1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 6, No. 2
[ Page 3793 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Hon. L. Boone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce in the gallery the newly appointed consul for Greece, who has just moved here from Zimbabwe. New to British Columbia is Ms. Helen Sourani Potamianos. Would the House please welcome her.
L. Hanson: In the gallery today we have the chief executive officer of the Independent Contractors' and Businesses Association of B.C., Mr. Philip Hochstein. Would the House please make him welcome.
L. Reid: I would be delighted to welcome to the chamber this afternoon the mayor of Richmond, Mr. Greg Halsey-Brandt, and Councillor Evelina Vaupotic. Thank you for joining us.
Hon. B. Barlee: In the Speaker's gallery today are two visitors from Burlington, Ontario: Irma and Hugh Onderwater. Would the members of the House please extend them a very warm welcome.
U. Dosanjh: I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the hon. member for Mission-Kent to introduce to the House Patricia and Harry Tovey, who are in the gallery. They are from Yorkshire, England. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. T. Perry: We had in the precincts visiting us today a delegation from the Open University of Vietnam. I'd like to record a rather auspicious moment: that we have a delegation like that from a new university, based in Ho Chi Minh City, who are having a very exciting collaboration with Capilano College. I'd like to offer the chance for members of the House to make them welcome retroactively.
L. Stephens: Today in the House we have 12 grade 11 students from the King's School in Langley, along with their teacher, Mr. Ferguson. Would the House please make them welcome.
F. Randall: In the House this afternoon we have John and Isobel Paowich from Burnaby-Edmonds. Accompanying them are Archie and Carol Macaulay from Oakhurst, California. Would the House please make them welcome.
B.C. HYDRO FINANCIAL REPORT
G. Wilson: To the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, responsible for B.C. Hydro. Can the minister tell us why he has sat on the financial report from B.C. Hydro, thus putting them in violation of the Financial Information Act, which requires that that information be made available six months after a year-end?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll take the question on notice, hon. Speaker.
G. Wilson: Again to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, the minister for whom there seem to be two sets of laws and rules: one for the people and another for this minister. With respect to the B.C. Hydro report -- on a new question -- can the minister tell us whether or not the delay of the report has had anything to do with the appointment of Mr. Eliesen as the new B.C. Hydro head?
Hon. M. Sihota: The answer is no.
G. Wilson: Can the minister tell us, then, what is in this report that has required him to withhold it from the people two full months after it was supposed to have been filed by law?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. Leader of the Opposition must have been rehearsing his third question and didn't hear my first answer. I took the first matter on notice. Accordingly, I wish to advise him of that fact. And I will take this question on notice.
WCB SALARY INCREASES
AND WCB PENSIONS
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is also to the Minister of Labour. It concerns a rather hefty salary increase given to Jim Dorsey, the chair of the WCB and an ardent opponent of Bill 19. We have an interesting quote from this very minister, who said in this very House: "On the one hand we have a government that says it has no money; on the other hand we have a government that gives $10,000 and $20,000 raises." I'd like to ask the minister if he's prepared to contradict himself in public. Or will he agree with himself that this increase is outrageous?
Hon. M. Sihota: Seeing that the hon. member has not done his homework in checking out the facts, let me just lay out the facts for the benefit of all members of the House. Mr. Dorsey was hired by the previous administration. In the terms of the contract between that administration and Mr. Dorsey, he was given a full-time salary of $144,000. The intention at the time the contract was executed was that Mr. Dorsey's workload would decrease over time, and he would be able to go back to the private practice of law and subsequent arbitration work. In anticipation of a reduced workload, his salary was reduced from $144,000 to $120,000. As it turned out, the anticipated reduction in workload never materialized, and in fact there have been more demands made on Mr. Dorsey over the last few months. So what we've done is simply restore his salary to that which was originally negotiated by the former administration as a full-time salary, $144,000. So there has been no increase in salary.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[ Page 3794 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: It's nice to know you can bring the House to order, but you can't make them think.
[2:15]
Hon. Speaker, if I can continue my question to the same minister, I find it interesting that in British Columbia part-time work garners $120,000 a year. I wonder if that's his new fair wage program.
I'd like to quote to the Minister of Finance some of his comments while he was in opposition blasting away at the Social Credit government. He said: "The issue is not whether their current pay is fair or not. The issue is the double standard: 50 percent for some employees who are political appointments or deputy ministers of the government, but we can't do that for other people. It's not fair." How can the Minister of Finance justify this increase, considering his constant comments on the budgetary mess left behind by the Socreds?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I was referring to the fact that the previous administration had a wage freeze for public employees, but not for political hacks and friends of the government. That was what existed with the previous administration.
In this particular situation it's important that this is not a wage increase. It is the restoration of a contract as a result of changed circumstances due to workload.
Secondly, it's important for members opposite to know that the WCB.... One of the few initiatives of the previous administration which I think has moved along rather positively is a board of directors that is half management people and half labour people. They jointly approached Mr. Dorsey to chair this commission. It's on their recommendations that the government is acting, and that model of labour working with management cooperatively to solve problems is one that we on this side of the House believe in, even if the members opposite don't.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to direct this one to the Minister of Labour, the advocate of the working people in this province -- so he says. While debating Bill 19 in 1987, the current Premier and the Minister of Environment quoted and supported Mr. Dorsey's denouncement of Bill 19. In January WCB pensions were increased by 0.76 percent -- less than 1 percent -- and 0.87 percent in July, for a total of 1.63 percent this year. The 20 percent salary increase to Mr. Dorsey is another payback. Could the minister indicate when these shameless paybacks at the expense of the working people in B.C. are going to come to an end?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, the assumption about a salary increase is wrong. As I pointed out in the first question, there's been no salary increase. Perhaps the member didn't hear me then; perhaps he's heard me now.
Secondly, I'm pleased to advise that this administration has taken concrete steps to make sure that workers are being dealt with in a much fairer and far more expeditious way under the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Board and through the management of Mr. Dorsey.
I know that the hon. member who is now heckling doesn't want to hear this, but the fact of the matter is that we have now increased the number of workers' advisers available to workers in this province. We have opened new offices of the Workers' Compensation Board throughout B.C. We are in the process of drafting new regulations to cover a whole series of industries that have been exempt from coverage in the past. We have streamlined the procedures at the Workers' Compensation Review Board and hired new management. [Applause.]
The Speaker: Order! Would the minister conclude his reply.
Hon. M. Sihota: I would conclude by pointing out to the hon. member that this administration has taken more steps in the interests of working people than any other administration in the history of this province.
PETRINI CASE
L. Hanson: The Minister of Labour is a very popular individual today. This is again to the minister and his responsibility for the Workers' Compensation Board. For the past several years the minister has been fighting the WCB on a contingency fee basis to win a personal injury claim for his client Harold Petrini. Can the minister advise the House of the status of Mr. Petrini's case, as he has met with him as recently as March 27 of this year?
The Speaker: I would like the member to just clarify how that comes within the ministerial responsibility. The Chair may have missed the direct connection.
L. Hanson: Well, hon. Speaker, obviously the minister is responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board, and this is an issue that is dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board, so it must be within his mandate. Or maybe the Speaker could advise us whose responsibility it would be.
The Speaker: On that basis I will allow the question.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member has it wrong. There is no solicitor-client relationship there, in terms of a personal service contract or a contingency fee agreement. As an MLA I have, however, been assisting Mr. Petrini in dealing with his situation with WCB, through my constituency office and personally, as he is a constituent of mine. So, quite frankly, the hon. member has it wrong. There is no such solicitor-client relationship.
L. Hanson: On December 20 the minister wrote to Mr. Petrini, advising him that "the Workers' Compensation Board is taking a new and keen interest in this case." Can the minister then advise the House who, if anyone, he discussed Mr. Petrini's case with at the WCB since becoming the minister responsible?
[ Page 3795 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: In December of last year the Workers' Compensation Board advised me that they were taking some initiatives with regard to Mr. Petrini's case. I believe that the correspondence refers to an initiative that they had taken.
L. Hanson: In his December 1991 letter the minister advised Mr. Petrini that he would allow the WCB to work on his case independently at this stage; but he then went on to suggest that he and Mr. Petrini should meet to discuss progress at a later date, a meeting which took place on March 27, 1992. I believe the minister has already said that, but I would like to confirm for the record that the minister has completely removed himself from this case, and that he has advised Mr. Petrini that he will not collect the contingency fee in the event that his claim is successful.
Hon. M. Sihota: Quite frankly, the hon. member has it wrong. There may well have been a meeting on March 27, 1992. I can certainly check the records with regard to that matter. But that later matter concerning a fee arrangement certainly was not discussed -- I'm certain of that fact. It is, however, fair to say this: at some point between December of 1991 -- shortly after cabinet was sworn in -- and March of 1992, there was a ruling by the conflict-of-interest commissioner which indicated that members who have, as in my case, WCB under their jurisdiction cannot assist with cases involving constituents, given that those matters fall within the ministerial portfolio. I believe that Mr. Petrini may have been advised of that fact on March 27, 1992. That's how he would have come to understand that our office could not have been directly involved after that determination by Mr. Hughes.
IDENTIFICATION OF
REPEAT SEX OFFENDERS
J. Tyabji: My question is for the Attorney General. It's regarding law and order. We currently have a mobile pedophile in the Kootenays terrorizing a series of communities. Last spring in this House the Attorney General committed to introduce measures to protect the safety of neighbouring residents by identifying repeat offenders. Can the Attorney General please tell the House the steps he has taken to protect the people of B.C.?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A report on that subject is nearly ready to go to cabinet. I hope to be able to take it there, if not to the next meeting, then very quickly after that, in order to get to the bottom of what I think is a very serious problem in this province.
VOLUNTEER CRIME WATCH PATROLS
J. Tyabji: Again to the Attorney General on law and order. We are witnessing communities such as Surrey and Winfield setting up volunteer crime watch patrols. What is the Attorney General doing to ensure adequate policing so communities are not forced to police themselves?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, the ministry established -- I think six months ago -- a community policing advisory board, which has been working with police forces around British Columbia in dealing with community policing issues. The reality is that in this province or in any other jurisdiction we would never be able to hire enough police officers to do a complete job of the policing that the community requires. It is only going to be possible to do proper policing in our society if the citizens are involved in policing their communities together with police forces -- not by way of some vigilante activity, but through such activities as Neighbourhood Watch and other community-based activities. It is by working together -- community and police -- that we will begin to be able to deal with the serious problems out there in our communities.
TRUST FUND SHORTAGE
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, yesterday in question period the Leader of the Opposition asked me three questions which I took on notice.
Question One Was: "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?" The Leader of the Opposition was factually incorrect in formulating the question. Under section 5(a) of the Legal Profession Act, the Attorney General is a bencher of the Law Society, but is not an ex officio member of the bar, as the Leader of the Opposition stated. I am not a member of the bar, and even if I were, rule 861 would not apply to me unless I discovered a trust shortage in a trust fund for which I had responsibility.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I would advise members to listen to the answers, because they may then be able to formulate better questions.
Question Two Was: "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?" Again the Leader of the Opposition's question was based on a misstatement of facts, as I am not an ex officio member or any other kind of member of the bar. Rule 862, as he will find if he consults legal advice, applies to Law Society members holding trust funds who are unable to deliver up those funds.
Question No. 3: "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?" Again the Leader of the Opposition fails to understand that the
[ Page 3796 ]
Law Society is an independent professional body. The Law Society has made clear that it is dealing with this matter. It would be inappropriate for me to interfere with the normal processes of the Law Society in dealing with this or any other matter.
It is also important to note that the public trustee, an independent office established by statute, has initiated action on this matter on behalf of the young person affected. This illustrates that, in keeping with the structures established by statute, the independent public trustee has been and is acting appropriately in exercising her responsibilities.
[2:30]
G. Wilson: Point of order. With respect to the referral from the Attorney General, notwithstanding the comment of the ex officio member, I would point out, as he suggests....There's a question of....
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, would you please state your point of order.
G. Wilson: My point of order is that to suggest that the question was factually incorrect.... I have a legal opinion from Ladner Downs that says....
The Speaker: Order, please. Unfortunately, hon. member, that is not a point of order. The member may disagree with what the Attorney General said, but it is not a point of order.
G. Wilson: With respect, hon. Speaker, I believe that the question that has been responded to is a misrepresentation of the question posed yesterday.
Hon. T. Perry: I have the honour and the privilege to table the fourteenth annual report of the Science Council of B.C. for 1991-92 and in so doing to acknowledge the work of the volunteers and members of the council, who work on behalf of all British Columbians.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the report of the Job Protection Commission for the ten-month period from March 4, 1991, to December 31, 1991.
Hon. B. Barlee tabled the annual report of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992; and the annual report of the B.C. Marketing Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992.
G. Wilson tabled a letter from Ladner Downs.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 84.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
On the amendment.
C. Serwa: When we adjourned debate for the lunch recess, I was talking about some of the economic effects that Bill 84 would impose on the people of British Columbia in my support for the amendment motion put forward on this issue. Continuing on that, a reduction in the strength of the economy in British Columbia will severely impact the government of the day. As I continue to point out, the ability to respond to health, educational or social services issues will diminish considerably.
The evidence is in the tabling of last year's budget. All ministries that had a significant opportunity to strengthen the economy have had a substantial amount of their resource materials taken away. That does not augur well for strengthening the economy of the province. I bring that forward in recognition that this bill will apparently devastate the economy of British Columbia even more. The curtailment of expenditures to Tourism, Agriculture, Transportation and Highways, Economic Development, Forests and all of those ministries is clearly an indication of something really wrong with the priorities of this government. It's just a small example of what will be forthcoming, because the government of the day has so misjudged the economy of this province and its ability to recover that I understand the devastated ministries will be facing even more stringent cuts.
All labour legislation, no matter how contemporary, well-written, fair or balanced, can stand only so long the test of time. A number of changes take place, society moves forward -- science and technology, the workplace -- and all of these changes put stress and pressure on labour legislation. Perhaps the useful life of labour legislation is approximately ten years, although I am confident, with the accelerating world, that the time period for labour legislation will continue to diminish as the changes that take place in the workplace continue to accelerate as well.
Certainly knowledge of existing labour legislation tests, both by unions and by management on labour legislation, court interpretations and regulations familiarity eventually lead to a breakdown of what was once successful labour legislation. These changes start with legislation that was working well and was fair to all, but becomes subject to abuses. Labour strife develops, days are lost, production capacity is diminished, and it becomes untenable at some point to government. Then government must look at and rewrite labour legislation, and start anew to tailor-make labour legislation suitable for the times.
Bill 19, in a great deal of debate in second reading, on the amendments -- on the hoist motion and on this particular amendment from government members -- was brought forward a number of times. Regardless of the controversy that surrounded Bill 19, it worked well. There was a diverse perspective on input for Bill 19, and the public interest was taken into account. Labour peace, prosperity and stability were the end results of the component that was put into Bill 19.
Even in the decline of the Canadian economy, British Columbia outperformed every province, including the federal government, and we went contrary to the flow. We experienced economic growth, increases in population, internal migration to this province and a number of other positive growth indicators such as employment
[ Page 3797 ]
opportunities and investment, both internally and from external sources. That allowed the government of the day to invest heavily in physical infrastructure and people. Education, for example, received a 40 percent increase in its budget over the previous five years.
For the record, I want to run a quick overview of Bill 19, because the present state of the economy and opportunity in British Columbia is being subjected to a great deal of stress. I want to show you what Bill 19 did and didn't do in British Columbia. Bill 19, so the trade unions claim, was unfair, biased and not working. All the indicators that I look at say quite the contrary. Bill 19 worked, and worked well. It may not have settled a very aggressive element in trade unionism, but it certainly satisfied what was more important than any other single issue in British Columbia: the public interest and well-being.
In 1987, the public sector settlements averaged a 2.4 percent increase, while the private sector averaged 0.9 percent, a difference of 1.5 percent. In 1991 the gap separating public sector and private sector wage increases narrowed to less than 1 percent.
This is very important, because over the previous ten years, public settlement figures accelerated and increased by a rate of approximately 72 percent. Private sector settlements during that same time period increased approximately 52 to 53 percent. The consumer price index increased approximately 44.6 percent in those years. Clearly the economy couldn't stand the growing differential between public sector wage settlements and private sector wage settlements. Just as clearly, Bill 19 was able to restrain the public sector wage increases.
Under the current government, public sector settlement increases nearly tripled those of the private sector for first-year wage increases over the last 12 months. By 1992's third quarter, public sector wage increases were more than double those of the private sector. Rather than recognizing the fact that we're all in the same economy -- and if the economy is to grow and strengthen, we have to do it in parallel -- we're seeing, once again, this government's commitment to public sector unions advancing public sector wages at the expense of the general provincial economy, and certainly private sector workers, be they organized or unorganized.
What about worker days lost to work stoppage, which is surely an indication of whether that bill was working? From 1982 to 1986 there was more than a 90 percent drop in worker days lost to work stoppages. That's remarkable. In the first nine months of this year, however, the number of worker days lost to work stoppages has already surpassed post-Bill 19 years. The days lost are at their highest level since 1984. Those are the expectations of the trade union bosses and what has happened with the current government.
There has been an increase of 165 percent from 1991 to 1992 in the monthly average year-to-date worker days lost due to work stoppage. We can't stand that if we're going to be competitive in the world. We can't afford to carry that disruption to the economy. The government is going to have substantial difficulty financing the necessary expenditures to provide services that people require and that only government can provide.
What about its impact on unionization in the province? Did it stop unionization? That was claimed to be the attempt. It was never the attempt, nor was it designed to do that. In fact, there was a 16 percent increase in union membership from 1982 to 1986. Nearly 40 percent of British Columbia's workforce is unionized. Almost all of the public sector employees -- be they federal, provincial or municipal -- are unionized, but only about 33 percent of private sector employees are in fact unionized.
What about unemployment? The unemployment rate was up almost one full percentage point in September 1992 over September 1991. The expectations are not auguring well for those people who want to work in British Columbia. The unrealistic expectations that this particular labour legislation is fuelling.... What is critical and even worse is that the unemployment rate for youth aged 15 to 19 was up sharply in September 1992 from its level of one year ago.
Employment in British Columbia was up 14 percent in 1991 over 1987, while the population increased 10 percent over that same period. So obviously the former government was doing something right, and Bill 19 was part and parcel of that. We have to provide jobs for people. In 1990 British Columbia created almost 40 percent of all the new jobs in Canada. British Columbia's employment increased 1 percent in 1991, while employment for Canada as a whole decreased by 2 percent.
What about average weekly earnings? Was Bill 19 difficult to work under? Were wage settlements something that were unpalatable? Were wage settlements less than in other jurisdictions in Canada? No, they weren't. The average weekly earnings were up 17 percent in 1991 over 1987. British Columbia had the second-highest average weekly earnings in Canada, but within the last 12 months we have dropped to the third-highest. British Columbia has the highest hourly wage in Canada. There was a 41 percent increase in wages and salaries from 1987 to 1991 and a 51 percent increase in personal income from 1986 to 1991.
Those things weren't impacted negatively. We were all working together at arm's length in the total economy -- the public sector and private sector. Everything was fruitful and prosperous in the province. From 1986 to 1991 we had a 72 percent increase in capital investment, a 14 percent increase in manufacturing shipments out of the province, a 35 percent increase in retail sales, almost a 100 percent increase on the dollar value of non-residential building permits and a 54 percent increase in the number of housing starts -- a dramatic record and a tribute to good labour legislation, whereby there was no disruption and we could work together in harmony and cooperation to build a better, healthier and more prosperous future for British Columbia. That's part and parcel of my reason for supporting this particular amendment.
[2:45]
What I just spoke about gives us a baseline to objectively review what will transpire with Bill 84, the legislation that has been proposed. I have enunciated a
[ Page 3798 ]
number of major reasons for supporting the motion that this be moved to a committee, so that the public can be given an opportunity to understand the impact, both socially and economically, to themselves as individuals.
The key to this situation has to be the credibility of the process that was undertaken and utilized in developing Bill 84 and the balance and fairness of the legislation. Those are significant points. The judgment will be made by the public, since it is their interests that must be served by this particular legislation, not those of a special-interest group or big union bosses. But what has to be served in the promotion of this legislation is the public interest.
Was there consultation -- we hear a great deal about it -- real consultation, with all the elements in society that are going to be impacted, and that's each and every individual in the province? The answer is clearly no. If there had been consultation, how could this package have reverted to the Bill King legislation package of the previous Barrett government in British Columbia? It has reverted to that 1974 period of the Barrett government. This is 1992, hon. Speaker. So where did consultation factor in there? If there was open and honest consultation, how is it that 95 percent of what the B.C. Federation of Labour asked for in 1990 -- their wish list -- has been written up in the new legislation? And they had a number of extras thrown in as well -- 95 percent plus extras. Why? To make life easier and more luxurious for the union bosses, who will now be looked after by this legislation. Hon. Speaker, this wasn't designed for the rank and file union member -- not one part of it; it was designed for the big labour bosses.
The public has a right to ask questions; the public has a right to know. The truth is: openness and honesty, fairness and balance, listening and hearing -- all part of the consultative process -- are completely missing. The government of the day, this government, has abdicated its responsibility to represent the interests of all of the people of British Columbia. I think it is stupid -- and "stupid" is the correct word -- to go back to labour legislation that has become out of touch and lost its relativity to the structure of the workplace today. Only those with blinders on or those who cater to labour bosses refuse to believe that the world has changed dramatically. You might as well go back to the Welsh coal-mining legislation of the nineteenth century as go back to Bill King's legislation package of 1974. That's how relevant moving backwards is.
I support the motion, because the process was designed to be biased from the outset. This is clearly evident. The process was designed to be biased, not reasonable and fair, and not balanced. Words from members of the New Democratic Party are self-congratulatory in fashion, since they see consultation as a process that they control and manipulate, and use to meet their ends. Clearly this is evident.
Several days ago the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs made a statement, and I quote from it: "If we don't compromise our principles, we will compromise our country." That statement was made on October 22 in reference to the constitutional accord. But what is significant in that statement is the ready willingness to compromise principles. That's what frightens me about this government. This government has, in fact, compromised any principles it might have had when it brought forward this legislation.
I support the motion, since it's clear that the structure of the committee and the expression of whose views counted make it clear that if consultation took place, it was not consultation as I define it. The consultative process was clearly similar to that which took place in the Charlottetown accord, and that consultation was clearly objected to by Canadians. There was no public involvement, hon. Speaker, and that's another reason why this must go back to committee, and the committee must travel throughout the province to allow public involvement.
There were only special interest groups involved, with their views which the government is turning into law without any meaningful opportunity for the public to review legislation and offer comment. That's clearly unacceptable. Public interest and public welfare have to be served. They were not even given an opportunity to surface. Many words spring to mind, but consultation is not one of them.
Let's look at the authors of the report entitled Recommendations for Labour Law Reform. For the record, I make it clear that I'm not questioning the integrity, the competence, the knowledge or the experience of these three gentlemen, but I will question the validity of the choice and point out that the inherent weakness is a result of the bias from their perspective.
The authors of this report are a lawyer who represents unions, a lawyer who represents very large unionized employers and a mediator-arbitrator who relies on these two groups for his livelihood. The fact that the mediator also contributes to the NDP doesn't provide me with any additional comfort that objectivity was part and parcel of the instructions of this group of individuals. It would be a denial of the obvious to believe that they would do anything but bring to the process their experience with the groups they represent. They have not been characterized, and were not selected as, guardians of the public interest. As a matter of fact, the public interest was not something significant in this. They were concerned only with the wishes of the labour relations community. I quote: "...the legislation will be generally seen as...fair, promoting the legitimate goals and protecting the legitimate interests, from a societal perspective, of those it seeks to regulate." The key words there are "of those it seeks to regulate."
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
It is readily apparent that the ramifications of labour legislation and labour relations go far beyond the labour relations community. There should be no legislation developed by special interest groups for their own benefit. Government, aided by the people, should make the decisions. Those decisions cannot be abdicated to representatives of special interest groups. How can people take any comfort that Bill 84 is fair and balanced when the bias in perspective is so far removed from public input? If there is any merit to the proposals, they must meet and pass public scrutiny. The standing
[ Page 3799 ]
legislative committee would be an appropriate first step in meeting those requirements for public approvals.
Let's look at another factor that challenges fairness, balance and the credibility factor. British Columbians have a government by default. Thirty-eight percent of those who voted, approximately 27.5 percent of those who could have voted, voted for the government in power. Clearly British Columbians didn't deserve to get the government they got. Bob Williams was right, hon. Speaker, when he said: "If you think we were radical then, just wait till next time." The saving grace is that nothing is more temporary in British Columbia than a New Democratic government.
Back to another reason for supporting the amendment that this bill go to public hearings, to the committee, and be heard throughout the province. The NDP government -- the government in power, the government of the day -- is now, purely and simply, the political arm of the big unions in British Columbia. The NDP provincial council, unelected and unaccountable to the public, gives the marching orders to government. Union bosses sit on the council, and union influence dominates. Unions dominate the NDP membership. Most importantly, union funding, along with an army of private and public sector union help in municipal, provincial and federal campaigns, completes union boss power. When the NDP and big unions talk of a cozy relationship, it is more than that. At one time they were in bed together; now they are married and united as one.
The strategy of the NDP arm and big union cronies is coordinated to give the public a perception that differences exist. This is quite untrue at the moment, and neither public interest nor public welfare is being served at all. Only the interests of big union bosses are being well served. An example of that is the wage settlement with the BCGEU. Clearly the negotiators said: "What is the most that you will possibly take?" They named a figure, and the government agreed. But the other side of the condition is that you must vocally oppose the settlement as being biased and unfair. So the other arm went through the media and stated that it wasn't satisfied with the settlement. But in fact, by any standard across Canada, it was a very rich settlement, costing the public taxpayer and the provincial treasury $200 million to $300 million.
A once proud and well-principled CCF party, which had as its main concern the welfare of people, a party that began in the 1930s when the federal old-line parties forgot about western Canada during the Great Depression, has now been almost completely co-opted by big unions. Talk about the fox tending the chickens! The combination of socialist government and big unions is clearly the fox, and the public interest is represented by the chickens. We are being asked to believe that the fox's legislation is fair and balanced to the chickens. I don't think anybody can take that one. If there ever was a conflict of interest, this has to be the worst and most blatant anywhere. There is a complete and utter abdication of responsibility by government to the people who elected that government.
[3:00]
There are a number of quotes and illustrations that I can utilize to list that, and I'll go through some of them. Some of the quotes: "The New Democratic Party and the unions -- how close are they?" "New Democrats and the union movement must stick together." The Premier, in The Democrat, December 1989. "New Democrats have the support they need from the trade union movement." Again in The Democrat in December 1989, Ken Georgetti, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour said: "We need the Premier." Another quote, this one from Jeff Rose to CUPE's B.C. division conference as reported in the Vancouver Sun of June 7, 1991:
"'You can count on us at CUPE national to stand strong with you and to go back to your plan of political action with funds and moral support'."
"'The' -- New Democratic -- 'party can count on our support also -- financial and moral -- to the limit of our ability.' The union's political plan in British Columbia calls for trained organizers to be given time off -- 32 person-weeks in all -- to help the NDP with voter registration campaigns, lobbying of labour unions and councils to fund the NDP candidates, and direct mail campaigns."
The quotes go on and on exposing that very tight and cozy relationship that now has gone to one.
The political patronage appointments are also very significant in exposing this cozy relationship that is unity and that the people of the province have to be confronted with. Appointment after appointment comes out of the union sector: the B.C. Government Employees' Union administrator, United Transportation Union; a BCGEU adviser, the B.C. Federation of Labour president. The list goes on and on. I have two pages of political appointments that come clearly and solely from the unions. I wonder if that isn't enough reason to question the biased package of legislation that is being presented to the people of British Columbia in this Legislature. If it isn't, I wonder what would indicate substantial bias in this labour package.
The Premier promised he would act on the economy once we got the constitutional accord out of the way. Like the rest of British Columbia I perceived that he and his socialist government would act in a positive way to create an environment and atmosphere where the economy would strengthen and grow. Not so. With the ship of state, the economy, losing headway and sitting low in the water, this government has opened the seacocks. The economy wasn't sinking fast enough, so they are busy bailing. But what are they doing? They're bailing the ocean into the boat; they've got it all backwards. That's precisely what this legislative package is going to do: it's going to sink the economy of British Columbia. Clearly that is another significant reason why this labour legislation package should go back to the people of the province for their assessment of the impact.
There was no talk of jobs; no plan to strengthen the economy; no government minister striving to improve the climate; no funds, even, for ministries with the mandate and responsibility of strengthening and improving the climate -- none of that. We left the Charlottetown accord, and we're fulfilling a political promise: a biased package of labour legislation is
[ Page 3800 ]
coming forward. The public has not been given any opportunity whatsoever to study or look at this package.
What have we done? Only higher taxes and legislation designed to reassure their union boss arms that this government is here to protect their vested interests, and not the public interest. As in Ontario, British Columbians are being overgoverned, overtaxed, and employers big and small are bleeding. Jobs are being lost, and that will accelerate if this legislation goes through without major revisions.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Initiatives such as Bill 84 will increase labour strife, increase economic instability and reduce both competitiveness and jobs in the province. The reality is that the world economy, technology and labour are very different in 1992 than in 1974. The golden years are not going to be repeated. Confrontational labour legislation is inexcusable at this point in time. Surely we've learned how to work together. We should strive to settle labour negotiations amicably under a format other than confrontation. Investors will flee, production costs will escalate and our natural resource revenue will support neither the jobs we have nor the quality of life that we enjoy in British Columbia.
Earlier I mentioned the example of Great Britain, a nation that met the irresponsible actions and demands of big labour bosses head on -- successfully, I might add. A Conservative government turned the economy around. Jobs, jobs and more jobs were created, and the flourishing economy in an increasingly competitive international environment was the end result. Pride, satisfaction, fulfilment and the ability to realize personal goals and dreams is tied hand in hand when one has a steady, fairly paid, full-time job. Nothing can replace the satisfaction and contribution that shows up in that opportunity, and a healthier and well-adjusted population will follow suit.
One of the principal reasons that the Labour government lost the election in Great Britain was its proposal to impose severe tax increases on middle-income earners. The second reason was Labour's traditionally close ties to trade unions. The origin of that party, by the way, was originally with the trade unions. The interesting thing is that the Labour Party in Great Britain is looking at ways and means to dissociate themselves from trade unions. One of the articles in their constitution was that the public means of production, distribution and exchange will be a major part of their constitution. That's not dissimilar to the NDP manifestos that exist in Canada. Trade unions were vested with so much power and influence that both the state and employers were reluctant and unable to challenge that power. That power and influence is incorporated into Bill 84, this Orwellian labour bill.
I applaud labour unions for trying. That is part of their mandate of responsibility. What I object to is a government that is required to be responsible to all British Columbians abdicating that responsibility. How? By not counterbalancing labour's wish list with the public welfare and a public-interest agenda. It should also be made clear that it is in the best long-term interests of both trade unions and their membership that government effectively exercise its responsibility.
The government of the day, the NDP government, will fail in its test of commitment if it continues to refuse British Columbians the time and opportunity to review the labour legislation that is before us here today. In Great Britain the power of big unions was curbed because it was in the public interest to do so. As I said before, the Labour Party in Great Britain is now seeking ways to dissociate itself or even break the relations that they had with the trade unions. All this is necessary in order to make the party more acceptable to the voters in Great Britain.
We can appreciate the control and interest that the big unions have with the NDP convention. I've tried to show how that exists, both from membership and participation in the NDP provincial council and from financing and funding for big labour unions. Now that we can clearly understand that close relationship, it's more readily understood by me and by citizens of the province why member after member on the government side, including the Premier, is willing to defend a bill that goes so strongly against the wishes of the majority of British Columbians.
My purpose here has been to expose the credibility factor that precipitated this Orwellian bill. I have pointed out a number of major factors that clearly indicate that the public has been badly compromised by the government of the day. Fairness and balance would be a most remote and unexpected accident of the process that was followed. Nothing has been left to chance. The recommendations and the legislation both fail to respond to the Minister of Labour's broad mandate to the committee and the subcommittee. I will quote from the report the minister's broad mandate to the committee. The strategy was to address "the promotion of harmonious and stable labour-management relations to ensure that the province maintains and enhances its competitive position in the world marketplace" -- yes, that's a noble objective and well worth applauding -- and to "review the Industrial Relations Act and bring forward recommendations for change having regard for the need to create fair laws which will promote harmony and a climate conducive to the encouragement of investment." Again, a noble objective. Neither has been even remotely approached by the legislative package that has been presented to us.
In summation I would like to list my main reasons for supporting the amendment to the bill. The process was flawed and biased. There has been an absolute denial of public interest in collective bargaining. There has been an eradication of any notion of individual rights in the collective bargaining system. There has been a substantial shift from collective bargaining to a system of government-guaranteed rights to unions -- rights not earned at the bargaining table but guaranteed to unions through this legislative package.
The purported objectivity of the government is a myth propagated by government members and union bosses. Union bosses have co-opted what once was a proud and highly principled political party. I wonder how the honourable men and women who founded the
[ Page 3801 ]
CCF party are looking upon a government that has been co-opted entirely by unions. I wonder how the word "democratic" in the New Democratic Party will continue to be used when on certification, if 55 percent or more sign a card, their right to secret ballot is taken away from them. Shame on the government and the government members. Even in countries throughout the world that make a sham of democracy still go through at least the charade of a secret ballot. That has been taken away by this legislative package.
[3:15]
My third major reason for opposing this and recommending that it go to a committee is that an assessment of the impact on the economy and our competitiveness in the world marketplace has not been considered whatsoever. Clearly there is a significant impact of this legislation on that economic fact. I care about the province and I care greatly about the future of this province. The people must be given an opportunity and the time to make their views known. This government was way out of touch with the sentiments of British Columbians on the constitutional accord. I believe that this government is way out of touch with British Columbians on this Orwellian Bill 84.
If the NDP government had the slightest courage of their convictions and faith in those convictions, they would put the bill to the public test. Failing to do so will confirm the belief that this bill is the granddaddy of all conflict of interest occurrences and that it's a political payoff not exceeded in the history of British Columbia.
I will look forward to speaking further on second reading and advancing other arguments into this. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to rise and clarify from my perspective for British Columbians my observations on this piece of legislation.
G. Janssen: It's a great pleasure to rise and debate Bill 84 for the first time. As the House is aware, many of the members of the opposition have already spoken three times: once on the bill, then on the motion to amend -- the hoist motion put forward by the third party -- and now on the amendment to send this bill to a committee. Undoubtedly they will speak again on further motions to try and stall this initiative by government -- this much-needed initiative -- to replace Bill 19, which was brought in by the third party without consultation and written before the consultation process was finished. In fact the deputy minister resigned because of the action of that government which would not consult and would not appoint any consultation. In fact, he took the proper action and said: "Even I can't live with it, and I won't be employed by people who use that kind of action."
We are talking on an amendment for a hoist motion, but let me just put forward in the record the previous administration's -- now the third party -- record on hoist motions. First I'd like to quote from the leader of the third party, the member for Peace River South, in this debate who said:
"My experience in this House over the past six years has been that the best legislation introduced in this House has been put forward, tabled for consideration and voted on at some future date.
"...I suggest that whether or not they are prepared to...allow for consideration, and allow for public comment is a test of the confidence that a minister has in the legislation."
Yet, when that member was a member of government -- a member of the executive council of government -- he supported none of the so-called hoist motions or amendments put forward by the opposition of the day, the New Democrats, who now of course form the government.
The Vander Zalm government majority of 1986 to 1991 voted against all eight hoist motions put forward by the opposition. It is the height of hypocrisy for the third party to now sit here and put forward amendments to this bill suggesting that a hoist motion is in the best interest of British Columbia when they, when in government, in fact voted against every hoist motion the opposition of the day put forward. In fact, in the almost 40 years of Social Credit, when the New Democratic Party was in opposition, not one hoist motion that I could find in the records was supported by the government of the day. Now they say we must have a second look; it is the best way for government to operate.
We have been in power for one year. I can't imagine that the rules of the House have changed that dramatically. Of course not. This government was elected to take action. In the platform of the election campaign was the fact -- top, front and centre -- that Bill 19 would be changed. People voted for this government. They expected change. We're delivering that change. It is that type of forward thinking that members of both opposition parties find they cannot support.
The purpose of this later quote is to restore the fairness and balance necessary for a stable labour-relations climate so that we can encourage economic development. The previous speaker, the House Leader for the third party, the member for Okanagan West, made some comments about this government's performance on the economy -- the government with the highest credit rating of any government in Canada, provincial or federal. We have a triple-A credit rating. This is a government that maintained that credit rating. We had to make some tough choices on the economy and on the massive deficit left by the previous administration. We made those tough choices, and we maintained that credit rating. We maintain the highest rate of growth and the highest rate of job creation of any province in Canada. That is leadership, that is action and that is why we are moving forward with this bill rather than putting it off for another six months so we can go through more stalemate. We can develop an economy and jobs.
The previous speaker also suggested that the unions and government were in bed together. Working people elected working people in this province. Working people are also people in small business, such as myself. If he is suggesting that we're in bed together.... In fact, he even suggested that we were no longer in bed together; we were now married. Hon. member, I must say that if we're married, you just wait until you see the children of that marriage. Then you'll see progress in British Columbia.
[ Page 3802 ]
In 1973 the then Labour minister, Bill King, acted on the 1968 federal Woods Task Force on Labour Relations. The Social Credit government that was elected in 1976 left that legislation largely intact until 1984 -- good legislation that even they didn't want to tamper with. In 1984 a bill eliminated sectoral bargaining and secondary picketing. It gave employers the right to apply for decertification if they had no employees for two years. So employers simply formed new companies, idled the present company for two years and decertified it. They took away rights legally bargained for by those employees. It took B.C. out of the mainstream by requiring that secret ballots be held for union certification and by getting rid of the signed membership card system that was the norm in Canadian labour relations for 40 years -- and is still in most provinces in this country. The rate of new certification for unions dropped by half.
In 1987, in regard to Bill 19, there was a consultation process, but it was overseen by Bill Vander Zalm and David Poole. The Deputy Minister of Labour, Graham Leslie, resigned and called Bill 19 the product of too few and too narrow minds.
This time there was a consultation process. Vince Ready, John Baigent and Tom Roper commented on Bill 19 by saying: "...no one seriously attempted to defend Bill 19 as balanced legislation...." In 1988 some sections of Bill 19 were found to be in violation of Canada's commitment under the United Nations International Labour Organization Conventions dealing with freedom of association and protection of rights to organize. We were in violation of the United Nations conventions -- and the opposition wonders why we are changing Bill 19. Perhaps they'd like to continue on and have the world point at British Columbia as one of those countries that violate United Nations charters.
The consultation process was open and fair. There were 500 presentations. Everyone's voice was heard. And 98 percent of the changes were reached by unanimous consent -- a modern approach for a successful economy based on mutual respect and cooperation between business and unions.
This bill will go a long way towards correcting some of the problems that working people have faced in this province by bringing business and labour together so that they can resolve their own differences, rather than running to government or to a commission, and rather than having arbitration imposed upon them.
I'd like to quote something on the policy of some of the opposition members -- and perhaps of the opposition. I quote the member for Richmond-Steveston on another hoist motion, on another bill -- Bill 23. This was on section 80, which prohibited university faculty from forming faculty associations or trade unions. "There's very good reason," the member said, "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." They are not against this bill. They are clearly against people organizing fairly under the UN charter, forming into unions and seeking that protection. That's what the opposition party is against. That is the type of legislation they will bring forward if -- heaven pray -- they ever form government. And working people of this province are fully aware of that. That's why they voted in a New Democratic Party government a year ago, and not a Liberal Party.
The question has to be asked: who are they representing? Clearly not the working people of British Columbia. As a business person, I can tell you that decent wages and decent working conditions translate into healthy profits for business. If that were not so, and if lower wages and poorer working conditions were attractive.... Let us look at countries where labour legislation is weak or perhaps does not exist. What kind of profits are made by business there? We just have to look at the Third World or perhaps states in the United States that have right-to-work legislation, and we see that the standard of living is the lowest of all countries and of all the states. There are lots of successful companies in British Columbia that exist here and exist in countries that have tougher union legislation and tougher conditions than Canada does.
As most members know, I recently spent some time in Europe. The European Common Market has a social charter that guarantees rights for workers far in excess of what are contained in Bill 84. There are companies in British Columbia.... In fact, MacMillan Bloedel, which operates in my constituency in Port Alberni, operates just south of my hometown in Holland. Dutch labour laws, Dutch unions and the right of association are much tougher for a company to operate under than they are in British Columbia. Yet MacMillan Bloedel has operated that company for many years and is very profitable at it. So companies are not afraid of bills such as Bill 84. They want fair, decent labour practices to exist so that they can attract good, trained workers who will stay with their company, and they can all grow and prosper.
[3:30]
This bill will provide stability, and stability and certainty create a climate that is conducive to investments. Yet the opposition benches would like nothing better than to pull this bill off the floor for six months so that investors, who are at this moment ready to come to British Columbia and invest their dollars, will have to wait six months to see what kind of labour law will be coming forward. They know what Bill 84 says; they are in agreement with it.
The opposition says there is lots of opposition out there from the business community. I ask those members to table that opposition and to put forward the letters and comments they have received. I represent a very heavily -- if not the most heavily -- unionized community in British Columbia. Not one letter or phone call has come through my office from anybody in my constituency complaining about Bill 84.
We made it very clear that we would do something about Bill 19 if we were elected. We were elected; we are acting on Bill 19. If we didn't act on Bill 19, the opposition would stand up and say: "Another broken promise. They're not acting on the labour legislation." When we do act, they don't agree. But they do not put forward definite proposals; they put forward hoist motions. They do not put forward alternative legislation; they put forward even more hoist motions. I
[ Page 3803 ]
believe their policy is no policy. At least the third party had a convention a few months ago, and in fact we are having a convention in three or four days. Our policy is laid out. I would like to see what the Liberal policy is, if in fact there is one.
I would just like to conclude that as a small business person I know the benefits of decent wages, good working conditions and safety for workers in the workplace and for their families. That translates into high wages, which translate into sales in small businesses in small communities around this province that desperately need them at this time. That translates into profit, which translates into a strong economy for British Columbia -- the best economy in Canada and the fastest-growing economy in Canada. B.C. will continue to grow and prosper with initiatives such as Bill 84.
A. Cowie: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand and support this motion to send Bill 84, the new labour code, to the legislative committee. The changes to the labour code are not aimed at large employers and large unions. Through the able work of John Baigent, Vince Ready and Tom Roper, comfortable trade-offs have been agreed to. Large employers have gained from secondary picketing restrictions. For example, striking woodworkers cannot now picket pulp mills. On the other hand, they gave up the issue of secondary boycotting, which prevents unionized firms from dealing with non-union firms. This does not hurt big business or big unions, but it does hurt the small non-union firms, because they get work, and they could be coerced into joining unions. The bill aims to spread unionization to smaller firms to make up for the loss of membership in the larger unions, such as the forest industry where we're losing workers due to modernization. All that we're seeing here is a grab for more union members.
The barring of replacement workers is another example whereby larger firms and unions will not suffer. If a large operation is on strike, say in the construction industry, it is likely that all operations will be affected. So this legislation really does not affect the very large unions. This is not the case for smaller firms, a firm that might have two or three operations. The bill stops these firms from bringing employees from other operations.
The bill will also restrict the transfer of management personnel from one operation to another. That has been a longstanding practice. It keeps some businesses that are in a difficult situation in business, so they can be there later, and there will be work for the employees. This measure is just another stumbling block for small business employers. It doesn't change big business that much.
The biggest philosophical issue, in my opinion, is the loss of the secret vote when seeking certification of new workplaces. A union employer will have to become a union operation if 55 percent of the workers sign up, without, as I say, a secret vote. I say that this is a philosophical issue because it is hard to believe that an aware employer would not know that his employees are signing up for a union. Surely, if he's an aware employer, he's going to know what's happening. In a democratic country, there should be the right to vote. The claim by the government that doing away with the vote will lessen violence is utter nonsense.
Union members often work for non-union firms when there isn't work. What will happen now is that if a union member, say an electrical worker or a carpenter, comes to a small firm, the first thing an employer is going to have to do is ask if he's got a union card. It's going to separate them and create difficulty between union and non-union members. If you get two or three union members in a non-union firm, that could create a lot of problems, and it could instigate that firm to go union.
I talked with a friend of mine in the landscape business over the weekend. He pays his employees fair wages, and there is a good working relationship between the workers and management. He has already been hit this year by the capital corporation tax, which he says has prevented him from paying larger increases to his employees. The threat of having to unionize, either to get contracts with union contractors or to satisfy a few discontented workers, is a threat to his business. It's going to be more difficult to be competitive. Only five landscape contractors in this province are unionized -- no problem; they work on large projects. But now what will happen is that when they need plant supplies from, say, this nursery, they may have to get those from just union suppliers. The owners of firms such as this have put all their personal assets into the business, and, more often than not, their whole family is working in the business. What we should be doing in this province is encouraging small businesses, encouraging people to put capital into small businesses. This is simply not going to help that situation. That's where something like 90 percent of the jobs come from. This bill is going to be a further threat to small business.
Ninety percent of the residential home building industry, as the Minister of Labour knows, is non-union. In cases that I am familiar with, fair wages are paid. Often, at the end of a job, a bonus is paid because of good work done by the people. There's a sense of comradeship, a sense of doing a good job between the workers, the superintendents and the owners of the firm. It's a team. Having to unionize small frame construction projects is only going to add tremendously to the cost.
I built a small project about 12 years ago in Vancouver. It was a four-unit condominium with underground parking. Because we were doing manufactured framing, we went union, which was fine. It was competitive. At the end of building the garage for eight cars and doing the framing for the condominiums, the union contractor came to us and said that it would be wise if for the rest of the project we went non-union, since otherwise he would not be able to keep the costs in line. I'm glad he did, because there was not a lot of profit made in that project, though it was profitable.
I have no argument against unions. For large concrete and steel structures, where it's complicated, where a lot of training is required and where you build up skills, I think that's a proper place for a union. I know of several large concrete apartment projects where, in fact, the bids went to union. It was competit-
[ Page 3804 ]
ive. In those sorts of projects, it's fine. As far as schools are concerned, if it's a complicated project, I don't have any problem with it, provided it's an open bid between union and non-union.
The city of Vancouver, for example, works on a fair wage policy and does not restrict buildings just simply to union. There are some elected members on both parks board and council who insist every time a project comes forward that it should go to a union contractor. Fortunately for the taxpayers of Vancouver and the many good workers who work on these projects, it's been open to union and non-union. Sometimes it goes to the union. That's the way it should be. It should be based on fair wages.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is here today, is looking for ways to build affordable housing. I suggest he take my advice and not encourage unions in this part of the construction industry -- the frame construction industry. With GST, increases to municipal building permits and increases to development cost charges, the cost of frame construction is going up dramatically. If you made it a requirement that these firms be union, they simply couldn't compete. This is just one more reason for not interfering with this industry and allowing the industry to sort itself out.
Most firms today, large and small, are working with contemporary management techniques. Employers are encouraging their employees to participate in business decisions. Jack Munro, for example, recognizes this in his work within the forest industry. He has been able to soften the blow of some of the jobs having to be given up due to modernization. He realizes that industry must rebuild and be competitive, and that means fewer jobs in the forest industry. What we should be doing is making sure that these people are retrained and that there are provisions so that they can go into smaller businesses or businesses of their own. Hopefully, even after this legislation, they will not be required to make those businesses union.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
If employers do not implement modern management principles, these firms aren't going to survive anyway. There's got to be a good relationship between employers and employees. Since modern management of small and medium-sized firms means involvement of workers, there's really no need to unionize. There's no need to go out for this grab to get more union members. This bill is simply that: a grab.
Also, I really don't worry about the NDP getting support from the unions. I think it's a well-known fact. During the last election, I remember that this lovely vehicle -- union vehicle and union employees -- came by. All the signs of my NDP competitor had been printed up in the union shop for free. Not only did they print them up, they actually put them up. I had no such luxury.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: Now there's a shyster. He claimed he put in $25,000, and he didn't.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.
[3:45]
A. Cowie: The main thing that we have to do is keep B.C. competitive. At this time, when we have to export, we have to work and we have to have good firms that are competitive, we simply don't need unions in small and medium-sized companies. I would urge that we take this bill to a committee. If the government thinks it's so good, fine, give it six months for review, and then go forward.
We have had many letters come to my riding of Vancouver-Quilchena, and that's probably not typical. There are a lot of business owners, people in small business as well as bigger businesses. We have had a great number of letters and phone calls on this issue, and they are very concerned.
I had one letter faxed to me yesterday, which I'll use as an example. Charles Flavelle, from Purdy Chocolates, lives in my riding. I've known him for many years. I knew him when he had his chocolate factory on 7th Avenue, and he has now progressed to a much larger factory on Kingsway. It's a non-union firm that is managed well. People love working there, and the chocolates are good. He wrote to the Premier, who also lives in my riding, and he got a typical wishy-washy letter back. I notice that the Minister of Labour has also written. He must have copied the letter from the Premier; it's equally as wishy-washy. I can assure you that Mr. Flavelle represents a large number of business people in my riding, who have worked very hard. They started off as a small business. In his case, he has now grown quite large, and he's very successful. He is frightened about the possibility of his firm being forced, for one reason or another, to become unionized. I take it that he's not necessarily threatened by having a contract for selling chocolates to the provincial government, but in any case he does feel threatened.
I want to talk very briefly, and then I'll close. I worked for over 20 years as a business person. I don't like to refer to myself as a small business person, as my predecessor did; I was just a business person dealing with small firms. While it's a professional firm, quite truthfully this unionization could even go to small professional firms: architects, landscape architects and engineers. The next step we're going to have is that these firms aren't protected by professional organizations that are necessarily recognized by the provincial government. I think I would have just packed my firm up a long time ago if that were the case. Instead, I had very few problems at all getting people. If there were problems, we sat down; if people warranted increases, they got them, if there was money available. It was done through good discussion and good consultation.
So I would suggest that we now consult with the whole of the province over the next few months through a proper legislative committee, and then we'll get proper feedback to see whether my comments are valid or not. I think they are.
[ Page 3805 ]
L. Hanson: I'm a bit confused. The previous six-month hoist motion was not supported by the Liberal caucus. Then I listened to the speakers, and they seemed to speak in favour of it. But to show that a good idea is a good idea no matter what the source is, I'm rising to speak in favour of the motion before us.
The reasons for my support of the motion are similar to the reasons that I supported the hoist motion. The minister, who very proudly presented this bill to us, suggested that it was the product of three men, sometimes referred to as three wise men. I happen to have some knowledge of those individuals, as well as knowing them personally -- some of them at least -- and I certainly cannot argue about their integrity. Their dedication to their particular professions is well documented and well respected in British Columbia.
I will emphasize that Mr. Baigent, a lawyer, has -- and I don't think anyone would argue -- very serious ties to the labour movement. He has been a labour movement lawyer of record for years, and he certainly has a knowledge of that particular practice in law. The other gentleman, Mr. Roper, is also a lawyer. I think he is also recognized as being representative of large unionized companies, and he has done an excellent job in that capacity. And the chairman, Mr. Ready, has negotiated and mediated situations where they have come out of what appeared to be a total impasse with a negotiated settlement. He is a man of extreme talents.
But who do these people represent? We have a lawyer representing large unions; we have a lawyer representing large unionized companies; and we have a mediator who depends on those two parts of our society for his living. Can you in some way suggest that the findings of those individuals would represent the interests of the public of British Columbia? I don't think you can. There was no small business representation. There was no representation of individuals. I think the minister would be hard pressed to give the name of a representative of the public who sat on that committee.
The people of British Columbia who were not represented at that table or in the process, who did not have an opportunity to comment on what we have before us, have to be given that time. They have to be given an opportunity to analyze what is in the bill. They have to be given an opportunity to understand what is in the bill. They have to be given an opportunity to tell us -- the politicians, the legislators, the government of British Columbia -- what they feel about this legislation.
I don't think the public is very surprised that labour organizations are very closely associated with the government in power. It's well known that support during the last election came very heavily from organized labour, not only financially but in terms of campaigning. But I don't think that in the eyes of the public that justifies taking us back to pre-1984 days, and that's exactly what this bill is doing.
I submit to the Legislature that large unions, large corporations and government itself are not alone in their concern with this piece of legislation. If you could isolate those interests and say that they were the only ones that are affected by it, I suspect that I might even be able to force myself to support it. But I don't think you can say that, and I don't think the people of British Columbia will say that, if we give them the opportunity to comment on it.
I don't know how they can possibly suggest that the rights of the individual to a secret democratic vote should be removed. I would almost bet -- not being a betting man, I say almost -- that if a referendum were held, such as the recent one on the accord, you would find in excess of 90 percent in support of the individual's right to a free ballot. But we don't give them an opportunity to comment. We send three people around the province to gather information about how the public feels from presentations and so on. We table that report and the legislation on the same day, before anyone has even had an opportunity to look at it. That's not consultation.
Just as the secondary boycott influences people, the secondary boycott provision in Bill 84 has a huge influence on people who are not at the table and have no opportunity to express their opinions. A secondary boycott affects them. This bill affects them too, and we haven't given them an opportunity to express their concerns. The simple way that it was presented has precluded that.
One of the major concerns with the bill is not one specific point. The bill itself has been very cleverly put together, so that when you take the effect of the different changes and add them up, they will change labour relations in British Columbia beyond what anyone believes. That's the secret of this bill. No one specific place has any huge change, but add them all together, and it's a huge change. It takes time for people, even the professionals in the business, to analyze, absorb and understand that and come out with comments. We haven't given them that opportunity.
I've said this before, and I'm sure other members of the House have said it many times, but I think it's so important that it's worth repeating: what is the rush? British Columbia's economy is the envy of every other province in Canada. It's not as good as it could be, but it's still the envy of every other province in Canada. If you look at the record, and you look at the statistics, wages are way up, unionization is up. Seventy-five percent of the certification votes that went before the Industrial Relations Council were successful. What do you want? One hundred percent? Why not just change the law to say everybody's unionized? Hon. Speaker, I wouldn't support that, by the way. Look at the days lost since this government has come to power. The days lost equal and exceed the days lost during the whole time of Bill 19. Why is that? It's because the expectations have been increased so tremendously by organized labour, because now "we have our government in power."
I don't want to prolong this too much, but I would like to ask this government to show the citizens of British Columbia that this bill is not simply to carry through on the promises they made to their allies during the election campaign, but that they are prepared to send the bill to a legislative committee to give all British Columbians a chance to study, analyze and provide their input. Hon. Speaker, I urge this Legislature to vote for this amendment and against this bill.
[ Page 3806 ]
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I stand to speak in favour of the amendment, to speak very strongly in favour of the amendment, and to urge the government to see this amendment for what it is. It is a reasoned attempt to try to convince them to take the appropriate approach to this legislation, this hated piece of legislation that the Minister of Labour has brought before the House with very bad timing. The reason I feel that this is very bad timing is that, as this government knows too well, the economy of B.C. is in a state of flux.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I hear someone saying it's the best in the country. That's no thanks to this government. It is despite the legislation and the capital investment attractiveness of this government that B.C.'s economy is managing to proceed at the rate that it is. This legislation is going to cause so much labour unrest, so many problems in the economy. We've seen, for example, the issue with the Balmer mine. That's not a done deal right now, with the ministerial statement that we had yesterday with regard to the Balmer mine. We all know that the successor clauses in this bill will definitely jeopardize a lot of the....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I hear some heckling from the Minister of Labour that there was unanimous consent on a lot of the issues in the bill.
[4:00]
I'd like to take this opportunity to take exception to the fact that the government seems to be justifying all the worst parts of this bill by passing it on to the committee, when in actual fact this bill is the Minister of Labour's bill, and he should have the pride or embarrassment of authorship personally. I don't want to hear in this House any more deferral to the committee's recommendations, any more deferral to the consensus report, because we're talking about this bill. We're talking about putting this bill to the select standing committee....
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: This minister is heckling me because he's trying to say that he has some pride in authorship.
We should very seriously look at some of the implications of this bill and what this minister is going to do to the economy of British Columbia with his bill. Although there is a consensus report that accompanied this bill....
An Hon. Member: Who prepared your speech?
J. Tyabji: There's no doubt that I prepared the speech; I'm just not prepared for the level of heckling, which has sunk to new lows in the House.
An Hon. Member: You're too kind. I'd call it something else.
J. Tyabji: Yes.
I'd like to speak to some of the things that are being communicated to the....
Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order. I don't know if it's in order to give the hon. member a moment so that she can regain her composure, stop giggling and try to give a straight....
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. That is not a proper point of order.
A. Warnke: Point of order. Considering that we're on points of order, I think it's relevant to say, under standing order 6, that from time to time in this House we've been under a quorum. We could have done something about that, but we have not. I think this government should start showing responsibility by bringing some members into this House.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. There is a quorum. If there was not a quorum, then your point of order would have been well taken. However, at the time you took your place there was a quorum. I would ask members not to gain the floor indirectly when clearly they are out of order.
J. Tyabji: I think it's very important that the minister stay and listen to these comments. It's interesting when we talk about the fact that there has not been great representation from the government through these debates. So although this minister might say he has some pride in authorship, I would say that the majority of his members do not share that pride and that they keep deferring to this committee because they're trying to pass the buck, just the way this government passes the buck on every other responsibility that they are supposed to take authorship of.
I want to share with you some of the thoughts of the people of B.C. -- thoughts that should be incorporated in the debate on this bill, thoughts that we would like to have incorporated in the debate on this bill, and the very reason that we are urging this House to take it to a select standing committee and not rush to pass this legislation, which is what we're seeing happen.
We know a number of people who have contacted the opposition, and we know that these letters have also gone to the government. What I find particularly interesting is the number of union members who are opposed to this legislation -- union members that this government continues to say it is going to bat for.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Name names.
J. Tyabji: I'm very happy to table the correspondence, as the ministers are heckling me to do. I've got one, for example, from CCM Construction with regard to the proposed new labour code: "I'm writing this letter to register my displeasure with the new labour code proposed by the current NDP government." There are at least a dozen names of union members who have signed this. The letter is not very flattering to this
[ Page 3807 ]
government, and for good reason. Here are some of the things that it says:
"I understand" -- the government wishes -- "to eliminate the certification vote in favour of certification based on a majority of employees holding union cards. I have had many conversations with various employees, both those who work for me and those who do not. Believe it or not" -- and I hope the minister is listening to this -- "there are tradesmen out there in the construction industry who do not wish to belong to a union."
They would like the freedom to choose -- a freedom which this government doesn't understand.
This government, in its paternalistic and high-handed manner, decided that all the working people of B.C. should belong to unions. So here we've got people in the construction industry who do not wish to belong to a union, and the NDP are removing a basic democratic right and quashing the right to be heard. That's exactly what is happening with the 55 percent provision and the lack of a secret ballot vote.
We look at this bill and realize there are provisions in it that would allow discrimination against union members. We know that right now the construction industry in some areas of the province is in good shape, and in some areas it's not. So we could conceivably have situations -- and we do -- where people who are holding union cards and do not have jobs are working for non-union companies. On the basis of this bill, if 55 percent of the employees of a non-union company decide to be certified, that non-union company would become certified.
I see the Minister of Labour nodding with his pride of authorship. He is endorsing an underhanded way of a non-union company.... Do you know what will happen? My prediction is that non-union employers.... I hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying: "You don't understand." Let me speak slowly for your benefit. If we have non-union companies that decide they would like to hire people, they will ask those people if they are members of a union. If that non-union company chooses, as is their right, not to be unionized, they will ensure that they will have less than 45 percent of their workers holding cards. What you will have is discrimination against card-holding union members. Anyone who has a membership in a union will not be hired.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's illegal.
J. Tyabji: Well, we all know that if there are two people sitting at the table who want to be hired and you're an employer who doesn't want to be unionized, you go with someone who's not holding a card. That will allow for discrimination. This NDP government is building in discrimination against workers who happen to hold cards in a union. This is consistent.... If you look at small-town B.C. -- which many of the members of this cabinet don't understand....
G. Brewin: What do you know?
J. Tyabji: I can actually speak for people who don't live in Kelowna, to be honest, because I've been there. I've actually visited places other than Kelowna, unlike many of the government members who don't realize that there is a province beyond Hope. Actually, I think this minister can take the pride of authorship in claiming he doesn't understand. There are small towns around this province that are dependent on the resource industries, and many of the workers who work for the companies in these towns happen to be unionized. When -- as we have seen repeatedly under this government -- the resource industry companies shut down because of erosion of the land base and instability in the capital investment sector, and we have foreign investment going to other countries because of the policies of this government.... When those small towns shut down because of that, we have these workers who hold union cards going somewhere else to get a job. If these....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I can wait. I think it's an important point for this member because she happens to be from somewhere other than the lower mainland, unlike most of the cabinet.
When these union members are out of work in the small towns and move to another centre where they would like to get a job, they will find that those memberships are a liability because of this government's legislation. This government is making it more difficult for the displaced workers who happen to be unionized to find work in the small towns. So not only are they putting them out of work by shutting down the resource industries, but they're making it harder for them to find a job because of this legislation. That's patently unfair.
Hon. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of the amendment because this government has not spent enough time thinking of the implications of their bill. There are provisions in this bill -- and I know we're not speaking about specific clauses, but if we were I would be talking about 53, 54 and 55 -- that have to do with the way in which employers now, by law, when this becomes an act.... I hope I won't see that happen, but unfortunately -- I can count -- you will have a majority, although you will not have a majority of the people in the province supporting you on this.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I hear the suggestion that this should be a free vote. This should be a free vote. I'd like to see the government members go back to their communities and tell them that they voted in favour of this legislation, because the small and medium-sized businesses now, by law, if this legislation passes.... I hope it doesn't; I hope we send it to a select standing committee and can amend this out of it. We will have octopus clauses in here, whereby all of a sudden, by legislation, an employer must set up a committee with the employees, must give 60 days' notice of any change in policy or planning, and must have an adjustment plan. What that represents is that this government does not trust the
[ Page 3808 ]
small and medium-sized business owners of the province to handle their own affairs.
Hon. L. Boone: They've done a good job so far, haven't they?
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, there's a minister over there saying very sarcastically: "They've done a good job so far." Yes, they have. The small and medium-sized business owners of the province have done an excellent job in B.C., which is one of the reasons why our economy is so dependent on the health of the small and medium-sized businesses. This bill is going to be a death knell for these companies, which will now, by legislation, have to give 60 days' notice of any kind of plan.
Let's think of a concrete example. Let's look at the wine industry in the Okanagan or the fruit industry, or a secondary industry like a juice producer. All of a sudden, because of the competitive market economy -- which has been removed from this bill, and we have yet to hear from the government why it did so.... The reality is that you must be flexible enough to compete. We're in a global economy. You have to be able to make decisions quickly, because the reality is that it's a very tough economy. We're going to have to be able to transform sometimes in terms of technology and sometimes in the methods we use to advertise and package. Imagine a winery or a juice producer, and all of a sudden, to meet the demands of a change in the economy, they have to change their packaging. Well, according to this bill -- and I believe the government hasn't thought this through, because none of them over there has any business experience -- they will now have to give 60 days' notice to their employees before they change their packaging. Does this even make sense, hon. Speaker? Does it make sense that they will have to go to their employees?
[4:15]
There's an inherent distrust coming out of this bill that an employer won't have the good sense to consult with the employees on matters that concern the employees. That's fundamentally wrong. Any employer who understands how to get ahead will know that you have to have a cooperative and good relationships with your employees. What this bill does is presuppose antagonism and build in a mechanism to deal with antagonism that might not be there, which becomes so unwieldy that there's no way you can possibly compete in a competitive market economy. Guess what? They removed that clause from the Industrial Relations Act. We don't have to be in a competitive market economy in B.C. We live in a vacuum.
It's very obvious that the pride of authorship that the people who drafted this bill and the Minister of Labour take in this bill is misplaced. This is a very, very bad piece of legislation for the economy of our province for what it assumes on the part of the employers, for the patronizing attitude and the paternalistic approach to the workers of the province, and for the fact that it's going to tie so much red tape around the working people and the employers in small and medium-sized businesses that they're going to choke. This is bad timing on the part of this government. They're trying to choke off the most important part of our economy: the small and medium-sized businesses.
When they campaigned, this government said that they were campaigning on behalf of the working people. Where are the working people in this bill? I haven't seen them. I've seen big unions represented; I've seen employers tied up in red tape. I see no legislation on behalf of the working people. In fact, it's going to make it very difficult for a lot of working people. All it takes is for one union member to take issue with something the employer is doing, and the rest of the members will be pulled into that as well. The rest of them might not even agree with it, but according to the clauses that deal with co-management -- the committee that has to be set up; the adjustment plan -- they're going to be forced into doing it. There will be no choice at all. That is anti-democratic. It undermines not only the rights of the individuals, but the ability of companies in this country to do business. They will not be able to manage. If this government understood business and the economy at all, they would definitely take issue with many of the clauses in this bill; they would agree with us that it should go to a select standing committee. They would stop trying to ram the legislation through.
I mentioned before that we in the opposition have had a number of letters from unionized workers who are complaining about Bill 84. I have one here from a man in Ladysmith. It's very brief and to the point, and I'd like to share with you some of his thoughts:
"I have worked in the construction industry since I was a teenager, first as an apprentice, then as a journeyman carpenter...proposed changes to the labour relations act serve to deprive me of a fundamental right to choose and to vote. I was a member of the Carpenters' Union in Alberta for ten years. I don't believe that membership in" -- the union -- "is the best thing for me; however, by dispensing with voting for certification in favour of certification by the majority carrying union cards, you are not giving me the choice. Don't force unionization on those who don't want it."
That message has been articulated to us in the opposition again and again.
The workers of the province are very upset that this government, which campaigned on a platform of representing the working people -- we've seen no evidence of it so far -- has brought in legislation that is so paternalistic and patronizing that the working people of the province are picking up a pen and paper and saying: "Please stop." That's the reason this should go to a select standing committee. If it did, this government would realize that they are sadly mistaken if they think they are doing anything other than paying off the big unions who supported them in the election. It takes a majority to win an election. Next time around this government will have blown it with the majority of the province if they continue to ram legislation through this House that doesn't represent the wishes of the people.
There are so many messages coming from the people of the province that would justify us taking this to a select standing committee. I'd like to share another one with you:
[ Page 3809 ]
"It has come to my attention that the provincial government is planning to take away my fundamental democratic right to vote. I find it difficult to express in words how greatly this disturbs me. As a Canadian, born, raised and living in B.C., I have always been proud of living in a society that enables me to choose to vote on key issues that will ultimately affect my lifestyle and livelihood. Automatic union certification...strips me of my fundamental rights as set out by the Charter of Rights.
"In closing, I must convey to you my disappointment in this government's obvious inability to pass positive and constructive legislation for the good of the people and the economy, and how this government allows itself to be pushed and directed by unions to pass legislation that keeps the unions happy and their sign-on books extensively long."
He goes on, but the rest is less flattering. I choose not to share it with the House.
What I find really disturbing is the arrogance that comes across on the other side of the House in presupposing that they can push this legislation through without releasing the consensus report or even tabling the draft legislation in the House so that we can look at it. In this bill there are very many important provisions. I don't even think the bill should be legal. The bill specifically says: "...refer to the regulations." They haven't even been written yet. What are we debating here?
D. Jarvis: It sounds like the constitution.
J. Tyabji: That's exactly what it sounds like: "Give me a blank cheque and I'll sign it." That's what this government is doing. We know what the people of the province said to that approach to the constitution, and we know what the people of the province would say to this bill, if they were given the chance. They would say no. They should have that chance. They should have it by allowing it to go to a select standing committee.
I think it is extremely unfortunate that the government, as we see by the representation here, is choosing to turn a blind eye to the fact that the people of the province not only want a debate on this bill, but they are demanding it. They want to know about things like secondary boycotting.
I have a list of letters here. Many of them talk about secondary boycotting and the fact that this undermines the fundamental right to the freedom to choose. It is extremely frightening that we're entering the age of Big Brother. And I do say Big Brother. It's not a gender-equal term; this is a paternalistic approach. This government is always pushing gender equity, but they lost sight of it when they decided on their approach to this legislation. They're forcing it on us. The Big Brother approach that they've put into this legislation is one thing. Not only do they know better about how businesses should operate in the province, but they know better than the working people how they should be organized. That is extremely unfortunate.
It bothers me that when we talk about things like secondary boycotting, we're removing the people's right to choose. No government should be dictating to the businesses of the province any more than the level of red tape that this government has already imposed on them. Between the taxation, the legislation and the new approach to labour, I can't understand how we can possibly compete in the global economy. We know that NAFTA is on the horizon. The free trade agreement is a fact of life. NAFTA is a fact of life; we just have to find out about the details. We're in a global economy. Unfortunately, they've removed the competitive market economy provisions from here. We see that they had to put in things like secondary boycotting.
Hon. Speaker, I want to talk to you for a minute about replacement workers. This is something that must be debated around the province, especially in a select standing committee. We constantly hear from this government that the reason they wanted what they call anti-replacement-worker legislation was to prevent the kind of picket line violence that we see happening on very rare occasions when things get very heated. That's what the Criminal Code is for. We don't have to have it in our labour legislation, because that presupposes that there will be such an antagonistic climate in labour relations that this government, in its paternalistic approach, will have to go in and tell employers how they should do business.
It's not the big businesses and big unions that are really being impacted by clauses like that in this bill; it's the medium-sized and small businesses. The same wineries and juice-producing places that I talked about before -- that have to give 60 days' notice to their workers, set up a committee and work on their adjustment plan when they want to change their packaging -- are still competing in a global market. If it comes down to a point where they are looking at a strike vote and are trying to negotiate a deal, the employer now no longer has the bargaining chip of replacement workers.
When that employer sits down with the employees and says, "Okay, let's work out a deal," what is the employer working with? The employer's back is to the wall right away, because the employer cannot hire replacement workers. If the employer is going to be competitive and continue as a small or medium business, that employer is going to have to cave in right away or shut down -- one or the other. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a small or medium-sized business continue to operate during a strike without replacement workers. A big business might be able to weather the losses. A big business can take a month or so of red ink; a small business can't, especially a family operation with maybe 20 or 30 employees. What are they going to do? They can't possibly shut down. They're going to have to take whatever the union brings to the table. In the first round of negotiations they have no bargaining chip of replacement workers, and they're going to have to give in.
If you take it to its logical extension -- and I know that's a bit of a stretch for some of the members in the House -- they're going to be negotiated out of their ability to compete. The reason for that is that they're going to be negotiated into a position where they cannot afford what their employees are demanding; they also cannot afford not to meet their demands, so they'll have to shut down. At that point, big businesses
[ Page 3810 ]
will be very happy, because they will have increased their share of the market.
This bill systematically erodes the ability of small and medium-sized businesses to continue to function, and it encourages big businesses to squeeze them out. If a big business negotiates a contract that might be applicable to somebody in a small or medium-sized business because the working conditions are the same, then the employees in the small and medium-sized businesses are going to want the same things. Then there's no bargaining chip of replacement workers, so when they sit down with their employees, the employers will have to give in. Eventually those businesses are going to shut down, and the big businesses will be very happy. Maybe the big business vote can replace the vote of the working people next time around for the NDP, because that's about the only hope they'll have.
I'd like to share with you some more of the letters we have here. As I say, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but some of them illustrate the plight of small and medium-sized businesses, as I've outlined it. Here's one from Lincor Enterprises Ltd. in Vancouver:
"As a small business owner, I am deeply concerned about labour code changes and their effect on the relationship between myself and my employees. To date, our success has been predicated on the belief that we must work together as a team -- all members working towards a common goal. The introduction of an adversarial system would prove to be totally disruptive to this concept."
This underlines what I am trying to express to the members in the House: you cannot presuppose antagonism, build it into the legislation and assume that the company will continue to operate. It can't. Any small or medium-sized business is already going to be operating on the premise that the workers and the employer are going to get along, because the company will not succeed otherwise. Any employers who are not being fair to their workers are not going to last long in a small or medium-sized business, because they can't afford the interruption in work. They can't afford to have anything other than maximum production from their employees, and they can't get maximum production without a cooperative environment.
This government's legislation is reducing the ability of employers to get any kind of maximum effort from employees, because it's building in and presupposing antagonism; and as soon as they do that, they're really handcuffing the employers to a situation where there will be a downward spiral in their ability to compete. They're pushing them out of the market; they're encouraging big businesses and big unions.
Here's another one:
"Regarding the proposed labour law changes, as an owner of a small construction company, I have many concerns about the changes to the labour code, and how they would affect my position in the labour force. Since the majority of all jobs created are done by small business, it does not make sense to force small businesses to fight an uphill battle with large international unions, and have the government tip the scales of labour in their favour."
Already you can see the impact that just the introduction of this bill is having on small and medium-sized businesses in creating an anxiety out there that they cannot compete, that they cannot work out a deal they will be able to live with, and that they're going to have to shut down. I don't understand why this government is afraid to take this legislation to a select standing committee where it belongs, and why this government is afraid to allow the people of B.C. to express their opinion on the bill.
I should go back and say that it's not that I don't understand. I'm deeply disappointed. I do understand it, because I've read the bill; and I do understand why this government won't take it to the committee, because -- and I don't want to hear the committee referred to any more in this House -- this bill is a result of the Minister of Labour, not the committee. Despite the fact that the Minister of Labour says he takes pride in the authorship of this bill, they are afraid to take it to a select standing committee. I wish to close by saying I support the amendment.
[4:30]
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to speak in this House, but it's not necessarily a pleasure as a union member to stand up here and speak with regard to this labour relations bill, because of some of the aspects of concern to those who believe in a free, democratic labour-management relationship. I am speaking to the amendment to refer this to a committee of the Legislature so that the public may have a full opportunity to be involved, and so that we can have an understanding of the full impact upon the people of British Columbia of this legislation.
I have been a member of the labour movement for almost 30 years; I have been actively involved in unions. Through that experience I have seen some good labour organization and some not so good labour tactics. These are of great concern to those who believe in the democratic labour movement. Democracy in the labour movement itself is essential to make it possible for the concerns of the labour movement and the working people of British Columbia to be duly and fairly represented.
In order to bring that about we need to have full control of labour representation in the hands of the working people themselves. They have to be able to remove or change the people who lead their organization, if those people do not represent what the overall membership believes is the direction they want to go. They need to be able to deal fairly and equitably with their management. That role of union leadership is very important. It's critical to the entire process. The choice to have union leadership is also very critical. That process is one that determines who will represent you as a bargaining representative in dealing with management to get the best arrangement, the best deal, the best contract and the best day-to-day dealing with or correction of problems that come up. This is fundamental to a good business operation.
Business people have to know that the field is going to be level, fair and equitable. In the past, I know, there have been times when management, on one side, felt that the field was slanted in favour of the unions; and on the other side, the unions felt that it was slanted in
[ Page 3811 ]
favour of management. That determination of equity is very important.
The whole process of whether people can choose the type of representation they have comes down to a secret ballot. In choosing whether you wish to be a member of a union or any other representative labour organization -- there are others besides unions, as they are called, that represent memberships of workers -- you have to have a process whereby the members at all times can have that choice of, first of all, whether they want to be represented and, secondly, how they would be represented.
The labour relations legislation and its attached regulations have a major effect on a lot of those decisions. It is unfortunate that there has to be so much regulation. If there was less of a problem between management and unions or other employee representatives, there would not be the need for this thick document to be developed to the extent that it is. Unfortunately, it's a failure here in British Columbia and in many other jurisdictions when we have to have so much government-imposed regulation.
I think that a good number of people in the active labour movement were very concerned with the previous government's approach to this. There seemed to be too much interference on the part of government in the whole process. We have examples of various governments in the past -- both the former Social Credit government and even the former NDP government -- which got themselves into trouble quite extensively when they stepped into the normal processes of labour relations. We had an example of the forest industry being stepped into by the Barrett government, trying to bring a result to their dispute situation. That was not appreciated by the working people, even at that time. We have many cases of interference by the former Social Credit government.
The most effective labour relations are always where the two parties can come together and work out their differences on an equal basis without economic, geographic or structural matters to give either side an advantage. When they settle down and have equal penalties against them in their negotiated position or in their strike position -- if that's where they have to get to -- they're going to come to agreement eventually, we would hope. When they do so, the time taken for that agreement will be at its very shortest when things are on a level playing field. When they appear to be skewed in one direction or another, it tends to protract the time required for that negotiation to ultimately come to effect. It doesn't put an onus on one side of the negotiating group to get down to work and make a commitment to give and take, to bring in the final result of an agreement.
It's for that reason that concerns were expressed with regard to the secondary boycott and replacement worker areas, because in some places those were used to create unbalanced negotiating playing fields. It is important that these be looked at not just on the basis of what has been put into this legislation. I think that a truly responsible government would see that the entire community should be allowed to have an input on how they are impacted by various aspects of this new legislation. That can only be done by taking the time to let the public know what's involved in detail, as we went through with the constitutional amendments, where the people said: "If you're not going to give us the details of this in a legal form, we're going to vote against you." Well, they voted against them because, when they saw the final result, they were very concerned. There was more to it than they were originally told about. As you can tell, the results across this country were fairly clear.
We have a situation here where, if the government brings this legislation in without involving both union and non-union workers -- because this regulates all of them -- or very large businesses, medium-sized business and very small businesses.... They are all impacted by this. If they're not involved and don't have an opportunity to analyze it and to bring concerns to this Legislature, then this legislation will also be rejected. It won't be rejected in the vote on the floor of this House, because there is a majority in the government; but it will be rejected out there in the workplaces and in the businesses because people will not have confidence in it.
In order to bring something as complex as this forward, it is incumbent upon the government to see that every person has a chance, if they so wish, to express their concerns, and that the government is responsive enough, much as the Attorney General was with the freedom-of-information bill, to allow amendments and to bring forward a democratic process.
This labour bill must be placed in that same democratic process. The only means by which that can be done is by taking it to a standing committee of the Legislature, which goes throughout the province to hear submissions and people's concerns and then comes back to look at it again. Nobody has seen this final form until now. The report was not even offered to people. Three people put together some representations that were brought to them. That report was not even given an opportunity to be seen by the public until the day this legislation came forward.
We are a democratic Legislature. I honestly believe that this government and this House want to see that the democratic process is carried out fully and not rushed through to meet an agenda, a party convention coming up this weekend or perhaps a B.C. Federation of Labour convention at the end of the month. Is that really somewhat similar to what we went through last time with the federal government having a deadline set for a political reason, when the job was not finished and there wasn't proper involvement of people in the process? There's a great deal of similarity between these two.
There are a great number of concerns being expressed to me in my riding, and as we travelled communities throughout this province. We were out for four weeks this summer travelling in various parts of this province and talking to people who were very concerned about what might come forward in this legislation. I think those people are still concerned. They certainly are telling us so.
[4:45]
[ Page 3812 ]
It's going to impact on the very small business people at a tremendous rate. It's also going to impact on the middle-sized businesses. I've got letters from and had conversations with business people who have 120 or 150 employees. They're quite concerned, particularly with the idea that there could be a vote by a union body that represents the persons to which they supply their materials, at which point they may no longer be able to supply a major part of their market for the simple reason that the union representing the purchaser has passed a regulation in their contract which calls for all suppliers to be unionized. Therefore that company would have to face the question of losing a primary market or else becoming unionized, with some of the other problems that that adds for them from their standpoint -- and where the employees have chosen in the past not to get union certification; they are quite happy with the relationship they have. I'm not saying that's a situation that's against unions in any way. I'm saying that's a situation where there's a harmonious relationship between a worker and management.
The way I look at it, unions are only a failure of management to manage effectively. Where you get a union, it's usually because there's been a failure of management to be fair to its workers. Because of that, unions should not be fearful of other, uncertified organizations; they should be very happy if they have tested the employees of an organization and found that they're happy with their relationship. There's no reason that they should feel that they should have to certify those just to add more numbers to their group. I think it's important to the labour movement that as many people who have a need to be represented are represented. But that's quite different from forcing certification upon people who don't choose to have it and who are quite happy with their relationship.
I think that certification is a very private and very important decision on the part of any employee. There's no question that in some cases it's also a very serious economic decision, because what goes along with that certification may mean that there may not be a continuance of their employment -- not because the company will fire them, but the company may not have the economics to justify that kind of contract and be able to continue to employ all or even any of the workers in that workforce. It is a very serious decision that has to be made. It's one that should be made privately by people and their families, looking at what their future is. I think it's very important that it be done without any outside influences, whether they be from management or unions. There should be a format whereby people are able to make a decision -- a clear, private ballot, to choose whether they would be members or not. If you are going with this type of legislation, I would say: take the decision of membership out of the hands of the union and give it to a government-regulated body that would determine through a secret process whether or not a person chooses to be represented by a body, an organization, a union, an association, or whatever. Let the people make that choice.
When we're talking about the size of the businesses that are really impacted most by this, we're talking about the small operations -- the ones with one to five and one to ten employees, where the owners are often employees also and where their businesses are fixed by the economy. In talking to those people right now, we find that the economy in their industry has no elasticity in it whatsoever. In fact, it is going downward. The ability to raise rates or increase benefits at this time is not there.
In some areas British Columbia is still moving along very well, but in the tourism area and in service industries things are not faring as well. Those people need to be recognized. Perhaps six months from now, after this whole legislation has been circulated to the community and to the province and has had input and been allowed to be modified to recognize concerns, it may be appropriate to bring it forward with some of the factors that are of concern. Maybe by then the economic situation will be improved. It's a real concern at this point, and I think we have to recognize that.
Perhaps the timing of this legislation is more geared to promising major labour bodies, such as the B.C. Federation of Labour, to get rid of Bill 19. I agree. There was no image in anybody's mind that that wouldn't be done. It was stated a long time ago that if the NDP ever became government.... Many of the people on this side also were concerned about Bill 19 and said that it had to go. Certainly it's more symbolic than fact, because Bill 19 and this bill, in many cases, are not dissimilar; they are very much alike. There's almost a direct transfer of some of the previous provisions -- maybe changing it into more understandable language. That is a matter of putting the stamp of a new government onto that legislation. That stamp is important from a political standpoint. There's no question about that. This government has worked diligently in trying to bring through changes.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The three subcommittee advisors to the Minister of Labour -- John Baigent, Vince Ready and Tom Roper -- are well-respected in the community, but they don't bring the experience that Dr. Weiler had when he brought through many major changes to the labour bill in 1973-74. There was a major modification to the labour act at that time. That person has gone on to become an eminent advisor to business and the labour movement in the labour relations field. I would certainly like to recognize his previous contributions. I'm sure that some of his work was the basis of both the previous bill and the present bill, because that was a major change in the direction of labour relations in those days.
Perhaps some of these changes have gone a bit too far. They were done to meet pressure that came from a select group of people who have a large voice on labour issues in this province and in the NDP. Many of them are voting members of the party. Their organizations are voting members of the party. The party and the labour movement in the form of the B.C. Federation of Labour and its subsidiary unions are definitely part of the process. They're all involved together, and their interests are the interests of this minister in bringing forward this legislation.
[ Page 3813 ]
This legislation isn't representative of the entire province. This representation needs to be broadened. It needs to be taken to every part of this province, because there are working people in every part of this province who care about how they're regulated, how their economic futures will be determined and who really live day-to-day. They're not people who have guaranteed incomes because they have a large union representation paying their wages; they're people who are dependent on the continuance of their jobs. They're dependent on the success of their employer. Their employer has to be able to live with this type of legislation, or they feel it. The worker feels it very close to home. They feel it because they're the ones who will get laid off. Over the last five years -- and even daily -- we've had a large segment of our worker population face that problem. They are facing the fact that their business is no longer economical, and they're getting layoff notices; they don't have a job. Whether a person is in their late teens, early twenties, in their forties or getting close to retirement, the loss of their job is very traumatic. It's essential in their whole lifestyle. They therefore need to have reassurances.
[5:00]
I now urge the Minister of Labour to take this out to a committee. Show your leadership. Show the democratization that this government is supposed to have to change the type of government that we have had in the past: take it to the people. As this amendment has indicated, we ask that it be referred to a committee and that it go out to the public for a hearing. Mr. Minister, I urge you to show leadership and join this side in voting in favour of this legislation.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I request leave to table a report.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like to table the annual report of B.C. Hydro -- given the presence of the hon. Leader of the Opposition; he requested it today. It was publicly released on August 31 but not tabled in this House. It was distributed to all MLA offices, and I am pleased today to table it before the House.
On the amendment.
F. Randall: It's a pleasure to be able to speak today on Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code. At the outset I state that I am opposed to the motion to refer it to a parliamentary committee. It's pretty common knowledge in the province of British Columbia that Bill 19 was wrong. In fact it was said so many times, "Bill 19 is gone, gone, gone," prior to the election that when the electors voted for the New Democratic Party they knew exactly where they stood on Bill 19. It's been a year since the election, so I really think there has been ample time for consultation, and I think we all know why Bill 19 is gone.
I just want to touch on a couple of items on Bill 19. I think it was stated earlier in this House that it was certainly drafted in a hotel room without the knowledge of the Minister of Labour. It was really a bill to deunionize this province, particularly the construction industry, which was hit very, very hard.
In the matter of double-breasting, that bill allowed any employer, but mainly contractors, to incorporate new companies for $300 or $400, and then they were able to bid the next job. You have to appreciate that in construction it's a moving location. It's not like a pulp mill or a school that has a location and can't really, in effect, form a new company because they can't move. But in construction you are always bidding on new projects, so you can use another company to bid the project. I would say that there are literally hundreds of contractors, particularly in the construction industry, who were able to get out of a collective agreement by incorporating a new company to do the same kind of business.
In legislation that was introduced in 1984 by the then Minister of Labour, Bob McClelland, it said that if a company didn't have anybody on their payroll for 24 months, then the board could cancel the certification and the collective agreement. I had meetings with Bob McClelland at that time. He told us that the reason for that was if a company had gone out of business, the certification would not be allowed to move. If a contractor decided to open a Dairy Queen, the certification would not apply to the Dairy Queen. We said that that would not happen. We have contractors who come from out of province and bid jobs here all the time. Contractors, who are under collective agreement, may be out for two years and come back. I can give you an example. Those employed in pipeline construction come here maybe only every few years. They would be able to come back in non-union. He assured us that that was not the intent of the legislation, and if it happened, we were to let him know so that he could correct it immediately. Instead, they changed him as Minister of Labour, so we never really had a chance to do anything with regard to his commitment.
In effect, an employer can sign a collective agreement with the union, and the legislation allows him to get out from under it. If I sign a mortgage, I'm stuck with it; I can't get out of it. If I sign a legal agreement, I can't get out. But the Socreds brought in legislation that allowed contractors to sign legal, binding, collective agreements, and then showed them how to get out from under that agreement. That was totally unfair. This legislation was so bad, it was probably the worst in North America.
Of course, unfair labour practices increased substantially. Before Bill 19 you were able to organize an operation without any interference from the employer. After Bill 19, the employer was allowed to intimidate, bribe and coerce. I know of cases where people were fired. It's still going on today; as late as two weeks ago people were being fired because they had indicated their support for a union. That kind of intimidation, with regard to people being bribed, was rampant. I know of cases where the day a vote was held, the employer would meet with the employees early in the morning, prior to the vote, and offer them $3 an hour to vote against the union -- that kind of thing. Letters would be sent home to the wives advising them that
[ Page 3814 ]
their husband would be out of work and they were going to close down and move to Alberta if the union came into the operation. All of those things were rampant.
As mentioned previously in the House, Graham Leslie, who was Deputy Minister of Labour, resigned over the way Bill 19 was rammed at the B.C. residents. He wrote a book, as we're all aware, on that particular matter and how it all came about.
I had the opportunity of meeting with the Minister of Labour of the previous government to explain problems that were happening. There was absolutely no understanding of those problems whatsoever. I also had the opportunity to meet with the previous Premier of the province, out at the Town and Country Inn by Fantasy Gardens, and I went through the legislation with him. I might also add that he didn't understand it either, even though he was the one who was supposed to be answering questions. If you asked him questions about it, the answers you got was: "No, that's not what we intend." He really didn't understand it. So we had legislation that was drafted by some legal people, and it was presented to the House.
We had a lawyer look at all the changes that were made to the labour legislation in Bill 19. You could put the name of an employer beside every amendment or a case that an employer happened to have lost at the Industrial Relations Council.
The Seaton report on health care also made comments on the importance of changes in labour legislation. For those who have read the report, there are recommendations in there that a new tribunal be established in British Columbia to deal with labour relations; there were lots of problems. There were also recommendations that the provincial government revise the Industrial Relations Act after consultation with labour and management. That has been done. After consultation with labour and management, we now have Bill 84. I totally disagree with referring it to another committee after all the time that has been taken to date.
In this report of the three wise men, 98 percent of the recommendations were unanimous. In order for a management representative and a labour representative on a panel to be unanimous on these issues, there obviously had to be some compromises. That's what happens when you reach that high a percentage of agreement. There are still things in the new labour code that I have concerns about, and they are probably the result of compromises.
I still have concerns with regard to the right of employers to communicate and make statements to employees during an organizing campaign. I know the words say "factual statements," but an employer can very easily say to his employees: "I have nothing against the union. But if I have to live with a union agreement, I'm going to have to close down this operation and move to Alberta." That is a form of intimidation, and if that's still allowed under this code, I have concerns about it. But I still support the agreement overall, even though there are a few things I have concerns about.
Another one is the 55 percent. I think it should be a majority -- 50 percent plus one, not 55 percent -- to organize. I'm prepared to accept the unanimous recommendation, and I don't anticipate that anybody will be able to change a unanimous recommendation.
There's also the matter of religious objections. I have a problem with that. If people have a religious objection, at least they should still pay the dues to the organization that negotiates the agreement on their behalf. They accept all the conditions, the vacations, the holiday pay, wages, etc., but they don't want to pay dues to the organization that negotiates it. That's still allowed in there. If the employeee has religious objections against unions -- I can't imagine why -- he could pay them to a charity.
In view of these matters, I am still going to support the bill because of the unanimity of the committee on all these points. There were statements made that we need more input. The report indicates that the panel received 296 written submissions and met 203 individuals in follow-up conversations with regard to the legislation. So there was ample consultation.
The geographic certification seemed to concern a lot of people. That was in the legislation prior to 1984. I don't know that it was used that much, but a lot of employers seemed concerned about that particular issue. I think that it should certainly be reviewed and looked at as we go down the road. It certainly affects a lot of people, particularly in lower-income brackets.
My understanding of that particular thing, and again I'm not too clear on how it will work, is that if you are successful in organizing an employer in a geographic area, you can apply to the board to have the standard agreement for -- let's say it's a dry-cleaning establishment -- all dry cleaners in that particular area or zone. If you are successful in organizing any other dry cleaners, you would still have to have a majority of employees in every operation in agreement. It would be more like establishing a standard agreement for a particular industry, as they do in construction. If you organize a new employer, he signs the standard construction agreement. You don't sign a different agreement with every contractor, otherwise there's no fair competition. In other words, they all have to bid on the same work, so naturally the wages and agreements are all standard.
The other thing I want to mention is that there's been a lot of comments about Georgetti and the B.C. Fed. I think we're very lucky in this province to have such a moderate person as Georgetti heading up the B.C. Federation of Labour. He has certainly done a lot in this province in working with the business community to try and create a climate....
Interjections.
F. Randall: I hear laughter down there. Everybody laughs. That's fine, but we hear all these speeches about labour and management working together. Certainly he has done an awful lot in that area to try and create that environment. I think he deserves credit for it.
[5:15]
[ Page 3815 ]
There are also other matters that people talk about -- replacement workers being struck down by the courts in the United States. I forget who made that comment, but in the United States, you're allowed to go out and picket for organizing. If you want to organize a hotel like the Grand Pacific, which is non-union, you could go over there, put pickets on that hotel, leave them there for a year or a year and a half and picket that hotel. That's what they do in the United States. There are lots of things that happen....
R. Neufeld: The hotel can continue to operate.
F. Randall: That's right, but there are lots of things that happen on both sides of the border. You can pick legislation here and pick legislation there. Bill 19 was the worst in North America if you look at the whole context of it, how restrictive it was and how it allowed employers to escape.
On the matter of certification being based on membership, that is a predominant thing. I think it's mentioned in the report that it's been in effect for about 40 years in British Columbia. There will be only two provinces left that have voting: Alberta and Nova Scotia. All the other provinces, with Liberal Premiers, etc., do not have the voting process. That is because of the experience of intimidation and unfair labour practices that it creates. We had one heck of a pile of that here in British Columbia. I can tell you there have been a lot of people living in fear over job threats.
J. Tyabji: Well, they're living in fear now.
F. Randall: No, I don't think anybody is living in fear, hon. member. If you've been reading the newspapers and the editorials, they are very supportive, in effect. There's very little concern about this legislation in the business community, I can tell you that.
R. Neufeld: I guess they screen your newspapers.
F. Randall: I don't know who you're talking to, but certainly the business community is not concerned. With regard to small businesses, I don't understand where we get the argument all the time about big business, small business. What difference does it make whether a business has 15 employees or 1,500? As I still understand it, the employees in this country have the right to join a trade union of their choice. There's no restriction that says: "Hey, that's only a small outfit with 15 employees. Leave them alone." It's the employees' decision. All this argument about big and small and big and small, I get tired of hearing all the time, because I don't understand it. What you're saying is that the employees of small businesses shouldn't have the right to join a trade union if they so desire, and that's a right that I hope we still have in this country. Nothing is changing. Small businesses can be organized today or last week or a month ago. There's absolutely nothing changing that's going to affect them as far as the right of their employees to organize goes.
I think there's a big bogeyman going around, because I've been getting letters from people who don't know what the heck they're writing about. They're concerned about all kinds of things. There's a group that had an organized drive ready. The minute there was an announcement that labour legislation was going to be dealt with in the fall, the phones started ringing and the letters started coming. I spoke to a number of employers who phoned, and I asked them what their concern was, and they didn't know. They said: "Well, we understand there's labour legislation coming." I said: "What is the main concern you have?" "Well, I don't know." I said: "Well, will you phone me back when you know what you're concerned about?" I mean, it was all organized to start this thing going, and a lot of them didn't even know what they were talking about. I just say that the business community has certainly received this legislation very well.
Comments have also been made on the matter of boycotts of goods. This applies only where it's in a collective agreement, and I know collective agreements that have had that clause or provision in them since 1965, where the employer and the union have agreed that if there are products that are hot or unfair, or have come from behind a picket line or a struck operation, the workers have the right to refuse to handle them. Bill 19 eliminated that. You had to handle stuff that was coming from struck operations or anything. All this is doing is restoring what labour and management jointly agree to. It doesn't mean that certain things happen. It has to be mutually agreed between management and labour in a collective agreement that they are prepared to do certain things. So with all this stuff that's being talked about, I don't think people really understand what's going on. Nothing changes, and the collective agreements are still there. The provision will be applicable only to those that have that provision.
I also want to make a comment with regard to Ed Peck, the former IRC chair. I had occasion to have lunch with him a few times, and he said that he had made recommendations to the previous government for amendments to the labour code because changes were needed, and that the government wouldn't listen to him. He said it was the first time he could remember -- and he's been in labour relations in this province a long, long time -- a government going five years without introducing any amendments to the labour code. That's why I'm pleased that the minister has indicated that there will be an ongoing review of the labour legislation. If there are problem areas, there should be amendments, and I would expect that that would happen. But here's a person who was employed by the previous government saying he made recommendations they wouldn't listen to, and they wouldn't do anything for five years, which has never happened before in this province. I think it's important to make that point.
I might just also say that I try to be as politically neutral as I can. I think we all know where the Socreds stand with regard to labour: they have taken an anti-labour position. I am a little disappointed in the official opposition -- the Liberal Party. I expected a little more understanding from them with regard to labour matters. They seem to be taking the same tack the Socreds did. I'm really disappointed in that, since I
[ Page 3816 ]
had high hopes for them, particularly with regard to labour issues. I thought there would be more understanding. They just seem to have it in their blood that they have to attack and object to everything, and I think that's wrong. If you agree with a matter, you should certainly say so.
R. Neufeld: They're telling you they don't agree with it.
F. Randall: That's why I say I'm very disappointed in the Liberals.
Comments have been made about decertification votes. They're asking why we have a vote on decertification. Well, you have a vote on decertification because the employer is getting employees to sign petitions or letters saying they want to get rid of the union. It would be impossible. You have to have a vote with that kind of thing happening. There is as much intimidation there as there is on decerts. I can tell you of instances where employers wait until they're down to two or three people they know very well personally, and that's when it's done -- the decert situation. It's imperative that there be a vote on a decertification. People have asked: "How come you're having a vote there?" A vote there is to protect those workers.
The other thing that I might add is the matter of members of this House using the word "bosses." Bosses is a dirty word. It sounds bad to everybody. I keep hearing comments about union bosses and labour bosses. You don't hear about bank bosses or the House bosses we have here. Why don't we start calling them bosses? The reason people use the word "boss" when they're referring to labour is because it's sort of a negative thing. You should be talking about union officials or leaders, but "boss" is the kind of word that comes from people who really are anti-union, as far as I'm concerned. I have heard that from people who are anti-union. They call anybody boss who is involved in labour.
Something else I want to mention is that I had occasion to talk to Ezner DeAnna from the mine workers at Balmer, and he's been pretty heavily involved in this whole issue up there. I can tell you that he has made it pretty clear where he stands with regard to the Pattison thing. It was a political statement. He said he had no intention of doing anything there and also that he and his organization fully support this legislation. I just thought I should mention that.
I want to make a comment on the comments made by members in this House about why we don't consult students. You can consult to death. I think about all of the students that I know, and I sit and listen to them talking. There isn't one student who doesn't say: "I've got to find a union job." Every one of them says: "I'm looking for a union job." Just go out and talk to your own kids. They all want to find a union job. Why? I haven't yet heard a young student say: "I want to find a non-union job." Think about that. They all want union jobs, and you tell me why.
There have been a lot of comments made about the Minister of Labour with regard to house construction, and I want to tell this House that house construction in this province is not organized. I know that, because when I was with the Operating Engineers, our pension fund got into housing development. You cannot find anybody who is a union house builder. If any members of this House know a contractor who is a union house builder, I'd appreciate knowing about it, because I know we looked pretty hard. In this province it's an industry that is basically non-union.
Interjection.
F. Randall: The member has asked why. It's been very difficult to organize under the legislation. It's been very difficult even to continue to represent the people that the unions represented under Bill 19. The road-building industry has been continually de-unionized with legislation. So to look at organizing in new areas.... The only area I know where they have a fairly good head on house building is Ontario. A lot of the house building in Ontario is union.
In fact, I'll tell you what I'll do. If anybody can take me out and show me a house that is being built union, I'll give them $100. That's a standing offer, because it would be worth $100 to find out where that house is being built. It just isn't happening in the house-building industry. I think it's a little unfair to try and make that kind of issue with a minister of this House. He's doing his best to build a home and pay fair wages, and there just are not union contractors in house building. I felt I should mention that, because I know we had the same experience.
[5:30]
The other thing I wanted to mention has not been addressed in the legislation: seasonal operations. In the construction industry there are employers.... For example, in the paving industry, particularly up north or in the interior, where they are not laying asphalt in December or January, they enter into "rat" agreements where the open period is December and January. All of the hiring and all of the work is in the nice weather when they lay asphalt, so the workers on those kinds of operations never get an opportunity to decide who they want to represent them. In this province, I know that the board has said in the past that they usually want to try and make a certification decision when a majority of the employees who are going to be working there are involved, so that they get a true picture. This does not happen, and there certainly has not been any provision here for looking at seasonal work. I certainly hope that down the road the government looks at providing the opportunity for workers to decide who they want to represent them when there is work taking place and not structuring it so that it's Christmastime every year when no one is employed.
There's a comment here in this report that is worth making note of. The three wise men said that no one seriously tried to defend Bill 19. It was certainly bad legislation that no one would listen to -- regarding the government and discussions we had with them. I feel very strongly that these changes had to be made and were committed to be made to the public of British Columbia.
[ Page 3817 ]
The other thing I want to mention before I wrap up is that a number of people seem to be going around this province wanting to create British Columbia as a low-wage area. I attended a meeting with....
The Speaker: Order, please. I do regret, hon. member, that your time has expired.
F. Randall: I don't talk that long. How can that be?
S. O'Neill: I promise I won't talk so long.
I rise today to speak against this amendment. We've delayed long enough and it's time to get on with debating the substance of Bill 84.
Before beginning my remarks I would like to commend the drafters of this bill. It's clear and readable, and it can be understood without a law degree. I feel that that is something to commend it -- and there's a refreshing absence of herewiths, therefores and notwithstandings.
As I was reading this bill I was reminded of my first job. I arrived at work the first day eager and rather apprehensive. My supervisor met me at the door and said: "Welcome. And if you want to keep this job don't breathe 'union'." Well, 40 years later this institution is still not unionized, so obviously I was not the only one intimidated by their tactics.
We live in a changing world, and nowhere is this more evident than the world of business. We've seen changes in technology and world trading patterns and changes to our economy as developing nations challenge our productivity. If we are to meet these challenges, we must ensure that our economy works better. We must increase our productivity and our ingenuity. Government, business and workers must work together to ensure a balanced and stable economy. Labour legislation based on mutual respect can help to reach those objectives.
There are many reasons that businesses choose to invest in a given area: natural resources, transportation facilities, political stability and, of course, labour stability. This new labour code sets the stage for a more harmonious relationship between employers and employees, which in turn will support investment and economic growth.
This legislation provides for improved dispute resolution. The government will continue to provide mediation services to all parties, but enhanced mediation services and expedited arbitration services will result in a speedier resolution of disputes. Power to intervene in a labour dispute is minimized and rests with the Minister of Labour, who has responsibility for the protection of the public interest. The minister may appoint a special mediator to help parties reach an agreement. Although the minister does have power to intervene, this code encourages parties to resolve their problems without government intervention.
Times have changed, and our institutions must change with them. There's a perception that traditional collective bargaining has no place in the modern workplace and that the bargaining process can't be responsive to modern problems, such as technological change, work flexibility, employee involvement and the development of worker skills. If the bargaining process is to respond to these problems and have a place in today's world, we must develop a cooperative mechanism for resolving them. I was pleased to see legislation promoting such a mechanism.
Section 53 of the labour code provides for a process of joint consultation. It provides for a committee that will consult regularly during the term of an agreement. This will promote the resolution of workplace issues and enable employers and employees to respond cooperatively and in a timely manner to the many changes in our economy.
The mandate of the subcommittee of special advisers was to consider laws that will "promote harmony and a climate conducive to the encouragement of investment." I feel that they have succeeded in their task, and we must proceed with ours, which is to fully debate and then pass this legislation that restores balance and fairness to our labour relations climate and encourages economic development in our province. That is why I am urging defeat of this amendment.
D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion to send the bill to a committee. I think it's very important that we take a second look at this. We need more consultation. This bill may not reflect the views of the vast majority of people in this province. It could have a significant impact on small business, and we must move slowly and cautiously to make sure that does not happen.
I would like to quote from an editorial in the Vancouver Sun on Thursday, October 29, under the heading "New Labour Code Boon for Unions." Toward the end it says: "The question is, what will Bill 84 do for B.C.'s reputation as a place to do business? Investors will not be impressed if it increases labour costs, or fails to meet Premier Mike Harcourt's promise to provide a stable labour relations climate." That is really the issue before the House today. We have to be careful that whatever we do, we protect jobs in this province. We have to take care, in considering this bill, that that is our prime motive in amending this bill.
If we follow the experience they had in Ontario, it was a little different from the procedure that was taken in British Columbia. There the government released their paper for discussion, which was a preferred option for reform. The people in the province knew, long before it was debated in the House, precisely what was in the bill that was going to be discussed there. The public viewed it for over three months before it was tabled, and then the bill was debated in the House. I believe it is still at that stage.
What happened in British Columbia, however, was somewhat different. We did not receive the bill or know what was going to be recommended until the day it was tabled in this House. At the same time we received the report from the group that looked into the recommendations on labour laws in British Columbia. So this government's rhetoric for open government and freedom of information seems to be empty words. When they have a chance to do this, all they do is simply put it aside, bring something in suddenly and then pass it
[ Page 3818 ]
very quickly through the House without the opportunity for the businesses, the unions or the non-union workers to look at it and see how it's going to impact upon them. And we must do that. It's our duty as opposition to see that that is done for the people of this province.
I'd like to mention, just to reiterate my point here and to show how uniform that thought of mine is, that I found that the government, when it was opposition, seemed to share that notion. I'm reading from Hansard, Monday, April 6, 1987, page 447. I will quote the hon. member for North Island, who at that time was the Labour critic. He says in regard to Bill 19:
"I have a question for the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. In view of the increasingly widespread opinion in both labour and management circles that the recently introduced Bill 19 will not lead to improved industrial relations but in fact to greater disruption and unrest in the labour-industrial relations community, would the minister agree now that the bill be pulled and that the public who are interested in this legislation have an opportunity for a full discussion and full consultation, leading to a consensus, which would lead to a new bill?"
It was during question period this was asked. Further on, after that request was denied by the Social Credit government of the day, he asks:
"If the answer to the question related to withdrawing for public discussion is no" -- which indeed it was -- "faced with the serious consequences of pursuing this bill with the haste indicated by both the minister and the Premier, would the minister now agree that the appropriate forum for discussion of this bill is a parliamentary committee, and that that course of action will be pursued by the discussion of this bill?"
In other words, the then Labour critic was suggesting that it go to a parliamentary committee, which is precisely what we are asking in this motion before the House today.
So it seems we have support from the government side, if they believe their own words of 1987. I can't see how moving from this side to that side suddenly moved their views as well. What was right then is not right now? I don't believe that this is right. There seems to be a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of the government. So this is....
Interjections.
The Speaker: I must call the House to order. I regret interrupting the member, but the Chair is having difficulty hearing the debate. Please continue, hon. member.
D. Symons: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. Obviously I was not speaking loudly enough, and I can overcome that by speaking louder if necessary. Having been a teacher for many years, I'm used to overcoming disruptions in the classroom. I'm sure I can accomplish that as easily in the House. If there happen to be some disruptive members here, I can treat them like the students I had years ago, so be quiet and pay attention. Thank you, or you'll have a detention after the House tonight.
Further, on April 7, 1987, that same member was saying that we should go out there and talk to the people, and listen to the people who know what it means. The minister will find that that kind of information debate can take place in a parliamentary committee, because we can summon witnesses; we can hear people who wish to appear; we can determine our own agenda, and we can listen to other people.
Again, when he was critic, that member, who now sits on the government side, made those comments about a parliamentary committee. This is precisely what we are asking for, and I would almost like to ask that member, who seems to be sitting opposite here, if he will stick by the words he said then for today, because he should be speaking to this amendment as well -- speaking to the amendment, not against it.
An Hon. Member: Who is that masked member?
D. Symons: The member is the sitting member now who's the minister responsible for law and order, the Attorney General; but he was then the critic.
The reason I feel this has to go to committee is that there are certain sections that have to be looked at more carefully. I'm quite sure the government unintentionally made some little mistakes in this bill. I'm quite sure they did not intend that they might be used in a way that would not be best for labour peace in this province. But indeed that seems to have occurred in it.
[5:45]
One of these involves the certification vote, section 23. There are two parts in there that concern me a great deal. The first part is that we indeed seem to be not placing too much emphasis on the value of secret votes. That's been mentioned many times, so I won't dwell too much upon that, other than to say that I believe that the basis of the democratic parliamentary procedure we have in this country -- and that we should honour greatly -- is the secret ballot.
Indeed, any other way will tend to lead to possible intimidation; and we've had the suggestion by members here that the reason it is brought in is because the intimidation would come strictly from the employer. I don't doubt that some employers might have tried to use that once they heard that there was a certification vote about to be taking place with their employees. But the point here is that there are laws against that, and if that is being done by an employer, all that has to be done is to report him to the IRC, and he could be charged for breaking the law of this province. If that is taking place, then the law should have been enforced. Indeed, it's not the fault of the bill that's currently on the books, but rather the fault of the enforcement of the law of this land if that indeed was taking place.
The impression left, of course, is that any intimidation takes place strictly on the management side. I have here a letter, and I'll leave out the references. I'm sure the members got it too, because it seems to be addressed to everybody in the Legislature. This man says:
"I was approached on several occasions by" -- and he names a person -- "a business representative for the union. Many times these meetings were in a pub. He would buy me drinks and tell me fairy tales about how good union life was; I eventually signed a card with no
[ Page 3819 ]
date on it. He explained that this was so he could have time to gather more support in a three-month period."
I believe being undated was against the law. It seems this man didn't mind breaking the law or bending it a little bit to suit his purposes.
"'When we have enough,' he said, he would date them and 'no one would be the wiser.' He did the same with many of my co-workers; in fact, almost all of the signatures were gained under the influence of alcohol and undated."
I think we can safely say that intimidation is not a one-sided issue here. Indeed, if it's taking place, the law should be applied. What we need is a secret ballot to make sure that this sort of thing is not going to take place under this new legislation's section 23. Whether you have 45 percent, 55 percent or 65 percent does not mean anything when those percentages are gathered possibly through intimidation. The way to guarantee that is to have the ballot put in a box where nobody knows how you voted on it. The person can vote with the freedom that he's voting the way he wants, not the way that he feels a few workers around him might want him to or how an employer might want him to. It works both ways. The vote is the basis of freedom and democracy in this country, and it's wrong to take it out of the labour bill.
The other part involved here, of course, is the freedom of speech. Apparently it would now be the case where the union that is trying to certify a certain group would have the opportunity to come in and speak to the employees quietly on the side, to keep it quiet that this is going on until they get that magic 55, then suddenly they've got a union going. But the employer is not able to give his side of what may occur.
Interjection.
D. Symons: His or her side; I stand corrected. I believe that we must have fairness in here: if one side is going to be able to speak to the employees about the benefits of unionizing -- and I see no problem with that whatsoever -- then the other side, the employer, must also have the opportunity to say how he or she feels it might affect employment or the future of the business.
I have belonged to three unions during my lifetime. I belonged to the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers' Union; I belonged to the Vancouver civic outside employees' union; and I belonged to what is now the B.C. Teachers' Federation, which is unionized now and before had been an association. I'm one of these people who believes that when you join something, you are not a passive member, so I've actively become engaged in the interests of the organizations to which I have belonged. Indeed, that's what led me into politics and has got me into the House -- where I am today, unfortunately. Nevertheless, I still believe that if something needs correcting or changing or improving, I want to be part of the system, not part of the people just complaining in the background.
I would say that my experiences with those unions have been positive. All three of them, I felt, were, at the time I was involved with them, concerned about the interests of their members. I have no problem with the union movement whatsoever. There has been an impression given by members here that somehow we've had no experience with unions and we're all anti-union. Well, I can categorically say that I have had experience with unions, and I certainly feel that unions have promoted in the past, and will continue to promote in the future, the well-being of the workers of this province and country.
I would like to continue to see that they do that, but at the same time we must see that the rights of individuals, be they union, non-union or employers, are also protected. We must have a level playing-field. That is the basis on which the government has brought forth this bill. They've said: "Well, we're levelling out what Bill 19 has done." Well, they're sort of levelling it. I think we must really bring this in level. You can't overcompensate. You bring it back to being a level playing-field; you don't make it the other way to make up for past injustices. It doesn't work. It won't work for British Columbia, it won't work for our economy, and it won't work for the betterment of the working person in this province.
A second issue I have with the bill is that of replacement workers. We have been told by the members opposite that this clause is needed to prevent violence on the picket lines. The one problem I see is that when you're bringing in a bill of this sort where you're going to say: "Well, because there has been violence on the picket lines, we will prohibit bringing in the workers who seem to have promoted that...." What you're basically doing seems to be rewarding violence. The violence has taken place and you're going to reward it by saying: "Well, what you wanted we'll give to you to avoid your committing more violence."
What is needed, if there is violence on the picket lines, is to enforce the laws, arrest those that are causing the violence and charge them. If there's violence, that's breaking the law. Let's enforce the law. Let's not change the rules in order to avoid it, because that's rewarding those who are causing the violence. Let's simply enforce the laws currently on the books against violence.
If people are given certain designated areas in which to picket and people are allowed, by law, to go through the picket lines because they are replacement workers, scabs or whatever word you want to use -- and I don't necessarily agree with the process -- then allow them in. Let's stop the violence. Let's not change the rules in order to reward those who are causing the violence. Banning replacement workers is going to upset the balance that we've had, because traditionally the workers had the right to look for other work while they were on strike. Therefore the worker could go on strike, but if he wasn't on picket duty or something, he could go find another job and work.
F. Garden: Where?
D. Symons: That's a very good question, because the way your government is going, there won't be any anywhere, that's for sure. That's precisely why I'm up here speaking to this motion. That's my concern about the jobs in this province. I'm very pleased you brought that up.
[ Page 3820 ]
The trouble was that the employer traditionally had the right -- that balanced the right of the worker to work somewhere else -- to continue his operation and at least keep his business afloat. Banning replacement workers is simply going to upset that balance. I'll support this part on replacement workers, if you wish, as long as you will balance it in such a way that you're going to forbid striking workers from taking other employment. If you're going to forbid the employer -- basically, that's what you're doing when you say he can't bring in replacement workers -- from operating, then forbid the employee who is on strike from finding alternative work. If you're willing to bring that amendment in, I'm willing to support replacement workers. I think that would bring balance back into it. You can't upset this, because if you upset the negotiation process by giving one side a heavier lever than the other, we're going to have labour unrest in this province. It will be promoted by this bill, and we don't need that in this province at this time with the economy the way it is.
Smaller firms cannot afford the same wage benefits as larger ones. Not all but some are going to have real problems here. Also, many small firms do not have the financial base or the reserves to withstand a prolonged strike. The choice they have is to cave in to what may be unreasonable demands -- they may be reasonable -- or refuse to be intimidated and go quickly into bankruptcy. If they're unreasonable demands and this is a marginal company, it might be a slow bankruptcy if they give in and a quick bankruptcy if they continue to hold out. It doesn't leave much choice for small businesses in many cases.
Small and medium-sized businesses -- not the big operators -- are the engine of B.C.'s economy. A member previously explained why there is this distinction. These are the ones that are creating jobs in the province. Large businesses have not created nearly the same number of jobs as has the small-business sector. This sector was not really represented when the three wise people met and discussed and made recommendations to the government. John Baigent was representing labour. Tom Roper was representing big business -- not the small business that's the engine of the economy. By and large most of the big business in this province is already unionized, so the business of certification is not of great concern to them. Finally, Vince Ready was neutral.
I'm being told to cut things short, so if you don't mind, I'll just finish very quickly with two other comments and then draw this to a close. I want to comment just once more about the member for North Island, who said, on April 14, 1987: "I don't believe the public knows about this law yet, and as I said a few minutes ago, I don't believe most members of this House know about all the implications yet." I'll say amen to that. If they don't and we don't, what right have we to be passing the law? Even if it takes another week for second reading debate and another week or so after that for committee stage, I don't believe the full implications of this are to be known. I agree with the hon. member for North Island. That is one reason that we should definitely put this to a committee and discuss it there.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I would advise that the House will be sitting tomorrow and that Clinton is winning in a landslide. With that, I move this House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada