1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 6, No. 4
[ Page 3849 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, in the precincts this morning we have a keen follower of parliament. I think this is particularly appropriate, as today is the first anniversary of the swearing-in of this government. Would the House please welcome Guy Fawkes.
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 35, I rise to request leave to adjourn the House on a matter of urgent public importance.
The Minister of Finance's acknowledgement that the provincial deficit for 1992-93 could be as much as $550 million greater than the budget he introduced in March highlights this government's mismanagement of the provincial economy. The responsibilities of the minister and government to properly safeguard the expenditure of taxpayers' money and the continued increase of the provincial debt at a rate of almost $2 million per day underscore the pressing need to hold the government accountable today.
As a direct result of the dismal state of the provincial economy, unemployment is widespread throughout the most vulnerable sectors of our population. During the past 12 months the number of British Columbians who are out of work has risen by 9.9 percent. Unemployment rates among youth and women are currently at 15.5 percent and 9.7 percent respectively. These statistics are in addition to the ever-present and as-yet-unaddressed problem of high aboriginal unemployment. It is most important that the government not exceed the taxpayers' ability to pay. Given the seriousness and immediacy of the province's financial situation, I request that you grant this matter your utmost and most urgent consideration.
The Speaker: Could the member make a copy of the statement available to the Chair?
Interjection.
The Speaker: Is the minister rising to provide the Chair with a submission on this?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, as is the custom in this House, I would just point out that the government has not received the courtesy of notification or a copy of the statement. I would say, however, that based on the statements that have been made this morning, it is clearly....
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, standing order 35, in my reading, is not a debatable motion. If we'd like to have a debate, I'd be glad to have a debate on the economy, but the minister responding to the member's motion is not a debatable motion.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The point is well taken. It's not debatable at this point, but the Chair always welcomes submissions that would help the Chair make its decision.
Interjection.
The Speaker: But only on a procedural basis.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, the fact that there was no notice whatsoever clearly indicates the lack of urgency and the lack of thought that has gone into this presentation.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
Hon. J. Cashore: I urge you, hon. Speaker, to dismiss this. This is in no way....
The Speaker: Order, order. Thank you, hon. member, for your submission. I cannot allow further debate on this matter until the Chair has considered it. The official opposition House Leader is rising on what point?
J. Tyabji: On a point of order with regard to the notification of the government.
An Hon. Member: That's not a point of order.
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: You accepted a submission from the government side, hon. Speaker, on the standing order.
The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, that is not a point of order. I have taken submissions. If there are any other submissions on this matter I will take them. However, I will then take the issue under advisement and return to the House.
Is this a submission to the Chair?
J. Tyabji: Yes, I would like to make the submission, with regard to notification, that the official opposition did not receive sufficient notification of the magnitude of the deficit, and that that is why we had to bring this forward at this time.
The Speaker: Hon. members, we cannot enter into debate on this issue, and therefore I thank all hon. members for their submissions. I will take it under advisement.
Hon. J. Cashore: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 84.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
On the amendment.
[ Page 3850 ]
R. Chisholm: I rise today in support of the amendment. Bill 84 must reflect fair and balanced labour laws that protect workers while still guaranteeing the right of employers to operate. The bill as it stands now does not do that. It fails to provide labour and management with the atmosphere vital for cooperation, fairness and awareness of each other's needs and concerns.
Consequently, Bill 84 will hurt B.C.'s economy, harm business and cause havoc to jobs. Bill 84 puts politics into the labour system. You will now need an NDP card to get a job, and a union card to do business. Unfortunately, this government's motto to British Columbians is: do as I say and not as I do. I stress this because the Labour minister in presenting this bill to British Columbians emphasizes his support for union labour and union wages. Yet, as reported in the Vancouver Sun of October 31, 1992, the hon. minister admitted he hired a non-union contractor and non-union labour to build his new house here in Victoria.
[10:15]
So much for the fair wage policy; so much for this government abiding by the very bill that they expect to impose on the people of British Columbia. I think that if the Labour minister can't put his money where his mouth is he should resign. The government should tear up this bill and start over, and write a bill that gives fair and balanced labour laws to British Columbians, and that protects workers while still guaranteeing the right of employers to operate.
The present legislation restricts business flexibility and is yet another detriment to investment. This legislation has removed the words "market economy." In the interpretation of labour legislation, this deletion signals to investors that the government of British Columbia is prepared to allow outside influences to interrupt the free competitive market economy.
Large employers that are already unionized lose little by this bill. They gain from secondary picketing restrictions, which prevent strikers in one sector of the business from picketing another. For example, farm labourers cannot picket the processor.
Gone are the proposed sectoral bargaining provisions allowing unions to certify all branches of a company -- McDonald's, for instance; by signing up the employees at one McDonald's restaurant.... Against these gains they give up the issue of secondary boycotting which prevents a unionized firm from dealing with non-union companies. This will greatly harm small non-union firms, which will be forced to unionize or lose the business of unionized firms. I feel this is a loss of freedom and democracy. This legislation is a signal to investors that British Columbia is no longer a market economy.
The labour code does not reflect the interests of two very important groups: the individual non-union workers who are the target of most of the provisions and who constitute more than two-thirds of all private sector workers; and the small, yet-to-be-born businesses, which are key to job growth in British Columbia.
Barring replacement workers during a strike stops employers from operating during a strike. However, the people affected are all non-union workers, such as the unemployed who are willing and able to do a job at wages rejected by the union. Since union members who cross a picket line are exempt, it is clear that this so-called anti-scab rule uses the power of government to confirm the union's ownership over the jobs and prohibits non-union workers from trying to get them.
This law coerces workers, not management. It upsets the equality of bargaining power in British Columbia. In the event of a strike, the worker has the right to look for other work. In the past, the employer had the right to continue operating. By taking away the employer's right to operate, it unbalances the purpose of collective bargaining. There is no flexibility for the employer in collective bargaining and in conducting business in a strike situation. It's over when it's over, meaning it's over when the union says so. I've received letters from hundreds of businesses in my constituency who have expressed their concerns about this faulty labour legislation.
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: I will read a couple for the hon. member who is heckling over there. I have forwarded them all to the hon. Minister of Labour for his information, but we know he doesn't hire union workers, don't we? So that will avail little. As he is aware, certification is a concern to all of them.
Certification takes away the democratic right to vote with 55 percent of the membership and takes away the democratic right to secret choice with secret ballot. Enabling certification of a workplace by having a majority of workers sign union cards is defended by the government as a means to prevent employers from intimidating workers, as would be the case if a secret ballot vote was taken. However, this places in jeopardy ordinary workers in an enterprise targeted for unionization. Rather than face the collective judgment of the workers on the secret ballot, the union faces the employers one by one in private. This is regressive, and certainly not in the interests of the workers. It abandons individual workers to a private hell -- with telephone calls in the middle of the night, slashed tires, gun shots or, as with the united auto workers in Prince Edward Island, being forced off the road into the ditch by a union recruiting agent.
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: This is all documented, hon. member. You should try reading; it'll open your eyes.
This certification process will, under the new code, be followed by a bargaining process with the employer. If the employer does not agree to union demands in a reasonable period of time, the Labour Relations Board will impose a first contract on the employer. This contract sets the tone for all subsequent interactions between the union and the employer, because under the code the jobs in this place of work belong to the union. The employer does not escape, even if the bargaining process leads to bankruptcy. Succession rights given to unions ensure that the buyer of the capital assets will
[ Page 3851 ]
also inherit the union contract. How about that for NDP democracy? I can assure you that it is not my idea of democracy, or the definition of democracy of any of my colleagues of the official opposition.
Small and medium-sized businesses will be saddled with pay scales negotiated by large companies. They'll go the way of the family-owned corner grocery store, the way of the dodo. The only way employers can avoid this sort of trap is if they don't get involved in the first place. The problem is that it is precisely these new employers.... Many of them are people who risk their family home or other personal assets to buy a franchise or other business, and upon whom we are now reliant on for job creation in Canada.
This bill shows the NDP's failure to comprehend the economic situation in the province. This bill will have far-reaching negative effects in all sectors of the economy. Let me outline a few. I'll first discuss my critic area of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Instant certification for farmworkers will have negative effects. With agriculture already falling by 3.9 percent for the past 12 months, this bill will have a negative impact on employment levels. Those farmers who do not unionize will not be able to sell their produce to unionized processors. The cost of unionizing will increase the cost of their produce; yet there is nothing preventing the processor from rejecting the local high-priced produce for cheaper Mexican or U.S. produce. Consequently this will further hurt our already hurting farming community.
Increased labour strife will drive trading partners elsewhere if they feel our supply is unstable. Since literacy rates among agriculture workers are low, it will be very difficult for these workers to find work after they lose their jobs.
The NDP government has alienated the doctors, health care workers, lawyers and educators in positions taken during labour conflict. Is this the precedent this government wants to establish in working with the remainder of the people of this province? What is this government doing in the areas of training and retraining the labour force? What are the effects of cutting or retaining current funding levels on the education futures of the youth of British Columbia? What concessions has this government made to the union, and at what expense to other sectors or interests?
In advanced education, the labour strife that took place on campuses earlier this year will happen again. Further union organization on campuses is driving up the cost of education to both the taxpayer and the student. We now have a shortfall of 19,000 positions. What is this government's agenda? Lack of adequate measures for technical training and retraining in the workforce for post-secondary institutions in the province?
In the area of education, suppliers to school boards will feel the pinch as labour costs are passed on to purchasing boards. In all likelihood these increases will not be covered by the ministry. We will attempt to contact the BCSTA on this angle and play it while education is hot. These are amazing statements I'm making here. What would be the possibility of secondary picketing in the educational system?
Another area of concern in this province is energy and mines. We have to spend money to generate wealth to pay for education. Coal markets have been marked for reduction. Any disruption in the ability to market products will result in consumers turning to other suppliers. This will likely be permanent. Witness the Westar and Greenhills areas. Mining has witnessed a 15.1 percent decline in its workforce since the NDP took power. We cannot afford this disruptive bill. Mining capital is flowing south already, and there's very little capital coming into this province. How many single-industry towns will have to go under before the government realizes its priorities are in the wrong place? Mexico is now allowing for foreign ownership of resources to attract increased investment and is being very successful. Guess who the losers are here? It isn't Mexico; it's us. There were no new mines opened in 1992.
Let's take a look at the area of forestry. We've had disruptions due to secondary picketing in our forest industry. How much has this cost us? What is going to happen with this bill? Marginal single-industry towns may feel the pressures of increased supplier costs and supplier disruptions making an already tenuous situation that much more difficult. Capital investment will definitely not be attracted to British Columbia. The past 12 months have seen a 4 percent decrease in employment in this area. An already uncompetitive situation will be exacerbated. Supplier nations are coming on stream in other jurisdictions that have less turnaround time to produce their mature timber. Labour unrest could be the last straw for some of these firms, especially the smaller firms.
Let's take a look at health. Health care is in crisis. Negotiating with doctors in a dictatorial fashion created problems with the HEU in a strike earlier this year. Health costs are already rising faster than our ability to pay for them. Secondary boycotts in this area would be devastating to the provincial taxpayer. There's potential for increased supplier costs and increased militancy in support unions. There would be areas of opting out -- doctors have opted out -- and increased supply costs which medicare doesn't cover. This will be passed on directly to the consumer.
Picket line legislation. How will secondary picketing affect hospitals? On that matter, when you talk about violence on the picket line and you put it in this bill, what's the matter with enforcing the laws we presently have on the books? We don't need another law. We need to enforce what we already have.
Tourism. This is one of the main targets for the labour code changes. The possibility for sectoral certification looms for this industry in the future. The fear of many in this field is the prospect of mom-and-pop organizations in the hotel, restaurant and other fields being forced to pay their employees the same as those in the big hotel and restaurant chains -- something which they physically cannot do. The ministry has already had its budget slashed for the past fiscal year, and unfortunately the money came directly from the advertising budget. The tourism marketing section of the budget was reduced by 26.9 percent. The industry is one of the few growth industries in the province, and
[ Page 3852 ]
one which cannot afford drastic changes at a time of economic uncertainty.
When we talk about transportation, supplier costs will be increased if secondary boycotts are permitted. The ministry had its budget reduced by $182 million in the area of capital construction. A healthy economy must have at its disposal an adequate transportation system. This bill will only exacerbate an already difficult period for the highways contractors and roadbuilders.
[10:30]
I see that the hon. member who asked about who wrote to us has left. I'm afraid he's afraid of the truth. These are all letters from businesses, union members and non-union members, and these are just a few.
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: As a matter of fact, there is. As a matter of fact, ask your hon. Minister of Labour, and you'll find that his office is full of them. One letter is written to me, and it states:
"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 reason to force small businesses to fight an uphill battle with the large international unions, and have the government tip the scales of labour in their favour.
"It seems grossly unfair to force small businesses to operate without the right to bargain directly with their employees. With the new legislation this would be gone, and would allow unions the right to certify companies without true representation from all parties involved. This legislation would turn construction as we see it right now into a small turmoil for a short while. I am sure if you look at this legislation you would see that costs would be forced up to heights that we in business and you in government could not afford.
"In turn, the turmoil that you have started with this legislation would turn on you, because we as a province -- union/non-union -- could not afford to reinvest. We would end up going backwards, not forwards. I urge you and all parties to carefully consider the consequences of the proposed changes."
Unfortunately, as I said, the member is not here. I'll read another one for the record, anyway:
"Being the proprietor of a small construction company with annual sales of $2 million to $3 million, I am very concerned about the labour laws and possible changes that may make it very difficult, if not impossible, to operate as a small business.
"The proposed elimination of the certification vote and the subsequent certification of my company would probably mean the closing of the company. Sixty percent of our work is for private companies, and as such they would not ask us to bid on their projects; knowing our costs would be higher and of the possibility of strikes and lockouts occurring, they would turn to other, open-shop contractors. The elimination of the vote when 55 percent of the employees are union card holders seems to be undemocratic, considering that the union-card members now working at" -- this is the name of the contractor, which I'm not going to say -- "have left the union workplace of their own free will to work in a more relaxed, satisfying and congenial environment.
"...elimination of free speech by myself to my employees, secondary boycotts and first-contract arbitration. All these proposals are heavy-handed, undemocratic, and very bad for the province. Small industries will close or be scared away from the province.
"I will not accept these dictates lightly, and after resisting with all legal means possible to avoid these oppressive laws, if enacted" -- this company -- "will close down, with UIC and welfare the only means of support, just what we need to be competitive in the free trade environment and build the Canada some people seem to want."
This company has 75 employees, by the way.
Now a letter from a non-unionized member:
"I am a non-union worker and have been all my life. I am 32 years old, with a family of three. I have been working with steel for 13 years and feel my job is jeopardized.
"I also feel that the government and the unions are joining together to be as one and that the non-union members, like myself, have no rights at all in the issue of voting for what we believe in.
"I also feel that you are taking our constitutional rights of freedom of speech away!!! I do not want to be a union member at all!!!
"I should have a say in what I wish to be and that is non-union."
That's a non-union member.
This is from a union member -- this should be embarrassing: "I think that the union should not be able to make my decisions for myself, or anyone else for that matter. I should be able to vote and make my own decision. This you are taking away from me."
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: I guess the whole province has got it wrong, hasn't it?
This last letter that I'll quote to you is from a manufacturer.
"I am writing this letter today in an effort to save my business, to preserve the jobs of our employees, and to help keep the backbone (small businesses) of this great province from being broken.
This corporation "is a first-class company with which our employees are proud to be associated. We are going into our fourteenth year of business and have approximately 75 full-time employees. I have taken the time to talk to a large number of our employees regarding this matter and have received some very good input.
"I urge you not to eliminate certification votes or employer free speech. I urge you not to introduce secondary boycotts and first-contract arbitration on us, the small businesses of British Columbia, who now create 90 percent of all jobs.
"Small businesses are absolutely essential to our country and the morals of its people. Small business is competitive and allows people to be rewarded for their input and to grow and excel accordingly.
"The big unions are already too powerful. Don't give them more power to put a stranglehold on small business and the people of British Columbia."
[ Page 3853 ]
The scope of essential services has been reduced to the health, safety and welfare of British Columbians. There is no reference to education or the economic threat. This reduces the minister's right to step in when the economic viability of this province is threatened. Just think back to the forestry incidents. The big losers from this new labour code are the coerced workers and the students in our high schools and universities, who will find it increasingly difficult to find employment as employers take their only escape route, and that is not starting up a business in the first place. It's very unfortunate.
The people in small businesses were not represented when the government concocted this regressive and repressive labour code, which the minister feels he is too special to abide by. This government is out of touch with the people of British Columbia. They are in a dream world. We saw that during the referendum. They kept shouting yes while the electorate kept shouting no. This government must allow the people of British Columbia to determine their own labour bill by having an independent committee of the people fix this flawed bill. I beg the government to swallow its pride for the good of the people and the economy of British Columbia.
The Liberal opposition would like to have seen this new labour code contain provisions for the establishment of a labour ombudsman. With the increased power and broad rights given to the trade union movement and union executives, the rights of individual workers must be protected. If a union fails to represent a worker, that employee should be given the right to have his or her case heard without having to incur the expense of hiring a private labour lawyer.
The Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for North Coast.
D. Miller: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I....
J. Tyabji: Haven't you spoken already?
D. Miller: No, I haven't, and I pay attention.
I'll deal with the Socred opposition in a moment, but I'm a bit puzzled by the speeches I've heard from the Liberal opposition, because that gang of nitpickers and naysayers doesn't seem to know what they stand for. I haven't been able to detect, through all these speeches, whether they're in favour of the bill or opposed to the bill. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if they voted in favour of the bill. I want them to know that there's no shame and that nobody will cast any aspersions on them, because the bill clearly reflects the policies that they enunciated before the election.
It's a great wonderment to me that this divided Liberal opposition caucus, which doesn't seem to know where they stand or what they stand....
J. Tyabji: Point of order. Much as I find the speaker's comments entertaining, I don't know that they're addressing what's on the floor, and that's the amendment that this not be read a second time. I don't see that any comments on the character of the Liberal caucus are relevant to the debate.
The Speaker: I'm sure the member for North Coast will take those comments under advisement and address the amendment.
D. Miller: As I said, I intend to deal with the reasonable issues raised and set forth in the bill. Again, I am puzzled as to why we have what appears to be opposition, although I'm not absolutely convinced, because I read that the Liberal Party campaigned on the platform of broad consultation in rewriting the bill; that's what we had. They campaigned on a commitment to free collective bargaining in both the public and private sectors; that's what the bill allows. They said that there should be dispute resolution mechanisms to maximize potential for management and labour to solve their own problems; that's what we have in the bill. Yet we find them moving these spurious amendments. As I said, I'm not absolutely convinced that they don't agree with the bill, but they're somehow going through the motions.
I guess the members of the B.C. public who witnessed that debate during the election.... They heard the Leader of the Opposition say: "We're not going to be like those old-line political parties. We're not going to oppose for the sake of opposing. We want to be cooperative. We want to be constructive." Since they arrived here, they've been nitpickers and naysayers, and I wish that this Liberal caucus would live up to the promises they made prior to the election, because they have descended into being....
Interjections.
D. Miller: The amendment to the bill is clearly something that we oppose on this side of the House. In addition to satisfying the platform of the Liberal Party, which I guess they must have forgotten, the bill provides a balanced approach to labour-management relations that has been lacking in this province for far too long.
I am amazed that we have people standing up in this Legislature in 1992 reading letters and suggesting that if workers have the right to organize and form a union, somehow there will be dire consequences for our economy. I am absolutely amazed that after over 200 years of labour history -- of men and women fighting, and in some cases dying, for the right to organize and bargain collectively -- we have members of the Liberal opposition standing up in this House saying that it will be doom and gloom if workers organize or unionize. I am completely dismayed.
Interjections.
An Hon. Member: You've really upset the Liberals.
D. Miller: Clearly I must have provoked some feelings within the Liberal caucus, because they can't sit still and listen. They are yelling like little children. I
[ Page 3854 ]
distinctly heard the leader of the Liberal opposition say in that debate before the election that they weren't going to do that; they were going to be different. Yet I find them acting in the worst possible way.
The Speaker: Order, order. Would the hon. member please take his seat.
I would ask the House to come to order, and that hon. members respect the fact that the hon. member for North Coast has the floor. I would also remind the hon. member who is debating to address the amendment and to avoid personal attacks on other hon. members of the House.
[10:45]
D. Miller: With all due respect, hon. Speaker, they're not personal. But I will heed your admonishment.
I want to deal with several sections of the bill and point out why the bill as it stands should not be amended. We should deal with this bill clause by clause in committee and pass it, because I think it's entirely reasonable. There are a number of points I want to make in support of that and against the amendment.
As I said, I reject the notion that if workers have the right to organize, doom and gloom will prevail and the economy will somehow slide into a bottomless pit. My limited understanding of history and of other countries suggests to me that nowhere in the free world or the western industrialized democracies could anybody show that where workers have those rights, and where they improve their wages, their working conditions and their general conditions, that has had anything but a beneficial effect on the economy. I defy anybody on the Liberal side to give me an example to the contrary. So clearly we reject the notion that because workers have the right to organize they want to vote against this bill.
The issue of consultation, it seems to me, is an important one. I want to address the issue of the secret ballot. As an MLA in this House in 1987, I was debating the Socred labour bill. I was absolutely appalled and offended, as someone who comes from the trade union movement, to see in labour legislation this requirement that suggested that labour could not be trusted, that it was impossible for a labour union to conduct a secret ballot, that it had to be supervised by some outside forces and that something nefarious would take place.
I was even more appalled when the Social Credit Party had their leadership convention, and there was some concern about the leader. There were people in that party who opposed the Premier of the day. They said at their own convention: "We think the members of our party should have a secret ballot so we can vote on the leadership, not a show of hands." The Socred Party, which brought in Bill 19 and imposed that requirement on labour, refused to accept the notion of a secret ballot vote for their leader. We know what the result was: they were stuck with a leader who eventually took them down. So it's sheer hypocrisy. They rejected for themselves what they wished to impose on labour.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
The other important issue that needs to be addressed is the rights of women. I think there are some serious issues with respect to the economy, the new kinds of jobs that are being created and young people being relegated to extremely low-wage service jobs. That is not good for our economy in the long term; I don't think that builds our economy. An economist could probably make the argument better than I can, but I think there's a benefit internally in our economy as a result of having well-paying jobs. Those benefits flow out internally into the province, and they ultimately become of benefit to all of us, including many of those small business owners who seem to have some fear about the ramifications of this bill. In short, giving workers the right to organize, making it easier to organize, does not have a negative consequence for the economy. In fact, it has a positive one.
It also has a positive one in terms of the people who really are relegated to those extremely low-paying jobs -- not an underclass. Who are those people? The vast majority of them are women. All of us are aware of the condition that some workers, particularly women, have to face -- single mothers with children, who don't have enough day care spaces and who quite often can't find jobs that pay a high enough wage to even meet the standards set by UIC, if they're lucky enough to be able to acquire enough stamps to get on UIC. Where are they relegated to most often? They're relegated to being on welfare, on social assistance, losing pride and dignity. Tell me how that benefits our society. Tell me why that is good for our society. It's not.
If you look at the statistics, some are very interesting. I don't have the numbers here, but the general premise I'm putting forward is absolutely correct. We talk in our society about equality, about trying to reach parity between men and women in terms of wages. In many respects, we as government can take action through collective bargaining with public sector unions. But it's very difficult to legislate those kinds of things in the private sector. I think unions can provide that opportunity, that assistance, for women to improve their position. The difference in the wage gap between men and women is quite severe. I don't know what the latest figures are, but they're fairly significant -- maybe as much as 60 percent. If you look at the wage gap between unionized men and women, it is far less. I think there's proof positive that women have the opportunity to come together collectively -- which is what unions are -- and bargain collectively, which is the only strength that workers have. They don't have that strength as individuals. We improve the position of those women and their children in our society, and we generally improve the position of the internal economy in this province.
Quite frankly, I can't understand the Liberal Party. They make these scattered speeches and quote from letters, but I really don't know what their position is, and I don't know why they're moving amendments. Quite frankly, as I said, I think they probably support the legislation. They think there's some constituency out there that they have to represent by opposing this. It's completely contrary to what they said, that they would be a different party, that they wouldn't oppose
[ Page 3855 ]
just for the sake of opposing. They're doing exactly the opposite.
Hon. Speaker, I'm rightfully proud of the fact that we have finally joined other jurisdictions in this land by bringing in anti-scab legislation. Many people witnessed the sight over the last number of years in various labour disputes in this province -- the Post Office comes to mind -- of the employer not bargaining in good faith and saying: "We're going to bring in replacement workers." I was quite proud of my community, because it was one of the few in this province where they didn't even try that. They knew they couldn't succeed. Being able to bring in replacement workers is no incentive to bargaining; it's a disincentive. It only leads to violence and strife which is sometimes extremely long-lasting. Finally we've got some legislation that prevents the use of scabs. Jack London described a scab as "a man with a corkscrew soul." I can't remember the rest of the poem, but I remember that it stirred me in my youth, and it still does today.
Hon. Speaker, I think we're missing some of the essential debate with respect to relations between management, labour and government. If you look around the world at the economies that have been most successful, they have been the ones that have produced the marriage, if you like, between labour, management, the private sector and government.
Interjection.
D. Miller: The member quotes the Soviet Union, and I think he displays his ignorance of history. I don't want to use my time to educate that member. Perhaps there will be some other opportunities. You can quote the Soviet Union all you want, but you're wrong.
Instead, let's talk about Japan or western Europe or the Scandinavian countries. Those jurisdictions are successful economically because labour has been brought into the fold. Labour is part and parcel of economic planning. The neanderthals in British Columbia, who insist on looking at labour as being the enemy, will never invite that cooperation. They will always see labour as a problem, and it's not a problem.
Working men and women in this province have every right, through their organizations, to be part of what we do, to be part of economic planning. As a person who worked in an industrial plant for years, I realized that, as a worker, I and my fellow workers had to bear the brunt of decisions made by government and industry. We knew that negative decisions were always the same: we got laid off; we saw our plants close. We had no power to be part of that economic planning or decision-making; we simply suffered the consequences. That breeds a situation where labour has to, for their own survival, put up barricades, and in many cases resist change. Why should you accept change if you are a representative of labour, a working person, and you know that at the end of the day that change will simply result in either you or some of your fellow workers losing their jobs? Why should you be part of change if that's the condition you live under? There is no incentive to change. There is no incentive to embrace new technology or new ideas. In many cases you're simply fighting a losing battle to retain what you have.
We have finally developed a labour code. We finally have a government that does not have an instinctive bias against people who belong to unions, that consulted extensively and produced a labour code that was the product of that consultation and of near unanimous agreement between labour and management. We find the Liberal opposition putting amendment after amendment forward and trying to kill this, when it's the very thing they said they wanted to see.
So how are we going to move into a new era? How is British Columbia going to deal with some of the serious economic issues that we face in terms of restructuring? I can tell you that the issues facing our forest industry are very severe and complex. We'll move forward as a government to deal with management and labour, to develop new policies, to look at new ideas and look at how labour can play a more meaningful role. But you can't do that if you display an extreme negative bias against working people. You suggest that somehow, because people are able to form a union and bargain collectively for their working conditions and wages, it is essentially bad. I listened to the member read a letter from an employer, and the thrust of the letter was: "My employees are extremely happy. They're happy. I treat them well." Well, that employer has nothing to fear. I would hazard a guess that if that were the case, the employees might say to themselves: "No, we're doing okay. We don't think that we need a union."
Unions essentially arose because of the oppression of workers. Times have changed a lot since those days; times have changed a lot since we didn't have child labour laws. But unions essentially arose in our society because workers were exploited, and we all too often lose sight of that because we've moved so far beyond it. We've moved into our modern era and have, compared to the rest of the world, one of the most magnificent standards of living that you could think of. But don't forget why unions came to be.
I just don't understand those employers who are writing letters and saying: "I'm going to go out of business. The world's going to come to an end if my employees have the right to unionize." Working people are all the same. We all like to go to work. We all like to think that we're going to do a productive job. We don't want to go there to fight or to harass or anything else. We want to be treated fairly and respected. That's my understanding of workers. That's what they respond to -- not these kinds of nitpicking, naysaying speeches I'm hearing from the Liberal opposition.
[11:00]
It baffles me to the extreme why we get these amendments that really speak against the bill and why we get these delaying tactics when, in my view, we should be moving on. It's easy to say no, but it's far more difficult to be constructive, to try to pull things together, to try to create the kind of labour code that this government has done through consensus and consultation. It's always easy to find something you don't like, but how do you build things? How do you build a climate where labour, management and government can come together, get on with these serious
[ Page 3856 ]
issues and make sure that British Columbia is a powerful economic force within Canada for the benefit of all of our citizens, current and future? How do we ensure that we will have the kind of modern industries that our resource base will allow us to have? It's not through dividing people; it's not through making speeches saying that workers shouldn't have the right to organize; it's not through condemning low-wage workers to be permanently low-wage workers. You're not building anything.
I don't know. I sit here and listen to some of these speeches, and it clearly is a puzzle to me. Maybe, at the end of the day, the Liberal opposition is simply stalling for some unknown reason. Maybe they've descended into playing the political game, something they said they weren't going to do. But they clearly have not explained their position, and I suspect that in the end they'll probably vote in favour of this bill. They probably do agree with it. There may be a diversity of opinion within the Liberal caucus. I've heard that there is some division of opinion in there, but far be it for me to say that there is division. I just simply say that if they stop and reflect, if they read the bill and the report that was prepared for the bill, they will see that it was the product of extensive consultation; that it provides an opportunity to create some institutions in British Columbia that have for far too long been put on the shelf.
I recall the initiative that was set to go forward in 1986 between the Employers' Council and the B.C. Federation of Labour, where labour and business were going to look at issues, such as markets for our products, and how they could cooperate to a greater degree in those areas. The initiative was killed in 1986 and 1987, because the previous government brought in the most spiteful and anti-labour legislation we've seen for decades in this province.
I say let's stop nitpicking. Let's stop this naysaying. Let's look at the positive aspects of this bill. Let's look at the opportunities for government, labour and management to cooperate and come together to build our economy. I'm convinced those opportunities are here. After a year in office by this government and the extensive discussions I've had with people on the labour and management sides, I'm convinced the climate is right. Let's not get caught up in this negativism. Let's look on the positive side. Let's seize the opportunity to go forward. I would hope that we might see more constructive debate around those kinds of issues rather than the continual amendments that serve no useful purpose.
I would hope that we could soon move off of this debate and into the clause-by-clause debate on the bill, because that's where we need to have some discussion. What do these particular clauses say? What are the explanations behind them? How do they impact on labour and management? That's the kind of useful debate that this chamber should be exercising instead of these long speeches. I'll even put my own in that category. I like to say things when I speak. I think the time for these endless speeches and amendments in second reading is past. This amendment is not something we can accept. I don't think the House wants to endlessly belabour the bill in this fashion. We want to move forward. Let's look at the clauses in this bill.
I'm not trying to give a lesson to the Liberal opposition. I've already said that I'm somewhat puzzled by their position. In fact, I'm not even certain what their position is, maybe because they haven't explained it well enough. If what I heard from the last speaker was essentially an attack on working people having the right to be represented by a union, then I really am puzzled. There have been Liberals throughout history who came from the labour movement representing the interests of labour. I recall, not that long ago, federally, people in the House who were called Lib-Labs -- Liberal-Labour. It wasn't that long ago that there were members in eastern Canada who proudly stood up to represent the interests of working people in this country. I'm somewhat dismayed that I've not heard that kind of speech from any member of the Liberal caucus. They view labour as the enemy, and any rights or opportunities granted to labour or any easing of restrictions when it comes to the right to organize and bargain are viewed by the Liberals as being negative. I really am disappointed.
But there are many disappointments in political life; I'm sure there will be more. I hope that we can move on to a more constructive dialogue and debate about the possibilities contained in Bill 84, rather than this endless nitpicking and naysaying.
D. Mitchell: It's always a pleasure to enter debate after hearing the thoughts of the member for North Coast. Some say the member for North Coast is serving some time in the penalty box. Well, I can relate to that and have some sympathy for that. I have some special affinity with the member.
The member for North Coast raises some very interesting questions about Bill 84 and the amendment to which we are speaking. I should just remind other members of this assembly that the amendment moved by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano is a very simple one. It says that the House declines to give second reading to Bill 84 for the reason that the bill, in principle, erodes fundamental individual rights of workers and employers.
Is this, as the member for North Coast has indicated, simply a dilatory motion -- a delaying or stalling tactic? What, in fact, is going on here? I'd like to refute what he has claimed, because I think that the debate taking place in the House on this bill is actually quite an important one. It should not be rushed, because in second reading stage of a bill we debate in principle the legislation and its impact. Because the bill was brought in in the manner that it was, without having time to breathe, so to speak, and without time for the people of British Columbia to really examine the bill in detail.... It's a very significant piece of legislation. In fact, I would say that this is the most significant piece of legislation brought in by this government during its term of office, and, as a result, I think it does deserve very serious debate.
Before we get to committee stage, where we do go through it clause by clause and address specific provisions of the bill, I think it's important to have a
[ Page 3857 ]
wide-ranging debate on the principle of the legislation. One of the reasons we do that in this House is to perform an educational role for the general public of the province that will allow British Columbians to understand what this legislation is all about, what the principles of this bill are, whether or not we accept them and whether or not the government should in fact take a second look.
This is the third amendment moved in second reading stage of this bill since it was introduced in the House. There was a motion brought in earlier by the member for Prince George-Omineca to delay second reading for six months. There was a motion by the member for Langley to refer this bill to a select standing committee of the House for further study and input from the general public. Both those amendments were defeated, and so here we are now on the third and what I believe will be the final amendment to second reading stage of this bill, which basically says that the bill should not now be read a second time because of some serious concerns that have been raised and which have not been addressed by the government.
It's not simply a delaying tactic or a stalling tactic. What it is is a debate providing an opportunity for British Columbians to understand what is in this legislation. This is a very significant new labour code for the province of British Columbia, which the government seems intent on passing, but which we in the opposition have some serious concerns about that need to be addressed. Before we rush to the committee stage, where perhaps we can go through aspects of the bill in more detail, I think it's important to address the principles of the bill in this debate.
The member for North Coast addressed a number of principles of this legislation, and I respect his opinions. I know that he's had experience working as a member of a trade union -- in fact, as an employee of a company that I also worked for at one point, interestingly enough -- and I respect his opinions on this. I know he had a significant life experience working as a trade union member before he became a member of this Legislature, that he has served here and is in his second term now. He's had some significant experience, and I think it's important for those members of this Legislature who have had experience as employees, as members of trade unions or as employers to go on record on this bill in terms of concerns that they might have.
The member for North Coast supports the bill and would like to see it go through quickly. Other members of this House are not so sure and are urging caution. Before we proceed, push this bill through and pass it into law, we need to have some questions answered. The Minister of Labour, who is sponsoring this bill, has not answered all the questions that need to be addressed. We will give him an opportunity to do that when we get into committee stage, but first debate in principle what is going on with this bill. The reason that's important and that there needs to be some time for that to happen is so the general public can have some opportunity to respond as well.
Just this morning we heard some senior representatives of the business community of our province speak out on this bill. It has taken them some time to react, because it has taken some time to study what this bill is all about. That's why this debate in second reading stage is important and is serving a useful function; it's not a waste of time at all. In fact, if it was a waste of time, we shouldn't be here and there shouldn't be a Legislature. What is the role of the Legislature but to provide an educational function for the province?
We've got to stand back from the bill and take a look at where it fits into the agenda and the legislative program of this new government, which has been in power for a year now, approximately. What does the bill do?
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: One year exactly in terms of when they were sworn in, as of today. They were sworn in one year ago today.
What have they done? They brought in corporate capital tax. How has that impacted on business and the economy of British Columbia? They brought in a so-called fair wage policy. What has that done to the investment climate in the province? And now, in the same context, they bring in Bill 84, a new labour code. I think we have to look at our fragile economy in that context. What impact is the NDP's legislative program having on the economy of British Columbia? The economy is very fragile. Can we take this? What impact is it going to have on the attraction of investment and on job creation? We have to ask those questions. They're serious questions, and they're important ones.
The amendment refers to individual rights of workers and employers. Those are interesting and important points that have to be addressed. When the minister closes debate, I certainly hope he will address them. When other members of the government speak in this debate, I hope that they too will address the issues pertaining to this amendment specifically. When we take a look at individual rights, there are some concerns.
If you take a look at the history and evolution of labour legislation in our province -- whether it's the old Labour Code, the Industrial Relations Act that we're currently operating under or now this new labour code -- there are some disturbing trends. If we take a look at the new proposed law, individual rights aren't referred to anymore. In fact, that's a major concern that has to be addressed during the debate on principle of this bill, because the specific reference to the rights of individuals has been deleted. This is a change of rather extraordinary dimensions when you think about it. The purposes section of the bill no longer has a reference to the rights of individuals. That change may or may not be deliberate. Maybe it was an oversight; maybe at the committee stage we can reinsert that phrase.
To make the point a little more specifically, if the phrase is left out, labour adjudicators in the future or lawyers appearing before the labour tribunal will have to argue whether or not the elimination of reference to the rights of individuals is of some major significance. I would argue that the intention here might be -- and we need to know this for sure -- that the government
[ Page 3858 ]
wants to enforce the supremacy of collective rights over individual rights.
[11:15]
I believe that labour legislation in any province or jurisdiction has to very carefully balance collective rights and individual rights. They have to be balanced. But if we take out any reference to individual rights, then we have to be concerned. Is this simply an attempt to make sure that collective rights are not only paramount but supreme over individual rights? There's a concern there. I understand that the reason the term "individual rights" was added to the labour law of our province during the last major labour law revision was because of reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was in order to be consistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the phrase "rights of the individual" was inserted into the act in the first place. Now it's being taken out, and I wonder why that is. That's got to be a cause of concern. I'm speaking in favour of this amendment because, left the way it is, it erodes individual rights.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I'd like to devote the remainder of my comments to the other side of the coin. We talked about individual rights; I'd like to talk about management rights. One of the major provisions of this bill is to take a look at management rights as they've been defined in the past in a very different way, in a way that causes some concern to anybody who is either currently operating a business, managing an enterprise in the province of British Columbia or someone who might be contemplating going into business. It has an impact on how a business person will manage their business or operate that business in the future if in fact this law goes through, if this bill is passed into an act in this Legislature. Rights of individuals are attenuated, rights of unions are made paramount, but the rights of employers are diminished. Is there a balance there? The Minister of Labour has told us that he's concerned about having a balanced labour law. But where is the balance in this act?
We have to take a look at the rights of employers. Clearly a person in business must have the ability to run a business. At the same time, the member for North Coast talked about cooperation and how business in the most successful economies in the world -- and I think he might refer to Germany, perhaps Japan, perhaps some other models that exist internationally -- works best when there's a marriage. The member for North Coast said it worked best when there's a marriage between workers and managers. Surely a marriage has to be a partnership that is not based upon compulsion by law. It can't be a shotgun marriage; it must be a marriage that is based upon equals, mutually consenting partners. This law would seek to perhaps create a marriage by definition of the member for North Coast, but not the kind of marriage I think most of us would want to be part of. The member for North Coast had some concerns about that, and I share his concerns, but we obviously come at this from different approaches.
The rights of employers, if they're one party to the marriage, are significantly decreased in this relationship. Let's just talk about that in terms of specifics. How are the rights of employers, traditional management rights, affected by Bill 84? First of all, I would refer to the ban on replacement workers as an interesting feature of the bill. Why has that been introduced in Bill 84? It's got to be the cause of some concern. The first point I would make is that the use by an employer of replacement workers during a labour dispute is and has been a legal right of employers for over 50 years. There's a reason for that in law, I think, that has been accepted by most labour tribunals in our country over the last half century. That right was recognized by the famous Woods task force, and it was also referred to by Paul Weiler in his very well-used text on labour law, Reconcilable Differences, which was published in 1980. In that book Mr. Weiler, echoing the words of other labour adjudicators over the years, stated that the underlying notion is very simple. It is that the employer's right to operate during a labour dispute or conflict is the reciprocal right of the employee's right to strike. There's a balance there. Employees must have a right to strike, and that must be recognized, but the employer must also have a right to operate during a strike. There is a balance there, and that's something that's been enshrined in labour law in most jurisdictions for the last half century.
While the employee who is on strike has a free opportunity to go out and find other work -- if it's available -- during a labour dispute, the employer must also have the ability to bring in managers from other worksites, if it's a large employer, or to hire replacement workers to remain in operation. Otherwise the enterprise is not viable. Those are the principles that have usually been balanced and referred to in labour decisions by the tribunal in our province or in other jurisdictions over the years.
But the change proposed by the NDP takes us away from that. For instance, while the employee on strike is free to find work elsewhere, the employer has been entitled to stockpile goods and to continue his or her business, notwithstanding the presence of picketers at the worksite.
The fact that Ontario is embarking on this kind of initiative, banning replacement workers, doesn't really add a lot of value to our debate here in British Columbia. Ontario might be wrong. We don't need to copy them or emulate that model. Going into the mainstream doesn't mean trying to copy Ontario, because I don't think we want to copy everything that's going on in Ontario. But let's talk about British Columbia. We could talk about Quebec. Some people refer to the Quebec experience, where there's been violence on picket lines. That's not a tradition in British Columbia. That's not an issue that really needs to be addressed in British Columbia. I don't think that's where the ban on replacement workers is coming from in terms of a motivation on the part of the government here.
But another point to be made about this is that the new provision in the ban on replacement workers -- which is section 68(1)(c) of Bill 84 -- prohibits the use of
[ Page 3859 ]
a person who is transferred by a company after notice to commence bargaining has been given. In other words, if an employer has another operation, if it's a large employer who has another operation, that employer cannot transfer employees from another worksite to the site that is being struck or where there is a dispute. You have to think a little bit about the implication of that. You have to think about that because an employer who enters collective bargaining without contemplating a strike may have to disturb his administration by transferring managerial staff as early as the date before which notice to commence bargaining is given, under section 68(1)(c).
This action is a very interesting one because if a company wants to transfer managerial staff from another site as collective bargaining commences, because of a fear of a strike starting as a result of collective bargaining breaking down, it has to do it before collective bargaining even commences. Now a prudent employer with multi-operation sites might want to do that, not knowing just how the negotiations are going to go. A prudent employer might want to do that, but on the other hand, moving managerial staff from another site to a site where collective bargaining is proceeding might be seen by the union as a signal that a strike is expected. That could be very awkward. Not only is it awkward; it's assuming that all employers are large, multi-operation employers. But for a small employer, a medium-sized business with only one worksite, there isn't the opportunity to transfer managerial staff from another operation. So again it's the small and medium-sized employers who really are not considered and not contemplated under this act.
The model used under the proposed section 68 of Bill 84, referring to replacement workers, really contemplates the old model, where we have large employers and large unions; we have large employers with multiple sites, multiple operations and a unionized workforce already in place. The reality is that British Columbia has become tremendously diversified in recent years, and most British Columbians don't work for those kinds of large companies anymore. Certainly new jobs that are being created do not come from the older industrial sector in British Columbia.
So the hiring of replacement workers.... If you think through the operation of giving notice and moving managerial staff, it really doesn't address the issues of operating a company. One wonders if the drafters of this bill really understand operating or managing or owning a company. If they did, they would have thought about this in a different way. One of the reasons I raise this is that the NDP is now the government of British Columbia, the largest employer in the province. This ban on replacement workers could ultimately have an impact on the government itself during a strike. In a government strike or a strike in a Crown corporation, what is the government going to do with the issue of replacement workers? What is the government going to do if it wants to move managers from one place to another to keep an essential service in operation during a strike in the public sector? Is the government, at the commencement of collective bargaining, when we enter into negotiations, going to start moving managers around in the public sector in case there's a strike? If they do that, is that a signal that there's going to be a strike? I think not.
But the issue here is that the NDP does not think of itself as an employer. The NDP tends to not think of itself conceptually as an employer, when in fact the government in British Columbia is the largest employer in the province. This ban on replacement workers could backfire badly on the government of the day. I don't think this has been particularly well thought through. During committee stage we'll discuss this in more detail, but this is an example of where management rights and employers' rights are being adversely affected by this bill.
I'd like to refer to one other section of the bill, which deals with management rights in traditional ways, and how they're being affected. In fact, there are two sections, 53 and 54, which deal with joint consultation and adjustment plans. I think that sections 53 and 54 are the real sleepers in this proposed legislation. While they read very well, if you take a close look at them, it's very clear that the people who wrote them either have never run a business and know nothing about running one or are so imbued with the ideology of so-called co-management -- some Utopian vision of a workers' democracy, where the workers actually run the facilities and manage them -- that they've turned a page in workplace democracy in British Columbia. But I don't think it's one that's going to lead to a Utopia; it's going to lead to a dystopia.
Sections 53 and 54 take the old language from technological change, which labour relations practitioners know and understand very well and which are encoded in almost every collective agreement in our province, and they go well beyond technological change. This takes the old technological change provision in a dramatically new direction. In my view, it may constitute the greatest single intrusion into management rights in Bill 84.
The old technological change provision, which has a long history and is found in virtually all labour laws not only throughout British Columbia but also Canada, has had a relatively narrow application over the years. But under the proposed section 54 of this bill, the notion has been expanded to include any "measure, policy, practice or change that affects the terms, conditions or security of employment of a significant number of employees" bound by a collective agreement. One has to think about that. Any measure, policy, practice or change that affects employees is subject to a new adjustment plan.
[11:30]
How is that going to work? The language here is so broad that it would capture just about any change in any business. If a manager or an owner of a business wants to make virtually any change in their business, they not only would have to consult with their union -- it assumes that there is a union, and let me tell you that if there isn't one, there will be one if this bill goes into law -- but also would have to get the agreement from the union before they can make any change to any measure, policy or practice of their business. That's so broad-sweeping that it has a tremendous impact on
[ Page 3860 ]
whether or not managers are going to be able to run their businesses and owners are going to be able to run their companies, because the possibility for a business to be responsive and flexible to change in a rapidly changing world is adversely impacted by sections 53 and 54, the so-called adjustment policies and so-called joint consultation programs.
It sounds great. It creates an image of workers and management in harmony, arm in arm, running the business together. It's a so-called co-management philosophy. But in practice, if you think this through.... It's very clear to me that whoever drafted these sections of the bill have never run a business, because in practical terms, a business won't run that way. In fact, the language is so broad as to embrace almost any change that a business might introduce to remain competitive in a rapidly changing world.
To say that this new language is far-reaching is really understating the case. An experienced manager would be hard pressed to identify any change that would not be covered by that kind of language. Up until this point, apart from the rather narrow technological change, an employer has been free to change any policy, measure or aspect of their business that has not been specifically covered by a collective agreement. But under sections 53 and 54 any change will need consultation and joint agreement, and any agreement that's formed will automatically become part of a collective agreement.
It would seem that an employer who contemplates any significant change will arguably have to give notice, as I think they should, to their employees, and that aspect of these sections is fine. Notice is reasonable, and it's a reasonable part of the bill. But in order for that change to be effective, they would have to meet with the union to develop an adjustment plan that embraces a whole range of requirements. That might even apply to company pension plans, because it says: A "measure, policy...or change...." I can tell you that in most labour agreements pension plans are specifically excluded for a variety of reasons, such as the management of assets within pension funds.
The question of what constitutes a significant number is also an issue here, and it will have to be interpreted by the new board against the backdrop of this act, which is very distinctly pro-union. That's another reason the debate in this House is important: we must get on the record what is contemplated by these changes. Obviously when we get to committee stage we will be discussing sections 53 and 54 in great detail to understand what is contemplated. By reading the bill, it appears to me that this is a huge intrusion into what we traditionally regarded as management rights in British Columbia -- the ability of an employer to run his or her business.
There's one other area in the bill that I'd like to refer to under this whole area of management rights, and this amendment addresses it. It's the definition of an employee. Who is an employee? That has always been defined under any labour code in Canada. The definition of an employee is very important, because employees who are excluded from collective agreements or might be confidential employees or part of the management team are important for managerial definitions. They are usually excluded from the definition, and as a result will not be organized under collective agreements.
But the definition of "employee" changes under Bill 84. Both the old Labour Code and the Industrial Relations Act, which we're currently operating under in British Columbia, contain a comprehensive definition of employee and those who are excluded from that definition. Bill 84 has been simplified in a way that is very reminiscent of the definition of employee that is found in labour law prior to 1973, when the first Labour Code was introduced. This may be a very significant change in terms of the identification of those persons who are to be excluded from the definition of employees. The intention appears to be to narrow the basis for exclusion and invalidate the very substantial body of jurisprudence that surrounds this matter.
I suspect that this change is by design, and that the new board will seize on the new language to reinterpret that definition. If so, this is a very serious matter, as the employer community has relied for many years on the jurisprudence of the board and the council in determining who is excluded from the definition of employee for exercising management functions. There's an attempt here to change the jurisprudence of the past, and there's an attack on the whole concept of management team. In fact, the concept of management team is specifically excluded under this bill. I wonder about that, and I wonder if we are witnessing an intrusion into traditional management rights by changing the very definition of an employee.
Those are some concerns that I raise. I want to put them on the record as we debate the principal of Bill 84. There are concerns about management rights. We've addressed a number of concerns about individual rights, but there has to be a balance between the two. I'm worried that the law that is being proposed by the NDP is not balanced.
We have to stand back from Bill 84 and ask: why would someone want to go into business in British Columbia today when governments at all levels are making it increasingly difficult for people to go into business and create jobs that help to build the economy? Why would they want to do it when the paperwork and the bureaucracy that they have to face is becoming increasingly difficult? The introduction of the GST has certainly compounded that, and now we have Bill 84: a massive intrusion into management rights that is going to make things much more difficult. Under Bill 84 certification of a union can happen without a free vote. Simply by signing up, an employer will find out one day, to his or her surprise, that his employees have organized.
That in itself is not a problem, but add to that the fact that if an agreement can't be negotiated quickly, a first contract will be imposed on that employer; that if there's a strike, there's no opportunity to hire replacement workers to keep the business going during a dispute; that there are secondary boycott provisions added into this bill that might make it difficult for this employer to ever do business with the government unless he or she unionizes the operation themselves; that adjustment plans and consultation programs make
[ Page 3861 ]
it necessary for that employer to consult and have a formal agreement with employees on virtually any aspect of running the business; and that any measure, policy or change that's contemplated has to be part of that process.
It becomes increasingly difficult to imagine why anyone in British Columbia would ever want to even go into business. Faced with these kinds of hurdles and bureaucracy, it's difficult to imagine. One wonders if we're really doing the right thing. If our objective is to increase the employment base in British Columbia, to build a stronger economy and to help a fragile economy move into its next stage of development and diversification, are we doing the right thing by simply creating more obstacles for employers -- not only existing employers but potential employers?
These are some of the concerns that I want to put on the record. I think the amendment is a good amendment. I try to imagine the conversation that the Minister of Labour might have with his friends in the B.C. Federation of Labour. According to an editorial cartoon in the Province the other day, it might start like this:
"Good morning, brother Ken. I've got some good news for you and I've got some bad news for you. The good news is that Bill 84 is in the House, and the debate is going well in second reading. The bad news is that some concerns have been raised, and we've got to take a second look at the bill. It's not going to go through as quickly as we would have liked, brother Ken."
I'm not sure how that's going to impact on the relationship between the Minister of Labour and Mr. Georgetti.
An Hon. Member: It will survive.
D. Mitchell: I hope that marriage can survive just like all the other marriages and partnerships that we know of do, but the conversation has to take place. The Minister of Labour must take a second look. In my own way, I'd like to offer some political advice to the Minister of Labour, who's not here this morning. I'd like to suggest that he take a second look at this bill and accept this amendment to not proceed with second reading of the bill at this time. I think it will redound favourably on a government that has the maturity and the ability to take a second look at this bill.
With those few remarks, I will obviously be supporting the amendment.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Again, without singling out any hon. member, I would remind members that it is not the practice of the House to comment on the presence or absence of other members in the chamber.
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today and speak against the amendment. I think this is a good bill, and I would speak against any amendment that would delay the process of this bill through this House as quickly as possible. This new labour code ends confrontation brought about by Bill 19 and restores fairness and balance to a labour code that has been long overdue.
One would think that this bill was a radical move created by radical union activists. The reality is that this bill came about after three special advisers travelled the province last February -- labour, business and somebody considered unbiased by all fields. Two hundred and ninety-six written submissions were brought in; they visited 11 B.C. cities and heard from 203 presenters -- trade unionists, employers and other groups and individuals. Clearly there was a process involved, and clearly this process involved all British Columbians and an unbiased viewpoint.
What happened then, hon. Speaker? Did they file their report and just have it sit on a shelf somewhere, ignored by government? Did they find that a new labour code had already been written? Did they find that the government chose little bits and pieces that they wanted for their friends and ignored other parts of it? No, hon. Speaker. The process undertaken by this government and by the Minister of Labour was a clean one. The report was received as written, with all the unanimous points received. It was received fully, without any gerrymandering by this government whatsoever. In total, there were four areas that they did not agree on. We did not alter areas to help our friends, and we did not try to pressure anybody into changing anything.
It's a pleasure to stand here today to support this bill, a bill that should come as no surprise to anyone on the opposition side or in the province of British Columbia. Every member on the government side of the House who spoke before, during and after the election made it quite clear that Bill 19 was gone because it was unfair to the working men and women of this province. I'm proud of this bill because of the process that it has been through.
I stood here in 1987 in opposition to a bill that totally tipped the scales in labour-management relations. The minister of the day -- and I see he's in the House today -- actually travelled around the province and received briefs and information from the people. When he came through, what did he do with those? Did he show that he had listened to the people? Did he show that the final report that came down reflected the views of the people of British Columbia? No. What he heard was ignored; the people's will was ignored. Bill Vander Zalm and his backroom lawyers wrote Bill 19, without the knowledge of the minister of the day.
I'm proud to say that certainly did not happen in this process here. The minister accepted the advice of those he had appointed as being fair and balanced. Ninety-five percent of this legislation was unanimously agreed upon by a business lawyer, a union lawyer and an unbiased lawyer. That's an incredible amount of change that was unanimously agreed upon. Had the business lawyer who was there been opposed to any of the changes, they would not have got unanimous approval. There were four areas that they did not agree to, and those were presented to us. There was sectoral bargaining and secondary picketing, and the government rejected those. The other two were secondary boycotts and the ban on replacement workers, and we accepted those. So out of four that did not receive unanimous approval,
[ Page 3862 ]
two were accepted by the government and two were rejected by the government. How much fairer, how much more balanced can you get than that? Two out of four accepted by the government -- a fair, honest and balanced bill for this area.
I really am appalled when I hear some of the speeches from the opposition side with regard to their views on unions. It can be viewed as nothing short of union bashing. It's no surprise, coming from the third party over there -- and we're just about in full force, the third party....
The Speaker: Order, hon. minister. I have just reminded the House that it is not the practice for members to mention in debate the presence or absence of members in the House, and I remind the hon. minister.
Hon. L. Boone: It's no surprise, coming from the third party over there, that they are anti-union. They always have been anti-union, they've always made their statements quite clear, and Bill 19 showed that they were anti-union.
But to hear the statements that are coming from the Liberal opposition -- their views on unionism and on the unionized worker -- is quite appalling. In fact, yesterday a member there actually indicated that the Cassiar mine closed because of the workers. It is appalling that somebody in this Legislature should actually blame the workers of Cassiar for the closing of that mine. Everyone in British Columbia knows that the workers were not responsible. Everyone in British Columbia knows that that is not true, and yet that is what was stated in this House yesterday by a member from the Liberal side.
I'm quite surprised to hear that they're also trying some scare tactics -- that this bill will mean that all workers will have to be unionized. That's what they're saying, and it's absolute and utter nonsense.
[11:45]
Removing barriers to unionization does not force everyone to become unionized. By removing barriers you're merely enabling them to become union members should they choose to do so. There is nothing in this bill that forces any individual to become a member of a union, to become unionized. If I were a member on the other side I would be very much ashamed of the scare tactics being used there with regard to the workers of this province.
It amazes me that the opposition is taking such a strident tone in this whole business. Clearly the business community is not as upset as either of the opposition parties would want them to be. But you can try to whip them up into opposition. They were expecting a bill that was going to be as radical as Bill 19 was. They were expecting that this government would bring in a bill that was totally in opposition to business, and that's clearly not what has happened. We have brought in a bill that levels the playing field. And levelling the playing field is not tipping the scales; levelling the playing field is not taking sides.
This bill does something that people on the opposition side would find hard to understand. It's an enlightened viewpoint. It says that labour is not the enemy. Labour, hon. members, is not the enemy. But do you know what? Business is not the enemy either. This bill is built on mutual respect and cooperation between labour and business. When I hear some of the opposition members talking about unions and about some of their fears about unions, about the fear that they're going to come in and unionize a worksite and what's going to happen, I fail to understand how they can say this. They don't realize what the union movement has done for all workers in British Columbia, in Canada and around the world. Safety on worksites, sexual harassment policies, pensions, parental leave, medical coverage, fair hiring practices, pay equity -- these are all issues that the union movement has taken to the worksite and has worked for on behalf of their workers. And because of the actions that the unions have brought in, all workers, whether unionized or not, have benefited.
This is a good bill. It's a fair bill; it's a balanced bill. It's something that this opposition finds very difficult to understand: a balanced bill that does not tip in favour of one side or the other. And it's been an open process. I find it really difficult to understand why either of the opposition parties would want to delay a bill that evens out the playing field and that makes it fair and honest for all workers in this province to receive adequate coverage through unionization and fairness in the workplace. I really do think that if you look clearly at this bill, if you look at what this bill has done and what it will do in terms of workers, you can see that all people in British Columbia will benefit as a result of the bill. It does not tip in favour of business, it does not tip in favour of labour, but it does give a fair, honest and balanced viewpoint on labour-management relations in this province. That's what this bill has done, hon. Speaker.
Of course, I am in opposition to the amendment. I am in opposition to anything that will delay this bill; that will make it so workers continue to be under the yoke of Bill 19, an unfair and odious bill brought in by the previous government, written behind closed doors by Bill Vander Zalm's lawyers without the knowledge of the minister of the day. That bill cannot stay on the books of this province any longer. That bill must be removed. This bill is going to replace it with one that's fair and honest for this province.
Hon. Speaker, I'd like to end my section of this debate here at this time, and just hope that those in opposition can take some time to realize what they are doing, and make some moves on behalf of the working men and women of this province. The working men and women who build this province are the people you should be standing up for. And those are the people that this bill stands up for.
R. Neufeld: I rise to speak in favour of the reasoned amendment to the bill. I want to tell everyone here that I fully understand what a reasoned amendment and the process behind it is. It is a delaying tactic. I have no problem in saying that. A hoist motion is much the same as a delaying tactic, so people have a chance to digest what the government is trying to ram down their throats.
[ Page 3863 ]
It's no secret that there was a press conference today at 10 a.m., which obviously the last minister who spoke didn't listen to. If she had, she would probably realize that people like Jim Matkin and Kathy Sanderson and David Maclean are not in favour of Bill 84. They have some real problems with it. Those are the people who represent an awful lot of the businesses in British Columbia. They talked about getting reports from all sectors. They represent small business, large business, labour and individuals. Well, those people now have had time to go through the ramifications of what Bill 84 will do to the province, and they have withdrawn their support for Bill 84.
Hon. Speaker, that should make the members opposite sit up and take notice, instead of standing in the House and saying that the Business Council of British Columbia has no problem with this labour legislation. That's ridiculous. It's obvious they're out of touch. They're out of touch with the news and with the people in the province. It was evident during the Charlottetown accord that every one of them was out of touch with the people in British Columbia. They don't want to hear any more about the Charlottetown accord, and I can understand why. They got a slap on the side of the face on account of the Charlottetown accord.
I agree with the previous speaker, when she was talking about unions and what they have done for employees. Unions have their place -- I've said that right from the start. But they still have to have a balanced place in the province. They can not have it all their way. So unions do have a place, and I have no problem with unions. I've worked alongside unions. When she talks about fair hiring in unions, she obviously hasn't been around when hiring has been going on.
I'm just going to relate a little story before we adjourn for lunch. Quite a number of years ago I was running a small business in Fort Nelson. It was actually a Petro-Canada bulk petroleum agency, and there was a large pipeline being built in northeastern British Columbia by a union firm. I was non-union, so I hauled the first load of fuel out to the site, and my goodness, everything broke loose. The truck came back to town with its load of fuel, because I wasn't unionized and there was a problem in the field. Then they decided that the company's own truck would come to my non-union plant and pick up the fuel. I can't understand the rationale there, but it was okay for them to come into my non-union plant. Through the two months that they were there, I got to know these gentlemen fairly well. They were in my office two or three times a day to use my phone -- on fair hiring practice. One was a shop steward. He used to phone every time he came in: "Who's on the list now? I know that fellow. No, he's no good. We don't want him. We'll take the next one down the list." This is what you call fair hiring? This is why people are concerned with unions when it comes down to everyone saying that unions are always fair. Unions aren't always fair, and I guess I have to say that employers aren't always fair either.
It works both ways. I take issue with every member opposite so far standing up and talking about all the terrible employers in the province and the employees who have always done things aboveboard.
With the time of day, I would like to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.
R. Neufeld moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada