1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 5, No. 25
[ Page 3749 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
L. Fox: In the gallery this afternoon is an individual who certainly is no stranger to this House; in fact, he served the constituents of Omineca faithfully for years and was held in very high esteem by the province as a whole. Would the House please welcome Mr. Cyril Shelford.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I have some special guests in the gallery today: my son David Wickstrom and his friend Anthony Tatum, along with my husband, Terry Wickstrom. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. B. Barlee: In the members' gallery this afternoon we have six very distinguished visitors from China. With us is His Excellency Luo Tongda, vice-governor of Sichuan province. He is accompanied by the consul general posted in Vancouver, Mr. An Wen Bin. Our visitors are in British Columbia to open Sichuan Expo '92 in Vancouver tomorrow. Would all members of the House please give them a warm welcome.
M. Farnworth: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my constituency assistant, Gwen Ranger. She has trained three MLAs in this House: first Stu Leggatt, then Mark Rose, and now me. I'd like the House to please make her welcome.
D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, it's not my riding, but I see nobody else rising. On the ferry this morning I met some very young ladies from the Little Flower Academy. I believe they are in the gallery this afternoon. I wish you would all make them welcome.
J. Weisgerber presented a bill intituled Recall Act.
J. Weisgerber: Almost 13 months ago 81 percent of the electorate voted in favour of the recall question that was put to them in a referendum, along with the initiative, by the former government. Over a million British Columbians voted yes to both referendum questions and gave their government clear marching orders to implement their wish. I placed two motions on the order paper last spring to that effect, both of which the government has so far ignored.
This government referred both issues to a select standing committee and told them not to report back to the House until at least the end of next year. The people of British Columbia don't want to wait two or three years for a standing committee report.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Is the hon. member introducing the first reading of a bill?
J. Weisgerber: I certainly hope so.
It is therefore my pleasure to introduce the Recall Act, a concrete piece of legislation that would implement the people's democratically expressed wish.
All of us have been told by the people that they want the right to vote between elections for the removal of their MLA. This bill would give British Columbians the right to force a vote recalling their MLA when 20 percent of the registered voters in the member's constituency have signed a legal petition that sets out the basis for the member's recall.
British Columbians have waited far too long for this government to live up to its promise to abide by the outcome of the referendum on recall and initiative.
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that I must call you to order. As the member knows, the two-minute introduction is to state the purpose of the bill, not to debate it. I ask the member to proceed on that basis for the remainder of his time.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Don't read the script.
J. Weisgerber: The Premier says: "Don't read the script." It would be interesting to see some of his ad hoc, ad lib kinds of presentations of legislation.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. We are in introduction of bills.
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, if the government can bring in an entire labour code, there's no excuse for delaying recall legislation any further. I therefore move that this bill be now read a first time and placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
LOWER FRASER VALLEY EXHIBITION
ASSOCIATION AMENDMENT ACT
K. Jones presented a bill intituled Lower Fraser Valley Exhibition Association Amendment Act.
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, this motion is intended to do an administrative change to accommodate what is common practice now in facilitating the use of a name for the Cloverdale exhibition and rodeo, a name that has been in use for quite some time.
Bill Pr403 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 3750 ]
TRUST FUND SHORTAGE
G. Wilson: A question to the Attorney General. As an ex officio member of the bar, you will be aware that Law Society rule 861 suggests that a member who discovers a trust shortage shall forthwith pay funds into the account sufficient to eliminate the shortage. Could you tell us, as an ex officio member of the bar, what action you have taken with respect to the Beverly Tuele incident to make sure that that in fact did occur?
[2:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll take the question as notice.
G. Wilson: Again to the Attorney General. As an ex officio member of the bar, will the Attorney General today commit to bring forward to this House some evidence to suggest that the duty to report to the society an inability to deliver up trust funds when due under section 862 of the Law Society rules was in fact complied with?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I took the first question as notice and I expect that all supplementals on this issue will be also taken as notice.
The Speaker: The hon. member has another question. However, I do remind the hon. member about the sub judice rule on this matter.
G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I believe that the second question was in fact a new question. It dealt with a second section and was not in fact relevant to the first, section 861.
But a new question, again to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General tell us whether or not he is prepared today to ask in writing for a full and detailed accounting from the Law Society as to whether or not both their Law Society rules and their professional conduct handbook regulations were in fact complied with to the letter of the law?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll take that question on notice as well.
COLD BEER AND WINE STORES
A. Warnke: The question I have is for the Attorney General concerning cold beer and wine stores, a subject dear to the hearts and stomachs of many British Columbians. Will the Attorney General explain his breach of good will and faith with hoteliers and small business operators of this province, who after investing hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money and assuming the risk, must now compete directly with state-run cold beer and wine stores?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A number of the premises in the member's question are wrong. First of all, there is a move to provide refrigerated beer in a very limited number of government liquor stores in British Columbia. We have met with the hotel association, we've met with the Neighbourhood Pub Owners' Association and we have ongoing meetings with them in respect of issues that are implied in the member's question. We have no intent whatsoever of driving, nor will we do anything that will drive, these independent business people out of business. Our intent is to provide a customer service, offering cold beer at a premium price in a limited number of stores, following discussion with the associations representing the affected parties.
A. Warnke: A supplemental. For example, in Sidney there will be a state-run store in direct competition with a private store right across the street and just a few blocks away. Why won't the Attorney General just simply admit to the House that this proposal is really an election payoff to the BCGEU? Or does he have a sincere desire to bankrupt small business operators in British Columbia?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The second question is the same as the first, and the answer is the same: we are moving only in a limited number of cases, in those areas where the demand is such that the service is more than requested, it is demanded by consumers, and we are only doing so following full discussions with the people who may be affected by those decisions.
A. Warnke: Frankly, the Attorney General really has not supplied an answer as to why he's doing it at all, why this government is engaged in it.
I have a final supplementary to the Minister of Tourism. Many people throughout this province consider this as an attack on small business in this province and certainly a blow to the tourist industry. The B.C. Council of Tourism Associations, the Neighbourhood Pub Owners' Association and the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association condemn this government's action as a threat to the health of the tourist industry in British Columbia. Was the Minister of Tourism informed on this issue by her cabinet colleague, and does she approve of this undertaking?
Hon. D. Marzari: The issues of the economic impact of any given licence or fee or new construction or new idea is now being looked at by an interministerial committee, which I've recently struck. That will be the source of the information that I am going to use when we actually take a look at the economic impact of many of the decisions that have been made regarding these small businesses in the tourism industry. Then we will be able to make some rational decisions.
In answer to the first question: absolutely. I suggest to the hon. member that we have to look at tourism as a whole entity and understand that people do not come to B.C. simply for the price or the accessibility of beer. Rather, there is an economic balance, and there are a number of activities that we can engage in to supplement and enhance provincial coffers, as well as to support and further the ambitions and goals of the tourism industry.
[ Page 3751 ]
FAIR WAGE POLICY
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The minister has repeated over and over in this House that the fair wage policy doesn't cost B.C. taxpayers extra on public projects. However, in a TV interview on Friday he said that the policy, when applied to the construction of his own home, cost him a fair bit more. Those two statements appear inconsistent. Will the minister now advise the House that the fixed-wage policy is costing B.C. taxpayers additional money on public projects?
The Speaker: Hon. member, I will allow the question because it's in order. However, I note that some of the preamble had nothing to do with the administrative responsibility of the minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to the question, I'm sure the hon. member knows that housing is not covered by the fair wage policy. With regard to the quantum of the projects that have been done, to date there has been a total of $227.6 million worth of projects under the fair wage program. Twenty-six of those projects have gone to unionized firms for a total of $105 million, 18 have gone to non-union firms for a total of $53 million, and we're waiting for final information on the others. On average, the projects seem to be coming in at 3 to 5 percent below budget.
J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure whether the other project the minister was involved in came in under budget or over budget. I don't think that's the point. The point is that the fair wage policy costs extra money for construction.
Will the minister, given his personal experience with this project, now decide to abandon this misguided policy and protect B.C. taxpayers' interests for a change?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think the hon. member just wanted to read his next question instead of listening to the answer I just gave to him, but I will repeat the answer.
This government, through its experience over the last year, has come to learn -- I am pleased to report to the taxpayers of British Columbia -- that the $227.6 million worth of projects now delivered under the fair wage policy have been on average 3 to 5 percent below budget. It's been a win for the taxpayers of British Columbia, because we've been coming under budget; it's been a win for the young people who now have access to apprenticeship programs; and it's been a win in terms of improving the quality of work being done on public construction projects through the trade qualification certificate program that we offer.
J. Weisgerber: Again to the Minister of Labour. Given that this government is drowning in red ink, and given his own personal experience with the fair wage policy, has the minister decided to ask for an independent inquiry to determine just how much this misguided policy is costing B.C. taxpayers?
The Speaker: Unless the hon. member can tell me how that question differs from the previous two, I cannot allow it.
J. Weisgerber: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Just for your and the minister's clarification, I was asking for an independent investigation of the policy to determine the cost to taxpayers. I asked the minister: would he agree to call for an independent review of the policy?
Hon. M. Sihota: Firstly, there's no need for an independent inquiry into the issue. Secondly, the only reason that this province finds itself in the terrible fiscal situation it's in is the practices of the previous administration.
EXPENDITURES BY
MINISTRY OF WOMEN'S EQUALITY
J. Tyabji: My question is to the Premier. With the province facing a record $2 billion deficit, can the Premier justify the overnight retreat at a luxury resort in September for all of the employees of the Ministry of Women's Equality?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The minister is not here. The Opposition House Leader knows that that is something that should be directed to the Minister of Women's Equality. I'll take the question on notice for the minister.
J. Tyabji: I have a new question that's tangentially related to the first one. Just last year the Premier stated: "Taxpayers expect value for their hard-earned dollar, and we're going to provide it." Those were the words from this Premier, not from his ministers. My question to the Premier is: does the Premier believe that spending tax dollars making mobiles and sculptures out of drinking straws with sewing pins is living up to his promise?
CUTS IN ARTS FUNDING
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Government Services. Promise 42 of the NDP campaign platform stated that "a New Democrat government will expand artistic and cultural opportunity throughout British Columbia. We will improve the funding of both amateur and professional arts." Can the minister explain why her government has broken that promise and cut capital funding to the arts from lottery revenues by as much as 90 percent?
Hon. L. Boone: As the member should know, funding that was formerly in the Lottery Fund is now in general revenue. Money was disbursed to various ministries. That money is now in the Ministry of Tourism, so I would ask him to direct his question there.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
[ Page 3752 ]
SALE OF WESTAR MINES
Hon. A. Edwards: I have risen to make a statement, hon. Speaker. I am pleased to let the House know that an agreement to buy the Balmer and Greenhills mines was reached late Friday night between Westar Ltd. and Jim Stuart of Arthur Andersen and Co., the trustee of Westar Mining Ltd., which is bankrupt.
[2:30]
Government officials have worked very closely with potential buyers, stakeholders and the trustee to ensure that the Westar mines were sold, that jobs were saved and that the economy of the Elk Valley would be renewed. We contacted a number of potential bidders to invite their participation, and we are very pleased that this process has brought us a very firm offer to buy the two mines.
Luscar is a large Canadian coal company with six coal operations in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and it was one of the four final bidders that made proposals to the trustee. Luscar has undertaken to operate both mines, and they will be operating them as separate entities with separate employee organizations.
As the successful bidder, Luscar will be announcing their plans very soon. They have already secured an agreement with the United Mine Workers of America. That is the union at the Balmer mine. They will be continuing discussions with the Greenhills Workers' Association, who have an agreement at the Greenhills mine.
The sale is scheduled to close in mid-November; until then, Luscar, the trustee, government officials and other stakeholders will work together to satisfy a number of the conditions that would be necessary to complete that deal. These are confidential and commercial negotiations. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on them any further. As was foreseen, however, for long-term viability any new owner will need to restructure the mining operations, and as has already been recognized, not all the jobs at the two mines will be saved.
In response to my earlier invitation, I am meeting with mayors, union leaders and Luscar this Wednesday to discuss the formation of a tri-community adjustment committee and to determine how it can be made the vehicle for specific economic and social programs. This meeting has been welcomed by the three mayors: Mayor Jack White of Elkford, Mayor Toto Miller of Sparwood and Mayor Dick Mulholland of Fernie.
To help meet the needs of the valley, we have already backstopped the finances of the municipalities, and we currently have small business counselling sessions running in Fernie, Sparwood and Elkford, where experienced counsellors are available to discuss specific budget needs on a confidential, one-to-one basis. A tri-community committee can serve as a single focus to identify needs for increased community and personal support services and to provide individual job counselling, training assessments and career development assistance. It can be the catalyst and guiding body for a variety of specific programs under the federal-provincial industrial adjustment service. The IAS, the industrial adjustment service, also provides a way of assisting at specific worksites. This is one of the topics I propose to raise on Wednesday with the employee organizations and the company.
There are still a number of steps to be taken before this deal concludes later this month, but I am very pleased that the Luscar company has shown this confidence in the long-run strength of the B.C. coal industry, and I anticipate a final resolution of this longstanding issue, which has been of concern to all of us provincewide.
D. Jarvis: We in the Liberal Party are pleased that some interim arrangements have been made for the coalminers and the people of the Elk Valley, and we trust that it will be over with for now, after all the great trauma and hardships that they have suffered over the past five to six months. However, I would be interested to see how this new arrangement will be made with regard to the existing contracts and how they will be tied in with the new labour bill that is being proposed. Other things that I do regret are that close to 40 percent of the workers, I believe, will not be able to go back to work, and that it was necessary for a company from Alberta to ride to their rescue rather than a British Columbia company.
J. Weisgerber: I too am pleased to learn that the Greenhills and Balmer mines are going to be able to find a buyer and continue -- or at least we anticipate that a buyer will be found. That's good news for the people of southeast British Columbia, for the people of northeast British Columbia and for all British Columbians, and we're delighted that that has occurred.
However, I think it is also fair to say that there are still some obstacles to be overcome, or the minister would today be announcing that in fact the purchase had been agreed upon.
I think that in our enthusiasm and our good wishes over the potential purchase of this mine, we shouldn't underestimate the difficulties that the new labour bill, Bill 84, presented in the negotiation of a purchaser for this operation. Clearly the deal very nearly got knocked off track, and clearly it was an eleventh-hour purchase. I think we should not ignore the potential for similar kinds of disruptions if Bill 84 passes.
But we are indeed delighted that a purchaser has been found, and we are pleased that the mine is going to be reopened. We're disappointed that as many employees are not going to be rehired as one might have hoped. But congratulations to Luscar, to the people of the southeast, and to the ministry for the role that they played in bringing the three together.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call adjourned debate on Bill 84.
[ Page 3753 ]
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
On the amendment.
F. Gingell: Just to ensure that over their enjoyable sunny weekend holiday members of this House haven't forgotten the issues we were discussing, I'd like to take this opportunity to briefly summarize them.
We are dealing at the moment with an amendment to this bill that would send it to a select standing committee of this House, consisting of members from all parties, so that the committee could discuss with the public the implications and ramifications of this very important piece of legislation. You will remember that when I was speaking on Friday, I was concerned about the secret ballot. The secret ballot has been part of the process for certification of unions for some years now. It has worked well and has given both the employer and the employee the certitude that it is a true and fair indication of the wishes of the people involved. The secret ballot has been taken out.
Also, I spoke briefly about secondary boycotts. It is inconceivable to me that we could get to this point without some clear recognition and indication from this government as to whether or not they intend to enter into secondary boycott arrangements with the unions they deal with.
Over the weekend I discovered that many of my constituents are now starting to have an appreciation and an understanding of the consequences of Bill 84. They are very concerned. I appreciate that everybody knew this bill was coming, but the everyday person in British Columbia had no understanding of what the consequences could be. The consequences of what are considered to be pools to assist top-down unionization, rather than bottom-up, are matters of great concern to small and medium-sized businesses. They are beginning to understand what the consequences are, and they wish to have the opportunity to speak to a select standing committee of this House, so that the changes that are sensible and necessary to ensure that we have the good foundation stones to bring harmonious relations between labour and management are in place. As we all know, they are critically important for this province at this particular time.
Another issue that came up over the weekend which I would like to briefly touch on is the question of lack of notice. We spoke late last week about the fact that the report by the three commissioners was not made public until Tuesday, October 26, when the bill was introduced in the House. People didn't have a chance to react to what the report said. People have not had an opportunity to respond to the bill. The New Democratic government in Ontario tabled the bill and immediately moved it into a committee forum so that the people of Ontario could comment to them.
Over the weekend I had two or three phone calls from people who asked me for copies of the proposed regulations. I had to tell them that there aren't any. We all know that the regulations are almost as important as the bill. In section 2 of this particular bill there is a statement of the philosophy, which calls for the act to be interpreted in a manner that will encourage and assist unionization. The regulations are the place whereby this particular political philosophy can be brought into play. It's only fair and proper that the people of British Columbia have the opportunity....
Interjection.
F. Gingell: I'm lit up about it too, because it's absolutely and completely irresponsible for this government to bring in Bill 84 without ensuring that the greatest possible public input that could take place does take place. With those words, I'll sit down.
[2:45]
L. Krog: I had the pleasure on the weekend of participating in a flag-raising ceremony to kick off the poppy campaign. At that time I was given this very fine pin that says: "We Remember." I think it would do well for the opposition to remember a few things about the history of trade unionism in the British Commonwealth and in this country, and in this province in particular. Then they would perhaps not wax so long and eloquent on the issue of finally restoring some balance to the system that was brought into the twentieth century by the previous government of Dave Barrett in 1972 to '75.
F. Gingell: We all know what happened to them.
L. Krog: The hon. member for Delta South talks about remembering what happened to them. I would remind the hon. member that that Labour Code remained intact, with only very modest changes, until 1984 and that even the Social Credit government of the day realized that it was the most progressive, far-thinking and proper piece of legislation in the labour field anywhere on the North American continent.
What we are really talking about is delaying this matter once again. I would remind the hon. members of the opposition, and the third party in particular, that this government was elected on a campaign platform that very clearly spelled out that it would introduce, at the earliest possible time after reasonable public consultation, a bill that would appropriately address the problems of labour-management relations in the province. That is what the last year has been about.
There was a far-ranging report made and submitted to the hon. Minister of Labour, and I want to quote something from it. We talk in this House a great deal about equality for women, about advancing the cause of women and about doing things for women in this province. But there is probably no single act that we in this Legislature will pass this session, or indeed in the first term of this government, that will have as much importance for women in British Columbia as the passage of this labour code. I read from page 7 of that report:
"The statistical information is revealing. In British Columbia in 1991, over 90 percent of workers in business services, real estate companies, financial institutions, insurance companies and retail trade are non-union. More than 85 percent of the workers in restaurants and bars fall into the same category. These are the fastest growing sectors of the economy, and the
[ Page 3754 ]
large percentage of jobs in these areas fall to adult women and part-time youth. As a result, private sector industries with high unionization rates today are often exclusively male workplaces, while industries with unionization rates of less than 20 percent are predominantly staffed by women or part-time workers."
What this bill does is restore some balance and fairness so that women in this province, who are underrepresented in the trade union movement, will have a fair share of the economic pie of this province for the first time since its creation. What the opposition is talking about fundamentally is opposing the rights of women in this province by arguing that this bill be put off one more time, that it be referred to a committee for more discussion.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
I'm mindful of "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" by T.S. Eliot. The subject of that couldn't decide what to do or come to any decisions either. The opposition expects us to carry on once again -- no decision, no decision. The people of British Columbia elected a government on October 17, 1991, a government with a mandate and an agenda. And that agenda was explained to the public. What this government will carry out through this bill is one of the main promises of that agenda: to restore balance and fairness to management labour relations in this province.
The opposition talks so much about the power of the trade unions. Hon. Speaker, it has long been recognized in history that the power of capital far exceeded the power of trade unions. Indeed, those countries of the globe that today enjoy high rates of trade union membership are prospering; their economies are successful; their economies are battering Canadian companies left, right and centre around the globe. It is only when working people are paid reasonable wages that they can create strong economies themselves, strong economies that can compete in the global marketplace. What the opposition calls for is a nation of little independent workers, who will never have any significant economic power to address their own needs or the needs of their fellow working people. What this legislation does is merely move forward in a very slight way -- more of a regaining than a moving forward; simply to step back, if you will, some 20 years and restore some balance.
The purposes of the code are quite clear. They are to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of employees; and to encourage cooperative participation between employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues, adapting to changes in the economy, developing workforce skills and promoting workplace productivity. There are other purposes. The final one is to encourage the use of mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism. Those are all laudable purposes. Surely the opposition, in its wisdom, is not going to criticize the government for trying to bring about some fairness and economic justice to the working people of this province, many of whom, as I have said, are women, who are largely underrepresented in trade union activity. Many of them are single parents trying to raise their children. Surely the opposition is not suggesting that they should be denied some economic justice.
Much has been made of the question of whether or not fairness has been introduced. The suggestion is somehow that the unions will be irresponsible, that management and capital always are fair and correct and do the right thing -- they don't need any encouragement; they don't need legislation. But surely history again has shown us that that is absolutely wrong, that without the right to bargain collectively, exploitation of working people will continue. In our society that exploitation is largely directed at women.
It has been suggested that the signing up of union memberships isn't democratic, that somehow unless you have this vote, the rights of the workers will be denied in some form or another. For 40 years it was recognized that the way to bring unions into the workplace was to allow people to sign a membership card, and that was the regime that existed for 40 years.
Bill 84 very clearly provides protection to both management and labour in that regard when it talks in section 8 about the right to communicate. "Nothing in this code deprives a person of the freedom to communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business." Section 9, talking about coercion and intimidation goes on to say: "A person shall not use coercion or intimidation of any kind that could reasonably have the effect of compelling or inducing a person to become or to refrain from becoming or to continue or cease to be a member of a trade union."
The definition of person refers to both employers and employees. It refers to a broad group of people, a trade union and a council of trade unions as well. All this legislation is saying is that if you wish to belong to a trade union in British Columbia and you so signify that desire and you're a paid-up and active member of a trade union, if a majority of you in a workplace so wish, then you should have the right to have that union bargain on your behalf to protect your rights and interests.
It wasn't so long ago that the former government -- the authors of that infamous Bill 19 -- were found to be in violation of Canada's very commitments under the U.N. International Labour Organization conventions dealing with freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. Around the globe we are trying to bring to people the message that it is absolutely fundamental in a democratic society to have the right to organize, to bargain collectively.
The former government put us in such a grim light in that regard that we received criticism internationally. The government of the day in British Columbia is trying to restore some of the balance that once existed. It is saying simply to working people that we recognize your needs to bargain collectively, we recognize your right to do so -- your fundamental democratic right -- and if you so signify that desire by signing a union membership and taking the risk of losing your job from an employer who is anti-union, then we're going to protect you. There's nothing wrong with that.
[ Page 3755 ]
I find it astonishing that the opposition would be so critical of this bill that they would wish to continue to try and delay its passage by a hoist motion to refer to a committee. Over 500 representations were made to the panel that gave us this astonishingly complete and wide-ranging report, Recommendations for Labour Law Reform.
The time to debate is here. It is not time to look back in committee and discuss philosophy. I have heard nothing to date from members of the opposition that has indicated anything more than an argument on a very simplistic philosophical basis. There is nothing remarkable in what I have heard from them, no significant criticism, nothing new under the sun.
The government is not prepared and should not be prepared to continue to delay passage of this bill so that the opposition can curry favour with its new-found friends in the large capital community of British Columbia.
This bill moves Canada forward. It brings British Columbia into the same step, if you will, with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec with respect to anti-scab legislation. Eighteen million workers in Canada will be covered by anti-scab legislation, and what the opposition is telling us to do is to go against the....
Interjection.
L. Krog: I apologize to the members of the hon. opposition; I made an error. Eighteen million people in this country will live in provincial jurisdictions covered by anti-scab legislation; if this province passes it, it will be up to 21 million. Canada will stand as a bastion of progressive labour legislation in the world.
Interjection.
L. Krog: The hon. member for -- how could I forget? -- Fort Langley-Aldergrove speaks about progressive. His views are well known on the issue of labour-management relations. Progress is exactly that; progress is not looking after management in the hopes that somehow the benefits will trickle down to the workers. We have only to look south to that great lugging engine of an economy in the United States that has enjoyed 12 years of Reaganomics and has led them to the status where they now have a national debt that makes ours look minuscule. They're about to toss out a president because of his lack of understanding of how an economic engine works.
I can assure the members opposite that the car dealers in my constituency will be very happy to see some decent union wages paid to people, so that people can buy the cars they wish to sell. I can assure them that the people running the small businesses will feel likewise. You do not move forward by unnecessarily restricting salaries and wages. To work, prosperity must be spread around, and this bill is about giving the rights to workers to organize.
G. Farrell-Collins: But not to vote.
L. Krog: Surely the hon. members opposite are not suggesting that the workers in the insurance, financial or real estate industries are fairly cared for.
Interjection.
L. Krog: Oh, they're gleeful in their desire to protect the interests of those poor, small corporations against the vicious working classes. I'm astonished that they have the gall to heckle me here today on an occasion like this. Are they going to suggest that somehow we should keep women back for another 100 years, and that the majority of women in this province who work in low-paying jobs and grim economic conditions should not receive some fundamental social justice?
If that is the tack the Liberal opposition wishes to take, I would like them to go on record when they address this bill. Don't heckle me during my brief remarks. Let them come forward and state it quite clearly, instead of hiding behind the glories of heckling in the House today.
B. Simpson: Don't dream up our philosophies incorrectly.
L. Krog: I hear a member suggest: don't dream up philosophies. Well, my view always was that if children need some guidance, they should have it. If I have addressed my remarks unkindly and suggested that maybe it's time they developed a little philosophy, so be it.
[3:00]
If this province is to move forward into the future with economic certainty -- and that is precisely what I'm sure the members of the opposition wish it to do -- then it has to do so with a stable labour-management climate. This bill provides the necessary foundation for that economic expansion. International investment in capital within this province needs to know that there is a fair system in place guaranteeing the rights of workers and at the same time ensuring a process for resolving disputes between management and labour that will not unnecessarily disrupt the economy.
Again, the opposition would suggest that this isn't being done. They would prefer, no doubt, to maintain the existing labour legislation. There is not one sensible voice in British Columbia -- save perhaps the members of the third party -- who would suggest that it is anything other than unbalanced, unfair and heavily weighted on the side of management.
You have not heard cries of significance from the business community in this province with respect to this legislation, because they know it's fair. They know that nobody benefited from that legislation.
F. Gingell: Read your mail. You must be getting the same mail as we are.
L. Krog: The hon. member for Delta South suggests I read my mail. I not only read my mail; I listened to the voters as well. The voters were pretty clear about what they wanted on October 17, 1991, and that is why I
[ Page 3756 ]
speak on this side of the House and they speak on another.
Perhaps it's time that the opposition questioned some of their assumptions about trade unions. Perhaps they should disabuse themselves of the notion of a gross body -- this grasping Teamster-like creature represented by Jimmy Hoffa. The day of that kind of trade union leadership that existed in a small sector is gone. We are talking about unions in this province that want to work on behalf of the interests of working people. They're not interested in goonish tactics that have been employed by some businesses in this province to resist trade union membership. Surely we must now accept that trade unions benefit the economy, provide a dispute resolution system and save the government money because they don't have to enact legislation to handle problems between workers and management.
The fact is that we are either going to move into a cooperative atmosphere in this province and make progress, or we are going to linger on with the wounds of Bill 19 and the previous government. This government has an economic plan, and it is fundamental to that economic plan that this province have good relations in the worker-management area. That is exactly what this legislation is going to guarantee. This legislation will also enhance the opportunity, in particular of working women, to finally achieve some sense of economic stability within our economy.
G. Farrell-Collins: Why can't they vote?
L. Krog: I'm always happy to hear the comments of the opposition. It's so nice to have their attention. I feel much like the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain -- the hon. Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. Your attention is most flattering.
I must tell you that at the end of the day the purpose of this code will be met: the tension that exists between management and labour will be restored to some balance between the parties, and that will guarantee fairness. The opposition can continue to argue that we should delay, but I say it's time for action. It's time the opposition accepted their role in the system of representative government, and that is not to follow, but to lead. That is exactly what this government is doing with this bill: Bill 84 is fundamental leadership, economic leadership, social leadership and leadership in women's issues. I am very proud to speak against a motion that would further delay the implementation of this fine, sound piece of legislation.
H. Giesbrecht: I rise to speak against this referral motion. I would consider that it's nothing more than a delaying tactic combined with a little fearmongering by the opposition. We've already witnessed the repeated attacks on fair wages for workers by the opposition, so it should really be no surprise that they have taken a position against a fair and balanced labour code as they have with this referral motion.
A previous colleague of mine alluded to the differences between what consultation took place in regard to Bill 19, the existing labour code, and in preparing the labour code that's on the table before us. In 1987 the labour legislative review was chaired by the current MLA for Okanagan-Vernon, and also on that committee were the former member for Chilliwack and the former member for Nelson-Creston -- all MLAs for the government of the day. It's interesting that we had three politicians travelling around B.C. Certainly their reputation for not exactly being supportive of labour or workers had already been established prior to their travelling the province. They were giving the illusion, though, of some consultation. Of course, most labour people had already recognized that the fix was in, but they couldn't very well boycott the hearings, because then it would give the government of the day an excuse to do whatever it wanted with labour legislation.
However, one thing you can't do is: you can't claim that there was any balance on that review panel. The West Vancouver-Garibaldi member asked the question last week: where was the representation from union; where was the representation from business; indeed, where was the representation from the individual worker? It's interesting that it certainly didn't exist in Bill 19. Perhaps the member should have asked the same question of that. But that's the kind of legislation he's trying to defend with this referral motion.
The member for Okanagan-Vernon must really be embarrassed to have to defend the government's record in terms of labour legislation. But at the same time that the charade was taking place in 1987 with respect to this travelling road show, the Premier's office -- independent of this consultative process -- was drafting up Bill 19. The leader of the third party has frequently referred to the phrase, "the three wise men." Well, I don't know. Perhaps there were three involved; perhaps they were wise; we know there were some men, anyway. But it involved ex-Premier Vander Zalm, David Poole and an assorted cadre of admirers who were drafting Bill 19. Well, perhaps it was three wise men. One of them is still preoccupied with seeing French words on corn flakes boxes, so I don't know.
The process and the legislation so appalled the then Deputy Minister of Labour that he resigned and went public, and he described Bill 19 as the product of too few and too narrow minds. It's interesting that the opposition is trying to defend that in terms of perpetuating the status quo by hoist motions and referral motions. That divisive piece of labour legislation -- Bill 19 -- repealed the Labour Code adopted in 1973 and endorsed by all three parties in the House at the time, and hailed as innovative and progressive. That divisive piece of legislation is now being defended by the remnants of the previous administration, remnants who just recently claimed that they were different, that they'd learned their lesson in October 1991 and were going to listen to the people, and that they'd become more moderate. Yet they're still hanging onto the paranoia about labour, labour unions and what might happen if you empower working men and women.
Page 6 of the report has an interesting sentence. It starts with the phrase: "While no one seriously attempted to defend Bill 19 as balanced legislation...." And I can stop there: no one has. Yet, with referral motions, we see the opposition here in their combined efforts trying to identify with the extremist right-wing
[ Page 3757 ]
radicals who see that the only way for business to be profitable is to exploit workers. They believe that our economy depends on cooperation -- but cooperation that has to be forced.
Hon. Speaker, a colleague of mine recently wrote to me about an incident that occurred back under Bill 19. It's an issue about one of the lesser sections of Bill 19, but I'll just read it. It's a story -- I trust I won't bore the opposition -- about a woman who was trying to organize the workplace and the kind of interference that she ran into. Her name is Shelley, and I know her personally. After Shelley finished the first of her courses, she went to work in a non-union group home run by a non-profit society whose job it was to provide care for mentally challenged youths. One hundred percent of the funding for the group home where Shelley worked came from the provincial government, yet her wages were less than half of what she made as a unionized flagperson. Needless to say, Shelley got the other workers on side and got her workplace certified. It took months and months to get a first collective agreement, since the funding ministry would not fund an agreement unless it was recommended by the Health Labour Relations Association, and the HLRA wouldn't recommend an agreement that wasn't within the inadequate budget that had caused the low wages and poor conditions in the first place. Shelley had just had her collective agreement in place for a year or so when the funding ministry manipulated events to give the service to a different non-profit society, which took several months before recognizing Shelley's agreement.
After only a few more months, once again the funding ministry took another run at Shelley and her collective agreement. This time the society sold the house where the group home had been located and turned the service over to a private, for-profit individual, who operated the group home at a different address within the same community. The for-profit operator did not fudge. He flatly refused to recognized Shelley and her "darned collective agreement."
At this point Shelley got introduced to the mysteries of section 53. Shelley discovered that unfortunately, even in a situation where you had the same ministry providing 100 percent of the funding, the same young adults being cared for and the same staff providing the care at a different physical location within the same community, section 53 didn't apply and the collective agreement that she had nurtured and struggled to keep in place would die. I'll cut the story short there.
Hon. Speaker, it's those kinds of sections which this legislation will deal with, and it's high time that we stopped the referrals and the hoist motions and got on with changing the labour code. The official opposition clearly wants to keep it and ally themselves with the extremists.
Compare the process of Bill 19 to that of Bill 84. For Bill 84 we had three non-political members. The chair was a respected labour expert. The union and labour side was represented; the business side was represented. They heard 500 presentations from people representing thousands of members. There was a subcommittee that travelled. They took input and opportunity for input was available. It was a balanced and objective exercise. The report that they made is objective. It's not censored, not written in the Premier's office, not written by the Minister of Labour. All the issues that they agreed to are in Bill 84, and the ones that they couldn't agree to were referred to the government.
When the leader of the third party uses the phrase "three wise men" with that tone of contempt, it would certainly be more credible if he considered who the wise men were who drafted Bill 19. At least there was no shadow process at work in drafting this legislation.
But what of the official opposition? The question would be: why would they ally themselves to that kind of radical right-wing ideology about workers? They're not behaving like the moderate Liberals that they would have the public believe they are. It's really hard to forget the comments from the member for Richmond-Steveston. Recently he said: "There's a very good reason why we don't unionize our own, hon. Speaker, since the hon. member is so quick to raise this. You can actually achieve more. People work more. People work better. There's no doubt about that." The thing he didn't offer anything on was the position of morale in a situation like that. The same member now talks about a new role for labour. That was the old role. Remember, unions are made up of members. Unions are probably more democratic than the Liberal caucus. At least when people disagree, they don't get fired.
[3:15]
If you travel up in the northern areas, at some of the smaller airports they have a windsock hanging there. A windsock is quite an interesting thing, but I want to draw an analogy here: what we have is a windsock opposition. When there's no wind, it just hangs limp. But if there is any kind of a breeze, it fills with air and points in the direction the wind is blowing. I think what the opposition is trying to do is to wait long enough that they will eventually see a breeze blowing, or public opinion, and that will tell them what direction they should take on this bill. The unfortunate thing is that frequently there's no wind. It's one or two open-line show hosts just blowing into the end of the windsock. The windsock opposition is waiting for the breeze to blow, and then they'll decide what they're going to do on this bill.
This government made a commitment in the last election to all British Columbians, not to a particular group. We clearly said, and it was in writing.... Incidentally, we didn't jettison our platform two weeks before the election, and it's still there. I quote:
"Fair and practical laws to improve our labour-management relations. It's time to put one-sided and extreme labour laws behind us. New Democrats will work with business, management and labour to develop balanced and fair labour legislation, with practical mechanisms for resolving disputes impartially, with improved mediation services to assist the collective bargaining process to work more effectively, and with proper protection of the rights of workers in both the public and private sectors."
We are keeping that promise to British Columbians.
I want to remind the members opposite that the few times they've made comments about labour legislation, they made some interesting comments on what they
[ Page 3758 ]
stood for. "A broad consultation in rewriting the labour code." We had that. "A commitment to free collective bargaining in both the public and private sectors." We had that. "A dispute resolution mechanism to maximize the potential for management and labour to solve their problems without government interference." We had that.
The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi recently said: "We need an approach that deals fairly with both management and labour. We can't be lurching left and right and allowing political ideologies to be driving this debate." He didn't say anything about preserving the status quo, but that's what they're advocating now.
It's a windsock opposition, waiting to see which way the wind blows. It's really odd standing here.... Whenever the government has to change its priorities due to debt, the last year's deficit and the fiscal mess left by the third party, the opposition cries: "Broken promises, broken promises." But when we keep our commitment to the public, they say: "Payoff, payoff." Our commitment was to British Columbians, and we are living up to our commitments.
Based on the backdoor process that was at work for Socred friends and insiders prior to Bill 19 being tabled in this House, one might say payoff. The Liberal opposition wants to preserve that, and it's a shame. We even had the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove say that he was worried about what is not in this act. Imagine being worried about what's not in the act. If that's the only concern, I have none at all.
The opposition should really stop insulting the intelligence of working men and women. It's quite obvious that many of them have never been part of any union, participated in any union activity or tried to influence an opinion in a union. But they are still here, worried and fearmongering about what this act might do. If you're worried that the majority will somehow be subverted by the minority in a union, read sections 9, 10, 12 and 13. Read them; there are safeguards there. But the opposition needs to erect a straw person. It used to be the socialist hordes at the gates; now it's these big unions that they have to worry about.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I want to address two specific issues that have been talked about here. One of them has to do with the certification provision. They've got themselves tied up in knots over the fact that when you sign up 55 percent of the members you don't need another vote. Clearly they have little experience in a sign-up campaign.
As soon as a worker signs a certification card, they are vulnerable. If you've ever talked to somebody who has signed a card, you sense that vulnerability. I think that's probably why some employers want to retain that additional vote: so they can influence the outcome. If you have to worry about the employer knowing that you've signed the card, that puts you in a very vulnerable position. Perhaps that's what the opposition is advocating. The requirement to hold a second vote never existed prior to the previous administration starting their dismantling of labour provisions. The questions arise: who asked for it, and why was it needed?
Here's what it does. There are some provisions for safeguarding a member if they feel vulnerable, but it's almost impossible to enforce them. If you read section 3, how do you prove that in an arbitration case? If the employer is worried about his or her workers wanting to be certified by a union, then I would say: treat your workers fairly all the way along. Why wait until somebody signs a certification card before you suddenly get excited and say: "Maybe I ought to do something. I ought to promise them something, or I should put fear in their hearts so they won't continue with this process."
The important point that's being overlooked by the opposition is that a sign-up requires 55 percent. A certification vote is based only on the members who vote. For example, in order to be certified, the sign-up would require 55 out of 100 members. If you then had to have a vote and only 80 percent of the membership showed up, you would only need 41. Are they suggesting that somehow we should subvert the democratic process by having a certification based on fewer votes? How is democracy served by that kind of thing? I don't expect the opposition to recognize the flaw in their argument.
There's a provision in here for the prohibition of replacement workers. Fortunately the application of replacement workers is really quite rare. I would submit that there's no level playing field in a dispute if an employer can have his particular view of the world enforced by the courts or the police.
The prohibition of replacement workers will be welcomed by the RCMP and police forces across the country -- at least in B.C. I have never taken great pride in having Canada's finest enforce an employer's view of the workplace, and I think this is a welcome step. We should not be using the courts and the RCMP to enforce those few neanderthal employers. We certainly don't need any situations like Royal Oak in Yellowknife.
It's interesting that in the old labour review -- which was chaired by the member for Okanagan-Vernon -- there isn't a single reference to replacement workers. I couldn't help but wonder why all of these unions that made submissions representing thousands of people didn't mention it once. I know that they did, but there's absolutely no reference to it in here at all.
We are dealing with the issue, and we are living up to our commitments in terms of labour legislation. The opposition can cry payoff all it wants. If this is a payoff to the people of B.C., then so be it.
Finally, most British Columbians understand the need for a cooperative approach between business and labour in order to keep the economy going. It's not a case of those nasty big labour unions, which the opposition keeps talking about. You don't get cooperation by force or by unbalanced labour legislation.
The member for Prince George-Omineca took exception to the fact that we are shifting our focus to the economy, and that we're dealing with labour legislation first. Labour legislation is a vital part of the economy. When working men and women have decent wages, they spend it in the local businesses. They buy the
[ Page 3759 ]
products that businesses sell. Don't exclude labour from the equation, because it doesn't work. You can see that kind of exclusion by a whole lot of Third World countries.
In terms of the history of labour in this province, for many years unionized workers have, through their sweat and blood, set the benchmark for labour standards and wages. Improvements didn't come out of benevolence by employers. So when you're attacking labour and their right to organize, you are in fact undermining years of what labour has worked for.
Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code, ends the Vander Zalm and Socred era of confrontation culminated by Bill 19. It restores fairness and balance. It deals with relations between business and labour in a positive way, based on mutual respect and cooperation. It provides a strong foundation, along with other initiatives, on which to build a prosperous economy.
It's for that reason that I'm going to vote against this referral motion. I say let's get on with it. It has been a long time coming.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I stand up to make an introduction. I see in the gallery two fruit growers from the Okanagan. I think they should always be encouraged when they make the effort to come all the way to Victoria, because the interior is some distance from the capital city. Whenever we see people from the Okanagan here, we want to encourage them.
G. Farrell-Collins: After the last two speakers, it's going to be quite interesting to speak to some of the falsehoods, I suppose, that were brought forward and to some of the misrepresentations of things that the opposition has said. One member made reference to some of the things I said, and it's obvious that he wasn't here last Wednesday for my speech on this bill. If he had been, he could have clarified a lot of the concerns he has.
The first one is that this party does not condone Bill 19. We agree that there need to be changes to Bill 19. The member read from our election platform, which I stand by today. He listed a number of items, a number of provisions and a number of things that this party promised to do and that we will do in three or four years when we form the government in this province. I stand by those agreements.
The member also made reference to the windsock opposition, and he made specific reference to the constitutional and referendum debate that this House has just gone through. I'd like to comment on that. When the Liberal caucus took a position on the constitution, at that point in time the polls in this country were showing that the wind was definitely blowing in favour of Yes. It was the Liberal caucus and the leader of the official opposition who took a leadership role on that issue. They showed people what the concerns were about the constitutional debate and the referendum in this province and in this country. We won the day because we led the issue; we did not follow the issue like the members in government.
The member talked about fearmongering in one sentence, and in the next sentence he talked about replacement workers and the violence that took place at the Royal Oak mine in the northern part of this country. I think that's very unfortunate. The argument that we need to ban replacement workers in this province in order to stop violence is a false and erroneous argument. It has no more validity than if I were to say that because violence occurs on picket lines, we shouldn't allow people to strike. That's as ridiculous an argument as the one that I just gave him. That is no reason to stop the use of replacement workers in this province. We indicated case after case. Last week we talked about one specific case in the United States where the federal judge ruled out of order and unconstitutional a provision that banned replacement workers in one of the states in the United States. The reason for that decision was that it unfairly bound the hands of one of the two parties, and that was unfair. And that's the issue that we've been bringing forward.
[3:30]
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
The members of the New Democratic Party seem to feel that because a company uses replacement workers it's business as usual. It's hardly that at all. It's a very difficult choice for a business to make. Somehow it's okay in the minds of the NDP for the union to use their economic leverage to put the company out of business, but it's not okay for the business to try and survive by whatever means possible. The use of replacement workers is an economic lever, and in most cases it's not used but is merely one of the economic levers held in reserve in the negotiating and bargaining process. That's a critical, important point, and the members opposite should realize that.
The other gentleman.... I don't recall his riding. We don't get to hear him speak very often in the House so it's always interesting when I do. We heard him say that by going against this bill, the Liberal Party was somehow setting women's issues back 20 years. I think that's what he said. I would suggest that this government, by removing the right of women to vote on whether or not they want to be certified, has moved the clock back 60 or 70 years. That is simply unfair, and I don't think the women of this province will stand for it either. If they want to vote, they should have the right to vote and this government should not be taking it away from them.
We hear the members talk a lot about the opposition and how terribly right wing we are when talking about Bill 19. The Liberal Party did not bring in Bill 19. We said there were problems with Bill 19 that needed to be corrected, and in fact there are a number of recommendations in this report that go a long way towards improving labour relations climate in this province. I agree. There are some very good sections. If the member had read the sections -- he was talking about coercion and how that works -- he should also read the new section 6 in the bill that puts the onus on the employer to prove just cause if they are to transfer, fire, layoff or do anything to an employee during a certification drive. It's up to the employer to prove that there's just cause -- not the employee after the fact, but the
[ Page 3760 ]
employer. I think that's an improvement. I think that goes a long way towards dealing with some of the concerns that the government is using to argue for the banning of the secret ballot in certification drives. There are lots of ways that we can address these very important issues of coercion and intimidation on both sides, both labour and business. There are lots of ways that we can go about ensuring that that doesn't take place without reducing without getting rid of the fundamental right that we fought for in this country, and that's the right to vote. I think that is critical.
We've also had the members opposite say that somehow the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus is extreme in its views on this bill. I don't think so at all. The Liberal caucus is fighting for the right to vote for individuals in this province. The Liberal caucus is advocating the use of a labour ombudsman. It's not the NDP, it's not the Social Credit, it's the Liberal Party that's doing it. To somehow say that the Liberal caucus is being extreme in its stance on this labour bill is simply ridiculous. We are not guiding ourselves by being on one side of this equation or the other. We are not guiding ourselves by big business or by big labour; we're guiding ourselves by the fundamental principles of what is right for the workers, the women and men, in this province. That's what the Liberal Party stands for, hon. Speaker. The NDP cannot get it through its collective thick head that there are more people in this province than the 40 percent who voted for them. They've got to stop answering to their friends and insiders. They've got to stop bringing in legislation and policies, such as the fixed-wage policy, that pander to the collective groups that got them elected. They have to understand that there is more to this province than that.
We have a very important piece of labour legislation before us that is going to guide us for some time, certainly until this government leaves office -- which will be very soon, I hope. It is important that with this critical piece of legislation we in this House have a chance to look at the regulations that are going to be the meat and potatoes, so to speak, of it.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll correct the member opposite because, in fact, the regulations aren't in here. Some suggested regulations are included in the report, but we don't have draft regulations put out by the government for discussion, the regulations they've decided upon. We don't have anything to go with it. That's one of the fundamental reasons why we are suggesting that we utilize one of the democratic processes we have in this province: legislative committees.
We have a Select Standing Committee on Labour that, certainly in the term of this government, has never been used. It's not doing anything. Why not take this very critical bill, along with some draft regulations, out to the public? Take it to the people, and give them a chance to comment on it. The NDP government in Ontario -- which we hear is making such a mess of the economy back there -- at least had the decency to take their labour legislation to the people. What is this government afraid of? Instead, this government waited until absolutely the last minute before they tabled the report. It was sitting on the minister's desk for six weeks, and it took that long before he made it public. Why? Are we afraid of freedom of speech, free votes or frank discussion in this province? Why would the government choose to hide this report until the last minute?
Why would they choose to bring in a very critical economic bill, which is going to affect this province.... The member talked about an economic plan of this government. The only economic plan I can see is that they are going to tax businesses right into the ground or south of the border. That's all we've been seeing so far. We've got a $2 billion deficit. If this government was really serious about this bill forming part of their economic plan, I would think that they would want to hear from people not only in business but also in labour as to what these regulations are going to mean. How are the regulations going to affect the legislation? That's a legitimate question. Not only business and individuals but also labour, whom this member proposes to represent in this House, will want to look at the regulations. Why wouldn't they want to see how this whole bill is going to operate and function? I think that's critical.
Hon. Speaker, why not at least do what the government of Ontario, of all governments -- if you can imagine -- did? At least they're not afraid to put their legislation out to the public and take the hard knocks, if those are necessary. They're brave enough and they do it. They have some confidence in their legislation. I don't, but they do. They bring it out to the public, and they lay it out and show it to them. They say: "What do you think? Is this good or bad?" They've made some substantial changes to their labour legislation, some substantial improvements. They've got a long way to go, but they've started.
Why is this government so afraid, first of all, to release the report for discussion and, secondly, to take the bill and regulations to a public committee? When are we going to see the regulations that are going to determine how this bill is implemented and how it's going to operate on a day-to-day basis? Why is the government afraid to table those? Why are they afraid, once again, to let free speech reign in this province and to let people have a chance to look at these things? When are they going to do that? Why would they want to hide that and keep it quiet? It's a legitimate question. I find it difficult. I don't know how the members opposite go back to their ridings on the weekends or during the week and tell their constituents: "Sorry, we don't think you have a right to look at the regulations. We don't think you have a right to look at this report before it's brought before the House. We don't think you have a right to appear before a committee and explain your concerns about this legislation." Why would they not do that? How can they possibly explain to their constituents that that's the way they're governing?
There are some fundamental problems with this bill....
Interjection.
[ Page 3761 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: The member asks me what my plan is. I can tell you, if the Liberal Party were in government right now, this legislation would be out before a public committee, before a standing committee of this House. People would be making their comments, and they'd be either hitting us or praising us, but we'd be listening to both sides, and we'd be incorporating those recommendations into the legislation.
F. Garden: Never making a decision.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the members says we'd never make a decision. Well, if he calls ramming legislation down people's throats, stifling freedom of speech and stifling fair comment on legislation making a decision, well, then, that's what we would do. We would ensure that people had a chance to comment on the legislation and to put forth recommendations and amendments. That's the way it would be.
An Hon. Member: A 50-year plan.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member opposite talks about a 50-year plan. He laughs. Boy, I can tell you, if this member would go to his constituency and talk to people there, maybe he would know.... I'd like to ask the member: how long does it take to grow prime forest in this province for harvesting? How long have the aboriginal people in this country been waiting for justice? How long have a number of economic problems been going on in this province? If his party had shown any leadership over the past years that they've been in government and in opposition, they would have had some plan that extended beyond one business cycle. Even that plan they can't stick to. Now they're not even going to balance the budget over a business cycle; it's going to be some airy-fairy time in the future.
With regard to the comments that the member brought forward and to what we're talking about today, which is a referral of this legislation to a select standing committee of the Legislature, the labour committee, to look at, to take it out into the public and to gain the comments and the input of the public, I think that all members of this House should stand and speak in favour of that. How can they possibly go back to their riding and explain to people that they're not willing to do that? It's certainly a shame.
I would love to see some of these members, particularly the ones who won their seats only because there was a split between the free enterprise vote, go back into their constituencies and tell the people that in section 2 of the bill they've taken out the fact that British Columbia is a competitive market economy. What kind of an economy is it? I'd like them to tell their constituents what it is. Why take that out? That's a legitimate question. In all the wind that we've heard coming from the other side, we have still not heard an explanation. I would love to have those same members of the New Democratic Party go back to their constituencies and try to explain the fact that they're taking away their right to a free vote. How do you explain that to people? I can't understand how a government can go back to a process that was in place 40 years ago and remove the fundamental right to a free secret ballot from the people in their constituencies. How can you justify that? How can anybody justify that?
Another issue that the government is not looking at, when it's looking at certification and decertification, is that there's a bit of hypocrisy there in that they've taken away the right to vote for certification, but they haven't taken away the right to vote for decertification. The member from the Cariboo, I believe it was, said that the reason they are still requiring a vote for decertification -- if I can remember him correctly from last Thursday or Friday -- is because once a union has organized a bargaining union, they build an office, they bring in staff, they do everything. Well, what the heck do you think a business does when it opens a business? They bring in staff, they rent a building, they set up an organization and a structure. So why shouldn't they also have the right to a free vote? Why only on one side and not on the other?
If there is one single issue in this debate that illustrates the mood of this government, that illustrates the bias of this government, it is certification and decertification. It's patently unfair, it's unequal and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. All anybody has to do is take and shine a flashlight on that section and they'll know exactly where this government is going.
We have another issue that I think is of grave concern to the people of this province, and it's starting on a daily basis to become more and more of an issue. Just this morning in my constituency I had a gentleman come up to me and ask me about this secondary boycott provision. Last week he didn't know what it meant, he didn't understand what it meant. But he's got hold of a copy of this bill and he's started to read it, and he's started to ask some questions. He's been reading the newspaper, and he's wondering. He's saying: "Holy smokes. What is this going to mean to me? What is this going to mean to me as a supplier?"
F. Garden: It's been there for years.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member keeps going back and says: "It's been there for years. Why would we ever want to change it?" Well, British Columbia is different than it was 40 years ago. We can no longer in this province rely on our resource sectors to drive the economy. If the member would wake up and come into this decade, he would know that the real economic drivers in this province are the small-and medium-sized businesses. They are the ones that are creating the jobs. They are the ones that are creating a vibrant economy in this province, and that's the trend. That's the future of British Columbia. We need a piece of labour legislation not for the past but for the future, and that is the type of legislation this government should be bringing in.
[3:45]
We're obviously hitting very close to the truth because the member is starting to squirm in his chair, and I know the next thing he'll be doing is getting up and leaving because it hurts his ears.
[ Page 3762 ]
One of the issues that we need to look at, and we've been discussing it, is that of secondary boycotts. We have a government -- and again all we have to do is look at certification and decertification to see their bias -- in place that this summer fell on its knees in front of the BCGEU during bargaining. BCGEU got everything they wanted, and the member knows it. They got a 6 percent increase in salaries; that's three times the rate of inflation and twice the rate of increase in the private sector. Why is that? What's going to happen the next time we go to the bargaining table, when the first item on the agenda of the BCGEU is their provision for top-down organizing of all suppliers to government, when their secondary boycott provision, the one that this member says has been in place for 40 years, this archaic provision of top-down organizing, is going to be written into the contract of the BCGEU and anyone in this province who wants to supply to the government will need a union card. Is that fair? Is it fair to the company and employees of a supplier to the government that they -- not only the employer, mind you, but the working women and men of this province -- without a vote, without a right, will have to either certify or they'll have to go out of business and lose their job. Is that fair?
F. Garden: The sky is falling.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member says the sky is falling. Well, some days like today I think it is.
That is not fair. It's not Social Credit that are standing up for the individual rights of workers in this province, and it's certainly not the government that's standing up for the individual rights of workers in this province; it's the Liberal Party. Here's another example of secondary boycott and the way the Liberal Party is standing up for the working women and men in this province to ensure that they have a choice to decide whether they want to be certified or not, and I think that's only fair. If they want to be certified they can be; if they don't, they don't have to be. But under this bill on the secondary boycott provision there will be companies and there will be working women and men in this province who have no choice whether or not they want to belong to a union, and maybe not even a choice of which union they choose to belong to. That's a fact. All you have to do is look at the past 40 years. All you have to do is look at the provisions in other provinces to see that that's the case. All the member has to do, instead of sitting in here and blowing wind in my direction, is go back to his office and read the bill and do some reading and look around and see what's in place.
There are fundamental principles that we, as legislators in this province, must be looking at. They are things which are guiding the Liberal Party in our debate on this bill: the right to free speech, the right to a vote and the right to choose which way an individual working person in this province wants to go. That's only fair. I think everybody, including a lot of the people who voted for the NDP in the last election, will side with the Liberal Party on this one, because they believe that having fundamental rights and privileges -- the freedom to vote -- is the way we work in this province. Any government that tries to impose otherwise upon the people will find very quickly that the people will turn on them. If this government didn't learn anything from the referendum campaign, they should at least have learned that: right or wrong, people want a say. I think that's critical.
With provisions like this in this piece of legislation, why wouldn't the government want to take them and the regulations, which we've yet to see, and put them before the Select Standing Committee on Labour? Why would they want to avoid that?
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Once again we have more comments from that side of the room. The member says: "Because you're delaying." We've been waiting so long for this labour bill....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, we have. If this government had their act together, they would have brought this labour bill in last session, we could have debated it and it could have spent the summer in front of the public. Instead, they haven't been able to get their act together and they haven't been able to put this labour bill together. Now they have their convention this weekend and the B.C. Federation of Labour convention next month, and they have to pay the piper. They've taken it right down to the deadline. The Minister of Labour, with his wonderful judgment and his wonderful ability to make good decisions, has waited till the absolute last minute. Now we know who's running this province: not the minister, but his party and the B.C. Federation of Labour. They're the ones who are driving the agenda on the labour issue.
Why couldn't we have had this legislation in the spring? Why didn't they table it in the spring, like the wonderful job the Attorney General did with Bill 50? He brought the bill in and tabled it for discussion. We've been discussing it. He's made amendments to it already. I give incredible credit to the Attorney General for doing it that way. That's the way you get people to buy in; that's the way you get balanced legislation; that's the way you ensure that the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals are respected. You don't bring a bill in at the last minute with a report that's been kept hidden and ram it through the Legislature as quickly as you can without referring it to committee. That is not the way the government should be in this province. If the Minister of Labour would talk to the Attorney General, he would know that.
We are not delaying this bill unnecessarily. There are some very serious concerns with this piece of legislation, some very fundamental changes to the guiding principles of this province and the way we govern in this province. I think it's critical that we go back to the public with this legislation. We've had the report -- and I commend the minister. The consultation up until this report came in has been a pretty good example of the way things should be done. It's certainly better than the
[ Page 3763 ]
last government did. But we weren't the last government, and we would do things differently from both of them.
It's one thing for the government to have all this consultation up front, but once the bill comes in.... Now we have something concrete to work with. Now we have a piece of legislation -- and hopefully we'll have some regulations, if this government ever gets their act together and brings them forward. Then we can stop having to delay, if that's what he says we're doing. If they bring in a concrete piece of legislation, a set of regulations, and then take those two out into the public and let the public have a round of consultation on something they can really fix on -- not some airy-fairy group of principles or philosophies, as far as the legislation goes, but the actual working legal text; what the document is going to say -- and make recommendations.... I think that's fundamental to the way we govern in this province, and I would hope that the government would follow up on that.
I think it's only fair that when we have changes to our essential services provisions in this bill, when we have changes to successorship rights, when we have changes to what used to be technological change and now seems to be the provision that deals with just about any change -- and with co-determination and co-management, which are some terms that certainly the Premier likes to use very often -- when we have businesses being forced by legislation to have members of their bargaining unit sit on the strategic planning committee of their business, the public should have a right to input on that. The public should have the right to deal with changes to the essential services provisions. Do they or do they not want education to continue to be an essential service? That's something I'd like to hear people comment on. That's something I'd like to hear from the public. I hope the government wants to hear from the public on that one, too. I'd like to hear from the public whether or not an economic threat to the province is something that should be written into the essential services. We had an example this last spring with the Hospital Employees' Union on strike in this province, where the level of essential services came into serious question -- as to whether or not people and their health were being taken care of properly. I think the public would like to have some input on that.
I think the public would like to have some sort of say as to whether or not these essential services provisions are sufficient. Are they detailed enough? Should they be broader? Should they be narrower? What should they include? Why can't the public have a say on that? The reason we put in essential services is because they're essential to the economy, the lifeblood and health of the people of the province. So shouldn't the people have a say as to what those essential services are going to be? Does the minister think that the only people he should be listening to are his 17 cabinet colleagues? Are they the only people who have a say in this province? Are they the only people who have views in this province, or are there other people out there who would like to contribute?
For us to refer this to a legislative standing committee isn't a delaying tactic at all. If the government had wanted to bring this in earlier, they certainly could have, and we would have engaged in a realistic debate which had a realistic time frame that allowed people to give their input. This is not a delaying tactic; it's a method by which the Liberal Party and caucus in British Columbia is trying to ensure that this government doesn't ride roughshod over the freedoms and rights of individuals in the province -- the right to a vote and to other determinations as to how they want to run this province. That's what it is.
I think it's done in a very serious vein. It's done as a serious and thoughtful means of dealing with this legislation, and it's something that the government should certainly take seriously. There are sufficient changes to this legislation that people should have the right to some say. It should not be brought in as a fait accompli and passed through the Legislature, telling people that there can't be a change, there can't be another comma, they can't do anything -- this is it; you can't change it, and that's all there is.
Every time a government has tried to do that.... Look at the Meech Lake accord, for example. It's going back some time in our collective history, but look at what happened there. They brought in a piece of legislation, and people were told: "This is it; you can't change it." People don't like that. They like to be able to have a chance to make some changes, improvements and amendments and to give some comments. I think that's critical and very, very important.
[4:00]
I would hope that the members of the New Democratic Party would go back to their constituencies -- I certainly hope they did it on the weekend; if they haven't done it, they certainly should do it this week or next weekend -- and ask their constituents whether or not they would like this legislation taken to a standing committee, and whether or not they would like to have a say on the labour bill. Ask the businesses, ask the workers, ask the women and men in your constituencies what they would like to do, and then come back to the House and vote on this amendment according to what your constituents, not the Minister of Labour, are telling you.
C. Evans: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
C. Evans: In the gallery today is a friend of mine of 20 years, Rita Moir. Rita is a writer, and in the spring of next year she will be publishing a book called Survival Gear, a book, in part, about the fishing industry on the east coast. With her is her friend Lloyd Crocker, who knows all about it. He is a scallop fisherman from the Bay of Fundy. These people are ambassadors from both ends of Canada. Please welcome them here.
R. Neufeld: I rise to support the motion to put the.... [Applause.] Well, some are happy. Why aren't the rest?
Interjection.
[ Page 3764 ]
R. Neufeld: That's exactly right. I am listening to the constituents, and I listened to them during the Charlottetown accord also.
It gives me pleasure to stand in support of the motion to refer Bill 84, the controversial labour law in British Columbia, to a legislative committee. This is one way -- in fact, there are a number of ways.... I'm also going to say something about the hoist motion that was put forward by the Social Credit Party. They're one and the same. You can class them as delay tactics, or whatever you like, but they're a way to keep discussion going in the House so that the people out there, through newspapers and watching TV, through letter-writing campaigns or whatever, have a chance to digest what is in this labour code.
I'm sure not going to stand here and say that everybody in British Columbia will be able to digest what's in this labour code. I think there are an awful lot of us here in this room who don't understand all the implications of what's in Bill 84. I think the person who drafted Bill 84 understands very well the thread that goes through from start to finish -- all the sleepers that are in place and the things that could happen once Bill 84 comes into force.
It's also interesting to note the number of NDP candidates -- pardon me, members; I guess they're elected now; it's a year later and we have to admit it, after all -- that have been standing up in favour of moving this to a committee. I've noticed that not all of them seem to have said what they're standing for, but they're standing on this motion and speaking to it. I can only assume that deep down in their hearts they feel that, yes, this labour legislation should go out to the people of British Columbia so that they can understand and explain what it's all about. It's pretty obvious that this government is not intent on letting the people of British Columbia know what they have in their labour legislation. They would rather hold it close to their heart, keep it out of the public eye as much as they can, and call a session in the fall and pass it within one month -- or however long we're going to be here; that's purely a guess on my part.
As I've listened to the debate so far I have also noticed that all the members who have stood up and spoke on Bill 84 have only talked about Bill 19. What's going on here? Bill 84 is their legislation. You would think that they could defend it and tell the people what's in it. But again, they want to hold it close to their chest. They want to talk about the bad days of Bill 19 and how everything was so terrible, and how Bill 84 is going to raise us to higher heights. It's unbelievable that members opposite do not have the fortitude -- or the knowledge maybe; I'm not sure; maybe they haven't had time to study it yet -- or the will to get up in the House and support their own legislation. They would rather get up in the House and talk about how bad it is....
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: What the member for Parksville-Qualicum said earlier.... He's a delightful speaker; I like listening to him -- one of the honest politicians, I guess. He and the member for Nanaimo talk about Bill 19 and how terrible it was. They were talking right from the heart about how terrible it was, and how it put B.C. in a bad light around the world. We were in the darkest days you can imagine, if you listen to those people. The member for Nanaimo is very articulate. He can make quite a speech and almost have you believing it, But then I look over there and say no, I can't believe that guy, there's just no way that I can believe all he says.
If Bill 19 was so terrible and so awful for British Columbia, then how on earth, before 1991, did B.C. gain the fastest-growing economy in Canada -- that's a record -- the highest rate of capital investment, the highest rate of incorporations and the lowest rate of bankruptcies? How was that accomplished if B.C. was in the dark and there was no light? All it had was a 40-watt light bulb to the rest of the world, because it was so terrible. Something's wrong here. I'm not saying that all of Bill 19 was perfect -- in fact, we can take any bill in this building, and each one of us can probably pick something apart to find something wrong with it -- but obviously it worked.
I have a few more stats. Some of the members opposite don't like some of the stats, but it seems that's what we go by. When the Minister of Labour introduced the bill, he talked about what was so good 40 years ago. So why don't we keep it today? I don't think that member was born 40 years ago.
As for wages and salaries, B.C. had the highest hourly wages in Canada -- a 41 percent increase in wages and salaries from 1987 to 1991; a 51 percent increase in personal income from 1986 to 1991 and a 41 percent increase from 1987 to 1991. That was in a province that was in a bad light around the world, that nobody wanted to invest in, that had draconian labour laws, that nobody wanted to come to and in which no free enterprise would work. That's the province members opposite try to play out, and that is not what British Columbia was. British Columbia was a haven for investment, and we hope that before it's too late, the members opposite realize that what makes the world go around and what makes British Columbia tick is investment from around the world. To get that investment, we have to have an even playing field: labour legislation that's fair to all. I'm not going to say that Bill 19 was that, and I'm definitely not going to say that Bill 84 is that. We have to have a level playing field. If we refer this to a legislative committee, take it throughout the province and find out what the workers would like to work under....
Not everyone in British Columbia wants to work under a union agreement. That's a fact. Forty percent of the mining workforce doesn't work under a union agreement. It's obvious that they don't want to; nobody's forcing them not to. There are some types of investment in the economy that need union involvement -- there's no doubt about that -- but we don't need it collectively across the whole province. It will destroy an awful lot of the entrepreneurship out there now.
Much is said about an even playing field and harmony between B.C. labour and management. That is a fact. I ran my own business and was a manager for a
[ Page 3765 ]
large corporation for quite a number of years. I understand very well what happens when you don't have labour peace. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you're not going to get the job done. The idea is to work with your employees as best you can. That happens without a government document that's that thick. It does happen out there.
I said it in my last speech: a few of these people should get out of their airplanes and into a car to take a little drive around the province and just check it out a bit -- see what it's all about. It might make an awful lot of difference, rather than just driving from here to the airport, getting on an airplane, flying into Vancouver and then going downtown. There's an awful difference between downtown Vancouver and where I come from. You're liable to get a tremendously different viewpoint in the north from what you get in the south. We have to pay attention to that, because that's what makes this province tick. What makes it go around is making sure that that investment continues and companies continue to come here and employ people.
When we get to the point where we've unionized every firm and have everyone working under a collective agreement for the state, it won't be too long before we'll be like those eastern countries. It doesn't work. That's been proven. The academics from the other side should just read about what happened in Europe and what's happening in Sweden -- the place that is greatly touted as the best socialist place in the world. Let me tell you, they're in awfully deep trouble. It's not working. Some parts of it sound flowery and great -- really nice -- but when it comes down to reality, it doesn't work.
Maybe when the Minister of Labour talks about looking at what worked 40 years ago, he ought to go back to Sweden and look at what happened 50 years ago and where they are today. It hasn't worked. It's obvious that they're only looking at what they want to look at.
The member for Parksville-Qualicum talks about good labour peace. I'm going to read part of a quote from the Vancouver Sun, October 29, from Judy Lindsay. In the summation of her article she says: "Despite those concessions to employers, it all adds up to a labour code tipped in labour's favour. It's safe to conclude that labour leader Ken Georgetti's comment about problems remaining with the bill was purely for form's sake."
An awful lot of people out there have seen through what's going on here, and they're pretty distraught with this government. This government went through the election.... I saw all kinds of ads in every newspaper. Every time you opened a newspaper, it was: "Open, Honest Government." My goodness, I'll tell you, you sure blew it. The government that we have today certainly has shown that open, honest government isn't the order of the day. Before the election it was, because: "We have to get there; once we are there, we'll just break all the promises." I can't even remember promise 42. I suppose that most of the members opposite don't remember most of those promises either. It was a fairly lengthy document, about the same size as the labour bill. I wonder who drafted that. Ken Georgetti? It's hard to say, hon. Speaker.
When you talk about labour unrest and the fact that you have to have management working together with labour.... Let's look at a few more stats. Worker days lost by work stoppages: from 1986 to 1991 there was a more than 90 percent drop in worker days lost through work stoppages. Now I'm going to quote some stats from the NDP record since they were elected.
An Hon. Member: That's because there were no jobs under the Socreds.
R. Neufeld: The member obviously had both fingers in his ears when I was talking earlier about the fact that British Columbia was the best and fastest-growing economy in Canada. He wasn't really paying attention.
In only the first nine months of this year, the number of worker days lost through work stoppages has already surpassed the Bill 19 years. The days lost are at the highest level since 1984. There has been a more than 165 percent increase in the monthly average of worker days lost through work stoppages since this government has come to power, from 1991 till now. It's obvious that there are some expectations there from those unions, which are slowly being met by this government. It's called "Let's boogie." It's interesting.
When we talk about an even playing field and harmony between B.C. labour and management, let's look at what a few members on the government side who have spoken so far have said about Bill 19. There's one member here who hasn't spoken yet, but he was supposed to speak right after me so I'm going to use it anyhow, because it fits in well with what I'm going to say. All I did was go through their biographies to find out what they had done in their life prior to getting elected. He was the president of the Terrace District Teachers'....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, with the greatest of respect, we are on the amendment to Bill 84. I would ask that you address your remarks to that purpose. I'm having some difficulty relating the matter you are beginning to debate to the matter before the House.
[4:15]
R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, all I'm trying to do -- and if I'm touching a nerve in the House, I don't mean to -- is bring some things forward to people. I'm trying to deal with why Bill 84 should be turned over to a legislative committee. I also want to deal with the members who have spoken to Bill 84 so far from the government side.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, as long as you're addressing matters that are to do with the matter at hand, there is no problem. I just caution you against referring to personalities and going beyond the scope of the motion.
R. Neufeld: I'll carry on then. I'll leave that nerve alone.
It's obvious that the members opposite who have spoken about why Bill 19 was so bad but haven't really
[ Page 3766 ]
spoken about why Bill 84 is any good come from backgrounds that do not balance, I don't think, between labour and management.
Small business and the service sector are very important parts of our economy. In fact, they are going to be the parts of the economy that will be the drivers. Small business creates the major part of the jobs in British Columbia and in Canada. The resource industries and the high-paying jobs there are being decimated because we're trying to compete on a global market. So what we have to turn to, I surmise, is small business and the jobs that they're going to produce.
Hon. Speaker, I had the honour -- and I still have -- of being on a committee that's travelling around the province looking at log supply for some small businesses for remanufacturing. Not many of those business were unionized, although some were. Some of the ones that were unionized were subsidiaries of larger firms. But the average small entrepreneur who makes doors, windows, spindles and that type of thing, which provides an awful lot of jobs in British Columbia and pays an awful lot of taxes in British Columbia, is having a very difficult time. Even under the rules of today, without Bill 84, they're having a hard time making ends meet. It's not just the supply of logs. Some of those businesses will go bankrupt if we continue to increase taxation and put more regulations on.
If there's one thing I learned during the election when I was going around campaigning in my constituency, it was that people want lower taxation and less regulation. I listened to my people and I have heard that. But obviously the government has not heard that, and if they have heard it they're not reacting to it at all.
If we continue down the road with what Bill 84 is going to put on these small businesses it's going to kill them -- not all of them, because some of them, as I say, are integrated with larger corporations. But some of them are going to go down the tube because they won't be able to stand the regulations that are in Bill 84.
That's not to say that some of the regulations in Bill 84 are not good, because they are good. Some of them that I've read are good. But as I say, I have had to read them -- or somebody else has pointed them out to me -- because members opposite don't feel comfortable enough with their own bill to talk about how good it is. All they can talk about is how bad Bill 19 was. What is this, a vendetta? Have these people opposite not learned what they were elected to do, which is to represent the people of British Columbia?
In my constituency there are some NDP members, and I represent them the same as I do Social Credit, the same as I do Liberal members, because I was elected to represent them. And after the election the partisan politics goes by the wayside and I have to look at what's best for my constituency as a whole, not for one specific segment of it.
Free enterprise sometimes does need some regulation, but not to this magnitude: taking away the right to vote for union certification. The Minister of Labour said that this worked well 40 years ago.
An Hon. Member: For 40 years, not 40 years ago.
R. Neufeld: For 40 years, then, it worked well; it was the way to go.
During the Charlottetown accord debate we were sitting here and listening to members opposite -- especially members of the executive council -- talk about how women didn't attain the right to vote and how natives were refused the right to vote, and that it was their democratic right to vote. Hon. Speaker, I tell you it's the people's democratic right to vote whether they want to unionize or not.
I just can't imagine how anyone in their right mind could stand up.... And they don't stand up too often over there. Maybe they just haven't had the opportunity yet, and they will. I hope so, because I'd like to hear some of their good reasons why we jerked the boat away. One part of our democracy that all of us live and breathe for and that people worldwide have died for.... That's one thing that we haven't had to do in this, and that probably none of us know about, but it has happened. I don't have to go back very far in my heritage to find people who died.... They emigrated to Canada, a country that believed in democracy and freedom -- it was great; you could vote. Why not vote?
We have a Minister of Labour who says that something that started 40 years ago and has worked for the past 40 years is just great -- it worked better than sliced bread, so we better keep it. I think that person is looking back and not to the future. It's to the future that we have to look. We can't base labour legislation on what happened in the 1950s, because things have changed. The minister should look around to see how many things have changed since the 1950s.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, I don't know where that member is from, but he was heckling me from this side of the House a while ago. Now he's on that side of the House. I notice he's in his own chair, so I guess there's nothing we can do about it now. But we'll have to watch him.
Hon. Speaker, what we have in Bill 84 are individual rights being taken away from people for the collective right, and that's dangerous. People should be able to vote whether or not they want to join a union.
Let's go back and look at some of the records, because the members opposite like to do this. I like records that we can look back at to see what has worked recently, in the last five years or so. That's all I'm going back; I'm not going back 40 years. I'm not going to go back to the fifties. But let's look at the record of voting for certification.
In 1987, 81 percent of those companies in collective agreements -- people who voted to unionize -- unionized. In 1988, it was 88 percent; in 1989, it was 80 percent; in 1990, it was 78 percent; in 1991, it was 75 percent. That's by voting. What's the matter with that, hon. Speaker? Is there anything wrong with that? Is it that bad, this draconian legislation that members opposite talk about -- to take that vote away? "We've got to jerk that out from underneath them, because those people don't understand. We have to do what's right for them. We're academically correct, and we have
[ Page 3767 ]
to jerk that away and fill in something else." Well, the strong-arm tactics went away a long time ago, and now we have voting. That's one thing we all should remember and be thankful for.
If we go to eastern Canada and look at some of the things that happened in Ontario with the labour legislation that they introduced -- this is an article from 1991 -- we see that it looks almost the same as what's been introduced here in British Columbia. Employers would not be allowed to hire replacement workers during a strike, including supervisors, to do union work. Labour act coverage would be expanded to include, among others, self-governing professionals and supervisors. Companies would be prevented from shifting workers from a non-striking workplace to a striking workplace. Certification of unions would be easier because of lowering the proportion of workers needed in favour -- a simple majority -- from the current 55 percent. Rights of union organizers would be strengthened. It almost speaks truly of what's happening here.
I see my time has expired, so with that, hon. Speaker, I'll take my chair.
D. Schreck: I rise to oppose the stalling tactics put forward by the opposition and support the fair and balanced legislation my colleagues have put forward as Bill 84.
The history in this province for at least 100 years, back to the turn of the century and the mining unions in this province, has been one of excessive extremes and rhetoric on the questions of industrial relations. Much of that rhetoric has unfortunately spilled over into this chamber and been used as an attempt to polarize factions within the province and to stereotype and create divisions between political parties.
I have been listening to the members opposite, in both the third party and the official opposition, and have attempted to understand their vision of industrial relations. At the end of the day we must have some law that sets the framework for how unions and employers interact. Whether we call that the Industrial Relations Act or the Labour Code or the XYZ bill, the fact is that there is a legal framework that will govern how unions and employers interact. We happen to call that the Labour Relations Code.
[4:30]
The labour relations bill introduced by the New Democratic government of the 1970s survived without substantial change for well over a decade. It wasn't until 1983-84, in a period that brought about more violent reaction, Operation Solidarity, extreme protests and much disharmony within the province, that the Labour Code was changed. It was changed once again under the Vander Zalm administration in a way that everyone in this House -- everyone in this province -- should read about in the book authored by the Deputy Minister of Labour of the day, Mr. Graham Leslie. In his book, Breach of Promise, Mr. Leslie clearly explains why we are here today debating the opposition's stalling tactics and the bill our government has put forward. We had, according to Mr. Leslie, lawyers who represented employers in this province meet at the invitation of the Premier of the day, Mr. Vander Zalm, behind closed doors in secret and rewrite the labour relations legislation in such a way that they would no longer lose all of the cases they had previously lost. The legislation was done, according to Mr. Leslie in Breach of Promise, behind the back of the Minister of Labour of the day, behind the back of the Deputy Minister of Labour, who at the time was trying to work on an open consultative process. It resulted in such a severe public reaction that we not only had a boycott of the newly formed Industrial Relations Council by both employers and unions, but we had the resignation of the Deputy Minister of Labour.
It is that industrial relations climate, that industrial relations legal framework, that leads us to what we have to operate on today and the law that we are changing today. We have a situation where the pendulum was swung by the former government to the ultra-far-right extreme. What we have done now, through an eight-month consultation process, an open process involving representatives.... Three highly respected representatives from the industrial relations community -- one representing business, the employer, and a highly respected neutral arbiter, Mr. Vince Ready.... The three unanimously recommending the majority of the changes in Bill 84. There are four or five areas where the commissioners did not agree, and those are clearly the subject of some debate in this chamber.
But what has to be recognized when we look at the stalling tactics advocated by the official opposition is that they, like every other member of the British Columbia community, had the opportunity to make submissions and appear before the commissioners in making their recommendations to change that Industrial Relations Act which resulted in the resignation of the Deputy Minister of Labour, which was drafted in secret by lawyers who'd lost cases and were bitter and wanted to change the law so they wouldn't lose those cases again. We had an open, fair, balanced process for the last eight months in this province, which led to the production of an outstanding report: Recommendations for Labour Law Reform.
All students of industrial relations in this province should read two books. They should read Graham Leslie's Breach of Promise, and they should read this absolutely excellent report by Roper, Baigent and Ready, which in very clear terms explains both our industrial relations history and the nature of the recommendations that they have put forward and that form Bill 84.
On the question of process, I say that we've gone through a very long process. Anyone involved in industrial relations in this province would be familiar with all of the concepts that we have been debating for the last week and will probably debate for several weeks to come; they are not new concepts. They are concepts that date back in many cases a hundred years or more. They are concepts that have formed the basis of intense controversy within this province. They are concepts that now come before us not in order to swing the pendulum from one extreme to the other, but in order to slowly let that pendulum down from the far-right extreme, where it was put by the Vander Zalm
[ Page 3768 ]
administration, to a carefully balanced middle course that will create industrial relations harmony in this province.
When we listen to the rhetoric from the opposition benches, both the third party and the official opposition, what do we hear? The vision of industrial relations I hear coming from those benches opposite is a vision filled with notions of strikebreakers, of accepting hot goods crossing picket lines, of denying teachers bargaining rights, and of contracting out as a form of union busting. Instead of enriching the private sector in dealing with a unionized spinoff company, it becomes a form of division for the sake of division, union busting and making the community poorer.
I do not hear the notion of respect for the organized community as well as the unorganized community from the opposition benches. I hear an echo of that extreme rhetoric of the past in the rhetoric of the new opposition party. I hoped that was going to be put behind us. During the election campaign we heard that the opposition was campaigning to be a new opposition, to no longer repeat the mistakes of the past and to avoid polarization. Yet what do we hear through the stalling tactics advocated by the opposition in this debate? We hear them trampling on the dignity of unions: repeated contempt for the Government Employees' Union and an attack on the teachers' unions. There is hardly a group of workers organized in this province....
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat.
J. Tyabji: On a point of order, this speaker, whether intentionally or not, is misrepresenting the position of the official opposition. At no time have we made any attacks on unions, including the teachers' unions. I'd like to set the record straight.
Deputy Speaker: That is not a valid point of order. I would ask the member to address his remarks to the motion before the House.
D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, I thank you for that guidance. I'm certain that all of our constituents can read Hansard, and it will speak for itself.
Knowing how sensitive the official opposition is to criticism of its attack on workers, and noting that there is all-party agreement that a member of the opposition will be the next speaker, I truly hope we will have a clearly articulated, easy-to-understand position from the official opposition that will show that it respects organized workers. With the industrial relations climate in this province, we do not need to pit worker against worker or swing from one extreme to another; we need to reach the sort of carefully balanced legal framework that will allow all workers -- organized and unorganized -- to create wealth in this province. It was in the spirit of creating wealth that three commissioners were appointed and worked for a period of eight months to create this carefully crafted, very balanced piece of legislation.
The opposition has gone on at some length in their stalling tactics with respect to particular sections of Bill 84. One of the criticisms that they bring up most often -- and that is misrepresented most often -- is the notion of the certification and voting processes. Until 1984 we had a process by which union members would sign membership cards. If an adequate number and proportion of membership cards were signed, the union was recognized as automatically certified to represent those workers in bargaining.
The former government changed the law in 1984 to put us in a camp that was similar to only two other provinces in Canada -- Nova Scotia and Alberta. The former government said that the union can organize, but then we will give the employer a chance to terrify individual union members out of joining that union. What we currently have is not as the opposition benches would represent it; what we have is a secret ballot in the form of signing union membership cards, followed by a campaign of terror to talk to coerce those union members out of joining the union. Bill 84 removes the campaign of terror and replaces it with a certification process where 55 percent or more of the employees at a work site must sign the card. Individual members have the right, in secret, to withdraw their signed card, unbeknownst to the union and known only to the Labour Relations Board -- a totally secret and protective process. If at the end of that process, where cards are signed and some are secretly withdrawn and filed with the Labour Relations Board, the majority of employees wish to join a particular union, that certification occurs. A terror campaign is eliminated.
I think it is very important that the people of British Columbia....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. We can't hear the person who has the floor.
D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, I'm not surprised by the heckling. This is the opposition that calls for consultation, yet they are so unruly that they try to heckle out the speaker.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member who has the floor is not assisting the Chair with his comments at the present time.
D. Schreck: The hon. Speaker has far more experience dealing with this unruly opposition than I.
It is important for the public to understand that of the four or five contentious points that the three commissioners did not reach agreement on, the certification process was not one of them; that there is unanimity among Mr. Roper, Mr. Baigent and Mr. Ready on the certification process. Those commissioners said: "We have concluded that British Columbia should return to a system of certification based on membership cards." They went on to state in their report: "The simple reality is that secret ballot votes
[ Page 3769 ]
and their concomitant representational campaigns invite an unacceptable level of unlawful employer interference in the certification process." We do not have what the opposition is trying to represent; we have a return to a secret ballot process in the form of certification or membership cards to eliminate the opportunity for a campaign of terror by the employer to keep the union from being organized.
The opposition has commented on several other points within Bill 84 in their plea for stalling and delay to find out what their own policy is; yet it's not quite possible to make out their position on these issues. I heard the leader of the official opposition refer to the use of.... Replacement workers is modern-day jargon. I always called them strikebreakers.
An Hon. Member: Scabs.
D. Schreck: It's a difficult concept to deal with. My friends say "scab." Clearly that doesn't apply to management at the same job site. I don't know why any employer in this province would attempt to operate behind picket lines. It invites confrontation; it lengthens disputes.
The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi said that Bill 19 is a wonderful piece of legislation and that we should give it a fair try. The opposition Labour critic said that replacement workers have a right to work too and should be encouraged to be hired, or words to that effect. The leader of the official opposition said that self-employed professionals -- physicians -- are somehow related to replacement workers.
G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. Under standing order 42, the member has clearly misquoted a number of our members. I'd ask him to check his facts before he starts to quote our members and quote them directly.
Deputy Speaker: The point of order is not appropriate at this time, hon. member. I think that the time to comment on comments made by the members is when you're making a speech. However, if the member would try and stick to the amendment that is before the House, it would be of great assistance.
D. Schreck: The amendment before the House is an attempt by the official opposition to deprive the people of British Columbia of a fair and balanced labour code, an attempt by the official opposition to find out where they really stand, because they came to this assembly elected by surprise as an opposition, not knowing quite what they stood for. I'm looking forward to having a clearly stated position by the official opposition which will advocate fairness for both organized and unorganized workers in this province.
[4:45]
Hon. Speaker, the fact is that while British Columbia has the highest proportion of unionized workers anywhere in North America, we still have a majority of workers who are not organized, and it is the responsibility recognized by this government to create a climate where British Columbians can create wealth, whether workers are organized or whether workers are unorganized. Bill 84 creates the legal framework to remove the extremes that led to the former Deputy Minister of Labour resigning. It does not interfere with the rights of the unorganized. Some of the members opposite would have us believe that having a fair industrial relations climate for those work sites that require unions dealing with employers somehow impinges on the rights of small employers whose employees seek not to have unions. There is no connection, hon. Speaker. The attempt to pit union worker against non-union worker does no one in this province a good service. The climate that Bill 84 establishes is one in which the organized and unorganized sectors can flourish.
Hon. Speaker, most new small businesses are either family enterprises, where I really don't see too many members of the same family rushing out to their favourite union to organize against other members of the family, or business associates, where again they really aren't in immediate danger of an organizing drive, or people who have worked together for a long time in such a small working relationship that it is hard to find a union which would want to spend the funds organizing four or five workers at a particular plant of new technology. My point is that much of the community of British Columbia, in whom the official opposition would attempt to instil fear and try to pit organized worker against unorganized worker, is inherently unorganizable. That is to say, they'd benefit from the stable industrial relations climate and the good working relations established in the organized community, and they themselves are in no way under threat, by any means, of joining that community. They thrive side by side with it.
We have to understand, hon. Speaker, whether that official opposition is really attempting to say there should be no unions in this province. They heckle from the opposite benches that that really isn't their purpose. So if the opposition is not taking a position that unions are bad, if they are not contrary to the rhetoric we hear coming forth, taking the position that everything should be done to discourage organization and unionization within this province, then we have to presume that they agree with the government. They agree that the Industrial Relations Act under the Vander Zalm government was an extreme that went far too far, that we need a stable industrial relations climate that is fair and balanced, that the eight-month period of consultation we went through is a reasonable process to arrive at the recommendations before us, that the process is complete and fair, and that the outcome is fair. There is no reason to delay further. There is ample reason to support Bill 84. I look forward to really attempting to understand where that opposition stands on any issue, but in particular on the issues before us in industrial relations.
C. Tanner: I rise to speak to the motion to recommend this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Labour. The previous speaker says that there has been enough consultation, but what he hasn't taken into account is that when most organizations go for public consultation, they listen to what the public has to say,
[ Page 3770 ]
they put a report together, and then they take it back to the public and say: "This is what we're recommending. What do you think?" That is the normal procedure this government has followed in two or three other circumstances; one has to wonder what they don't want to do it in this case.
Apparently I am one of the few members on this side who didn't particularly like Bill 19. It wasn't entirely acceptable. But if it is time to make another change, the ones recommended here have gone too far. Just as Bill 19 went too far one way, Bill 84 has gone too far the other way.
I was going to say that my remarks today are addressed not to cabinet members.... They aren't addressed to cabinet members; they aren't addressed to members who are now on the executives of unions. They're addressed to the balance of the members on that side of the House and down at that end of the House.
An Hon. Member: All three of them.
C. Tanner: All of them have an opportunity today to do something which they saw beautifully illustrated last Friday when three members on that side of the House decided to exert their authority and do something different than the rest of the members.
I would like to quote from the report, if I might, and specifically illustrate why we should be going to a standing committee. This was started "in February 1992, when the Minister of Labour appointed a committee of special advisers with a broad mandate to recommend an overall industrial relations strategy for the province of British Columbia." The report starts off by saying:
"Contemporary labour legislation in British Columbia commenced with the Labour Code of...November 1973...."
"To some, the Labour Code was a model piece of legislation establishing a proper balance between management and labour while, at the same time, protecting the rights of the individual employee. To others, the code was viewed as pro-labour, shifting the balance of power to unions in a way which differentiated B.C. from other jurisdictions."
Hon. Speaker, I'm quoting from the report that the members opposite keep picking up and saying is the bible as to why they are supporting this legislation.
"The 1973 statute was not significantly changed by the new government which came into power in 1976. Between 1973 and 1984 changes to the statute tempered somewhat the rights of trade unions and increased those of employers. But the format of the original 1973 legislation remained largely intact. In 1984 major changes were made to the Labour Code. Those changes followed provincewide strikes ('Operation Solidarity') which occurred after the introduction of a series of statutes curbing the rights of public sector unions.
"The Labour Code Amendment Act, 1984, introduced major changes to the Labour Code.... The most recent changes to the legislation came in 1987 with the proclamation of Bill 19 and the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act.... To them, the legislation appeared to be based on a simple premise: unions were inconsistent with a 'competitive market economy' and their rights should be curtailed. While no one seriously attempted to defend Bill 19 as balanced legislation...." Mr. Speaker, I'm making a case for the government. "Apart from the substantive changes which Bill 19 brought, there was general dissatisfaction with the process by which the legislation was implemented....
"Shortly after the Industrial Relations Act was proclaimed, organized labour announced a boycott of the new legislation and of the Industrial Relations Council. The boycott continued until the election of the current government in the fall of 1991."
What we have continually had in this province, for 20 years -- since the last time that that government was in power, and their introduction of new, forward-thinking legislation -- has been a swing from one side to the other. What this report did was analyze that with three sides of the argument -- labour, big unions, management, and an arbitrator, a mediator -- and they looked at it and made a recommendation in a report. It seems to me that it would be logical that, having made the report, the legislation should come to this House, we should take it to a committee, and take it back to the very people who were involved in it. We should be looking for a consensus from the public as to the recommendations made by this report. I don't find that particularly unusual. In this past summer, to my knowledge, we've had 14 committees travelling around the province, getting public input. We've had the B.C. Utilities Commission; the Energy Council; the Korbin commission; Mr. Owen's commission; a community panel to review child protective legislation; the Industrial Relations Act review panel; the Minister's Aquaculture Industry Advisory Council; the Schwindt commission; the new environmental legislation commission, under the member for Nanaimo; the commission on affordable housing. There's not a subject that this government hasn't been to the public and asked their opinion on. There was the manufactured home commission under the member for Esquimalt; the committee on recall and initiative, which I sat on; and the Forests Committee. It goes on and on. Committee after committee went to the public, asked their opinion and looked for recommendations. What we're suggesting with this report is that it is so important to this province.... We don't disagree with the government, but it is so important to this province that, having made the suggestion, we should go back and see what the recommendations are, and see how they're treated.
During the introduction of Bill 84 the Minister of Labour made mention of the fact that he had consulted widely, through this report, with various people who had a public interest. We received 296 written submissions. We toured the province visiting 11 different cities and towns, conducting public meetings, in which we heard 203 individuals representing trade unions, employers and other groups or individuals simply setting out their own personal view. That's fine, but the member for Nanaimo was saying on Thursday: "I would invite members opposite to actually read something. They might want to look at the report on this legislation -- the background report from the committee -- under the chapter called 'The Process.' They would discover that the committee represented three groups: labour, business and labour relations; the foremost professionals who understand the field." Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think they did hear that. I think
[ Page 3771 ]
who they talked to were big labour and some people with a special interest, and they've altogether missed the biggest segment of the business climate in this province: the small businesses that are the backbone of this industry.
I would ask the Minister of Labour whether he has talked to any of the following associations: the Aboriginal People's Business Association of B.C., the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the Automotive Retailers' Association of B.C., the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, the B.C. Motion Picture Association, the Mechanical Contractors' Association of B.C., the Hairdressers' Association of B.C., the Restaurant and Food Services Association of B.C., Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of B.C., the B.C. Trucking Association, the Canadian Home Builders' Association, the Retail Merchants' Association. I don't think he's talked to half the people that need input into this.
Anybody with a small business hasn't had a voice in this piece of legislation or in the recommendations of the committee. The point that we're making is that unless you turn this over to the standing committee on labour, you won't get that input. While a number of members on this side of the House are -- or were -- independent business people, they are now representing their constituents and a personal point of view, which is as it should be. I think this legislation would be strengthened if they took it back to the public. After all, the members will admit that they've waited six years -- since 1986 -- to bring it in. What's the rush? Why the hurry? Why can't we have another look at it? Why can't we answer the questions that the member for Nanaimo asked on Friday? Why can't we let the public have another go at it?
The committee travelled to other parts of Canada. That's fine. They're getting other points of view, but they're not getting the point of view of the people who have to live with the legislation in this province. They consulted with other jurisdictions -- even jurisdictions on other continents. That's great. We're really pleased that they went on a junket to other continents. What about talking to the people who have to live with the legislation for the next five years -- until this lot is gone and a decent piece of legislation is written by this side of the House, which we will bring in in about four or five years' time?
The member for Nanaimo said last Friday that they went far afield. They had consultations with many and various experts in the field. They travelled to 11 different cities. The point I'm making is that they had an opportunity to get input on the legislation. Now they've got an opportunity to take it back to the very people who had input and say: "Mr. Public, what do you think? Small business, what do you think? How is this going to affect you? How is it going to affect the economy of this province, which is so delicate right now?" Here's an opportunity to find out, and for some reason -- I don't understand why -- they don't want to do it.
[5:00]
I have been a small business person for 25 years, both here and in other provinces. From the phone calls I've had just this weekend and first thing this morning, I can guarantee that there are a number of very apprehensive small business people out there who are wondering how this is going to affect them. They aren't necessarily anti-union. They aren't anti-employee -- they've had to work very closely with their employees. Like I have for the past 25 years, they do the very best they can for their employees, but there are limits to what can be accomplished in any small business. I can tell you right now that there are many businesses that are hanging on by the skin of their teeth. My remarks are addressed to those few people on that side of the House who have had experience in small business: what are you doing to this province, what are the consequences of this legislation, and why are you afraid to take it to the public again?
Last Friday three members on that side of the House, either inadvertently or deliberately, stood up when the others were sitting down. Believe it or not, that is not a novelty.
I'm quoting from 1973, the first time this government's predecessors brought in some legislation: "The first thing that I must say I find is not as good as I would like it to be -- and I would hope that the minister sometime prior to third reading could find a way of introducing some amendments to it -- is the first section of this act that deals with exclusions."
"I campaigned against compulsory arbitration. I subscribed to the eight-point programme that the NDP campaigned on in last year's election. I cannot accept a provision that in any way allows for compulsory arbitration, even though in this case that compulsory arbitration appears to be in favour of the trade union movement. If I'm to be consistent in my opposition to compulsion, I can't be in favour of compulsion when it benefits trade unions. Mr. Speaker, that kind of consistency is important to me. I made that pledge during my election campaign and during the committee stage and I intend to make further comments on that particular section."
Mr. Speaker, you might recognize some of the comments I'm quoting. They're from a 1973 debate. "I said at the outset that there were several items -- six, in fact -- that I felt could be improved, and I will register those feelings clearly...." He goes on to say:
"I think that several phrases and several clauses -- and, again, I will deal with them more specifically in committee stage -- will unfortunately have the effect of forcing some workers in some situations to violate this law as they have had to violate the previous one. Mr. Speaker, that's unfortunate; we shouldn't be designing a law that will have as one of its inevitable conclusions the forced breaking of a law.
"I'm making suggestions that I feel, as an individual member of this House, would improve this legislation so that it will be even better than it already is.
"Mr. Chairman, on section 1, I'd just like to preface my remarks by saying that in the election campaign of last year I made a number of very specific promises.... I thought out very carefully what those promises were. I made sure that none of them were unrealistic, and I made sure that none of them were promises that I didn't feel we couldn't keep within a reasonable period of time.
"I want to talk about a couple of other parts of the section that I think could be improved, from my point of view and from the point of view of the people who
[ Page 3772 ]
elected me.... I've had a great many discussions with them and I haven't taken this step lightly.
"It is absolutely essential that groups to whom this legislation is being applied respect this legislation.
"As I said earlier, it has been a difficult decision, but there are some matters, as loyal as I am to my caucus, with which, unfortunately, I am not able to go along."
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Mr. Speaker, it came to the vote. There were 31 yeas and 14 nays. The first name on the nays was Gabelmann. He -- along with Williams, Chabot, Fraser, Morrison, Steves, Wallace, Richter, Phillips, Bennett, Anderson, Curtis, Smith and McClelland -- voted against his government. What a proud member!
Do you think it was an isolated case? No. Mr. Gabelmann went on to say: "Mr. Chairman, on section 57, before you rush along. I do appreciate very much the tone of what the minister says about the need for this section. Despite that, it's a section I find unacceptable." And: "For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I can't...be happy with this section."
Hon. Speaker, this young member came in from North Vancouver. He'd only been elected 15 months. He was full of idealism, and he had the courage of his convictions, because he didn't do it once; he did it twice. There was another vote: 12 nays and 30 yeas. And who was the last one to vote in the nays, against the government? Mr. Gabelmann.
An Hon. Member: No!
C. Tanner: Yes. That took courage, and we're expecting the same courage from some of the backbenchers over there this time. They can do it; they've got what it takes.
An Hon. Member: I wouldn't put money on it.
C. Tanner: I'll put money on it. I love to have a flutter. I believe they've got the courage it takes to do the right thing and to push this into a committee, so that the public can get another shot at it.
F. Randall: On a point of order. Hon. Speaker, it's my understanding that we're not supposed to mention names of members; we're supposed to refer to the riding. The previous speaker mentioned the name of a member in this House.
The Speaker: The point is well taken, and I would remind hon. members about that. I would also remind the hon. member that we're speaking on the amendment to the bill.
C. Tanner: I would remind hon. members that I am quoting from Hansard of October 25, 1973, in which people are named. If I want to tell you who voted which way, how else would I do it? From here on in, I will refer to the courageous gentleman as the Attorney General.
M. Farnworth: Tell me about your mortgage.
C. Tanner: My mortgage is on the table, if yours is.
I'm betting that none of you has the courage to do the same as your Attorney General did in 1972. When he came into this House he knew what was right, and he did the right thing. I'm saying that none of you has the courage to do the same thing.
Hon. Speaker, I haven't referred to the legislation; I'm referring to the process. The process on important legislation in this House has nearly always been -- and it was the promise of this government that it would be in future -- that we would make use of the standing committees of the Legislature. It seems to me that this is an ideal opportunity to refer this to a committee and let the public talk about this process that was gone through before.
I don't particularly want to refer to the committee, but I do want to talk about a couple of notes and the changes that this committee.... When they went around the world talking to people about their experience, they say: "In the pages that follow we outline the major changes we are proposing and our reasons for those changes. There are other, less significant, changes which are not discussed, but which are largely self-evident in comparing our draft code with the present legislation. In other cases the changes are simply grammatical or intended to make the statute gender neutral."
In other words, they are saying this: "We've made some recommendations to the House. We would like the House to make a decision." That's well and good; that's what you commissioned them to do. I'm suggesting that the public who had input in the first place should logically have input a second time to say: "We like those recommendations. You've incorporated what we've said. We would like to see you change this and discuss that, and when you've done that, put it back into the House and make the decision."
Hon. Speaker, of all the parties in this country, that one is always making the point that they consult. In fact, as I told you before, I was able to count about 14 times that they consulted this summer. Why wouldn't they consult with this one? It doesn't make sense. Surely, if nothing else, the people on the other side can be consistent. I recommend that this bill be sent to the standing committee on labour before it goes to committee stage and comes to a conclusion.
R. Chisholm: I ask leave to introduce a guest.
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: In the gallery today we have Mr. Cal Wickham, who ran in the Abbotsford riding in the last election. I ask the Legislature to make him most welcome.
F. Jackson: I'm pleased to rise today to speak against this amendment to Bill 84. The feelings of working people in Kamloops and across the province towards this new bill can be summed up in one sentence: it's about time. It's about time for fairness and balance in the workplace. It's about time for a modern approach to labour-business relations in the province --
[ Page 3773 ]
an approach based on mutual respect. I don't think I have to explain to any working man or woman in the province why this new labour code is necessary; and the fact that it needs to be explained to the members opposite speaks for itself.
Since 1987, workers in this province have been subjected to the most radical right-wing labour legislation in the country. Bill 19, the great Socred labour bill, should be cause for great shame in the ranks of the third party across the floor. I must say that perhaps there should be levels of that shame. When Bill 19 was introduced, the members of the third party, as far as we know, may well have been stumping around the province speaking against it. But I think they've shown in this House in the last few days that they are very much in favour of it, and for that they should feel ashamed.
The other members who were here must feel shame at a different level, because, although this was not part of any process that led up to the adoption of Bill 19, they certainly did support it. I don't know how they can have the nerve to rise in the House and debate this labour code when they're parents of Bill 19.
Just to refresh the memory of the House, in case anybody forgot over the weekend, Bill 19 was a horrendous bill drafted in secret by three people not of this Legislature. It was really the stamp of approval from Mr. Vander Zalm and David Poole that brought it to the House. There was no consultation, no consensus and no discussion -- just the views of two or three radical right-wingers who wanted to put down the working people of this province. In fact, Bill 19 was so bad and the process so repulsive that the Deputy Minister of Labour of the day, Graham Leslie, resigned in disgust.
We've had quite a few quotations from what Mr. Leslie had to say at the time, and I'd just like to add one of my own. He said Bill 19 was the product of too few and too narrow minds, constructed without the benefit of meaningful input from knowledgeable, practical people within the employer and trade union communities. I would emphasize that in employer and trade union communities nobody was consulted. The results of the bill? Confrontation, instability and a boycott of the IRC by working people. In fact, the result was exactly the opposite of what a well-thought-out piece of legislation should achieve.
[5:15]
The members opposite have said on a few occasions in the last two or three days that we've had labour peace in the province since Bill 19. I would suggest to them that if I tied their hands, put a gun to their head and told them to lie still, they would probably be peaceful too. That's what Bill 19 did to the people of the province: it tied their hands and threatened them. I have to admire the nerve of those members of the third party who sat in this House and applauded Bill 19 when it was introduced.
Bill 84 is everything that Bill 19 wasn't: it is fair; it is balanced; and it comes to British Columbians as an open and fair consultation process. It is quite a remarkable achievement all around. Many of us on this side of the House would have liked to erase Bill 19 from the books on our first day in office. For years working people and business people have told us that they need legislation that will promote stability in the workplace and security in the economy. But our government didn't rush into it, and neither did we hide behind closed doors like the previous government and throw together a labour bill based on one very narrow view. We wanted to get it right. This government wanted to make sure that the new labour code for British Columbians would stand the test of time. This government wanted to make sure that the views of all affected British Columbians were represented; and they were. That is why we are able to discuss in this House today such a thoughtful, deliberate and balanced piece of legislation. Last February a panel of advisers travelled the province listening to 200 individuals and taking 300 written submissions; they talked to workers, employers and community leaders. They unanimously agreed that more than 100 changes to our labour legislation were required.
We have members of the opposition claiming that somehow democracy has been sidestepped. By saying that, they must approve the process that led up to Bill 19. If they support Bill 19, I wonder where they were when it was enacted, because I don't remember seeing any of them marching in the streets of Victoria or Vancouver when labour was protesting Bill 19. I don't recall hearing their voices in 1987 when the Socreds set labour-management relations in this province back into the Dark Ages.
C. Tanner: Were you there? I was there.
F. Jackson: We have one identified supporter. The member for Saanich says that he was opposed to Bill 19. I wonder how he feels standing up in the House today saying that. I think he must be pretty safe, because his chair is last in line, and he can't go any further down the line. I'd like to take this opportunity to let him know that I have a Yes button for him.
I would like to look at some of the things that the opposition are crying foul about. They say that the anti-scab legislation is undemocratic, as the rest of it is. I can only assume that if they're against the anti-scab legislation, then they're obviously for the use of scab labour.
I think this opposition comes as the result of their life experiences. I heard recently that when George Bush was ordered to improve his image, he went to his manicurist and got some dirt put under his fingernails. I would suggest that the members of the opposition consider getting closer to the working people of the province. The member for Delta South may even get some slivers put in his fingers to remind him of his time in the greenchain, so that he can get closer to the working people of this province. If there's anybody who opposes this legislation, surely they must be aware of what scabs do in the workplace of British Columbia. There is almost always violence -- verbal and quite often physical -- and at the very least, painful and costly divisions in the communities around the province. Our Labour minister was right when he said that there's no place for verbal or physical violence in the
[ Page 3774 ]
workplace in this province; and this new labour code will go a long way to ensuring that.
If they support the use of scabs, I wonder how they'll look at the division in the communities, and the violence that that causes. I wonder if this is in fact some kind of knee-jerk reaction because we are the government and we would like this, and they are the opposition so obviously maybe they shouldn't. Maybe it is their life experience, hon. Speaker, where they've been and what they've done. I don't think that even they should oppose anything that reduces the level of violence in our province.
Also, it ensures other things beyond bringing security and stability to the province, beyond creating an atmosphere in which workers and employers can meet on the common ground of mutual respect. We should be mindful of the image that British Columbia sends out to our neighbours, our trading partners. I wonder what kind of image scab labour, picket line violence, sends out to our neighbours and our trading partners; what kind of image divided communities give to our trading partners. I think the members opposite should consider that.
I'm certainly proud to join in the debate on the new labour code. To me it speaks volumes about the difference between this government and the members opposite in both parties. Across the floor we have on one hand the fathers of Bill 19 -- I guess I should say the stepfathers of Bill 19, because I don't think any of them at all were involved in the process of conception -- but still they are making a noise to the monument, the monument to confrontation that is there. The official opposition, of course, is knee-jerking; we like it, so they must not. I hope the people out there in British Columbia -- the working people -- have been aware of their performance in this Legislature in the last two or three days, hon. Speaker, because it's quite obvious that they're not on their side. Fortunately, on this side of the House we have a government that has made a commitment to stability and security in B.C.'s economy. We did consult, we did listen, and we carried out our duty with respect for both labour and business. This new labour code is a great step forward for all British Columbians. It's modern; it's progressive; it's fair; it's balanced; it's the foundation of security and stability for this province. I'm pleased and proud to have had this opportunity to speak in favour of it.
R. Chisholm: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak to the amendment on Bill 84. I have to wonder what this government is afraid of. Why not allow an all-party legislative committee to judge this bill with the people of B.C.? Why not allow labour and business to address this bill, to analyze it and make recommendations? Not just certain parties -- all people. Give the population of British Columbia the right to have input into this bill.
This is a very contentious bill which will greatly affect the economy in many ways: investments and credit, just to name two. Why not allow British Columbians the democratic right of input? Why not allow democracy? It seemed to have worked with the constitutional accord. On October 27 Canada did not self-destruct; nor did the markets crash, interest rates adjust or the dollar decline. This bill won't have that effect either if we allow the people to respond to it.
Ontario sent their labour bill to a committee, and the population are having their say. Does this government not believe that the citizens of British Columbia have the same capabilities as the citizens of Ontario? Do they not believe that the citizens of British Columbia have the maturity to discuss this bill? Or is this government afraid of what the public might say to them?
I want to address the replacement worker issue that I just heard the former speaker speak about. He talked about violence. I'm going to try to give him a concept, and it's not new. It's called "start enforcing the laws that we already have on the books." We have laws that govern this province and the population in this province, yet we're not utilizing them. We're trying to make new bills to enforce them, or we're changing bills. That's not the way. The rules and regulations are already there for people to operate by. Let's enforce them.
The amendments to the Industrial Relations Act must reflect business, economic and labour market factors, as well as consider the impact the amendments will have on public order, economic prosperity and the social makeup of this province. Although there is sufficient need to enact changes, the extent to which the legislation should be altered is a matter of debate. Above all, the motivating factor must be to ensure the ability of both labour and business to function in a process which promotes and rewards cooperation. The labour code must be as much an economic document as a document to determine the relationship between business and labour.
When international investors search for countries in which to invest, the possibility of labour strife -- or lack thereof -- as well as the cost of labour productivity are determining factors in their decisions. These are just a few of the points we must think about. If we don't address them well, these points will last for decades. The investments we lose now are going to affect us ten, 15 or 20 years down the road. The new competitive environment facing our economy is the principal issue that must be addressed. In amending or defining the boundaries for industrial relations, government must respond to -- not ignore -- the accelerated pace of technological change, growing competitive pressures from the Pacific Rim countries that affect British Columbia directly, European economic integration and the NAFTA.
[5:30]
This labour legislation has not taken those into consideration. Some of our weaknesses and Canada's economic weaknesses lie in lagging productivity growth since the 1970s, high rates of increase in unit labour costs and a steady upward rise in the unemployment rate together with widening disparities: the poor record of investment in upgrading skills and technology, chronic government deficits and rapidly-growing public debt. Data indicates that from 1981 to 1986 the impact of trade and technological advances on Canadian employment was significant. It also exists today, but this bill doesn't seem to realize it. These are just a few things that we have to contemplate.
[ Page 3775 ]
Information from the Economic Council of Canada shows that as a result of trade and technological advances, manufacturing employment has substantially declined, as has employment in primary industries. In contrast, service-sector employment -- particularly in trade, finance and the insurance business services -- has increased dramatically. This labour bill is flawed and is not recognizing these factors.
One of the specific areas we have to address is the certification process. Union certification has gone from voting to a sign-up method. Voting is a democratic right. This has been stricken from the process. Now a union is certified once 55 percent of the members have signed a card. This removes the workers' rights to have a democratic vote by secret ballot. Employers lose the right to present their case to the employees prior to certification. Under the new labour code, once a union is certified, it will be extremely difficult to decertify. "Once certified, always certified" is basically what we're talking about.
In the area of replacement workers, if there are to be no replacement workers, an employer should not have the right to hire replacement workers. This is what we're saying. We talk about violence with replacement workers. I've already spoken to this. Enforce the laws we already have in this land. Banning replacement workers upsets the equality of bargaining power. In the event of a strike, a worker has a right to seek other employment, and an employer has traditionally had the right to continue operating. By removing the right to hire replacement workers, the purpose and counterbalance of collective bargaining is upset. An employer is left with only two options: accept the union's demands, or cease operations during a strike -- and maybe cease operations forever. We can ill afford this.
A provision in the old labour code prohibiting unions from negotiating secondary boycotts has been removed in the NDP's labour code. Thus the right to conduct secondary boycotts would appear to be enshrined in the fact that they are not mentioned in this new code. It appears employers will lose the freedom to choose their own suppliers. Instead, a union will have the power to dictate that a company's suppliers be unionized. This hardly seems fair for the company that is not unionized. You have effectively put it out of business.
Another area of this bill is succession rights. Under the new labour code, succession rights apply. Thus prospective purchasers must consider the labour obligations of a company they are planning to buy. This is likely to discourage investment and could have an impact on bankrupt companies that are offered for sale. An investor may be reluctant to enter into the buy-out plan of a company that has an existing collective agreement, and you can hardly blame the investor. After all, it is their money they're concerned about.
Double certification. The NDP's labour code will allow unions to certify a non-unionized company that is operated by a common employer. Another area is the labour ombudsman. The new labour code removes the provision for the establishment of a labour ombudsman. This code increases the power of the trade union movement and gives unions large rights. Should a union fail to ensure the rights of workers, employees should have the right to have their case heard without incurring the expense of hiring a private labour lawyer.
There's erosion of public rights. The new labour code removes the competitive market economy of its reference point for the interpretation and structure of labour legislation. This is a significant deletion done for political purposes only. However, it will change the whole way labour relations are conducted and how labour law is interpreted in British Columbia. It signals to investors that the government of British Columbia isn't prepared to allow outside influences to interrupt the free competitive market economy.
In the essential services area under the new labour bill the circumstances under which the minister can intervene in a labour dispute have been redefined. Under the old labour relations act the government could intervene in a dispute if it affected the health, safety, education or economic welfare of the province. Under the new code, educational concerns and economic welfare are no longer valid reasons for the government to become involved in a labour dispute.
I propose to you that if we don't intervene in an educational dispute, we are damaging the educational system for years to come, we are hindering students from graduating, which will damage our economy because they will not be in the workforce and qualified to be there. I suggest to you too that if you take into account the forestry strike, if that had been prolonged for six months, what would that have done to the British Columbia economy? How much damage would have been incurred? Again, I suggest to you that maybe those points should be rethought.
There are certain questions we need to ask, and when this government amends this bill after asking these questions I am sure they will think very carefully about it. One of the questions I would have to ask is: do the amendments address business concerns, such as retraining of the labour market? I don't think they do. It definitely doesn't when we talk about education. Does the government support investment in business which then supports the labour market? What role will unions play within the concerns of business? Will one-step certification deter potential investors? These are just a few of the questions that you need to ask yourself and answer when you vote for or against this bill.
How effective is a strong union if it forces a company into bankruptcy and then discourages investors from trying to resurrect it? Just another little question that we need to ask ourselves, and we're seeing examples of this as we speak.
The labour code introduced in this Legislature contains strong provisions regarding succession rights whereby a potential purchaser may be forced to honour an existing collective agreement. We cannot afford labour laws that give so much power to the union movement at the expense of the employer. This bill is faulty. Send it to a legislative committee. Let's talk about it. Let's let the people talk. Let's let the people decide.
D. Jarvis: I rise to give support to this amendment to refer this bill to the standing committee. I've been
[ Page 3776 ]
rather interested this afternoon, looking across the floor and listening to the various members talk. There's the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, whose occupation is economist, saying that we don't know what we're talking about. The thing about economists is: they say that if you line up ten economists, they'll give you ten different answers. Then there's the gentleman from Kamloops-North Thompson, who says that none of us has ever got our hands dirty. I was probably working and got my hands dirty before he ever started eating oatmeal.
I have great concerns over this labour bill, Bill 84, that has been presented. And that is why I'm supporting the amendment to refer it to the standing committee on labour. There are provisions in this bill that industry does not consider to be favourable or positive to them. There are many items that are so negative that they tilt the playing field in favour of the union team, yet at the same time there are aspects of this bill that do not protect the individual rights and freedoms of the working man. To this aspect, I note that the bill makes no provision for an ombudsman, whose purpose is to watch out for the cracks that open up, to assist those who may fall through them -- unfair practices, for example.
There is protection for big labour, and there is protection for big business -- all with their expensive lawyers. But where, as I have said before, is the protection for the rights and freedoms of the small or ordinary worker? This is one of the failings of this bill, and this is one of the reasons why I'm voting for this amendment.
This government fails to take into consideration that there are individual democratic rights for all workers and employers. This must be recognized. This is not being addressed by this legislation at all. Why this amendment? Because democracy has been left out of this bill. This is the word that's most often used by this government, and it has been compromised.
Another of the issues that concerns me is that of certification and decertification -- we've heard that mentioned many, many times in the last few days. Here we have a section of this bill that is, without question, non-democratic. The rules for decertification are not equal to those for certification, whereas those two items should have a parallel process. To join or not to join the union -- that is the question. We have a 55 percent requirement, with no vote, for being certified; whereas we have 45 percent for decertification, and you have to vote. Is this democratic or not? In my opinion, it is not the fundamental basis of a democracy. There is no parallel process.
This is hypocritical of this government. Again, democracy is being compromised. It's just another double-standard position of this government. I believe it is fundamental that the certification aspect has to be voted on, whether it is 45 percent or 55 percent. The percentage figure really is not important. The time period and the vote aspect are critical to democratic principles.
This section eliminates the secret ballot, and on one hand gives it back. Certification does not give you a secret ballot, but decertification does. It's an unprincipled elimination of the employee's right to determine his or her wishes, without any thought that they may have been intimidated into signing the certification card. Intimidation aside, how does an individual interchange with his fellow workers, to see if it is a good thing to be certified or not to be certified? How does he interchange with his fellow workers, with his family, or even his employer, without the opportunity to think his decision over, to make his personal decision?
[5:45]
Everyone in this assembly has had a situation where they have had buyer's remorse. This bill does not make any allowance for a basic democratic right. It doesn't give them the right to consult on their own or to make a decision that may affect their livelihood for years to come. That right is given in this bill when the member wishes to decertify; why not when he enters into certification? That is intimidation. I've seen it before; I've seen it in union halls and in meetings. I've seen them stand up and say: "Are you for or against the union? Those who are against, stand up." You've all seen that if you've been in a union hall. You know that happens all the time. I would have thought that we had progressed past this point in society and past this infringement of rights.
M. Farnworth: Which union hall were you in?
D. Jarvis: I'll talk to you about it later.
It's a bad and unfair section of the bill. It's intimidation to sign without a secret vote. That is why I support the amendment. If this government does not feel that it's intimidation or that it is not an undemocratic situation to avoid their responsibilities by not having a parallel process of certification and decertification, then why don't they put this bill into committee now and we'll discuss it? As my friend said earlier: "They're doing it in Ontario. Why can't they do it here?" They want to ramrod this through to look after their friends.
The potential impact on industry in this province is very questionable, especially with some of the sections of this bill that will have an effect on future business being attracted to this province. We are continually losing the ability to attract investment in British Columbia with continued regressive legislation of increased taxes and reviews and general discouragement that this province is a friendly province, one that will encourage and welcome development. This has to be sent to the labour committee to be straightened out. The climate of this province has been changing radically in these past years to a climate of despair inside our borders and a climate of hesitation to investment outside our borders.
This bill has to be reviewed, and hence this amendment now. Hundreds of millions of dollars have either fled this country or have refused to come into this province as a direct result of this government's legislation. Now we have further regressive roadblocks to investment through this labour bill and these changes. This bill contains clauses that pertain to succession rights, which make it mandatory for purchasers of a business or corporation to honour the existing collective agreements. If a company has gone into bankruptcy, all
[ Page 3777 ]
their excess baggage -- good or bad -- must be picked up and carried by the new purchaser. This means that the business proceeds shall continue as if nothing had happened prior to that. This could be the reason that the business failed in the first place. Now the next company has to come in and assume all these liabilities. If a collective agreement is in force, it continues to bind the purchaser. The standing committee would address that point, I believe.
In any bankruptcy of a business or a corporation, the purchasers are normally free of all previous contracts. Why not in this case? What is so different about a labour union contract from any other contract or obligation in a bankruptcy situation? The difference is that a union contract could possibly bind the prospective purchasers into a non-viable position. Let us look at what happened last week with the Westar mine situation, for example. Everyone was aware that through successive management and union agreement failures, the situation had reached untenable heights. No one in his right mind would want to take over what is generally thought to be a contract that would burden any cross.
Let's look at what happened to the one contract that was offering full employment to the southeast coal areas of this province. Thirteen hundred men were employed by the Balmer mine. Only one day after the government brought in this bill, the British Columbia company that was prepared to take on all these 1,300 men backed off, ostensibly due to two points: section 33, the decertification, and section 35, the successor rights. Here we have a qualified prospective buyer who was willing to come in and put up millions of dollars, but was reluctant to do so because they feared the labour legislation and its changes in Bill 84, which we are recommending be amended.
This labour legislation is too regressive. Through analysis of the draft Labour Relations Code, the company that was thinking of buying this company backed off. It was untenable for them. Not only that, future labour uncertainty at this mine made the potential of a bad deal even that much greater.
Now we are fortunate that another company has come in from out of the province. They have an interim agreement. It's not firm, but we hope it is. One other aspect is that they are only going to hire 750 of the 1,300 men, so there's a 42 percent loss of labour in that town due to this labour bill and its amendments.
I worry about what is going to happen to the resource industries and these one-resource towns throughout this province when the combination of taxes, labour legislation and the markets themselves create closures. Will this labour bill change or hinder the situation? I fear it's going to hinder. The new labour bill is already being felt, as I've just explained to you.
Here the government is trying to build a new, strong economy, and this bill has sections through it that negate every possibility of encouraging expansion or new industry to this province. Features of this bill will hurt the very workers that they are trying to help. This is not a good bill. It will be bad for the economy and bad for the workers of this province -- especially the workers.
At this point I would like to adjourn this debate to the next sitting of the House. I shall continue tomorrow.
Motion approved.
Hon. B. Barlee moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada