1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 6, No. 1
[ Page 3779 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
U. Dosanjh: I gives me great pleasure today to introduce two people to the House. The first is Mr. Jagit Singh Anand. He's a former editor of a newspaper from the Punjab and a former Member of Parliament from Punjab. He's visiting us, and he's a family friend. The second person is Charan Gill, well known to many members in this House. He's the chair of the B.C. Organization to Fight Racism, an activist in the community and a friend. I would ask the House to welcome them.
K. Jones: It is indeed a pleasure to have Charan Gill in our audience, a member of my constituency and a very honourable gentleman, who has served our community very well and was also a very solid candidate in the last election.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 84.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
On the amendment.
D. Jarvis: When I last met with you we were discussing the reasons for amending this bill or referring it to the standing committee on labour. It was my opinion at that time that this bill lacked certain fundamental features, such as democracy. Democracy has been left out of this bill -- a word that has been used so often by this government. In fact, it is even used in their party name. The formulators of this bill have compromised the word "democracy" by rushing the bill through in order to meet the agenda of their annual convention or that of the B.C. Federation of Labour.
In order to have an equitable bill, it's necessary to have a balance in legislation for both labour and management. There is an imbalance in the certification versus the decertification aspect of this bill. Accordingly, there's an imbalance with regard to succession rights, and there's even a question about whether the succession rights are valid when you consider that bankruptcy is a federal matter. When a company goes out of business and it's necessary for another company to take over, they have to take over all of their assets, including the succession rights of any collective agreement they may have. I am wondering if that is legal with regard to provincial versus federal jurisdiction.
As I look over this bill, many aspects come to mind that will be detrimental to the province as a whole. The essential services section, for example, now excludes education. We have a ministry that takes up approximately 30 percent of our provincial budget, and this bill excludes education from being an essential service. In the act it says:
"If the minister, on the minister's own initiative, considers that a dispute poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia, the minister may direct the board to designate as essential services those facilities, productions and services that the board considers necessary...."
This bill has to be referred to the standing committee on labour because there are many inequities in it. How would you interpret this to mean that education is excluded, if not as I mentioned above?
This is just the start of this government's payback to its supporters in the last election. The old statement keeps coming back -- "friends and insiders" -- for this is what the Minister of Labour said in the House last Wednesday when he was heard to say: "We have to pay off our debt some way." That is an awful thought to consider.
I fear this is just the start of a renewed unionization of the province, at a time when labour peace has been quite evident prior to this government's election. The economy cannot take too much intrusion at this time. This is a country where there is unemployment in excess of 11 percent, and most of our businesses -- our resource industries, anyway -- are either bleeding to death or close to bankruptcy. We must have labour peace, and I do not feel that this bill will bring this situation closer to peace.
We must keep a competitive edge, and we must have investment from outside. Signals are being sent out as a result of this proposed legislation that are not good signals. It is pro-union legislation that makes investors become fearful or leery. It's not balanced legislation, and it's not good for the workers themselves. If investors to our province are leery, then either they don't invest or they pull out, and our unemployment rate will continue to rise. This is what is happening already, and this bill will do nothing but exacerbate the situation and create further unemployment in this province.
Stability and promise, we are told, will come from this new bill, as it was created by consultation and from submissions across the province. I believe this is another misconception spun by this government and its interest groups. The real issue of unionization of this entire province is the ease in pain which they are trying to say will occur as a result of this bill. Stability has been the issue in these past years, with a trend towards a balance of union and non-union workforces. There has been labour stability in the province. It has fortunately resulted in relative peace between industry and labour, and this has been good over the past years. Economic survival is the real situation that faces us. Compared to the rest of Canada, we're doing fairly well. That is why we need peace and order in this province, and I do not believe that this bill will contribute to that situation.
I'm supporting the amendment because I'm afraid the bill will only cause hardship to small businesses and to the young workers and part-time students out there who are already having difficulty getting permanent work. These are the people who are going to be losers, not big labour and big business. This bill does not represent the average person in this province. There is no economic growth as a result of this legislation, and
[ Page 3780 ]
there is no balance. B.C.'s regressive labour bills and pre-profit taxes will just exacerbate the effects on the future of investment in B.C. It is a step backwards.
[10:15]
I can see confrontations coming between management and labour, because it is survivorship of business. This government is not preparing for the changes that are coming. I look around in this assembly, and I can see why this bill is not a democratic bill. I see why it is compromised, why the word "democracy" is compromised. The bill is ill prepared. I look around and see 90 percent of the cabinet here who helped formulate this bill. They've never hired anyone; they've never fired anyone; they've never run a business on their own. I have myself. A few of them have. I believe that they have a difficult time in reading a balance sheet or a profit-and-loss statement. I doubt if they've ever written an employee's cheque. They don't even know how to run a business. Why should they be in the position of being able...?
The Speaker: Order, order. The hon. member knows full well that debate should be on the motion before us. I'm sure he wasn't meaning to direct personal comments to any member of this House.
D. Jarvis: In any event, hon. Speaker, this bill is only good for the big labour bosses. It's written for the labour bosses, not for the worker. This is why I'm against this bill, and I encourage support of this amendment to send this bill for further consideration to the Select Standing Committee on Labour.
H. De Jong: I rise this morning to speak in support of this amendment, just as I did on the hoist motion. Debating the value of this bill and the pros and cons of why it should or should not go forward is all, of course, part of the political process taking place in this Legislature. The democratic process, as we call it, has to take its course. However, the question we must ask ourselves -- and the government, in particular, must ask itself -- is: does this democratic process end in this Legislature?
I'm not suggesting that every bill in this House should go to a referendum, nor am I going to suggest that this bill go to referendum. After all, this is why people elect a government and members of the opposition. However, Bill 84 is not just like any other bill that may have some economic effects on some people and perhaps not all British Columbians. The effects of this bill -- a new labour code, as it is called -- are much broader. It will affect individual families and communities. In fact, the effects will be felt by every British Columbian.
I believe that this government, by not supporting any public input into this bill at this stage, is minimizing the effects that this labour bill will have on British Columbians. By rejecting this reasoned amendment, the government is rejecting the public's view on the exclusion of education from essential services. By rejecting this reasoned amendment, this government is rejecting the views of the small non-union contractor, often subjected to some services provided by much larger, unionized companies, and often at a great loss of money and time due to delays of whatever nature.
This government is rejecting the workers' right to a supervised strike vote. By not supporting this reasoned amendment, this government is rejecting fair and due process, particularly for new immigrant workers. The proposed procedures are for a fair process at the time of certification and during the time leading up to certification, especially for new immigrant workers who do not fully understand what may be taking place.
This government rejects the freedom of the individual worker in terms of contributing to union dues or not for religious reasons. Surely this government should recognize freedom of religious choice in this matter. As the Minister of Labour has stated in the House that this is a reward or political payoff, perhaps the choice should also be on the basis of political attachment. This is all being denied. In fact, as I read this bill, anyone who objects to contributing to a secular union for religion reasons -- a good worker who in all good conscience, for whatever reasons, cannot support the way these funds are being used or distributed -- may well find himself not able to join any union.
How many young, well-trained and well-educated workers, entering the workforce or having worked for some time, are fully suited for a promotion because of their ability to perform? The employer wants the best person to take that new position and the fully qualified person seeks that position, but the union demands seniority. How do such situations provide for the employer to compete in this competitive world? All of these measures in this bill are a worry and a concern for employers and employees.
What is wrong with an open consultation process on these and other important issues? I have not heard anyone on the government side say what is wrong with a public process. The backbenchers on the government side of the House should not feel intimidated simply because they want to display loyalty to the government.
The backbenchers, like the opposition, have undoubtedly received countless letters from small business and individual people -- labourers as well as contractors -- and surely they must have a conscience for the local people. If the backbenchers have not received those letters, I'm sure the Minister of Labour and the Premier have received them, and it would only be fair to advise the backbenchers of the concern that's out there. If they are honest, I believe they would admit that they have and that they will provide further consultation. If not, we will have continued fear among the small business people in particular in this province.
I can appreciate the loyalty of the backbenchers which they are displaying in this House. But what's more important, loyalty to a government or a political party or loyalty to your own constituents? That's the question we must ask ourselves. After all, it's not the government that has built this province or this country; it's the people who have built this province. Let's take another look and find out what they really feel about this bill, which is going to affect every British Columbian.
People are worried, concerned and, yes, filled with fear. We have just experienced, during the Charlotte-
[ Page 3781 ]
town accord process, what fear will do to the public -- and I don't want to repeat that. We all know what happened. The question is: does this government want to leave this kind of fear with the business community of this province and, in particular, with small business? Thousands of workers depend on business -- not just to survive but to flourish -- and everyone benefits.
In conclusion, we must recognize -- it's been said by members of the government when they were in opposition, and we don't disagree with the statement -- that small business is the motor of British Columbia's economy. It helps everyone. So why not give small business a voice in this process, for the good of all British Columbians?
V. Anderson: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment, hopefully to have this discussion referred to a legislative committee in order that it might have further consideration and review by all of the people in the province.
This is a very important piece of legislation. I think there is a lot of agreement out there that changes need to be made in the present labour legislation. Today, though, I would like to concentrate particularly on one piece of the amendment that is envisioned by the act being put forward now: that it removes the previous opportunity that was in the act -- and has been there since 1973 -- for a labour ombudsman. To me, this is a very important safeguard that needs to be put into place. I realize that although it was in the act from 1973 to the present, it had not been put into operation. I would question both the last government and the government before that, from 1973 to the present, as to why they did not put the labour ombudsman into operation. In this province particularly, the role of the ombudsman, that concept, has gained a great deal of credibility. It has been important and life saving for many persons -- men, women and children -- because it gives an individual the opportunity to have someone speak and act on their behalf against whatever power bloc may be working against them at that particular moment. Power blocs that may be working against an individual may not be doing it consciously; it may be something that happens by neglect and oversight. But it would be neglect, oversight and, indeed, contrary to my understanding of what the NDP has maintained in their own presentations, not to have that ombudsman portion of the act included in this present bill. I hope that they will reconsider and rethink this amendment to include that opportunity in this act, not only in the act itself but in the regulations, so that it becomes a working function of labour relations activities in this province.
If we return to Recommendations for Labour Law Reform, we find a comment on the ombudsman. I think it's very important to read this particular part of that report, because it bears directly on what we are considering. Under section 10 of that report it says:
"Since 1973 and the enactment of the Labour Code an unproclaimed part of our labour legislation has provided for the appointment of a labour ombudsman. Under the terms of the unproclaimed legislation the labour ombudsman has the power to investigate and make recommendations concerning decisions or policies made by any of the host of players involved in labour relations in the province."
I repeat that particular section: "...has the power to investigate and make recommendations concerning decisions or policies made by any of the host of players involved in labour relations in the province." The "host of players" include not only employers and unions but the government itself and its many committees, and even the Labour Relations Board, its activities and committees. Individuals are impacted by the actions of employers and unions, but they are probably even more impacted by the actions of the Labour Relations Board itself and its commissions, committees and employees.
[10:30]
Unfortunately, there is no appeal against most of the decisions that will impact directly on their lives, their livelihood and their families. This is true whether they be union or non-union workers within the province. This is true whether they are a part of "a unionized unit" or "a non-unionized unit" within the province. The impact on the workers of this province is very direct and immediate. There is no provision for the individual concerns of these workers and their families to be reviewed and examined when something has gone wrong with the system.
The report then goes on:
"Those recommendations which we received to recommend proclamation of the labour ombudsman provisions were coupled with proposals that the labour ombudsman be provided with an overriding jurisdiction to deal with complaints of 'unfair representation' by trade unions or to review internal union discipline. We see no advantage in adding yet another layer of recommendations or decision-making in this area. In our view it is more appropriate to streamline existing provisions in the act. Our recommendations do this. Accordingly, we recommend that the unproclaimed sections dealing with the labour ombudsman be repealed."
I beg to differ with the Recommendations for Labour Law Reform. I beg to differ with the recommendations, in that these should not be left out of the act. The labour ombudsman legislation should remain part of the act and, indeed, be reviewed and strengthened. Even if it is contained exactly as it is, it will contribute immensely to the well-being of those who are part of the community of workers within our province.
I would read from the labour relations act as it now exists -- that portion in part 8 about the labour ombudsman -- again to emphasize three particular areas under that act in which the ombudsman would have authority to operate: "The Labour Ombudsman has the power to investigate any decision or recommendation made, or act done or omitted, relating to a matter of administration, including the merits of a policy, and affecting any person...." It goes on to suggest the three groups that may undertake activities that a person needs protection from. One is "any board, commission, council or other tribunal under this act, or any other act administered by the minister, or any branch or agency of the Ministry of Labour, or any officer, employee or member thereof in the exercise of a power or function conferred on him by any act or regulation...."
[ Page 3782 ]
That particular protection, which is very fundamental, very important and very much needed, is missing from this new labour legislation. The effect of leaving this out of the legislation is that it places absolute power in the hands of the government and the labour board, and there is no appeal or reconsideration of any mistake, warranted or unwarranted, that that body might have made. We know enough of our history to realize that these mistakes are made and that we do need to have protection.
As well as the protection in that area, there is the protection which is clearly stated against: "...a trade union or association of trade unions, or any employees' organization or association, or any officer, employee or member thereof in the exercise of a power or function conferred on him by that organization or association...." There is a protection here, not only from unions per se, for a mistake that they might make, but from any employees' association or organization which may work improperly to the disadvantage of a particular individual. That individual protection is very important. This act does not provide the comprehensive protection which very much needs to be there.
The other area of protection is against: "...an employer, employers' organization or association, or any officer or any member thereof in the exercise of a power or function conferred on him by that organization or association." So it does make not only the employers' organizations but also the individuals within those organizations responsible for the acts they undertake and gives protection to the individual worker -- union or non-union -- who is a part of the activities in which that employers' group is engaged.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
This protection is very important and very fundamental. We need to ensure that that protection is there. I would recommend to the government that they take steps to reinstitute an opportunity for the labour ombudsman in this new code, because this protection is not there. I am sure that the NDP, with all their promises and their support of the ombudsman concept, will not wish to go to the public without this in place.
The replacement for this -- a very weak replacement -- is just in section 13. It allows a written complaint to the board. But in complaining to the board about these actions, there's no opportunity within the act to complain to the board about its actions or actions of the minister that may directly affect them. It has narrowed the opportunity of workers to get the credibility and protection that they need. They have narrowed it down almost to the point where it no longer exists. It's the very denial of opportunity that is there before us.
Perhaps we need to be reminded of what the ombudsman concept is about. For this I return to the 1991 annual report of the ombudsman, subtitled "Fairness for All in British Columbia." This labour code does not provide fairness for all, which we are proud of in B.C. Quoting briefly from that document, it describes the institution and the reality of the ombudsman's position as part of developing understanding in democracy worldwide. "The reality of modern administrative bureaucracy and its massive impact on individuals transcends all forms of government." There is an acknowledgment here that even in our democratic government the bureaucracy gets out of hand, and it is individuals who are caught in the mesh of that bureaucracy. Without someone -- an ombudsman -- to clear the way and bring forth the communication that is needed, there is no way these needs can be met.
One of the statements about the ombudsman is that ombudsman offices have "taken firm hold as an instrument of democratic accountability between the individual and the administrative state." There is that need to have a body and a set of persons who are trained and have the attitude and ability to cut through the red tape. This act increases the red tape; it does not provide a means to cut through it. To me, that is one of the greatest weaknesses of this particular act and why it should go back and be reviewed by a legislative committee. We need to hear from people about their opportunities to express their individual rights. We need to be aware that the decisions of government affect people. The decisions that we jointly make here affect them directly, and they need protection not only in the interpretation but also in the implementation of those decisions. No matter how wise we may think we are, there will be opportunities to misuse them, and there will be misunderstandings that will work against individuals. There needs to be a way for the rights of those individuals to be protected. The rights of individuals are very important. The principle outlined in the ombudsman's report, which underscores all of their activities, is that of administrative fairness to individual citizens. It's the individual fairness to individual citizens that is missing in this act when it talks about the general groupings of workers and employers. We need to speak for the individual.
One of the comments in the ombudsman's report is that the majority of the cases they have to deal with have a fundamental breakdown of communication as an essential element within them. That breakdown of communication will continue to happen in the future, even as it has happened in the past. It's going to happen within unions and employers' groups, and it's certainly going to happen within the government and its administrative activities on behalf of employers and of workers. Without the ombudsman to speak on behalf of the workers and to define and sort through that communication breakdown, the workers of the province are not only going to continue to suffer, but suffer even more. The opportunities that were available to them are taken away from them again.
If we look at the report of the ombudsman's office, which has not had jurisdiction in this area, we discover that again and again complaints and requests came to them which they were not able to deal with, and which could have been dealt with if the ombudsman section of the act had been proclaimed. These could be dealt with in the future if the ombudsman section were put back into the act and put into force. Some have said that you create additional bureaucracy by putting this section back in. Perhaps you do. But if it meets the needs of the people, then it's worth doing. On the other hand, it might be so written that the ombudsman's opportuni-
[ Page 3783 ]
ties are there. Instead of creating a new ombudsman position within the labour code, the labour code could recognize the ombudsman we already have in place, who could be given the power and authority to undertake the functions necessary to deal with misuse of the labour code. There are a variety of ways this might be responded to. But it is important that it be put forward, that it be addressed and that action be taken.
[10:45]
In my opinion, we in the Legislative Assembly -- whether it's the government, the opposition or the third party -- would be unfair if we did not insist upon an ombudsman as part of the labour code. The ombudsman and that office, particularly in B.C., have gained great credibility over the last number of years for their fairness, wisdom and understanding and for their ability to deal with not only the legal aspects but also, more importantly, the personal aspects, the individual needs and opportunities, of people in the community.
I would urge the government to reconsider and again include a section on a labour ombudsman in this bill. I would urge them to do this by sending it to a legislative committee, in order that the details of this addition might be properly worked out and reinserted, not only from the point of view of being there as a showpiece, which indeed it would be and has been in the past, but also because it would be put into action. If I was trying to knock down the present government, the simplest way to do it would be to ask them not to include the ombudsman, and then they would be seen for the failure of their ways. If they have the wisdom and humility to reconsider putting the ombudsman section back into the bill, they will be seen for their wisdom, and they will deserve the credit for it.
We must think about fairness to individuals within this province and not get caught up in the rhetoric of employers and employees, union and non-union. We must deal with the individual men and women who are the workers, and their families and children who depend upon them, because the stability of our community depends upon the individual needs of people being understood, met and responded to.
When we go back -- I trust -- into a legislative committee to review this document, I would encourage the government to consider reintroducing the ombudsman's position within this labour bill. If they want to make changes, we'd be delighted to discuss changes with them that might be made to make it more effective. In the development of our labour legislation in British Columbia, which deals in one way or another with every working person, whether or not they are part of a union or have ever considered being part of a union, -- it is important and fundamental that they have the opportunity to have this protection.
Hon. Speaker, we speak for freedom within our country. We speak for the freedom of people to make up their own minds and to be protected in the decisions that they make. That's one of the rights which is very aptly portrayed in our freedom and opportunity to vote in the decisions that affect us. I would also mention that regarding the part of the bill that does not require a vote when 55 percent have registered their desire for a union, that vote should be reintroduced into this labour bill, because it is fundamental. We have heard the argument that if the vote is offered, it leaves room for intimidation. If the vote is not offered, it leaves even greater room for intimidation of people in the workplace. There is nothing so free in our democratic society as the power to go into a polling booth and, by yourself, with no one looking over your shoulder, mark your ballot and say specifically what you wish to do. That is the greatest way to overcome intimidation from any source whatsoever that may be put upon a person.
As part of that understanding I would reiterate our need to again work towards adequate communication, adequate understanding and adequate interpretation. And I would say that that does not come from within the system of the unions; it does not come from within the system of the working employer; and it does not come from within the system of government. It takes someone who has the power and the neutrality -- which the ombudsman does have -- to sit outside the system, to look at the implications of what has happened to a person and that person's family, and to make a just, reasonable and compassionate decision which is of benefit to everyone. The decision of the ombudsman, when made in that fashion, is of benefit to the government and to the labour board; it is of benefit to the employer; and it is of benefit to the union. In my opinion, that opportunity must be given to the people of British Columbia. That opportunity must be reintroduced into this labour bill, so that we do have the principle and the fact of an ombudsman as part of this undertaking. It would be a matter of shame and disgrace in this province -- as well as in others, but particularly in this one, where the office of ombudsman has gained such credibility and such respect -- to say that as a government and as a Legislature, we're not willing to have that within the labour bill itself, where it is, above everything else, most needed and most required.
Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to speak in favour of referring this bill to a legislative committee for further study, particularly on the basis that the ombudsman might be reintroduced into this bill, so that that opportunity and privilege and responsibility might be there for every citizen of British Columbia.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I am indeed pleased to be able to join in this debate on a modern labour code for British Columbia. This new code will bring stability and security to British Columbia's workplaces and the B.C. economy.
It is needed for a number of reasons: first of all, to replace Bill 19. Bill 19 created an atmosphere of conflict and confrontation in the workplace, and instability in our economy; it was drafted in secret by Bill Vander Zalm and David Poole; and it was a radical right-wing reversal of the traditional rights of working people. As a matter of fact, even the Deputy Minister of Labour of the day, Graham Leslie, found it repulsive, and he resigned in disgust. About Bill 19 he says: "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." Also, Bill 19 was based
[ Page 3784 ]
on the wrong premise that collective bargaining has no place in a competitive market economy.
Clearly it was time for a new approach. This government believed that the new labour code should be done in the open, rather than drafted in secret. That is why, on the advice of employers, workers and labour law experts, last February we embarked as a government on an open process with a balanced panel of special advisers who visited 11 B.C. cities, received 296 written submissions and heard publicly from 203 individuals representing trade unions, employers and others.
When that panel reported to me in June that they needed more time, you'll recall, hon. Speaker, that I said: "Take more time. Do it right. If there are people who need to be consulted, and more work needs to be done to build a consensus labour code, then take that time." That three months did take place, and we have before us the new labour code, Bill 84.
The labour panel, the Labour minister, the deputy minister and others have gone through a careful process of listening to British Columbians. As a result of all that, the panel has done their job. The panel consisted of Tom Roper representing management, John Baigent representing labour, and Vince Ready, who has a tremendous background and is one of the most -- if not the most -- respected labour mediation arbitrators in this province and is certainly utilized across this country of ours.
With careful deliberation and full consultation with British Columbians, this panel was able to reach 98 percent unanimous consensus on what should be in a new, modern labour code. They recommended more than 100 changes. If the members opposite, rather than wanting to delay bringing about a modern labour code, were to actually look at the labour code, they would see that 98 percent of the recommendations were by unanimous consent. On top of that, 86 out of the 159 sections in the new labour code are carried over from the old Industrial Relations Act. So when you combine the amount of consensus that was reached unanimously and the carryover of some of the provisions in the Industrial Relations Act, you see before you a code that has as close to a unanimous consensus as you can reach. Rather than belabour it and debate it even more, the opposition should realize that this consultative, open and fair approach has led to a new labour code that is based on a modern approach to our economy.
[11:00]
They should accept those areas where British Columbians have already reached unanimous agreement, and instead of more discussion and more delay, I think that they should focus on the areas where there appears to be disagreement or some area for debate. Those areas are very straightforward. I can tell you that after incorporating into this code, as the government said it would, those areas where unanimous agreement was reached by the expert panel and after incorporating, as I described, all the provisions which are already in the Industrial Relations Act, the government took more time to consult with small business and the people who had further concerns about the code. Even after the process that I just outlined -- again, it was done quite differently than Bill 19 -- and after the consultative work provided more time for people to consider a modern labour code, as a government we were prepared to look again at the four areas where the panel could not reach unanimous agreement. Even there, this government was committed to a balanced and fair approach. I'm sure that any fair-minded British Columbian would see that we did obtain what I said all along we needed to obtain: a fair labour code with a level playing field.
That labour code incorporates listening to business and labour -- on the business side listening to small business, in particular, and their concerns about sectoral bargaining and secondary picketing. Those concerns were not only listened to, they were incorporated in this new, modern, balanced labour code.
The two areas that labour had concerns about.... We've heard complaints about the certification procedures being unfair and undemocratic. The certification procedures are in existence in eight provinces. They were in existence for 40 years in this province until they were removed in that retrograde bill and by previous changes to the Labour Code brought in by previous governments. We are returning to good, sound labour law that is practised in just about every other jurisdiction in this country in terms of certification. That is incorporated into the new Bill 84 labour code.
The other area that was of concern to many British Columbians was the issue of replacement workers. Again, the government said that it was important to bring about stability to cut down on the violence that we have found, particularly under the federal Labour Code, and to deal with the replacement worker issue in a fair and balanced way. We have done just that. I don't think that British Columbians want to see a repeat of the violence on the Post Office picket lines or lockouts. I don't think we want to see a repeat of the terrible tragedy that happened in Yellowknife, which split that community, took human lives and destroyed property -- the terrible tearing apart of that community that the provision for replacement workers allows. That is not the kind of British Columbia that most British Columbians want to see brought about, except the people in the opposition who want to take the risk of violence with a retrograde law on strikebreakers, on replacement workers. We're not prepared to take that risk with the B.C. economy, and therefore we were prepared to make sure that we had a provision in the new labour code that would bring stability and a better sense of security in strikes or lockouts. We have brought in a provision that I think is going to bring about more peace and stability, rather than the violence and intimidation that the opposition seems to want to build into a labour code. That's retrograde thinking on the part of the opposition.
I heard one of the speakers in the opposition talking about freedom of individuals. That has been an important consideration in this labour code. We have made sure, in the replacement worker provision, that workers have the right to cross their own picket line, realize the consequences.... But that is an individual right that the worker has to exercise, because of economic hardship or for whatever reason he or she may choose. That is built into this provision.
[ Page 3785 ]
We have also respected religious beliefs. Individuals who have religious beliefs that would prohibit them from belonging to a trade union don't have to join. That was a request, a plea, a recommendation from British Columbians who hold religious beliefs very strongly. Those beliefs have been respected in this new labour code.
So you can see that the need to replace Bill 19, and the totally fair and open and balanced process that this government pursued, has led to a bill before the Legislature now that does not require a hoist or further delay, study and uncertainty. That is why the government is prepared to govern and get on with this bill. The opposition can delay and filibuster instead of getting at the substance that I've talked about and that should be before us. We can get at the substance of where there is genuine disagreement, rather than dancing around this fair and just labour code that should be before us for debate, but which is being delayed and pushed off because the opposition doesn't want to deal with the substantive issues.
One of the other reasons the government is going to proceed with this bill -- no matter how long the opposition wants to delay getting down to the substantive issues -- is that the new, modern, and fair and balanced approach is going to lead to far better labour-management relations, relations that are based on mutual respect rather than fear, distrust and bitterness. It's going to create fairness and balance where there was neither before under Bill 19. It recognizes that labour and management communities must cooperate, must be partners if B.C. is going to prosper in the world economy. The labour code is an important building block that will provide one of the foundations on which to build a strong and prosperous B.C. economy.
It became very clear that British Columbians want to proceed in a new direction. They don't want to delay; they don't want to just circle around the changes that are required with this labour legislation. They want to get on with building a more prosperous and cooperative economy, so we can compete in the global economy. They don't want to sit here and listen to the opposition just opposing for the sake of opposing.
What we are going to be building on is the advice and the strongly held feelings expressed at the economic summit, which I called together last June, of business, labour, government and educational leaders in this province. This proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that leaders in this province have a willingness to discuss as partners the economic challenges that we face. Why this government is voting against the motion for referral to a committee for further study, as we did against the hoist motion, is that we have to get on with the changes required for British Columbia to be prosperous.
I would like to read from the proceedings of the Premier's Summit on Trade and Economic Opportunity, because it very graphically says that we have to make changes in labour legislation as well as in other areas. The four major challenge areas that were identified by the 90 leaders that attended this summit are, first of all: "making changes in both economic and political culture" -- to move from a political-economic culture of confrontation and distrust to one of cooperation and trust. Second: "building new teams and partnerships. Third: "improving education and training." And fourth: "restructuring the B.C. economy to achieve greater economic diversity." That was the unanimous consensus of the head of the Business Council of B.C., the head of the Vancouver Board of Trade, the head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and of many leaders from forestry and mining -- the business leaders of this province. It's the same opinion that we heard from the labour leaders of this province. It's the same opinion that we heard from the presidents of universities and colleges. It's the same that we heard from not only members of this government but also members of the opposition, who keep changing their mind. That is not only what the leadership in British Columbia wants out of this labour code, but also what the people of British Columbia want.
To that end, the summit leadership outlined a number of specific changes that are needed to break "the historic patterns of attitudes and responses," to use their own words, in terms of the economic and political culture changes that are required, partnership-building, education and training, economic restructuring and diversity in the B.C. economy. Under partnership-building, the leadership in this province said, on page 14 of the summary of the proceedings: "Labour legislation must be viewed as a fundamental element of partnership." We see it here in Bill 84. What the people of this province and the leadership of this province want is contained in this consensus-driven labour code.
I committed myself to taking these main points that arose from the summit to my cabinet for careful consideration in our planning. In my covering letter I said that a number of the suggestions made were of particular interest to my government, and that we intended to respond with specific initiatives in the future. We have. We are bringing the partners together in a number of ways -- in forestry, in mining, and in other sectors.
We have established a new investment advocate, whose role is to give one-stop shopping and the green light to investments and projects that are going to diversify and benefit British Columbians. We have rearranged the relationship between the Economic Development ministry and the B.C. Trade Development Corporation so they can both focus on regional economic development.
D. Symons: On a point of order, I believe we are discussing an amendment that would refer this bill to a committee of the House. The Premier seems to be off on a tangent, speaking about many initiatives of the government that are not really related to the motion before this House. I would ask him to keep to the topic.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Your point of order is questionable in light of the pattern of debate that we've been holding for some time now. The Premier is in fact addressing the amendment. I would ask the Premier to please continue his speech.
[11:15]
[ Page 3786 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: It's the opposition that doesn't want to address the issues before British Columbians, and those are jobs, economic development and getting on with the improvement of this province. They're the ones who want to sit in here and catcall and delay and debate instead of getting on with economic development. This is one of the important building blocks in the new political-economic culture that British Columbians want to create.
As the leadership in this province recommended, we are making concrete changes to make sure that we can move towards this more cooperative political and economic culture by building partnerships and diversifying our economy. We will be taking initiatives in the near future on education and training to make sure that our citizens have the training and skills that they require to be competitive in our partnership in the tough global economy that we find ourselves in. We are continuing the dialogue with many people in this province. Part of that dialogue is about building fairness and balance. The new labour code aids British Columbians in having that solid foundation on which to build the new economy that we all want to see.
In conclusion, the new labour code makes sure that fairness and balance is restored and that there is stability and security in our communities and our regions. These are the foundations for building our economy.
R. Kasper: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Kasper: I would like to introduce a class from Millstream Elementary School in my riding. Accompanying the class is Mr. Cullen and a number of adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
L. Reid: I am pleased today to respond to the discussion on Bill 84, the new labour code for British Columbia, because I have never seen a finer example of sugar-coating in this province. We have a Premier who is acting as Santa Claus. Frankly, the Liberal opposition is not prepared to give this bill as a Christmas present to British Columbians. We do not believe it would be in this province's best interests.
The Premier spoke about consultation and a modern labour bill, yet he cited 159 sections from the previous labour code that are being carried forward. I have a huge dilemma with that. How can you cite something as being modern and carry forward 159 very outdated sections -- sections that will not add anything in any regard to the labour climate in this province.
We have not had a good history of labour peace. We have not done a lot of work in terms of ensuring that British Columbia has a strong economic climate. The official opposition has huge concerns that this government has not come forward with a strong economic strategy -- a strong sense of putting jobs in place for British Columbians. This particular piece of legislation is not reassuring us. It's not easing our fears, and frankly, it's not easing the fears of the majority of British Columbians.
We strongly believe that British Columbians are looking for some evidence of a strong dispute resolution mechanism in this legislation. We have not found it. We can certainly cite in some detail the discussions that have gone on in this House since this bill was introduced on October 27, and there are some issues that the Premier spoke of in his remarks that continue to unsettle the official opposition, because we do not believe that the issues have been resolved satisfactorily. We're very concerned that a number of issues continue to bring forward the same old rhetoric.
They continue to suggest that this government is prepared to consult. We know that's not true. I stand before you today as the Health critic in this province, and I can cite Bill 13, Bill 14 and Bill 71, in extreme detail. Those are examples where this government chose not to consult. We had the Minister of Government Services suggest two days ago that we must honour contracts in this province. What sheer and utter hypocrisy, for members of this House, when they can deem a previous contract in this province not to have existed! Bill 71, Bill 14, Bill 13 -- none of those pieces of legislation received any consultation in this House. So to somehow suggest today that your Bill 84 received consultation, and that previous pieces of legislation in this House have received consultation, is completely untrue.
We must ensure that there is some consistency of practice. We are parliamentarians in this House. We are not being evidenced today that the same process that you want to put in place for Bill 84 will in fact be put in place for any other piece of legislation. I would submit that the labour legislation in this province is receiving more consideration by this House and by this NDP government than previous pieces of legislation, and that is simply unfair to British Columbians. It somehow suggests that if it meets with the government's agenda it will be treated fairly in debate in this Legislature. If it does not, it will somehow be deemed never to have existed.
I take extreme issue with that, hon. Speaker, and because of that I will be speaking very strongly today in terms of moving Bill 84 to the Select Standing Committee on Labour and, hopefully, to an all-party committee.
I for one am not comfortable that the three-person panel of special advisers reached unanimous consent on 98 percent of the provisions in the new code. That three-person panel was not representing the 52 percent of the population in this province which happens to be women. As I stated on Friday, 52 percent of the population is not an interest group in this province. If you are going to revamp an entire labour code in British Columbia without involving women in the process, I can simply stand here today and tell you that I do not accept the government's stated commitment that they are favouring women as business women or women as workers in this province, because it's not reflected in their actions. Talk is cheap, but we need some time to make sure the actions are in place.
The Premier spoke about the need for communication in this House. What an interesting concept! This is
[ Page 3787 ]
where people should be communicating. This is the legislative chamber in the province of British Columbia, and we need to be effective communicators. I thought that was a given; I didn't believe we should be striving for that, as we are in the eyes of the Premier.
The Premier suggested they have been listening to labour and listening to business. Listening is fine, but who are they acting for? That ismy question, and that is the question that I believe a number of British Columbians have come forward with and will continue to come forward with over the number of days that we continue to debate this piece of legislation in this House.
A number of issues have not been addressed; a number of issues need to be addressed. The Premier cited the example in Yellowknife. He said this was an issue, and that Bill 84 will take a look at that issue. This legislation is not a solution to the situation in Yellowknife; this bill is not a solution to the labour unrest in this province.
The Premier spoke about a partnership model for all British Columbians. Again, who is in partnership with whom in this province? We do not believe that this legislation is acting in the best interests of all British Columbians. That is a concern for us. For the Premier to suggest that somehow it's a partnership and we're all on the same team is not reflected in Bill 84.
Again, the motion before us is to have Bill 84 considered by a select standing committee. Certainly I would support that motion, because I believe we need to take this legislation forward into some kind of useful public forum. A three-person panel, with however many subcommittees, does not meet the needs of British Columbians. People need to know more about this legislation.
The theme that I would like to carry forward in today's discussion, and the theme for the official opposition, is that we need to look at labour peace. We need to ensure that this piece of legislation somehow improves the labour difficulties that we've had in this province over the last number of years. I'm not convinced that this piece of legislation is going to assist in formulating some kind of reasonable response to labour. In fact, I was saddened to realize that this piece of legislation no longer calls for an economic advantage for the province of British Columbia. It no longer suggests that that should be the goal of labour legislation.
Hon. Speaker, the goal of labour legislation should be to have people working and to create some kind of economic stability in this province. If you take that out of the legislation, you have contributed nothing to the overall understanding of how this province works and how it is going to downsize its debt and its deficit. We simply do not have a long-range goal for labour peace in this province. That is a huge concern of the official opposition. We would very much like to see this particular piece of legislation state candidly that its goal is to ensure that there is labour peace and that there is stability in the economic market in this province, and to state that creating jobs is the number one goal.
Over the months of this past year, you would have heard the official opposition speak very strongly about an economic strategy for this province. We, as have British Columbians, have been looking to this government for an economic strategy for the past year. We are not finding it from our colleagues across the floor. We're not convinced that an economic strategy is something that (1) they necessarily understand or that (2) they necessarily have the skills to put in place. I think that in the first year in office they should have mandated some kind of labour strategy, some kind of job-creation strategy, for this province. The majority of folks who do business in British Columbia are looking for that, and frankly, I believe that they deserve to find it.
Yesterday the member for Okanagan-Penticton talked about honouring contracts. Again, we have tremendous hypocrisy in this House. We have members in the NDP suggesting that a contract is something that needs to be honoured. I spoke earlier in this chamber about business people who come to British Columbia to invest their dollars. We have a lot of Asia Pacific development and investment in my riding and in this province. We have individuals who come to the province and are used to doing business on a handshake and on giving their word. That is a huge dilemma when we are discussing a labour bill. We've had previous history in this province when duly negotiated and signed contracts were not honoured. The kind of message that's going back to the investment community in other parts of this planet is not the message we want to bring forward to British Columbia.
Without a solid labour and job-creation strategy and with a very questionable investment strategy, British Columbia will not continue to have some kind of economic stability. It will not welcome people who wish to invest their dollars and bring their expertise to this province, because it will continue to be a very unsettled place to do business. That is my concern. My belief is that Bill 84 in its present form does not add anything to the enterprise. It does not allow people to make decisions that would encourage them to come and do business in the province of British Columbia. We're talking about people bringing tremendous dollars and job-creation strategies to this province. We are simply saying that Bill 84 is what we have to offer you. The official opposition is not happy with how helpful that will be to the overall labour strategy in this province.
I want to touch on a number of individuals in my riding who are in small business. The Coalition of B.C. Businesses talks about major changes, and they're writing to their membership. "Major changes will soon be made to B.C.'s labour relations law. Small and medium-sized businesses throughout B.C. will be seriously affected." My riding of Richmond East is home to many small businesses.
[11:30]
The Liberal opposition has always stood for giving people a hand up and assisting them in labour development strategy. We want people to continue to work in small business in this province. We want to ensure that we're not putting unnecessary obstacles in their path. I'm not convinced that Bill 84 is going to continue to encourage them to do business. "These proposed changes have convinced our organizations to join forces with other B.C. business associations to form the new
[ Page 3788 ]
Coalition of B.C. Businesses." They're asking the government to listen, and they're saying: "For us, it is a huge dilemma in terms of doing business."
We have Alpha Pharmaceutical Supplies Ltd. in Richmond, which is in my riding, and they are a mid-sized business. They ardently believe in harmony between management and staff. They believe that British Columbia is on the verge of becoming a highly specialized manufacturer of fine-finished products: biomedicine, electronics and related concerns which require skilled and educated labour forces. They believe that British Columbia can become a high-tech home to many industries. They do not believe that Bill 84 is necessarily going to in any way assist their attempt to bring some dollars and investment into this province. They have spoken very strongly for looking at this bill, either through a select standing committee or taking it into the public domain for a number of months, because there are a lot of things they believe will impact negatively on their ability to do business in the province.
We had an example recently where it was somehow held up as a fine, shining example that we were selling a company in British Columbia to another province. I think the goal of this government should be to keep business working, operating and functioning effectively within British Columbia. That has to be the goal if we are going to commit dollars to an advanced education strategy and a technology-based industry in this province.
That's a tremendous issue for myself, as an educator, when Bill 84 takes out education as an essential service. I believe that any entity in this province that takes 30 percent of the tax base is an essential service, because we've invested 30 percent into it. If we disrupt someone's education, we are damaging our own economic strategy. We are saying that we invested the dollars, but we're going to allow this service to be disrupted; you're not going to get anything for your money at the end of the day. The fact that the province has already invested in your education will not allow the province to gain any benefit from it.
That's a huge consideration, and that was glossed over -- sugar-coated -- by the Premier when he suggested that removing an essential service was something this province needs to be looking at. I'm not convinced that you can have a strong economic strategy in British Columbia if you do not have a strong commitment to education. To take education out of the labour bill and suggest that if the education of young people in this province is interrupted, then that's somehow fair game, is completely inappropriate, and I do not believe it sits well with members of the official opposition.
To return to Alpha Pharmaceutical Supplies Ltd., they really do believe that this province is sitting on the edge of some wonderful things in terms of technological industry. They believe that this province has some expertise, that we could begin to think globally. We've not done that. Again, the Premier suggested today that Bill 84 is a modern piece of legislation. You cannot take 159 old sections, bring them forward, suggest modern and appease people -- like the Alpha Pharmaceutical industry -- and believe that if you're going to be on the edge of technological advancement in this province you can somehow continue to carry forward old labour legislation. It does not bring new solutions to the enterprise. It does not bring any kind of advancement or increased understanding. We're looking at prosperity and economic advantage, and we're looking for a commitment by this government to ensure that those two things are in place. We've not seen it. Bill 84 does not speak to that. Again, Alpha Pharmaceutical would ask most strenuously that Bill 84 receive continued examination, continued scrutiny by the public at large, because they are speaking on behalf of small business and are making some excellent points.
The Minister of Tourism yesterday commented on her ministry. We have a concern in my riding from the Executive Inn. As citizens of Canada and British Columbia and as owner-operators of businesses in B.C., we make it our duty to point out to the cabinet, and particularly to the Minister of Labour, the major labour changes proposed which they believe will have a very negative impact on their ability to do business in British Columbia.
Frankly, when a labour bill has a negative impact on someone's ability to do business, you have a huge dilemma. I think the confusion and frustration is coming from the majority of British Columbians who are very, very concerned about this piece of legislation. If it, in fact, aided people's understanding of this piece of legislation, if it aided people's ability to do business, I think you would have a very different set of circumstances coming forward. I believe you would have very different people bringing their concerns forward.
One of their points, which I think is extremely well taken, is that a new labour bill is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. They believe fundamentally that small business, medium-sized business and large business operate differently. I believe that is a basic tenet that we have missed in the discussion. I would speak very strongly to that. That a new labour bill is not a one-size-fits-all proposition is a point that we need to raise extensively in this House over the next number of days, because it's fundamentally true that small and medium-sized businesses cannot work under a law designed for big business or big union. Each small business is unique. Each needs a labour relations climate that is sympathetic to its individual needs and individual situation. What the government proposes is to make survival of these businesses virtually difficult and to eventually shut them down, hence resulting in the creation of more unemployment. I cannot believe that that continues to be the goal of an NDP government.
Secondly, for any new labour law to work, all parties must truly be satisfied with both the reform process and the law it creates -- again to speak to the three-party committee. And I don't believe there was a woman represented at that table. The process does not fit the expectation that small business and middle business has for British Columbia, has carried forward under the banner of an NDP government. They had an expectation that a certain process would be put in place, that a certain level of consultation would happen. Frankly,
[ Page 3789 ]
they have not been satisfied that any consideration has been given to their particular needs. Everyone's voice must be heard. One-sided legislation makes us second-class citizens. By ignoring the voice of business, like ours, the B.C. government can, seriously, force us to shut down and also will discourage new business from opening in British Columbia. Not only would this hurt investment in the B.C. economy; it would end up costing the jobs of the workers you intend to help.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I think we have a situation where a number of people in this province believe that they are heading in the right direction, but they are not meeting the needs of small-and middle-sized business. I think that is a very strong reason for us to again suggest that this piece of legislation needs to receive some open scrutiny, needs to be considered very carefully, not just by big business and big labour but by small business and middle-sized business. Because the point made by the owner/operator of the Executive Inn is simply that we have unique needs in middle and small business, and that is not reflected. If we indeed are going to somehow suggest that a new labour bill in British Columbia is going to meet the needs of all people, it must be reflected in the piece of legislation. We must be able to point to this section, to find it in the text, and suggest to people that this is the section that was designed to assist them in the promotion and development of their business, not to say: "This is the new labour bill. It will help everyone." The point made earlier and the point that is extremely well taken is that new labour legislation is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. We cannot allow that to continue.
During the swearing-in ceremony on November 5, Premier Harcourt is quoted as saying: "B.C. women will have a strong voice at the cabinet table to ensure that their priorities are at the top of the political agenda." Have we seen women's concerns for fair wages recognized in Bill 84? I don't believe we have. We had a commitment from this government about pay equity. We do not see that reflected in Bill 84. The B.C. Federation of Labour president, Ken Georgetti, believes women are being shut out of the bill by its lack of sectoral certification. Women are predominant as employees in the service and retail sector, which is the fastest-growing sector of this province's economy. Jobs in this sector are also the lowest-paying ones in society. That's taken from the Times Colonist, October 28, 1992. Without sectoral certification women will remain disadvantaged economically. That flies in the face of the commitment of this government which said that women will be at the top of the political agenda; there will be a place for women in an NDP government. Women have moved well beyond appreciating the sentiment. Women today are concerned only with some action, some concrete evidence that this government is truly committed to women.
Again, 45 percent of the labour force is female -- 44 percent in British Columbia. There are many families headed by single parents in British Columbia, as there are families where a man supports a wife and children. These women have the responsibility of supporting a family on a very low wage. Some 57 percent of single-parent families are headed by women and live below the poverty line. This legislation is not going to help that situation. It is not something that this government can hold up and say: "We have done a good job for women in this province." The needs and issues that women have wished to bring forward over time have not been addressed. For the Premier to stand in this chamber today and tell us -- as serious, committed legislators, as parliamentarians -- that this is a modern piece of legislation is simply not a sentiment I can accept. It does not respect women as thinking people in this society.
The number of women's part-time jobs is increasing faster than the number of women's full-time jobs. That is a fact. Without sectoral certification, without some commitment to women's pay equity, we are simply committing women to ongoing poverty and an ongoing sense of being disadvantaged. If you cannot look for some guidance on those issues to your parliamentarians, to your Members of the Legislative Assembly, you are in fact being marginalized. You are being told: "Thanks for stopping by, but there's really nothing we're prepared to do for you today." That is a huge question for myself, as the Women's Equality critic. I know that we need to be more concerted in our effort to ensure that we do not continue to just talk about it but actually start to do something about it. Bill 84 is not doing anything about the dilemma of women in this province.
Women who work full time earn on average 67.6 percent of what men earn. We're all aware of the stats. We've heard them raised in this House many times. What the women's equality committee of Liberal caucus was looking for was some commitment that somehow we would make a change. British Columbians have been looking to this particular time and to this legislation to offer them some kind of reassurance that there is some commitment, something in print that dramatically and positively impacts on the fate of women. If anyone can find that section, you would ensure a belief that women are being served. The Minister of Labour has stood up repeatedly and said: "This is what we are putting forward at this time." Frankly, it's not good enough. For women in this province it's not good enough to say: "We'll get back to you. It's not something we can proceed with at this time." We need to move beyond that, and we simply have not done so.
The Labour minister tries to be encouraging by saying that there are other ways to address the wage gap issue, such as pay equity. However, the questions could be raised: what is the budget for pay equity; and what has this NDP government done with the issue to date? We know they still really like the idea, but we have to go beyond that. We have to move into the realm of actually producing something concrete, something that women can hold on to, as opposed to: "Well, thanks for thinking of us again." It has to move beyond that. What's happening with employment equity in the private sector? Both employment and pay equity can have a positive effect in ensuring quality of life for women in this province.
[ Page 3790 ]
I know that there are a number of women legislators in this House; we probably have the largest percentage of female members in Canada. I know that we have a commitment to do all we can. What I need to see is that this government also has a commitment to do all it can to ensure that we make some very positive strides in the next little while.
[11:45]
I notice that the Minister of Women's Equality commented over the weekend on the impact this bill will have on women. She half-apologized for her government's failure to include sectoral certification in the legislation, and then went on to say that future legislation would be implemented to make up for its absence. As the minister responsible for women's issues, the minister should feel uncomfortable about the impact this bill will have on working women. As the critic for Women's Equality, I am deeply concerned about this bill's effect on working women. I'm not going to quote the stats. We're all aware of the situation. What we need is a modern piece of legislation that's going to combat the inequality that currently exists. For the Premier to stand today and say that this is a modern piece of legislation is completely unacceptable to the members of the official opposition and certainly to the female members of the Liberal caucus. We have to have a commitment that says that talk is not all we're going to get during this government's term of office.
As the minister is well aware, small business is the backbone of this economy. It is the engine of economic growth and the major source of job creation in Canada. It accounts for 90 percent of all businesses in British Columbia and 40 percent of the private sector payroll. I'm sure the minister is well aware that over 32 percent of these small businesses are owned by women, and that women are the fastest-growing segment of the small business population. They start businesses at three times the rate of men. That's a fact. That is not something we can take issue with in this House. It is happening out there. This bill is not going to support women in that tremendous initiative. I think this House needs to be supportive of women. Yet despite knowing all these facts, the minister is supporting legislation that could decimate the small business sector in British Columbia, legislation that could put owning a small business beyond the financial reach of many potential operators.
Among the new restrictive measures that this bill will put in place is the change that will allow unions to obtain certification solely on the basis of membership cards. The point has already been made that since many small businesses operate hand-to-mouth, the added financial constraints of union wages and benefits will bankrupt them. Members should know that according to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, other barriers, such as a lack of experience, mean that women-owned businesses start small and tend to stay small. It concludes that as a result, financial returns are often marginal for these women.
Those are the issues before us today. Those are the issues that have not been handled well under Bill 84. I await a modern piece of legislation.
C. Serwa: I'm pleased to participate in second reading debate of the amendment that was put forward by the official opposition. Before I go much further, I would like to say that I'm seizing the opportunity to act as designated speaker for our caucus, because I think that on this particular amendment I may run over the normally allotted half hour.
My perspective on addressing this amendment will be from that of a British Columbian who represents a constituency, who is passionately in love with both the province and the people of British Columbia. In support of the amendment I hope to be able to bring forward questions and my rationale for supporting this amendment, looking at the process and the impact of this particular legislation on the people in this province.
As I said, I support the amendment as I supported the hoist motion that our member for Peace River North put up. The purpose and reason behind my support is to provide ample time and opportunity for British Columbians. We're supposed to work on behalf of the public interest of all individuals, so I believe that we must give ordinary British Columbians the opportunity. These include the old and the young, those in the workforce, both union and non-union, employers, professionals, the handicapped, the working poor and those on income assistance. Each one of those British Columbians must be able to evaluate the impact of this legislation on them and on their lives.
There is no question in my mind that this legislation will directly or indirectly affect every person in the province of British Columbia. No one will escape the effects of this legislation, which I will designate and elaborate on. Those effects will not be pleasant for the economy and therefore for the future of British Columbians and our province.
Strikes, picketing, lockouts, disruptions and instability in the workplace: that's what will happen with this piece of legislation. The only ones who will be thriving will be the union bosses; that's fundamentally what they thrive on. This legislation is designed for those union bosses -- not for the rank and file union membership and not with the slightest care about public interest. I think that's an important point that has to be made.
All others in the province of British Columbia will suffer. You only have to look around the world where socialism thrived, and where most of the membership of labour in the Soviet Union was organized. Seventy-five years of socialism under this system, and they have an economy that's so devastated that they can't even feed themselves. That's not my idea of a vision for the future of British Columbia -- not with what we have, the quality of people, the work ethic or the innovativeness and spirit of British Columbians.
This legislation is totally incompatible with that vision. You only have to look at examples in other jurisdictions. Take a look at Great Britain and what happened there until Margaret Thatcher took over: the devastation to the economy, the unemployment and the lower standard of living. From an economy that was suffering in competition with the European export community, they now have an economy which is flourishing.
[ Page 3791 ]
That took an iron will, from an iron lady. That took control and discipline and enforcing on unions their responsibility as direct participants in a successful economy. I see no vision of responsibility impacted on the union sector here, hon. Speaker -- none whatsoever.
In Sweden -- long held forth as the socialist ideal -- the government was recently turfed out, for the very same reason that this government will be turfed out: simply because of legislation like this. I suppose I can say at this point that nothing is so short-lived in British Columbia as an NDP government. Perhaps that's the bright light at the end of the tunnel.
What we're primarily talking about is economic stability in British Columbia. The private sector fuels government revenues. The tail doesn't wag the dog; the dog wags the tail. I think this government had better be aware that their social engineering, and what they are trying to do to strengthen the economy, will not work, because there is absolutely no significant, collective experience on the government side of the House in the business sector. It's nice to talk about it. It's nice to get a university degree in economics. But it's really quite another thing to participate in the private sector, with no assurances and no guarantees. You do everything when you start up a small business. You create a product, or you sell a product, and you accept responsibility for all of the obligations. Very few of the members opposite have had the slightest bit of experience in even the smallest organization, let alone corporate organizations -- and government is, in fact, a very large organization.
Without that strong private sector economy, government revenues will decline. The politics of envy and greed -- tax the rich; let's hit the doctors; let's hit the lawyers -- is not going to suffice. The simple awareness of the depreciating gross national product of this province indicates that we're going to have to tax the middle classes far more than we are at the present time. So in the end this legislation is going to hurt most severely those whom the government of the day is pretending to support. With the decline in government revenues, what will happen will be the absolute inability to continue on with one of the finest education systems in Canada, with one of the finest health care systems in Canada and with the splendid system of a social responsibility exercised through social services. Many British Columbians will be even more severely disadvantaged if this particular legislation goes through in the format in which it is written. There again is one of my significant reasons for indicating my support for the proposed amendment. The public has a right to review this legislation to assess its impact. They should be given that opportunity.
The report, Recommendations for Labour Law Reform, did not go out to the public prior to tendering the legislation. There was no reason why it had to be held. The time element was there. It could have gone out for public awareness and recognition. It didn't; it was withheld by the government of the day, because the fact is they were well aware that they would be exposed.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, one of the government members has very kindly pointed out to me the time element. I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Edwards moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada