Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1992

Volume 5, No. 23

[ Page 3701 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. T. Perry: It's a delight to welcome to the precincts Myrna Popove, chair of the board at Douglas College and chair of the Advanced Education Council of B.C.; Dr. Terry Weninger, also of the Advanced Education Council and president of the College of New Caledonia in Prince George; and Mr. Gil Johnson, executive director of the Advanced Education Council. Would members of the Legislature please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: I have two introductions today. Firstly, today in the members' gallery we have a new member of our consular corps in Vancouver, Percy von Lipinski, honorary consul for Morocco. Please join me in welcoming Mr. von Lipinski.

Also, hon. Speaker, an equally important person in the gallery today is my mother, Anne Chudley. Would the House please welcome her.

K. Jones: It's with great pleasure that I introduce two people visiting with us today. Seated in the members' gallery is Mr. Ralph Cave, acting president of the Lower Fraser Valley Exhibition Association; and the general manager of the association, Bob Matwiv. They are both from my riding in Cloverdale, and we're very pleased to have them here in the gallery. Would you all greet them.

M. Farnworth: It gives me great pleasure to introduce about 100 students from Terry Fox Senior Secondary School in my riding and their teachers who are here today. They are Jo-Ann Ward, Judy Giles, Tony Leroux and Bruce Kiloh. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Pement: Today I'd like to introduce Anne Martin, councillor from the city of Prince George and interim governing council director for the University of Northern B.C. I ask that you welcome her today to this House.

N. Lortie: It's my pleasure today to introduce a visitor in the gallery, a good friend and a dedicated community worker and the person who drove the Minister of Government Services' mother over here today: Don Anderson. Would the members please help me make him welcome.

Ministerial Statement

CONSUMER SERVICES MINISTRY
PRESS RELEASE POLICY

Hon. M. Sihota: On March 10, 1992, the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services issued a news release, which has been a subject of discussion in this House, detailing the results of an investigation by the ministry into consumer complaints related to a Kelowna music store. The diligent work of our investigator and his cooperation with the Kelowna RCMP resulted in the following.

First, the store owner pleaded guilty to violating the Trade Practice Act and was fined and required to provide full restitution to his customer. Second, the Kelowna RCMP laid 42 charges of criminal fraud. The preliminary hearing resulted in committal on ten counts, and the accused was convicted on one count. Between conviction and sentencing the accused's counsel applied for a stay of proceedings, citing the March news release by my ministry and its report in local media as reasons for such a stay. This raised the issue of the obligation of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services to advise the public of consumer fraud on one hand, and the obligation to protect the rights of the accused in facing a trial on the other hand.

Before discussing the judge's comments as to the role -- if any -- the news release and subsequent media reports may have had on his decision not to allow the stay of proceedings, I want to advise the House that I have considered the entire scope and import of Mr. Justice Wilkinson's comments. The ministry has generated these types of press releases in the past, and this is the first occasion to our knowledge that a court has commented on them. Justice Wilkinson referred to portions of the news release as "unfortunate." He stated that he hopes "that safeguards will be instituted by the ministry to ensure that there is not a repetition."

I agree with the statements of Mr. Justice Wilkinson in both instances. The news release in question clearly overstepped the bounds of what is required and expected in these types of situations. Every individual responsible for the release -- including, ultimately, myself -- is in agreement that an application of the safeguards referred to by Justice Wilkinson would have seen changes in the news release we issued. I am pleased to advise the House today that those safeguards are now in place.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the minister today. The delicate balance that we have as elected members with respect to the provision of safeguards to those citizens we are elected to represent, as well as the maintenance of justice as an independent function within the province, is something that all elected members, whether a minister of the Crown or simply a Member of the Legislative Assembly, must be acutely aware of. Whenever a press release is issued indicating an accusation of guilt prior to a formal trial and hearing within the process assigning guilt through the proper judicial system, I think that it is indeed unfortunate, unwarranted and a most serious offence under the rights of a minister.

Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased that this government has moved towards the provision of safeguards for the future. However, it is the opinion of the Liberal opposition that when a minister acts in such a manner as has been admitted to, which is in discretion of the position of the minister, the leader of the government -- the Premier -- should take action against that minister.

[ Page 3702 ]

Oral Questions

REPLACEMENT DOCTORS

G. Wilson: To the Minister of Health. In light of the fact that we have a new labour bill that says that replacement workers will be outlawed in British Columbia, can the minister tell us if she is still quite enthusiastic about replacement workers in the health care industry, who are about to be put in place in the Powell River-Sunshine Coast district?

[2:15]

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, what is going on in the Sunshine Coast area right now is actually in place in eight other communities in British Columbia. They are called by various names, but community-based health clinics is a generic term that I think the member would understand. There are four in urban areas and four in rural areas. Quite clearly they are very much in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, which suggested that we look at alternative methods of providing health care services in our community.

G. Wilson: I wonder then if the minister, since she's talked about these other eight communities, might want to tell us whether each of these eight communities is expecting $5 million in start-up funds to hire doctors from outside Canada to replace those who are currently serving under the MSP.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, the amount of money that the people on the Sunshine Coast think they need to launch their health clinic is a matter that they're still discussing. The ministry has not yet received a proposal for such a community-based project. When we receive a proposal, we'll look at it in line with the other funding guidelines and criteria that we have in the ministry. If it seems viable, meets the needs of the community and is in the direction of health care reform in this province, then we'll fund it according to our regular criteria.

G. Wilson: It's with some alarm that we hear that replacement workers are acceptable in the medical profession, although illegal in every unionized business in the province. What is even more incredible is that this minister is prepared to fund that process to the tune of $5 million, according to an NDP Member of Parliament.

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

G. Wilson: On the issue of replacement workers, will the Minister of Labour tell us whether replacement workers will be something that he will use to avert the problem he's going to face on Friday with the Queen's Printer strike, which is now looming since the mediators booked out?

Hon. M. Sihota: This government has no interest in encouraging policies and practices that invite violence and brute force. In light of that fact, this government is of the view that we should not be engaged in replacement worker activities.

G. Wilson: But it's okay in the health care industry.

Hon. M. Sihota: No. Accordingly, we have now introduced a bill before the House with regard to replacement workers. The hon. member should know that, but I know he has trouble asking questions that are in order. The bill is before the House, so he will have adequate time to raise these concerns and debate these issues in the House.

PUBLIC HEALTH PERMIT FEES

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is also to the Minister of Health. In July the government introduced a new annual fee of $150 to $250 for all establishments requiring an operating permit under the Health Act. However, this fee applies to all restaurant operators, swimming pool proprietors and water purveyors with two minor exceptions. Why has the minister unfairly singled out these establishments with this punitive fee?

Hon. E. Cull: The fee that is being levied is to recoup the cost of the inspections that those particular facilities need. They all need licences and certificates to be able to operate. The certificates are issued in an effort to protect public health. I think that anyone going into a restaurant or other public facility does want to know that the facility has been inspected by a public health inspector and certified to be free of public health risks.

L. Fox: Supplementary to the minister. The minister should know that even a $150 tax is a lot of money to a small mom-and-pop restaurant or deli. Can the minister tell us why she targeted these select businesses for a mid-year tax increase? Why should they bear the brunt of this punitive fee that makes these small businesses pay more than their fair share of taxes?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm really puzzled at the line of questioning, because clearly what we're talking about here is user-pay. We're talking about the costs being borne by the businesses that have the benefits of the public health service that's being provided by through the Province of British Columbia....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Once again the Chair has not been able to hear the reply of the minister.

L. Fox: This is a substantial tax that has been quietly imposed by regulation without any debate or public consultation. Can the minister tell us exactly how much revenue this new fee is expected to generate and why she imposed it without any prior consultation?

Hon. E. Cull: It's a cost-recovery mechanism. There is a zero increase in revenue to the province. It was a part of the provincial budget, and the member 

[ Page 3703 ]

opposite had full opportunity to debate it during the last sitting of this House.

AIRCARE PROGRAM

A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General and concerns the AirCare program and all the stories that have come out of this concerning the staff running up and down at 100 miles an hour, blowing up parts of engines and blowing up engines of cars at a test station. Actually, it sounds like a training ground for the IRA. But does the Attorney General not believe that a government program should be properly planned and tested before being implemented?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I've said before in answer to a question that was asked of me that we've had some start-up problems with the AirCare program, which is a very important initiative, started by the previous government in response to requests by the Greater Vancouver Regional District and others in the lower mainland. The program is unique. It is new. It is so sophisticated that...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! I again call the House to order. The question was listened to in relative silence, and I think we need to extend the same courtesy to the minister who is answering the question.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The program employs technology that has not been used elsewhere. It is new technology. It has had some teething problems. There was a testing period during the months preceding the opening in September. Some of the problems were identified in that period. Additional problems rose in September. The problems are being dealt with. I'm confident that in the very near future we're going to have that system working bug-free.

A. Warnke: The start-up program is certainly a unique way of addressing the problems of pollution by blowing up motors. At any rate, given the string of inconsistencies in the testing that the minister alluded to.... But now there are reports of questionable conduct of staff. Is the Attorney General actually condoning this? What is the Attorney General going to do about it, so that maybe the public can find the smoking tailpipe that's running around?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member would give me his information in respect of questionable conduct by employees, I'd be glad to deal with that question. I'd be glad to deal with the issue when he informs me in some detail as to what he's talking about.

A. Warnke: It's amazing that the Attorney General doesn't know what people are talking about, yet the whole province knows. Since the Attorney General has not explained the contract, and since the AirCare staff won't even talk to the media about these problems, will the Attorney General now table the non-proprietary sections of the contract today, as he promised to do a week ago?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It was my intention a week ago -- it is my intention today -- to table that report just as soon as I possibly can.

LOSS OF JOBS IN KOOTENAY

D. Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I'll make it short. To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources: why is she moving jobs out of her riding into Alberta?

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not.

D. Jarvis: It appears that the minister is not aware that Fording is moving their proposed thermal plant to Alberta -- a loss of 150 jobs, plus maybe $45 million in sales -- and that the new purchasers of the proposed Balmer mine are not going to hire 300 men in her riding. Maybe she should keep up to date.

COMINCO REPORT

D. Jarvis: The government commissioner found that water taxes and fees were Cominco's main obstacles, and this has been echoed throughout the whole industry. Why has this minister chosen to ignore the commissioner's report?

Hon. A. Edwards: The member discusses the proposed Fording thermal coal plant and suggests that Fording is going to build a plant in Alberta. Perhaps he isn't aware that Fording already has several plants in Alberta and had proposed another plant in Alberta before they decided they would no longer proceed with a plant which was integrated with the mine at Fording River. Its integration with the mine at Fording River means that the project will go ahead at Fording River if Fording gets a market and decides to proceed with that project.

I would certainly not want to answer a question about the commissioner's report on Cominco, which should have gone to the Minister of Economic Development.

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL TO
PROMOTE TRADE AND INVESTMENT

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier regarding his junkets to Japan, Hong Kong, New York, California and Europe. We hope that his persuasion skills were better than they were on the constitution. Specifically, can the Premier point to a single major investment in jobs resulting from his travels, not counting the tax on wealthy immigrants coming into British Columbia -- a single job or a single investment that he's delivered to the province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The member was incapable of reading the Hansard from yesterday, when they asked a similar question about the stock exchange. I said very clearly that there is $4 billion of entrepreneurial and 

[ Page 3704 ]

business immigrant investment coming into British Columbia this year.

W. Hurd: I have a question to the Premier, then, about his stand-in Forests minister, who exceeded the performance of the Premier by actually costing jobs on a promotional trip to Europe. While this acting Forests minister was travelling to Europe, a British pulp company cancelled a contract with a major B.C. supplier. Is it not time for the Premier to ground his frequent flyers?

[2:30]

Again to the Premier. His Economic Development minister has made several points as to why the NAFTA agreement should not be ratified, and he's saying a major one is a concern for the environment and workers in Mexico. So my question to the Premier is obvious. Did he ensure, when he was travelling around the Pacific Rim, that he would also demand that the same environmental and worker protection exist in those places as he is now demanding for Mexico? Isn't this a hypocritical exercise if he isn't demanding that?

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY

C. Serwa: My question is directed to the Attorney General. More than six months have elapsed since the announcement of three separate investigations into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and the scandal associated with it. Would the Attorney General please advise the House if any of the investigations have been completed, or would he give us a status report on those investigations?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is one investigation underway; a special prosecutor, Mr. Ace Henderson, was appointed. The RCMP have been looking into the issue; that investigation continues.

Hon. L. Boone tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Orders of the Day

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

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

On the amendment.

J. Dalton: I am pleased to make a few more remarks. I can report to the House that I had an enjoyable lunch, and therefore I'm fired up for a few more minutes.

We're dealing with an amendment to the bill that's before us, and our amendment is that this be submitted to an all-party committee of the House for detailed and ongoing discussion so that the public can be involved in this process, not just the members of this House and special interest groups. We've had enough of special interests to put everything to rest. I am simply asking -- and I will restate this -- that the amendment go forward and that the all-party committee be put to work and be an effective working body of this Legislature, so that the people of British Columbia will have some satisfaction. Even though they may not like the content of this bill -- and certainly many of them do not -- at least they'll have had an opportunity to speak to it, to have the chance to not feel excluded.

Once again, even though I certainly hate to drag up old bones, this Monday the people of this province and this country made a significant statement about being excluded from an important process. I would suggest to all members opposite that if you exclude the people of British Columbia from this process, you're just going to have far more trouble than you ever anticipated.

So I strongly endorse this amendment. I strongly encourage the House to submit this bill to the all-party committee and allow the people of the province to have an effective voice on this issue.

G. Wilson: Speaking to the amendment, I would like, as leader of the official opposition, to first clarify why the members of the Liberal opposition would speak strongly toward the amendment that is proposed when we would not have supported the amendment that was introduced by the third party. It is our considered opinion that this labour bill is not only critically important to British Columbia but long overdue. It has been rumored to be in the works since the last election, certainly since November 5 of last year. It is a process that we have been told has had widespread public consultation, although the evidence of that is certainly sparse and not convincing. It is a process that we have been told would be public and open to full scrutiny, something that members in the Liberal opposition were sadly not able to witness as the tripartite report was held back from public scrutiny right up until the day that the bill was tabled. Until we had an opportunity to look at Bill 84, there had been very little, if any, information that had come forward with respect to the direction this government was going to take, particularly in areas they had said there would be widespread consultation.

For us in the Liberal opposition, we feel that British Columbians -- both on the side of business, as well as on the side of unionized labour, and most importantly those citizens who work and labour daily and weekly and who will be affected and impacted by many of the clauses of this bill but who may not be a member of a trade union or own a large, medium or small business -- need to have some security and knowledge that the economy of this province is going to proceed in a manner that is not going to exacerbate what we have known to be a polarized and rather vitriolic and bitter debate.

We don't believe, having argued as strongly as the Liberal opposition did to get this bill before the House so that the people had an opportunity to review it, that it would have been sensible -- indeed, we don't believe we could have retained any credibility -- to simply have voted to hoist it and get it out. We do believe, as the member for West Vancouver-Capilano has said, that there is a real need for the impact of Bill 84 to be 

[ Page 3705 ]

considered in the light of cold and somewhat sober judgment, not just by the legal opinions of the lawyers who have now started to do a detailed analysis, not just by the members of the B.C. Federation of Labour, not just by those members who are sitting in this House, but by all British Columbians who will be affected, whether they are a member of a trade union or not.

It's clear why this government is attempting to get this bill through in a short period of time. It has to do with a commitment that was made to organized labour prior to the last election. It has to do with a commitment that was reiterated by the Minister of Labour at the last B.C. Federation of Labour convention that this bill would be put through in the spring session and, failing that, that it would be completed by the next B.C. Federation of Labour convention, which we all know is coming up within a matter of weeks.

We know there was a lot of confusion on the opposite side, because when the Premier -- at the same time he was travelling abroad to drum up more of this entrepreneurial immigrant money that he has alluded to, the billions of dollars that are under federal jurisdiction and federal programs, not provincial, which he seems confused about -- was asked about fast-tracking the labour legislation, he said no, that it was going to take us time, that it would take us one or possibly two years of full, open consultation. The Premier said that it was going to be an open process that all British Columbians would be able to participate in and have some input in. He countered the voice of the Minister of Labour, who at the same time the Premier was saying that this was going to be an open and consultative process was telling the B.C. Federation of Labour at their convention that this bill was going to be fast-tracked and would get through, and that they would essentially have what they needed in order to look after the interests of their members.

We recognize that the Premier was wrong and his minister was right, which is an unusual way to run a government, but nevertheless one that seems to be more consistent with this government than most across Canada. But we don't accept that that is the way it should be. We recognize that this is an extremely detailed, complex piece of legislation that is going to require a great deal of study and consultation in order to look at the widespread implications of some of the clauses in it.

Of all the clauses, we on the opposite side of the House have highlighted only 13 that we think really need that kind of detailed analysis. There was no sectoral certification introduced. What is the reason, what is the rationale and what are the implications? That has not been introduced, and we have to ask if we have simply built a process whereby it is then going to fit into a neat slot in this labour bill. In fact, we have tried to defuse one of the more controversial areas, simply to introduce it at a later date. We need to know whether that is the process of labour review in this province -- much like a drop of water on the rock -- that says if we do it one drop at a time, hopefully nobody will realize that we are eroding fundamental rights and freedoms of individual workers -- union and non-union. So on that first section alone, we say there has to be a greater degree of consideration given.

Secondly, with respect to picketing, which essentially remains similar to the existing labour code with some minor changes in terms of common-site picketing, we need to start to analyze the rationale for that process. Why would we bring in this brand new prohibition on replacement workers -- the so-called scab legislation -- which is so well articulated by members opposite? Why are replacement workers totally unacceptable for unionized workers in the province, when the Minister of Health said today that it's perfectly acceptable to have replacement workers displace existing physicians who are now practising under the Medical Services Plan in the province? That is an enormous inconsistency.

We need to know why this government is prepared to honour the scheme that is being put forward by an NDP Member of Parliament from the Powell River-Sunshine Coast riding, who said that he has some kind of guarantee for a $5 million start-up fund to advertise overseas for doctors to come to Canada and replace doctors who are currently practising in the communities of Powell River and the Sunshine Coast. That is a shameful act, because those are replacement workers among a sector of the population that has already been targeted as being those whose rights can be removed. It should really come as no surprise. Why should we be surprised that the doctors of the Sunshine Coast should get the kind of treatment they're getting from this government?

Let us look at another matter that needs to be reviewed by referring this to a standing committee. That is another reason that this motion is not only in order but should be accepted by every member. Let's review the practice of retroactively cancelling a legally signed agreement. Let us understand the inconsistency in this government when they talk about the teachers and Bill 84, in terms of what they did to the teachers by essentially restoring the rights the teachers had negotiated and had legally signed in a legal agreement. We said it was wrong when the former government retroactively cancelled that document.

This government is prepared to practise another inconsistency with respect to the medical profession. This government finds it totally acceptable, through legislation, to arbitrarily roll back a legally signed contract in the province of British Columbia. We recognize that this government has incredible inconsistencies between their friends in unionized labour and the rest of the people in the province. We recognize that when you start to talk about the honouring of collective agreements and the concept of replacement workers, we need to have much more discussion on this question. We need to find out what the impact is going to be, not only on large business but also on medium-sized and small business; and what it means to those people whose livelihood is going to be affected negatively by much of the fallout of what may occur through totally unrelated labour activity in their community and in their area of economic interest.

Let's be very clear that in coming at this particular question the members opposite believe that they have 

[ Page 3706 ]

some exclusive interest in organized labour. That is simply not true; that is clearly not true. I don't try, nor have I ever tried, to hide the fact that, in terms of my own work concerning the certification of members in post-secondary education, I was actively involved. I have been the president of a union. I have been actively involved as a chief negotiator in many rounds of negotiation.

H. Giesbrecht: That's why you terrify business.

G. Wilson: I am fully and absolutely aware that labour and management need to have a good working relationship and a good working climate. I hear from one member opposite, who yells: "That's why you terrify business." Well, hon. Speaker, that in a nutshell sums up the depth of understanding the members opposite have for the need of a clear and honest working relationship.

[2:45]

There are some members in this House, most of whom sit opposite and sometimes wear buttons to identify themselves.... They're all the same. Those members who sit opposite see the world in black and white. It must be a terrible thing, because without seeing the shades of colour that the rest of us are able to see, they don't understand that you can in fact have legislation that looks after the interests of working women and men in British Columbia and that is also fair in the application to those working women and men on the management side who must maintain a competitive economic situation to be able to carry on business.

Let us be clear that we in the Liberal opposition do not come at this bill in an anti-union manner; neither do we come at this bill necessarily being pro-big business. We come at this bill looking at the interests of all British Columbians, unionized and non-unionized, members who are involved in organized labour at a very large level and also those in small-scale certification. We also want to look at fairness among union members. So when we start to look at this question of extensive changes to the promotion of unionization in the first collective agreement, such as automatic certification in the 55 percent of employees that sign cards, and how that essentially develops in the first arbitrated contract, we are as much interested in speaking to this amendment and moving it to a standing committee. We are as much interested in understanding the dynamic of what may happen through various unions raiding, to try to get additional membership in order to build up their representation essentially through their membership. We are as interested in looking at how that dynamic is going to work in the business workplace as we are in recognizing that this is a fundamentally undemocratic process that removes the rights of individuals to a secret-ballot vote and to also have a proposition where there can be full consultation with management, so that they can understand what it means to their business, to their interests, to their livelihood, to their careers, if they should move towards not just certification but certification under one particular bargaining unit or possibly under a different bargaining unit, and how those different bargaining units will have different philosophical positions and directions, a different base membership, different approaches to collective bargaining, and in fact how those various trade unions might have a broader membership, many of which are in fact certified and more powerful outside British Columbia than they are inside British Columbia.

You see, hon. Speaker, this is not a simple matter. It's a matter that is most complex. It is a matter that needs to have full and open debate and discussion, not only among those members who would be active on our standing committee to which we would want to refer this through this amendment, but also among many unionized women and men in British Columbia in the rank and file. They are going to want to understand so they don't simply take the word of the executives; they don't simply take the word of the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour or of the labour council; they don't simply take the elite once again, the elite in the labour movement, the very same elite that joined hands and packed around Brian Mulroney's bags over the last ten weeks, the same union elite that was in bed with the Prime Minister of this country, trying to flog a different deal to which we had no detailed constitution. That labour elite doesn't necessarily speak for their membership.

If we look at the vote, it seems to me that somebody's out of touch somewhere, and it strikes me that it might just possibly be that union elite that is out of touch with their rank and file. You see, hon. Speaker, we're trying to say here that through this amendment we can move this proposition out of this House to a forum where we can have adequate, proper, sensible negotiation, discussion, understanding on the intent of the bill, on the language of the bill and understand exactly what the implications would be.

Hon. Speaker, we are also interested in the inconsistencies in this bill with respect to certification and decertification. How is it possible that we seem to have a principle that says we want to move toward a process of certification that makes it easier for unions to certify, that makes it a lot easier because it removes the democratic rights to a closed-ballot vote of the women and men working in British Columbia? That's been taken away from them. It's something they have lost -- their democratic right. Not only have the women and men lost their democratic right through this bill -- and we understand that this so-called New Democratic Party is trying to remove the "D" part, to get rid of the democrat part, because we understand that this is a new approach to government. But, hon. Speaker, why then, why in this bill -- and this is something we ought to look at -- does management not have a parallel process?

Why, if we want fairness in the workplace, does management not have a parallel process that makes it as easy to decertify as it does to certify for the members whose democratic rights have just been removed by this government? It strikes me that not only are we in a position where we start to understand that there is no parallel process for an equal and fair system of application to certification and decertification, but that 

[ Page 3707 ]

in fact we have tipped the scales very much in favour of unionized workers in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to see whether or not this government, prior to putting this through -- and it's unfortunate and I know that we're not supposed to mention who is and isn't in the House, so I'm not going to mention that the Minister of Finance isn't here to hear this.... It strikes me that if in fact the Minister is observing and hearing -- and I would hope that he would take in notice Bill 84 -- have we done...? Has this government done any kind of economic analysis as to what the implication is going to be with respect to increased wages, the increased wages that may in fact be incurred in medium and small business in British Columbia as a result of a 55 percent sign-up to certification? Has he done any kind of analysis? Perhaps the Minister of Labour might have done it in his spare time, or perhaps he thought about this when he was on his frequent plane trips back to Ottawa. Has he actually sat down and worked out what the percentage of unionized workers in the workforce is going to be, given this new ease to unionization? How many more members of certified unions will we have? What will the impact be? What is this going to mean to small business competitiveness in British Columbia? Where is the detailed analysis? Where is the documentation that tells us that they have done this kind of work and have this kind of understanding?

Hon. Speaker, I am prepared to give a great deal of credit to the Minister of Labour, and I do so only because I am generous in recognizing his inability to have spent a lot of time on this because he was preoccupied with some other activity. I am prepared to suggest that he has done the analysis. If he has, I would hope that he will table that analysis in this House so that we will have some understanding of what the cost is going to be of this bill. Failing that, it would be perfectly acceptable and understandable, and indeed I would even argue responsible -- and far be it from this government to ever hear the "r" word, "responsible" -- to move into a standing committee. That could allow us an opportunity to do that kind of detailed economic analysis so that the people of British Columbia have some clear understanding of what this bill is going to mean to the economic competitiveness of those whose livelihoods depend upon it. I think that's something that we need to do.

The other thing that we find interesting -- and this is something that, again, is going to be a major factor in our ability to remain competitive in a very quickly changing global economy -- is the section around a technological change that is perhaps required to take place in very short order, in order to respond to the changing markets and the changing climate of our principal trading partners, which are south of the border in Washington, Oregon and California, and soon to be Mexico if we move to a greater continentalization of our economy; but also recognizing the very quickly growing economies of countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Korea and Japan.

The tech change clause suggests that there will be a new provision requiring 60 days' notice of "measure, policy, practice or change." Hon. Speaker, listen to this. It says "measure, policy, practice or change." Those are pretty wide-ranging words. They are not defined. In fact, they are so wide-ranging that measure, policy, practice or change could be virtually any aspect of the production of any product coming out of British Columbia.

It says that a discussion with the union on an adjustment plan is required. Now what does an adjustment plan mean? Does that mean that by law businesses in the province are now going to have to essentially work with organized labour to come up with an adjustment plan for the implementation of technological change? If there is disagreement, or if there is no agreement, these companies are going to be frustrated in terms of being able to speed and modernize in order to bring into place this new technology.

What is that going to mean to an outfit like Howe Sound Pulp and Paper, for example?

Interjections.

G. Wilson: I hear heckling from members opposite, who would suggest that that's not necessarily a bad thing. What would it mean to an outfit like Howe Sound Pulp and Paper, if I can use that one, perhaps one of the most modern pulp mills now operating in the province, that has moved very quickly to the implementation of new technology; that has shifted its technology not only in terms of the method of production but also with respect to the product that is going out, in terms of the specialization of product and the concentration of a single-niche market. This is something that has been good, in large measure, for the people in the Gibsons region in my own riding and something that the union workers, I think, have endorsed and supported and have wanted to work with.

What would have happened if at the time of that technological change a new investor, Oji Paper from Japan, had been faced with this kind of clause, by law, in terms of their potential investment in that product? Do you think Oji Paper would have come in and said, "We're going to put in $1 billion-plus," if we had to have some kind of legal requirement that essentially allows the unionized members to move forward and have an adjustment plan?

H. Lali: What is the alternative?

G. Wilson: I hear the members opposite saying: "What is the alternative?" The alternative is exactly what we have in place right now. Oji Paper came in, consulted with the unions and worked with Howe Sound Pulp and Paper.

Let me say that we have moved forward in a progressive way, because unlike the government, we have trust in unionized workers to come together and work with management, and we trust management to recognize the need to work with unions.

Can there be a better example than what happened yesterday in the Kootenays at the Balmer mine? You had unionized workers, management and members of the community all coming together. They were totally frustrated by this government because this government 

[ Page 3708 ]

wouldn't do anything to help them out. That is just a travesty.

Instead of putting their faith and trust in the working women and men of British Columbia, like the Liberal opposition would want to do -- we are advocating a process of bringing people together to work together and deal with it -- this government takes this paternalistic attitude, if I can use that term. If there is a gender-neutral term, I'll think of it in a minute. I think it is paternalism, because that is perhaps more fitting to what we're seeing from the government opposite. This paternalistic attitude says: "We the New Democratic Party and the government that we have formed from it know better than all the working women and men in the province how we ought to regulate government and maintain this province. We've got all the answers."

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

We're almost at the point where we're saying: "We're going to give you a chance to prove yourselves." Because with this motion to amend -- which is, after all, what we are debating here today -- we are prepared to move this bill to that committee. The committee can review and understand it, and the people of British Columbia can review it and judge whether or not the members opposite have all the answers. We'll hear from the people of the province as to whether or not they have that process.

[3:00]

If we accept this motion to move this to the standing committee, which will give people an opportunity for full consultation in order to understand the implications of this very complex and onerous bill, then maybe we and the members of the government would understand that the people of British Columbia not only have a right to that consultation, but they will be able to assist us in improving government from both sides, opposition and government alike. What do we see instead of this process? We see a government that has decided, through limited consultation, that Bill 84 is going to be their solution, their we-know-best answer to a new labour code in the province.

We need a labour code that has longevity. On that point every member will agree. We have to have a labour code that does not always require amendment and change. We need to get one that is acceptable to both management and union, one that is progressive and that has a vision to the future, that makes us competitive and allows our economy to expand and grow and, at the same time, look after the interests of working women and men in an equal manner. If we want that, then this amendment should go forward, and we should move this to a standing committee where the people of British Columbia have an opportunity to read, consult and understand, and where all British Columbians, unionized and non-unionized, have a chance to understand what this government is about to push down the throats of British Columbians. I urge all members to try to come forward now in the best light of good government and vote in favour of this amendment so that we can adequately and properly consult with the people of British Columbia through an accepted parliamentary practice.

D. Lovick: I note that there are a number of young students in the gallery. I would like to offer them our welcome, and I am sure I do the same for my colleagues on the other side. You will be happy to know, young people, that you are the first group that has stayed for an entire speech by the Leader of the Opposition. Given that the Liberals like to complain about our education system, there is perhaps a point being made.

In any event, what I want to do is just offer some brief comments in rebuttal to the points made by the Leader of the Opposition, but then to take us back to the substantive motion before us, namely why this should be referred, and to argue that it ought not to be referred.

As I listened to the Leader of the Opposition speak, I was reminded of that famous opinion offered by a former federal Liberal Party leader -- not an elected person, but the formal leader of the party. This French-Canadian gentleman said: "We have two grand traditions in the Liberal Party. One of them is we like to win elections, and the other is we're flexible." I thought that captures rather well just what point the member across the way was making, because it was only on October 20 -- not many days ago -- that the selfsame Liberal Leader of the Opposition was saying: "We want a debate on the new labour code. Give us a debate." And guess what? We bring the labour code before the House. We say let us debate it, and within 15 minutes he says let's refer it to a committee.

Well, here is your opportunity in this chamber to have the debate. You don't refer it to a committee. You don't hoist it for six months. You have the debate right now.

I can't resist offering just a few brief comments in response to the Liberal leader's position. First of all, let us dispense once and for all with that phony and unworkable analogy between trade unionists and self-employed professionals called doctors. To suggest that those are the same simply doesn't work -- I'm sorry. You know that, and I know that. Let's not play fast and loose with elementary rules of logic.

Second, let us remember, when we are talking about this particular bill, that we have a detailed discussion paper that addresses every single one of the recommendations, gives a rationale and an argument for it, offers in most cases both sides of the argument, and when we have dissenting opinions even gives the dissenting opinion. In other words, friends in the opposition, you have been given an opportunity to get some real, good, usable arguments instead of the vacuous twaddle we usually hear from you. You should be thrilled.

It's a pity, by the by, that the rather self-righteous Leader of the Opposition, who castigated our House Leader for leaving....

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, the member from Nanaimo is living up to his reputation of being the one who hurls personal insults in this House, and I would ask him to withdraw that remark.

[ Page 3709 ]

The Speaker: The hon. member feels that there has been an offence. Would the hon. member please withdraw.

D. Lovick: If indeed there has been any personal insult offered, I would happily withdraw. I have considerable difficulty finding one, however, and I will leave that to Hansard to note and determine.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.

D. Lovick: I was making the point of how sad is the rather self-righteous position taken by the former speaker about the absence of one of our members. That selfsame individual has just left the House. Let the record show that.

I think the fundamental argument to be presented against delaying debate of this particular measure is the legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied.

G. Farrell-Collins: You always use the same one over again.

D. Lovick: I don't think I have used that one before, Mr. Member.

I want to remind members of just what it is this replacement legislation is doing. This Bill 84, the new labour code, is replacing the infamous Bill 19, and Bill 19, quite frankly, represents an embarrassment and a shame to the people of this province. It does so for three reasons: (1) the bill was the product of a flawed and a phony consultation process that called into question all the vaunted government promises of fair dealing; (2) the bill was very clearly vindictive and punitive in its intentions and in its application; and (3) Bill 19, let us never forget, was demonstrably, blatantly skewed in favour of one side. The context, then, in which we must examine this legislation is precisely in starting with something that was absolutely, totally, unequivocally bad, and looking at how we redress the balance. Let me refer to those three points, if I might, all of which I suggest augur a clear conclusion: we should not delay and we should get on with this particular measure before us; have the debate, however long it takes, and pass the legislation.

The flawed and phony process I referred to. Those of us who were in the chamber when Bill 19 was introduced will all recall that it was prefaced by a consultation process. The Minister of Labour at the time -- who still sits in this House, by the way -- along with his deputy minister, travelled the province asking for input. To his embarrassment and to our, as citizens, everlasting embarrassment and shame, at the same time as that public consultation process was going on, we had a secret committee under the Premier's direction that was writing the labour legislation. The minister didn't even know it. Absolutely scandalous!

The Premier's hand-picked group was involved in what the Deputy Minister of Labour at that time refers to as a "secretive backroom process." Graham Leslie, the deputy minister I referred to, wrote as follows: The process "...proceeded with no control by any elected politician who had knowledge of the subject. Only one other member of the committee was a direct part of the bureaucracy, therefore none of the others was accountable in any way for the eventual product." Yet -- and my patience, I must confess, is tried here -- we had to listen to members of the Socred caucus ask for a hoist motion on the grounds that there should have been better consultation. My God! What gall, what effrontery, what unmitigated cheek! Shame on the Socred benches! How dare they say that and keep a straight face!

Let us contrast the process that was used in this labour code. These members opposite are trying to suggest that this is somehow being railroaded through and being rammed down their throats -- and all those other clichés that non-thinking individuals like to use as a substitute for speech. In any event, they allege that all of those awful things are happening. What really went on, of course, is that we had a rather elaborate process. I would invite members opposite to actually read something. They might want to look at the report on this legislation -- the background report from the committee -- under the chapter called "The Process." They would discover that the committee represented three groups: labour, business and labour relations; the foremost professionals who understand the field. Collectively, they clearly represent the integrity of a consultative process. In short, we got a representative group of three people. Contrast that with two lawyers who had only business experience and who were the secret drafting team with Premier Bill Vander Zalm. So tell us about due process, friends.

This committee travelled to other parts of Canada. They consulted with other jurisdictions, even jurisdictions on other continents. They went that far in getting information. They had consultations with many and varied experts in the field. They travelled to 11 different cities. They talked to 203 different individuals on behalf of different groups. They had 296 written submissions to a public invitation. Now that's called consultation. How anybody can suggest that this bill before us is not the product of consultation, frankly, boggles the mind. Nevertheless, chutzpah manifests itself everywhere; they continue to argue the case that we need more consultation. Friends, you can't quite do it and have any credibility.

[3:15]

I want to suggest the second reason for replacement -- why we need the new bill, why we need the new labour code -- and that is my contention that Bill 19 was vindictive and punitive. Members opposite may not know, because most are new to the chamber and they probably didn't pay close attention to the debate when it ensued, but it's worth remembering that it was the longest debate on any subject in B.C.'s history. It took a tremendous amount of time and energy. The opposition did its work very thoroughly. The government made a yeoperson effort to defend its position. It was a long, protracted, detailed and complex debate, but we did all that. The folks opposite have the same opportunity, if they wish to take it.

In the debate some rather ugly things crawled out from certain rocks. We learned certain bits about that 

[ Page 3710 ]

legislation that embarrassed us all, that made us all ashamed. I say that without any reservation or hesitation. We detected a pattern in the legislation, and the pattern we saw was that the particular amendments to the old Labour Code that were introduced under Bill 19 were in fact reversals of LRB -- Labour Relations Board -- decisions that had gone against the companies. It's even worse. Five specific decisions that were LRB rulings in favour of the union were reversed in the new legislation. And guess what? The lawyers who represented the principals in each one of those cases were the same lawyers who were the secret committee that wrote the legislation.

How can anybody on the other side of the House sit there and say: "The status quo will do; Bill 19 is okay; we can live with it"? For goodness' sake, have we no sense of embarrassment? It's an awful piece of legislation, universally condemned.

Bill 19 was a blatant assault on one side in the debate. That's why Graham Leslie -- again, former Deputy Minister of Labour; not exactly an ideological crusader on either side, friends, I think it's safe to say -- argued that the government's intention in that legislation was "to impair the power of trade unions and to undermine the security of working employees." That's a pretty objective witness in the process.

Let me quote a little more from that former deputy minister's reminiscences of it, from that rather good book called Breach of Promise, which I would suggest members opposite might want to familiarize themselves with, if they haven't done so. He went on to say: "The Vander Zalm government engineered radical changes to the B.C. labour-management environment that significantly eroded the bargaining power of trade unions and their members." That's the new status quo. We're talking about people who have lost what they had developed in an evolutionary model over a significant period of time. We're talking about getting it back. We're talking about redressing the injustice. We're talking, in short, about a new approach, and the new approach is what our minister and others who have spoken thus far have said again and again -- namely, a balanced and fair labour code. I say that without any fear of contradiction, and I will say further that as we get into the real debate -- as opposed to these sometimes rather silly motions, it seems, about stalling for no good reason....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, please do not speak from your seats. Proceed, hon. member.

D. Lovick: What we see when we look at the legislation is that it was demonstrably biased against one side, and that is our point in saying why we can no longer delay it. It is an insult to all British Columbians that that statute is still on the books.

I want to make another point about the debate that went on. It's difficult, if not impossible, to overstate how bad the legislation was. I want to emphasize a couple of points. First, it was amended as a result of relentless attacks by the opposition. Second, provisions within the legislation were condemned by the United Nations International Labour Organization. A fine model for the world we are in B.C. and Canada! And as well, during the course of the debate, the media and other witnesses to the debate -- even those who were ostensibly, you would assume, most likely to do so -- didn't defend the provisions of Bill 19. In fact, what happened was that it became the universal theme that there was something wrong with it, and that was illustrated rather well in the treatment accorded our Labour critic and spokesperson at the time, the current Attorney General, the member for North Island. You all know that the characteristic approach to things of the member for North Island is to be careful, reasonable and painstakingly fair to all sides when he discusses anything. I want to quote what he had to say standing in his place on April 7, 1987, in the Bill 19 debate: "This particular bill interferes more in peoples' lives than any legislation that I know of ever introduced in this Legislature." This is the guy, remember, who was first elected in 1972 -- he has a little experience. He went on:

"It interferes directly and specifically with freely negotiated contracts between employers and employees. It says by legislation, in section after section, that what they" -- that is, the employees -- "have chosen to do freely is no longer allowed and is void. No legislation that I know of -- and this includes the Mediation Commission Act of 1968 -- interferes in the lives of British Columbians as much or as dangerously as does this bill."

Mr. Speaker, that point of view, I think it is safe to say, was accepted at the time as being a reasonable appraisal. All of us who grappled with that bill and spent many hours arguing it came to that conclusion. We recognized we were dealing with something that couldn't even make the claim to have been fairly presented.

Members opposite may disagree with measures in the bill, and that's fine. That's legitimate, and it's right and proper for opposition to do that. But for heaven's sake, have the decency -- I would plead with members opposite -- not to start saying: "The sky is falling. This is draconian. This is going to destroy the economy. This tips the balance entirely to one side. There hasn't been a consultation process." All of those statements are patently, blatantly false.

Our replacement bill is intended to be balanced and fair. Let me quote very briefly from the report titled Recommendations for Labour Law Reform. The committee was in its own words, "searching for the balance -- for a statutory framework that would foster a different relationship and facilitate the achievement of common goals while acknowledging the different interests of labour and management." That's what the report is about, and that's what the bill is about.

We are searching for the balance, but let us not pretend that there aren't different interests. There are different interests, and if anyone knows anything about labour relations, you know that it's a basically adversarial model. You can't do anything about that except treat it in as civilized, careful and tolerant a way as you can. That, again, is what this legislation is trying to do.

Let me quote a little more from the report. The problem is that when we talk about balance and 

[ Page 3711 ]

fairness, we recognize that those are obviously subjective judgments. But listen to the insight from the authors of this report -- and it is, by the way, one of the most lucid, articulate and literate reports I have seen from government in a number of years:

"We recognize, immediately, that there is no such thing as an absolute balance or fulcrum in labour legislation. In labour relations, balance is determined by perception, not objective calculation. Whether balance has been achieved depends entirely on the perspective of the evaluator. The best one can hope to accomplish in recommending labour law reform is that the legislation will be seen as being generally fair, promoting the legitimate goals and protecting the legitimate interests, from a societal perspective, of those it seeks to regulate."

This legislation does it rather well, measured against those criteria and other legitimate criteria.

Sadly, I don't think that balance and fairness have been part of the critique we have heard from the other side so far. Rather, what we're getting are precisely the kinds of things I suggested a few moments ago when, I confess, I was becoming a little more rhetorically exuberant than, perhaps, one ought to in this chamber. But the notion that this is a political payoff and it's going to create economic chaos, it's anti-democratic, it's going to discourage investments, it's going to lead to.... You know the lines. I am sure we could all fill in the rest of blanks in that particular list without much difficulty, because they are so terribly prosaic and predictable.

It's difficult, though, to reconcile that with what the thing is. It's also difficult to reconcile those rather inflammatory rhetorical excesses from the other side, when you consider what the same people -- I'm referring to the Liberal opposition -- promised us in their election platform.... Their platform called for -- get ready, folks -- one, broad consultation in writing the labour code. Guess what we got? Broad consultation in writing the labour code. [Applause.] I've even persuaded them. Isn't it wonderful, Mr. Speaker?

Second, it called for a stated commitment to free collective bargaining in both public and private sectors. This is notwithstanding, of course, my friend from Richmond-Steveston, who some time ago made the point that workers really work better without unions. But we'll let that pass. I'm sure that was a minor aberration, and we can understand the confusion, because that was the same member who earlier today spoke passionately -- at least for him -- for a hoist motion and then an hour later voted against it. But what the heck, that's his right, I suppose.

The third piece of the platform was to advocate a dispute resolution mechanism to maximize the potential -- this is crucial, and it's a fundamentally important point, and I want to congratulate the Liberals on the wisdom of this; it's a pity they don't live up to it -- for management and labour to solve their problems without government interference. If you want to do a close and objective appraisal of the code, you will discover that that is impregnated throughout. That's the intention throughout; that is indeed what we are trying to do.

It's hard to reconcile those suggestions that what we have here is partial and slanted with the fact that we have a commission representative of business and labour, plus an expert from the field of labour relations -- and the former Minister of Labour says he has the greatest respect for all these individuals, accepts their integrity without question, but then says they perhaps represent too narrow a constituency. If you respect their integrity, then you respect their ability to look beyond their own narrow constituency. You can't have a committee doing the job this committee had to do that has 800 people -- or 8,000 or 8,000,000 -- to represent every conceivable interest somebody might throw into the pot. What we got was a representative committee, one that anybody would be hard put to attack, at least to attack the representational character of the committee.

[3:30]

It's hard to accept the suggestion that this legislation is somehow unfair, given that some 98 percent of the recommendations have been unanimously accepted by the three members of the commission. It's hard to reconcile arguments about this being a terrible payoff -- the NDP in the pocket and all that stuff we hear -- with the reaction of organized labour that we've witnessed in the last few days. Organized labour is saying: "We don't like all that we got. There are some things we don't like in here." I happen to be one of those who looks at the report and can see some parts of the code that I don't like either. If I were a worker, I would have been asking for some more things as well.

The reality is, however, that what we've got is a fair and balanced approach to labour relations. Let me just remind members opposite that given the opportunity, I'll have a great deal to say when we get to committee stage, which, for members' information, is where that really belongs, rather than on these silly motions.

I want to draw attention to the pact again and emphasize that this bill represents a fair and balanced approach. It's a good bill. When we look at it clause by clause and at the arguments contained within the report, and when we throw out to members opposite the challenge to show us what's wrong with those arguments, I think we're going to discover that even they will begrudgingly have to acknowledge that this is a good bill. If the members opposite want to be taken seriously, I suggest that they quit making these inflammatory, rather puerile comments about how dangerous this is. Focus on the substance of the bill, and let us have a real and meaningful debate about that.

F. Garden: It's really difficult to follow the previous eloquent speaker. I'm also sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is now gone -- after taking his cheap shot about one of our ministers not being here -- because he made some rather eloquent statements when he was up on his feet, and I'd like to answer him. If he's watching TV or listening to the debate somewhere, he should understand that he made a very eloquent statement about how wonderful it was that the people in Port Mellon sat down and negotiated on the basis of technological and process changes. What he didn't say was that Port Mellon and Powell River -- which is the 

[ Page 3712 ]

member's riding -- have had that provision in their contract for 20 years. The technological change clause has been in the agreement that he described for 20 years. How do I know that? I was president of the union at the time, and I helped to negotiate it.

I want to go further. Recently a very progressive management and union in Powell River that was faced with technological changes and difficulties sat down with their employees and, in a very reasonable way, worked out an early retirement benefit plan for members so they could take advantage of the technological change clause and any other process change clause that's in their agreement. The reason it should be in this legislation is that while there is one very enlightened company and union that negotiated that clause, there are some that are not so enlightened and that will not negotiate these clauses. This is protection for workers. Should any technological or process change affect their jobs, then that company has to sit down with the workers and talk about it. It's common sense. It's been a grievance all over this province for 30 years.

He also went on to talk about replacement workers. My colleague has already asked why we should we treat doctors any differently than replacement workers. For the last 50 years Powell River -- because I was in Powell River when the opposition leader was still getting out of diapers -- has had a sick-benefit society called the Powell River Sick Benefit Society, because it was difficult to get physicians to go to Powell River. The employees formed that society, and for years they've brought in physicians; they've paid for them; they've had pharmacists. At one time there was a doctors' clinic strike in Powell River -- a very bad strike; and this goes back about 25 years, if my memory is correct -- and people were trying to get a first contract. At that time the Powell River Sick Benefit Society contemplated hiring doctors in Powell River, because it was difficult to get them up there. So he should study what has been happening in one of his own communities for the last 50 years before he stands up here and makes a comment like that.

I'll get to a further thing. He talked about replacement workers. Let me tell you something from history about replacement workers in his riding. In 1917 the union was organized in Powell River. It was a company town. Every house was owned by the company. The only way into Powell River was by boat. There was a fledgling union there. The company of that day shipped in replacement workers. Guys were going to their job, and there was somebody already there brought in off a boat: replacement workers. The replacement workers broke that union. It was 1937 before the Powell River Local 76 got recertified.

A. Warnke: What's your point?

F. Garden: My point is this: replacement workers are devastating to any labour body in this province. It almost broke a town. After the union was broken because of these replacement workers, the employees had to meet secretly in basements of homes so they could exercise their democratic right to form a union again. That's a proud history, and I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he look into that in Powell River, and if he has the intestinal fortitude to go up and stand before the membership of the Powell River Local 76 and say what he said in this House about replacement workers, he would get a lesson.

But let's get back to this thing here today. During the last election, we made a promise -- and I heard earlier this year a guy saying we've broken promises. We kept the promise. We said that we would repeal Bill 19 and would bring in fair and balanced labour legislation. What did we do? We brought in fair and balanced labour legislation. We kept a promise.

It's been suggested through this motion that we refer it to a legislative committee. For the last three days I've heard cracks and comments from the opposition about the referendum, and 51 clones. I don't know how the rest of my colleagues feel about referring this to a legislative committee, but if we have to deal with the results of that legislative committee as we did with the last one, when, in good faith, we accepted their membership, who accepted the unanimous recommendations.... There were 51 people who said, "Yes, we'll buy that; we'll stand by it," yet when they saw how the political wind was blowing, they changed their opinion. I'm not too favourable about seeing this going to any legislative committee, because their credibility, in my estimation, is a lot less than it should be. I'm not going to say too much about Bill 19 other than that for five years the people out there have been waiting with bated breath for that noxious piece of legislation to be struck from the books. I've heard the opposition say: "It worked well. Look at the labour disputes." That worked well in spite of Bill 19, not because of it. Management and union kept away from that piece of legislation.

Again, I would say to the opposition that before they make up their minds on this and wait to see how the political winds are blowing, they should know there was a poll on BCTV the other night and the question was: "Are you in favour of replacement workers being used in legal strikes?" A majority of the people said: "No." That will give you a little bit of help when you're trying to find out how the political wind is blowing.

I heard somebody say during question period: "Well, why don't you listen to the news?" I understand that the opposition gets all their opinions from the news. They read the news and then they come in here next day and give us heck about it.

A University of B.C. professor says: "What they're shooting for here is that they want to encourage unionization and encourage the kind of labour-management relations that foster cooperation. I think it's reasonably balanced. It puts us in the mainstream of Canadian labour law." The same commentator says on replacement workers -- I think it's one of these issues that is as much political as substantive: "The big players in B.C. don't operate behind the picket line." I heard somebody else also in the opposition say that maybe we should have a referendum on this. The Liberals got some good mileage out of the recent referendum. Now they think it's wonderful. Let's have a referendum on everything.

An Hon. Member: We're flexible.

[ Page 3713 ]

F. Garden: Yes, they're flexible. Preston Manning will be glad to hear from you. He likes that too.

What I'm suggesting is that the majority of the opposition, when it comes to labour legislation, don't know what they're talking about. They have absolutely no understanding of the labour relations scene, based on some of the comments that I've heard from the opposition.

An Hon. Member: We don't have your view.

Interjections.

F. Garden: Where does my view come from? My view comes from 22 years....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, order. Hon. member, would you please address the Chair. I would caution all members to please not speak from their seats and to wait for the opportunity to take their place. Please proceed, hon. member.

[3:45]

F. Garden: I appreciate your comments, and I'll abide by them.

My view comes from the fact that I've spent 22 years as an activist in one of the biggest local unions in Canada. I've spent ten years as an industrial relations supervisor for a company. As an alderman, I spent four years as the labour committee chairman for the municipality of Quesnel. So I would feel, without putting too many of my colleagues down, that I have come as close to being an expert as there is in the labour relations field.

In 1972 the Barrett government brought in labour legislation that was hailed at the time as the best in North America, so much so that nothing was done with it until 1984. Just so the opposition knows that they haven't discovered a wonderful thing about a secret ballot for certification, that didn't come into effect until 1984. Prior to that, signing a card was all that was required. There were only three jurisdictions in Canada that required a vote after sign-up: Nova Scotia, Alberta and B.C. Is the opposition saying that when members sign a card, they don't know what they're doing?

Interjection.

F. Garden: Are they saying that they don't know what they're doing?

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. Do take your seat for a moment, please. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has been persistently interjecting. The Chair is prepared to allow a certain amount of humorous interjection, but I believe that we are reaching the danger point now, and the pattern has been set. I would like to ask all members to please be guided by courtesy and permit the speaker to proceed without interruptions. Thank you. Please proceed, hon. member.

F. Garden: If 55 percent of a group of people are prepared to put their signature on a card that they want to join the union, the only ones that should be interested in that are them and the people they work for -- that's all. It's nobody else's business. Nobody says to the BCMA that before it forms an organization it has to have a secret ballot. Nobody says to many professional organizations that they have to sign a secret ballot before they form these organizations. It's only workers. All of a sudden it becomes important that only workers need to have a secret ballot. We're telling them what we think is best for them. They're not intelligent enough to put their signature on a piece of paper and say: "That's what we want." Employers' organizations get together to bargain collectively with these unions. Nobody says to them: "But first we need to see a secret ballot to see that you guys want to get together." This is 1992....

Interjection.

F. Garden: Somebody keeps yapping about decertification. I'll give you the benefit of my experience for this, hon. Speaker. When you're signing up a group, you set things in motion. Once you've signed up, there are all kinds of things that come into play. You start setting up a local organization, you start setting up offices, you enter into agreements with the companies and you start getting accounts for that local situation. You end up with an organization that can't just simply be turned off overnight, just like that, by the whim of any particular member. There's a lot more involved in a decertification than there is in a certification. That's one of the reasons.

I find it insulting that somehow there's some harm or some devious intent in a worker's heart when he signs a card. You can't be trusted now; we're going to make you have a secret ballot. The new legislation says that up to the time that the certification is applied for, they have the right to revoke that signature.

There's another clause in the legislation that says: "A person shall not use coercion or intimidation of any kind that could reasonably have the effect of compelling or inducing a person to become or to refrain from becoming or to continue or cease to be a member of a trade union." The law protects anybody who may coerce or try and intimidate, so when a person signs that piece of paper, he knows that he's protected by this legislation and that he won't be coerced or intimidated. Give workers a degree of intelligence to make decisions, the same as the opposition people do, I'm sure, every day in business. Give workers the same thing they had for years prior to 1984, and let's get back into the mainstream of labour relations law in this country.

I want to talk about secondary boycotts. People are saying that we're going to cause people to go out of business, and they've asked about sectoral bargaining. There were people in our caucus who were concerned about sectoral bargaining. We knew the ramifications to small business of a sectoral bargaining clause in this contract, and we made these things known to our people. In their wisdom, the framers of the legislation took that into account. Secondary boycotts have to be negotiated between a union and the company. Prior to 1984 that was law. So there are unions who have already 

[ Page 3714 ]

got that in their contract. The sky didn't fall. It has been there for years, and they use it. It still has to be negotiated. If you're as astute as some managers I know, it would be a frosty Friday, I suppose, when they would give up that kind of concession. It has to be a major thing. It's a bargaining thing. That should be left up to the union and the company. We should not interfere with the right to bargain as they see fit. So the people are throwing out straw men, as far as this secondary boycott is concerned. It has been in force for years in many contracts already, and if they want to negotiate it in new contracts, that's up to them.

I want to finally talk about replacement workers. Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of organized men and women more than the thought of replacement workers taking their jobs. I've already given you an example of what happened in Powell River many years ago. It might be easy in the lower mainland for somebody to get another job somewhere else, but in the small, one-industry resource community, that doesn't happen. The very thought of replacement workers being injected into a labour dispute not only strikes fear into the hearts of the unionized worker; it strikes fear into the whole community. It has been my experience over 33 years on both sides of the negotiating table that there's nothing more disruptive to a community or to a site than bringing in replacement workers.

The company has the right to continue that. There will be some who will argue that we should have taken that from them. Under the present legislation, the company has the right to continue to operate. Union workers have the right, based on dealing with their own union, to go and work; that's there. What we've said is that you can't bring in people from outside to do the jobs of these people who have legally bargained a contract with that company. That's all we are saying. In central Canada there were five unions involved in a big paper strike a few years ago. They were flying replacement workers over the fences in helicopters. By the time that bitter strike was over, families were split apart, the community was split apart and the labour relations between that union and their management still hasn't gotten back to what it was before the strike started.

I would suggest to the opposition, before they go on a tangent with this one, that they look at it very carefully. If they are going to hitch their wagon to this particular issue, they are going to lose. As I have said before, people in small communities do not want scabs coming into their town to do the work that is legitimately the work of unionized employees. Enlightened management realizes this, enlightened community leaders realize this and ordinary workers realize this.

I have no hesitation. The opposition has said: "Let's move it to a committee." I made my remarks about the committee. I just don't trust them in a committee anymore, personally. I'll have to see if that gets changed later through experience. We don't need to put this to a committee. We could stay here until Christmas if they want to debate this bill. No rush.

Somebody asked: "Why didn't you bring it in earlier?" My understanding was that the legislation wasn't ready. We would have been sitting here in July and August waiting for it to be ready to be put before the House, and I'm sure that wouldn't have given the opposition the platform they wanted, because all the media people were on holiday. So they should thank us for listening to their request for a debate and for bringing it up now.

I would suggest that what we have before us is the most balanced piece of labour legislation in North America, bar none. It has been brought together by representatives of both business and labour. I heard somebody yelling about ding-dongs today, and I've seen some very high-profile people making their input into this legislation. I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate being called ding-dongs. I think it's insulting, and I think the opposition should watch their rhetoric. They might think they're a winner with this one, but they're not.

Bill 19 -- and I haven't quoted from the book Breach of Promise -- was conceived in secrecy. This bill has been conceived in an open process that we were all aware of. You have the opportunity as legislators now, if you want, to dissect it piece by piece right here, so that you can stand up and be counted. You've got your opportunity. I would like to suggest that, rather than be politically partisan on this particular thing, we join forces and recognize this bill for what it is: a progressive piece of legislation that's good for B.C. and good for the workers of B.C. It's certainly going to be an example for all other provinces and all other states on this continent.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise today in support of a constructive amendment like that proposed by the Liberal opposition, which seeks to send this bill to a legislative committee, where it certainly belongs, for an indefinite period of time. I was struck by the historical odyssey of labour relations in the province that we were all taken on by the previous member. It occurs to me that in the debate on labour legislation coming forth from the government side of the House, that's the kind of throwback legislation, the throwback mentality, that exists in this province when it comes to labour relations.

This bill fundamentally fails to recognize the basic nature of the economy in British Columbia. We only have to look at the makeup of the labour review panel: big business, big government and big unions, and that's it. They came up with a set of recommendations that is good for all three, but it doesn't recognize the fact that nine out of every ten jobs in this province are being created by small-and medium-sized firms. They are the ones investing in this province and creating employment. And there's nothing in this bill for them -- not a thing. The only thing we have is that it makes it easier for their businesses to be organized by big union bosses when they're most vulnerable during the first year or two of their existence, when they have to attract investment capital to merely survive. This government has no understanding about the fact that when most businesses start up in this province, they don't succeed. Many of them cannot survive, even given the normal economic times we're in.

Unfortunately, this particular bill will only discourage and dry up investment in the very firms in which 

[ Page 3715 ]

this government claims it's trying to foster development: small-and medium-sized firms. What's in this bill for them -- easier certification, without even a secret ballot vote; preventing them from having meaningful consultation with their employees over what effect certification might have on a business in that vulnerable state? What kind of progressive approach is that?

[4:00]

We have to look at why we're here in the Legislature debating this bill at this time. I suggest to you that this process started four years ago. Back then, this government -- every member of this House -- would have supported a motion to send it to a legislative committee. They're voting against it now because we're in this whipsaw relationship when it comes to organized labour. They have had an agenda to change Bill 19 from day one. It didn't matter whether the economy of the province was up, down or even. It didn't matter whether one-industry towns were suffering devastating losses of employment. They didn't care about what state the economy was in; they were going to support the big labour bosses in this province and scrap Bill 19. That's the reason why we're in the Legislature today. We're debating a bill which should have been delayed by any reasonable government looking at the state of the provincial economy today. It should have issued far greater consultation on this bill than a labour review panel stacked with the old adversaries in this province: big government, big labour and a negotiator who has made a mint over the years negotiating with these major players.

This government has to realize that the big corporate people in this province are not the ones creating jobs anymore; they're shedding employment. The forest industry has lost 20,000 jobs over the last five or ten years. The mining industry has lost thousands of workers. The major employers are not creating jobs in British Columbia; it's the small-and medium-sized firms. This bill takes dead aim at them, because they don't have a spokesman, and they didn't have anybody on the labour review panel. That's why they're getting the shaft in this labour bill.

I see the hon. member for Prince George North shaking his head about the fact that small firms weren't represented. Well, I remind that hon. member that we are part of a legislative committee looking at lumber remanufacturing in the province. During the course of the last two months, we've been touring small-and medium-sized lumber remanners to take a good hard look at their economic situation. Where are they in terms of their competition? Where are they in terms of their capital investment and in terms of their capitalization, their overall financial health? Those firms -- some are unionized and some are non-unionized -- cannot survive a bill like this at this point in time. They'll be organized. They'll be out of business, because they just don't have the financial means, at this point in time, to deal with this labour bill. It's all the more reason that this bill should be sent to a legislative committee. Those companies that are generating the jobs in this province can come before the legislative committee and testify about the impact that these provisions will have on their ability to do business.

Of all the people in this House who should support the kind of amendment the Liberals are proposing, it's the Premier. In the past year he has gone from one continent to another selling the idea of investment in British Columbia. I just wish that I had been a picture on the wall at one of those meetings when the Premier detailed to Asian business leaders how he was going to generate investment. He would have told them: "The first thing I'm going to do is bring in a budget with the biggest deficit in the history of the province. That's number one. The second thing I'm going to do is bring in a corporate capital tax. So if you come here and invest, and if you lose money for a few years, you're going to pay tax anyway."

The next thing the Premier would have said, the pi�ce de résistance, would have been, "I'm going to rewrite the labour code to make certifications easier, to dry up investment in small industries and to tilt the balance in favour of the big union bosses" -- whom, I might add, were all sitting in the gallery on opening day, waiting for this legislation to come down. I didn't see one representative of a small firm in this province, because they knew they were going to get the shaft with this legislation. That's exactly what happened to them: they got the shaft.

This is a bill that the economy of the province cannot sustain at this point in time, and we're going to find that out. In the next few months we're going to find that out in terms of lost job opportunities, lost investments and a lack of confidence in the investment climate.

The unionized workers are ahead of their union bosses on this issue. Canadian Airlines employees are trying to save their airline by taking an entrepreneurial approach to solving a critical economic problem in their company. We've got the situation in the Balmer mine where the mine workers have taken the initiative. The Liberal caucus travelled to Trail earlier this year and talked to the United Steelworkers and members of the community. They are gathering together to try to protect their jobs, because they know that in the global marketplace that we exist in today, the only protection for their jobs is to be sound and economically responsible and efficient producers.

Nothing in this bill is going to enhance the competitive ability of a single firm, and that's why it's a throwback. It's a throwback to the last four years of labour relations, where British Columbians have been whipsawed by labour-relations legislation. Every time there's a change in government, the labour bill gets rewritten. The balance is tilted, only to shift in the next general election.

When is this province going to grow up? When are we going to realize that labour legislation should not be the contentious political issue is has become? It should not be a situation where one government brings in what is perceived as a draconian bill, and the opposition spends four years plotting with union bosses for the day when they can right the balance. Is that the kind of responsible government that British Columbians need? That's the kind they've been getting with these two parties over the last number of years.

[ Page 3716 ]

We simply have to reach a recognition that businesses and jobs are being created by a new wave of entrepreneurship. There are high-technology firms in a fledgling state that are creating jobs, but they are in a vulnerable state in terms of their capitalization. For that reason alone this government should have trodden carefully when it decided to embark on the old ideological crusades we've seen in the past. They should have said to themselves: "This is a new era of business development in the province, and as a responsible government interested in job creation, we have to put the old adversarial relationship behind us and bring forth labour legislation that protects the jobs of not only non-union workers but also union workers." They've proven in this province that they can work side by side in businesses without the same kind of rancour and animosity that exists in this chamber.

I can only assume, hon. Speaker, that the reason we're locked into this gridlock of labour management confrontation in B.C. is the backgrounds of some of the members opposite, who have been schooled in this adversarial position and this beat-the-company-at-all-costs mentality. They've taken that same approach with this labour bill. "What can we put in the language of this bill to destabilize the company? What can we do to the company bosses to make things tougher than ever for them in this province?" Never mind what impact it has on investment; never mind whether Asian or European investment can go anywhere in the western hemisphere. This bill is payback time, and all the union bosses were in the chambers on opening day, because it was time for payback on Bill 19. And that's the constructive, honest and open approach to government that's going to take us into the twenty-first century?

An Hon. Member: They won't be around then.

W. Hurd: There won't be any jobs in the province then, because it's a new type of investment we're trying to attract. The thing that disappoints us on this side of the House is that we see the Premier and members of the executive council venturing forth to attract investment to the province and telling people from one end of the spectrum to the other that they understand what it is to be an entrepreneur, to attract investment. Then they bring forth a labour bill, corporate capital tax and a series of Draconian measures that simply scare business away.

No business has a divine right to existence. The hon. member from Quesnel was saying that there was nothing more frightening to a worker than the idea of a replacement worker coming in to replace his job. Well, I can tell that hon. member, having travelled in this province extensively over the past six years, that indeed there is something that scares towns and workers more than the idea of replacement workers. It's the fact the plant may close down altogether and move to Alberta or any other favourable investment climate. It's happening, and this bill will make sure that it happens more often, not less often.

The amendment the Liberals have proposed gives us an opportunity to weigh the impact of this legislation on the provincial economy at this time. It gives us an opportunity to look at our investment graphs, to determine whether we're increasing investment in the province, whether we're increasing our amount of job activity, and whether this type of legislation will have an impact on that type of upward graph.

Much has been made of how workers have been oppressed by the previous legislation. But this province has led the nation in job creation over the past four years. This province has probably fared better than any other economy in North America. More people have jobs than in any other province. Would this government have us revert to Ontario, which has shed 200,000 manufacturing jobs in the last three or four years? I don't see any oppressed workers in British Columbia. I see them working; I see them taking a lunch pail to work, coming home, paying their mortgage and their taxes to this government. I see them as part of a productive and vibrant society in the province. They don't need this bill to survive; they don't need this bill to prosper. They're doing it today in British Columbia.

This is a constructive amendment. It gives the Premier time to revisit all his contacts in the Pacific Rim and to tell them, if he hadn't told them already: "I didn't really mean to not tell you when I was there that I was going to introduce a corporate capital tax and change the labour bill." It gives him an opportunity to revisit those Asian investors, who I'm sure, having heard that these taxes were going to be brought in and the labour legislation was going to be rewritten, immediately rushed down to their friendly bank and cashed in their treasury bills to invest in the province of British Columbia.

Well, the Premier has a chance to go back and revisit those Asian investors. He can tell them that we referred it to a legislative committee, that we invite the input of Pacific Rim investors who have mills and plants in British Columbia, and that we want to hear what they have to say about the idea of these draconian labour changes.

Much has been made of the labour review panel and what a broad level of consensus it represents. Well, again I hark back to the makeup of that committee -- a throwback committee if ever there was one; a committee that approached the problems of labour relations in this province from a bygone era. Big business, big labour, and negotiators who have prospered over the years by following grievances through the court system and taking one side or the other in an adversarial approach. We're revisiting that very notion again with this type of labour bill.

You know, hon. Speaker, I recently talked to a few labour lawyers in Vancouver who are contemplating these changes to the act, and they were rubbing their hands. They said: "Every time the government changes the labour bill, it's millions of dollars in our pockets." What kind of job creation is there in that? Job creation for business agents and for labour lawyers to refer cases to the new industrial relations board, or whatever it's called. That's the job creation in this bill: adversarial. Put it in court; file a grievance -- the same old arguments that have no place in a modern economy.

I appeal to the members opposite to consider the ramifications this bill will have on an economy which is 

[ Page 3717 ]

fundamentally different from the one they were dealing with four years ago, an economy which at this time simply cannot sustain the changes that are proposed. Let's put it into the hands of a legislative committee. Let's tour the province. Let's recognize that the labour climate in this province has changed and that the workers have prospered in this province. Let's not jeopardize that by going back to the old confrontational ways, when the union men hated the guts of the company and that was the only guiding principle that affected the relationship between labour and management. Let's not go backward; let's go forward and send this bill to a legislative committee.

[4:15]

P. Ramsey: I'm pleased to rise today to speak in support of this new labour code for British Columbia, Bill 84; and against the amendment, which would unnecessarily delay its passage.

The passage of this bill, I believe, will mark the end of a shameful period of labour relations in this province. For the last five years we've been living under a labour code, the Industrial Relations Act, which cut off workers and employers in this province from mainstream labour relations in the rest of Canada and, indeed, the rest of North America. It was a bill drafted in secret, and its purposes were clear. That bill, the one we've been working under for five years, had no intent to build good labour relations or enhance the ability of workers and their employers to thrash out their problems together. Its intent was clear: to destroy one side in that equation, to destroy the ability of unions to recognize themselves.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member please take his seat. The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands.

C. Tanner: I don't think we've got a quorum, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: We do at the moment, hon. member. Please proceed.

C. Serwa: On a point of order. The speech being made by the hon. member for Prince George North is clearly out of order. The member is not speaking to the amendment, as you note from his initial remarks. He is speaking on second reading. We are speaking on the amendment; therefore the hon. member is clearly out of order and he has lost his place.

Hon. T. Perry: I regret that I have to disagree with the distinguished member for Okanagan West. I found the hon. member for Prince George North's comments perfectly in order and uniquely fascinating, and I would like to hear more from him.

Deputy Speaker: I want to thank all hon. members for their points of order. However, I do believe that in the Chair's view the hon. member's introductory remarks are in line with other comments that have been made by previous speakers. I would hope, however, that he would take the points of order under advisement and try and speak to the amendment.

P. Ramsey: As I was saying, I believe that the continuation of the provisions of Bill 19 will further continue the inequities that labour relations suffer under in this province, and that is why I must oppose this amendment to refer this legislation to committee.

Good labour relations depends on an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual respect, and Bill 19 did everything possible to destroy that atmosphere. As a result, unions boycotted the provisions of Bill 19 and the Industrial Relations Council for years, and the reality is that employers did the same. This is a piece of misbegotten legislation that was respected by nobody in the labour relations field.

In summing up the history behind this bill, the members of the special subcommittee of special advisers said this: "...few today see Bill 19 as the product of meaningful consultation or as an attempt to achieve an appropriate level of consensus between labour and management."

The only people in this House whom I have really heard stand to defend the provisions of that bill are members of the third party, whose government introduced it. Even the leader of the official opposition has said that introduction of these changes to Bill 19 are long overdue, and I must confess that if that is the real stance of the leader of the official opposition -- and I wish he were here today to hear my response to that -- then I am quite bewildered by the assertions of the member for Surrey-White Rock that somehow this has been too rapid, that somehow this bill didn't need fixing, that we could simply go on with this discredited status quo that started in 1987. The reality is that we can't.

I'd like to contrast some of the provisions that led up to drafting this code and compare them to the process which led up to the drafting of Bill 19. This government took the time to consult fully with people in labour relations. It's been over a year since the election last October and we made it no secret -- as those who wished to form government -- that we thought Bill 19 had to be revised in major ways. That's no secret to anybody in this province. But we didn't bring in a set of snap amendments to it.

Instead, we consulted thoroughly and carefully, and I want to thank the patience of workers in this province as they watched this government through that process. They continued in their labour relations to have to abide by the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act while they and everyone else knew it was discredited and outmoded legislation and needed to be replaced.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

That panel listened to all sides. It toured the province. I saw the public hearings in Prince George and I watched the variety of people that came forward to talk to them. They had over 500 submissions. They took eight months to reach their conclusions. That doesn't strike me as hasty, and that work doesn't seem 

[ Page 3718 ]

to need to be recapitulated and done yet again by a legislative committee.

Those who don't like the results of that process, it seems to me, are saying that they really don't like the conclusions. That may be fair, but if that's the case, then let's be honest about it. Let's talk about the provisions of this bill in committee stage and what you think is right or wrong with it, rather than this absurd critique that somehow this has been a rushed and hurried piece of legislation drafted in the back room by big business and big labour. That is simply contrary to the facts that everybody in British Columbia know.

The official opposition want further delay. I can't believe it. I remember the sham of consultation for Bill 19. I don't know if any members of the official opposition engaged in that. I remember being present in Prince George in 1986, just after the election, when the member for Okanagan-Vernon, who was then the Minister of Labour, went around the province holding hearings and getting briefs about how they should change the legislation. It looked like consultation. Everybody was there: members of unions, representatives of employers and small business people. They gave their views to the Minister of Labour at the time, and they gave their views to his officials. It looked like consultation. But it wasn't; it was a sham. And as the deputy minister at the time, Graham Leslie, said: "This had nothing to do with the drafting of Bill 19." Premier Vander Zalm and his advisers were drafting it in secret in his office here in Victoria while the Minister of Labour was, to his credit, attempting at least to consult with the people of the province.

That's the history of the legislation we're working under. That's why it needs to be gone right now. That's why this motion to refer this bill to a committee and spend another eight months on it is contrary to the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

I believe the result of this process has been a balanced and fair piece of labour legislation, and I'm going to speak to some of the specific contents of it. Again, I think that these are reasons why we cannot afford further delay in getting this bill into law.

We want a labour relations code in this province that provides the people of the province -- workers, men and women -- with the opportunity to obtain certification, if they wish, without being subjected to interference. That choice is the right of the employees, not the employer. That's what we have today in Bill 84, which this House is considering.

There has been much talk from the opposition benches about big business and big labour. I'd like to talk about some individual workers. I'd like to talk about a personal experience that I was involved with: the attempt of a group of workers to gain certification under the provisions of Bill 19. In 1987, shortly after Bill 19 became law, the union I was affiliated with was approached by a group of teachers from an institution on the lower mainland whose main business was providing English-language education to overseas students. For the previous nine years these workers had been attempting to gain some sort of agreement with their employer on terms and conditions for their employment. They had attempted to form their own employee non-union association, and they had done that. They had approached their employer and said: "Okay, how about bargaining now?" The employer said: "You're an association. What precisely is that? I'm really not interested in talking to you." They did get some satisfaction: they went to the Employment Standards Board, and finally, after a couple of years of work they managed to get their employer to recognize that he had to adhere to the law of the province in payment of vacation benefits, which had been ignored for years. That was the extent of what they got. In September 1987 this group of workers decided to apply for certification. They approached the union I was working with to see if we could assist them in that.

I want to say a little about these workers. The majority of them were women who had been working part-time or in casual labour for years, and the majority of them were in an employment relationship that I would consider abusive. They had no security of employment. Getting the employer to even recognize the law with respect to minimum standards was a struggle, and when they tried to form an employee association and somehow jointly present their concerns, they were ignored.

After a very brief sign-up campaign, 73 out of the 111 employees wished to join a union, and a vote was arranged. Remember this was Bill 19; you had to vote on certification. So we signed up these people, and then the employer, once the vote was announced, started to do the usual thing. All of a sudden the employer got very interested in discussing with the employee association how wages and benefits could possibly be improved. All of a sudden he offered limited benefits to certain members of this association and not to others. He wanted to pick and choose who the favourites were and who the losers were. All of a sudden this supposedly democratic vote became a vote not of the employees who wanted to choose whether or not to be represented by the union, but it became a political battle with the employer. And it went on.

There was a vote scheduled for October 1987. The Industrial Relations Council cancelled the supposedly democratic vote because it had decided, in its wisdom, that because some of the 111 people who had worked for this school sometime in the previous year were no longer in the city, a mail ballot should be conducted. Many of those people who had left the city had resigned permanently from the school and had no intention of ever working there again. Others were out of the country on extended holidays. In spite of all these facts, under the provisions of Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Council decided that a mail ballot would be a good idea and scheduled it for two months down the road. The other reality of this mail ballot -- and this was probably the nadir of my experience in this certification drive -- for those who can remember back to the fall of 1987, was that there was another item in the news that fall. There was a mail strike. So we had a mail ballot ordered in the middle of a mail strike. That was the justice that these casual part-time employees who wanted to form a union got under Bill 19 from the Industrial Relations Council. Final certification was finally held in December, and an appeal was heard in 

[ Page 3719 ]

May 1988. It took well over a year for these employees to finally gain certification.

[4:30]

Bill 84 is respectful of employees' wishes and provides an avenue for prompt certification. We're going to hear much in debate, particularly when we get into committee in this House, about employers' rights in certification. But this House has to recognize that whether to join a union or not is the decision of the employees. The sign-up of cards was the norm in this province for 40 years before 1983, and after 1992 it will be the norm again and will bring us into line with the norm in Canada. The delay and votes lead to campaigns and further, they lead to a bitter atmosphere after certification is either attained or not attained. It sets a bad beginning for what must be a smooth ongoing relationship between a union and an employer.

I believe that is one reason why we should not further delay passing of this bill. This topic has been canvassed thoroughly, and I believe that the panel of special advisers has come up with a solution that works. Other provisions in Bill 84 also respect the need of labour legislation to build good relations between employees and employers. There are provisions for getting first contracts more quickly and smoothly. If certification is one area where tensions between unions and employers can be great, the second is attainment of a first collective agreement. The new legislation provides and encourages mediation to resolve impasses in negotiating those contracts and provides for arbitration to resolve those first-contract disputes. This is fairly standard, and it is a measure to ensure smooth, cooperative labour relations.

Under Bill 19, I watched in Prince George while a group of employees of Canadian Tire walked a picket line summer, winter, summer and part of another winter -- for over 18 months -- to gain a first collective agreement. There were no provisions for mediation, there were no provisions for arbitration of a first collective agreement, and it took them 18 months -- while replacement workers took their jobs -- before they attained a collective agreement. That is a shameful thing to do to the workers in this province, and it must not happen again.

A third provision of this act that I believe will help smooth labour relations is expedited arbitration of grievances. Grievances almost inevitably arise in a workplace -- union or non-union -- and when they get to the level of formal grievance they need to be resolved as smoothly and quickly as possible. They need to be resolved smoothly for the sake of the workers involved -- for the employees, for those individuals that some members of the official opposition say they're so concerned about. Those are the people that need the provisions of this bill for expedited arbitration. Union lawyers and management lawyers may have lots of time to slug it out in formal arbitrations and court processes, but while that stuff is going on, the individual worker is, quite frankly, very often going through hell.

In the mid-1980s, seven of my colleagues at the College of New Caledonia where I was an instructor were laid off through a dismissal process that the union felt was unjust and not in accordance with provisions in the collective agreement for smooth layoffs. It was grieved and arbitrated. It dragged on. Lives were disrupted. Incredibly, it took well over a year for this to be resolved. The workers were laid off in March. There's an academic year that goes on in our colleges, and September is the start of a new year. One would have hoped that if there were a grievance in March it could be resolved by September so that people could decide either that the grievance was just or that it wasn't, and so that people would either be laid off or be back on the job. No such thing happened. Nor did it happen by the start of the second semester in January of the next year.

The reality is that it took over a year for this dismissal grievance to be finally adjudicated, and the result was the reinstatement of these seven people and payment of all back wages at a cost to the employer of well over a quarter of a million dollars. But more than that, it led to incredible disruption of these people's lives. Imagine being in limbo for a year. Working for a college in a town in northern B.C. is not like having a job you can go to down the block. You would have to leave town and seek employment elsewhere. What were these people to do? I believe that provisions for expedited arbitration remove some of that unnecessary delay and will make labour relations in this province more just and smooth for both employees and employers.

I believe that Bill 84, whatever we want to say about its basis and philosophy or approach to labour relations, is essentially a pragmatic piece of legislation. Having dealt with labour legislation, I believe you can say much about what provisions are in it or not in it, whether it tilts or doesn't tilt the balance, but I will say that what it does do is address what actually happens on the job in labour relations. I'm going to say that I speak of that from experience. I speak of it both as a union member, who has negotiated and arbitrated and resolved differences with employers and also as somebody who has negotiated on behalf of employers and carried arbitrations forward on behalf of employers. This is a pragmatic piece of legislation which will encourage the resolution of differences and encourage smooth labour relations in this province.

I believe that it's also a bill that recognizes some new economic realities. Markets are globalizing. Nobody would dispute that. We've increased the number of women in our workforce. The service sector is expanding, and part-time and casual work is also growing. I believe that the provisions of this bill will actually assist our province's competitiveness in world markets.

There are really two strategies for dealing with these facts of the globalization of our economy. I heard from the member for Surrey-White Rock that the strategy that this province ought to be pursuing is one of low wages, that the way we should ensure a competitive British Columbia is by cutting the cost of labour and by building a strong economy at the expense of workers. I think that's a devastating strategy. I think it's totally inappropriate for this province, for the skills of its citizens and for the future of our children.

There is another option available, and I want to quote from the special subcommittee of advisers, who 

[ Page 3720 ]

spoke to their consideration of this issue when they were formulating the legislation. They said: "Most western countries and many of those in direct competition with British Columbia enterprises have rejected the concept of a low-wage strategy as a route to enhanced competitiveness." I wish the Liberal Party would consider rejecting that as well. Commentators have noted that such a strategy implies lower and more unequal incomes, with dire consequences for social and political institutions. By contrast, a high-wage strategy is feasible and sustainable only with increased productivity and ingenuity in the workplace. This is an achievable goal, as is evident in the success of the Japanese and the western Europeans, whose wage rates equal or exceed those paid in North America. A climate favourable to collective bargaining is inconsistent with a low-wage strategy. That, I would suggest, is why the member for Surrey-White Rock and so many of the people who have spoken from the opposition benches oppose this piece of legislation. They want the low-wage strategy. I reject that.

A climate favourable to collective bargaining is inconsistent with a low-wage strategy, but should enhance a high-wage, high-productivity approach. Emerging studies on the subject indicate that higher union wage rates are offset by higher productivity levels among organized workers.

Hon. Speaker, I believe that Bill 84 provides an opportunity to bring in a new era in relations among labour, business and government in this province. For 40 years, politics in British Columbia has been poisoned by the policy of the Social Credit Party of increasing hostility between labour and management. For the last 40 years, we've had government that has based its survival on union-bashing. They've encouraged suspicion, hostility and confrontation, and Bill 19 was the culmination of that effort. When I hear members from the official opposition now speak about big business and big labour, I see their attempt to continue that atmosphere of hostility and confrontation. They want to continue those antagonisms of the past. I say we must do better.

We must recognize the common interests of business and labour in a healthy economy. I know of nobody in the union movement who wishes bankruptcies on employers. If bankruptcies occur, union workers are out of jobs. There is a chance for a symbiosis there, for working together. It's time for a new approach. It's time to move beyond that rhetoric of the past. It's time for policies and laws that count people in rather than shut them out -- counting labour and business in to strategically plan our future in British Columbia. I believe Bill 84 will be a strong and vital part of building that relationship. I'm proud to support it, and I urge this House to reject the motion to refer it to committee.

J. Pement: I rise to speak against the amendment to defer to committee. I must start by saying that I'm very proud of our government for the introduction of the new provincial Labour Relations Code, Bill 84. This bill has outlined a framework for business and labour relations in British Columbia that is fair and balanced. Further, this bill will promote a stable labour climate, conducive to attracting investment in British Columbia. Therefore we must not stall this legislation. We can't afford to, and we can't afford to do so economically. No longer do British Columbians have to deal with the Socreds' Bill 19, which constituted a radical reversal of traditional labour rights and was the product of behind-the-door negotiations and discussions.

It amazes me that the third party continues to defend their unbalanced legislation, which was developed without any meaningful consultation or any attempt to achieve an appropriate level of consensus. These third party members declare that they are defenders of democracy by holding up Bill 19 as a shining example of their route to democratic government. Thank goodness British Columbians have benched this group and have relegated them to the minor leagues. We can no longer afford this attitude.

I speak against the amendment to put this bill to committee. Bill 84 was developed through consultative processes. The committee held public meetings, received 296 written submissions and heard from 203 individuals representing trade unions, employers and many other interested individuals. The committee reports that as they travelled throughout the province, they consulted with chambers of commerce that represented the small and mid-size businesses in British Columbia.

I've had the experience of being the president of a chamber of commerce, and I know the view that small business has towards unionization by their employees. When unionization comes, they are really concerned about remaining competitive. The committee recognized those concerns through purpose provisions and consultation provisions, sending the message that unions must be sensitive to the needs of business in an ever-changing global economy.

[4:45]

We all know that employees who are treated fairly and whose work is valued by their employers will continue to exist in the same relationship with their employers. I also know that many employees working in small businesses are in tune with the competitive atmosphere that their employer faces. They recognize that balance is needed in a successful operation. This legislation does not provide for sectoral bargaining and does offer mechanisms for going to joint consultation between parties on issues related to the workplace.

There are sections within this code that benefit the employee and the employer. The code respects the right of the employer to communicate facts or opinions reasonably held with respect to the employer's business. Further, employees are protected from coercion and intimidation in becoming, refraining from becoming, continuing or ceasing to be a member of a trade union.

We now look at certification that requires 55 percent of employees to sign membership cards. As pointed out in the committee's report to the Minister of Labour, the decision to join a trade union is, in the final analysis, a decision and right of the employee. And an employee has the democratic freedom to choose and to voice an opinion.

[ Page 3721 ]

I can tell you that if I do not want to sign a card, I won't -- as would any other British Columbian. I can even think of two membership cards I wouldn't sign. I wouldn't sign either a Liberal or a Social Credit membership card, and I would also use my freedom of speech to explain why.

There is also a section that affords employer protection by providing limitations on the activities of trade unions on the worksite. The obvious political ploys of the Liberal opposition to build fear within the small business sector is shameful. Attempting to ensure that workers in this province do not have the right to improve their conditions is simply outrageous.

The Liberal Labour critic cites restrictive American labour legislation as a model for British Columbia. We know that within the U.S. there are low-wage ghettoes in many regions and that 21 states have right-to-work laws that make sure that these workers make 34 percent less than a union employee. Let us not forget that small business does rely on the business of these very employees. It seems reasonable to me that fair wages would transfer to consumption of the products sold by these businesses.

I am proud that this government has taken the steps to ensure that replacement workers cannot be hired during a strike. As the opposition purports to be outraged at these provisions, I would point out to them that smart employers -- fair employers -- would never use this tactic. I have been in management when a strike looms. Never would I or any of my colleagues ever have considered such a draconian action.

This is a message, loud and clear: bargain fairly and in an atmosphere of mutual respect; work at resolving the differences. It's quite a concept. I remind the members opposite that the goal of the code is to achieve a balance whereby both parties will have strong economic initiatives to bargain toward resolution.

Emotions heighten when replacement workers are brought into the workplace, and I say that violence is inevitable. We have recently witnessed the result of this heavy-handed tactic in Yellowknife's Giant mine. The Liberal Labour critic flippantly says these unnecessary scenarios are easily handled by the police. Where is the responsibility of those managers, when inciting a highly emotional situation by bringing in replacement workers?

Bill 84 will permit dependent contractors to form their own bargaining union. This provision will provide the choice for these groups, such as truck loggers, to form a union. There have been ongoing struggles for this group to enter into fair negotiations with firms they are dependent upon. When negotiating a contract, the employer will not allow the truckers to bring in knowledgeable negotiators. Often they face being dropped to the bottom of the list if they speak out against their contracts. Most often they are faced with a take-it-or-leave-it situation or contract, leaving little room for fair bargaining. These workers now have the option to certify. I say that it is about time they had that option. Talk to the truckers: they have a few things to tell, particularly to the opposition.

The definition of a "unit" now includes "an employee" as well as "a group of employees." This change will permit certification of a single-employee bargaining unit. I think that is about time as well. We cannot afford to defer this legislation.

The new Labour Relations Code will assist in improving working conditions for women. Certification and negotiation of first agreements were the two obstacles in the workplace that traditionally weren't represented by unions. With this new code, protection is provided to the worker against unfair labour practices during certification campaigns. There are provisions to encourage arbitration and mediation to solve problems that may arise in negotiating the first contract. The new code will help women who work at home, enabling them to form their own bargaining units, particularly as dependent contractors. The new code reduces hardships experienced when legal strikes or lockouts do occur. Employees' health and welfare benefits will be continued, and this will mean that these benefits will be applied, indirectly or directly, by the employers to their employees. These benefits continue if the trade union pays their obligated share.

An improved dispute resolution process is a major feature of this code. Parties will be encouraged to resolve their problems as much as possible by themselves and without government intervention. This is as it should be.

We will see the elimination of the public interest inquiry board. The requirements for public sector interest arbitration is eliminated. Interest arbitration will be between the parties who choose the process of determining a collective agreement. Again, that is a process for a good labour climate.

British Columbians will benefit from the essential services provision. A high value is placed upon public safety and health in this code. In both cases the code prohibits strikes or lockouts until essential services have been designated. However, that designation will occur when appropriate. The code balances the rights of the employee and the employer to exert pressure on one another; yet the rights of the public are also there to expect reasonable levels of health care and protection during difficult times. Essential services are defined as those services essential to prevent immediate and serious danger to health, safety or welfare of British Columbians. Again, the focus is on mediation as the preferred route to settlement.

To bring British Columbia's legislation in line with the jurisdictions across Canada, not with the American standard purported by the Liberal members, a successorship provision protects the worker when businesses are sold, transferred or disposed of through trusteeship and bankruptcy. These changes can give more discretion to the board to determine whether or not an employer is a successor, and reduce the opportunity for employers to arrange their affairs to avoid proper collective bargaining and their obligations. Again, this is bringing in fair play and a level playing field for all concerned.

Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition deftly whipped out a piece of paper from his pocket, brandished it about and gleefully stated that a prominent businessman will not make a deal to purchase an industry in British Columbia because of successor 

[ Page 3722 ]

rights. Perhaps this member forgets his tirade against fear tactics regarding the referendum. Obviously he doesn't recognize that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. The question to ask is: why? Why is this businessman saying this? What approaches had he in mind for the workers in the unions? Perhaps the weathervane policies of the Liberal opposition have again blown them in the direction that favours the more restrictive measures of Bill 19.

I challenge the members opposite to review the highlights of the code. If they do review those highlights, they will understand the reason we are not wanting to refer this legislation to committee. Let's get on with it and talk about the issues at hand. I'm just going to go over the highlights, because I have a feeling they didn't read them. Highlights for this code are as follows.

The Industrial Relations Council is renamed the Labour Relations Board. The authority of the former industrial relations commissioner to intervene in disputes is transferred to the Minister of Labour for greater accountability.

Free speech is protected. Employers retain the right to communicate with employees on matters concerning the workplace, but an employer cannot interfere with an employee's choice of trade union. We can't wait on these issues.

Trade union certification will occur where clear support for a bargaining unit is demonstrated by 55 percent or more of the unit. A vote must be held if support is between 45 and 55 percent. I think that's important. That's one part of it that the Liberal opposition has not brought out at all.

Dependent contractors have a broader right to unionize.

Decertification provisions are strengthened to ensure that the decision to decertify rests with the employees.

Through enhanced mediation services, we will find arbitration happening more quickly, and the retention of the last-offer votes will occur. The new code is designed to encourage speedier resolution of disputes.

In the public interest, the minister can appoint a special mediator at any time during a collective bargaining dispute. However, the code encourages parties to resolve their problems without government intervention. All along, this code encourages consultation between employers and employees, and that's the type of climate we do want to see in British Columbia.

All collective agreements are to provide for a joint consultation committee to address issues of technological change, work reorganization and productivity. And why not? Why can the employee not be part of the decision-making process?

Essential services designation is streamlined to prevent immediate danger to the health, safety and welfare of British Columbians. That is pointed out very clearly within this code as well.

Why defer the discussion of this code? You know that it's a better situation for the labour climate in British Columbia and that we'll have investors coming because the climate is better, yet you want to defer it. We had consultation throughout the process. There's no reason to defer it to committee. The code provides employers and employees the route to settlement. That's something that Bill 19 did not do. This code will bring a refreshing change to labour relations in our fair province of British Columbia.

[5:00]

D. Mitchell: I am pleased to rise today and debate second reading of Bill 84, the new labour code. I am speaking, of course, to the amendment that has been moved by the member for Langley, which would seek to not have the bill now read a second time but to have it referred to a select standing committee of this House.

The effect of this amendment would be very similar to the one that was moved earlier in the debate on this bill by the member for Prince George-Omineca, which was effectively to suspend second reading of this bill for six months. I think both of those amendments would have substantially the same effect, and that would be to provide further scrutiny, public comment and consideration by the general public of British Columbia on this major piece of legislation. It's a very important bill that the government has brought in. It's the major reason why the Legislature is in session this fall; in fact, it's the only reason.

It's important to think a little bit about the process that has brought us here to debate this legislation, because the process has had some good points to it, but it's fundamentally flawed as well. It's interesting when one compares it with a very similar process which has taken place in Ontario with another NDP government. By the time that government got to this point, when a bill was drafted, there was public scrutiny. It was put open to public discussion and debate. I think that's what should have happened here in British Columbia, too. We've got to this point. What's the hurry? We could have gone that one further step.

Obviously I'm going to be supporting this amendment, but I'd like to explain why. I'd like to ask some questions as well about why we have Bill 84 at this time. Some have suggested that this bill represents a payoff to the unions, to the friends of the NDP. That's been suggested over the last few days by many parties, many people, in the province. It has been suggested as well, though, that this bill actually brings the province into the mainstream of labour law in our country. I'd like to take a look at those two assertions, because I think it's important to do that. Clearly, both can't be right. One of them must be closer to the truth than the other, so I think it's important to examine them.

First of all, we know that the New Democratic Party is affiliated with organized labour, and that's something they don't hide. In fact, that's something I commend them for: their relationship with organized labour is right up front. They are constitutionally aligned with the trade union movement, and we all understand that. We all understand that the B.C. Federation of Labour, for instance, has very close ties with the New Democratic Party, which forms the government of our province. We understand that there are funding ties between the trade union movement and the New Democratic Party. We know, for instance, that Mr. Ken 

[ Page 3723 ]

Georgetti, whom I have much respect for, has a very prominent role in the New Democratic Party.

I think it could be easily suggested that Bill 84 is in fact the Ken Georgetti bill. That's no criticism; that's paying a compliment to Mr. Georgetti, who has tremendous influence and has had a tremendous impact on this legislation. But I think it would be going too far, because I think it's very safe to say that Mr. Georgetti has had some help from members opposite, obviously. There has been some input into this bill.

I welcome the members back to partisan debate. Isn't it great? It's a refreshing change, isn't it?

But you know, the NDP have a close relationship with organized labour, and so we know and expect that when they bring in major changes to the labour law of our province, they're likely to reflect that relationship. The question is: how do they manage the relationship? How is that relationship, that formal, openly acknowledged relationship with the trade union movement, managed in practical terms? I think we see it in Bill 84. We see how that relationship is managed, how it's manifested.

I have a problem with it. The more I look at Bill 84, the more there is that I don't like about it. We've had a chance to look at it for only a few days, and we have a problem with the process there. Of course, the report of the panel of advisers came out in September -- well over a month ago -- but wasn't released to the public. We didn't get this until the bill was tabled, and it's a very significant report. That report was not discussed; it was not released until the legislation was tabled in this House. Now that we have a chance to read the report and take a look at the legislation -- and we've looked at it for a few days -- more and more do we have some serious concerns about it. We have some serious concerns about this bill, and the more I look at it, the more concerned I become.

The contention by members opposite and by the minister himself when he tabled the bill in the House, and in the statement that he made, was that this bill somehow brings British Columbia into the mainstream. I think we need to examine that assertion. The mainstream of what? If by bringing us into the mainstream, the minister means we're being brought into line with the labour laws of Ontario and Quebec, then maybe he's correct. But it certainly doesn't mean that we're being brought into the mainstream of North America. It certainly doesn't mean that we're being brought into the mainstream of attraction of investment and job creation. We're certainly not being brought into the mainstream of a modern economy that needs to build jobs, build for the future and become more competitive. It doesn't do that.

If by being brought into the mainstream, we mean Ontario, for instance, I think we need to take a look at the mainstream of Ontario. What is the record of job creation in Ontario recently? What is the record of the attraction of investment in Ontario? What has happened to the manufacturing base in that province? What is the record of manufacturing-plant closures in that province? Is this the kind of mainstream that the government is trying to bring British Columbia into -- a mainstream similar to Ontario's record of industrial relations and industrial achievement in the last few years? If that's the mainstream that this government is trying to bring us into, I want nothing to do with it.

The minister made a very telling statement when he brought this bill forth. He said that this new Labour Relations Code, Bill 84, will promote harmony in a climate conducive to investment. An astonishing statement, since the more I look at the bill, the more I have to ask some questions about it. What has been especially disharmonious about industrial relations in our province in the last few years? The record of person-days lost to industrial disputes and the record of strikes certainly have not been things we need to be disappointed with. In fact, there's been relative labour stability in British Columbia in recent years, yet the minister says that this new bill is going to promote harmony.

He also says it's going to create a climate conducive to investment. I want to know how it's going to do that. Has our labour relations climate not been conducive to investment in recent years? I think we need to examine that carefully. My contention, after taking a close look at Bill 84, is that this new labour code for British Columbia is probably going to have a very negative impact on investment in the province. It might, in fact, promote less harmony than we've seen in recent years in labour relations.

That's got to be a concern, and it's one important reason this bill should be given further study, should be exposed to further comment and should see the light of day, and why British Columbians should be allowed some scrutiny of it before it's passed into law. That's one reason this amendment should be supported -- one of many good reasons.

Hon. Speaker, I know that one of the NDP election planks was to replace Bill 19, which, of course, is the code name for the Industrial Relations Act. The NDP election plank also said that they would bring in fair and balanced legislation to replace Bill 19. Why did they want to replace Bill 19? I think that's important to understand as we look at Bill 84, because Bill 84, the NDP bill, replaces Bill 19, the Social Credit's Industrial Relations Act. We need to examine why Bill 19 really needed to be replaced. Was it a bad law, or was the Industrial Relations Act simply never given a chance?

I asked myself that seriously, as a student of industrial relations in our province, and I've taken a look at the literature on Bill 19 by academics, union representatives and management representatives. I refer to a couple of papers that have been written on this. One is by George Adams, QC, who is a partner of Campbell Godfrey and Lewtas, a Toronto law firm. He wrote a paper that was presented to the Industrial Relations Management Association of B.C. in February 1988. The title of his paper is quite telling. It's called "The Second Dullest Bill: the New British Columbia Industrial Relations Act." It doesn't really state that the bill was controversial or disruptive. It says it was actually a very dull piece of legislation.

In his conclusion -- I'd just like to read a short quote in the last paragraph of his paper -- he says:

"The development of Canadian labour law has been enhanced by the ability of individual provinces to 

[ Page 3724 ]

develop novel and dynamic methods of regulating the labour market. The act" -- this is the Industrial Relations Act, Bill 19 -- "can be seen as part of this continuum of change, rather than a regression which strongly favours the employer. Those of us who follow Canadian labour law developments will be continuing to closely observe events in British Columbia under the new administration."

I think he was referring to the Vander Zalm administration there, hon. Speaker. He says further that:

"The coming months will be telling in determining how the new machinery will function, assuming it is given an opportunity to do so. I can understand fully the disappointment of organized labour. As Bob White has said, employees do not need trade unions to help them work backwards. But the political process is not collective bargaining, and elected representatives have a right to alter existing statutory provision, as emotional as this may be, when perceived as taking away rights that labour worked hard to achieve."

Then he concludes with this statement: "Labour ought to give the new act the same chance management gave the 1973 code."

What George Adams is saying in this paper is that Bill 19 needed to be given a chance, much the way that British Columbia gave a chance to the 1973 Labour Code that was brought in by the Barrett administration. But was Bill 19 ever given a chance? That's the question that I asked earlier. Of course it wasn't. The B.C. Federation of Labour instituted a boycott, and it was never given a chance. But we did have relative labour peace during those years, and it's interesting to note that.

One other paper that I'd like to refer to is written in the publication Policy Options by Bryan M. Downie. It's interesting that at the time, which is November 1989, Brian Downey was a professor of industrial relations at the school of industrial relations and school of business at Queen's University. The title of Brian Downie's article is "B.C. Labour Law: Anti-unionism or Enlightened Innovation." In this paper Professor Downie argues that Bill 19, even though it was attacked at the time as regressive and was certainly controversial, may also have been a pattern which Canada and other jurisdictions could have learned from. That's an interesting point of view from a leading scholar of industrial relations.

Let me tell you how he concludes his paper. It's something that is worth reading. He's referring to the industrial relations tribunal, the IRC, and the disputes resolution function within that tribunal, which I argue never had a chance to properly function because of the boycott -- unfortunately, in my view. He says:

"In summary...the dispute resolution features of the B.C. legislation are not outside the mainstream of Canadian industrial relations thought; they have been proposed and utilized elsewhere and, if administered properly, they should protect and enhance the collective bargaining process rather than harm it. They represent not a retrenchment, but a policy which merits serious study by those interested in innovative approaches to conflict resolution."

These are highly complimentary comments directed toward the much-derided Bill 19, which was never given a chance. Yet the NDP has been determined to get rid of Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Act, as well as the Industrial Relations Council and anything that smacked of it. I wonder if we're not witnessing something here that is simply part of the inherent bickering and party politics, partisanship and polarization that have characterized far too much of British Columbia politics. A new government comes in, and it wants to get rid of what a previous government had and bring in something of its own, in a symbolic way. It wants to put its own imprimatur on the labour law of this province. Why? Well, we all know labour relations are crucial to our province. They are crucial -- and some of the debate has proven that. We've had some excellent debate already on this bill, and I can predict that this debate will continue for some time. I think we need to think seriously about why Bill 84 is being brought in and why Bill 19 is being discarded. There is symbolism taking place here, but is anything substantive happening?

The truth is, if you take a serious clause-by-clause analysis of the legislation, Bill 19 is contained within Bill 84. Seventy-five percent or more of Bill 84 remains almost identical to what Bill 19 was. More than three-quarters of the legislation remains the same. Could Bill 19 have been amended perhaps, to fall in line with the ideology of the new government? Of course, it could have been amended. But the decision was made to throw it out and bring in something of its own. Call it something different, put a different title on it, and package it slightly differently. Perhaps we can accept that. I guess what the government is doing is inviting any future administration to do the same. But that's unfortunate, because it creates uncertainty and instability in industrial relations in our province. And I wonder if it all is really that necessary. I certainly don't think the mainstream argument holds very well.

[5:15]

I wonder if the symbolic act of bringing in Bill 84, the new labour code, and a new labour relations board, has really transcended the symbolic and created something substantively new -- and of course it has. I think the comments in this debate of the official opposition Labour critic, in particular, have analyzed quite thoroughly some of the key points in this bill that are of concern and will be of concern in the days ahead, as we go through this. As the public receives more information, and we get more feedback, that will fuel the debate in the House, I'm sure.

Is the bill fair and balanced? The minister clearly said in his statement that he wanted to bring in something that was fair and balanced. Bill 19 was considered to favour management. It can be said that in a broad sense, on a broad spectrum of labour-management relations, it probably did -- balanced slightly on the management side. Does Bill 84 correct that by taking us back to an equilibrium? No. It pushes us much farther over onto the other side.

So we have this continuing pendulum swing in labour relations. It mirrors our politics. It mirrors so much of our political history, where we've had left versus right, labour versus management. It's unfortunate, because that's not what the people of British Columbia want any longer. We don't want polarization; we want something fair and balanced. But have we 

[ Page 3725 ]

achieved something that's fair and balanced in this bill? I think that's what's going to have to be debated in this House, and we're hoping, of course, that the minister is going to address some of these concerns, not only when he ultimately closes debate on second reading but when we go into the clause-by-clause analysis during committee stage. We're going to have to examine and probe this very carefully, because I question whether it's fair and balanced in all respects.

There are more than two sides to labour-management relations. It's not simply labour versus management. There are more than two sides to British Columbia politics. It's not just left versus right in the old ideological spectrum of polarized politics -- which the people of British Columbia have rejected. There are more than two sides to the coin. That's an outdated, archaic model that British Columbians have rejected, and we should try to get it out of our system completely, as I know the Minister of Advanced Education would agree. Instead we need more cooperation, but a different kind of cooperation than has been seen in the process leading to the formulation of this bill.

I know that the minister has spoken very much about the process of public participation. But if we take a look at the panel, and the representation on the panel itself, was balance there? Or are we simply resorting to the old club approach to industrial relations in this province? The panel was made up of three very eminent British Columbians. There is no question that they are very talented in their fields: Mr. Tom Roper, representing management and large unionized firms; Mr. John Baigent, a leading labour lawyer, representing organized labour; and Mr. Vince Ready, a leading arbitrator, who has made his living off both the other two parties. Is there balance there? Where are individuals represented in that kind of a panel? Where are small businesses represented? Where are independent business people represented among those three individuals? Where are medium-sized British Columbia businesses represented?

There is something wrong with the process. We have a corporatist approach to labour relations in this province, which no longer reflects the modern, dynamic, growing economy of British Columbia, where it's small independent businesses that are creating the jobs for the future of British Columbia. That's why this process is wrong. Individuals, entrepreneurs and small-and medium-sized businesses are creating the jobs and shaping the future of our economy. They haven't been represented in the panel. The panel is reflective of the old, outdated, club approach to industrial relations, where large unionized firms and large labour interests get together and cut deals that, unfortunately, the rest of us have to live with; Bill 84 ensures that the rest of us are going to have to live with those decisions. Those in the private sector who are dealing in small and individual businesses -- even individual business people who work in a firm of their own, so-called lone eagles -- are now going to have to, if they want to do business with the government, form a bargaining unit themselves and become a member of a trade union -- if I read this bill correctly; especially if you look at the secondary boycott provisions. That's one of the implications. So I wonder how fair and balanced it is. I'm concerned and I'm apprehensive about the effects of Bill 84 for those reasons.

If you take a look at any labour code in the land and you really want to understand the guts of it, you must look at the purposes section. That's a key. For anyone who hasn't had a lot of experience reading labour legislation -- I have a bit of a background in this area -- take a look at the purposes section of any labour code. It's interesting. If you take a look at section 27 in the Industrial Relations Act -- the purposes section -- it really gets to the spirit and the heart of what the labour law of the province is. It says, referring to the Industrial Relations Council, the tribunal: "The council, having regard to the public interest as well as the rights of individuals and the rights and obligations of the parties before it and recognizing the desirability for employers and employees to achieve and maintain good working conditions as participants in and beneficiaries of a competitive market economy, shall exercise the powers and perform the duties confirmed or imposed on it under this act so as to achieve the expeditious resolution of labour disputes...."

There are some key words in the Industrial Relations Act under the purposes section, section 27. It talks about the "rights of individuals" and about "a competitive market economy." These are key words. I've searched in Bill 84, and those words are missing. Why would they have been deleted? One thing that I will commend the minister for is that he's moved the purposes section right up front in the bill to section 2. That's good, because the purposes section should be right up front in any legislation. But if you read section 2, the purposes of this new labour code, it talks about "employers" and "trade unions." Every clause is "employers" and "trade unions." It's as if the world is made up only of large unionized employers and trade unions. But nowhere is there any reference to the rights of individuals, and nowhere, surprisingly, is there any reference to the competitive market economy that describes the British Columbia economy. I wonder why. That's another reason why this bill can't be supported and why this amendment should be supported. We need to think about why these words have been deleted. Maybe it was an oversight. I don't know.

One of my concerns about this bill is that instead of helping us move forward into the challenges of the future, it takes us back in time. It takes us back a generation, 20 years ago, because Bill 84 is highly reminiscent of the labour code brought in by a previous NDP administration in 1973. It reads very similarly. It has the same spirit as the labour code brought in in 1973. One can argue that that bill may have been right or wrong for the time -- and that's a good argument -- but the point is that British Columbia has changed. British Columbia has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. Our economy has diversified. No longer are we shaped by the old outdated model of large unionized employers and company towns. No, the economy has diversified and we are shaped now by different forces. Why would we move back in time? Why would Bill 84 take us back 20 years in time? It's a retrograde step and I'm concerned about it for that reason.

[ Page 3726 ]

You might think, with my comments, that I can't find anything good in this bill. Far from it, because let me tell you there are some good elements in this bill, and I would like to actually compliment the minister and the government for following many of the recommendations in the panel's report, Recommendations for Labour Law Reform. There are dozens and dozens of recommendations in here which have been followed and which I think will improve the process, will improve the functioning of the labour tribunal in our province. I'll give you one example. The fact that there will no longer be automatic rights of appeal of tribunal decisions is, I think, positive. That will make the process more effective and more timely, and ultimately will expedite the whole process, and I think that's good. There's a lot of good in this bill. Many of the recommendations of the labour law reform panel have been accepted and that's good, but there are some key areas here that can't be swept under the rug. They deserve more scrutiny and they deserve more debate. The people of British Columbia want to discuss them, and I think they need discussion.

Is there a balance here with certification and decertification? The certification provisions certainly have got to be considered one of the most controversial elements of Bill 84, and the minister is going to have to address this in a lot of detail -- excruciating detail -- when we get into further debate on this. But what happens under this bill with certification and decertification?

Certification is made easier. In fact, no more is there going to be a free vote by secret ballot. It's simply a sign-up process with no initiation fee required for signing a union card. But decertification is still very difficult. This is very curious to me because the minister didn't follow the advice and recommendations of his own panel on this. On page 33 of the panel's report, under "Revocation of Bargaining Rights," the panel said this: "Our recommended changes in this area are designed to provide a parallel between the procedures for the acquisition of bargaining rights and revocation of bargaining rights."

We're talking here about certification and decertification, and there should be a parallel. Anyone interested -- and I know the minister is -- should read on and read the whole section. But is there a parallel process? I recommend this to the hon. Minister of Labour -- I recommend it highly. I hope he doesn't wait for the movie. I hope he reads this report.

Is there a parallel between the process leading toward certification and the process leading toward decertification? No, there's no parallel. Certification is made very, very easy, but decertification is still very, very difficult. Now why would that be unbalanced? It's not balanced, it's not fair, and there is no parallel.

First contracts can be imposed. I would ask the minister this: is there any record in the history of British Columbia or any other Canadian jurisdiction of a first contract being imposed upon an employer and a second contract being achieved? I'd like to know of one instance in British Columbia.

Secondary boycotts. The implication of the secondary boycott provision in Bill 84 repealing the prohibition on secondary boycotts in Bill 19, is going to have a dramatic effect on British Columbia, and it's something that we need to think about seriously. The implications here are very serious because secondary boycotts are now going to be allowed. It's interesting to think a little bit about history. In 1973, I think, the BCGEU used that legislation -- which had a similar clause on prohibiting secondary boycotts -- and they required anyone doing business with the provincial government of the day to be unionized. Think about the implications of any person, any contractor, any individual company, any enterprise -- small, medium or large -- having to be unionized if they do business with their own provincial government. Is that fair? Is that balanced?

The objective is clear. The objective is to increase unionization. At least the minister has been honest about that. He has been right up front. He stated that this bill is intended to increase unionization. In fact, the purposes section of the bill itself states that it's to promote collective bargaining, increase unionization and ensure that more British Columbians will become members of trade unions. One way to achieve that would be through the secondary boycott provision, which ensures that any firm doing any kind of business with the provincial government must be unionized. Even if you're an individual, you'll have to form a collective bargaining unit of one so you can do business. That's what's referred to as a top-down approach to unionization. Individual employees don't decide whether they want to become members of unions, but management -- an owner-operated firm itself -- might decide that it has to become unionized if it wants to get a government contract. Is that fair? Is that balanced? Those are the kinds of concerns that the minister has got to address before this bill can ever become law.

There are a couple of other areas, hon. Speaker. I see that I'm running out of time. I know that I'm speaking on the amendment here, so when we get back to the main motion, I will have a chance to address further points.

Let me ask this one question. Maybe the minister can answer it at some point during this debate. The essential services section of this bill has been amended and streamlined. The definition of essential services has been narrowed. There's a word missing: education. Since when is education not an essential service in British Columbia? Why has that word been deleted? That's something I look forward to hearing an answer on from the minister. I look forward to saying more in this debate as the debate proceeds. The minister has a lot to answer for.

I'm supporting the amendment.

[5:30]

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak in favour of the amendment. I think it would be useful if we could refer this legislation to a standing committee of this House. Over time, committees in this House have had a history of bringing forward good, solid recommendations. I don't think the government 

[ Page 3727 ]

and the minister should be discouraged by the failure of their last standing committee of this House that dealt with our constitution. I don't think that the government should want to discard the committee system for that reason alone.

When they were in opposition, they were keen supporters of the committee system. Given the enthusiastic support we heard in this House over the last five years for the committee system, I'm quite surprised that the Minister of Labour didn't simply stand up when the motion was moved and agree to it, particularly given the experience in Ontario, where that NDP government took similar legislation to a standing committee, allowed Ontario residents six months or so to examine it, made some appropriate changes to the legislation, we understand, and is bringing it back.

It's a pleasure to rise and follow the thoughtful comments of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. They were indeed good comments which were well thought out and well considered, by someone who obviously understands this issue. They were an interesting contrast to the pathetic, sad and somewhat hysterical comments from members across the way, particularly from those who were here in the last session. It was a little sad to hear members bringing out their 1987 arguments and using them all over again. I heard those in 1987. They were hysterical, and they were anything but accurate. To have to sit through them again seems to me cruel and unusual punishment. Indeed, to listen to a few of them might be instructive.

Hon. T. Perry: Listening to you is cruel and unusual punishment.

J. Weisgerber: The Minister of Advanced Education says that listening to me is cruel and unusual punishment. It's unusual for him because he's rarely in this House. Listening to any speech would be an unusual experience for him. I would encourage him to stick around and listen to his own members. If he truly wants to subject himself to cruel and unusual punishment, he should stick around and listen to his members.

We will move on to quoting some of the comments that those of us who were here in 1987 had the pleasure or, the opposite of pleasure, the pain of listening to. The first person I'd like to quote is the now Premier, comments that he made in this House on April 22, 1987. He was speaking about the Industrial Relations Act:

"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 consensus; it is going to bring a lot of conflict, confrontation and bitterness." And most importantly: "It is not going to bring investment and jobs; it is going to chase that investment and those jobs away from this province."

How profoundly wrong he was then, and how profoundly wrong he is now, and how many times he has been wrong since then and up until now. Indeed, it is what we should expect from that member and that Premier.

Consider his prediction: a loss of jobs, a loss of investment -- they're going to chase business out of British Columbia. Compare that with the record of British Columbia in the period 1987 to 1991. It was a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity in British Columbia, a period of labour relations peace that has never been seen before in British Columbia and perhaps will never be seen again. Those were the contrasts to the predictions of the Premier. The Premier was wrong then, and if his government allowed him any role at all in the development of this legislation -- they probably did not -- he was wrong again. And clearly that is his record not only in labour relations but in most issues.

We listened to the member for Nanaimo talk about the calm, rational and measured comments of the member for North Coast, the now Attorney General. Indeed, over the last year or so he has worked on that recommendation....

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: North Island. It's close. And I saw the Attorney General's eyes blink open. He thought: "My goodness, there has been a change. No one has told me." No, you're still the Attorney General, and you still represent North Island. But that same measured individual said on April 7, 1987, in this Legislature -- he was speaking about the Industrial Relations Act, and he's smiling because he remembers some of those comments: "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." How profoundly wrong he was when he made that statement. Look at the record of British Columbia in the period from 1987 to 1991 to know just how wrong he was.

He also said -- this is another comment made on the same day and perhaps in the same speech: "My guess is that you will triple or quadruple the number of disputes that arise out of collective bargaining." Again he was speaking about the Industrial Relations Act, and again he was dead wrong because, in fact, the number of industrial relations disputes fell by three or four times rather than quadrupled or tripled. These are the measured kinds of comments that the member made.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: He smiles and says: "Will I be wrong this time?" Let's hope that he has the good fortune to be around here to find out, when the tables turn and we stand on the other side of the House.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly I am speaking about the amendment and about the need for us to consider this legislation. I am speaking about the fact that the legislation we have in place is good legislation that's working well in British Columbia, and that the panic and the need for change seen by those members do not exist.

Let me finish with one small quote from the Attorney General. I know he's dying to know which one I'm using, because he has hundreds. But he said on June 2, 1987: "I am interested in trying to find some way of making the government understand that it is on a 

[ Page 3728 ]

course which will lead to further poverty, further unemployment, further lack of investment and a disastrous relationship among people in this province."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: All true.

J. Weisgerber: The Attorney General says: "All true." Not only was he wrong in 1987, but in 1992 he still doesn't recognize that he was wrong.

Hon. Speaker, there is no pressing need to deal with this legislation. There is every reason to step back from this legislation and give it consideration. We have legislation that's working well and that has served the province well. We have lots of time for this government, as the Minister of Labour said yesterday, to pay off their election debts. Indeed, they have two or three years. They will have many opportunities, and they will probably be called on many times -- unless they get some sign-off on the IOU, because simply making a payment doesn't always ensure that the note holder doesn't keep adding interest.

Anyway, there is an opportunity here to refer this legislation to a committee; there is an opportunity to give it serious consideration. As many members have said in this House, there has not been a complete opportunity for British Columbians to comment on this legislation. Indeed, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi mentioned that this legislation now suggests that education in British Columbia is no longer essential. Who, indeed, consulted with parents? Who, indeed, consulted with students? If anyone did consult with them, how many of them agreed with the notion that education was not essential? I suggest none.

First of all, I suggest that nobody ever guessed and dreamt that this government would bring forward legislation that would suggest education wasn't essential. Therefore none of them would have been motivated to go to these labour relations hearings. If you're concerned about education, you're not likely to go and speak to three labour lawyers about labour legislation. Indeed, you would never dream that they would involve themselves in that undertaking.

It would be reasonable, then, given the sweeping changes proposed in this legislation, to send it out to a committee. I would have preferred, as I indicated earlier, to have simply allowed the legislation to float for six months as a White Paper, for interested parties to have an opportunity to examine it. The Legislature, in its wisdom, chose not to accept that amendment, so we are now considering something very similar, that being the opportunity to instead give the legislation to a select standing committee -- to travel around British Columbia, to invite submissions. Indeed, there would be an opportunity.... Again, as I've said, this is a government that for at least the last five years has been a champion of legislative standing committees. At every opportunity, the suggestion was made when they were in opposition: refer the issue to a select standing committee; take it out of the adversarial climate of the Legislature; put it into a committee and allow British Columbians and legislators to develop notions....

Once again this government is driving the bus. Finally they have their hands on the controls after 20 years of panting on the sidelines, waiting for their chance to get at it, waiting to do all the things they thought should be done. And what do they do? At the first opportunity they say: "Oh no, we understand. We know better than the people of the province. We don't think there's any need to consult with people. We understand their wants and needs. After all, we demonstrated just last week how much in touch we were with grass-roots British Columbia." They understood that, while in Prince George North 76.4 percent of their constituents disagreed with them. They had their finger on the pulse; they understood what people were thinking. They represented the wishes and desires of their constituents. What nonsense! Has there been absolutely no benefit from this last experience? Have you learned absolutely nothing from this last, painful experience you've been through?

There are many good reasons to refer this legislation. There are implications for those people who until now have not seen themselves as being affected by industrial relations legislation. There are small businesses with one employee who never dreamt that they could be certified -- one employee who has but to sign the card and send it in to certify that company. And should that company go out of business, should that company go on the shelf for two years, it couldn't be decertified. Indeed, with one card, one employee, that's the end of it; that company is forever certified. I don't think that the little mom-and-pop operation with one employee thought, when this government struck a committee and sent these three wise men around British Columbia: "Gosh, I don't want my one employee to be able to sign a card and certify the company. I'd better rush down and tell them what my concerns are." Of course they didn't. They had no way of forecasting. It would have been unreasonable for a person to have anticipated this kind of legislation. Therefore there is all kind of evidence for the need to send this legislation back to the people in some form or other.

[5:45]

With that in mind, I would endorse this second amendment. It is a good and reasoned kind of amendment. There is an opportunity for the legislative committee system to redeem itself. Indeed, we can put the last failure behind us. We can say that on balance the committee system works. We can say: "Let's not be discouraged simply by one unfortunate experience with the constitution. Let's look at the broader picture. Let's look at the longer track record of committees. Let's give committees a chance to do something meaningful. Let's not simply put off issues that we don't want to deal with -- for example, recall and initiative, passed by in excess of 80 percent of British Columbians." We stand here in this House today, more than one year after in excess of 80 percent of British Columbians instructed their government that they wanted to see recall and initiative.... What has this government done?

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member across the way says the committee meets tomorrow. What a wonderful track 

[ Page 3729 ]

record: one year, and the member has managed to refer it to the committee.

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, the topic really is labour relations. We're talking about a motion for a committee to be struck with regard to labour relations. I don't see what recall, initiative or referendum have to do with it. I'm sure the hon. member would agree with me that he has strayed a bit too far. Perhaps we could get back to the issue at hand, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: The point is well taken, and I'm sure the hon. member will continue his comments on the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly. I can understand the lack of comfort the minister has with recall and initiative. I can understand the discomfort he has with the constitution. I can understand many discomforts he has. Hon. Speaker, I am not talking about his personal or business life. I'm talking....

The Speaker: Hon. member, please continue with your comments on the amendment of the bill before us.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, hon. Speaker. We are talking about an amendment to refer Bill 84 to a committee of the Legislature. I suggest that that is an excellent idea. I support wholeheartedly the referral of this legislation to a committee. I was simply trying to point out the enviable track record that legislative committees in this House have had. I have been trying, in my own way, to encourage the government to adopt this amendment, to suggest that in fact they have faith in the committee system. I was trying, when I was distracted, to suggest some of the reasons why those people not consulted in the development of this legislation would want to appear in front of a legislative committee.

A business with one employee that, until the tabling of this bill, never thought they would or could be certified or would be the target for certification is one of those groups. Any of the businesses that would be affected by secondary boycotts are ones that perhaps had not contemplated that in order for them to do business with one of their customers, they might have to become certified. Maybe a small company where neither the employees nor the employer had thought much about certification will now be realizing that, against one or the other or both of their wishes, it may be necessary for them to certify in order to survive. Those people should have an opportunity to come forward -- a standing committee of the Legislature would be an appropriate vehicle -- to express their thoughts on that issue.

I think the many small suppliers to government may now be thinking about the next BCGEU contract and whether or not that will include a secondary boycott provision. Many are now speculating that that is a probability and not simply a possibility -- given the relationship between this government and the BCGEU and the experience that we had with the last round of negotiations. That's when the BCGEU said, "We need this much," and apparently the negotiator said, "Only that much?" and that was the end of the negotiation. When asked, the negotiator said: "We got nothing in return, because we didn't ask for anything." That must be one of the first times in the history of labour negotiations that one side went to the bargaining table and didn't ask for anything. Perhaps from time to time one side or the other leaves without getting anything, but I don't think there are many examples where one side simply went and said: "Tell us what you want. We don't want anything. We just want to get along."

Having that kind of history, it's then reasonable to assume that the probability of a secondary boycott clause in the next BCGEU contract is one that should be considered very carefully. That will affect many British Columbians who supply goods or services to government. That in itself is probably reason enough to suggest that the consultation that's taken place to date is insufficient and that there should be further opportunity for those people who never dreamed, until this legislation was tabled, that they might be adversely affected by some legislation the government would introduce. They should now have an opportunity to speak up, to make presentations in the same way that big business, organized labour and the groups representing business and labour all had an opportunity to come forward to lobby the government, and make presentations to the three people drafting the legislation. There was a reasonable expectation that those groups would understand what might be included in the bill. They had reason to come forward.

I've forgotten their names, but the seven or eight restaurant chains that came forward and lobbied the minister had reason to expect that sectoral certification was going to be on the table. They had an opportunity to come forward to make their argument to the minister; and, it would appear, they succeeded in convincing the minister not to proceed with that.

An Hon. Member: At this time.

J. Weisgerber: One must remember that it's "at this time," assuming, of course, that the government ever intended to bring it in, and simply wanted -- as they did with the budget -- to float out a few really radical notions that would allow themselves to becoming lightning rods and then simply withdraw them. The government has a track record of that kind of experience. You allow some leaks that predict things that cause terror, and then you simply withdraw the most objectionable, and the community goes: "Whew, it wasn't nearly as bad as we thought." What was the reaction to this legislation? The first reaction was exactly that, and it was very well orchestrated.

Let us make no mistake. It was no accident that the legislation, which provided for secondary boycotts and took away the democratic rights of voters to a certification vote but required a vote for decertification, was viewed as: "Whew, we're glad it wasn't as bad as we thought it was going to be." That was no accident. I commend the minister for the presentation that led up to that response from British Columbians.

[ Page 3730 ]

But now we've had 48 hours or so to consider the legislation. Now we have an opportunity to understand that there is a thread that goes through this legislation that has the potential to be injurious to certain sectors of the economy. By referring the legislation to a legislative committee, which would have the resources to travel around the province, there would be an opportunity to discuss those kinds of impact before they became law. I would sincerely encourage the government to adopt this amendment to move the legislation over to a committee and to give British Columbians, large businesses, large labour -- but particularly individuals and small unorganized businesses -- an opportunity to understand what is being proposed here and to examine and comment on in a meaningful way something concrete and finite. With that, considering the hour, I would move adjournment.

J. Weisgerber moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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