make changes that will favour one party over another. That is not in this bill.

This province needs a long-term labour and management strategy coupled with fair legislation, which together will work towards a conciliatory labour relations process. We need this harmony to attract investment on which to build a competitive market economy. In a report issued by the Conference Board of Canada last year, the board indicated that the challenge in the 1990s facing labour, management and government is to adopt a consensus approach on strategies for meeting the intensifying pressures of international competition demand for services and crippling public debt.

I cannot support this legislation, and therefore I would like to make an amendment to delete all of the words after "that" and substitute the following, "That the subject matter of Bill 84 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology."

The Speaker: If the hon. member would forward a copy of the amendment to the Chair. Please continue debate on the amendment, hon. member, while the Chair considers it.

On the amendment.

L. Stephens: On the amendment to refer this Bill 84 to a standing committee of the House, it is on economic considerations. The new competitive environment facing our economy is the principal issue that must be addressed. In amending or defining the boundaries for industrial relations, governments must respond to, not ignore, the accelerated pace of technological change, growing competitive pressures from the Pacific Rim countries which affect British Columbia directly, European economic integration and free trade agreements.

Canada's and British Columbia's economic weaknesses lie in lagging productivity growth since the 1970s, high rates of increase in unit labour costs, a steady upward rise in the unemployment rate together with widening disparities, the poor record of investment and upgrading skills in technology, chronic government deficits and rapidly growing public debt. From 1981 to 1986 the impact of trade and technological advances on Canadian employment was significant.

[ Page 3698 ]

Information from the Economic Council of Canada shows that as a result of trade and technological advances, manufacturing employment has substantially declined, as has employment in primary industries. In contrast, service sector employment, particularly in trade, finance, insurance and business services, has increased dramatically.

Pessimism brought about by the recession has undermined consumer confidence. A major influence on consumer confidence is labour market conditions. Although 20,000 net new jobs were created in B.C. in 1992, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in the province has remained close to 10 percent throughout the year. Unacceptable. Double-digit unemployment is not acceptable. The strong population growth, together with the marginal increase in the participation rate, are factors that we simply have to address in this province. And job security has become the primary concern for a growing number of employed workers in this province. The uncertainty related to job security and the perceived pessimism about the short-term prospects for employment have caused individuals to spend more cautiously on discretionary items.

The amendments to the Industrial Relations Act must reflect business, economic and major labour market factors as well as consider the impact the amendments will have on the public order, economic prosperity and the social makeup of this province. The Liberal caucus firmly believes that despite the wishes of the labour leaders, the labour code must be as much an economic document as a document to determine the relationship between business and labour. And when international investors seek countries in which to invest, the possibility, or lack thereof, of labour strife, as well as the cost of labour and productivity, are all determining factors in their decision.

For those reasons, hon. Speaker, I support the amendment to refer this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology.

J. Dalton: I am certainly pleased to rise and participate in debate on this amendment, which I would say is certainly well warranted, as I think this would be an excellent opportunity for a legislative committee to actually do some positive and real work instead of some of the delay tactics that we have observed from time to time.

I will be referring later in my comments to another committee, which actually was the first legislative committee that this Parliament undertook, and I was happy to be a member of that committee. I would certainly like to point out to all members, whether they be on the other side, in the third party or in my caucus, that a legislative committee of this nature can do some very excellent things. I would also suggest, in particular to the members opposite.... I presume you have nothing to hide or fear from public reaction and input. Although perhaps if we think back to the events of this Monday, maybe not. However, we needn't rehash things that are now finished and done; we have to look to the future.

Hon. Speaker, I would suggest that the all-party committee that this amendment refers to would be an excellent vehicle to properly study Bill 84. I don't just mean a cosmetic one to gloss it over, where they'll all go and talk to their union friends, and the third party perhaps will go and talk to their business friends. We in the true Liberal fashion will talk to everybody, and we will form an objective viewpoint on the topic. Now that we're caught up in the heat of debate in the Legislature, and even though we in opposition are prepared to debate this very important bill as long as it will take to do a thorough job.... Therefore I would say to all members, don't make any Christmas plans. Who knows...? But you could certainly make your Christmas plans if you support this amendment, because we could put it to a committee and all get about the business of attending to our ridings and other things. And by the way, if I can get a little commercial in here, tomorrow morning I'm going to be speaking about representing your ridings. So stay tuned for that.

[11:45]

Hon. Speaker, we all waited for this open and honest government to produce and release the labour law review paper. We waited endlessly and in vain, because the paper was not released until Tuesday of this week when the bill was also introduced. So much for open and honest process. In fact, my office called the department in the Ministry to get the law review paper. I'm very disappointed in the reaction of whomever was on the other end of the line. That person said: "What do you want it for?" I thought, now wait a minute. Tax dollars went to produce this; tax money went to get the review itself done, and yet there seemed to be a real hesitancy to release the document. I happily now have ten to 12 in my office. The particular reason why I asked for copies was that the three North Shore mayors, who were here on Wednesday, all wanted a copy. I said: "I'd be happy to get you one." Then I went through this very protracted exercise where somebody was very reluctant to release them, even though it was produced at our cost, as taxpayers, and was available. But we got it, and this weekend I will be personally delivering a copy to each of the mayors of North and West Vancouver.

D. Schreck: I gave it to them before they left.

J. Dalton: One of them. The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale says that he gave them to the mayors. Actually only one received a copy; the other two are still anxiously waiting, and this member is going to deliver them.

Hon. Speaker, we are now faced with major and significant changes to labour law in British Columbia. This is not a cosmetic gloss-over bill; this is a major document. Just by the heft of it, it obviously is major. Why not examine this document thoroughly? And I don't mean just by the thorough debate that I've already indicated we in the Liberal caucus are prepared to undertake -- and we will do so if this amendment is not passed; we are prepared to do that, and we will stay here as long as it takes. But I suggest to all hon. members that the all-party legislative committee which is structured to deal with topics such as this would be 

[ Page 3699 ]

an excellent opportunity to get thorough input from all British Columbians, not just from the B.C. Fed, the BCTF, the coalition of business, big business, small business and the person on the street, but from every British Columbian. We can put aside the special-interest concept that always raises its ugly head, and we can put aside the vested interests that obviously have a significant input into this bill and allow every British Columbian a chance to comment. Why not do -- and I put this to the members opposite -- as you consistently told us during the election you were going to do, and be open and honest? There's something missing with the lack of a process, as we're suggesting.

Does this government talk to any other NDP government? Do you ever sit down, pick up the telephone and ask Premier Romanow or Premier Rae what's happening in their provinces? Sometimes I wonder. I suppose you did with regard to the Charlottetown accord, because every NDP party across the country was of like mind on that topic. And I don't need to tell you the result of their like-mindedness. The Ontario NDP government did things differently when they introduced major changes to labour law in that province. They didn't just dump the document in the House one day, as has happened Tuesday of this week here. They had a very extensive and wholesale process whereby a committee went around Ontario and invited people to comment and reflect properly on the significant changes that faced the province. I needn't tell this House how important labour relations are to the economy of British Columbia, as they are to the economy of Ontario. That goes without saying.

Looking at the Ontario example, they toured the bill around the province at great length. Of course, it had some adverse effects. Everybody got fussed and bothered, because it was bad legislation, as this is bad legislation. But it's significant that Premier Rae and the NDP government were prepared to listen to people. They may not have liked what they were hearing, but they did listen. They didn't necessarily incorporate any changes to the bill, but at least they knew the likelihood of what was coming down the pipeline as far as criticism.

What do we have here? We have a major bill introduced in the fall session -- no open process as to what might be in it; a lot of speculation. But we had a fairly good idea of what was likely to be here and not be here. I'd point out that I'll be arguing this later if this amendment fails. There are things in here that are very subtle in nature that I hope all British Columbia will appreciate. Don't just open it up and say: "That looks fine. Or maybe that's bad." There are very subtle provisions in the bill itself.

Coming back to the amendment and why we support the process of an all-party committee.... Comparing it again to the Ontario example, I think Ontario did the right thing, even though the bill itself was wrong and even though it's another NDP government, which, of course, has difficulty doing anything right. But at least they listened, and good for Premier Rae. I congratulate the man for that, if nothing else.

What do we have here? Everyone in British Columbia is equally as fussed and bothered as Ontario people were on the topic, but they don't have the same opportunity to provide input to their elected representatives and say what they like about it. And I'll be frank; I'm an honest person. There are good things in this bill, as there were good things in the Charlottetown accord, but relatively few.

An Hon. Member: You're a politician.

J. Dalton: The member opposite says that I'm a politician, and that's right; but there are some honest politicians on this planet.

An Hon. Member: All Liberals.

J. Dalton: They're all Liberals. Exactly. We're all liberal-minded on this side.

Everyone in this province is fussed and bothered. You open up the newspaper every day and there are editorials, comments and articles on the topic. That's predictable, but that's fine. Why not have some pause and time for reflection on the bill and not say: "Well, here it is, folks. We'll give you ten minutes to contact your MLA and tell them what you like or don't like about it." Quite frankly, I would suspect that this government would love to have this bill finished, implemented and in place prior to a week tomorrow. Of course, a week tomorrow is their annual convention, apparently. They didn't send me an invitation. Maybe I'll go along just to snoop. If any other members care to do so.... There's somebody down there who says he's going to go along and snoop too.

That's certainly not going to happen, unless.... You won't have the bill in place if you support the amendment. At least you will have an opportunity to go to your party members and say: "We are going to consult with the people of British Columbia." That would be rather refreshing. You might get a round of applause from your party members if you said that at the convention -- or maybe not. Maybe they would say: "What? You're going to consult with the people? Horrible! Don't do that, please." But we're not facing that prospect unless you support this amendment. We're going to have a lot of fussed and bothered people, but relatively little opportunity for really significant input into this bill before us, which I hope will never become a statute -- but perhaps it will.

We in the Liberal opposition are pleased to allow an open process to be undertaken, and that's why this amendment is before the House. We are quite happy with an all-party committee, and there is a standing committee in place to do so. I would point out to the members opposite that this government was very quick during the Charlottetown debate to continually refer to the all-party committee on the constitution. I was a member of that committee. Virtually every member opposite said: "Well, you people bought into the constitutional committee in an all-party report, and therefore you've got to support the accord." Well, that is silly. There were relatively few things in the all-party report that ever got into the Charlottetown accord. But again, that's history; we put that to bed. The people of 

[ Page 3700 ]

Canada, and particularly the people of British Columbia, said a very convincing no to that.

What I would like is the people of British Columbia, whether they say yes or no to the labour code, to have an opportunity to say an informed yes or no and not a sort of ignorant: "Well, I'm a union person; I have to support it," or "I'm a small business person, and I have to defeat it," or "I'm confused, and I don't know what to do." That's a pretty horrible way of trying to implement such a significant piece of legislation.

Coming back to this all-party committee of which I was a member, we had excellent input over a number of weeks from all British Columbians. We went north, south, east, west, to northern Vancouver Island, up the north coast and into the Kootenays. We even went into Vancouver and finished in Victoria. I am ashamed to tell you, hon. member, but that is true. People told us what they did or didn't like about the constitution and about this and that, so we had excellent input. It didn't all get into the document. The members opposite are quite prepared to say: "You guys bought into this, and therefore you had to support it." There were some interesting discussions before the final report came forward, I can tell you, but I won't disclose those now. Recommendations came from the public, and the public felt comfortable that at least they had something to say about it.

What do we have here? The public, just like you and me as members of this House, said on Tuesday: "That's a pretty hefty document. Are we supposed to read it?" I hope they will have the chance to read it. I'm wondering if this government is going to reproduce thousands of copies of this, as they did the accord. I still have three boxes of that accord in my West Vancouver office. I didn't even order them. I don't know what to do with them.

J. Tyabji: Recycle them.

J. Dalton: Recycle them. Well, I have a plan. I won't disclose that, but I do have a plan for the accord.

C. Tanner: Send them to the Minister of Environment.

J. Dalton: Right, or perhaps send them to minister responsible for the accord.

I'm going to very quickly finish up, because high noon is fast dancing.

C. Tanner: Don't stop now.

J. Dalton: Well, it's very kind of you to encourage me, but I haven't had breakfast today, so I want to get down for lunch.

I will conclude by just asking this: why not repeat the process of that all-party committee, which did an excellent job and made British Columbians at least feel comfortable about a democratic process, instead of this last-minute "Here it is, folks. If you want a copy of the labour review, good luck. We might give you one, but you're going to have a tough time getting it from us." In particular I would invite the members opposite to seriously reflect on this amendment.

I will conclude with that remark and move adjournment of the debate to the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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