Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1992

Volume 5, No. 24

[ Page 3731 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. P. Priddy: I would like to share with the House this morning the reason for the white ribbons that people have been wearing this week. These white ribbons are an initiative of the Voice of Women, which is an organization that began in Victoria over 30 years ago. It is a collective of women who work towards peace in our country and province. It is a signal of strong opposition to pornography, the damage that pornography brings, and the effect that it has on women and children and the people of British Columbia. In support, people are wearing white ribbons this week. I ask people to acknowledge that. Presenting Reports

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report from the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. I move the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

Law Clerk:

"Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The preamble to Bill Pr403 intituled Lower Fraser Valley Exhibition Association Amendment Act has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. U. Dosanjh, Chair."

U. Dosanjh: By leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Bill Pr403 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

WOMEN

L. Reid: I am indeed delighted to rise in the chamber today in recognition of women's great and continuing contributions to Canada. Mary Collins, the federal minister responsible, has declared October Women's History Month in Canada. "Living history: ask your foremother about herstory" is this year's theme. I'm sure many of you will have seen the posters on display throughout the precinct and with different groups throughout the province. Many events have been organized to honour the women who helped build our nation through their roles as educators, paid and unpaid workers, activists and volunteers, and in numerous other jobs and activities that women have shouldered over the years.

Until recently, the legacy of women's contributions to our nation did not receive adequate mention in the history books of our province and country. These texts have focused on war, politics, economics and other events in which men figured prominently. But Canada's history is rich and varied. Women, the majority of our country's population, are now receiving the recognition deserved for their significant and tireless work in creating a country we can all be proud of.

It is no coincidence that October has been chosen as the time to reflect upon women's history and the contribution that women have made to this country. Sixty-four years ago in Canada women were not legally considered persons and were therefore ineligible to sit in the Senate. On October 18, 1929, through their own efforts, women gained status as persons and furthered their quest for equal rights. In 1928 a group of five now famous women challenged the Supreme Court of Canada to determine if the word "person" in the British North America Act included women. An all-male Supreme Court weighed the arguments and concluded that women are not qualified persons within the meaning of section 24 of the British North America Act of 1867. Undaunted, Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby and Nellie McClung appealed the case to the judicial committee of the Privy Council in London. On October 18, 1929, the British Privy Council ruled that women were qualified persons. Wisely, the council concluded that the exclusion of women from all public offices was a relic of days more barbarous than ours.

Cairine Wilson, an active Liberal organizer in Ontario and a woman deeply involved in charitable, political and social organizations for many years, was, in 1930, the first woman appointed to the Senate. After what was to become the Persons Case, Nellie McClung, a former Alberta Liberal MLA, wrote an article entitled "Now That We Are Persons." In her wise and witty style she commented: "On the morning of October 18, 1929, the women of Canada received a shock when they read their papers at breakfast. They read on the first page in bold, black type that the Lords of the Privy Council had declared them to be persons. That was not the shock. The shock came in the implication that they had not always been persons."

Nellie McClung -- 1873 to 1951 -- was recognized as Canada's foremost woman suffrage leader. Along with other Canadian women committed to democracy, she fought for 50 years to change a federal elections act which denied the vote to lunatics, criminals and women. Thanks to the intelligence and dedication of women like Nellie McClung, in 1918 women won the federal vote and became eligible for election to Parliament. Provincially, women won the right to vote between 1916 and 1922, with the exceptions of Quebec in 1940 and Newfoundland in 1925. B.C. women were 

[ Page 3732 ]

granted provincial voting rights in 1917. In 1931 the B.C. Legislature passed the Sex Disqualification Removal Act, which put women on an equal basis with men under all provincial statutes retroactive to 1871.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm very pleased and proud to rise in response to the hon. member's statement. When we think about Women's History Month and acknowledge and recognize the women whom the hon. member has spoken of, whom we have seen in posters and heard about in stories, it is important for us to do that and to acknowledge the leadership and the model they have been to other women. But it is also important to think about the other women who have quietly shaped our communities throughout British Columbia. When we try to learn about those women, we find that there are very few places to go, because women's history was not important enough to write about in history books. We've had to learn of women's contributions in very different ways, as historians concerned about women. We've learned through farm journals and diaries and household accounts. We've learned through stories and song -- very different ways of learning of history. For our children, who study primarily history books, much of the history that women have brought to this province and to communities is being lost. We also learn about women's history through things that are handed down through families: through family quilts that weave together the values and names of family members, from fragile photographs, and from small articles in old newspapers.

[10:15]

A large part of this information is not even written down. So much of the history of women that we have is about women who are literate, because they had an ability to be educated and to have access to writing materials. But what of those women who were not literate? Many women who came to this country were not able to speak English and didn't have access to writing materials. For those women, there were not even any letters home that people could keep and acknowledge, which talked about their contributions and their work. There were no diaries for them, and no notes and no letters written to family at home about their life. It is to those women as well that we owe honour in terms of how they have shaped our communities.

I am very proud to stand here today, as a woman in British Columbia, to acknowledge Women's History Month, and to acknowledge as well the role of aboriginal women who have shaped our whole province's history in terms of leadership for women. When we talk about even the right to vote, it was 1917 in this province; but for many women -- Japanese women, Chinese-Canadian women -- it was 1949, and for aboriginal women it was 12 years after that. So we have not even acknowledged, consistently, the role of women and the rights of women throughout this province.

This government does have a commitment to women. We pride ourselves on the accomplishments that women have made. I stand here proud to be working with the women in this assembly.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise today and to work again with the Minister of Women's Equality, because I believe she and I are headed in the same direction, and she and I both believe in the contributions that women have made to the history of this country.

Women we have taken a look at over time have been women like Carrie Derick, who became Canada's first female full professor at McGill University in 1912, which was a tremendous accomplishment; Elsie MacGill, who designed an airplane and witnessed its construction in 1939; Réjane Laberge Colas, the first woman appointed judge of the Quebec superior court in 1969; Mary Two-Axe Early, who led the struggle for the restoration of native rights to aboriginal women in 1985; and Roberta Bondar, who became Canada's first woman in space in 1991. To all of these women, I believe we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.

According to Nellie McClung, the Persons Case represents a great epic story that can never truly be told. Women had to convince the world first that they had souls, then mentality and then a political entity. I hope that by reflecting upon the strength, creativity and intelligence of Canadian mothers, women in British Columbia will be empowered. Change is still required in many areas of our contemporary social, political, judicial and educational systems for women to be considered and treated as equal participants in Canadian society. As B.C.'s first Women's Equality critic, I am proud to represent the concerns and to address the issues of women in this province because, frankly, 52 percent of the population is not an interest group in this province.

I would also like to touch briefly on the Winning Women's session that a number of women from this House attended earlier this week. Winning Women is an organization in British Columbia that had its roots, if you will, in Calgary a number of years ago. Actually their first session was in 1985, and their whole mandate is to encourage women to enter the political forum and to provide a forum for women to acquire political skills. Victoria has a chapter that is very alive and working well. In fact, two members of the NDP caucus attended with three members of the Liberal female caucus earlier this week, and their whole goal is to make sure that women become welcome in the political process. It's not that women don't have the skills; it's that women need to be welcomed into the process. I will certainly continue to further that notion.

IMMIGRATION

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Immigration Week in British Columbia. The Lieutenant-Governor has issued a proclamation declaring October 26 to November 1, 1992, Immigration Week in British Columbia. It's important for British Columbians to recognize that immigration has played a very important role in the development and prosperity of British Columbia in the past. It continues to play that role at present, and it is anticipated that that role will continue in the future.

Our climate, our geography, our trading links with the Pacific Rim and our history of tolerance all make 

[ Page 3733 ]

Canada an attractive place -- and particularly British Columbia a more attractive place -- for immigrants. The majority of immigrants in the last two years have come from the Pacific Rim to British Columbia, and the majority of the investor immigrants who come to Canada end up in British Columbia.

In the last three to four years there has been $3 billion to $4 billion in investment in Canada as a result of the investor immigration program. All Canadians, particularly British Columbians, have to recognize that the face of British Columbia and Canada is changing rather rapidly. It is not that we don't need immigrants. We need immigrants. Immigrants come happily to this country. This is a very fortunate, good place to live and raise families, so that children can grow up to be full participants in the Canadian mainstream.

There are some myths, some perceptions that have to be rectified. Canadians have believed that immigrants take away jobs and cause more problems than anybody else. Canadians believe that immigrants become a burden in terms of ESL programs and other adjustment issues that arise as a result of immigration.

All of the studies that have been done point to the contrary. In fact, it has been well documented that immigrants make more economic contributions per capita to the economy of the country -- particularly to the economy of British Columbia.... It has been well documented that immigration over the last two or three years has created over 80,000 jobs in British Columbia. It is agreed among experts that immigrants create more jobs as a result of the expanding supply of and demand for domestic goods.

When we look at that role, we have to think about how we treat immigrants, firstly, when they seek entry into this country, and secondly, once they are here. Contrary to popular belief, immigrants are assets that we're going to need in the future. In terms of how we treat immigrants when they seek entry into the country, a new federal immigration bill is presently being considered. There has been an outcry from one part of Canada to the other, right across the country, asking the Minister of Immigration, Bernard Valcourt, to make some changes. I was pleased to hear on the radio this morning that he has agreed to make some changes in response to some of those demands.

Once the immigrants come here, how do we treat them? It's important in that regard to note that in British Columbia we have an improved human rights code, which deals, among other things, with systemic discrimination and employment equity. Therefore I think it's important for us to recognize that in British Columbia we have taken steps that are going to make the lives of British Columbians better, more egalitarian and more compassionate. That's true for the lives of both immigrants and those Canadians who are already here.

I am pleased that our government puts at least $1.5 million every year -- for the last two fiscal years it has done so -- into ESL and other programs that assist immigrants in adjusting to this country when they arrive. It's important to continue that campaign of making British Columbia a better place for us to live and a more attractive place for immigrants to come to.

There is another benefit that some of us forget. I understand that in the last year over 4,500 skilled individuals have come to Canada from all over the world, many of them from Asia and the developing world. We have to realize that those countries spend lots of money -- millions of dollars -- training those individuals, and when those individuals come to this country, they are an asset to this country, and therefore we don't have to spend that money.

I recognize that my time is up. Let me just conclude if I can.

The Speaker: Hon. member, perhaps you could save those comments for your reply.

U. Dosanjh: Yes. Thank you.

L. Reid: I'm very pleased to respond today to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kensington, because this issue is near and dear to my heart. My family came to this country as immigrants in the late 1800s, and certainly the notion that everyone is an immigrant in this country is something that I believe fundamentally. Everyone in this country came from somewhere, and I think that's the message we miss over time, when we are deciding whether or not we're going to allow immigrants to come to this country. I think there are barriers to immigrants in this country. I think there are barriers of language. I think there are barriers of isolation. I believe that is something we do not always understand or address very effectively. Certainly many of you may have had the experience of going door to door in your ridings and coming across people who were absolutely terrified of the political process, because it has not been their experience in their country. They were never given the opportunity to participate fully. I believe that is the message that we need to take forward in terms of how effectively we communicate as Canadians, because we have not done the best job we can do in terms of bringing people on board, in terms of having people understand that the richness of Canada is well beyond the economic stability of this country. The richness is the sense that you can participate fully in any process in this country.

Politics is first and foremost in my mind, because I believe those are the folks who have some impact on how processes and systems are delivered. But typically, over time, we've not fully welcomed immigrants to this country. I believe. In my riding the Richmond Multicultural Concerns Society does a wonderful job. Their mandate statement says that multiculturalism in this country is more than the three D's -- more than dine, dance and dress. I think we tend to get caught up in that a lot. We host functions, then look at these functions and say that we are somehow providing a sense of multiculturalism, a sense of welcoming people who come to this country. I'm not convinced we've done a very decent job of that. I think what we need to bring forward in this country is a sense of people being able to communicate, being able to share very rich, very diverse perspectives, and hopefully acquiring a very different outlook.

[ Page 3734 ]

Recently I had the opportunity to attend a Commonwealth conference and get a sense of how fragile democracy is. There was one young woman, Margaret Dondo from Zimbabwe, who began her career as a politician at the age of 15, carrying a bayonet. She was a freedom fighter because she believed so strongly in her country and in what she needed to do. We're going to be welcoming people to this country who believe very strongly in their ideals and in what they want to accomplish. I think the process has to expand and enlarge to allow those folks to come forward.

At the end of the day, I think, to be Canadian is to be very compassionate. One of the most interesting things I've heard recently in terms of how you define a Canadian was that it was an individual who entered a room and chose the most uncomfortable chair in the room. Whether or not you agree with that Canadian sense of what it is to be a martyr, I think, quite honestly, we've worked on that. We now need to work on expanding our horizons and being truly welcoming to individuals who come to this country.

[10:30]

U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased at the remarks made by my hon. friend. Rather than talking about immigrants outside, let me say something about immigrant Canadians in this chamber. I understand that out of the 75 members of this chamber, this Legislature, at least 15 to 20 have immigrated to this country from other lands directly and have made a contribution that is equal to any outside this Legislature in the world of arts, business, industry or education. That in itself, the fact that many of us in this chamber are immigrants ourselves, makes the statement about how far we as Canadians and British Columbians have come, and how far we have come to accept and to integrate all of us who have come from different lands into our family -- the provincial family and the Canadian family.... We as legislators have a fundamental and very important task to take this message wherever we go in the future, but at least in the next week. I hope we all do that.

REPRESENTING ONE'S RIDING
OR ADVANCING ONE'S OWN AGENDA

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to rise this morning for my statement. My statement is entitled "Representing One's Riding or Advancing One's Own Agenda." It could also be entitled "the Trick-or-Treat Statement."

A member is elected in a riding to represent the interests of that riding. The question is: how does a member recognize those interests? Once recognized, does the member advance those interests, or advance whatever that member's views may be, if different? Reality dictates that a member cannot consult meaningfully with constituents on every issue or even every major issue, but a member can and should have some sense of what the riding is likely to feel on a matter.

This province and this country went through a protracted and unfortunate exercise leading to a national referendum. Members rightly spent much time in their ridings explaining the accord and debating the issues. Naturally, positions were taken, alliances formed, strange bedfellows connected for a cause. Some members stood back and remained neutral and quiet; some initiated these alliances; some happily climbed on board after they were formed; and some endeavoured to ascertain the feelings of their constituents and reflect those feelings.

I have no quarrel with a member advocating positions that may run counter to those of constituents, but I certainly take issue with the toady element that was in evidence right across Canada. Party loyalty superseded any pretense of speaking for one's riding. I say that because many elected representatives from all parties in all provinces, and the federal parties, aligned with their leaders and with other like-thinking persons or parties to promote the cause. I would say that very little attempt to speak to constituents took place, as in many such examples there was no time to consult. That was certainly the case in my federal riding, where the member was out of the gate and spearheading a Yes for Canada committee before the ink was dry on the question being put to Canadians. Was there any evidence of riding consultation first? I think not, hon. Speaker. Perhaps that federal member was operating under convictions and her strong feelings that the position she was taking was correct. Perhaps that is so, but 59 percent of her constituents said otherwise.

I spent some time in the same territory going to people's homes and inviting their comments and telling them that there was more information available if they needed it. I was prepared to provide neutral information. People did comment. Some commented at length; others chose not to. But I certainly got a very good sense of what the people in my riding, and in the federal riding that I've already commented on, were feeling about this very important national issue.

I did not lead these people. I did not prejudice the discussion. I simply said: "What are your feelings, if you care to express them? What more would you like to know about this very important issue?" And as I say, many told me and many did not. After I started this walkabout -- and I continued it throughout the referendum period -- it was very clear to me that people were very unlikely to support the accord. As we got closer to Monday, October 26, that feeling of non-support was very evident.

I publicly criticized the federal member for getting actively involved in a registered committee and making no effort to consult with her constituents. I did not particularly criticize her for her personal stand. Everyone had one and was more than entitled to express it, but blind allegiance to a particular cause with no effort being made to consult with local voters is, in my opinion, an offence to those voters. It will also no doubt be reflected in the federal election next spring.

So what is to be concluded? The issue I have raised is important to all members of this House. Let's be practical. You were all elected out of a riding, and I'm sure that at least some of you expect to be re-elected out of that same riding.

I argued during our debate last week leading up to the accord that the accord was doomed. I said that because, in large part, this was what the elected people 

[ Page 3735 ]

were being told, even though some of them did not want to admit it.

I also commented that the elected leaders who put the accord together and presented it for acceptance did not consult with their constituents first. They had conferences and forums and meetings and committees and endless discussion but very little, if any, effective consultation. The people said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

The message I leave this House with is: communicate with your constituents, make a serious attempt to determine what their feelings are on important issues and, where feasible and practical, reflect those views. Our job here is to represent our constituents to Victoria, not represent Victoria to our constituents. If you do not do so, then don't be surprised if, at the next election, the results may not be as favourable as you would like.

N. Lortie: I am pleased to respond to this lecture from the hon. member from across the floor. In some ways he's right. I'd like to point out some of the areas where I agree with him and some where I don't.

We do have an obligation to represent our constituents and to represent them well, but we also have an obligation to represent not only the majority but also the minority position on issues in our constituencies. We also have the obligation to supply leadership to our constituents. It is not enough to blindly follow every poll and every sampling of opinion on every issue; we must be active in presenting information on the issue that he mentioned and on all issues affecting our constituents. Sometimes this necessitates representing a minority position. We are not serving our constituents well when we wait to see which way the parade is going and then run around in front to pretend to lead that parade. Our constituents elected us to represent them in this representative democracy -- not blindly but in a thoughtful and considered way.

I resent the attitude of the member across the floor who criticizes government members for being on the Yes side in the great unity debate.

An Hon. Member: Federal government members.

N. Lortie: And members of this House by other members across the floor, especially the Opposition House Leader, who in one speech chastised members 18 times for being on what she considered the wrong side. Because they were on the No side, they feel that they were right in representing their constituents, but I think that's a little faulty. The results of this great debate were not known until after the polls closed on October 26. The polls, although sometimes accurate, have been wrong many times. We saw a poll in the last British election that said that the Labour Party would win that election. Even after people had voted and were interviewed, those exit polls showed that the Labour Party would be elected. But those polls were wrong. In the last provincial election, BCTV polls said that the Liberal Party would form the government. We all know that that poll wasn't right -- thank goodness. And we all know that polls aren't always right.

Hon. members, it is ludicrous to suggest that a member should never be on the minority side of any issue. The electorate is usually right, but not always right. Remember 1986, when they gave Bill Vander Zalm an overwhelming mandate? Were the electors right in doing that? I'd suggest not; and the subsequent events proved that they had made a terrible mistake.

I positioned myself on this issue where my heart and my head told me was the just side. I accept the voters' right to reject the accord, but I do not apologize for my position on that debate. What kind of representatives would we be if we had no philosophy, no heart, no soul? We could be replaced by a machine plugged into every household, and they could all vote.

The hon. member says consultation is very difficult, and he's right. But we had consultation. We had consultation on this issue and many others. We had committees travelling the province. We understood what the issues were, and the public had the opportunity to let us know what they were. We weren't obligated to follow that advice until after October 26.

The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, your time has expired.

J. Dalton: I certainly appreciate the remarks of the member opposite, and I don't disagree with some of his remarks; but I certainly take issue with others. He commented that we have an obligation to represent the minority at times. Quite right; I don't quarrel with that. However, it's certainly interesting, in the voting results from the debate on this particular accord, that the so-called minority position.... I suppose they were thinking the minority would vote no. Well, I needn't comment on the actual results, and I ascertained those, as I said. I went to doorsteps, and I did it as soon as the question was formulated. In fact, I did it almost before the question was formulated.

The member also commented on leadership by MLAs. Well, also fair enough. Certainly we have to lead. We're not sheep. We have to demonstrate some leadership. But I think that while somebody has to at times act as a shepherd, they also have to determine what the sheep are thinking. Is the flock with you, or has the flock gone over the hillside and disappeared? We should not blindly take positions.

My time is short, and I have another comment that I must get on the record. This is somewhat related to our comments, but not directly. As an aside, there was a serious leak in the NDP caucus quite late last night. It might be referred to as a Victoria Watergate. And this spilled over into the Liberal caucus, with devastating effects. Today in our offices we're all having to wear gumboots, which is part of our Halloween disguise, I guess. This flood of NDP propaganda has unsettled us, but we will drift with the tide, and survive this wave of socialism.

[10:45]

The Speaker: Hon. member, I assume your concluding comments do relate to the topic that you have referred to as your private member's statement.

J. Dalton: Certainly that is so, hon. Speaker. Thank you. I didn't want to be accused of getting off the rail.

[ Page 3736 ]

To conclude quickly, I think we've raised some interesting issues this morning. I think all members will take to heart, when they are seeking re-election or dealing with major issues in their riding, that they talk to the voters. That's the message I leave with you.

The Speaker: Before recognizing the next private member's statement, I would remind hon. members.... I know we haven't had private members' statements since last session, but I would ask hon. members to read the guidelines surrounding private members' statements and particularly the point that private members' statements should not revive discussion on a matter that has been discussed in the same session.

SPIRIT OF INNOVATION

B. Copping: Hon. Speaker, last week was Science and Technology Week in B.C., so I am very pleased to speak on the importance of science and technology, and on why I studied the sciences. Science is the way of understanding the world around us. The raw materials of science are facts, truths and logic, in contrast to beliefs, impressions and superstitions. Furthermore, the scientific method requires absolute honesty. Answers come only from observations and carefully planned experiments. Science uses the mind and the eye much more than the tongue.

I received my master of science in parasitology by studying the worms in salmon. I'll never forget the excitement of gutting a salmon and not knowing if or how many worms would be in that salmon, and of doing research on the intricate life cycles of parasites and their hosts.

Then I entered medicine, and I remember going home every day with new knowledge -- an absolutely vertical learning curve. I learned how the body worked from a single cell to tissues to organs, and all the disease processes involved. It was a world of constant wonder and excitement.

Then when I was in grad studies 30 years ago, it was very interesting because we would all pontificate on the importance of pure science. It was even suggested that medicine shouldn't be at a university; it was too applied. Then I entered medicine and heard that only the applied sciences gave help and meaning to society. Of course, everything is connected and nothing can be done independent of something else. Without applied science, one could ask what the point is of pure science. Without pure science there would be no applied science.

But there is the human element. The knowledge obtained by science must better society and individuals, and perhaps that is where politicians and lay people must step in. Is science being used for destruction, as in the atomic bomb, or is it being used for the betterment of individuals, as in the discovery of insulin?

My sister is in the gallery today, and she got diabetes when she was eight years old. She is now 57 years old, and for the 49 years she has been taking insulin, she has been alive because of science. Insulin is only one product of Canadian scientific research. Canadians have also invented such things as pablum, pulp newsprint, paint rollers, degradable plastics and the electron microscope.

No matter what you do in life, the importance of education in the sciences and being conversant with technology cannot be overstated. It is essential that we ensure that all British Columbians have access to the skills they need to confront all technological changes that are occurring within our society. I am pleased that our government is committed to science and technology, and that we have a Minister of Advanced Education who has a passion for science.

British Columbia's continued ability to compete in the domestic and world marketplaces depends a great deal on developing and expanding our successes in science and technological innovation. Science and technology encompasses all areas of education and advanced education, health, the environment, and economic development. There must be full integration and planning of activities in all these areas.

We have the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology, which includes scientists, science educators and representatives of small business, industry and labour, that gives advice on many aspects of science. There is a new pilot program called Partners in Science Awareness, and non-profit organizations and societies can apply. We want more public input and also encouragement regarding how to attract people into the sciences.

The Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology announced the winners of the science and technology awards. The awards allowed individuals and companies to undertake research on projects that demonstrate great potential. Sector funding included agriculture and food, biotechnology, energy, electronics and communications, forestry, health technology and mining.

There are several examples of projects that the Science Council supports to encourage the B.C. economy. We have a dried-fruit company that has hired a bioresource engineer to develop new products and to upgrade their drying technology. We have a biological control company and a University of Victoria professor working to find environmentally safe forms of pest and disease control. A British Columbia company is working to develop technical aids for persons with severe physical disabilities. A Delta inventor is working with a UBC engineer and has developed a gas-driven lubricating device for industrial gears and bearings which produces no toxic or explosive gas. It might be wise if they came to the Legislature. With the support of a Science Council grant, a Richmond-based company invented a series of fish pumps that transfer fish from one location to another more efficiently and cause less damage than other pumps. All of the above are examples of how government and industry can combine to support technological innovation.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise this morning on a topic that is near and dear to the hearts of all of us. It's apolitical, but it's a topic about the future of British Columbia. So I'm very pleased to stand and respond to this.

[ Page 3737 ]

Before I do that, I want to say that the topic "Spirit of Innovation" reminds me of something very special that has happened here in the Legislature this morning, which I stumbled on by accident. I would encourage you, hon. Speaker, all members and, as well, the staff in the building to take a few minutes to stop in to the offices of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or the Ministry of Forests, which are here in the building, for a very pleasant surprise: a view of spirits, spooks and goblins and, if you behave yourself, perhaps a treat. It's nice to be reminded by staff that we're part of the real world, and sometimes in the pressure and stress of this environment, it's a very pleasant reminder.

Hon. Speaker, the topic of science and technology is very important. As a matter of fact, it's not simply the final frontier; it's the ultimate frontier. I think that we have to bear witness to that. Science and technology is something that you can evidence in the curiosity of a growing baby. Each day you can see the curiosity and the thirst for knowledge that encourages growth; you see that type of responsiveness.

Science and technology are simply new words representing a very old and ancient phenomenon. As a matter of fact, the first individual, a primeval person who found a sharpened stone and determined how to create and craft it to make tools or points, was participating in science and technology. More often it is a driver of science and technology, whether it's the utilization of something that exists, like the utilization of camels by the Hittites as a weapon of war, or as part and parcel of taking something that we have and finding different uses for it -- hopefully positive uses. As we have gone through all times, what we stand for and represent today and what we have today is on the basis of research, development and certainly science and technology.

With all respect to the member for Delta North, who said that very bad things happened after the 1986 election, I would like to state that the emphasis on education, the environment and the economy was very significant to the growth and strength of this particular province. It's my hope that the current government maintains the focus on education, the environment and the economy.

A great deal of money has been put into the university and college system to produce students who have the inherent ability and desire to learn. With that combination they can come into the world as professors or research scientists doing pure, original research, with some falling into the entrepreneurial field where they can utilize the research to produce products.

I note that the time is moving on, hon. Speaker. I would just like to focus on the future of the province. Our future is going to be based on twenty-first century technology. We're not restricted to having a massive infrastructure of locomotive technology in the province that we want to keep going, as they are faced with in central Canada. We have a splendid opportunity with the innovativeness of the people in this province with the capacity and quality of original, pure scientific research. We have been world leaders in a number of fields, including the kaon process at the University of British Columbia -- the leading edge in its field. We can utilize this through a variety of opportunities -- the Science Council of B.C., the B.C. Research Council -- and utilize that through entrepreneurs to create jobs and a strong future for all British Columbians. If science and technology sometimes create problems, we also create answers. For myself, the curiosity in the future is rich and exciting. To think that in our generation we have people who have made the transition from stone age to space age, it's a wondrous and marvellous miracle.

B. Copping: I certainly agree with the hon. member who just spoke. Working together, government, private industry and scientific and research communities have achieved international acclaim in this province for contributions in many areas, including medicine, telecommunications, forestry, agriculture, mining and energy. These partnerships have set the pace for innovations in such technology areas as software, communications, sub-sea and space. Scientific research and high-tech industries are major components of our economy. They employ thousands of British Columbians. Science and technology is creating new occupations and jobs, contributing to economic diversification, enhancing our province's productivity and competitiveness and improving the quality of life for all British Columbians. This government is proud that scientific and technological innovation is advancing human knowledge and bringing benefits to the province and to people all over the world.

N. Lortie: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

N. Lortie: I have a constituent within this chamber, and she's a remarkable lady and I'd like to tell you about her. Her name is Myrna Webster. She and her husband, Kent, have just finished constructing a boat after ten years of work. This is their first stop on a three-year trip through the South Pacific. I would like you to make them welcome and wish them bon voyage.

[11:00]

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

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

On the amendment.

C. Serwa: On a point of order, we do have a list of speakers scheduled to speak on this issue today -- government and Liberal members. We did have a speaker assigned today, but it was most unlikely that the member would have the opportunity to speak. Am I to understand that this speaking list has been cancelled? Perhaps the House Leader would enlighten me on that.

The Speaker: The Chair is in the hands of the House. It's not exactly a point of order, but the debate on the amendment to the bill has been called, so I 

[ Page 3738 ]

recognize on that debate the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.

A. Warnke: I rise again on this matter because the earlier amendment put forward by the third party had outlined various directions in which we believe we should be going; and as we move now to this particular amendment that we put forward -- to essentially refer this to a legislative committee -- it goes along still with some of the remarks I have made. Apparently we have provided the government the opportunity of some time to reflect on what kind of legislation is being brought forth. I have no problem with the idea that we should bring this matter to some debate, but by the same token, as has been pointed out by previous members on this particular amendment, the legislation before us is quite extensive and lengthy, and on closer examination it is profound. Indeed I would reiterate that this is a very carefully crafted document. We understand what the government is trying to do here, but with it being so carefully crafted, we understand, too, that they may have an agenda.

I am still going to reserve my detailed criticisms of this if this amendment fails. What I am trying to do is once again point out to the government some of its problems. The problems stem from their approach to this: "Well, we have Bill 19 in place, and what we want to do is put forward a new bill." As I've mentioned before and maybe it's worth reiterating, the world is not polarized between the former bill, Bill 19, on the one hand, and therefore a negation of that. I can understand where that thinking comes from. Indeed, a cynic might say it comes from dialectical thinking, that once a particular point of view is asserted and affirmed in the form of public policy, the best response is the negation of that.

An Hon. Member: That's known as the ding-dong effect.

A. Warnke: Yesterday I had mentioned something about the ding-dong effect, but I don't think I want to elaborate on that today. Evidently that metaphor had still not grabbed the government's attention.

Nonetheless, the underlying premise here is of a polarized view between two views on where labour is supposed to be. In fact, I think we have to transcend that somehow, even if we are to use the methodology of the dialectic. Hon. members should be reminded that on one hand there is the so-called thesis and then the antithesis, but then what comes out of that? What inevitably comes out of that is a resolution of the conflict between these two competing perspectives -- and this is a synthesis. So even if I were to adopt the methodology that has been so predominant in the thinking of political parties in this province for the last 40 years and perhaps longer, I would suggest, and I'm still optimistic, that the reasonable course of action is some sort of synthesis. I would prefer a methodology that would transcend these competing perspectives.

I would agree with one view that from day one, ever since Bill 19 was introduced, there has been a strong reaction to it. Some hon. members, especially from the third party, have pointed out the strengths of Bill 19. I would not discount that, but at the same time, perhaps Bill 19 did sow -- obviously sowed -- some sort of discord. Obviously the course is not to embrace the entire content of Bill 19. But by the same token, the idea is to not totally reject Bill 19, because some of the arguments put forward by some members in this House -- including members not only of the third party but of our side as well -- pointed out some strengths of Bill 19. One of the chief strengths is that of providing labour peace. Indeed, if we want a foundation for the economy to grow on and develop in the province, surely what is needed is labour peace.

By the same token, it is worth reiterating that I believe this going back and forth between two political parties, which have had their own particular agenda manifested in the policies and bills that they put forward to this House, is a reflection of how they have been captive to twentieth-century politics. I realize that this is 1992. We are still a part of the twentieth century. But times have changed. Globally, times have changed.

In some of my spare moments I still do extensive reading in the area of international politics and international relations, though obviously not as much as I want to. But yesterday I took some time out to read the seventieth-anniversary issue of Foreign Affairs. One thing that really struck me was that the international political environment has changed, and the international economic environment has changed, just in the space of a few years. Indeed, many people -- not just conservatives or Americans but Europeans, Asians, people from around the world -- suddenly feel free from the kind of world that has gripped us since the end of the Second World War -- perhaps one could say since the beginning of World War I. To a certain extent the elements of political dynamics that have shaped our world in this century have now been essentially transcended, left behind.

One thing is striking. A number of people from around the world have expressed their anticipation of a new age, because they recognize that we are clearly in a new age. A new era has begun, leaving behind the old era of polarized politics that have dominated thinking both in international relations and right down to the base level of domestic politics. That is where we are in British Columbia.

Now is the time to forge new ideas, new concepts. This applies to every aspect of our lives, and that includes our day-to-day work. The nature of our economy has changed, and because the nature of our technology has changed so profoundly, we're obviously on the threshold of new emergent social patterns as to how we operate in the workplace.

There is a greater reliance on the individual, and indeed I say that I embrace it. There is more self-reliance in these new emergent patterns. I realize that for a lot of people hooked into the collectivist philosophies of the past it is disconcerting that now individuals have to think more, be more self-reliant and far more dynamic than they have been in the past. But that also comes with the freedom to be innovative and to embark on whatever endeavour an individual wants. I think that should be embraced, but that is also being embraced by 

[ Page 3739 ]

people who want a new kind of economy and who are forging new roles for themselves in society. This means that when we come to terms with the role of labour in modern society and in the new economy that is developing, that role is different as well. We have to have a more dynamic, new approach to the role of labour.

I would say that the old role of organized labour is not necessarily recognized yet by a number of people in Canada. To a certain extent this is the reason for some of our economic problems. We have not been dynamic in our thinking. The old thinking of organized labour is that the only way to live is in large collectives or in some sort of organized union. That is one part. It will not go away. Indeed, certain social forms of even the eighteenth century are still with us today. Those don't go away forever. At the same time there is a new economic dynamic in place in which individuals have a greater role than in the past, and individuals are sloughing off their collective attachments to certain social groups and so forth -- organized unions being one of them. People want to get away from that. People want to forge their own futures, and so forth.

So it is for this reason that this side of the House puts so much emphasis on the individual worker. Where is the role of the individual worker in this? I know that this has escaped the other side. I can understand some of the very good arguments that have been put forward in looking at the report of the so-called three wise men and in the forging of government policy around that. But as we on this side of the House have pointed out -- and I think some members have been eloquent in this -- that report is not the whole picture of where British Columbia is. Most important, I think that that report failed to recognize where British Columbia is going.

The nature of our economy is such that we are facing a situation of technological breakthroughs, and we want to remind this government that what it needs to do is come to terms with the new economic realities. Don't get so hung up on the past that what we have to do is just focus on Bill 19 and negate it, react to it and develop a whole new policy around it. That is not the way to go.

[11:15]

So it is on this that I just want to reiterate. I don't want to repeat the remarks of yesterday, as that would be wasting the House's time. Everyone can read those remarks in Hansard. I would remind everyone, therefore, to take a look at those remarks, because I think they're relevant. Once again I want to issue a warning to the government that perhaps it is time. I am somewhat disappointed by what the report said. I am disappointed with what the government has initiated in this particular bill.

I do not necessarily say, therefore, let's just totally get rid of it, or anything like that, but I think what is important at this stage is to refer that bill to some sort of legislative committee. We of the Liberal Party here on this side are new kids on the block, but we recognize -- and government members should recognize -- that we can bring forth new ideas in committee stage. Perhaps this would even enhance and contribute to a profound and progressive policy on labour that this government can introduce.

I will listen to the remainder of the debate on this amendment. I hope that the government will take into account all of the arguments that have been put on this side of the House. But if it goes to a further debate, I will have much more to say.

J. Beattie: It's indeed my pleasure to rise today to speak to this amendment, and I wish to inform the House that I do not support the amendment to have the bill sent to a select standing committee. I think it's a bill which stands quite well on its own, and I'd like to discuss some of the aspects of it that lead me to that conclusion.

I'd like to preface my remarks by saying that indeed many people in my constituency -- both on the small business side and on the labour side -- have approached me about this bill and about the changes to the labour code that they were aware this government was going to embark upon. I heard a lot of different views, and I think we have to be sensitive to those views. With those kinds of presentations from my constituents, I feel quite confident to rise in support of this bill and therefore against having it sent to the select standing committee for what I consider to be further delay.

Particularly on the side of small business, I think that the labour climate in British Columbia has matured quite distinctly over the last number of years -- in spite of the attempts of the previous Social Credit government with Bill 19 to throw labour and management relations back into the forties and fifties, which was a time of truly adversarial and violent relations.

I was interested to hear the member for Okanagan West speak about the primeval stone being carved into a hatchet, and that's what Bill 19 was. It was a bunch of words thrown together in a way that was extremely partisan in its relationship to the parties involved in the free collective bargaining process in this province. It was a backroom deal that was drafted in the dark, not unlike the dark that existed in the primeval times. So we're moving forward with this bill, despite the words of the members of the opposition.

It's the responsibility of government to draft legislation, and I think that responsibility has been taken very seriously by this government. I've listened to the leaders of the opposition -- and some of the members as well -- speak about how little consultation has taken place, and I wonder where they've been and what they think took place with this report. I also think back on some of the more draconian legislation that is in the process of being signed....

Interjection.

J. Beattie: It's a good word, yes: draconian. It has something to do with Halloween, doesn't it?

The legislation that has come down from the federal government in the last few years, such as the goods and services tax and the free trade agreement.... The Social Credit government and the Social Credit Party didn't make a big hue and cry about extensive consultation on 

[ Page 3740 ]

those issues, primarily because they supported the undertakings. They also recognized that the federal government has the role to introduce that type of legislation. It was primarily because they supported the GST.

Interjection.

J. Beattie: I hear the member for Prince George-Omineca talking about how it was smart legislation. Indeed, the people of British Columbia threw that government out because they did support the free trade agreement and the GST. It's just the nature of the game. If you support foolish policies, the people of the province will help you pay for that misdirection.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

I don't support this initiative to refer this bill to a select standing committee. It's really interesting to hear the leader of the third party talk about some kind of incredible process. In fact, he said: "My experience in this House over the past six years has been that the best legislation introduced in this House has been put forward, tabled for consideration and voted on at some future date." I certainly find it very interesting that that leader of the third party, who was only in the House for one session previous to this one, was part of a party that never once accepted a hoist motion; never once referred an important issue to a select standing committee. I'd like to know where he gleans his experience from. It certainly wasn't from the actions of his government.

However, that's the type of hypocrisy that we've come to expect. The leader of the third party was actually very straightforward about that. He said: "What goes around comes around." And of course, we now see the type of government that they had. It was thoroughly lacking in consultation, except for window-dressing. It refused to use the select standing committee process, other than to appoint the chairs so they could collect their per diems. But now they stand up and make a hue and cry about some kind of consultation. This hypocrisy has to be shown for what it really is.

Interjection.

J. Beattie: The member is talking about the hoist motions that they refused to accept. That's what I'm referring to. In the debate there were a number of hoist motions. What the member fails to recognize is that there was no public consultation where a tribunal took more than 300 written submissions, where they visited more than 11 communities, where they listened to more than 206 oral submissions. This is something that is beyond the grasp of that previous government. They didn't behave in such a manner.

That's one of the reasons I feel so strongly about this report, Recommendations for Labour Law Reform. It's an intense study. I think this government really has gone the distance. Now, of course, the report itself has to be looked at, and the member for Richmond-Steveston, who is on his feet at this time, made some criticisms of the report.

Quite frankly, I'm sorry to hear the member's defence of Bill 19. He says that that bill brought labour peace. This is a member, I think, who has a good idea of philosophical ideas and of how the mind works. In fact, how often do we have members stand up and talk about the dialectic. This is fabulous. I just think that this is the kind of debate we should have. But the member should recognize that the dialectic requires a sense of allowing things to take their natural course to some degree, especially if you're going to criticize where it ends up, because you're judging the input that took place. If we talk about dialectic, we have to talk about how a former government, the Social Credit government, made a serious attempt to thwart the aims of working people in this province. Not only did they change legislation so that there was the inability of workers to exercise their individual rights, which he is so fond of defending, but they also went in and changed contracts. They took contracts and changed them. This kind of interventionist tactic cannot be defended, particularly when the employers took part in a free collective bargaining process.

The members from the Liberal opposition always talk about how they support the free collective bargaining process. Under Bill 19, the free collective bargaining process was thwarted. It was completely thwarted, and it also took away any trust that we should give to working people or to employers in this province. That's another point they've been harping on: that we don't trust working people, that we don't trust employers. That's ridiculous. We are the ones who are saying: "Get down to a free collective bargaining process. We will provide the mediation. We will provide that support to help you come to an agreement." We don't believe in imposing settlements on people. We think that in this province of organized labour there is the ability to arrive at a free collective bargaining process with employers, which will result in an agreement.

The member for Richmond-Steveston, as I've said, has called this a disappointing report, and he said it doesn't address where labour is going. I want to quote from this report to indicate that this report, which was 98 percent adopted by this government and put into legislation....

L. Fox: By this government.

J. Beattie: That's right, by this government. It was adopted by this government -- 98 percent; this fair and just report. I want to quote....

An Hon. Member: From consultation?

J. Beattie: From the consultation. I want to quote from this report to show the breadth of vision:

"Collective bargaining must be seen by employees, and by employers, as being relevant to and supportive of the kind of workplace that employees and employers seek today. If collective bargaining is seen as being incapable of addressing issues such as work flexibility, employee involvement, work redesign and so on, then the demand for unionism on the part of employees will decline and the impetus for employers to avoid unionization will increase."

[ Page 3741 ]

This is a vision which says: "We are going to give you the landscape to allow it to evolve." We're not locked into some kind of process which we think will never evolve. That's what Bill 19 said. Bill 19 said there will always be the supremacy of capital, and that there will never be a natural evolution, because the two parties are not equal. If there's going to be a free collective bargaining process, there has to be an admission that the parties are equal and that they can have this expansive view of where they will go in the future. That's what this report does. So he's wrong when he says that this is a disappointing report and it doesn't address where labour is going, because indeed it does.

[11:30]

There is another hon. member from the north on the Social Credit side, who says he supports unions. But there's a little "but" after that all the time. I'm not exactly sure what that "but" means, because the hon. member has never defined what he means when he says he supports unions. That's what I think the right wing in this province should come up with. When those hon. members say that they support unions, I wish they'd define what they mean. Give us a clear definition, so that the working people -- the organized working people in this province -- have a clear vision of what you mean by your support of unions.

Our support of unions is very clear. We support the right of individuals to form themselves into a collective to match the authority of capital. It's very clear. It's an accepted premise around the world, but unfortunately the Social Credit Party has not yet taken the working people in this province seriously enough to come up with a definition. So I really do urge them to clear up this vagueness about what they mean, because their last legislation was strongly opposed to the organization of working people in this province.

The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, who I have acknowledged brings some very relevant discussion to the debate, has also said that Bill 84 allows big unions to dominate individuals. How foolish! That is completely without merit, and it's completely without respect for the ability of individuals within this province to choose the right to organize into unions.

I quote again from the report: "There is little point in developing models where collective bargaining can be more responsive if we do not first protect the right of employees to freely decide to engage in collective bargaining." That's one of the fundamental premises of this report: that people have the freedom, as individuals, to enter together into a collective, called a union, to negotiate a contract.

We talk about the rights of the individual. When the Liberal opposition looks at the wage rates paid at various sites in this province and in this country and compares the disparity, and looks at the fact that the average wage rate for non-unionized employees is less than $10 an hour.... I'd like to know if any of those members over there could work at an industrial site and support their family at $10 an hour. Not a chance in the world! Hypocrisy is what we're talking about. The right of individuals to organize into collectives gives them the freedom to support and raise their families -- to provide education, clothing and food -- something that is essential to make the growth of this nation possible. So when we talk about the rights of individuals, let's remember that unions in this country have allowed individuals to stand up proud and to support their families on a living wage. That's something the right wing in this province should identify as being a truism.

Finally, just on a specific -- and I look forward to getting into this debate in third reading about some of the specifics -- individuals now have the right to revoke their union card if, at the end of the day, they feel they're not wanting to be part of this collective. There is that freedom even without the so-called secret vote, which somehow is the touchstone for the right wing in this province. The individual has the right to revoke his signed membership card. Give credit, my friends, to the rights of the individual in this province.

I think what it boils down to here is that both parties in the opposition believe that the intentions of capital are more honourable than the intentions of labour. I think they've said that in the last couple of days.

Interjection.

J. Beattie: "Not true," I hear. As soon as Jim Pattison, one of the major representatives of capital in this province, made a statement about this labour bill, they immediately used him as a symbol of how devastating this labour bill is.

As the hon. Finance minister stated, a number of people in this province are interested in looking at the Balmer mine situation. Indeed, in the news this morning we do see that someone else is interested. There are probably a number of people. But no, capital in this province, which supports the Liberal and Social Credit parties, has made it clear that they don't like it, and that's where we're going. In other words, they think that the intentions of capital are far more honourable than the intentions of labour.

I want to make some specific comments. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi -- the hon. disgraced member, incidentally, who was deprived of his House leadership because he deigned to go against the leader, who had his privileges taken away because he spoke out against his leader, who exercised his freedom.... However, we won't talk any further about that, because we do know where this party stands on the rights of individuals: they don't give a hoot for those rights.

At any rate, the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi spoke quite eloquently....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, please come to order and permit the member who has the floor to make his speech without interruption.

J. Beattie: This hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi raised some fear tactics, some scare tactics, yesterday. At first I actually thought they were his ideas, but I noticed that he actually got them from the Province the morning before. He was talking about the BCGEU negotiations and how they are going to grind 

[ Page 3742 ]

the province to a halt as they negotiate all these horrible agreements, which will allow no one who's not unionized to strike a deal with the government. This government has been very clear, I think, under the fair wage policies. We have nothing against disorganized labour. We believe in fair wages. We stated that very clearly. But there is the spectre of some kind of horrible intention of the unions in this province to deleteriously affect the lives of unorganized people. That's not the intention of unions in this province. They don't intend to do that type of thing. But that's the kind of scare tactics they use. The province and its public sector unions have always negotiated good agreements and fair agreements. The intention of those comments from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is that again the intentions of working people and organized labour are denigrated, but the intentions of capital are highlighted. The intentions of capital are always good, despite the investments that we see withdrawn, despite the unemployment, despite the close-downs that you may see; always the intentions of capital are best.

Another member from the third party, the member for Okanagan West, spoke about the mom-and-pop organizations that will be devastated by this. If they would take the time to develop a policy or an understanding of the union movement in this province.... The union movement in this province is not interested in thwarting the ambitions of small business -- and this report indeed reinforces that, by getting fair labour legislation. Be realistic. Mom-and-pop organizations with one or two people are really those bread-and-butter type of industries that create growth. The working people of this province, the organized working people in this province, recognize that. The type of industry, the type of business, that unions are concerned about is where people are not receiving fair wage for fair labour put in. That's the situation that this bill addresses extremely well. It opens the door for people to sit down and talk, negotiate, arbitrate and get to fair agreements in this province.

We say, through this report, that we can work together, and that the economy can be supported and enhanced through the free collective bargaining process. I honestly believe that this fair piece of legislation, strongly supported by a well-documented and well-researched report, Recommendations for Labour Law Reform, will provide us with a stable labour and management environment which will support the economy. Just referring to stability and productivity -- because, again, they've referred quite regularly to this loss of jobs, the fleeing of capital in the report; they researched it quite well -- it shows that the productivity of organized workers far surpasses the productivity of workers who are not organized. Read the report, please. It's well documented. Research the documents.

Interjection.

J. Beattie: I hear the member for Prince George-Omineca casting aspersions again. "Who wrote the report?" he says. "Who were the ones that consulted?" Again, they set up this straw dog, as if everything's a big setup. Paranoia runs deep in the right, that's for sure.

Hon. Speaker, as I said, I support the intent of this bill. I support the major thrust that this bill takes. I'm looking forward to the discussion and the debate. I hope that the opposition will stop reducing everything to scare tactics and paranoia, and we'll get on with some fairly positive recommendations. I look forward to taking part in that debate. But in the meantime I would like to compliment the Labour minister, who took a process that has been an honourable one and ended up with a report that reinforces the New Democratic Party's traditional platform on labour management, as represented by the progressive bill of which you were a part back in 1973. It was hailed as being one of the most progressive pieces of labour legislation throughout the world -- not just in Canada or North America but throughout the world. In fact, this bill improves it, and that's a wonderful statement on what this government is doing for the province.

L. Fox: It's always nice to rise and speak after the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

Hon. T. Perry: Did he say rise?

L. Fox: It's too bad that the Advanced Education minister didn't clean his ears this morning; he'd be able to hear.

I rise to speak in favour of this motion. This motion is in fact very similar to the motion that I put forward only a few days ago. The main intent of the motion is to allow for public scrutiny of these hundred and some-odd amendments to our labour code in British Columbia. Our leader and other members of the opposition have said many times that if this is the type of legislation that most British Columbians want, why does this government insist on rushing it through this assembly? Why would they not prove to the opposition that it is what the people of British Columbia want by putting it through a public process?

[11:45]

This government is as out of touch on this subject as it was a few weeks ago when it stood up in this House and said to British Columbians on the constitutional accord: "Trust us; we know what's good for you." What did British Columbians do? They told this government how much they trusted them; that's what they did.

When I look back on some of the statements made in Hansard prior to flooring this bill, one attracts my attention. It was made in the Prince George Citizen by the Minister of Labour. In referring to this bill....

Hon. T. Perry: A very fine newspaper indeed.

L. Fox: That's right. It is a very fine newspaper.

[ Page 3743 ]

necessary? It got no scrutiny whatsoever by the public. It was given to this government, and they did with it what they wished. The minister went back on his word to the people of Prince George by not honouring that statement.

When I look back and read Hansard, I see one particular statement that really intrigues me. It was made by the now Attorney General, a man I have a lot of consideration for, a lot of time -- a very respectable individual. I'll paraphrase him rather than read a large quote. He said that if he were an employee of the Ferry Corporation, he would not want to wear a uniform made by a non-union company. There, to me, is a man of principle. With that statement he made his principles known, and I believe that he would honour that.

But what do we see about the Minister of Labour? He builds a house with a non-union company.

Interjections.

L. Fox: Where are those principles that we hear coming across the floor on a daily basis?

An Hon. Member: The Minister of Labour has no principles.

Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member just take his seat for a moment, please. The Chair has attempted to provide reasonable latitude and good humour, but I have just heard some member from his seat suggest that an hon. member has no principles. The Chair cannot, in respect to the parliamentary system that we all rely upon, accept those remarks. I would ask the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale if he would please withdraw.

K. Jones: I most humbly withdraw those remarks. They were made without due thought.

L. Fox: I'm speaking in support of the motion which allows for public process. When I watched the news last night -- and it's the first news that I've had the opportunity to watch for a couple of days -- I saw the union ads and then a comment from the business community that suggested that perhaps there's more in this bill than what they had first envisioned. The reason for that is that this government used the big-stick theory: threaten the people of British Columbia with a big stick and then only bring in a switch.

This bill has a lot of unwritten and unstudied connotations to it. It is of extreme concern to me. When we talk about hypocrisy, as the previous speaker from Okanagan-Penticton did, let me point out to him what I believe is hypocrisy as well. Only last week in this House I heard many members stand up arguing against the NAFTA on the basis that B.C. would not be able to compete with the cheap labour in Mexico. If they believed that then, why are they arguing now in support of this bill, saying that higher union wages and more unions will in fact improve the economics of British Columbia? That is hypocrisy.

Much has been said about the fact that non-union.... The previous member mentioned that the average non-union salary is $10 per hour, but he doesn't tell you how that average is figured out. That average is figured out from minimum salary, student salaries and all those other salaries that are, of course, lower than union wages. Many of those jobs are make-work jobs to provide opportunities for our youth and our less-privileged to enter the workplace. They're done by small business, not by unions. In most cases, unions will not allow a student to be hired unless he is paid a union wage, thereby limiting the opportunity for the youth in this province to accept jobs.

This particular legislation would allow one employee within a small business to demand union certification. What is this going to do to the agricultural ministry and industry? What is this going to do for the small business industry? What is this going to do for the casual worker? What is this going to do for those individuals who are given an opportunity to enter the workplace because some good-hearted small business man says: "This is going to cost me, but I feel obligated to provide this opportunity within my community"? It's going to deny those opportunities to the people within British Columbia. That's what this Bill 84 is going to do, and that's why the individuals within this province deserve the right to come forward and make those concerns known through a public process.

That is what it is all about. This is not about big business, about big unions or about the concerns; this is about a union payback to this government and a government payback to the union. It's that kind of partnership that we're talking about here, and it's that kind of time frame that we're living within. This process is extremely flawed. Even Ontario and its socialist government -- although they didn't make a lot of amendments that meant a lot to the economy of Ontario -- have proved what big unions have done for the economy. They have proved what big unions have done to add to the soup lines. It didn't take much there in Ontario. We know the facts; they're proven facts. I predict that this kind of thrust, if allowed in its present form, will do for British Columbia exactly what the NDP has done to Ontario.

What about the individual's rights? We as individual workers no longer have the right to a second thought, once 55 percent of the cards are signed. Those cards are not dated. They can be held for a period of time while the union individuals continue to put pressure on their fellow workers to sign -- until such time as they achieve the 55 percent. Then they no longer have the right to vote on whether or not they want to belong to a collective bargaining unit. That right is extinguished. Members of the other side will tell you that from 45 to 55 percent they have the right. It doesn't take very smart politicians to understand, if they read their constituents and know that they have not got the majority of the constituents behind them, that they're not going to ask for a vote. This government has already made that mistake on the referendum. They believed that they had the support, and look at them. They did not have the support, and the vote showed that they didn't.

I predict that there will not be a vote taken, ever. We will see it mandated through this legislation that all these small groups of employees will be, in fact, forced to become union members. Don't tell me that there have 

[ Page 3744 ]

not been incidents of intimidation, either by the employer or by the unions. There definitely have. I know of it from all sides, and I'm sure all members in this House know of it from all sides.

I've tried to point out as forcefully as I can -- as committed as I am -- what a public process would tell this government. It would tell this government it's wrong and that there have to be amendments to this if we're going to have labour and business peace and a growing economy within this province.

I strongly believed the Premier when he made his opening statement, when the House was opened through His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, that he was going to make use of a system that had not been utilized to its fullest capacity since its inception, and that was the standing committees in this House. I took him at his word. And yet what do we see? We see this government mandating legislation based on what they believe is right for this province, when they were elected by less than a majority of the popular vote. They don't even have a mandate to do this.

[C. Serwa in the chair.]

L. Fox: I'm not sure that I want to continue, given who's sitting in the chair.

An Hon. Member: We now have fairness.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to see that you have come up to the level that the chair demands; I really am.

We have heard many individuals talk about the very solid process that was developed here. I've heard that from all members of the government side. But what really astonished me was when the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine stood up so proudly and said that this has been a thorough exercise. We've had 296 submissions to this three-person committee. We had 296 submissions out of over three million British Columbians. I really have difficulty understanding how those 296 submissions represent the interests of three million British Columbians. I suggest to you that if I went through each of those submissions, I would find them largely developed and submitted by the union sector. I say that with all the confidence in the world, without ever researching it, and I would be willing to stake that to be the case.

We have 296 submissions telling this government what's in the best interests of British Columbians. That's a true shame, and I think it accurately points out why this particular bill should go back for public scrutiny by average British Columbians, so that whatever comes out of this process is a collective understanding of what's in the best interests of all British Columbians.

[12:00]

It has been a pleasure for me to stand up this morning and support this motion. I was a bit dismayed, however, that the previous motion I put forward did not receive the same support from my Liberal colleagues. I understand, being a newly elected individual, that the 23 of us who are collectively arguing against this bill and supporting this amendment will have extreme difficulty in effecting change ourselves. If we're going to change this legislation, we require time for it to be exposed to the public, so that interested parties have an opportunity to let us know what their concerns are and to tell us whether we're right or wrong. For those reasons, I very sincerely ask this government to reconsider and support this motion. Allow the committee process to work, and collectively we can work together to improve the economy of British Columbia.

G. Brewin: I welcome the new face in the chair, and I ask leave to make an introduction at this time.

Leave granted.

G. Brewin: I'm pleased to make an introduction on behalf of the member for Saanich South, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. He asked me to apologize; he's not able to be here. The delegation is visiting from Saanich. It's a group of 18 grade 5 students from St. Margaret's School, with their teacher, Ms. Ewart. I ask the members to make them welcome, wherever they are in the precinct. I'm not sure they're here yet, but they will join us shortly.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak with enthusiasm and conviction on the amendment that proposes that Bill 84 be moved from this House to an all-party committee for the purpose of careful, quiet and thoughtful consideration, in order to create a greater opportunity for the public to understand, and having understood, to bring new input to the consideration this Legislature will give to the passage of Bill 84. There is no way that any government can appoint a commission that is large enough to clearly represent all the interests of people whose lives and opportunities will unquestionably be affected by this legislation.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I was under the impression, when the three wise men -- Baigent, Ready and Roper -- were appointed early in the year to consider these matters, that their report and their consideration would be brought back to the House and made into a public document, in order to allow the opportunity for public input before this government made decisions on the specific legislation and regulations they would bring forward. There is no way that the people of British Columbia recognized and realized that the recommendations and the actions this government would take would affect them in such important ways. There had never been any discussion; never a word had been said that essential services would be redefined, and that the definition would leave out education. We all pay service -- and it seems that it's only lip service by the other side of the House -- to the importance of education in the future of our children, in the growth of economic prosperity in this province. We talk about the foundation stones of a growing economy, and nobody disagrees -- not one person -- that our education system has to be one of those very foundation stones. But this government has 

[ Page 3745 ]

just, with a stroke of a pen -- one of the Premier's uses of the famous whiteout material, I guess....

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, I'll go to 12:30 p.m. Sure. I've got an extra five minutes.

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. member, please.

F. Gingell: Sorry, hon. Chair.

The other day in some public forum -- I think it was related to a question about government letterhead being used by two individuals who report to and are appointed by this Legislature.... They were using their government letterhead to push and support a particular position. I believe it was in relation to the referendum. The Premier said: "Well, if you don't like the letter, the fact that it looks as though it was an official position from these commissions -- either the conflict-of-interest commission or the sustainable resource commission -- just wipe it out. Just take one of the little bottles of whiteout that people used to use in the days before all these modern types of typewriters, and just wipe it out."

What this government did with this particular bill was it took one of those little bottles of whiteout with the little brush on the end, opened it up and wiped out education from essential services in this labour code. I find that really hard to understand. And then they hid that. They never mentioned at any point, to my understanding, that there was a proposal that education would be taken out of essential services.

The parents of this province haven't had the opportunity to respond, and I'm absolutely certain that parents concerned about the future of their children will make their voice very clearly heard. The only means they have now is to put pressure on their individual MLAs. If the individual MLA happens to be on this side of the House, it is unlikely that this government will accede to our proposal to bring education back in. If their MLA sits on the other side of the House, they are in the unfortunate position of having a firm and committed document -- Bill 84 -- which this government has brought forward.

The intention of a report from a three-wise-man committee like Baigent, Ready and Roper is surely to let the report come into the public domain and allow there to be some response from the public before the government chips away in stone the actual legislation. This government, when they were in opposition, spoke often and long, as they have said this morning.... How many times did they put forward hoist motions on Bill 19? How many times did they speak in favour of moving Bill 19 to a legislative all-party committee to consider it, to have hearings throughout the province, and to have the opportunity for people to respond to legislation that is proposed, rather than just an all-encompassing, non-definitive, unclarified proposal about how labour legislation in the province should be changed? They continually criticized the previous Social Credit government -- wherever they are -- for their lack of understanding, for their not being willing to listen to the people and to give the people a right and proper opportunity to comment on important legislation.

During the election campaign of 1991, everybody said: "Things will be different. You wait and see." Well, hon. Speaker, they aren't different. They are exactly the same. They have the opportunity to prove to the people of British Columbia that the word "democrat" in the title of the party of which they are so proud is meaningless. They don't follow through on democracy in Bill 84. They've taken the secret ballot out. How anyone can justify that, I find hard to understand.

But we're not really discussing that at the moment. We're dealing with the amendment put forward to move this bill to a legislative committee so that the real processes of democracy can take place. If they really believed in democracy and in the support for the referendum initiative put forward in the provincial election of October 1991, I think it would be a very interesting exercise to ask all of the voters in British Columbia to vote referendum-style on Bill 84 before it is considered in this House. I am absolutely certain that there would be a very clear message if that were done -- as clear a message as was given by the voters of British Columbia last Monday.

N. Lortie: Forget about last Monday.

F. Gingell: Yes, I appreciate that you.... As a matter of fact, I have always had a great interest in recycling. I think recycling is a very important part of the way we have to learn to live in the future, so I'm just looking for a project that will allow all of them to put their hands in their pockets, bring out their Yes buttons, put them back on their jackets and get some use from them.

When a New Democrat government was elected in Ontario, I am sure that our friends across the floor of this House were very proud of them and were very pleased, and I would have hoped that they would have taken some message from them and recognized that in Ontario the New Democratic Party seems to believe that an important word in their party's name is "democrat." They brought in proposed labour legislation. People understand what it is, and they have been allowed the opportunity for further discussion, further understanding and further scrutiny of that proposed legislation. It isn't a case of what may....

[12:15]

D. Lovick: That's yesterday's speech.

F. Gingell: And you'll probably hear it again on Monday.

It isn't a case of.... He's broken my train of thought. It isn't a case of dealing with purely nebulous concepts. You cannot have a proper discussion and a proper understanding of the concerns of British Columbians about labour legislation until you deal with the specifics, until there is something in front of them. Even though this government received the report of the three wise men on September 11, I understand, they kept it 

[ Page 3746 ]

under wraps and wouldn't show it to anyone until October 27 -- and I don't understand that. If they were really interested in and concerned about public participation, they could, at the very least, have issued that report in September. What was there to lose? It was a document paid for by the taxpayers of this province. Why were the taxpayers of this province not entitled to read it, see it and get some understanding of it before the legislation was brought forward?

N. Lortie: It's too late for that now.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I hear the member for Delta North say it is too late now. Well, it is not too late now. There is still a genuine opportunity to move this bill off the floor of this Legislature to a select standing, all-party committee, which would be empowered to listen to the public and hold hearings, so that all people in British Columbia could clearly understand what is in there.

Whichever side of the House we sit on, I think we all acknowledge the importance of labour legislation for the economic climate of British Columbia. We speak all the time about taxes, about government support and government programs, and about how we can attract investment to British Columbia, create high-tech jobs and get into value-added manufacturing. There are a whole series of things that members from both sides of the House really want to encourage to happen. We're not interested in just creating jobs; we're interested, first of all, number one, in creating good jobs. How do we do that? Education, which I've already dealt with, will no longer be an essential service in British Columbia. We have to have the right kind of investment climate. Labour legislation is one of the major weathervanes that tell people from overseas and other parts of Canada what the investment climate is in British Columbia. It's an important part of the meteorological tools that tell people what the climate for investment is in British Columbia.

It's critically important that we get the right labour code, and that Bill 84 does what it should do and looks after the fair and proper rights of workers to join together of their own free will -- clearly expressed through a secret ballot -- to organize a bargaining unit, become part of a trade union and enter into a collective agreement with their employer. No one on this side of the House has any question that that is the clear, democratic and free right of every British Columbian. But what we are concerned about is that Bill 84 is crafted and developed in a manner that will allow all British Columbians to prosper. Let's not bring in Bill 84 and pass it through this House before we all clearly understand its consequences. I'm sure that our friends across the floor -- those who are there -- do not wish to poison the labour climate in British Columbia. It is critically important that we all work in an environment that we support.

Getting it right not only affects those kinds of things, it also affects British Columbia's credit rating. The Minister of Finance speaks often about the consequences of certain political actions for the province's credit rating, and what a drop in our credit rating will do to the costs of servicing the public debt of British Columbians, which not only is a charge against all of us and our children but also takes necessary funds away from such things as health, education, social services and economic development. If the Canadian Bond Rating Service, Standard and Poor's, and Moody's begin to believe that British Columbia is not a place where overseas investors want to come and invest, create new manufacturing opportunities and do all of those things that we all look for to create economic growth, they will reflect that in our credit ratings. It simply isn't a set of circumstances that we want to bring on our heads when there is the opportunity to do it right. There is an opportunity to support this amendment and move this bill to a select standing committee, which will allow public debate and understanding to take place before the ink is dry on the particulars of the bill.

One often wonders why certain things happen. As the member for Prince George-Omineca mentioned earlier, I too was surprised to see a very slick, well done advertisement by a trade union organization on TV last night that supported the provisions of Bill 84 and talked about how good it will be for British Columbia. I'm sure that all of us on this side of the House heartily endorse and strongly support 90- something percent of Bill 84. But I wonder why there is a need for a trade union organization to spend its members' dues on such an expensive, slick advertising campaign? I just don't understand what their concerns are. Surely if they were really concerned about the public clearly understanding all of the consequences of Bill 84, they would encourage this government, having now determined what they want to have in the new labour code, to allow that proposed code to go into the public domain in a fashion that will allow British Columbians to consider it and let the government know what their thoughts are.

Hon. Speaker, I've virtually come to the end of my time. At this time, I would like to move that this debate do now adjourn.

[12:30]

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. G. Clark: Just before we adjourn, members will notice that from time to time we ask leave for select 

[ Page 3747 ]

standing committees to sit while the House is sitting. On the Orders of the Day there are many of those, so I would ask leave now be given for select standing committees of the House to sit from time to time while the House is sitting during this legislative session, as a blanket order.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I wish everyone a very happy weekend off -- not too scary, I hope, for members.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:35 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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